General British politics discussion thread

PommieBast

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the problem for johnson is he might want an election asap to capitalise on the vaccine roll out buzz and favourable poll ratings before the inevitable downturn comes, but the route to it is a bit more problematic now than it was in 2019 when he could at least try to justify engaging in some dark constitutional arts by arguing they were in a constitutional crisis and an election was the only way out of it

While BJ might want it I think there will be pushback within the party itself to holding the 4th general election within 6-7 years.

Peregrinus

I don't think the electorate would be too thrilled either.

Cal4567

Johnson still has a media presenting him as this madcap but lovable rogue. Even people I know in the UK who wouldn't be natural true blue Tories, their faces turn into a grin whenever he is mentioned. He seems to be riding through this latest faux pas although a week ago, he looked shaky.

Let's see what Friday brings but even from here, it looks like the Tories will be smiling the widest, with the biggest smiles in Hartlepool.

breezy1985

PommieBast wrote: »

While BJ might want it I think there will be pushback within the party itself to holding the 4th general election within 6-7 years.

It's also very unfair on smaller parties who don't have the funding for the UKs now yearly elections especially in areas like Scotland and NI

Peregrinus

breezy1985 wrote: »

It's also very unfair on smaller parties who don't have the funding for the UKs now yearly elections especially in areas like Scotland and NI

Very true. But neither Johnson nor the Tories care about that, so it won't be a factor in the decision.

Peregrinus

Cal4567 wrote: »

Johnson still has a media presenting him as this madcap but lovable rogue. Even people I know in the UK who wouldn't be natural true blue Tories, their faces turn into a grin whenever he is mentioned. He seems to be riding through this latest faux pas although a week ago, he looked shaky.

Let's see what Friday brings but even from here, it looks like the Tories will be smiling the widest, with the biggest smiles in Hartlepool.

Yes. They seem set to hold Hartlepool very comfortably, which they will be delighted about. It will be taken as a sign that the public do not care about sleaze or corruption or, at the most, that they care more about the completion of Brexit than they do about sleaze and corruption. It will also be taken a a sign that Johnson's dismal handling of the pandemic last year has been wholly eclipsed by his very successful handling of vaccination this year.

There'll be some truth there, but the Economist had an article a couple of months back arguing that the collapse of the "red wall" wasn't a response to Brexit or to Johnson personally, or even a reaction against the Labour Party, but the outcome of social and economic changes in the region that have been in train for at least 20 years. On the one hand, this means it isn't the ringing endorsement of Brexit or blessing of sleaze that the Tories will claim it as; on the other, this should alarm Labour because it makes it all the more difficult to chart a path to reclaiming what used to be a Labour heartland.

Akrasia

Johnson. Will have absolutely no difficulty in overturning the FTPA, he can just say he’s implementing an election promise

He can then wait a few weeks/months and announce a snap election. He will sell it to the people as some kind of vaccine dividend, and to his own party as a way to ‘bank’ the current popularity in the polls/capitalize on weak opposition in case harder times are ahead (doing his best Anne Robinson impression along the way)

Roanmore

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. They seem set to hold Hartlepool very comfortably, which they will be delighted about. It will be taken as a sign that the public do not care about sleaze or corruption or, at the most, that they care more about the completion of Brexit than they do about sleaze and corruption. It will also be taken a a sign that Johnson's dismal handling of the pandemic last year has been wholly eclipsed by his very successful handling of vaccination this year.

There'll be some truth there, but the Economist had an article a couple of months back arguing that the collapse of the "red wall" wasn't a response to Brexit or to Johnson personally, or even a reaction against the Labour Party, but the outcome of social and economic changes in the region that have been in train for at least 20 years. On the one hand, this means it isn't the ringing endorsement of Brexit or blessing of sleaze that the Tories will claim it as; on the other, this should alarm Labour because it makes it all the more difficult to chart a path to reclaiming what used to be a Labour heartland.

Not even hold but gain, it's a Labour seat at the moment.
Having said that Hartlepool voted for Brexit by 70% and the Tories should have won this seat in 2019 but the Brexit Party split the vote.
I think there are a number of ex Labour candidates running which isn't helping their campaign but the Tories have a 17% lead at the moment.

Leroy42

I think the problem is that Labour really isn't offering any ideas, any real alternative.

Brexit, they have given up and just accept it for what it is. That might well be in line with what people what but it doesn't give them anything to talk about.
Covid - The vaccinations are going great, Labour aren't offering anything different (why would they it is working) so again why bother to change?

I haven't seen any standout policy or key ideological differences. They probably are there but Labour is not making any headlines or grabbing anyone attention.

