UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[DaWN]

That is precisely what I mean. Obsessing over swings and parliamentary arithmetic is pointless. If the government is unpopular enough and Labour credible enough, then Labour win. And that includes a decent performance in Scotland because it does not vote in a vacuum - see 2017 when most of the central belt was very competitive despite Labour being nowhere near a majority.

[CumbrianLefty]

It's a pity that the right didn't succeed in forcing Corbyn out, because now we've got a secure Tory government until at least 2024 and quite likely 2029.

The inherent crapness of the Labour right in recent years, however, helps explain not just how Corbyn won in 2015 but how he was able - despite everything - to hold on to the leadership for so long.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To a significant extent that is because 'The Labour Right' does not exist as a coherent faction or even group of factions, and hasn't since the early 1980s. And that the same is true for the moderate Left. So what you had was a lot of smaller groupings and tendencies, most of which did not get on, operating according to their own logic and agendas and basically failing to cohere. Of course, perhaps they could have done if there was better leadership, but the only figure around who could have taken that role at the time was Watson, a man who, despite considerable tactical acumen, has never shown any capacity for strategic thought.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

if it even survives the EHRC report.

The EHRC does not try to destroy organisations, its purpose is to clean them up, or, to be more specific, to force them to clean themselves up. It is quite likely that whatever the report recommends will be more or less what the new leadership would wish to do anyway. It might make some of it easier: 'we are legally compelled to do this' makes doomed rearguard actions difficult.

[CumbrianLefty]

Some on the "left" trying to pretend Starmer/Labour said nothing about it, not cool really.

They're clearly not Labour members as they would have received an email asking them to contact their MP about the issue on the weekend- and the email came from RLB!

The funny thing is that a lot of these people think they're playing the same role that the Labour right played after 2015, but they're actually replicating the even more inept & hilarous campaign that the ultra right played against Ed Miliband after 2010.

They're attacking their image of the Leader, rather than the actual leader in front of them.

God how true, does anybody else here remember Labour Uncut??

What a bunch of absolute roasters

[Silent Hunter]

if it even survives the EHRC report.

The EHRC does not try to destroy organisations, its purpose is to clean them up, or, to be more specific, to force them to clean themselves up. It is quite likely that whatever the report recommends will be more or less what the new leadership would wish to do anyway. It might make some of it easier: 'we are legally compelled to do this' makes doomed rearguard actions difficult.

I'm more concerned about the legal actions that will result from all of this; including the GDPR and libel ones in connection with the leaked internal report.

[Blair]

I do think that the Labour Right & Tom Watson deserve credit for not launching a challenge against Corbyn in 2018 or 2019; which would have failed or led to Long-Bailey/Pidcock winning in a landslide.

It became clear for me at least that Keir was going to run for Leader since early 2019 & it was about waiting through gritted teeth & 18 months of sh**ttyness for that to happen

To a significant extent that is because 'The Labour Right' does not exist as a coherent faction or even group of factions, and hasn't since the early 1980s. And that the same is true for the moderate Left. So what you had was a lot of smaller groupings and tendencies, most of which did not get on, operating according to their own logic and agendas and basically failing to cohere. Of course, perhaps they could have done if there was better leadership, but the only figure around who could have taken that role at the time was Watson, a man who, despite considerable tactical acumen, has never shown any capacity for strategic thought.

To add to this I think that like all political factions within Labour it's all about gravity; the 2020 leadership race demonstrated this perfectly. Keir was the clear & overwhelming frontrunner to beat Long-Bailey, reform the internal party structures and clean up the party brand. These were the three aims of the Labour right & it became clear that if you wanted to fix Labour the best show in town was Keir.

Lots of unconnected parts of the organised right backed Keir very early on; USDAW, Labour First and those PLP members who had served in the last Government- Angela Eagle, Nick Brown, Yvette Cooper, Ben Bradshaw & Hillary Benn to name a few. Of course it's made more complex as for a long time there was no difference between the corbynspectics & the Labour right; the best exampe being Sadiq Khan who was firmly against Corbyn- yet he is firmly from the soft-left of the Party. (City Hall was dubbed Noahs Ark as Labour staffers escaped there after getting kicked out of HQ!)

