General British politics discussion thread

blackwhite

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It absolutely does matter how they have those seats. It means that MPs in those seats (Red Wall etc) will be quite nervous over gaffes such as this week's brainfart which are inevitable with a talentless crowd in charge.

Support from those backbenchers will be very cagey for contentious votes.



Not at all. This govt was NEVER getting to an election in 2024. I'll be shocked if there's not one by the end of 2022 at the latest.



As we saw with how the last GE came about, the FTP Act is as good as useless. An election will happen when it happens because it will be too hard to ignore the clamour. It was ever thus.



They aren't at all united and could never hope to be. Watch as the Brexit pressure ramps up over the next few weeks as the deadline comes shuttering into view.



Starmer will win the next GE. No question. It will be before 2024.



The Scottish Elections like all the English locals next year merely add pressure. On their own they don't mean much to the Tories, but they show a trend and the tories are going to get walloped all over the place next May.



They aren't.

Your logic really doesn’t stack up.

If Tory backbenchers believe their seats are precarious, why would they be more likely to agitate for an early election? You haven’t really thought that one through


The next election will be when the Tories decide - having the biggest seat count since pre 9/11 Blair guarantees that.

You’re letting what you *want* to happen cloud what is actually likely to happen

There’s a worrying swing to American style partisanship in UK politics. Holding a hard line on Brexit is going to further polarise things, but I worry that deliberately shooting themselves in the temple with a No Deal exit in January might actually harden their support in areas that will end up the worst hit. No more than how some of the strongest Republican votes in the US come from areas that Republican policies hurt the most.


The rise of the SNP in Scotland has also posed huge challenges for Labour - taking away quite a few seats that were never a Tory risk and that 20–30 years ago would have been viewed as very safe Labour seats.

It means that need to win over significantly more traditional Tory areas in order to break 326.

I’d love to see a Starmer-lead govt (be it Labour alone, or a coalition with SNP and/or Lib Dems) in the near future. It could be the only thing to save them from an ERG-driven hard Brexit. I’m just not seeing any realistic scenario that leads to the Tories calling an early election

Sam Russell

blackwhite wrote: »

Your logic really doesn’t stack up.

If Tory backbenchers believe their seats are precarious, why would they be more likely to agitate for an early election? You haven’t really thought that one through


The next election will be when the Tories decide - having the biggest seat count since pre 9/11 Blair guarantees that.

You’re letting what you *want* to happen cloud what is actually likely to happen

There’s a worrying swing to American style partisanship in UK politics. Holding a hard line on Brexit is going to further polarise things, but I worry that deliberately shooting themselves in the temple with a No Deal exit in January might actually harden their support in areas that will end up the worst hit. No more than how some of the strongest Republican votes in the US come from areas that Republican policies hurt the most.


The rise of the SNP in Scotland has also posed huge challenges for Labour - taking away quite a few seats that were never a Tory risk and that 20–30 years ago would have been viewed as very safe Labour seats.

It means that need to win over significantly more traditional Tory areas in order to break 326.

I’d love to see a Starmer-lead govt (be it Labour alone, or a coalition with SNP and/or Lib Dems) in the near future. It could be the only thing to save them from an ERG-driven hard Brexit. I’m just not seeing any realistic scenario that leads to the Tories calling an early election

Your assuming all Tory MPs are just lobby fodder. It is possible that some have political views that are not covered by the Brexiteer hardliners. The threat of a hard Brexit might reawaken their centerist leanings.

Not likely but possible.

blackwhite

Sam Russell wrote: »

Your assuming all Tory MPs are just lobby fodder. It is possible that some have political views that are not covered by the Brexiteer hardliners. The threat of a hard Brexit might reawaken their centerist leanings.

Not likely but possible.

There’s a handful who might - but 40 of them?

The last election has Tory MPs thinking that their core support comes from the “get Brexit done” brigade. Especially those in the non-traditional Tory seats that took a swing away from Labour

I can’t see enough Tory MPs resigning the whip to lose their majority - and that means Boris (or whoever the CON leader is by then) gets to choose the timing of any election.

Joe_ Public

I believe the all these shenanigans going on with cummings will seriously lessen Johnsons chances of carrying his centrist mps through the sh!tshow of the ongoing trade talks. If he can successfully portray the eu as the bad guys thwarting them at every turn, he might get away with it, but as they hurtle towards no deal, he's going to start shipping casualties. The eu might give him a dig out with a concession on fishing, give them the illusion of victory, but dunno will it be enough. Cant predict politics so wouldnt say how long this government will last, but i dont give this clown any chance of going the distance, see him gone sooner rather than later.

