Isn’t it fantastic to have the grown ups in charge again?!
- Thread starter sherlock
- Start date
Boro.Fur
Well-known member
Now that will upset all the right people
Duffman
Well-known member
Raw data ignores the nuanced tactical voting in areas where Lib Dem or Green were more likely to oust the loathsome Tory incumbent than Labour. It also gives too much credence to the ‘protest vote’ by folk who felt all mainstream parties were the same. They will learn in the next 5 years they are not. It’s funny how nobody talked about vote share when Corbyn stood? Vote share will only becomes an issue in 5 years time when Labour look to defend their majority by when the country will be in a very different place and the generational change needed will be supported to continue.
hewielewie
Well-known member
BBC Breakfast this morning asking Darren Jones why they didn't have plans in place prior to winning the election!
timetoretire
Well-known member
Cornwall is now a tory free zone due in no small measure to tactical voting. All seats under Liberal or Labour control. Labour's vote share undoubtedly reduced for a good cause.
festa5
Well-known member
Labour could easily have targeted and won a higher vote share. They wouldn't have been votes in the right places though and it might have cost them the election.
I'm almost certain they wouldn't have won as many seats.
Of course this means Labour have turned some natural supporters off as they were being very careful not to spook the horses in sears outside of urban areas. That's the price they've knowingly paid.
They do need to try and win those voters back now and I think it's possible. Easier to convince the sceptics still suffering from years of tory brainwashing when you're in power and can actually do something about it.
Counter_Press
Well-known member
Just like that Peter Kyle bloke at the Grand Prix when they were meant to be getting "straight down to business", and 2 days into his new job as SoS for science he's prancing around the pit lane getting his croney to beg Martin Brundle for an interview. A real hide behind the settee moment. What a n0bhead
Boro.Fur
Well-known member
Surprisingly I agree with you about his minion doorstepping Brundle. It was cringeworthy.
However, add technology and innovation to his ministerial brief and there was good reasons for him to be there.
The_Unicorn
Well-known member
At least we have a competant Home Secrety for the first time in a long time, don't particularly like her but a breath of fresh air after the last few.
Everyone talked about vote share in 2017. People were outraged that Tories had more 56 seats than Labour with only an extra 2.4% vote share.
That's when anyone left leaning was pushing for a Proportional Representation System.... these same people have a very different opinion today when Labour have a massive majority with a 34% vote share. All of a sudden people have changed their mind on PR when they would be looking at 93 seats for Reform in a PR system.
Rachel Reeves earlier today
“ Rachel Reeves: "The cost to the taxpayer of Covid fraud is estimated at £7.2bn. Every cheque signed by Rishi Sunak...We'll appoint a Covid corruption commissioner, a hit squad of investigators...to take the fraudsters to court...We want that money”
When they’re finished there. They can move on to Houchen
“ Rachel Reeves: "The cost to the taxpayer of Covid fraud is estimated at £7.2bn. Every cheque signed by Rishi Sunak...We'll appoint a Covid corruption commissioner, a hit squad of investigators...to take the fraudsters to court...We want that money”
When they’re finished there. They can move on to Houchen
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
I largely agree.
They lost because their policies were vile.
They may have lost a few votes to Reform because no flights ever went to Rwanda, but they lost many time that number simply for having that policy in the first place.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Could have maybe asked the Tories what their plan was in 2010,2015, 2016 brexit vote,2017,2019 and why they didn't do any good with any of it?
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, this is a good point, this is what I was thinking too. I was worried they were going to win by too many seats and vote share to be honest, and pleasing all them would have been a nightmare, but the rise of reform sort of made this not necessary as reform worked against Tories more than it worked against Labour.
They could have won loads of reform votes by spewing loads of immigration crap, or won loads of tory votes by promising not to tax anything. The problem then though, is you kind of have to do it, or you lose the voters, that's not so bad if you can still win, but when you start shipping votes you lose momentum, and the snowball turns into a snow man, then an avalanche.
