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

[afleitch]

You do realise that Perth and North Perthshire contains Perth. Not really the hill to die on if you want to disprove the model.

[DaWN]

It's barely even worth the discussion to be frank - just another attempt to apply American style political labels to British politics, which is pointless because we are not America. Thank heavens for small mercies.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I actually would argue that those three seats are fairly similar. They vote for left-leaning parties and are strongly pro-Remain.

I question whether the second statement is actually true (the Tories matched their UK national share in Perthshire 2017 and had a comfortable plurality in local elections; the SNP representatives for the area have consistently been on the right of the party), but even aside from that why on earth would you argue that Cambridge and Birmingham Ladywood are at all similar? I just genuinely can't understand how you could come to that conclusion at all.

Although actually, I've found a new worst bit of that map: Tottenham is classed as 'progressive' and Hornsey & Wood Green as 'strong left'. Lolololol.

Cambridge and Ladywood are demographically very different, but show strong similarities in their voting record in both the Commons and the EU referendum.

This is very much not true.

[Alcibiades]

I actually would argue that those three seats are fairly similar. They vote for left-leaning parties and are strongly pro-Remain.

I question whether the second statement is actually true (the Tories matched their UK national share in Perthshire 2017 and had a comfortable plurality in local elections; the SNP representatives for the area have consistently been on the right of the party), but even aside from that why on earth would you argue that Cambridge and Birmingham Ladywood are at all similar? I just genuinely can't understand how you could come to that conclusion at all.

Although actually, I've found a new worst bit of that map: Tottenham is classed as 'progressive' and Hornsey & Wood Green as 'strong left'. Lolololol.

Cambridge and Ladywood are demographically very different, but show strong similarities in their voting record in both the Commons and the EU referendum.

This is very much not true.

How so? One is affluent and educated, one is more deprived and very Asian, but they vote similarly. You can draw the distinction of Cambridge’s Lib Dem past, but this is somewhat minor.

[EastAnglianLefty]

In that Labour get 75% plus in Ladywood and the Lib Dems lose their deposit, whereas Cambridge was Labour breaking 50% is counted as a landslide. This is not complicated.

[EastAnglianLefty]

You do realise that Perth and North Perthshire contains Perth. Not really the hill to die on if you want to disprove the model.

I don't know Perth well, but what's the argument that it's particularly deprived? I had a look on the Scottish IMD map and the south side of the city looks to be very comfortable. The north of the city is somewhat more deprived, but not to any great extent - the headline figures look similar to Arbroath, which I certainly wouldn't characterise as a particularly hard-up area.

[Alcibiades]

In that Labour get 75% plus in Ladywood and the Lib Dems lose their deposit, whereas Cambridge was Labour breaking 50% is counted as a landslide. This is not complicated.

Sure. They’re by no means kissing cousins. But you could still find two far more different constituencies.

[Zinneke]

i like kind yuppies as a category tho

[mileslunn]

Polls are interesting.  Tories still ahead albeit by narrower margins.  Most likely Labour would win back some seats they lost in 2017 but not all and Tories probably win a narrower majority.  Labour probably seat wise similar to 2015 although performs better in South while worse in Midlands and North. 

That being said one good thing for Labour and bad for Tories is people like Keir Starmer while Johnson struggling.  Johnson polls below his party while Keir Starmer above.  If UK used US system, you would probably get Keir Starmer as president, but Tories winning both House and senate.  Starmer's big problem is his party is still badly damaged from Corbyn years.  Still as Corbyn becomes forgotten and he becomes image of Labour, lots of potential.  But still risks as Johnson is good at finding ways to bounce back while Starmer needs to find ways to keep gains amongst posh Southerners Labour is gaining but also gain back some Northern seats.

Bigger problem for Labour is their loss of Scotland since without Scotland I do not see how they win a majority.  And any potential alliance with SNP could scare swing voters over to Tories which is a big reason late breakers in 2015 broke heavily in favour of the Tories.  By contrast Tories don't need Scotland for a majority as they've never done well there.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Yes, I agree with the last post. Blair in his heydey was bigger than Jesus. I mean, just look at this. Granted, it is an internal poll (though I must say I don't know too much about the dynamics of internal polling accuracy in Britain), but it's worth something. If that's not enough, consider that Labour consistently polled near 50% during that 97-01 Parliament.

That was in the wake of his Diana response which was as close to an American style 'rally-around-the-flag' moment as we've ever come. He was freakishly popular in his early years but that was definitely an outlier.

