General British politics discussion thread

Tom Mann Centuria

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120566260#Comment_120566260

Cynical me says there's not much difference, or certainly none that Labour have been vocal about, between the Tories and Labour full stop.

pixelburp

At the risk of indulging in confirmation bias, this part of the local election breakdown struck a chord: that despite certain media outlets pushing this cohort and adjacent personalities, those that'd talk of Culture Wars with obsessive abandon, they have been outright rejected at the polls. Reform and UKIP flopped, spectacularly, UKIP basically wiped out.

And yet, they keep getting media profiles far above their station, keep insisting the public be incensed by Woke this and that on polemical TV stations - yet nobody's buying this codology. I suppose technically Reform increased their councillor numbers, if we're being generous.

ancapailldorcha

The Conservatives occupy that ground now. The problem with indulging the fringes is that you can't just stop doing it.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120565819#Comment_120565819

It seems quite absurd that an overseas figure is a country's head of state. Every country should have its own head of state : this aspect is a very weird anachronism.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120565726#Comment_120565726

Notwithstanding the criticism, I think your orinal point was valid.

Its interesting to compare these local elections with the 1995 local elections. In both cases, the elections are held after a long period of Tory rule, and at a time when the party is on the nose in the opinion polls.

In 1995, the Tories got only 25% of the vote and lost over 2,000 councillors, with the Labour party getting 47% and picking up 1,800 seats — about 90% of the Tory losses. At the ensuing general election in 1997, as we all know, the Tories were smashed, and Labour started a 13-year term of office.

This time, the Tories have got 26% of the vote and lost over 1,000 councillors . But Labour have only got 36%, and gained only about 50% of the Tory losses. The beneficiaries, of course, have been the Lib Dems and the Greens. So, does this mean that the 2023 elections do not prefigure the same kind of Tory disaster at the next general election?

Not necessarily. On the one hand, The issues at play in 1995 were not limited to the fact that the voters were sick and tired of the Tories. They were also hugely enthused about Tony Blair, who was a really attractive party leader with strong appeal. Keir Starmer does not have the same traction with voters.

But this is not good news for the Tories. In 1995 they could say to themselves "our bad performance here is not simply the voters making a negative judgment about us; it is also the fact that we are facing a formidable, and formidably popular, opponent". They can't say the same thing now; their bad performance in 2023 absolutely is the voters making a negative judgment about them.

So, in 2023, the "sick and tired of Tories" vote was scattered. Labour only picked up about half of it; the rest went to the Lib Dems and the Greens. But will that happen in a General Election?

There has been much talk over the years in the UK about "tactical voting" — "You like the Labour party but they have no chance of winning in your seat, so you should vote Lib Dem to maximise your chance of getting a Labour government". People's hopes about tactical voting have never really been born out to the degree that they have hoped. But what we seem likely to have at the next GE ; right now people don't so much like the Labour Party or the Lib Dems or even the Greens so much as they loathe the Tories. If so, they won't have to hold their noses to vote for Lib Dem instead of Labour or whatever; the candidate with the best chance of beating the Tories will be the most attractive candidate to them. Their vote for that candidate will not be a "tactical vote"; it will be a vote for the candidate who best represents their dominating preference, which is to get rid of the Tories.

If things play out like that, this will overwhelmingly benefit Labour (at least in England and Wales where the complicating factor of the SNP is not in play). There are few seats where the candidate best placed to beat the Tories is the Green candidate, and not many where it is the Lib Dem candidate. So lots of people who voted Lib Dem or Green last week today may cheerfully vote Labour at the general election.

It's not a done deal, but I think the odds strongly favour a comfortable Labour Majority at the next election. And, even if that doesn't happen, the second most likely outcome is still a Labour government — either minority, or in coalition. If I had to put figures on it, I'd say chances of a Labour majority government are probably 70% or greater, a non-majority Labour government maybe 25%, and 5-10% chance of any other outcome.

peter kern

i would also add the if you think that brexit was a big mistake than its is bit hard to vote for labour with their mixed message on it and you are more inclined to vote for libs or greens.

and also we see that over the whole of europe that people are voting for more parties than 30 years ago

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120568462#Comment_120568462

Mmm. You might think that Brexit was a big mistake but at the same time have little appetite for reopening it, because you cannot face another seven years of Brexit arguments and/or you think the situation is irrecoverable; the UK will never get the same deal from the EU that it had before. I suspect quite a lot of people in the UK feel that way. Those people will have no difficulty punishing the Tories for brexit by voting Labour.

