New Labour Leader

[sonyc 5,489]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

This is just naked, ideologically-driven slash and burn with no regard whatsoever to any pretense at prudence. I really hope the Lib Dems can make themselves sufficiently attractive to push the Conservatives into third, because the Conservative party genuinely deserves oblivion at this point. 

LD is probably more my political home (not wholly because no party can be a 100% home), with lots of Green and quite a bit of Labour. LDs do seem to be offering a viable alternative to those who can't bring themselves to vote Labour. In my area it would be a wasted vote in terms of unseating the Tory.

I even feel that there is something tremendously important worth arguing for in this country, enough to make me want to be more of an activist. For arguing for more justice and fairness in society - the kinds of values I reckon 100% (well, 99%) of people would agree on. Yet, that would only lead to grief at the moment! Our society is so riven apart. Very angry. Look what has happened in recent years with attacks on officials, even at local level.

Yet, there are so many lovely people in our communities. So I'm not too despondent. Decent folk too on this forum. It has to be a macrocosm of the wider society doesn't it?

But all I can probably do (of any use) is be civil and as kind as possible to people I desperately disagree with.

Edited September 26, 2022 by sonyc

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

LD is probably more my political home (not wholly because no party can be a 100% home), with lots of Green and quite a bit of Labour. LDs do seem to be offering a viable alternative to those who can't bring themselves to vote Labour. In my area it would be a wasted vote in terms of unseating the Tory.

I even feel that there is something tremendously important worth arguing for in this country, enough to make me want to be more of an activist. For arguing for more justice and fairness in society - the kinds of values I reckon 100% (well, 99%) of people would agree on. Yet, that would only lead to grief at the moment! Our society is so riven apart. Very angry. Look what has happened in recent years with attacks on officials, even at local level.

Yet, there are so many lovely people in our communities. So I'm not too despondent. Decent folk too on this forum. It has to be a macrocosm of the wider society doesn't it?

But all I can probably do (of any use) is be civil and as kind as possible to people I desperately disagree with.

I think for most thinking people its ABC currently - 'Anyone but the Conservatives' at present. What ever party has the best chance locally.

I'm trying to work out who (beyond the bankers, those that shorted the pound and the certifiable) the 30% or so actually are that still vote for this lot. I'm not even sure it contains all the Tory MPs - I see hint of letters of no confidence already! 

[Van wink 2,994]

52 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I actually would feel very sorry for ANY competent government having to pick the pieces up from this. Basket case.

 

 

Thats part of the cunning plan I imagine, as said previously, take a big big gamble and if it doesn't pay off leave the mess for somebody else to pick up. The hope is that the financial markets and particularly UK Govt borrowing rates will force a general election before too much damage is done.

[Van wink 2,994]

Pound marginally up against the Euro atm, and down one half percent against the dollar

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

8 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Pound marginally up against the Euro atm, and down one half percent against the dollar

A lot of people who shorted the pound now banking their winnings (got to get that 7 figure bonus) and having now to rebuy pounds (at a much lower ate) to re-balance their books.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Not totally inspired by Reeve's address to Conference. There are still many potential Labour voters who have only one thing on their minds at the moment. Extra nurses etc will not address their shrinking purses.

I always like a Chancellor, particularly a Shadow one, keep to the script. Let SKS talk about nurses and green economies. Just tell people what you will do with the economy. Putting the 5% on the top rate isn't helping those on lower wages.

What is Labour's economic policy? I have no extra knowledge after today's speech.

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Not totally inspired by Reeve's address to Conference. There are still many potential Labour voters who have only one thing on their minds at the moment. Extra nurses etc will not address their shrinking purses.

I always like a Chancellor, particularly a Shadow one, keep to the script. Let SKS talk about nurses and green economies. Just tell people what you will do with the economy. Putting the 5% on the top rate isn't helping those on lower wages.

What is Labour's economic policy? I have no extra knowledge after today's speech.

I doubt they have to go to big on policy while the Tories are self destructing, the less you say the less there is to be scrutinised seems to be the way, cant really blame them for that. They probably have enough to get elected just by not being the Tories, as Biden did with Trump.

[Van wink 2,994]

pound rising against the dollar now, incoming BOE statement?

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

1 minute ago, Van wink said:

I doubt they have to go to big on policy while the Tories are self destructing, the less you say the less there is to be scrutinised seems to be the way, cant really blame them for that. They probably have enough to get elected just by not being the Tories, as Biden did with Trump.