ArmaniJeanss

Absolutely no reason for Johnson (or any successor) to call an election before Spring 2024 unless they are riding high in the polls and consider it the perfect moment. Though that seems unlikely.

I don't think many government MPs will give up the whip or cross the house in this parliament - almost everyone who did that in the last parliament is no longer an MP, so it won't be seen as a good move. And there won't be near enough by-elections to make much of a difference.

It does at least give Labour and the other parties four years to get themselves in order.

fash

UK government paying daily mail and sun for positive Covid propaganda.
Funny that they do so while complaining about fake news.

Harry Palmr

The 'mother of parliaments' really needs to get into the 20th century. A division taking an hour with a far from full attendance. Imagine if they had a button or could use a phone.

BonnieSituation

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The 'mother of parliaments' really needs to get into the 20th century. A division taking an hour with a far from full attendance. Imagine if they had a button or could use a phone.

Sounds like sorcery.

Even in the Dáil you can get other people to use your button to vote even if you're not in attendance...

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sounds like sorcery.

Even in the Dáil you can get other people to use your button to vote even if you're not in attendance...

Well the HOC works best when it's like an 18th century pub, lots of shouting and roaring to support your man and to shout down the guy opposite, you can't do that via a VC link.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the HOC works best when it's like an 18th century pub, lots of shouting and roaring to support your man and to shout down the guy opposite, you can't do that via a VC link.

How does that constitute working best? It's meaningless braying which ultimately achieves nothing.

Shelga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How does that constitute working best? It's meaningless braying which ultimately achieves nothing.

James O'Brien today was talking about Jacob Rees Mogg's very bizarre fetishisation of the entire Westminster process. Why would someone would be so proud of resisting any form of modernisation, even when it puts people's health at risk? Because he knows what's best, even if it makes no logical sense and will harm people. Hello Brexit Britain.

Shelga

Shelga wrote: »

James O'Brien today was talking about Jacob Rees Mogg's very bizarre fetishisation of the entire Westminster process. Why would someone would be so proud of resisting any form of modernisation, even when it puts people's health at risk? Because he knows what's best, even if it makes no logical sense and will harm people. Hello Brexit Britain.

The main point is that with a crowd of "supporters" behind them, politicians can make their point more forcefully, it's just the way it's always been done.
In the 21st century, there are now better ways to debate with all participants as long as there is a moderator "speaker" who can mute the rabble when needed.
Bojo needs the rabble support as he is an old style politician who works best with a crowd.
Nothing to do with Brexit, just traditional politics.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

Bojo needs the rabble support as he is an old style politician who works best with a crowd.

Corrected that for you. Johnson is not "old school"; he's just a narcissistic windbag whose only real claim to notions of "ability" is knowing how to play to the populist gallery. Plenty who came before him didn't, and still don't require a jeering mob to feel big.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

Corrected that for you. Johnson is not "old school"; he's just a narcissistic windbag whose only real claim to notions of "ability" is knowing how to play to the populist gallery. Plenty who came before him didn't, and still don't require a jeering mob to feel big.

And even more who played to the crowds.

Shelga

Deleted User wrote: »

And even more who played to the crowds.

The baying mob in the Commons at the height of the Brexit stuff was so awful to watch. It made for an incredibly confrontational and divisive atmosphere, with both sides (but I feel mostly the Tories) shouting and booing loudly, constantly! It also made it difficult to hear what was actually going on. I also felt embarrassed at their childish, boorish behaviour- how they are not also embarrassed to behave that way, I do not know.

The whole way their system is set up is geared towards fighting, not compromise. Why do you seem to agree that having two politicans shouting at each other, with a screaming mob in the background, is the optimal way of conducting politics?

Sam Russell

Shelga wrote: »

The baying mob in the Commons at the height of the Brexit stuff was so awful to watch. It made for an incredibly confrontational and divisive atmosphere, with both sides (but I feel mostly the Tories) shouting and booing loudly, constantly! It also made it difficult to hear what was actually going on. I also felt embarrassed at their childish, boorish behaviour- how they are not also embarrassed to behave that way, I do not know.

The whole way their system is set up is geared towards fighting, not compromise. Why do you seem to agree that having two politicans shouting at each other, with a screaming mob in the background, is the optimal way of conducting politics?

Their legal system is also adversarial so it is no surprise that their politics is too. Plus it is more driven by precedent that codified law, as is their politics. If there is no precedence, they invent one that will fit the case.

Shelga

Shelga wrote: »

Why do you seem to agree that having two politicans shouting at each other, with a screaming mob in the background, is the optimal way of conducting politics?

