Politically , what really important to you?

[Andy_W]

I disagree with you here Andy. I think it's quote an old fashioned analysis of the political landscape - no offence.

To me it seems like it's less about left/right and much more important to promise a "big change" in order to cause a big change in how people vote. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Brexit and Boris all campaigned on the premise of them being/representing a big change to what our politics had been like before them.

Look at the Hartlepool byelection this year. A perma-Labour seat going tory. Watching vox pops around the time I didn't see any Hartlepool residents saying they've suddenly become really enthused about low tax and privatisations or anything like that. They were saying the town has been degrading for years (losing it's hospital, police station, etc) and they were desperate for something to change.

Edit: found the interview I was thinking of.

These aren't two blokes who are desperate for "right wing" governance. In fact the specific complaints they're talking about are wanting more public spending in their town, i.e. left wing politics. But they've voted tory in the byelection because they've been convinced that voting tory means voting for a change and voting Labour means voting for things to stay the same.

You can argue about how right or wrong they are, but that's their perception and IMO that's what Labour need to reverse to gain seats.

The voters that need to be targeted are old fashioned, the older people get, the more they swing Tory. No offence taken at all.

False promises of "big change" do work on the weak-minded, but you need to get in power for them to even be realised as false, which hopefully some more now realise with brexit. That was about 20 false promises which all contradicted each other, but it worked.

Those idiots (old fashioned also) on that video are the people who need to be swayed back, unfortunately. Blaming labour for the tories wrecking the NHS, police etc (been in power 10 years) is laughable, and just proves a point that these people are clueless, but their votes do matter. Winning a seat means little if the overruling party is the opposite party, as they get next to zero help.

It's hard to reverse perception when you're not in power, and the guys who are in power and who have been for 10 years get little of the flack from these people, it's bizarre.

 

[changingman]

I disagree with you here Andy. I think it's quote an old fashioned analysis of the political landscape - no offence.

To me it seems like it's less about left/right and much more important to promise a "big change" in order to cause a big change in how people vote. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Brexit and Boris all campaigned on the premise of them being/representing a big change to what our politics had been like before them.

Look at the Hartlepool byelection this year. A perma-Labour seat going tory. Watching vox pops around the time I didn't see any Hartlepool residents saying they've suddenly become really enthused about low tax and privatisations or anything like that. They were saying the town has been degrading for years (losing it's hospital, police station, etc) and they were desperate for something to change.

Edit: found the interview I was thinking of.

These aren't two blokes who are desperate for "right wing" governance. In fact the specific complaints they're talking about are wanting more public spending in their town, i.e. left wing politics. But they've voted tory in the byelection because they've been convinced that voting tory means voting for a change and voting Labour means voting for things to stay the same.

You can argue about how right or wrong they are, but that's their perception and IMO that's what Labour need to reverse to gain seats.

I think the issue here is that the incumbents persist with the message that these changes are happening (even though they aren't) and the electorate believe them.

I agree with you that the promise of change is a motivating factor but I see few battle grounds where Labour could advocate change and get taken seriously right now (that is the fault of the media as much as any discrepancies with the current Labour administration).

Which I guess leads you to advocating radical change. Key difference here is that Labour see radical change as progressive, whereas the Tories paint it as "a return to..." (i.e familiar and easier to understand/cut through). Ultimately too many voters are suspicious of Labour AND do not trust them to deliver.

 

[SuperStu]

False promises of "big change"

I think the issue here is that the incumbents persist with the message that these changes are happening (even though they aren't)

It's interesting that you've both jumped straight to denying any changes have happened.

Honestly all the campaigns I listed (Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Brexit, Boris) did end up making big changes in politics after their victories. I'm not saying the changes they made are necessarily good. Just that they did happen and that big promises to me seem to be what mostly wins elections.

Which is why I think Starmer's doing the wrong thing by always waiting and letting the tories lead discourse. The more Labour hammer the tories and differentiate themselves and make themselves the party of a "big change" ahead of the next election, the better they'll do.