I'm always amused - it must be a genetic failing - why some labour supporters always seem to find time to criticize and put the boot in on their own party when very clearly it's doing well in the polls and looks very electable. Last I heard 12 points ahead?

It's almost as if some of their membership has a built in self-destruct policy to keep the Tories in power so they can have something to moan about. SKS wants to win, to change things for the better and no, no hostages to fortune.

[Van wink 2,994]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm always amused - it must be a genetic failing - why some labour supporters always seem to find time to criticize and put the boot in on their own party when very clearly it's doing well in the polls and looks very electable. Last I heard 12 points ahead?

It's almost as if some of their membership has a built in self-destruct policy to keep the Tories in power so they can have something to moan about. SKS wants to win, to change things for the better and no, no hostages to fortune.

He has captured "the middle ground" now (whatever that is 😀), all he has to do is keep it. Not heard a lot about Momentum recently.....thank goodness.... he seems to be nearing a position where he has enough authority to suppress the nutters. As Blair always  said, or was it Kinnock, you cant achieve anything in opposition. Having mentioned Mr K, one pitfall to now avoid is premature celebration, and walking on the beach of course.

[Herman 9,712]

10 minutes ago, Van wink said:

He has captured "the middle ground" now (whatever that is 😀), all he has to do is keep it. Not heard a lot about Momentum recently.....thank goodness.... he seems to be nearing a position where he has enough authority to suppress the nutters. As Blair always  said, or was it Kinnock, you cant achieve anything in opposition. Having mentioned Mr K, one pitfall to now avoid is premature celebration, and walking on the beach of course.

Bacon sandwich alerts. 

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

3 hours ago, sonyc said:

LD is probably more my political home (not wholly because no party can be a 100% home), with lots of Green and quite a bit of Labour. LDs do seem to be offering a viable alternative to those who can't bring themselves to vote Labour. In my area it would be a wasted vote in terms of unseating the Tory.

I even feel that there is something tremendously important worth arguing for in this country, enough to make me want to be more of an activist. For arguing for more justice and fairness in society - the kinds of values I reckon 100% (well, 99%) of people would agree on. Yet, that would only lead to grief at the moment! Our society is so riven apart. Very angry. Look what has happened in recent years with attacks on officials, even at local level.

Yet, there are so many lovely people in our communities. So I'm not too despondent. Decent folk too on this forum. It has to be a macrocosm of the wider society doesn't it?

But all I can probably do (of any use) is be civil and as kind as possible to people I desperately disagree with.

I love all you boys on here because the majority of you are secret Tories at heart. But it's a bit like f a r t I n g in public, not the done thing, and so you have to keep it under wraps, just like a good f a r t, in fact. 

I mean, I must be right because the Tories keep on keeping on getting elected, especially here in Norfolk. And if it is not you then who is it?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

I doubt they have to go to big on policy while the Tories are self destructing, the less you say the less there is to be scrutinised seems to be the way, cant really blame them for that. They probably have enough to get elected just by not being the Tories, as Biden did with Trump.

Six months ago I'd have agreed, but now the Conservatives have actually very deliberately increased the deficit for the sake of completely frivolous, even damaging, tax cuts, Labour now has a free run at putting a constructive program for investment that may involve some extra borrowing without being vulnerable to criticism on that score. Also, as others have pointed out, the economic damage of the announcements of the last few days could even force a general election far sooner than anyone imagined. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Van wink 2,994]

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Six months ago I'd have agreed, but now the Conservatives have actually very deliberately increased the deficit for the sake of completely frivolous, even damaging, tax cuts, Labour now has a free run at putting a constructive program for investment that may involve some extra borrowing without being vulnerable to criticism on that score. They do indeed but there is no great electoral imperative for them to do so, they are painting themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and  mocking the current shambles that is the other side.

 

Also, as others have pointed out, the economic damage of the announcements of the last few days could even force a general election far sooner than anyone imagined.  Yes agreed as I stated above,

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Van wink

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

8 minutes ago, Van wink said:

 

There is an imperative if they want to actually have a stab at winning a majority as opposed to a hung parliament, given the hurdles Labour have to contend with in Scotland. 

[Van wink 2,994]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There is an imperative if they want to actually have a stab at winning a majority as opposed to a hung parliament, given the hurdles Labour have to contend with in Scotland. 

