How's it going, Rishi? The 2024 UK general election thread
June 21, 2024 12:03 AM Subscribe
Guardian latest 24 hour summary: “Three new MRP polls predicted varying degrees of Conservative annihilation, the worst of them projecting a collapse to 53 seats (analogy) and prompting a Daily Telegraph front page headline in a font size normally reserved for mass casualty events in the home counties: 'Tory Wipeout'. The Gambling Commission was revealed to be looking into a second Conservative hopeful, Bristol North West candidate Laura Saunders, over an alleged bet on the timing of the election. Jeremy Hunt admitted he might lose his own seat...
...Laura Saunders’ husband turned out to be the Conservatives’ director of campaigning, Tony Lee, who is also facing questions from the Gambling Commission and has taken a leave of absence two weeks out from the election. Tory campaign resources are being moved out of constituencies with majorities of around 10,000 because they are no longer viewed as winnable. The Conservatives deleted an unfortunately timed social media post that warned “if you bet on Labour, you can never win” alongside a video of a roulette wheel, that had already been viewed 1.4m times. Promotion started for Boris Johnson’s forthcoming book, with a picture of the former prime minister looking like a particularly monstrous horror movie villain, and the tagline: “UNLEASHED”. Where do the Tories go from here? The answer appears to be the Hurlingham Club, where they are holding their summer party tonight. Tables cost £12,000.” [Previouslyer][Countdown]
Politico: Betting scandal engulfs UK election.
Metro: What happens if a prime minister loses their seat in a General Election?
The National: Polls may be wrong and Tories could win the election, claims Michael Gove
Highest-rated comment: Must have changed his dealer, the new blow has addled what’s left of his very limited intellect.
...Laura Saunders’ husband turned out to be the Conservatives’ director of campaigning, Tony Lee, who is also facing questions from the Gambling Commission and has taken a leave of absence two weeks out from the election. Tory campaign resources are being moved out of constituencies with majorities of around 10,000 because they are no longer viewed as winnable. The Conservatives deleted an unfortunately timed social media post that warned “if you bet on Labour, you can never win” alongside a video of a roulette wheel, that had already been viewed 1.4m times. Promotion started for Boris Johnson’s forthcoming book, with a picture of the former prime minister looking like a particularly monstrous horror movie villain, and the tagline: “UNLEASHED”. Where do the Tories go from here? The answer appears to be the Hurlingham Club, where they are holding their summer party tonight. Tables cost £12,000.” [Previouslyer][Countdown]
Politico: Betting scandal engulfs UK election.
Metro: What happens if a prime minister loses their seat in a General Election?
The National: Polls may be wrong and Tories could win the election, claims Michael Gove
Highest-rated comment: Must have changed his dealer, the new blow has addled what’s left of his very limited intellect.
> Jeremy Hunt
okay so this name remains extremely hilarious to me and i’m wondering if it is actually as funny to people in the actual u.k. as it is to people from elsewhere who’ve heard how rhyming slang works but did not grow up using it
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 12:25 AM on June 21 [12 favorites]
okay so this name remains extremely hilarious to me and i’m wondering if it is actually as funny to people in the actual u.k. as it is to people from elsewhere who’ve heard how rhyming slang works but did not grow up using it
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 12:25 AM on June 21 [12 favorites]
Polls are notoriously unreliable and all this wipeout talk is making me jittery because (a) it might make people stay at home, "no need/point -- the concusion is certain", and (b) anything less than annihilation will be spun as a partial victory.
OTOH optimistic me says maybe we'll treat the election like one of those fairground "test your strength" machines, and see just how hard we can ring their bell.
posted by BCMagee at 12:30 AM on June 21 [5 favorites]
OTOH optimistic me says maybe we'll treat the election like one of those fairground "test your strength" machines, and see just how hard we can ring their bell.
posted by BCMagee at 12:30 AM on June 21 [5 favorites]
Which is a less savory concept: Johnson metaphorically unleashed or literally leashed?
