UK Election!

I hadn’t realised Reform UK and TUV were in bed together now. I hope they catch some rotten afflictions from one another.

Why does this blue strip exist?

1) it’s only three, sparsely-populated seats so it looks more impressive than it really is

2) this part of Scotland has always spoken English or its forebears – hence lowlanders being described as Sassenachs [Saxons], basically low level “No True Scotsman” trolling

3) a chunk of those people cross the English-Scottish border daily or weekly, and realise how nuts a customs barrier between the two (as a result of Scottish independence, and then Scotland joining the EU) would be.

4) FPTP makes it look more definitive than it is – Dumfries and Galloway was only a 3.5% difference between SNP and Tories.

Mostly 1 and 4, I think.

being described as Sassenachs [Saxons]

I did not know that. 👍

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-campaign-is-a-mess-pressure-mounts-on-keir-starmer-as-labour-wobbles_uk_66596919e4b08f9fa1403523

An interesting concluding two paragraphs:

Nevertheless, experienced Labour figures believe that Starmer’s apparent war on the left has the potential to damage the party even if it doesn’t stop them forming the next government.

 

“None of this will make a difference to the election result but there is a big list of gripes and problems they are storing up for the future,” said one. 

I have long suggested that a huge Labour majority could prove to be a nightmare for Keir Starmer. His best hope to maintain tight discipline is for a small but workable majority, it will also give him the excuse not to carry out any sort of radical government programme.

On the other hand if he gets a three hundred seat majority on July 4th I expect civil war to break in the Labour Party the following Monday. And if there are large scale rebellions over issues such as Gaza there might not be enough Tory MPs to help him out.

This week in the midst of a general election campaign Starmer remarkably managed to unite even blairite politicians (Yvette cooper ffs) against his handling of Diane Abbott mess. The link above is the first time that I have seen Morgan McSweeney’s name mentioned with regards to who is pulling Starmer’s strings but his hand (and David Evans) is obvious imo.

I reckon the suggestion of  “problems they are storing up for the future” probably has a lot of validity. Among many potential problems is the blocking of popular candidates and the imposition of Starmer stooges which have been parachuted in. He might get away with it during the height of a general election campaign but local parties are going to have to live with MPs forced on them for the next 5 years. That can’t create a party at peace with itself.

That is my only hope.  Starmer gets the party elected, the very high number of Labour MPs then actually want Labour things rather than Tory things and do a rebellion.  If there are 400 Labour MPs there is no way the majority of them are going to be Starmer supporters as there must be a reason they chose Labour Party rather than Tory party (admittedly some will have chosen it to give them best chance to be an MP)

Why does this blue strip exist?

Mountain bikers are actually over-compensating shy-Tories.

What’s that map based on ? It has some really strange predictions for seats I know. It shows a swing to Labour as you’ expect but the Libdems losing a higher proportion of their vote than the Tories in a Tory stronghold. I don’t believe it.

You said Tony Blair didn’t follow the rule that politicians’ careers always end in failure, Ernie. As far as I’m concerned he was the biggest failure in the last 100 years. He betrayed his party’s values, betrayed his voters, has more unnecessary blood on his hands, did more to destabilise the world order, lent his poison voice to remain thus facilitating Brexit and made his party unelectable for as long as people remembered what he did… . He and Brown hold the bottom two places in the ranking of favourite prime ministers. Churchill and Atlee first and second.

In fact **** it, I’m voting LibDem even though that map suggests I should vote Labour.  Blair, the nastiest most hated living Brit.

Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.

Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.

I think it’s more to do with the fact the world happened to be having a huge debt fueled party up until 2007 (helped by the fact China was making everything we could want for pennies) and we’re still suffering from the hangover.

It’s crazy to think of just how unrealistic expectations were between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the financial crisis.

It’s completely ridiculous to hark back to 2007 for excuses for the current situation. 14 years of tory and that’s really the best you can do?

The “financial crisis” was over and done by 2010ish at the latest.

You might as well blame it on the Suez Canal crisis, or the Boer War

Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.

Differing perspectives I guess.

Iraq
2003 – 2007 Fatalities: 174, Wounded: 2,602.