Do you think they have any realistic chance of regaining a significant number of seats in Scotland, I very much have my doubts, the best they can hope for is to overtake the Tories into second place there.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

Just now, Van wink said:

Do you think they have any realistic chance of regaining a significant number of seats in Scotland, I very much have my doubts, the best they can hope for is to overtake the Tories into second place there.

 

No, but one way or the other, Labour have not achieved a majority since they were routed in Scotland by the SNP; they need to do everything they can to maximise swing to them rather than simply expecting swing away from the Conservatives to be all to their benefit. 

[Van wink 2,994]

34 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No, but one way or the other, Labour have not achieved a majority since they were routed in Scotland by the SNP; they need to do everything they can to maximise swing to them rather than simply expecting swing away from the Conservatives to be all to their benefit. 

I would anticipate comforting words regarding moves towards regional government and enhanced devolved powers.

[Barbe bleu 812]

4 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

 Putting the 5% on the top rate isn't helping those on lower wages.

What is Labour's economic policy? I have no extra knowledge after today's speech.

When the mini budget came out I did what most people did and went 'well that's interesting' . Later, after the surprise wore off, I was kind of grateful that we could be talking about policy rather than personality again...

...right up until I heard that Labour would have done everything the same except reduce the 45% rate to 40%.  A rate that is probably a lot more symbolic than it is practical.

I really want a policy choice at the next election.  Not a choice between two leaders that often  resemble barely animated corpses

 

[Barbe bleu 812]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm always amused - it must be a genetic failing - why some labour supporters always seem to find time to criticize and put the boot in on their own party when very clearly it's doing well in the polls and looks very electable. Last I heard 12 points ahead?

It's almost as if some of their membership has a built in self-destruct policy to keep the Tories in power so they can have something to moan about. SKS wants to win, to change things for the better and no, no hostages to fortune.

It's the same people that thought nothing could be worse than May and then delivered us Boris.  And then seemed to think it was right to stick the knife into Boris  on the grounds that his tax rises weren't high enough and he was too 'populist'.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

48 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Do you think they have any realistic chance of regaining a significant number of seats in Scotland, I very much have my doubts, the best they can hope for is to overtake the Tories into second place there.

 

I just can't see it TBH - as you say they maybe will overtake the Tories to grab second place but its an incredibly poor second place so will have very little impact on the national picture.

Also although we can reasonably expect the Tories to lose seats in Scotland, it is by no means certain that they will lose them to Labour.

IMO despite the current very healthly leads that the polls are showing for Labour, their refusal to work with any of the other progressive parties means that they face a real struggle to achieve an overall majority at all and certainly a decent working majority.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

11 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I just can't see it TBH - as you say they maybe will overtake the Tories to grab second place but its an incredibly poor second place so will have very little impact on the national picture.

Also although we can reasonably expect the Tories to lose seats in Scotland, it is by no means certain that they will lose them to Labour.

IMO despite the current very healthly leads that the polls are showing for Labour, their refusal to work with any of the other progressive parties means that they face a real struggle to achieve an overall majority at all and certainly a decent working majority.

The reality is that, in the event of a hung parliament, the Lib Dems will work with Labour if the numbers work for a coalition, but there's no sense in either party openly acknowledging that. 

To be honest, that would be my preferred outcome over a Labour majority given that it's the best chance of electoral reform, but equally it would be a bit weird for Labour not to pull out the stops to try and get a majority and parties publicly talking about pacts will probably do more harm than good; a bit of under the table stuff on a constituency by constituency basis makes more sense. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,489]

8 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I just can't see it TBH - as you say they maybe will overtake the Tories to grab second place but its an incredibly poor second place so will have very little impact on the national picture.

Also although we can reasonably expect the Tories to lose seats in Scotland, it is by no means certain that they will lose them to Labour.

IMO despite the current very healthly leads that the polls are showing for Labour, their refusal to work with any of the other progressive parties means that they face a real struggle to achieve an overall majority at all and certainly a decent working majority.

Agree. One of my hopes (mini fantasy) is that there might be a strong coalition of centre / left parties who work together really well to slowly and surely restore trust in the UK economy, strengthen our international reputation and bring in progressive policies.

In such a way that a serious discussion begins on forms of PR. This gets put into legislation and we never have to see a far right Tory party and entitled Etonians / lunatic fringe grotesques ever again.