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:33 AM on June 21
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:33 AM on June 21
Jeremy Hunt
For anyone not up to speed on the history of the long and distinguished list of broadcasters who have fallen into the Jeremy Hunt trap live on air...
posted by protorp at 12:34 AM on June 21 [22 favorites]
For anyone not up to speed on the history of the long and distinguished list of broadcasters who have fallen into the Jeremy Hunt trap live on air...
posted by protorp at 12:34 AM on June 21 [22 favorites]
Four thousand Tory majority here. I would be hopeful, but I don't think I have it in me. Amused to see that Johnson's memoir is pitched as "honest, unrestrained". Of all the characteristics he has shown us, I do not think honesty is one.
I wondered if the predictions of a super-majority are partly the Tories trying to produce fear and stop their natural voters going Reform.
posted by paduasoy at 12:36 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]
I wondered if the predictions of a super-majority are partly the Tories trying to produce fear and stop their natural voters going Reform.
posted by paduasoy at 12:36 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]
> i’m wondering if it is actually as funny to people in the actual u.k
It's precisely as funny as you think it is.
posted by automatronic at 12:36 AM on June 21 [12 favorites]
It's precisely as funny as you think it is.
posted by automatronic at 12:36 AM on June 21 [12 favorites]
I recently moved to West Suffolk, 20,000 Conservative majority in the last election. YouGov currently has it too close to call.
posted by antiwiggle at 12:42 AM on June 21 [7 favorites]
posted by antiwiggle at 12:42 AM on June 21 [7 favorites]
This election is decidedly positioned as the Tories losing. Even the normally pro-Tory media seems to be embracing that narrative. Starmer can try to spin it into a Labour victory but really it's about everyone being tired of Tory rule. And he's done enough to move Labour towards the centre that they're now palatable to the media and corporate interests that have an inordinate amount of influence here.
The increased support for the smaller parties like Reform and the Greens who will likely not end up in power should drive political reform in moving away from FPTP, but as I've said here before, this move doesn't benefit Labour so it's unlikely to happen. It's hard to get excited by Starmer's Labour when his main motivation truly seems to be the desire to be PM.
But also, fuck the Tories forever, I hope kids born today will grow up not knowing what "Tory" means outside of a historical context.
posted by slimepuppy at 12:46 AM on June 21 [8 favorites]
The increased support for the smaller parties like Reform and the Greens who will likely not end up in power should drive political reform in moving away from FPTP, but as I've said here before, this move doesn't benefit Labour so it's unlikely to happen. It's hard to get excited by Starmer's Labour when his main motivation truly seems to be the desire to be PM.
But also, fuck the Tories forever, I hope kids born today will grow up not knowing what "Tory" means outside of a historical context.
posted by slimepuppy at 12:46 AM on June 21 [8 favorites]
Labour seems committed to keeping the xenophobic, ultra-nationalist Russian-bought status quo in place. It'll be good to kick Tories to the curb but I'm unsure what else changes. I hope I am very wrong. British people desperately deserve that kind of change.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:41 AM on June 21 [11 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:41 AM on June 21 [11 favorites]
> I hope kids born today will grow up not knowing what "Tory" means outside of a historical context.
My niece's history textbook has a picture of Thatcher on the cover. My sister and I cannot not flinch and turn it over if it's lying around, whilst muttering Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher. I do realise it is misogyny in part that propels the visceral reaction to her image - I wouldn't even recognise Callaghan if he were on the cover, or if it were Major wouldn't feel the need to turn the book over. Though I might put a cup of tea on him.
posted by paduasoy at 2:18 AM on June 21 [16 favorites]
My niece's history textbook has a picture of Thatcher on the cover. My sister and I cannot not flinch and turn it over if it's lying around, whilst muttering Thatcher, Thatcher, milk snatcher. I do realise it is misogyny in part that propels the visceral reaction to her image - I wouldn't even recognise Callaghan if he were on the cover, or if it were Major wouldn't feel the need to turn the book over. Though I might put a cup of tea on him.
posted by paduasoy at 2:18 AM on June 21 [16 favorites]
Also, re the 53 coach trip, in my head I have put them on a coach back from seeing Mamma Mia, something I recently escaped from after being told the whole coach sings along.