If they keep dithering and hesitating waiting for some last minute two week period where the whole campaigns meant to happen, the tories will sneak it and steal the thunder. Either by switching Boris for someome else and claiming everything will be different with this new leader, or by some big new policy (ala get brexit done/50 new hospitals).

 

[changingman]

Not disagreeing that those big changes have happened, just that a lot of the smaller things (see the video above) either get lost in the noise or people get told (incorrectly) they have happened.

The last election is an anomaly - one policy was central to the vote and whilst it's inarguable that it's happened, a lot of the more local, personal changes that people wanted either haven't happened or won't.

There's some merit in my opinion in hoping that the tories pull themselves apart and subsequently out of power but it's not to the detriment of owning the discourse at this stage.

Ultimately the media will decide the election, if Starmer can get enough of them on board they've got a fighting chance (of at least a hung parliament/coalition), if he can't, he won't.

 

[Soutra]

Plenty of you are still blaming the electorate, and the media, and Boris' bluster for Labour losing.

Labour lost because they didn't present a vision to the people, it was just a motley bunch of promises and platitudes. And they'll lose again because there's nothing going on to suggest that they've got anything different to present to the people. The only thing that is going on is infighting.

So here we are, 2 years down the line, with the government screwing up just about everything they touch, but still Labour can't land a punch on them. Starmer is blundering about like a punch drunk boxer waiting for the next blow to the side of the head.

You don't win elections by telling the electorate that they are thick and the media is biased. "Find a voter and sell him a vision". Tony Blair.

 

[Anton_Berg]

High inflation.
The Care system/NHS.
Crime and the decline of police effectiveness.
The super-powers' arms race.

 

[changingman]

Plenty of you are still blaming the electorate, and the media, and Boris' bluster for Labour losing.

Labour lost because they didn't present a vision to the people, it was just a motley bunch of promises and platitudes. And they'll lose again because there's nothing going on to suggest that they've got anything different to present to the people. The only thing that is going on is infighting.

So here we are, 2 years down the line, with the government screwing up just about everything they touch, but still Labour can't land a punch on them. Starmer is blundering about like a punch drunk boxer waiting for the next blow to the side of the head.

You don't win elections by telling the electorate that they are thick and the media is biased. "Find a voter and sell him a vision". Tony Blair.

Nope, Labour's policies at the last election played very well and chunks of the electorate supported them. Must have missed the media endorsing their vision in amongst wanting to string the leader up as a terrorist.

The right wing in this country (and I include 90% of media outlets in that) want to protect the status quo as it protects their income. While that incentive still stands why wouldn't they support the party that vows to enable them?

For what it's worth I think Blair is correct but the media were arguably more pliable back then, their income generation wasn't as entrenched and there were fewer threats to their control (Blair in many ways continued years of Tory policy). Those at the top of society see existential threats heading their way, whether through climate change and/or more politically engaged and progressive young voters - thus entrenching their position even further.

 

[Andy_W]

Labour lost because they didn't present a vision to the people, it was just a motley bunch of promises and platitudes. And they'll lose again because there's nothing going on to suggest that they've got anything different to present to the people. The only thing that is going on is infighting.

So here we are, 2 years down the line, with the government screwing up just about everything they touch, but still Labour can't land a punch on them. Starmer is blundering about like a punch drunk boxer waiting for the next blow to the side of the head.

Labour lost because it was baked in 10 years ago. They wrongly got blamed for a worldwide recession and because people don't realise that practically every single Tory MP voted for the gulf war. Blair should not have given them the choice, but the tories did want that war, for certain. Brown was spillover from Blair, and then we went back to the "norm" of tory rule (been the case for most of our history), and Corbyn had zero chance of winning enough of the centre (which damages Tories) to overturn that.

Labour did present some vision before the last GE though,and labours visions were at least based on reality, as they are now, and they're more for the little guy than the Tories, that's for sure. The tories "vision" was just some kind of made up unicorn, which was impossible to deliver, which suckered people in by playing on their fears.