And Al's point about it being unconnected is explained by the hilarous decision by some of the Progress Right to send Jess Phillips over the top, or I assume she ran over the top & they followled before realising that being Leader of the Opposition is hard.

And in addition you had what I might rudely call the 'legitimate concerns' rump of the right who backed Nandy because they assumed she shared their views on immigrants & buses.

Of course it all depends on what you actually consider the Labour Right; the most interesting trend for me at least is that within the PLP the future of the Labour Right has morped from being ex-bag carriers in the last Labour Government (Austin, Woodcock, Dugher & Ashworth being the four horsemen) into being people who are on the whole much more so to the left.

I think finally the one thing to come out of the last 4 years is that in the party (or at least the part I associate with) people are happy not to be shouting, screaming, plotting, stiching up or feuding with each other over rule changes- I really hope that the last four years will stay as a teaching moment for the mainstream elements in the Labour Party. (and that includes as far to the left as UNITE!)

[Oryxslayer]

Well, because of the SNP sweeping Scotland nowadays, it is almost impossible for Labour to win a majority. Their vote is more efficient now than it was in say, 2015, but still not great.

Assuming the Lib Dems get say, 10% (so a bit down compared to 2019) and the SNP gets 4% (exactly the same as 2019); a popular vote tie leads to: Con 285, Lab 279, SNP 51, Lib 12.

For Labour to get an actual majority they need to be winning by at least 9 points nationally (44-35), which leads to Lab 323, Con 236, SNP 50, Lib 18; which should be a narrow majority if you account for the SDLP and the Sinn Fein abstaining.

To get an idea of how unlikely that would be, Boris Johnson would be losing his own seat in such an scenario and it would not even be that close (he'd lose by 11 points; 52-41)

Of course, you could also work assuming what I call "Spanish politics rules"; where basically anything that is not a Tory majority is an automatic Labour win, even if with a very unstable government; since no "minor party" (ie Lib Dems / SNP) will back the Tories. This is almost certainly true for the SNP, but less so for the Lib Dems I imagine.

If you think the Lib Dems would back Labour in the end, then it gets incredibly easy; Labour just needs to keep the Tories below 326 (in practice more like 310 because of the DUP and Sinn Fein abstaining). That can actually be done while losing the popular vote! A 2 point Tory win for instance (40-38) results in a parliament where Lab+SNP+Lib get 329 seats, which is a majority (269+51+9 respectively). Basically Labour just neeeds a 2017 redux.

If you think the Lib Dems would actually back the Tories, it gets a bit trickier but not by much; Labour just needs to lose by a bit less. A Tory win of 1 point does the trick (Lab 279 and SNP at 51). So basically Labour just needs to improve upon 2017 by a bit, but it does not even need to actually properly win.

This all assumes an even swing, but still should give an idea.

Even this math is a bit faulty cause a new boundary commission report will be adopted by the Tories before 2024 that reapportions a few seats if they end up keeping the 650 total. Therefore, it's best to adopt DaWN's view and expect that if Labour is seen as more credible than the Tories, they will enter govt in some capacity.

[CumbrianLefty]

Watson, a man who, despite considerable tactical acumen, has never shown any capacity for strategic thought.

That is undoubtedly true, even if putting it rather more "politely" than I would

[Serenity Now]

The report from Labour's review into the 2019 general election has come out today. Here's a Guardian article (which I'm about to read) with some key points.

[Serenity Now]

The report from Labour's review into the 2019 general election has come out today. Here's a Guardian article (which I'm about to read) with some key points.

Oh, and here's the full review on the Labour website.

[afleitch]

Again, it's curious that Labour haven't accepted that they might not get Scotland back and therefore need some detente with the SNP or even stand down in order to get into No. 10. Indeed their 'Paper on Scotland' in the appendix which I'm assuming informed the report is from before the 2019 election.

[Serenity Now]

Again, it's curious that Labour haven't accepted that they might not get Scotland back and therefore need some detente with the SNP or even stand down in order to get into No. 10. Indeed their 'Paper on Scotland' in the appendix which I'm assuming informed the report is from before the 2019 election.

That's interesting: I don't recall Scotland being mentioned in the press summaries I've read of the report so far, so I'd been interested to see if this omission is reflective of the full report (I'm guessing probably yes).