Electoral Calculus, which is predicting 76 Tory seats, has a list of predicted gains and losses. They also have a longer list so you can see the 53 or 76 we'd be left with - the Dorsets and New Forests and Bucks.
posted by paduasoy at 2:28 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]
Electoral Calculus, which is predicting 76 Tory seats, has a list of predicted gains and losses. They also have a longer list so you can see the 53 or 76 we'd be left with - the Dorsets and New Forests and Bucks.
posted by paduasoy at 2:28 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]
I remember when Blair won his landslide, dancing drunkenly round the room with friends as Portillo lost his seat, and the wonderful sense that the Trojan Horse of Labour Caution would offload the lefty army of the change we needed. And I wasn't an uncynical button monkey even then, but yeah. We know how that turned out, eh.
And of course I'll be absolutely delighted if the absolutely unconscionable gaggle of venal Tory shitbags get the almighty shovelling they're looking due for, but fuck me adventurously if I can even feel any joy beyond that rich morsel of tasty schadenfreude. Starmer, it turns out to no one's amazement, was at his best as a void, an amoeba of a thing, and now he occasionally hints at policy he still has no spine to stand up for anything other than getting shot of people who remember what socialism means and think that might be valuable in a world sold off to the unmatched wealth-transferring benefit of those already most well off. So not a lot of joy round here at the prospect of slightly less rapid incremental shittery when we need structural change
But hey ho. I've always been pragmatic about the need to get elected and for compromise to be necessary. But that doesn't mean that compromising everything is ever useful: what's the point of being electable if you no longer stand for anything worth electing? The awfulness of the Tories is only the point inasmuch as being slightly less bad than them is even less enough than it was before. The right doesn't compromise, and it's the almost universal failings of the political norms and the failure of any meaningful left-led alternative that feeds discontent with Starmoeba as much as the Tories, that looks at the same old neoliberal bargain and feeds a hunger for change that Labour by definition can't provide
Last time I hoped I was right and turned out flat wrong. This time I can't even imagine hope. So there you go. Roll on the election. But can we never get anything good enough rather than slightly less terrible?
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 2:32 AM on June 21 [26 favorites]
And of course I'll be absolutely delighted if the absolutely unconscionable gaggle of venal Tory shitbags get the almighty shovelling they're looking due for, but fuck me adventurously if I can even feel any joy beyond that rich morsel of tasty schadenfreude. Starmer, it turns out to no one's amazement, was at his best as a void, an amoeba of a thing, and now he occasionally hints at policy he still has no spine to stand up for anything other than getting shot of people who remember what socialism means and think that might be valuable in a world sold off to the unmatched wealth-transferring benefit of those already most well off. So not a lot of joy round here at the prospect of slightly less rapid incremental shittery when we need structural change
But hey ho. I've always been pragmatic about the need to get elected and for compromise to be necessary. But that doesn't mean that compromising everything is ever useful: what's the point of being electable if you no longer stand for anything worth electing? The awfulness of the Tories is only the point inasmuch as being slightly less bad than them is even less enough than it was before. The right doesn't compromise, and it's the almost universal failings of the political norms and the failure of any meaningful left-led alternative that feeds discontent with Starmoeba as much as the Tories, that looks at the same old neoliberal bargain and feeds a hunger for change that Labour by definition can't provide
Last time I hoped I was right and turned out flat wrong. This time I can't even imagine hope. So there you go. Roll on the election. But can we never get anything good enough rather than slightly less terrible?
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 2:32 AM on June 21 [26 favorites]
I'm in London this week. I'm not seeing much in the way of election stuff, although I haven't been in the UK during an election, so don't have anything to compare.
Locals I've talked with think Sunak is going to lose.
posted by doctornemo at 2:40 AM on June 21
Locals I've talked with think Sunak is going to lose.
posted by doctornemo at 2:40 AM on June 21
Whatever the opposite of a silver lining is: when parties win in absolutely crushing landslides, it means that all the horrifyingly bad candidates who were selected with fuck-all scrutiny because they could never win... actually win. And that means EPIC levels of rolling scandal and general shitfuckery in the new government as backbenchers get exposed as bonkers or actually do bonkers things. It's going to be fun if this is your kind of thing.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:41 AM on June 21 [10 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:41 AM on June 21 [10 favorites]
fuck me adventurously if I can even feel any joy beyond that rich morsel of tasty schadenfreude
Gary Stevenson agrees with you.
posted by flabdablet at 2:44 AM on June 21 [4 favorites]
Gary Stevenson agrees with you.
posted by flabdablet at 2:44 AM on June 21 [4 favorites]
Gary Stevenson is a really interesting voice and I really agree with him. He was great on the Pod Save the UK podcast the other week, too.
