General British politics discussion thread

10000maniacs

listermint wrote: »

Interesting can you elaborate on that bit I mean like considering the stats of circa 94,000 or so

98.6% of people living in Hartlepool speak English. The other top languages spoken are 0.3% Polish, 0.1% Bengali, 0.1% All other Chinese, 0.1% Urdu, 0.1% Tagalog/Filipino, 0.1% Panjabi.

This whole immigration thing in Hartlepool must be off the chain it seems ... Such a real life day to day concern.


May I also note the population growth of pretty stagnant over the last decade there too.

A lot has changed since the 2010 census, but The Huff Post summed it up better than I can.

3. Brexitland values
Those who voted Tory for the first time in their lives in 2019 did so with real trepidation and are heavily invested in Johnson doing well – not just the pandemic but also on Brexit. Hartlepool voted 70% to Leave the EU and it looks like Jill Mortimer convinced a big chunk of the 26% who voted Brexit party in 2019 to vote Tory. While the PM can use Brexit as a weapon of choice (on the vaccines, on the European Super League, on the Jersey ‘cod war’), Starmer’s “don’t mention the war” approach isn’t working.

But as academics Maria Sobolewska and Rob Ford detailed in their book ‘Brexitland’, there are deep seated issues among working class voters that predate the 2016 referendum. Those who don’t go to university felt an increasing disconnect and a sense that their values on identity, crime and immigration have been ridiculed or demonised by Labour. When Starmer talks about “Labour values” it can feel like him saying his party has a monopoly on morality. The flipside of attacking the Tories as evil is that you risk telling Tory voters they’re evil too.

Leftwing MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle summed up the problem when he tweeted overnight “Good to see valueless flag waving and suit wearing working so well... or not?” Many working class voters are baffled by anyone questioning the Union Jack, let alone why wearing a suit is a bad thing. Angela Rayner was mocked by the Left for appearing before an England flag on St George’s Day and Rebecca Long-Bailey saw the value of “progressive patriotism” but had to retreat from it. Ed Miliband’s ‘Controls on immigration’ 2015 election coffee mug was inept but its message will again strike working class voters as wholly uncontroversial.

BonnieSituation

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Judging by the narrative in the media, if the SNP are a bit short of the 65 number, it looks like the unionists will use this as justification for refusing a referendum. That would be fair enough if they were the only party wanting one, but they're not. It should depend on whether a majority of pro-independence representatives are elected, not just the SNP.

Been the narrative all day. So transparent and yet they don't care.

Imagine getting a resounding victory like the SNP will, and it being turned around to act like a loss.

Will be just like the graphs fiasco at the last elections.

breezy1985

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Been the narrative all day. So transparent and yet they don't care.

Imagine getting a resounding victory like the SNP will, and it being turned around to act like a loss.

Will be just like the graphs fiasco at the last elections.

Will be interesting to see the actual individual vote percentage as opposed to the seat percentage as SNP/Indy are putting in a lot of 10/15% majorities

PommieBast

suicide_circus wrote: »

What did Labour do wrong to precipitate this melt down? Or is purely sisnister outside forces?

Labour has not offered anything credible to those who depend on private-sector income.

breezy1985

10000maniacs wrote: »

A lot has changed since the 2010 census, but The Huff Post summed it up better than I can.

Again its the "working class" voter thing but London would have the most working class people in the UK and the working class areas vote Labour in big numbers and the other cities the same and Wales is doing no worse so really its not a working class thing at all and the constant "working class voter" thing is even more outdated than left vs right. It seems mostly to be a city vs the rest divide

breezy1985

PommieBast wrote: »

Labour has not offered anything credible to those who depend on private-sector income.

Corbyn actually addressed wages and workers rights constantly but he was an apparent "Stalinist" who was going to hand the UK over to the Russians

10000maniacs

breezy1985 wrote: »

Again its the "working class" voter thing but London would have the most working class people in the UK and the working class areas vote Labour in big numbers and the other cities the same and Wales is doing no worse so really its not a working class thing at all and the constant "working class voter" thing is even more outdated than left vs right. It seems mostly to be a city vs the rest divide

It's not "Working class voter" but "working class white voter".
Here is the next section in the article. You can say the same about London too.

4. Hartlepool is not Oldham
Labour’s problems with white working class voters contrast with its successes in maintaining its vote among Britain’s large Asian population. But while that vote is incredibly loyal (as proved in seats like Bedford, as well as big cities, in the 2019 election), it is obviously absent in many towns across the country and Hartlepool is a clear example.

One criticism muttered among some local activists is that by-election campaign manager Jim McMahon seemed to treat the seat like his own seat of Oldham, which has a large Pakistani heritage population. In McMahon’s own by-election in 2015, he romped home by turning out that vote in big numbers. Yet local context matters and Teesside Mayor Ben Houchen had already given Labour voters a taste of voting Tory. There are wider lessons of the power of incumbency, as Blue Wall Tory MPs put down roots and organisation for 2023.