I'm not agreeing, I'm just stating facts as to how it works.
Stating how something works does not imply agreement with it!

moon2

Shelga wrote: »

The whole way their system is set up is geared towards fighting, not compromise. Why do you seem to agree that having two politicans shouting at each other, with a screaming mob in the background, is the optimal way of conducting politics?

To be honest - I think this was much less of a problem when it was not live streamed.

People like drama. Twitter allows people to directly compliment politicians who land zingers in a debate. Over time this evolved into the mess you see today, where it's more about landing zingers for your audience than making bipartisan policy.

One of my recollections from watching the debates last year is that every statement started with a somewhat veiled insult directed at the previous speaker, then the actual point was made.

Remove the cameras it'll be easier to clamp down on that nonsense.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

And even more who played to the crowds.

None that had their party engineering a situation to force parliament back against the backdrop of a global pandemic, whilst simultaneously disenfranchising 1/3rd of the electorate (circa 15m people) at any one sitting when an existing remote solution was already in place and working. All so that the PM can have a braying mob to play to in an attempt to look even less utterly hopelessly incompetent under scrutiny.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

418 seats in 1997 under Blair, 202 seats in 2019 under Corbyn.

That's an absurd oversimplification, as is demonstrated by picking two other random dates and pretending they show the opposite trend: 258 seats in 2010 under Brown; 262 seats in 2017 under Corbyn.

As you have already conceded that the FPTP system massively distorts actual voting support, relying on seat figures to demonstrate your thesis look rather like a concession that you don't have any good evidence to support it.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

That's an absurd oversimplification, as is demonstrated by picking two other random dates and pretending they show the opposite trend: 258 seats in 2010 under Brown; 262 seats in 2017 under Corbyn.

Blair widened Labour's appeal beyond its traditional base. He then blew it with the Iraq misadventure and no Labour leader since since then has recovered it, least of all Corbyn. If the key to widening Labour's appeal was to move from the left to the centre, installing a hard left leader is unlikely to work.

Peregrinus wrote:

As you have already conceded that the FPTP system massively distorts actual voting support, relying on seat figures to demonstrate your thesis look rather like a concession that you don't have any good evidence to support it.

FPTP is why a marginal movement among swing voters can be the difference between success and failure. Corbyn makes those marginal voters much less likely to support Labour.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

FPTP is why a marginal movement among swing voters can be the difference between success and failure. Corbyn makes those marginal voters much less likely to support Labour.

Again, the evidence is against you on this, since Corbyn secured a substantial shift of marginal voters towards Labour at his first election. There is no reason to think that his first election was an aberration while his second discloses an imperishable truth. The net effect of Corbyn's tenure, if you combine the two elections, was a rise in the Labour vote of about 0.9 million.

Since the Blair era began in 1994, Labour reached its lowest vote under the distinctly centrist Gordon Brown, in 2010. Labour's highest vote in that era was 13.5 million (Blair, 1997) but its second highest was under Corbyn (12.9 million, 2017).

I know you'd love to think that, the more left-wing the Labour leadership, the lower the Labour vote, but the facts simply don't support this view. The truth is much more nuanced than that.

The truth is that, under the FPTP system, if you're disenchanted with the Tories, Labour is pretty much your only effective option, regardless of how centrist or left the leader is. And vice versa, of course - if you're disenchanted with Labour, the Tories are the only show in town, regardless of how far to the right the party is hewing. The swinging centrist voters are forced to choose between a party which they find unpleasantly right-wing and one they find unpleasantly left-wing, and it's clearly not the case that they are prepared to make the former choice but not the latter.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, the evidence is against you on this, since Corbyn secured a substantial shift of marginal voters towards Labour at his first election. There is no reason to think that his first election was an aberration while his second discloses an imperishable truth. The net effect of Corbyn's tenure, if you combine the two elections, was a rise in the Labour vote of about 0.9 million.

Since the Blair era began in 1994, Labour reached its lowest vote under the distinctly centrist Gordon Brown, in 2010. Labour's highest vote in that era was 13.5 million (Blair, 1997) but its second highest was under Corbyn (12.9 million, 2017).

I know you'd love to think that, the more left-wing the Labour leadership, the lower the Labour vote, but the facts simply don't support this view. The truth is much more nuanced than that.

The truth is that, under the FPTP system, if you're disenchanted with the Tories, Labour is pretty much your only effective option, regardless of how centrist or left the leader is. And vice versa, of course - if you're disenchanted with Labour, the Tories are the only show in town, regardless of how far to the right the party is hewing. The swinging centrist voters are forced to choose between a party which they find unpleasantly right-wing and one they find unpleasantly left-wing, and it's clearly not the case that they are prepared to make the former choice but not the latter.