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 2:54 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
posted by onebuttonmonkey at 2:54 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
On Reddit everyone's been excitedly trumpeting the polls that have the Tories in double digits for seats. But it depends a lot on the poll and the voting model.
I've followed the Polling Report site for ages. They have three different models which they apply to the polling average, which give the Tories 176, 192, 176 at the moment.
New Statesman's Britain Elects predicts 151.
Of the last three MRP polls More in Common gives 155, YouGov 108, Savanta 53.
Electoral Calculus predicts 76.
The Tories last big defeat was in 1997 when they got 165 seats under John Major. Their worst ever result was in 1906 when they got 156. So the medium figures from the polls still represent a massive defeat.
But the predictions that the Tories will be under 100 seats are a minority of the polls and the models, so don't pin your hopes on them too much.
I'm wondering if they're attempting to spin the numbers down like the do with council elections, so if they get a John Major style result they can spin it as "beating expectations" not a catastrophe.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:27 AM on June 21 [3 favorites]
I've followed the Polling Report site for ages. They have three different models which they apply to the polling average, which give the Tories 176, 192, 176 at the moment.
New Statesman's Britain Elects predicts 151.
Of the last three MRP polls More in Common gives 155, YouGov 108, Savanta 53.
Electoral Calculus predicts 76.
The Tories last big defeat was in 1997 when they got 165 seats under John Major. Their worst ever result was in 1906 when they got 156. So the medium figures from the polls still represent a massive defeat.
But the predictions that the Tories will be under 100 seats are a minority of the polls and the models, so don't pin your hopes on them too much.
I'm wondering if they're attempting to spin the numbers down like the do with council elections, so if they get a John Major style result they can spin it as "beating expectations" not a catastrophe.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:27 AM on June 21 [3 favorites]
> so if they get a John Major style result they can spin it as "beating expectations" not a catastrophe.
Oh of course. And the telegraph having that kind of wipeout front page - together with these scare stories of a labour "supermajority" (oh no, they've been elected and can now do the things they wanted!) - is a call to action to their elderly readers to actually try and vote.
The telegraph seems to have decided to jump ship from classic conservative support to build up Farage as the Tory party saviour when everything falls to bits in July, even though he's an utter disaster in waiting. I guess it will be him or bereavement braverman and the thought of either makes my stomach churn.
posted by humuhumu at 4:11 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
Oh of course. And the telegraph having that kind of wipeout front page - together with these scare stories of a labour "supermajority" (oh no, they've been elected and can now do the things they wanted!) - is a call to action to their elderly readers to actually try and vote.
The telegraph seems to have decided to jump ship from classic conservative support to build up Farage as the Tory party saviour when everything falls to bits in July, even though he's an utter disaster in waiting. I guess it will be him or bereavement braverman and the thought of either makes my stomach churn.
posted by humuhumu at 4:11 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
when parties win in absolutely crushing landslides, it means that all the horrifyingly bad candidates who were selected with fuck-all scrutiny because they could never win... actually win.
Yes we know. Jonathan Guilis is an MP here.
Today I learned that there are 29 constituencies in the UK. Currently the Tories have 28 of them. One of the links above is predicting that on July 5th they will only have 1 left.
posted by biffa at 4:13 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
Yes we know. Jonathan Guilis is an MP here.
Today I learned that there are 29 constituencies in the UK. Currently the Tories have 28 of them. One of the links above is predicting that on July 5th they will only have 1 left.
posted by biffa at 4:13 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
Whatever the opposite of a silver lining is: when parties win in absolutely crushing landslides, it means that all the horrifyingly bad candidates who were selected with fuck-all scrutiny because they could never win... actually win. And that means EPIC levels of rolling scandal and general shitfuckery in the new government as backbenchers get exposed as bonkers or actually do bonkers things. It's going to be fun if this is your kind of thing.
A+
Also, if the tories are actually annihilated, then Reform or some other actual nazi party will become a viable 3rd or 2nd force - i.e. that chancer Farage and his gaggle of right of goebles-hangers on + ultralibertarians who were too much for the tory mainstream now pull a Milei.