Afghanistan
2001 – 2007 Fatalities: 86, Wounded: 834

I’d say the UK **** sucked for the individuals, families and those who came home with significant & life changing injuries.

@Edukator Mark Pack (who is the LD President but has a professional interest in polling) is a bit dubious about MRP and regards it as just another tool rather than the magic bullet some other commentators describe.

The “financial crisis” was over and done by 2010ish at the latest.

Depends on how you view things, I guess.

Yes, the stock market had recovered but the standard of living for middle and working classes is still nowhere near where it was prior to 2007.  And this is a worldwide phenomenon.  You can’t blame the Tories for all the problems in the world.

If you are a boomer or gen-Xer then most likely you wouldn’t notice.  You’ve already bought a house and you’ve already got a decent pension pot prior to 2007.  You saw blip and then you went back to getting richer and richer.

For those under the age of 40 the financial crisis is very much still ongoing.

If you are a boomer or gen-Xer then most likely you wouldn’t notice.  You’ve already bought a house and you’ve already got a decent pension pot prior to 2007.  You saw blip and then you went back to getting richer and richer.

Oh I don’t know. I’m a Gen Xer and I lost my business and pretty much everything but the clothes I was stood up in. As did a lot of similarly aged people I know in the same situation. It’s still massively impacting my life now

It totally destroyed my mental health. If it wasn’t for certain people I probably wouldn’t be here

You honestly don’t think the financial crisis affected anyone over 40?

I’ve read some bollocks on here over the years, but I think that probably qualifies for some kind of award

Again, NOT TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS!

The fact is, if you are a gen-Xer or a boomer you are statistically far far far more likely to be wealthy compared to a millennial.  That doesn’t mean you as an individual are more wealthy than the average millennial.

If people are going to get upset every time age is mentioned in a thread where we are talking about an election (where age is the single most reliable indicator of which way a person is likely to vote) then it is just going to be a never-ending series of people lining up to throw their toys out the pram.

Maybe, as has been suggested multiple times before, we should stop making sweeping generalisations about generational groupings. If you did it about race or sexuality or gender, it would be pretty offensive – I hope doing the same thing about Boomers or Gen Xers is not as offensive as all that, but it plays the same game in a lower league.

The fact is, if you are a gen-Xer or a boomer you are statistically far far far more likely to be wealthy compared to a millennial

Well duh, of course they are, as a group the boomers and gen-Xers have accumulating wealth for longer. Yes it’s undeniable the boomers as a group are in a better position financially then the following generations will be but it wasnt a planned wealthy, they just got so constantly harping on about doesnt really help.

A lot of it has been compounded by government stupidity, if mortgage leading had been controlled properly by government to sensible multiples of demonstrable income house prices wouldn’t be anywhere near as high as they are now. House pricing is driven by demand (which could also have been reduced if the government’s had actively built more houses) and ability to pay. House prices arent based on what the cost, they are based on what people can borrow.

This wasn’t done to deliberately make boomers wealthy, it’s occurred because governments were weak, didn’t intervene, pandered to Nimbys and liked the over inflated value of housing in the national balance sheet.

We need to focus on the root causes of the wealth inequality not the symptoms.

Maybe, as has been suggested multiple times before, we should stop making sweeping generalisations about generational groupings.

It’s a thread about an election.  Age is the single most reliable indicator of which way a person is going to vote.

If you are older you are also STATISTICALLY MORE LIKELY (sorry, if I don’t shout everyone just assumes I mean them as an individual) to be wealthier.

How the **** do you talk about an election in this climate without mentioning age?  Like I said before, it’s like trying to talk about elections in the 70s without mentioning what people did for a living.

I’d be surprised if there weren’t shifts in attitude even amongst the boomers. I know a few people who’re pissed off about eg £16k for an op or wait forever, grandkids’ student fees, care costs disinheriting their children, family members being screwed by landlords, state pension being so low. There are boomers even in Sheffield but not a single Tory elected. There is hope yet.

I agree, but in fairness Brucewee did say ‘most likely’. Maybe it should have been ‘in many cases’ or ‘many boomers or gen x-ers’ but the sentiment is there.