 

 

#back to your bed now mr sonyc.

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The reality is that, in the event of a hung parliament, the Lib Dems will work with Labour if the numbers work for a coalition, but there's no sense in either party openly acknowledging that. 

To be honest, that would be my preferred outcome over a Labour majority given that it's the best chance of electoral reform, but equally it would be a bit weird for Labour not to pull out the stops to try and get a majority and parties publicly talking about pacts will probably do more harm than good; a bit of under the table stuff on a constituency by constituency basis makes more sense. 

Exactly- and I suspect a bit of prioritizing some seats and not others at the GE to capitalize on the tactical ABC vote.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[Van wink 2,994]

20 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Agree. One of my hopes (mini fantasy) is that there might be a strong coalition of centre / left parties who work together really well to slowly and surely restore trust in the UK economy, strengthen our international reputation and bring in progressive policies.

In such a way that a serious discussion begins on forms of PR. This gets put into legislation and we never have to see a far right Tory party and entitled Etonians / lunatic fringe grotesques ever again.

 

 

#back to your bed now mr sonyc.

Nothing wrong with your mini fantasy, I can relate to that.  

( maybe best to think carefully before revealing your maxi fantasy though 😀)

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

48 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The reality is that, in the event of a hung parliament, the Lib Dems will work with Labour if the numbers work for a coalition, but there's no sense in either party openly acknowledging that. 

To be honest, that would be my preferred outcome over a Labour majority given that it's the best chance of electoral reform, but equally it would be a bit weird for Labour not to pull out the stops to try and get a majority and parties publicly talking about pacts will probably do more harm than good; a bit of under the table stuff on a constituency by constituency basis makes more sense. 

Agree with most of that but my main concern would be that while the ' under the table stuff on a constituency by constituency basis' worked well enough on two or three constituencies in by-elections, I don't see how that can be effectively scaled up to national scale in a General Election without them being a bit more open and organised about it (and probably involving more parties) - whilst still perhaps stopping short of a formal pact.

The notion that a pact or similar would do more harm is often touted but I'm not aware of any real evidence to suggest it is the case. It seems to me equally or more likely that the opposite is the case. I accept there would be party activists in both (or all) parties who didn't like it but I think now, far more than ever before, there is a very significant chunk of voters who are far more concerned about voting for a successful 'anti-Tory' candidate than voting for a candidate who is specfically Labour, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Plaid or even SNP.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Creative Midfielder

[horsefly 4,287]

38 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The reality is that, in the event of a hung parliament, the Lib Dems will work with Labour if the numbers work for a coalition, but there's no sense in either party openly acknowledging that. 

That hits the nail on the head. The reality is neither Labour nor the LibDems can go into the next election trying to stitch seats up to achieve a coalition. They have to declare an overt intention to win each seat, and the GE outright. It is the electorate that has to initiate tactical voting to rid particular seats of a Tory majority. I sincerely hope that a non-aligned pressure group is formed to inform voters how to vote tactically in each constituency to maximise the chances of removing a Tory. That would then also give constituency non-Tory parties the information required to know where to concentrate their resources and quietly maximise the opportunity for a non-Tory to win. A resulting coalition would then be given a very obvious mandate for voting reform.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

15 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Agree with most of that but my main concern would be that while the ' under the table stuff on a constituency by constituency basis' worked well enough on two or three constituencies in by-elections, I don't see how that can be effectively scaled up to national scale in a General Election without them being a bit more open and organised about it (and probably involving more parties) - whilst still perhaps stopping short of a formal pact.

The notion that a pact or similar would do more harm is often touted but I'm not aware of any real evidence to suggest it is the case. It seems to me equally or more likely that the opposite is the case. I accept there would be party activists in both (or all) parties who didn't like it but I think now, far more than ever before, there is a very significant chunk of voters who are far more concerned about voting for a successful 'anti-Tory' candidate than voting for a candidate who is specfically Labour, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Plaid or even SNP.

It's dead easy to scale. You just don't put money into seats where you're quietly letting the other one get on with it, and you encourage your campaigners on the ground to give a nod and wink to the other party on the doorstep. 

[Herman 9,712]

A small step in the right direction.

 

[sonyc 5,489]

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

A small step in the right direction.

 

Great news. Long way to go of course. But I reckon it's a vote winner (based on reading many views on here over the last few years).