I never thought I'd say this, but I want Labour's majority to be medium-sized, even if it means leaving in some tory shitbags.
Also: tactical voting for green and libdems please! Look up your constituency!
posted by lalochezia at 4:16 AM on June 21 [12 favorites]
It is becoming possible that we might have a Labour government and Liberal opposition. If the Tories want to try spinning that as victory, they’re welcome.
posted by Phanx at 4:26 AM on June 21 [4 favorites]
posted by Phanx at 4:26 AM on June 21 [4 favorites]
If the tories want to spin something as a victory, they could just go with the fact that Starmer keeps insisting he'll keep most of their policies.
posted by automatronic at 5:02 AM on June 21 [18 favorites]
posted by automatronic at 5:02 AM on June 21 [18 favorites]
the fact that Starmer keeps insisting he'll keep most of their policiesI'm calling it now; Labour will act as a stay-behind operation for the Tories, until the latter can sweep back into power in five years
posted by june_dodecahedron at 5:11 AM on June 21 [9 favorites]
it is really remarkable how many shit parties england has. is there any plausible way labour could win so hard that the snp ended up as the opposition?
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 5:49 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 5:49 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
Its not looking like there will be that many SNP MPs left, the SNP have not been doing so well in Scotland this year. Range is 20-40 in most surveys, behind the LDs, though there are some exceptions where they come out ahead of the LDs, those usually predict the Tories well ahead of both. Sunak has nearly two weeks though and with the skills displayed so far may turn out to have accidentally married Jimmy Savile.
posted by biffa at 5:56 AM on June 21 [10 favorites]
posted by biffa at 5:56 AM on June 21 [10 favorites]
I'm calling it now; Labour will act as a stay-behind operation for the Tories, until the latter can sweep back into power in five years
People who are sick of Tory governance and who vote for change will be infuriated when that change is largely in the color of the banners.
I look forward to Starmer giving a speech from a podium labeled OBSTRUCT THE BOATS.
posted by delfin at 6:05 AM on June 21 [4 favorites]
People who are sick of Tory governance and who vote for change will be infuriated when that change is largely in the color of the banners.
I look forward to Starmer giving a speech from a podium labeled OBSTRUCT THE BOATS.
posted by delfin at 6:05 AM on June 21 [4 favorites]
As betting is a current focus of this election, the (best value) odds for: Government after the Next General Election Betting Odds...
Labour majority: 1/16
Labour - Lib Dem - SNP - Green coalition: 33/1
Labour minority: 40/1
Labour - Lib Dem coalition: 50/1
Conservative - Reform coalition: 66/1
Conservative majority: 66/1
Conservative minority: 66/1
Conservative - DUP coalition: 100/1
...various other potential combinations at increasingly long odds...
Lib Dem majority: 1,000/1
posted by Wordshore at 6:35 AM on June 21
Labour majority: 1/16
Labour - Lib Dem - SNP - Green coalition: 33/1
Labour minority: 40/1
Labour - Lib Dem coalition: 50/1
Conservative - Reform coalition: 66/1
Conservative majority: 66/1
Conservative minority: 66/1
Conservative - DUP coalition: 100/1
...various other potential combinations at increasingly long odds...
Lib Dem majority: 1,000/1
posted by Wordshore at 6:35 AM on June 21
At least the Loonys have posted their latest game plan for governance, should they win.
posted by delfin at 7:18 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
posted by delfin at 7:18 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
it is really remarkable how many shit parties england has.
It's four. That's not a lot compared to a lot of places. It's just that it's 80% of the parties, and the last 20% is the smallest nation-wide party.
(There are more parties in Scotland and Wales, and the party constellation is completely different in Northern Ireland, and I am not really qualified to speak to how shit or not they all are.)
posted by Dysk at 7:19 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
It's four. That's not a lot compared to a lot of places. It's just that it's 80% of the parties, and the last 20% is the smallest nation-wide party.
(There are more parties in Scotland and Wales, and the party constellation is completely different in Northern Ireland, and I am not really qualified to speak to how shit or not they all are.)
posted by Dysk at 7:19 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
Yes, this is going to be the Schadenfreude Election. I have already cast my postal vote, based mainly on who has the best shot at dislodging the incumbent Tory parasite, fingers crossed. Like many I have little confidence that Labour will do anything particularly positive with whatever majority they end up with, based on their meagre offering of non-policies interspersed amongst the don't-spook-the-racist-OAPs waffle. The next five years are likely to see most of the UK in continued decline, if slightly less precipitously than in the last decade. It's depressing, but apparently that's what the electorate wants.