I know some Gen x-ers from both camps for sure, and can equally say that by a spin of the coin their situations could be reversed had things gone the other way. I think realising that is part of what makes this Gen x-er happy that I was lucky but less likely to pull up the ladder now, YMMV.

“the standard of living for middle and working classes is still nowhere near where it was prior to 2007. And this is a worldwide phenomenon.”

This is just absolute complete unadulterated bollocks.

Up to the last decade, people had been getting richer, living standards improving, life expectancy growing, pretty much year on year since the start of recorded history. Yes you get the odd blip with a recession but nothing that really lasts.

You appear to have fallen hook line and sinker for the Tory gaslighting that we should all be getting poorer and unhealthier, apart from a few of the very richest.

Well duh, of course they are, as a group the boomers and gen-Xers have accumulating wealth for longer.

That part is a given, but there is the additional factor where millennials are far behind where they should be in terms of wealth accumulation.  They have accumulated far less wealth than boomers and genX had by the same age.  And it’s not because they keep buying avocado toast.

The dis-proportionally wealthy are going to vote to keep their wealth while the dis-proportionally poor are going to vote to redistribute that wealth.

That is why age is such a good indicator of voting intention.  Currently the older you are the more dis.proportionally wealthy you are (STATISTICALLY, NOT YOU INDIVIDUALLY).

We need to focus on the root causes of the wealth inequality not the symptoms.

The root cause is that boomers have been the largest voting bloc for 50 years and have been voting for parties that will ensure they can accumulate and keep the most wealth.

It’s not that they are evil, it’s just demographics and voting.

Under the Tories we’ve had the biggest cut in incomes since the Napoleonic wars, av pay on trend should have been £14k higher than it is. Meanwhile, the number of billionaires …..

This is just absolute complete unadulterated bollocks.

Just out of interest, how old are you?

Roughly, we don’t need your date of birth.

If you are older you are also STATISTICALLY MORE LIKELY (sorry, if I don’t shout everyone just assume I mean them as an individual) to be wealthier.

You keep saying it, and it continues to be an utterly meaningless generalisation that’s inaccurate for many thousands of people. Talk about age and likelihood of voting for particular parties by all means if you wish, but knock the generalisations about wealth on the head. You wouldn’t do it about, say, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.

You said Tony Blair didn’t follow the rule that politicians’ careers always end in failure, Ernie. As far as I’m concerned he was the biggest failure in the last 100 years.

I am of course referring to whether they won or lost elections and whether they were sacked or simply retired at a time of their own choosing. Not whether I personally approved of them or not.

Using that criteria I cannot think of any postwar prime minister or party leader who didn’t either lose an election or was sacked by their own party, apart from Tony Blair.

On a personal level my dislike for Tony Blair was so great, even before he became prime minister, that in the 1997 general election I canvassed for the Liberal Democrats. As prime minister he was even worse than I had expected. There is a reason why Margaret Thatcher famously claimed that “New Labour” represented her greatest success.

Children raised under UK austerity shorter than European peers, study finds

Anyway, photo of the week goes to Rishi once again failing the Malcolm Tucker test

’yes… right a bit, prime minister, yeah, a bit further right… perfect!’

I keep popping back here for sensible, reasoned debate from intelligent people.

Seems very lacking though – just ‘I know best’ points scoring and the same old argument going round and round.

You wouldn’t do it about, say, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, etc.

Actually, I would say ethnicity and gender are pretty good indicators of wealth (and also voting intentions).  Both have been discussed with respect to voting intentions in the last few pages.

Not sure if sexuality and religion are good indicators of wealth but they certainly are of voting intentions.

Can you please just dial down your sensitivity a bit and realise that when we talk about voting you have to generalise?  Otherwise you end up polling every single individual in the UK.  We are going to do that anyway on 4th July but unless you want to not talk about the election before that date I suggest you just accept that generalisations have to be made.

I keep popping back here for sensible, reasoned debate from intelligent people.

Are you new here?