If people don't realise they've been had by the tories/ Brexit and then switch sides away from the tories, then Labour or the vast majority of people don't stand a chance anyway, no matter what.

The people need to wake up and realise they've been lied to, and when the tories can't hide behind the pandemic any longer, then this will become clearly visible to the less sane, it's already visible to most, even some Tories who will never switch sides know they're doing terribly. It's just a case of if there are enough people to not vote tory. I couldn't care less who they vote for as long as it's not them clowns, and them getting a majority/ carte blanche. That would be a start, then go from there.

It's the middle ground labour need to control, if they do that the Tories can't win, unless the country is moving further and further right, and a labour going further left will not get them votes back.

Labour don't need to land a punch, the Tories are stood in the corner smashing their face off the wall, and they're destined to continue doing it for the next 2 years, due to brexit turmoil and relative GDP loss compared to the EU.

 

[Soutra]

The people need to wake up and realise they've been lied to, and when the tories can't hide behind the pandemic any longer, then this will become clearly visible to the less sane, it's already visible to most, even some Tories who will never switch sides know they're doing terribly. It's just a case of if there are enough people to not vote tory. I couldn't care less who they vote for as long as it's not them clowns, and them getting a majority/ carte blanche. That would be a start, then go from there.

But you are blaming the electorate for what happened. The electorate isn't to blame. The voters vote for the candidate they want, and or the party they want. All this stuff about Labour being the smart choice is just tosh - if you can't or don't sell it to the electorate you won't be elected. It's really that simple.

I watched on here when plenty of you thought Labour was going to be close in the 2019 election. Here in Scotland it seemed to me that Labour was just drifting away into a sea of confusion and irrelevance. I did think that was maybe just a Scottish phenomenon, that England would be different. But I was wrong - and most of the predictions on here were totally wrong. All that's happened in the intervening 22 months is that Labour has become less relevant, more fractious, more divided, more insular and less electable. In Scotland - where Labour needs a strong showing to have any chance of government - Labour is miles behind both SNP and Tories. The Islington Labour thing just doesn't go down well in Scotland.

It's another big defeat for Labour coming up at the next General Election, whenever that might be.

 

[Andy_W]

But you are blaming the electorate for what happened. The electorate isn't to blame. The voters vote for the candidate they want, and or the party they want. All this stuff about Labour being the smart choice is just tosh - if you can't or don't sell it to the electorate you won't be elected. It's really that simple.

I watched on here when plenty of you thought Labour was going to be close in the 2019 election. Here in Scotland it seemed to me that Labour was just drifting away into a sea of confusion and irrelevance. I did think that was maybe just a Scottish phenomenon, that England would be different. But I was wrong - and most of the predictions on here were totally wrong. All that's happened in the intervening 22 months is that Labour has become less relevant, more fractious, more divided, more insular and less electable. In Scotland - where Labour needs a strong showing to have any chance of government - Labour is miles behind both SNP and Tories. The Islington Labour thing just doesn't go down well in Scotland.

It's another big defeat for Labour coming up at the next General Election, whenever that might be.

You can't change the people (quickly), if the people go right, the left isn't getting in anytime soon, it's a fact. They need to be won back form the centre, and then make gradual changes if there's an appetite for it (and not at the cost of votes).

You can't sell the far right some far-left policies, they've no interest in buying that.

I didn't think 2019 would be close, I know more Tories who hated Corbyn and Dianne Abbott than who hated labour, it's daft I know, but that's what I was reading/ seeing every day.

The SNP are hovering up the tory and labour votes, I'm fine with that, it's better than the tories hoovering up labour votes.

Labour less electable than 2019 or 2017? How? Or should I say, more importantly, how are the tories gaining? Tories are already predicted to be down about 30 seats, labour is up 30. That's labour cutting the gap by 60 seats. There are no other meanignful far-right parties for the tories to jump into bed with.

I said back in Feb-Apr when Tories were polling very high that it would come crashing down after the vaccine positive faded away, and once the summer bounce was done, and look what happened. They will fade further when they can't blame the pandemic anymore.

 

[JM14]

That's effing heartbreaking.