Whatever horrors the next parliament holds, if the polls are even vaguely close to being correct I will take enormous joy from seeing all those Tories eat shit on election night, and am thoroughly looking forward to staying up with a nice red to watch the carnage. Here's hoping some big names bite it hard.
posted by tomsk at 7:57 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
Whatever horrors the next parliament holds, if the polls are even vaguely close to being correct I will take enormous joy from seeing all those Tories eat shit on election night, and am thoroughly looking forward to staying up with a nice red to watch the carnage. Here's hoping some big names bite it hard.
posted by tomsk at 7:57 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
Rishi is my sister's MP. The idea of it no longer being a safe Tory seat is pretty hard to understand.
posted by scruss at 8:03 AM on June 21 [5 favorites]
posted by scruss at 8:03 AM on June 21 [5 favorites]
If the tories want to spin something as a victory, they could just go with the fact that Starmer keeps insisting he'll keep most of their policies.
Typically the idea behind centrist liberals tacking right is to meet the electorate where they are and peel off voters who like the conservatives but might be persuaded away. Running "Hey, we're not so different from the Tories! We'll keep all their most noxious, destructive policies that are ruining your lives!" in an election where the main narrative is that everybody hates the Tories and is sick of their shit and wants a change is... well, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer's trying to throw the election.
In particular, I'm not sure what he'd be doing different if he was!
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:08 AM on June 21 [5 favorites]
Typically the idea behind centrist liberals tacking right is to meet the electorate where they are and peel off voters who like the conservatives but might be persuaded away. Running "Hey, we're not so different from the Tories! We'll keep all their most noxious, destructive policies that are ruining your lives!" in an election where the main narrative is that everybody hates the Tories and is sick of their shit and wants a change is... well, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer's trying to throw the election.
In particular, I'm not sure what he'd be doing different if he was!
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:08 AM on June 21 [5 favorites]
Just got a flyer from Reform in my unquestionably Labour-vs.-SNP district. I guess if they want to waste their time and money, they can feel free.
I've also gotten a flyer from the Greens, a letter from the SNP, and a doorknock visit(!) from the Labour candidate.
posted by kyrademon at 8:16 AM on June 21 [4 favorites]
I've also gotten a flyer from the Greens, a letter from the SNP, and a doorknock visit(!) from the Labour candidate.
posted by kyrademon at 8:16 AM on June 21 [4 favorites]
The other nations have more than their fair share. I lived in the Outer Hebrides for half a decade and there are eight candidates standing this time. It will probably go from SNP to Labour; partially as the (in)famous SNP MP quit the party and is running as an independent, splitting that demographic and letting Torcuil Crichton in for a probably comfortable Labour majority.
However, there's usually a evangelical or fundamentalist party standing a candidate in this seat, as it's the last stronghold of old-school Christian extremism. This time there are two, in the Scottish Family party, and the Scottish Christian Party (their election slogan on online adverts is "Be wise, not woke"). I'm not linking to either of their websites; you can go find, with a Content Warning, if you want.
posted by Wordshore at 8:19 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
However, there's usually a evangelical or fundamentalist party standing a candidate in this seat, as it's the last stronghold of old-school Christian extremism. This time there are two, in the Scottish Family party, and the Scottish Christian Party (their election slogan on online adverts is "Be wise, not woke"). I'm not linking to either of their websites; you can go find, with a Content Warning, if you want.
posted by Wordshore at 8:19 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
I am not a UKsian so my opinion means nothing. So on preview I wiped my initial comment. It has turned into an honest question: is there any source that rates politicians based on willingness to actually do the work of governing?
Fingers crossed for the UK (and France) in upcoming elections.
posted by drowsy at 9:09 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]
Fingers crossed for the UK (and France) in upcoming elections.
posted by drowsy at 9:09 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]
> At least the Loonys have posted their latest game plan for governance, should they win.
