UK General Discussion

[Leftbehind]

YouGov predicts less than 4% of GB deem it important enough that they'd be put off voting someone who voted against it (and 3% would do the same for those who voted for).

[Leftbehind]

Havering MPs: Rosindell against (not a surprise), Watkinson and Cruddas in favour.

With regards to issues mentioned above, Cruddas is very, very, very much RC.

Disappointed with his Daily Politics interview; seem to remember reading he was only on board if he had freedom to propose some radical thinking and yet he distanced himself from it (why was he so sure Labour would never get elected on his platform, frankly he makes it sound like he's John McDonnell, and even then I'd class it as a mark of a pessimist to rule it out like that) and even the report itself seemed to conclude the platform wasn't going to be much influenced by him.  

[Leftbehind]

http://www.tomforth.co.uk/guardiancomments/

This is a Guardian CIF comment generator. Not bad. Needs work though

"Why does sexuality still define us? I would rather vote for the BNP than let my three year old eat anything sold in Asda! But that's the fallout from having PM Bliar for a decade!"

and my favourite

"After a late night pilates session me and my chums were discussing things. In an age of rampant consumerism and on-demand television, can we really be surprised that the new generation would rather listen to hip hop than appreciate the subversive nature of the works of Arnold Schoenberg? I suppose that's why I don't let society define my gender!"

They/you clearly haven't read CIF, which is weird, as it seems to be flooded with right-wingers.

[Leftbehind]

I'm disappointed as I think there is some commonality for the avg CIF (once discounting the Rightist hoards on there for an argument), much like there is for Telegraph/Mail etc; they were on the right track with Bliar:

a) Tories are capitalists/feudalists and we soon-to-be serfs should be revolting.
b) Liberals are sellouts who we'll enjoy seeing destroyed come 2015.
c) Labour are useless, they'll be no different and we're all screwed.

They're nearly always rants (don't let the size fool you into believing they're introspective, considered points) and so, as I say, I can only conclude those building this are basing this off the stereotype for Guardian readers.

[Leftbehind]

It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3D_obNV9vk

[Leftbehind]

Nah, they'd have had an easier time rallying against it. That is, if a) Labour had been proposing it, and not their party leader b) they didn't have a right-wing Thatcherite economic platform to disguise as a centrist 'we're just doing what's needed' policy c) most importantly, the Scottish parliament (and presumably the Welsh assembly) weren't going to propose gay marriage anyway (and in tern creating an enormous headache if England didn't keep pace).

[Leftbehind]

It's not 'sinking' when they've long had a history of doing it (and they're not alone) - there was even evidence given at Levison about it.

[Leftbehind]

A fitting testament to these great institutions of journalism.

[Leftbehind]

Not really. Labour had leads of 20% at this time during the 1987-1992 parliament, leads of about 5% at this time between 1983 and 1987 and leads of about 15% at this time between 1979 and 1983. Tory governments have a tendency to be deeply unpopular in mid-term.

These are far from normal mid-term leads. The only time Labour had sustained double-digit leads were in 1981, which the SDP-split seen the end of and 1990, with the ousting of Thatcher for Major and the disowning of the Poll Tax combating that (and those were leads before shy Tory was accounted for).

Now, Labour's support could fracture back to the Liberals/elsewhere if they go into 2015 taking them for granted (ie offer another Blairite platform), and the Tories could narrow things with Boris Johnson, but the fact that the Liberals have completely alienated the leftists in their party suggests Labour's leads are more robust (in many ways as important as the 81 split) than previously.  

[Leftbehind]

1. Never underestimate the Lib Dem incumbency factor and their ability to recover. The Lib Dem shares we see in polls right now would be the lowest since 1970; that result is unlikely. Just look at what's happening in Eastleigh; rallying the anti-Tory vote yet again.

2. We have a high UKIP vote share. There's no guarantee they will be standing in every seat or that such a vote share will be sustained at a national election in what will always be a Labour v Tory contest.

1. You say that, but when's the last time the Liberals have been in power, and therefore had to throw their lot in with a side? Exactly. Their party's benefited enormously on appealing to both anti-Labour and anti-Tories throughout the country for decades, and you only need to look at the locals to see Eastleigh isn't remotely representative of the country: they've been rock-solid there whilst receiving their lowest national equivalents since 1980.

2. I think you can guarantee most, as the party's bankrolled by toffs. I imagine they might stand down in constituencies where there's a right-wing enough candidate for them, but Farage has been making noises recently there will be no pact.

[Leftbehind]

Indeed, when I think of the threatened back of a taxi rump of remaining Liberals, an Eastleigh MP is in there.

[Leftbehind]

Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

Proportional representation.  It's not simply that people are protesting the EU by voting UKIP in European Parliament elections. It's that unlike with FPTP, people don't feel that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote there.

PR would certainly help them enormously, but other parties would start taking them seriously and shine a light on their more unpopular policies (NHS-dismantling, banker loving, austerity max to a pick a few).  

[Leftbehind]

What Eastleigh showed us is that we will probably be seeing a lot more hung parliaments in the future. If the Tories can't win a middle England seat like that, they wont have a majority. If under a hugely unpopular government the Labour vote actually declines, they wont win a majority either.

I disagree. Labour's 2010 position as also-rans in Eastleigh left it vulnerable to being squeezed and abandoned for more worthwhile vehicles. FPTP encourage tactical voting to such an extent that it'll bear next to no relation for most seats Labour will be looking to gain (most of which being Con-Lab marginals). If UKIP retains the support it's polling, Labour should walk the next general election in a manner reminiscent of Thatcher's 1980's victories, as the Liberals electoral progress looks to be rewound to the benefit - and consolidation - of the Labour vote.  

Oh and I'm certain Labour will gain Cambridge (see how Labour are comfortably beating the Liberals in the locals there).

