Labour can't hope to get in power consistently by only representing a slice of the country and trying to guilt trip people into voting for them on the strength of the moral argument alone. People just nod and say 'very commendable' and then vote Tory.
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Labour can't hope to get in power consistently by only representing a slice of the country and trying to guilt trip people into voting for them on the strength of the moral argument alone. People just nod and say 'very commendable' and then vote Tory.
A party doesn't frame it's policy on what's popular but what's right. If people don't want to vote for that then so be it.
The party under his leadership was resoundingly rejected by the electorate. It has nothing to do with Scotland, because even if he had won every Scottish seat the Tories would still have had a majority. I think some people are in denial about just how badly he lost.
John Oliver's piece on the pundits reaction to the election was funny.
A political party's job is to try and influence legislation and ultimately to govern, not to sit back and engage in theoretical politics and philosophy. Yes, there must be an ideological foundation, but if a party is to be of any use it has to be able to convince people of its arguments.
I'm sure the disabled people who've been forced to choose between food and heating during the last five years will be looking forward to five more years of the same, warmed & fed by the knowledge that the party won't compromise its principles.
What Labour has been advocating hasn't been right in the eyes of the electorate.
No point in having soft Tories at the helm - the blame lies with the selfish electorate not the party.
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Even Blair would have struggled with a near-100 seat turnover.
This isn't about Scotland, it's about Tory-held marginal seats in England and Wales. Even at Blair's worst election (2005) he managed to limit the Tories to just 166 seats.... Ed allowed them to win 331 seats.
So, unfulfilled by its efforts to weaponise the NHS, you would now have Labour turn its gaze to the disabled? Remind me, what was Miliband's proposal on energy policy? Ah yes, a short term price freeze to win an election.
The Green Party's plans for mass solar panel installation might help to ease matter, sadly neither of the contenders for government had such in their manifestos IIRC.
We're looking at people's voting pattern now not 10 years ago. 'I'm alright Jack - feck you' has gained traction.
that and not realizing you could/will be the one who is not going to be alright if the trend continues with these scum at the helm.
I think even with a fantastic candidate they aren't going to firstly win back 50 seats in Scotland and secondly change 25 Tory seats Red. That's without considering the the question of whether many UKIP voters after 5 years of progress economically as well as delivering on their referendum promise will vote for the Tories, that's potentially another 2x Labour close seats that could go Blue.
With the current crop I see the Conservatives with a stronger majority next time around, even with some unpopular policies. Particularly because I believe they'll front end a lot of the pain so that they can splash some cash in the last year or two. People will think all's well that ends well if they see nice pay rises and public sector investment in 2018/2019, even after 3 years of pain.
That's a massively naive point of view in my opinion. Labour leaned to the right under Blair as their strategy was to win more votes for centrist Tories; they then leaned back to the left because their strategy was to conquer the left leaning electorate (SNP/Labour/Green/Lib Dem) and divide the right (Tory/UKIP).
Parties in theory frame their policy on what they believe is right, but that's just the starting point. From their beliefs to what the propose is dragged all over the place dependent on public opinion and strategy at that time. If Labour could have guaranteed 3 million extra votes (without losing any) by cutting the NHS budget by £5b they would have.
I think Ed should stay too, he has the qualities to be come a good and principled prime minister, his only weakness was that he wasn't Blair or Cameron, which the Tories spun endlessly to depict his personality as weak.
That was the trouble with the Labour campaign in general actually(in addition to the decimation in Scotland), they never really countered the endless Tory spin machine. The Tories had rarely used policy to steer their campaign (bar the usual lower tax incentives for their core demographic), instead they successfully and endlessly focused their campaign on discrediting Miliband's personal (and physical) qualities, they galvanised English nationalist sentiment by fuelling this exaggerated fear of the SNP holding Westminster to ransom, and finally with mediamacro on their side, had managed to perpetuate this farcical idea of Labour compromising economic recovery (ignoring the fact Osborne's 'Plan A' had delayed economic recovery by two years).
I hate to admit it, but Labour needed cnuts like Alastair Campbell to counter the Tory spin machine reinforced by the media.