For sure, but my point was more that Blair was very very popular in his early years before Iraq and I cannot see Howard having done much better in 2001 than the Tories ended up doing under Hague (not that it really matters but that's my thoughts on it).

[CumbrianLefty]

Actually, whilst poll internals are always *always* somewhat suspect there *is* some evidence that Labour under Starmer have retaken the most ground in the "red wall" seats they famously lost last year. To win an election their vote distribution will have to become better "balanced", so grounds for cautious optimism there.

[Former President tack50]

Actually, whilst poll internals are always *always* somewhat suspect there *is* some evidence that Labour under Starmer have retaken the most ground in the "red wall" seats they famously lost last year. To win an election their vote distribution will have to become better "balanced", so grounds for cautious optimism there.

Well, the question is, why is Starmer appealing to that kind of Labour voter who voted for Boris Johnson in 2019? Why is Starmer succeeding where Corbyn failed?

It's not like Starmer is any closer to that kind of voter than Corbyn?

[Zinneke]

Actually, whilst poll internals are always *always* somewhat suspect there *is* some evidence that Labour under Starmer have retaken the most ground in the "red wall" seats they famously lost last year. To win an election their vote distribution will have to become better "balanced", so grounds for cautious optimism there.

Well, the question is, why is Starmer appealing to that kind of Labour voter who voted for Boris Johnson in 2019? Why is Starmer succeeding where Corbyn failed?

It's not like Starmer is any closer to that kind of voter than Corbyn?

Ummm what? Starter hasn't promoted FSB sponsored conspiracies on international politics for a start!

[Blair]

My first thought was shock that Beckenham could be described as being full of Yuppies!

It's full of golf bores, UKIP voters & OAPs.

[Alcibiades]

My first thought was shock that Beckenham could be described as being full of Yuppies!

It's full of golf bores, UKIP voters & OAPs.

Yeah, “yuppies” (are there even any in this day and age?) wasn’t the best name for this category, which is essentially the fabled social liberal, conservative demographic (or Remainer Tories). Should have called them liberal conservatives.

[Blair]

Actually, whilst poll internals are always *always* somewhat suspect there *is* some evidence that Labour under Starmer have retaken the most ground in the "red wall" seats they famously lost last year. To win an election their vote distribution will have to become better "balanced", so grounds for cautious optimism there.

Well, the question is, why is Starmer appealing to that kind of Labour voter who voted for Boris Johnson in 2019? Why is Starmer succeeding where Corbyn failed?

It's not like Starmer is any closer to that kind of voter than Corbyn?

Well I'd say he's closer to them; there's been a clear effort to appeal to these traditional Labour voters; the piece on D-Day about care homes, the active silence over the Channel crossings, attacking the appointment of Clare Fox over her past IRA support etc etc.

This is on top of the fact that any Labour leader, including RLB & even someone like Lavery) would start at a higher base than Corbyn was at in 2019.

By then he had the fatal combination of being seen as out of touch (on brexit), incompetent (on anti-semitism) & in some cases hated over various issues in his past.

If you want an explanation of the specific issues facing 2019 (which I define as Labour seats held under Thatcher being lost) then this article from Phil Wilson, who lost his seat, sums it up very well.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour-leadership-race/2020/03/labours-mess-predictable-result-leader-and-philosophy-hated

[DaWN]

It's a lazy, catch-all, stereotypical term used by people who don't know the tiniest thing about the people they are trying to describe and a big red flag that this whole thing is a joke and waste of time.

[Blair]

My first thought was shock that Beckenham could be described as being full of Yuppies!

It's full of golf bores, UKIP voters & OAPs.

Yeah, “yuppies” (are there even any in this day and age?) wasn’t the best name for this category, which is essentially the fabled social liberal, conservative demographic (or Remainer Tories). Should have called them liberal conservatives.

But even Beckenham isn't an example of this! It's a seat that in my mind is very right wing- it still voted Tory in a '97 by-election after the then MP was caught in a sex scandal!

Of course my own brain gets annoyed at the idea of giving seats a description like this; some seats, especially in London have different wards which are worlds apart in terms of ethnicity, child poverty, education, income etc

[Alcibiades]

My first thought was shock that Beckenham could be described as being full of Yuppies!

It's full of golf bores, UKIP voters & OAPs.

Yeah, “yuppies” (are there even any in this day and age?) wasn’t the best name for this category, which is essentially the fabled social liberal, conservative demographic (or Remainer Tories). Should have called them liberal conservatives.

But even Beckenham isn't an example of this! It's a seat that in my mind is very right wing- it still voted Tory in a '97 by-election after the then MP was caught in a sex scandal!