Love that. One of their promises: "NHS…We will reduce hospital waiting lists by using a smaller font."
posted by Hardcore Poser at 9:36 AM on June 21 [6 favorites]
Love that. One of their promises: "NHS…We will reduce hospital waiting lists by using a smaller font."
posted by Hardcore Poser at 9:36 AM on June 21 [6 favorites]
Typically the idea behind centrist liberals tacking right is to meet the electorate where they are and peel off voters who like the conservatives but might be persuaded away. Running "Hey, we're not so different from the Tories! We'll keep all their most noxious, destructive policies that are ruining your lives!" in an election where the main narrative is that everybody hates the Tories and is sick of their shit and wants a change is... well, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer's trying to throw the election.
From an outsider's perspective, Starmer and his team are calculating that the Tories have become such a vaudeville act at this time that Labour doesn't have to propose change to be viewed as change. Just the fact that they'd be a new hand at the wheel is enough to win, so why take chances, why propose anything even slightly risky or controversial, why do anything other than Not Be Tories?
There are two levels of systemic political change. One is "the system is being misled, and we will course-correct it." The other is "the system is broken, and needs to be smashed apart." Starmer has far too much invested in being an integral part of the system, the Sensible Alternative to the Tories' excesses, to even consider departing from it or be associated with those who would; lord knows that he and his cronies seize up violently whenever the word "Corbyn" is spoken within earshot.
And it looks like that approach may work... at first, anyway.
posted by delfin at 10:31 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]
From an outsider's perspective, Starmer and his team are calculating that the Tories have become such a vaudeville act at this time that Labour doesn't have to propose change to be viewed as change. Just the fact that they'd be a new hand at the wheel is enough to win, so why take chances, why propose anything even slightly risky or controversial, why do anything other than Not Be Tories?
There are two levels of systemic political change. One is "the system is being misled, and we will course-correct it." The other is "the system is broken, and needs to be smashed apart." Starmer has far too much invested in being an integral part of the system, the Sensible Alternative to the Tories' excesses, to even consider departing from it or be associated with those who would; lord knows that he and his cronies seize up violently whenever the word "Corbyn" is spoken within earshot.
And it looks like that approach may work... at first, anyway.
posted by delfin at 10:31 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]
The town I grew up in has Priti Patel as MP and I’m fascinated by how totally silent she’s been on the national stage in recent months. I wonder how many other formerly-prominent Tories are standing back in the shadows with their breath held, so that if they make it through polling day they can pop up for the inevitable Tory leadership election untarnished by association with Sunak.
posted by penguin pie at 11:33 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
posted by penguin pie at 11:33 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]
I think "loyalty" is regarded as something all the tories who want to get ahead want to be able to profess. Loyalty in this case means no public disagreements with the leadership. If they are out on the public stage they might have to answer a questions about how shit Sunak has been, or what policies have been shit shows, so quiet is the best option. Especially as it avoids the whole, 'associating with a loser' thing too.
posted by biffa at 12:38 PM on June 21
posted by biffa at 12:38 PM on June 21
Are the Tories broke?
Online spending data suggests that if the Conservatives are trying to do that, they are being hopelessly outgunned. The most recent figures collected by WhoTargetsMe shows that between the 9th and 15th June, Labour spent £303,315 on Facebook, the social media network most used by older adults. In contrast, the Conservatives spent just £150,165.Labour raised £4.4m to Tories’ £290,000 in second week of campaign
On Google, the gap was even more stark: Labour spent £144,137 on Google adverts, while the Conservatives spent just £2,142. Multiple campaign veterans failed to offer an explanation as to why you would spend so little on online adverts at this stage of the election if you could afford to do so. One called the figures “baffling”...
Rishi Sunak’s decision to skip the Conservatives’ fundraising ball this week might be less an ill-advised snub to funders as a face-saving measure, because almost no funders would be there.
Over the first two weeks the Tories have raised less than £900,000, compared with the almost £9m they brought in during the first two weeks of the 2019 campaign under Boris Johnson.Reddit: Who would be the opposition if the Lib Dems and the Tories both tied as the 2nd largest number of seats?
In contrast, Labour has been given £5.3m in the first two weeks, hugely boosted by £2.5m from David Sainsbury, the supermarket scion.
it's written down in section 2 of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975:posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:48 PM on June 21 [1 favorite]
(1) In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons;
Power to determine this lies with the Speaker:
(2) If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.