You only count the number of votes for Labour, not their share of votes cast. Of course Corbyn stimulated young radicals to vote - that's how he got elected party leader in the first place. But it turned off more people than it turned on, which is why their share of votes and seats kept falling.

It is deeply unfortunate that at a time when Britain needed a strong and vocal Labour (and pro Europe) voice, it got the backlash of Iraq, bad choices in Brown and (the wrong) Milliband and then the polarising Corbyn. It left the field clear for Boris and the Tories and we can see how that has worked out.

Peregrinus

Bambi wrote: »

This is worth a look, Labours issue isnt that their centrists didnt like far left politics, their core working class demographic now identify with the Tories on social issues and Brexit and if the Tories make good on their promises on moving towards the left on economics they will undermine Labour further.

I think the Tories have painted themselves into a corner here. They cannot both deliver the Brexit that hard leavers want and move to the left on economics, since hard Brexit is a sharp lurch to the right on economic issues. It also signficantly impairs the ability of the Tory government to meet the expectations of their newly-acquired core working class demographic.

I agree that disastrous leadership choices in the Labour party have kept the Tories in office when by rights, and by the natural electoral cycle, they should have been slung out. But they have made disastrous leadership choices of their own. As we can see with Corbyn, the electoral effects of disastrous leadership choices can take time to emerge. Johnson's second election may be as big a test for him as Corbyn's was and he may slump just as badly as Corbyn did (not least because he won't be facing Corbyn).

quokula

Looks like the purge of democratic socialists from the Labour party is beginning. Rebecca Long Bailey sacked for antisemitism after sharing an article that had nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish people but happened to quote an Amnesty International report that was critical of Israeli police.

Tom Mann Centuria

quokula wrote: »

Looks like the purge of democratic socialists from the Labour party is beginning. Rebecca Long Bailey sacked for antisemitism after sharing an article that had nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish people but happened to quote an Amnesty International report that was critical of Israeli police.

Yep, utter b*llocks.

Podge_irl

quokula wrote: »

Looks like the purge of democratic socialists from the Labour party is beginning. Rebecca Long Bailey sacked for antisemitism after sharing an article that had nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish people but happened to quote an Amnesty International report that was critical of Israeli police.

To quote the article directly

“Systemic racism is a global issue,” she [Maxine Peake] adds. “The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.”

The Amnesty International report says nothing of the sort, it merely comments on the fact that a number of American police have received training from Israeli forces. She is taking a topical tragedy and completely unnecessarily blaming it on Israel.

RLB promoting the article and calling Peake an absolute diamond for it is, at the least, utterly braindead.

28064212

quokula wrote: »

Looks like the purge of democratic socialists from the Labour party is beginning. Rebecca Long Bailey sacked for antisemitism after sharing an article that had nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish people but happened to quote an Amnesty International report that was critical of Israeli police.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation, to say the least. Maxine Peake was quoted in the article as saying "The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services", a claim which has absolutely no backing. RLB then tweets a link to the article, saying "Maxine Peake is an absolute diamond". She then refused to remove the tweet when called on it.

Whether it's sack-worthy is very much up for debate, but to claim this was nothing is naive at best

quokula

28064212 wrote: »

That's a bit of a misrepresentation, to say the least. Maxine Peake was quoted in the article as saying "The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services", a claim which has absolutely no backing. RLB then tweets a link to the article, saying "Maxine Peake is an absolute diamond". She then refused to remove the tweet when called on it.

Whether it's sack-worthy is very much up for debate, but to claim this was nothing is naive at best

At the time Long Bailey quoted it, the article linked to amnesty international. It was later updated to remove that and replace it with a disclaimer after the uproar was manufactured.

It is a fact that the police force involved in George Floyd's death received training from Israeli forces, and it is also a fact that the Israeli forces use the kneel technique. The only discrepancy is that the amnesty international report doesn't state if the kneel technique was explicitly part of that training, since they didn't have access to what exact techniques were covered.

At the time the post was shared, it just linked to what Amnesty said, and there was no reason to forensically analyse every single word in that report. Given that it had little or nothing to do with the thrust of the article it really wasn't important. And aside from that, it was specifically about the Israeli police training and nothing whatsoever with Judaism or Jewish people.

It is utterly sickening to see how many politicians and campaigners in the UK who've spent their lives fighting racism being tarred with this antisemitism brush over such ridiculously thin claims that are just such a patently transparent attempt to push aside anyone with a progressive political viewpoint over there.

Tom Mann Centuria

Rachel Reeves' P45 should be in the post for bigging up the actual anti-Semite Nancy Astor as one of her heroes, though it appears to be taking a while to get to her.

It's as if theres double standards within this brave new, new Labour world.