Of course my own brain gets annoyed at the idea of giving seats a description like this; some seats, especially in London have different wards which are worlds apart in terms of ethnicity, child poverty, education, income etc

You’re right in that Beckenham certainly has more of a right-wing exurban feel to it, but it did actually vote to Remain.

[TheTide]

Yuppie = someone, generally a younger person, who benefited in the 1980s from the new economic structure. In my mind anyhoo.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, the question is, why is Starmer appealing to that kind of Labour voter who voted for Boris Johnson in 2019? Why is Starmer succeeding where Corbyn failed?

It's not like Starmer is any closer to that kind of voter than Corbyn?

More significant in terms of 'initial recovery' would be the (much larger!) number of Labour supporters, often previously very loyal ones, who did not vote at all or who scattered to minor parties. Anecdote is not the plural of data, but a lot of people I know who fit that description like Starmer: the general view is that he's a serious man who is properly 'Labour'; that he's the sort of person they're comfortable with. That actually shouldn't be surprising given Starmer's social background (similar to that of many of these people), which is the sort of thing that people in this country often pick up on subconsciously.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course my own brain gets annoyed at the idea of giving seats a description like this; some seats, especially in London have different wards which are worlds apart in terms of ethnicity, child poverty, education, income etc

It's a habit from a different age in British society, when whole towns had a social monoculture - over eighty per cent of jobs in my Grandad's home town were down the pit when he was born, for instance - and entire constituencies were often pretty uniform. These days, though, nearly everywhere is a patchwork.

[Horus]

From what little I know, Starmer seems very future-PMish

[cp]

Actually, whilst poll internals are always *always* somewhat suspect there *is* some evidence that Labour under Starmer have retaken the most ground in the "red wall" seats they famously lost last year. To win an election their vote distribution will have to become better "balanced", so grounds for cautious optimism there.

Well, the question is, why is Starmer appealing to that kind of Labour voter who voted for Boris Johnson in 2019? Why is Starmer succeeding where Corbyn failed?

It's not like Starmer is any closer to that kind of voter than Corbyn?

Well I'd say he's closer to them; there's been a clear effort to appeal to these traditional Labour voters; the piece on D-Day about care homes, the active silence over the Channel crossings, attacking the appointment of Clare Fox over her past IRA support etc etc.

This is on top of the fact that any Labour leader, including RLB & even someone like Lavery) would start at a higher base than Corbyn was at in 2019.

By then he had the fatal combination of being seen as out of touch (on brexit), incompetent (on anti-semitism) & in some cases hated over various issues in his past.

If you want an explanation of the specific issues facing 2019 (which I define as Labour seats held under Thatcher being lost) then this article from Phil Wilson, who lost his seat, sums it up very well.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour-leadership-race/2020/03/labours-mess-predictable-result-leader-and-philosophy-hated

Alternatively, if you want an analysis of the 2019 election that's not 5000 words of whiny self-pitying Blairite nonsense, this is an excellent take

[Blair]

Actually, whilst poll internals are always *always* somewhat suspect there *is* some evidence that Labour under Starmer have retaken the most ground in the "red wall" seats they famously lost last year. To win an election their vote distribution will have to become better "balanced", so grounds for cautious optimism there.

Well, the question is, why is Starmer appealing to that kind of Labour voter who voted for Boris Johnson in 2019? Why is Starmer succeeding where Corbyn failed?

It's not like Starmer is any closer to that kind of voter than Corbyn?

Well I'd say he's closer to them; there's been a clear effort to appeal to these traditional Labour voters; the piece on D-Day about care homes, the active silence over the Channel crossings, attacking the appointment of Clare Fox over her past IRA support etc etc.

This is on top of the fact that any Labour leader, including RLB & even someone like Lavery) would start at a higher base than Corbyn was at in 2019.

By then he had the fatal combination of being seen as out of touch (on brexit), incompetent (on anti-semitism) & in some cases hated over various issues in his past.

If you want an explanation of the specific issues facing 2019 (which I define as Labour seats held under Thatcher being lost) then this article from Phil Wilson, who lost his seat, sums it up very well.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour-leadership-race/2020/03/labours-mess-predictable-result-leader-and-philosophy-hated

Alternatively, if you want an analysis of the 2019 election that's not 5000 words of whiny self-pitying Blairite nonsense, this is an excellent take

Written by someone who no doubt knocked on hundreds of doors during the election!

Deleted half my post because frankly I don't want to argue about the 2019 election. Read both pieces and work out which one is more accurate!