[Leftbehind]

Labour is in for a 1992 style shock, not a 1983 style win.

I mean you guys are suggesting that Lib Dem voters will naturally swing to Labour, where did that happen in Eastleigh, lol it didn't.

I suggest you read my post again, I specifically pointed out that the race in Eastleigh is completely different to most seats Labour will need for a majority (ie they won't be on 10% with a Liberal incumbent; they'll be the best chance to oust the Tories.

Eastleigh is miles apart from the rest of the country in Liberal strength: see the local elections fortress they've built there at a time when they've seen repeated annihilations across the country to leave them at their lowest ever number of councillors.

You may as well face it, if you can't resolve the UKIP split your part will go into the election trailing Labour a significant amount and be crucified by the electoral system for it like Labour were in the 80's.

[Leftbehind]

Dodged a bullet as far as I'm concerned. If and when the Right ever do become converts to the cause of electoral reform*, I'll be glad that AV's dead and buried as an option, so they'll have to offer something which doesn't just allow them to use other parties voters as ammunition (meanwhile rewarding those parties with no extra seats).  

*which I'm reasonably optimistic might happen if we're entering 4 party politics for a sustained period, and one which overwhelmingly hinders the Right's chance of governing.

[Leftbehind]

I am not a tory btw (I really couldn't care less what neo-liberal party rules the UK) but the UKIP split is not just bad news for the tories, UKIP are attracting voters from all the parties for example in Rotherham the Labour vote increased by 1.62%, yet the Liberal Democrat vote declined by 13.87% so the idea that Liberal Democrats are naturally swinging to Labour across the board is not correct.

I think that rather ignores 1) that the Conservatives also collapsed in Rotherham and 2) Respect weren't far off surging to third place there. There is little evidence that I've seen to suggest that the UKIP momentum is hitting all three parties equally - more akin to SDP attracting a minority of Tory voters (mostly tactical) but hitting Labour far far harder.  You only need to look at opinion polls and the rise of UKIP to see that whilst Labour have largely remained firm the Tories have plunged to figures that aren't competitive.

Actually, here we are, new Yougov profiling of those polled who said they'd vote UKIP at the next election:

60% are former Tories
15% are former Liberals
12% were already UKIP
7% are former Labour
6% from elsewhere.

Pretty conclusive in my opinion.

I stand by my opinion, that yes there will be Labour gains in the next election and yes they have a good chance of entering government but it will be with the Liberal Democrats, they will not get a majority no party will, the UKIP surge wont last long either, remember there was a BNP surge in Labour seats during the mid 2000s, nothing came of that. When it comes down to it, you vote for Labour or the Tories or against such.

Well sure, if UKIP return 'home' to Tories in time for the election, then things may be narrower, but even then Labour's leads in most polls are greater than the UKIP figures, and they won't all go Tory (3%, remember, were already UKIP voters in 2010 - can't imagine they'd get less than that), so if Labour hold on to their voters then even a re-uniting of the Right wouldn't stop what is now a re-unified Left.

[Leftbehind]

Well it was never a question of how many seats they'd win (if any), it's how they'll impact other parties'.

[Leftbehind]

lol at the Liberals.

link.

[Leftbehind]

Ashdown calls on activists to help "win" a second term.

No party that loses 10-15% on their previous election has a mandate to be part of the government. Wasn't that part of the reasoning they had for saying no to Labour in 2010?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21724754

They said no to Labour because the two parties didn't have a majority together, so they couldn't form a government, and Labour didn't want to go scrounging for votes from the nationalists and NI parties. But, hey, feel free to believe your own propaganda.

Even before the election Clegg made it clear they were going to ask the party with the most seats (code for Tories). Even if Labour had the seats he would have went with the Tories, I've seen nothing to suggest it was arithmetic working against his preference (in a way Hughes and Kennedy have made clear since) and plenty to suggest he's more at home with Tories - like the FDP to the CDU.

[Leftbehind]

He's just promoting the same capitalist propaganda the vast majority of the media and politicians do.

[Leftbehind]

It's rather missing the point that the Lib Dems weren't immediately catapulted into dismal figures upon the agreement of a coalition with the Tories; rather, they got there by the coalition's absurdly conservative platform (disavowing promises to be the breaks on a Tory government with pathetic - and frankly astonishing - excuses like arguing that their power in negotiations was equal to their disgracefully distorted representation in parliament, ignoring the Conservatives wouldn't be able to pass anything without them) with next to nothing to show from the coalition on their side and an entire catalogue of betrayals. In fact the security of a coalition 'that come together for the nation' has allowed them to out-Thatcherite Thatcher and claim it's centrist pragmatism.

But I realise it's more convenient for right-wingers and general apologists for current governance to blame the electorate and supposed pie-in-the-sky promises (funnily enough ones you'd find any social liberal party promoting) that just couldn't be delivered.

and voters who backed them (often with some smug self satisfaction) because they are in generally stupid creatures, realised that perhaps they weren't cuddly Labour after all and now vent their anger at them rather than deal with the fact they didn't inform themselves prior to casting their vote for them.

That's true, definitely.

Just speak to any student who voted for them...

Are you being sarcastic here? Because not only is the point bollocks, that's possibly the worst example you could've chosen to bolster it.

[Leftbehind]

[Leftbehind]

You still read Tories trying to argue that Balls' unpopularity will stop a Labour victory, completely ignoring Osborne is even more unpopular!

[Leftbehind]

I see a few measly concessions was enough for Labour to abstain (in practice support) the government retrospectively changing the law to avoid paying jobseekers what they were owed and in general the principle of sanctions against the unemployed opting out of a program of workfare they agree to be worse than useless.

[Leftbehind]

John McDonnell being his usual exemplary self.