That was the trouble with the Labour campaign in general actually(in addition to the decimation in Scotland), they never really countered the endless Tory spin machine. The Tories had rarely used policy to steer their campaign (bar the usual lower tax incentives for their core demographic), instead they successfully and endlessly focused their campaign on discrediting Miliband's personal (and physical) qualities, they galvanised English nationalist sentiment by fuelling this exaggerated fear of the SNP holding Westminster to ransom, and finally with mediamacro on their side, had managed to perpetuate this farcical idea of Labour compromising economic recovery (ignoring the fact Osborne's 'Plan A' had delayed economic recovery by two years).
I hate to admit it, but Labour needed cnuts like Alastair Campbell to counter the Tory spin machine reinforced by the media.
A party needs to Believe in its policy.. Then they can win elections.
think you might have the wrong end of the stick there
Well they wouldn't, and if they had done what would be the point of having them in power in any case?
'Blue collar conservatism' is a myth, as is 'compassionate conservatism', 'one nation conservatism' or any other label the Tories have given themselves to broaden their appeal. They're intrinsically the same party they've always been, and now that they no longer have the nuisance of the Lib Dem buffer their gloves will be well and truly off. A lot of middle ground voters who've swung their way will be in for a rude awakening.
Ed couldn't stay for the basic reason that a lot of the PLP wanted him out anyway, and a terrible election result gives them the stronger end of the argument if it came down to a public fight (see what's happening with Jim Murphy with Scottish Labour at the moment). Ed did the right thing by stepping down quickly to avoid it getting ugly.
I'd disagree with @finneh that the Tories are likely to increase their seat share, though. To do it once is odd enough, and that was with a very unpopular Labour leader and the Lib Dems to mutilate - Labour still net gained from the Tories, just far fewer than was expected and needed. People like voting against governments.
I'd disagree with @finneh that the Tories are likely to increase their seat share, though. To do it once is odd enough, and that was with a very unpopular Labour leader and the Lib Dems to mutilate - Labour still net gained from the Tories, just far fewer than was expected and needed. People like voting against governments.
I stand corrected, and beg your pardon for the first paragraph.
Yet whilst renewable subsidies can be a cause for controversy when large scale projects are involved (understandably so at times), much cold be gained from shifting the focus to residential and personal use.
Because if they managed to be even slightly to the left of the current government they'd see it as the lesser of two evils.
John Curtice, the guy that lead the exit-poll no-one believed but turned out to be more or less right, reckons Labour need to be 12% ahead to win next election. Feck. Not sure if that's including poll-bias and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies...but feck.
Really? If so, the Tories have really improved their vote efficiency, which Labour had generally been doing better than them on since the Blair years. If it's true though, it kinda shows how daft the electoral system is.
We literally have a party who's only in a majority government because of a voting system which they won't change because it keeps them in power. Which is the way Labour would have been as well, to be fair.
Are all constituencies the same size in population?
no
Why on earth
The smallest is just over 20,000, the largest is around 110,000, but most are 60,000-80,000.
It's why I was kind of hoping all along for a result where Labour and Lib Dems were in coalition, potentially with Labour behind the Tories on popular vote. There would have been demand for change and the parties probably would've been happy to put it through. Alas...
Could partly be because Labour now has a lot of wasted votes in Scotland, whilst a lot of the waste Tory votes that were in Lib Dem seats have now been made effective. But yeah, considering they won a ~50 seats majority in 2005 with a 3% lead...! I think Labour should go full on to voting reform anyway, Lib Dems will move left under Farron so there might be a chance to get the tactical votes going again and be more of a united opposition. Might even be a way to get UKIP voters back
Strangely I'd assume the exact opposite - almost all of the people I've spoken to who've recently joined want to see a move away from the centre, not towards it. Ed Miliband's Labour were by no means a centre-left option, despite what Murdoch's papers and the Daily Mail would have people believe. Leaving aside their 'LOOK, WE'RE NOT THE TORIES' policies (mansion tax, income tax etc.) their overall plan was basically 'We'll do what they're doing, except we'll do it a little slower' - hardly a hard-hitting leftist alternative. If Labour wants Scotland back, and to win back some of the disillusioned working class vote that went to UKIP, it has to address the reason those voters don't vote Labour anymore, which is that they've shifted to the right and embraced policies that no longer benefit their traditional support.