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

Johnson. Will have absolutely no difficulty in overturning the FTPA, he can just say he’s implementing an election promise

He can then wait a few weeks/months and announce a snap election. He will sell it to the people as some kind of vaccine dividend, and to his own party as a way to ‘bank’ the current popularity in the polls/capitalize on weak opposition in case harder times are ahead (doing his best Anne Robinson impression along the way)

Not even Johnson can sell another election to the public as a vaccine dividend, or any kind of dividend!

More seriously, I wouldn't assume - and Johnson certainly shouldn't assume - that in a year's time he will enjoy the same polling advantage that he does now. Right now the big plus is that the UK is so far advanced with its vaccination programme, which makes it look very successful compared to other countries. In a year's time, that gap won't be there, and people may be taking a somewhat longer view of the pandemic, which will include not just the plus of the UK's early vaccination, but the very many minuses of other aspects of pandemic management. And the shine of having "got Brexit done" may also have rubbed off a bit, as the medium-term consequences of Brexit are becoming undeniable and as the Brexit-related stuff in the media continues to go on and on and on. Having "got Brexit done" means that the UK will be permanently preoccupied with its relations with Europe, and people may not be altogether pleased when they realise that.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. They seem set to hold Hartlepool very comfortably, which they will be delighted about. It will be taken as a sign that the public do not care about sleaze or corruption or, at the most, that they care more about the completion of Brexit than they do about sleaze and corruption. It will also be taken a a sign that Johnson's dismal handling of the pandemic last year has been wholly eclipsed by his very successful handling of vaccination this year.

There'll be some truth there, but the Economist had an article a couple of months back arguing that the collapse of the "red wall" wasn't a response to Brexit or to Johnson personally, or even a reaction against the Labour Party, but the outcome of social and economic changes in the region that have been in train for at least 20 years. On the one hand, this means it isn't the ringing endorsement of Brexit or blessing of sleaze that the Tories will claim it as; on the other, this should alarm Labour because it makes it all the more difficult to chart a path to reclaiming what used to be a Labour heartland.

That was an excellent article, alright.

The problem is that Labour had a semi-split in the years after Thatcher. There were the modernist and centrist Blairites and the leftists who would go on to champion Jeremy Corbyn.

The left here have never gotten over Thatcher and as a result they're unable to produce solutions to today's political problems that aren't the same things they'd been peddling since the eighties.

Joe_ Public

And yet, they produced a manifesto in 2019 with policies that polled well across all groups, quite a few which have been quite transparently nicked by the current government, so whatever barbs you can throw at the left - and god knows, there are many - a lack of ideas does not seem a valid one to me anyway.

Labour routinely polled around the 25,000 mark in Hartlepool until 1997. Since then, it's been a fairly uniform drop in its vote share and finally it's going to lose it. And that's pretty reflective of the so-called red wall as a whole. Brexit may have been the final nail, but the underlying causes, as with brexit itself, go back many years. Changing demographics is obviously huge and there are probably many other factors too.

ancapailldorcha

Joe_ Public wrote: »

And yet, they produced a manifesto in 2019 with policies that polled well across all groups, quite a few which have been quite transparently nicked by the current government, so whatever barbs you can throw at the left - and god knows, there are many - a lack of ideas does not seem a valid one to me anyway.

Labour routinely polled around the 25,000 mark in Hartlepool until 1997. Since then, it's been a fairly uniform drop in its vote share and finally it's going to lose it. And that's pretty reflective of the so-called red wall as a whole. Brexit may have been the final nail, but the underlying causes, as with brexit itself, go back many years. Changing demographics is obviously huge and there are probably many other factors too.

And they got their worst result since the second world war.

The problems for them are the rise of the gig economy, the self-employed and small business among others. They need to do a better job of adapting to this than they have so far and I've seen little from Starmer to demonstrate any significant progress on this front.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And they got their worst result since the second world war.

The problems for them are the rise of the gig economy, the self-employed and small business among others. They need to do a better job of adapting to this than they have so far and I've seen little from Starmer to demonstrate any significant progress on this front.

I'm not arguing with the result or going to go down the route of "winning the argument" or whatever. I'm just saying that was not a party lacking ideas or vision and people across the political spectrum broadly liked it. They are still not lacking ideas, Ed Miliband has been unveiling a radical and exciting green agenda, for example. But none of this ever cuts through because 80% of the media political coverage is to do with the "culture wars" and that is the basis on which far too many decide their vote.

Peregrinus

Joe_ Public wrote: »

And yet, they produced a manifesto in 2019 with policies that polled well across all groups, quite a few which have been quite transparently nicked by the current government, so whatever barbs you can throw at the left - and god knows, there are many - a lack of ideas does not seem a valid one to me anyway.

Their policies poll well, but the party itself does not. Which most likely means that the leaders offered by the party aren't liked, or aren't trusted.