As for people voting for more parties across Europe than 30 years ago, the trend in the UK has if anything been the other way. In the 1992 GE the two main parties got 73% of the vote between them, the same as in the previous election in 1987. In 1997 it was up to 73.9%. By contrast, in 2017 the two main parties got 83.2% of the vote; 75.7% in 2019. The FPTP system strongly bolsters the vote for the two dominant parties, regardless of how crap one, or both, of them may be.

pixelburp

As if acting as an unwitting symbol of exactly the kind of generational disconnect apparent by the polls on the issue... and this idea of giving these irrelevancies more publicity than they deserve, the frankly ancient-looking leader of the UKIP was huffing and puffing about young people suggesting a Monarchy is an ancient, anti-democratic institution to have...

https://youtu.be/9o2zgAdR_50

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120568576#Comment_120568576

Reversing Brexit won't be a major item on anyone's agenda but there are still places like my hometown where the whole anatgonisatic fcuk businness I am told is still an open wound. If David Gauke ran again as an independent I would likley put money down on him taking the seat.

Sam Russell

I think it is ironic that the Brexit party was called you Kip UKIP.

That name sounds like a mission statement.

ilkhanid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120564319#Comment_120564319

Let's not go overboard. She's reasonable-looking. She's no Di, Jackie or Grace.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120577129#Comment_120577129

I would say it's Diana and Jackie Kennedy that were massively over hyped but look each to their own.

She doesn't actually do anything all that amazing or go beyond what most people would do in her situation.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120577129#Comment_120577129

Beauty, beholders n' all: certainly of the two wives of Charles' children, Markle is more striking - stunning if I'm honest - but obviously IMO etc. I'd speculate the point is though: Kate presents as a conventionally attractive young, modern woman - rather than a slightly "horsy" looking posho type that pervades the resting iconography of "A British Royal". Or to put it more crudely: Kate's husband, only with longer hair.

And Kate's very definitely white which, let's be honest, is a huge factor in all this for the ethno-nationalists out there (it wouldn't be a normal week if LBC didn't have a caller ringing in to explain why <insert PoC here> "isn't really English".

ancapailldorcha

I got up at 4am to watch the coronation procession just outside Green Park. While I had a great day standing on my dysfunctional legs, some of the images conveyed the impression of an institution that is falling apart. There were people openly speculating how long it's be until the next one and that the platinum jubilee was a one-off, never to be repeated. When William and Kate passed, they just felt much better sited to the role in the 21st century as opposed to a septuagenarian. I know that that's quite ageist but when we're talking about the right to rule based on a minority religion, it's hard not to be.

To add insult to injury, Bromley council, which is facing bankruptcy spent a whopping £50,000 on the coronation:

Conservative-run Bromley council, which spent £50,000 on the coronation, refused to fund so-called "warm banks" during the winter, saying the £2,500 cost per centre "isn’t a good use" of money.

According to Open Democracy, the council said it would be taking the money to fund the coronation celebrations from its community fund, which is traditionally used to give grants to charities.

And in December, the council claimed it was so cash-strapped, it had to sell off key buildings to avoid bankruptcy.

...

Cllr Colin Smith, Leader of Bromley Council told Yahoo News UK: "If Bromley Labour Party wish to be the Grinches who tried to sully the Coronation in Bromley more shame on them.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/council-facing-bankruptcy-spent-%C2%A350k-on-coronation-celebrations-124845953.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucmVkZGl0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMcs2mkHt_UPdt8NkHK0a7HZYYlDTANQt4pix7qKQrEQzx3OXfsHrnR36_zFPaetdrXr2E-iK8q3HBDOvf1Ov2QnGXCwer1TcG9bpvAMbz-LUQY__i112OKtqG2jmss0LNBqJ4uBnPkEDQw5WSkRzsqY-HTpMxTKVdiyhwrdXSj2

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578405#Comment_120578405

Well when you have people getting up at 4am and others queueing overnight you can see why Bromley and other councils think this is important and a vote winner.