Ideally, the best and most efficient way to win is to win the absolute bare minimum, by only moving along the political spectrum by the bare minimum, to the point where you're not contradicting yourself on policy. i.e don't win too many votes in the centre or even further than that.
Problem is if you lose two on the left to greens or not voting etc, then you need to gain one on the right from your oppo, to offset that, or gain two who otherwise wouldn't vote, but that's difficult.
You also have to allow some margin for breathing room, winning with some comfort and getting 9/10 of what you want is better than losing by a fine margin and getting 0/10 of what you want. This is harder to do when it comes to seats, than it is with percentages.
Labour 100% nailed the tactics on the stats of voters needed I think, being very interested in this stats side of things I'm extremely impressed how they've managed that. It was sort of similar in a different way to the brexit campaign by vote leave where they spunked all their cash (and more) in the last two months as they knew that would be most cost effective to win votes. Cummings was a d*ck, but he's very clever tactically. They could use different tactics than the vote leave thing, as that was easier being just raw percentages, doing that with seats over time was impressive, and something they were clearly keeping an eye on.
I'm 100% certain they were not divisive on some of the more left leaning policies as it would have been vote/seat losers, where as if they just don't mention them, or don't get nailed to a point, then as they have no policy they can effectively do what they like and nobody can really whinge about it, with merit. They will still whinge mind. The right will be like "they didn't say they were going to do that" and the left will be like "why didn't you say you were going to do that?". You're never getting those right votes, but you don't want them permanently anyway. I think more of the left will get on board and I've seen some evidence of this already.
It's been a good start binning off Rwanda on day 1, committing to housing, binning the ban on onshore wind, all the cabinet coming from state schools etc. None of that is Tory, not at all.
Lefty
Well-known member
Way past time Farage was held to account for not actually having a plan on Brexit. You can't blame people too much for just assuming he must have one, as they cast a vote for it. He had been a leader of a single issue party for 20 years or something. Of course you'd expect he had a detailed well thought out plan.
He didn't have any plan.
Richard North had a very detailed one, 700+ pages, which was put up for less than three days before then being deliberately withdrawn, because it meant being tied to a specific sane sensible Brexit which was remaining in the Single Market.
Andy_W
Well-known member
He had a plan, but it was 10 different crap plans which were all contradictory, so when it came to putting that into practice it was never going to work, as contradiction makes things impossible.
Leave was like 10 versions of brexit V 1 version of remain, that's the only way it could win, just con people into thinking it's all possible at the same time etc, it's unicorns.
Breaking it dwon into two versions:
Hard brexit would never have beaten remain, it would have lost 3:1
Soft brexit would never have beat remain, as it would be practically zero difference, it would have been BINO, so that would have lost 2:1.
Lefty
Well-known member
I agree, his 'plan' was to be ambiguous so as to retain all options of Brexit, even though they were mutually exclusive, but he didn't actually have a preferential detailed plan of his own. There isn't one anywhere.
This is what the media and Labour should hold him to account for. A serious politician, as Starmer is showing, is making a big deal of, should have plans, meticulous ones wherever possible. If you don't go into the details, how do you know your idea, your position is even feasible?
This is where Starmer is strong and Farage is weak and so this is where, if Farage actually becomes a nuisance Starmer needs to pay attention to and take care of. he should direct focus onto the lazy populist grifter.
This is what the media and Labour should hold him to account for. A serious politician, as Starmer is showing, is making a big deal of, should have plans, meticulous ones wherever possible. If you don't go into the details, how do you know your idea, your position is even feasible?
This is where Starmer is strong and Farage is weak and so this is where, if Farage actually becomes a nuisance Starmer needs to pay attention to and take care of. he should direct focus onto the lazy populist grifter.
Scrote
Well-known member
If that was the price of proper electoral reform then yes.
But I don't think the voting pattern from Thursday can just be slapped onto a completely different voting method. It's useful as a guide but that's about it.