Which, to be honest, I find gobsmacking, because the quality of leaders offered by the Tories in recent years has been unremittingly awful.

There was a good scene from "Til Death do us Part" many years ago.

Alf Garnet opened the door to an Indian candidate for the local elections and started ranting about not voting Labour etc. The Indian guy replied with "no Mr Garnett, four years ago I was running for Labour, but I have a business now and I am a member of the Conservative Party".

This is where Labour are still missing the point. It isn't about nationalising everything, taxing the rich and letting the workers go on strike to get better pay for doing the same job, people want opportunities to progress and social mobility, not just getting paid more money for doing the same job.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

There was a good scene from "Til Death do us Part" many years ago.

Alf Garnet opened the door to an Indian candidate for the local elections and started ranting about not voting Labour etc. The Indian guy replied with "no Mr Garnett, four years ago I was running for Labour, but I have a business now and I am a member of the Conservative Party".

This is where Labour are still missing the point. It isn't about nationalising everything, taxing the rich and letting the workers go on strike to get better pay for doing the same job, people want opportunities to progress and social mobility, not just getting paid more money for doing the same job.

The irony is that the Tories have been singularly bad at delivering this over the four terms for which they have been in power; real wages have stagnated, UK labour productivity remains depressingly low, and the UK still has one of the poorest rates of social mobility in the developed world. And the Labour policies which poll well so long as they are disconnected from the Labour name offer some prospect of addressing this (which is possibly why they poll well).

It seems to me that people think that if they vote Tory they will get Thatcherite energy and radicalism, and that if they vote Labour they will get Michael Foot type industrial and employment sclerosis. In neither case are they correct; they view both parties as they were forty years ago, and neither as it is today.

(Perhaps this is related in some way to the nostalgia that helped to fuel Brexit?)

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

There was a good scene from "Til Death do us Part" many years ago.

Alf Garnet opened the door to an Indian candidate for the local elections and started ranting about not voting Labour etc. The Indian guy replied with "no Mr Garnett, four years ago I was running for Labour, but I have a business now and I am a member of the Conservative Party".

This is where Labour are still missing the point. It isn't about nationalising everything, taxing the rich and letting the workers go on strike to get better pay for doing the same job, people want opportunities to progress and social mobility, not just getting paid more money for doing the same job.

Then there's a fundamental issue with that business person. Because that party literally said fk business and they've made trading in the majority of businesses in the UK more difficult over the last year. They've offered no actual solutions. So there's something more fundamental here, whether it's a visceral feeling or whatever it's most definitely not what's good for my business the maths and stats don't stack up. The economic decline has been chartered under a Tory government over a decade.

So forgive me if that classic trope doesn't stand up to reality but it doesn't . So something else is the core. And it may simply be that the media is shaping these people's outlook opposite to what these people are actually experience and they don't care.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The irony is that the Tories have been singularly bad at delivering this over the four terms for which they have been in power; real wages have stagnated, UK labour productivity remains depressingly low, and the UK still has one of the poorest rates of social mobility in the developed world. And the Labour policies which poll well so long as they are disconnected from the Labour name offer some prospect of addressing this (which is possibly why they poll well).

It seems to me that people think that if they vote Tory they will get Thatcherite energy and radicalism, and that if they vote Labour they will get Michael Foot type industrial and employment sclerosis. In neither case are they correct; they view both parties as they were forty years ago, and neither as it is today.

(Perhaps this is related in some way to the nostalgia that helped to fuel Brexit?)

maybe wage rates remaining low are related to Brexit as well? Why pay people more when you have a never ending supply of low cost labour?

and you'll have to provide some detail on your statement that Uk social mobility is among the lowest in the developed world. from what I have seen, it isn't great, but it isn't exactly low either.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-social-mobility-of-82-countries/

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Then there's a fundamental issue with that business person. Because that party literally said fk business and they've made trading in the majority of businesses in the UK more difficult over the last year. They've offered no actual solutions. So there's something more fundamental here, whether it's a visceral feeling or whatever it's most definitely not what's good for my business the maths and stats don't stack up. The economic decline has been chartered under a Tory government over a decade.

So forgive me if that classic trope doesn't stand up to reality but it doesn't . So something else is the core. And it may simply be that the media is shaping these people's outlook opposite to what these people are actually experience and they don't care.

and what, exactly, is Labour offering?

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

and what, exactly, is Labour offering?

Where specifically in my post did I say labour are offering anything.

I went on to explain how the trope you described does not match any reality for 11years in the UK. And your answer is what is labour offering ?

Can we discuss the trope.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

maybe wage rates remaining low are related to Brexit as well? Why pay people more when you have a never ending supply of low cost labour?

If that was the case you'd expect other EU economies to have a similar problem, which they don't.