Rishi is getting properly desperate now. After we’ve had 5 years of the total non-emergence of ‘Levelling Up’ and it turning out to be (surprise, surprise) nothing more than a soundbite, the little fella is heading to the ‘Red Wall’ today with some loose change he found down the back of the sofa…

Tories pledge £20m each of levelling-up funds to 30 more towns

Hes going to give 30 towns 20 million quid each OVER TEN YEARS and that’s supposed to make up for the absolute decimation of local council budgets over the last 14 years of austerity, is it Rishi?

Someone should remind him of the Who lyric “we won’t be fooled again”. They’re finished up here!

I’m sure his minders will ensure he’s helicoptered in and out without the possibility of bumping into any of those scary northerners

Maybe just coincidence but the years Blair was in the country felt a better place to live in.

When Tony Blair became prime minister he inherited from the Tories a thriving economy, and there was still plenty of family silver to sell off, by the time the shit hit the neoliberal fan he was conveniently gone and he had retired from Westminster politics.

So yeah, I can understand the perception. But it is about as useful as perceiving that Sir Keir Starmer must be the greatest ever postwar leader of the Opposition because the current Tory government are about to be annihilated next month.

@ernielynch – other than the willingness to follow the US to war, what did you dislike about the Blair years?

On the plus side I recall poverty falling, particularly child poverty.  I would agree though they didn’t do enough to stop people and organisations taking on debt and some of the financial instruments in use got out of hand.

Can you please just dial down your sensitivity a bit and realise that when we talk about voting you haveto generalise? 

If you want to generalise about voting intentions, be my guest – generalising about generational wealth and intentions to vote based on maintaining that wealth is lazy, inaccurate stereotyping.

Hes going to give 30 towns 20 million quid each OVER TEN YEARS and that’s supposed to make up for the absolute decimation of local council budgets over the last 14 years of austerity, is it Rishi?

One is minded of Robert Jenrick – put in charge of a similar scheme to fund the 100 poorest constituenciea, he awarded the maximum amount to his and his mates constituencies, which were barely amongst the 300 poorest constituencies.

If you want to generalise about voting intentions, be my guest – generalising about generational wealth and intentions to vote based on maintaining that wealth is lazy, inaccurate stereotyping.

Generational wealth is not speculation.  It’s something that can and does get measured.  And the measurements reveal that millennials are behind when compared to boomers at the same age.

And voting in your own interests is not something that is limited to a particular generation.  Sure, some people are going to be more or less altruistic but on average there is always a slight preference for parties that are going to advance your own personal wealth.  Over time, even small preferences compound and boomers have had a slight advantage for 50 years.

It adds up.

I’m not saying anything that isn’t backed up by data and I’m not saying any generation is ‘better’ than the other.  Where we are is just an accident of demographics in the Western world.

@ernielynch – other than the willingness to follow the US to war, what did you dislike about the Blair years?

Well I wouldn’t really want to discuss the paid advisor to brutal and murderous dictators at the best of times, and I don’t think this thread should be the place to do it anyway.

But to sum it up in one sentence – I dislike him for all the reasons that Margaret Thatcher liked him.

And his premiership sowed the seeds for the 2010 coalition government and austerity.

Differing perspectives I guess.

Iraq
2003 – 2007 Fatalities: 174, Wounded: 2,602.

Afghanistan
2001 – 2007 Fatalities: 86, Wounded: 834

I’d say the UK **** sucked for the individuals, families and those who came home with significant & life changing injuries.

In total that’s less than 2 months worth of UK road deaths. I feel sorry for those we invaded but life here for the vast majority was much better under Blair than under the subsequent Tory governments.

In total that’s less than 2 months worth of UK road deaths. I feel sorry for those we invaded but life here for the vast majority was much better under Blair than under the subsequent Tory governments.

Going back to the point I made originally (before someone who regularly refers to ‘racist pensioners’ got offended by an age based generalisation), I think it’s easy to overestimate the effects of a government.

Blair was in power in a post-Soviet, pre-financial crisis period of perma-expansion and debt fueled excess.  He may have made things a bit better for certain sections of society, but the party was going to happen whether he was there or not.

The Tories took over and made a period that was going to be rough anyway even rougher than it had to be.

But if Blair was born 15 years later and took over in 2010 things would have still been rough.  Perhaps not quite as rough but his politics doesn’t suggest to me the poor would have had a much easier time.