Er… no. Only 43% of ‘The Public’ (or at least the 2/3 of the electorate who bothered to vote) endorsed the mendacious self-serving narcissist. The big problem we have is our ‘democratic’ system that is about to be further rigged in the Tory’s favour. (I note that some in the Labour party are now pushing PR; shame they didn’t do that in 2008.)

The public have made it clear that they are happiest to recreate Upstairs Downstairs, tugging thir forelocks when the Eton boys come to town abd burying their children died of consumption.

Almost nobody was “happy” to vote Tory in the last two elections. Boris’s approval ratings were as bad as Mays. People just chose the lesser of two evils:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/23/tory-boris-johnson-labour

Any Labour leadership since and including Kinnock would have won comfortably in 2017 and 2019 against a lame duck Tory party on it’s knees.

The Tory’s weren’t popular, Momentum/Corbyn are un-electable and the Manifesto was economically illiterate nonsense. People reluctantly voted Tory or voted for parties like the Lib Dems and SNP knowing that would likely stop a Labour win.

So let ’em have it.

You’re happy with that, momentum are happy with that. A lot of people aren’t.

(I note that some in the Labour party are now pushing PR; shame they didn’t do that in 2008.)

If we adopt PR then Momentum-esqe ideological purity will have to be sacrificed in compromises. If Momentum are going to sacrifice ideological purity anyway why not just hand the party back to the centrists right now and let Labour win majorities under FPTP?

Zero chance of PR under any government which has won a decent majority under FPTP. For the last 10 years the main advantage of FPTP (majority governments) had evaporated and nobody said a word about PR, very hard to make the case now FPTP has just produced a majority government. Can’t see the SNP buying it either. PR would cost them 20 seats.

I’d have thought another 10 years in the future of no majority or tiny majority would make PR look very tempting but I thought that since 2015 when it became clear majorities had become difficult to achieve and there wasn’t a peep about it.

I think it is more that they are happy with what they are told to be happy with, which is sort of the same thing.

The big problem we have is our ‘democratic’ system that is about to be further rigged in the Tory’s favour.

How?

Boundary review? Are the civil servants doing it corrupt?

Voter ID? You need it to vote at your CLP for internal Labour party issues

Any other way?

He’s back, with the same talking points!

Civil servants do what they are briefed to do… if that is to “equalise” the population size of constituencies, and/or to reduce the number of them… all previous attempts to do so have been analysed as to bake in further advantage to the Conservative party under FPTP.

Voter ID isn’t needed for a General Election, as in person voter fraud is not an issue in Scotland, England and Wales, and would introduce an unnecessary extra step to be able to vote for those who don’t drive or travel abroad. Why introduce it? A five minute analysis about how it has been used in the USA, by people with strong links to those now running the Conservative Party, might offer up some ideas. Go do so.

He’s back, with the same talking points!

Yep, same allegations that the system is being rigged

all previous attempts to do so have been analysed as to bake in further advantage to the Conservative party under FPTP.

References? I would suggest that any pre December 2019 analysis might well be overtaken by events.

What are your alternative proposals for evening up constituency sizes?

, as in person voter fraud is not an issue in Scotland, England and Wales,

The implication is that in person voter fraud is an issue in CLPs in England, Scotland, and Wales. Otherwise why the requirement to have voter ID?

As for electoral fraud, there are clearly better techniques https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tower-hamlets-to-tackle-voterigging-with-photographic-entry-system-a4058746.html

I’m sad to see that Richard Burgon has decided to not go for the top job, his announcement as a candidate for deputy leader belies his obvious talent. #BackBurgon

The question is will be declare a preference for the new leader?

https://labourlist.org/2019/12/richard-burgon-announces-deputy-leadership-bid/

big_n_daft

Member

The implication is that in person voter fraud is an issue in CLPs in England, Scotland, and Wales. Otherwise why the requirement to have voter ID?

You know perfectly well what a straw man that is- of course you have to prove membership before voting in a members-only election. It’s the same for CAMRA.

You know perfectly well what a straw man that is- of course you have to prove membership before voting in a members-only election. It’s the same for CAMRA.

It goes beyond having a membership card, they require additional photo ID

More Labour Voter ID Hypocrisy

Don’t think CAMRA go that far….

Q: How many Corbynistas does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: We must take this time to reflect. But that cannot conclude with a return to past practices such as bulb changing. Better keep the current bulb & advance with "Progressive Candleism". Eventually they'll see the light

— Terry #FBPE. Husband. Dad. Labour. NHS 🇪🇺🇮🇪 (@Activist_Nurse_) December 31, 2019

😂

big_n_daft

Member

It goes beyond having a membership card, they require additional photo ID

And? Carrying a membership card is proof that you have a membership card.