The full episode was on C4 last night, well worth watching. Devastating to see it and it makes it so much worse to know everything you see is completely preventable too

 

[Soutra]

You can't change the people (quickly), if the people go right, the left isn't getting in anytime soon, it's a fact. They need to be won back form the centre, and then make gradual changes if there's an appetite for it (and not at the cost of votes).

You can't sell the far right some far-left policies, they've no interest in buying that.

I didn't think 2019 would be close, I know more Tories who hated Corbyn and Dianne Abbott than who hated labour, it's daft I know, but that's what I was reading/ seeing every day.

The SNP are hovering up the tory and labour votes, I'm fine with that, it's better than the tories hoovering up labour votes.

Labour less electable than 2019 or 2017? How? Or should I say, more importantly, how are the tories gaining? Tories are already predicted to be down about 30 seats, labour is up 30. That's labour cutting the gap by 60 seats. There are no other meanignful far-right parties for the tories to jump into bed with.

I don't think Labour is coming up with anything appealing, as evidenced by their polling diminishing after the party conferences. It has picked up a bit since but a net gain of 60 seats isn't spectacular when you are 160 behind. Labour might manage a coalition with the Libdems, SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru but that would be a recipe for disaster.

I hope you are right but I can't see any Labour green shoots yet. It seems like the Tories are offering an open goal every month but Labour are leathering it into row Z Tav style.

 

[Andy_W]

I don't think Labour is coming up with anything appealing, as evidenced by their polling diminishing after the party conferences. It has picked up a bit since but a net gain of 60 seats isn't spectacular when you are 160 behind. Labour might manage a coalition with the Libdems, SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru but that would be a recipe for disaster.

I hope you are right but I can't see any Labour green shoots yet. It seems like the Tories are offering an open goal every month but Labour are leathering it into row Z Tav style.

I don't think a version of Labour which is left of Blair, like Corbyn or maybe also like Starmer would ever get more seats than the Tories, but that's not possible anyway, as the voters have shifted further right (largely due to Tory media). It doesn't matter what policies are promised, you could promise everyone pots of gold, but it makes no difference if you have no chance of getting in on your own. Wasting your ammo now, early is kind of pointless, use it when the Tories are lying on the ground.

There is no win as such, but every party other than the Tories needs to just make sure that 1/3rd of the current Tory voters have nowhere else to go. 200 Tory seats will never change, no matter what, but anything over that can be moved. If the rest of the parties (not Tory, or Tory sympathisers) can get 350-450 seats, then it's very much game on. We would actually get proportional representaiton almost (at least in seats, not in voter numbers), but as a larger coalition, or no permanent majority. I've got a funny feeling they may actually offer PR as a policy, but closer to the election, but they need to get the unions on board.

It's a Tory loss we need to focus on, if we can get them down to a third of the seats, or even down to 45% (or they do it themselves), then the rest of the parties can occupy the other two thirds. No one party could occupy 2/3rd's on it's own, not without splitting the vote, as too many peoples priorities are different.

Since we stopped being ahead on the vaccine (biggest thing in the news at the time), tories have been slipping, largely due to brexit issues (of their own making), and after the summer bounce, the economic loss hitting us harder than others will start to play out. It will take time for people to realise this, but the Tories are a sinking ship, they're heading down a long, dark, tunnel and I don't see what light they have that could increase their votes.

 

[Laughing]

If the tories don't get a majority PR may well be on the way. Unite are the first union to openly support this as a Labour policy.

On the subject of starmer crap v starmer good. I sit somewhere in the middle. Give him an election and see where Labour are after that. The nuance of swaying the public is, I suspect, very complex. Go too soon you give the opposition a lot of time to ridicule your policies and prepare counter arguments. Go too late and the policies don't have time to soak in.

If you watched last week's pmq's starmer scored with a great effort with just one word.. Really.

 

[Anton_Berg]

1) Zarah Sultana becoming leader of the labour party.
2) Zarah Sultana becoming prime minister
3) Me marrying Zarah Sultana

Any current issues?