PommieBast

breezy1985 wrote: »

Corbyn actually addressed wages and workers rights constantly but he was an apparent "Stalinist" who was going to hand the UK over to the Russians

To ba fair in the noise about Brexit what he said was simply not heard. Having said that I never saw anything new..

listermint

10000maniacs wrote: »

A lot has changed since the 2010 census, but The Huff Post summed it up better than I can.

No let's come back to the post you made earlier about labour messing up Hartlepool because people care only about immigration. I then showed you stats that isn't true and you change tack to some other subject about sneering left.

Can you not just admit the post was not factual.

breezy1985

10000maniacs wrote: »

It's not "Working class voter" but "working class white voter".
Here is the next section in the article. You can say the same about London too.

No I don't think you can say the same about London. The white working class voter would still be the largest demographic of the heavy Labour areas so there has to be more to it than that.

I really don't think that Workington man is a fair description of the working class just the working class in certain towns and the inner city working class are still more likely to vote Labour regardless of colour

breezy1985

PommieBast wrote: »

To ba fair in the noise about Brexit what he said was simply not heard. Having said that I never saw anything new..

No it wasn't anything new in the sense it was just bringing the UK in line with labour law in Europe where the UK is seriously lagging behind.

He also knew how to engage in a way Starmer doesn't by showing a genuine interest in the running of Football and making Georges day a national holiday again something even flag hugger Johnson hasn't suggested

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

Dont vote Labour cause one guy cant box and another cant eat a bacon sandwich properly. What an educated electorate

God why won't these idiots vote for us!?

Same happened after Hillary lost in '16. It's the electorate's fault. Then the mid-terms come around and still the Democrats don't gain. Then they squeeze a win in '20 and all is rosy again. When things go against them again it'll be everyone else's fault.

Corbyn got the leadership because of loud people on the internet. Turns out that doesn't automatically win general elections. They then went with "safe" Starmer who has done absolutely nothing of note. Stupid electorate.

breezy1985

Deleted User wrote: »

God why won't these idiots vote for us!?

Same happened after Hillary lost in '16. It's the electorate's fault. Then the mid-terms come around and still the Democrats don't gain. Then they squeeze a win in '20 and all is rosy again. When things go against them again it'll be everyone else's fault.

Corbyn got the leadership because of loud people on the internet. Turns out that doesn't automatically win general elections. They then went with "safe" Starmer who has done absolutely nothing of note. Stupid electorate.

Im not telling anyone they have to vote for Labour but I do think people should read about who they vote for rather than "he doesnt know how to eat a sandwich" or "Brexit means Brexit". If peoples words and actions make them look dumb to me Im not gonna hide it. As for the US anyone you fell for Trumps crap was an easily lead moron and I think history will agree with me on that one

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

Im not telling anyone they have to vote for Labour but I do think people should read about who they vote for rather than "he doesnt know how to eat a sandwich" or "Brexit means Brexit". If peoples words and actions make them look dumb to me Im not gonna hide it. As for the US anyone you fell for Trumps crap was an easily lead moron and I think history will agree with me on that one

Yup, it's better to be correct than win.

breezy1985

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup, it's better to be correct than win.

History is full of bad, useless or evil people winning so being on the right side can be more important than the winning side Yup

10000maniacs

listermint wrote: »

No let's come back to the post you made earlier about labour messing up Hartlepool because people care only about immigration. I then showed you stats that isn't true and you change tack to some other subject about sneering left.

Can you not just admit the post was not factual.

When did I ever say the people of Hartlepool care ONLY about immigration?
Putting words in my mouth?
I said immigration is one of the issues they want addressed and Labour are not addressing it!
And how am I sneering the "left"? Not correct either.
If my post was not factual, the Huff article was not factual either. That's the thing about editorials. They are open to opinion.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Did you actually read my post. You see them all the time the length and breadth of the place. Not reserved for special occasions.

I'm not sure of the point your making. I'm just telling you they are not rare like your making out nor 'special occasiony' either

OK Here's a typical English town

Google streetview,
Lets see how quickly you can see a flag (English or Union flag)
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5266529,-1.6318504,3a,75y,339.86h,91.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEynWcpsY7uhXHoDTYS2cmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

fash

CelticRambler wrote: »

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, a certain Elizabeth Warren from the United States presented a set of data to show that this problem was most acute in dual-income households. The "perfect storm" of pushing both halves of a married couple into work by removing their married couple's allowances, then encouraging home-ownership on the back of high-value, mortgages based on multiples of the two incomes repayable over 20, then 25, then 30 years, and set against the unicornism of rising property values has contributed to this mental and social inertia.

The sad thing about it is that it is, in fact, incredibly easy to up sticks and leave, if you're not so psychologically locked into the idea that migration is a Bad Thing.

Yea, this is a good point. The nature of western societies: 2 people with jobs, home ownership, eye watering rents etc. disfavours locals/nationals from moving.- while then (relatively) encouraging to a greater extent migrants from outside who don't have those ties to come in to work.