Comparing how you operate a small closed membership organisation to a national election with a regulated electoral roll is ridiculous. and you know that.

Comparing how you operate a small closed membership organisation to a national election with a regulated electoral roll is ridiculous.

If it’s important to make sure the voting within a party is kosher it must be equally or more important to ensure voting in an election is.

Most countries require ID, seems to be best practice worldwide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws

Outofbteath nothing is perfect so in these cases we have to pick the route of greater fairness.

In the case of ID for GEs – there is no evidence of any voter fraud of any significance whatsoever at polling stations, but there is a real issue for people turning out to vote. Putting another barrier to voting which will disproportionately affect particular demographics in response to a virtual non-problem would seem to fail the route of most fairness test.

Also this is a bit of a deviation for this thread

Back on topic…

Labour party membership, first preference for leader:

K. Starmer: 31%
R. Long Bailey: 20%
J. Phillips: 11%
Y. Cooper: 7%
C. Lewis: 7%
E. Thornberry: 6%
L. Nandy: 5%

via @YouGov

— Britain Elects (@britainelects) January 1, 2020

Comparing how you operate a small closed membership organisation to a national election with a regulated electoral roll is ridiculous. and you know that.

Small? I thought there were 500,000 members?

There will be good reasons for the requirements, I imagine the conservatives will have to do the same soon if they don’t already.

Bearing in mind that to vote you just need the name address and the nearest polling station to be able to vote. Labour CLP require a membership card and photo ID/utility bill with matching address.

Which is why people are questioning the hyperbole.

I agree in person fraud is probably very low, postal votes are easier for that, and obviously there are shenanigans at the count etc.

Edit – off topic post –

There is no opportunity for shenanigans at a GE or LE count.

Tower Hamlets appear to disagree

Anyway back on topic.

Anyone think a Starmer leader, Burgon deputy leader has a Father Ted/Dougal or Blackadder/ Baldrick vibe to it?

More detail on the polling…
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/01/poll-of-labour-members-suggests-keir-starmer-is-first-choice

K. Starmer: 31%
R. Long Bailey: 20%
J. Phillips: 11%
Y. Cooper: 7%
C. Lewis: 7%
E. Thornberry: 6%
L. Nandy: 5%

Encouraging. On the face of it the Labour party could sort itself out as quickly as it broke itself.

As I understand it the unions like to nominatate the candidate they think will win so topping the polls makes nomination much easier.

Amusing that the conclusion of the membership is “Binners was right all along.”. 🙂 (On the basis of that poll.)

Mind you, reversing Momentum’s rule changes might be tricky or impossible.

Whoever they pick as leader they need to have a claus to reassess within 12 months to see if that leader is actually popular with the masses. If they are not they pick another leader and give them a go for 12 months.
Don’t repeat the mistake that was made with Corbyn. While he was doing okay for the first year or so it was clear he was not doing okay after losing the May election. Most people knew that (including himself I would imagine) but he stayed in post anyway.
If for example Starmer hasn’t appealed to people within 12 months then no point going on for another 3 or 4 years and losing another election for Labour.

My view is that Starmer is not the right person.

If for example Starmer hasn’t appealed to people within 12 months then no point going on for another 3 or 4 years and losing another election for Labour.

The only electoral test will be the local elections, So he gets one chance?

My view is that Starmer is not the right person.

None of the candidates are without their issues, it’s arguably a “least worst” choice based on your preferred direction for labour, i.e. continuity Corbyn or not

While he was doing okay for the first year or so

😀

He was a total disaster from the first fortnight – especially in the first fortnight! It was obvious he’d be a disaster from before he even took over, that’s why people who wanted to sabotage Labour were joining to vote for him.

Don’t agree. He brought the party back to the direction it should be taking and was actually popular for a while. That clearly waned and at that point he should have pass it over to another leader.

The only electoral test will be the local elections, So he gets one chance?

No. Use polling, focus groups, media success or failure etc,. continually over the 12 months. Treat it like something you actually want to win rather than just seeing what happens in a few years time.

None of the candidates are without their issues, it’s arguably a “least worst” choice based on your preferred direction for labour, i.e. continuity Corbyn or not

It is not about issues, it is about who would be popular with the idiots who get to vote. I personally would choose Starmer but I realise to most of the voters he is another faceless politician.

Mind you, reversing Momentum’s rule changes might be tricky or impossible.

Momentum don’t have rule.

No. Use polling, focus groups, media success or failure etc,. continually over the 12 months. Treat it like something you actually want to win rather than just seeing what happens in a few years time.

Who makes the decision he has done enough?

Do conference, the NEC or other policy making bodies take any responsibility?