Maybe don't go supporting it if you are worried about the money.

magicbastarder

so keir starmer has said he wouldn't roll back the public order bill under which the republican protesters were arrested at the weekend.

seeking to beat the enemy by becoming the enemy?

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578405#Comment_120578405

Rather bizarre that you admitted getting up so early for the Coronation and then complain about the cost of it. Hard to take you seriously.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579021#Comment_120579021

Probably because the new laws are popular in England.

These laws were brought in to stop climate nutters holding up motorways by chaining themselves to whatever to hold up traffic.

I suspect these laws would be very popular in Ireland too at the moment with so many nutters holding up Dublin the last few months.

dublin49

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579021#Comment_120579021

the eternal conundrum for Labour,If they said what they really think they won't get power,Blair was Tory light and Starmer is following that playbook.

Machellivian but what can you when the sweet spot for the electorate is a notch or two right of centre.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579060#Comment_120579060

Blair was not "Tory lite" whatever that is even supposed to mean.

New Labour's policies were diametrically opposed to much of what the Tory's have done before and after.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579005#Comment_120579005

Not really. It was a moment of historical significance and it only cost me the standard tube fare to attend. How you equate this to approving of the waste of tens of thousands of pounds of strapped councils' cash is beyond me.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579225#Comment_120579225

Because if loads of people show up it makes politicians believe it is a very popular event (and monarchy) that they need to be seen to support.

It's like being confused as to why politicians put time and money into the World Cup or Tour de France.

Pretty simple really.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579519#Comment_120579519

It's not. They were always going to plough money into it. It's the first one since 1952. It's not complicated.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579052#Comment_120579052

I would dispute the reasons for bringing this law in - I'd say it was introduced solely because it suits the Tories to be able to suppress any kind of dissent.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579740#Comment_120579740

It is a law brought in to prop up an unpopular Gov to disguise its lack of popularity.

The fact it was used to suppress the protests against the monarchy suggests that the Gov believes the monarchy is also unpopular.

Starmer/Labour is nervous about coming out with any strong move that might disturb the unpopularity of the Tories and give them a stick to hit him over the head with - be it Brexit, or this antidemocratic law.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579069#Comment_120579069

What are these diametrically opposed issues?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579052#Comment_120579052

These laws are not popular in England.

Even conservatives don't approve of the Met's crackdown on anti-royal protests.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120580058#Comment_120580058

There is a lot we don't see here in terms of how both parties fund and support local government and infrastructure. You could see the erosion under Cameron and the 20+ PMs came after him.

I do think Blair was "Tory lite" but it was better than the regular or "Tory dubbel" we have been getting.

Tom Mann Centuria

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120580058#Comment_120580058

Differences between the two, of course, but I agree, diametrically opposed seems a stretch.

Blair said himself his job was to build on Thatcher's policies, not reverse them, and Thatcher said: "I see a lot of Socialism behind Labour's front bench, but not in Mr Blair. I think he genuinely has moved." And she stated her greatest achievement was Blair and New Labour moving towards her position politically.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578102#Comment_120578102

Quoting myself, just to really seal the confirmation bias lol .., I see OFCOM received the most complained about item for 2023 so far, when a PoC actor made a passing remark about how white the coronation balcony was. Seems it was made in jest but really got people's back up; don't get woke all over our beloved royals, eh? It's me drawing conclusions with a fat marker, and perhaps borderline appropriate but still. The headline cocked an eyebrow.

(The actor stars in Bridgerton: a wildly popular Netflix show set in a version of historical England where the aristocracy is diverse [I think the queen of England is black, I dunno, don't watch the show myself])

https://news.sky.com/story/adjoa-andohs-terribly-white-coronation-remark-becomes-most-complained-about-moment-of-2023-ofcom-says-12877889