SharpshooterTom

Deleted User wrote: »

God why won't these idiots vote for us!?

Same happened after Hillary lost in '16. It's the electorate's fault. Then the mid-terms come around and still the Democrats don't gain. Then they squeeze a win in '20 and all is rosy again. When things go against them again it'll be everyone else's fault.

Corbyn got the leadership because of loud people on the internet. Turns out that doesn't automatically win general elections. They then went with "safe" Starmer who has done absolutely nothing of note. Stupid electorate.

They did gain, they won the house back, and 2 years later hold all three branches of government.

suicide_circus

breezy1985 wrote: »

What are its roots ?


If you mean win back the red wall by copying Tory policy then no I dont want it to go back to its roots. I dont know Sarkar but if you have actually listened to Jones and can get over the fact that he is a gay Guardian journalist you would see he cares deeply about Britain and the poorer in the country. He cares a lot more and has much greater connection to the working class than Johnson does

Ah yes, smearing me as a homophobe as if i can't handle the mind blowing concept that someone is gay. You brought up his sexuality, not me. He talks a good game but he appeals to metropolitan guardian readers who have never been numerous enough to carry an election on their own

breezy1985

Welsh Assembly finished up over night with Labour gaining 1 and Tories 5 with PC staying level

Labour only 1 seat off a majority and I have no clue whether or not any of the 8 top up seats still to be declared will got their way

L1011

A comically poorly designed ballot paper in London is leading to a 5x increase in spoiled votes, possibly to a level that could be considered significant - basically the paper could very easily be read as you having to vote for one person on each side of the list, as it is in two columns and refers to voting in each column - meaning the sub-columns for the X. You vote 1/2 in London, no further

https://twitter.com/london_rocklad/status/1390743354909110279

Says a lot about peoples "ability to read", but having said that the column headings should have been a simple A & B in a large font.

ArmaniJeanss

L1011 wrote: »

A comically poorly designed ballot paper in London is leading to a 5x increase in spoiled votes, possibly to a level that could be considered significant - basically the paper could very easily be read as you having to vote for one person on each side of the list, as it is in two columns and refers to voting in each column - meaning the sub-columns for the X. You vote 1/2 in London, no further

There's a controversial Tory policy to make all mayoral votes FPTP, for stated reasons which don't particularly make sense.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/london-mayor-election-first-past-the-post-system-b924534.html

You'd wonder whether that clusterfcuk design was deliberate to reduce opposition to this move. Regardless it will almost certainly ease the path to FPTP.

hotmail.com

The Tories just able to manoeuvre politically left and right when it suits them, the goal is to stay in office at all costs.

They originally opposed the creation of the NHS but then went on to support it once they seen the public supported it.

They were socially conservative in the 80s and 90s and shifted under Cameron to be more socially liberal, as the public had moved in that direction.

They are now in favour of government spending and government intervention, because that's what the public support.

The Tories are much more practical as a party, than what they're opponents give them credit for. It's why they keep winning elections.

L1011

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

There's a controversial Tory policy to make all mayoral votes FPTP, for stated reasons which don't particularly make sense.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/london-mayor-election-first-past-the-post-system-b924534.html

You'd wonder whether that clusterfcuk design was deliberate to reduce opposition to this move. Regardless it will almost certainly ease the path to FPTP.

They need to protect FPTP for Westminster at all costs, trying to remove all alternatives to it would be part of that.

I'm going to go for the incompetence over malice approach for the design, though.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Says a lot about peoples "ability to read", but having said that the column headings should have been a simple A & B in a large font.

Stop now. That's genuinely confusingly laid out.

That being said, was writing "1" and "2" beyond them as an option?

Strazdas

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Tories just able to manoeuvre politically left and right when it suits them, the goal is to stay in office at all costs.

They originally opposed the creation of the NHS but then went on to support it once they seen the public supported it.

They were socially conservative in the 80s and 90s and shifted under Cameron to be more socially liberal, as the public had moved in that direction.

They are now in favour of government spending and government intervention, because that's what the public support.

The Tories are much more practical as a party, than what they're opponents give them credit for. It's why they keep winning elections.

Yes to all that, but it also means they have no policies and don't believe in anything apart from staying in power.

That is certainly true of Johnson, his only policy is to 'make Johnson great again'. You'd wonder though how long they can run a country like this before it crashes on the rocks.

breezy1985

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Stop now. That's genuinely confusingly laid out.

That being said, was writing "1" and "2" beyond them as an option?

I always spend ages looking at them before handing them in. Some of those list and AP voting cards can be laid out or worded odd. Same goes for referendums.

Last mayor's elections I seem to remember having a load of ballot cards. Mayor, list, assembly and Brexit and each one looked and operated nothing like the others

ancapailldorcha

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Stop now. That's genuinely confusingly laid out.

That being said, was writing "1" and "2" beyond them as an option?

No. Each candidate had the two boxes. You put an "X" in the left box for your preferred candidate and the right box of a different candidate to signify your second preference.