The general view is that stagnating wages in the UK are mainly attributable to stagnating labour productivity. (Why pay people more when they're not producing any more?) That UK labour productivity is stagnating is not in dispute, but there is much heated and often ideologically-coloured debate as to why this is so. (Too much welfare! Not enough education! Laziness! Despair!
Not enough investment! Take your pick.)

(But it's not due to immigration; immigration has tended to raise the productivity of UK labour.)

Aegir wrote: »

and you'll have to provide some detail on your statement that Uk social mobility is among the lowest in the developed world. from what I have seen, it isn't great, but it isn't exactly low either.

I'll get back to you on this.

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

Where specifically in my post did I say labour are offering anything.

I went on to explain how the trope you described does not match any reality for 11years in the UK. And your answer is what is labour offering ?

Can we discuss the trope.

The trope doesn't have to match or even to make logical sense for it to prevail.

listermint

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The trope doesn't have to match or even to make logical sense for it to prevail.

That's fair.

But it definitely has to be reinforced and evidently it's getting reinforced you only have to look at the attacks on a labour that have had no power whatsoever over a decade as being the cause of UK problems ... And the solution to growth and prosperity is the same party who've been in power throughout the decline.

This trope shouldn't and couldn't survive without reinforcement.

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

That's fair.

But it definitely has to be reinforced and evidently it's getting reinforced you only have to look at the attacks on a labour that have had no power whatsoever over a decade as being the cause of UK problems ... And the solution to growth and prosperity is the same party who've been in power throughout the decline.

This trope shouldn't and couldn't survive without reinforcement.

Sure and this is where the blatantly unfit-for-purpose media owned by half a dozen or so oligarchs comes into play. The result is people voting Conservative to undo problems caused by the Conservative party.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Where specifically in my post did I say labour are offering anything.

I went on to explain how the trope you described does not match any reality for 11years in the UK. And your answer is what is labour offering ?

Can we discuss the trope.

the debate is around why are Labour policies not resulting in electoral success. If the Conservative policies are written off as "Trope" then surely there needs to be a counter argument that Labour policies are the way to increase wages, improve productivity and social mobility?

Most of these issues have been around for decades, long before the conservatives came to power. Productivity issues began back in the seventies and one of the reasons why the Thatcher government were swept in to power.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

the debate is around why are Labour policies not resulting in electoral success. If the Conservative policies are written off as "Trope" then surely there needs to be a counter argument that Labour policies are the way to increase wages, improve productivity and social mobility?

Most of these issues have been around for decades, long before the conservatives came to power. Productivity issues began back in the seventies and one of the reasons why the Thatcher government were swept in to power.

The counter argument has been made that labour and the lib Dems set out stalls many times but the media specifically don't pick them up or put a cynical slant on platforms.

Would you agree or disagree with an utterly flawed consumption of reality by UK citizens

listermint

listermint wrote: »

The counter argument has been made that labour and the lib Dems set out stalls many times but the media specifically don't pick them up or put a cynical slant on platforms.

Would you agree or disagree with an utterly flawed consumption of reality by UK citizens

so the people are too stupid to make up their own minds and they are lied to by the media? Or is it that the Labour policies are brilliant, the people are too stupid to realise it?

You can point finger at anyone you like, sooner or later Labour need to realise that they are failing and need to address this.

Have you ever considered that the media you consume is giving you a false outlook and a lot of people simply don't subscribe to your point of view because, they simply don't?

Joe_ Public

The idea that people are sitting up in northern constituencies, thinking "oh i really like what the conservatives are saying about social mobility", that's a bit of a stretch for me tbh. In very general terms, the median tory voter is middle aged or more, owns their own home, is either retired or not a million miles away, quite comfortable and not much hankering for further or drastic change. Do they really care about rather nebulous terms like "social mobility" or "levelling up"? I doubt it personally anyway. Alf Garnett wouldn't even have a clue what it meant.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The idea that people are sitting up in northern constituencies, thinking "oh i really like what the conservatives are saying about social mobility", that's a bit of a stretch for me tbh. In very general terms, the median tory voter is middle aged or more, owns their own home, is either retired or not a million miles away, quite comfortable and not much hankering for further or drastic change. Do they really care about rather nebulous terms like "social mobility" or "levelling up"? I doubt it personally anyway. Alf Garnett wouldn't even have a clue what it meant.

well they clearly aren't sat in Hartlepool thinking "ooh, more taxes and the chance to go on strike, can't wait".

I can't see Labour offering anything at the moment that they haven't been for the last fifty years, with the exception of the Blair years.

Maybe Starmer is the new Neil Kinnock and will spend his time battling with the lunatic fringe and this will pave the way for a new Blair to come in and make the changes it needs.