It's conceivable that they might move to the centre/centre-right under someone like Umunna and get in from snatching from Tory votes but frankly, what's the point of the Labour Party being in office if they're just going to be Tories in red ties? (That may sound dramatic, but it's the reason Scotland turned against them, and the reason there are a lot of working class folks voting UKIP or not voting at all)
It's why I was kind of hoping all along for a result where Labour and Lib Dems were in coalition, potentially with Labour behind the Tories on popular vote. There would have been demand for change and the parties probably would've been happy to put it through. Alas...
Could partly be because Labour now has a lot of wasted votes in Scotland, whilst a lot of the waste Tory votes that were in Lib Dem seats have now been made effective. But yeah, considering they won a ~50 seats majority in 2005 with a 3% lead...! I think Labour should go full on to voting reform anyway, Lib Dems will move left under Farron so there might be a chance to get the tactical votes going again and be more of a united opposition. Might even be a way to get UKIP voters back
Yeah, that's probably true. And Labour should go for reform, but I think they still won't, since they'll hold onto the belief that they can obtain a majority. And if Labour in Scotland have shown anything, it's that they refuse to even try and adapt until they really, really have to. And even then, they still don't. Although UK Labour may be a bit more switched on than Scottish Labour.
What does this mean? A 12% lead in the polls in the run up to the election or a 12% lead in the popular vote?
Both sound completely wrong.
This would be my guess. Although obviously that 12% wouldn't apply if the rest of Curtice's predictions for places like Scotland, or parties like UKIP, start to vary, so it'll obviously still be a fairly arbitrary figure. I mean, Labour with 50% to the Tories 38% would be very different to a Labour with 35% to the Tories 23%.
I don't get it at all then.
WCS assumptions;
- Tories win all LD marginals.
- SNP vote stays at 50% in Scotland.
(Aka the 2015 GE)
- The boundary changes give the Tories an extra 20 seats.
Labour still aren't going to need more than about a 5/6% swing to win back enough of the Tory marginals to have more seats, and enough to form a government with SNP votes.
WCS assumptions;
- Tories win all LD marginals.
- SNP vote stays at 50% in Scotland.
(Aka the 2015 GE)
- The boundary changes give the Tories an extra 20 seats.
Labour still aren't going to need more than about a 5/6% swing to win back enough of the Tory marginals to have more seats, and enough to form a government with SNP votes.
Wales has so many seats with a relatively small population.
They are so overrepresented when compared to Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland 1.8 Million Population = 18 Seats, of which 4 of the MP's don't even attend Westminster. All Northern Irish seats are over 60K Population.
Wales 3 Million Population = 40 Seats. 26 of Wales seats are under 60K Population.
How is that fair?
This is probably where you're not getting it, Curtice was talking about winning a majority rather than as a minority with the SNP. To be honest, after the campaign we've just had, I'm not keen to be reliant on the latter again. Also just been clarified that the figure was without the boundary changes, so it gets even shittier. Basically shows that a dramatic reversal in Scotland is needed, but doesn't look likely to appear. More and more saying that Scottish Labour should be split off though.
Should also say I'm getting this off a couple of tweets from someone attending a talk so there will obviously be a lot more nuance, hopefully there'll be a write-up somewhere.
Nope that's why the whole system is mental.
SNP 1,454,436 votes got 56 seats
UKIP 3,881,099 votes and only got 1 seat
I know that is a bit simplistic because of how spread the UKIP votes were across the country but being able to get 56 seats with so few votes is ridiculous.
How do these boundary changes work exactly? Is it just equalising constituency sizes as some areas become more populated? Seem to remember the last round favoured Labour.
Certainly did for them when they gerrymandered by constituency.
Certainly did for them when they gerrymandered by constituency.