[Serenity Now]

BTW I didn't find the Guardian summary I shared to be particularly useful, especially as there was little about the recommendations. Also, I'm sure the full report contains more informative criticism from voters than the quote the Guardian article went with.

[DaWN]

Scottish Labour might be a party in a wretched state led by a man who would inspire more confidence as a toll booth operator, but even they aren't quite stupid enough to try that plan.

[CumbrianLefty]

Labour almost came back majorly in Scotland as recently as 2017 - whilst their current position is obviously pretty dire to say they will *never* revive is an obvious hostage to fortune. And there is also reason to think English voters have got more used to a significant SNP presence as "normal" following the big Tory scare in 2015.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It isn't as if there is no space between 1987-2015 style domination of parliamentary representation or 'just one seat, you know, the one full of English students'.

[CumbrianLefty]

Anyway, this report is further proof - were it needed - that Ed M is one of the good guys.

(he is one of the principal authors)

[Zinneke]

Anyway, this report is further proof - were it needed - that Ed M is one of the good guys.

I just cntrl Fd his name...are you saying it because he was one of the writers or is there something about him in the report?

[afleitch]

It isn't as if there is no space between 1987-2015 style domination of parliamentary representation or 'just one seat, you know, the one full of English students'.

True.

Scottish Labour is however the canary in the closed coal mine (ba dum)

As I've joked before the fragile coalition of English students, flute band aficionados and 'yer granny who goes to mass' isn't a Labour Party; it's a reaction against a whole host of political and constitutional issues. Labour can put on 20 points tomorrow by committing to a second referendum and lose only 5 in response. They know that. But they can't do it. They are completely inert and this easily goes back twenty years.

Which I think is something the report misses; some outreach problems clearly extend to the Blair years too. (2001 turnout collapse etc)

[Oryxslayer]

It isn't as if there is no space between 1987-2015 style domination of parliamentary representation or 'just one seat, you know, the one full of English students'.

 Labour can put on 20 points tomorrow by committing to a second referendum and lose only 5 in response. They know that. But they can't do it. They are completely inert and this easily goes back twenty years.

Scottish Labour isn't acting in a vacuum. The SNP, being a purely Scottish party have more room to maneuver in response to Scottish issues and demands, including the independence question. If Scottish Labour decides to back IndyRef2, national Labour is going to start having problems south of the border.

[DaWN]

Labour can put on 20 points tomorrow by committing to a second referendum and lose only 5 in response. They know that. But they can't do it. They are completely inert and this easily goes back twenty years.

I really don't understand this. Scottish Labour is supposed to be the Scottish part of a UK-wide left of centre movement - if it were to support independence it would completely lose this purpose. Unless you mean support a referendum but still support No... well I'm sure David Cameron can attest to what a great idea that is.

I might be alone here, but I think SLab's salvation (or return to enough relevance to provide UK Labour with enough seats to contribute to a nationwide majority, which should be the goal at this point) is completely independent (ha ha) of the constitutional question.

[Former President tack50]

Why would, or even should Labour care about Scotland?

Most seats gained there would come from the SNP, not the Tories.

So unless you think Johnson can somehow get SNP support in a hung parliament; anything with the Tories at 300 or less and Labour at 270 or more is an auto-Labour win.

Labour does not need to get a majority to get PM Starmer, they just need to get across the line with SNP support. An actual majority would be nice, but is very unrealistic as long as Scotland votes on "ethnic" lines

[Corbyn is (no longer) the leader of the Labour Party]

Well at least it seems the Labour Party is self aware about the defeat, which is the first step on the long road back to government.

[Cassius]

Why would, or even should Labour care about Scotland?

Most seats gained there would come from the SNP, not the Tories.

So unless you think Johnson can somehow get SNP support in a hung parliament; anything with the Tories at 300 or less and Labour at 270 or more is an auto-Labour win.

Labour does not need to get a majority to get PM Starmer, they just need to get across the line with SNP support. An actual majority would be nice, but is very unrealistic as long as Scotland votes on "ethnic" lines

It’s always better to have a majority than not to have one, as if you have one then at least you have a clear shot at getting your manifesto commitments through, whereas they may have to be bargained away in the situation of a minority government.

Also, Labour has been beholden to the support of the SNP whilst in government before and that didn’t end very well.