He brought the party back to the direction it should be taking and was actually popular for a while.

Continuity Corbyn then

I personally would choose Starmer but I realise to most of the voters he is another faceless politician.

I don’t agree. He’s a ‘Sir’ and his past employment plays right in to what the public seem to want. I need to see a bit more of him to be convinced but his past plays right in to what the public subconsciously want in a way Corbyn never could. In the same way I don’t think a black or female candidate would stand a chance unless they were so central they may as well be Tory.

It is not about issues, it is about who would be popular with the idiots who get to vote.

You are Emily Thornberry and I claim my £5

Sorry that was allegedly “stupid”, subject to the resolution of the court proceedings

It is not about issues, it is about who would be popular with the idiots who get to vote. I personally would choose Starmer but I realise to most of the voters he is another faceless politician.

I disagree. Comedians like Corbyn and Boris are found out immediately – both have terrible approval ratings.

Starmer is a serious credible public servant who the electorate will see as a breath of fresh air compared to Boris/Corbyn. I’d agree he’s no Thatcher, Blair or even a Cameron but against Boris he won’t need to be, just competent.

The electorate never asked for the era of “Unpopularism” and we’ll all be glad to see the back of it.

Okay, see you in 5 years time and hope you are right (you are not)

Sorry that was allegedly “stupid”, subject to the resolution of the court proceedings

So you think the average voter is not an idiot? Those people that voted in a large Tory majority based on the crap they have done for the last 9 years having a negative affect on most of those people who voted for them?

Sometimes you just need to face the facts and accept the average person who is allowed to vote is not bright, not that bothered about politics and will vote with no knowledge or analysis. That is who you need to appeal to as the leader.

Those people that voted in a large Tory majority based on the crap they have done for the last 9 years having a negative affect on most of those people who voted for them?

It wasn’t based on popularity of the Torys and “the crap they have done” at all. People voted Tory because Labour went mental and walked away from the electorate:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/23/tory-boris-johnson-labour

A cynic might say you want another Corbynite Labour Leader and the only way you can make that case is by claiming that mental leaders are likely to win. The opposite is true.

He was a total disaster from the first fortnight – especially in the first fortnight! It was obvious he’d be a disaster from before he even took over, that’s why people who wanted to sabotage Labour were joining to vote for him.

Agreed, if he started well it was before he was actually leader, he was the rank outsider for the job, only thrown in to appease the Hard Left of the Party, who kept making the cut.

His short golden era was not losing nearly as badly as was expected during the 2017 GE.

So you think the average voter is not an idiot?

That is correct.

What surprises me is all the incredibly intelligent people on the left who think the voters are idiots are unable to convince said idiots of the errors of their way and to get them to vote for them.

Sometimes you just need to face the facts and accept the average person who is allowed to vote is not bright, not that bothered about politics and will vote with no knowledge or analysis. That is who you need to appeal to as the leader.

It’s almost as if the new Labour leader needs a sixth sense, you know, “I see thick people”

What surprises me is all the incredibly intelligent people on the left who think the voters are idiots are unable to convince said idiots of the errors of their way and to get them to vote for them.

Yup, the electorate is pushing 70 million. By definition voters are, on average, not idiots, they are the average intelligence for the UK. In fact half of them are above average intelligence. Weird how Labour failed to win all of the above average intelligence over.

About 2/3rds of people didn’t vote Labour last time and Labour have spend the last few weeks calling them (amongst other things) idiots. I’m not sure that strategy is going to win people back to the Labour fold. (Even if a moderate wins the leadership, which is far from certain.)

It’s almost as if the new Labour leader needs a sixth sense, you know, “I see thick people”

Labour’s 2024 campaign slogan writes itself: “You’re all thick, now vote for me!”

as to bake in further advantage to the Conservative party under FPTP

Labour can win FPTP quite easily; they just need a leader with credibility and electability.

Any PR changes are desperate straw-clutching to try and backdate a win for Jezza, rather than looking at what the landscape is and working with it.

Labour can win FPTP quite easily; they just need a leader with credibility and electability.

Any PR changes are desperate straw-clutching to try and backdate a win for Jezza, rather than looking at what the landscape is and working with it.

Agree, FPTP doesn’t impede the Labour party in any way at all, FPTP is bad for small parties not big ones. The problem for Labour is Leadership/Momentum.

However, I think while the Scottish Seats go in a block to the SNP it will be harder to get a workable majority than in the past and that, depending on how long it goes on, will make FPTP pretty pointless. If the chaos of coalitions and small majority governments become the norm we might as well just have PR.

oob – you have overstated size of electorate by about 22 million.
UK population is c67 million; electorate c48 million.