Now, the question of what happens if there's a tie is uncharted territory, so the Speaker would have to find a way forward.
My constituency had a 22,000 Tory majority at the last election, and as it's an elderly, home-owning Brexiteer population, coupled with a fair number of City finance workers, the Tories are likely to hold the seat.
I'm more concerned about the next-door constituency, Chingford & Woodford Green, where the odious Iain Duncan Smith is defending his seat. At the last election in 2019 a Labour candidate, a local woman named Faiza Shaheen, almost unseated him. She was on track for a landslide this time round. But a couple of weeks ago she was removed by Labour, apparently for liking a few Tweets several years ago.
She's now standing as an Independent, which I fear might split the vote between her and the Labour candidate who's replaced her, leaving Duncan Smith to sneak back in.
posted by essexjan at 1:59 PM on June 21 [1 favorite]
I'm more concerned about the next-door constituency, Chingford & Woodford Green, where the odious Iain Duncan Smith is defending his seat. At the last election in 2019 a Labour candidate, a local woman named Faiza Shaheen, almost unseated him. She was on track for a landslide this time round. But a couple of weeks ago she was removed by Labour, apparently for liking a few Tweets several years ago.
She's now standing as an Independent, which I fear might split the vote between her and the Labour candidate who's replaced her, leaving Duncan Smith to sneak back in.
posted by essexjan at 1:59 PM on June 21 [1 favorite]
Is there any source that rates politicians based on willingness to actually do the work of governing?
I don't think so because this isn't really a problem. Ministers have actual jobs and spend a considerable amount of time doing the work of their department as well as time in parliament and their constituency. I know a lot of civil servants, there isn't generally a sense that the ministers are unwilling to govern. (This is separate to whether one agrees with what the minister is intending to do.) Many backbench MPs serve on parliamentary select committees, which IMHO are a really unsung form of public service - they hold public sector bodies including ministerial departments to account, investigate issues and seek to make a real difference at a national level. Select committees do a good job. All decent size parties will also have a whips office who, among other things, will enable the work of Parliament itself to be done. All of these people are MPs.
I think there is a list of how often individual Peers (members of the House of Lords) turn up to do anything. The upper chamber is a scrutinising chamber and there are a huge number of them so there are definitely enough to enable them to carry out their function effectively. Each government department has a minister (almost always a junior minister) within the House of Lords who does the same kinds of things as Commons ministers.
posted by plonkee at 2:04 PM on June 21 [3 favorites]
I don't think so because this isn't really a problem. Ministers have actual jobs and spend a considerable amount of time doing the work of their department as well as time in parliament and their constituency. I know a lot of civil servants, there isn't generally a sense that the ministers are unwilling to govern. (This is separate to whether one agrees with what the minister is intending to do.) Many backbench MPs serve on parliamentary select committees, which IMHO are a really unsung form of public service - they hold public sector bodies including ministerial departments to account, investigate issues and seek to make a real difference at a national level. Select committees do a good job. All decent size parties will also have a whips office who, among other things, will enable the work of Parliament itself to be done. All of these people are MPs.
I think there is a list of how often individual Peers (members of the House of Lords) turn up to do anything. The upper chamber is a scrutinising chamber and there are a huge number of them so there are definitely enough to enable them to carry out their function effectively. Each government department has a minister (almost always a junior minister) within the House of Lords who does the same kinds of things as Commons ministers.
posted by plonkee at 2:04 PM on June 21 [3 favorites]
Now, the question of what happens if there's a tie is uncharted territory, so the Speaker would have to find a way forward.
In the event of a dead heat, I wonder if the Speaker would be persuaded by a coalition opposition. You could theretically see the Conservatives adding the DUP or UUP, or the Lib Dems adding Greens, SNP or maybe Alliance/SDLP.
On the whole, I think it much more likely that the Tories will get well over 100 MPs and easily form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
posted by plonkee at 2:07 PM on June 21 [1 favorite]
In the event of a dead heat, I wonder if the Speaker would be persuaded by a coalition opposition. You could theretically see the Conservatives adding the DUP or UUP, or the Lib Dems adding Greens, SNP or maybe Alliance/SDLP.
On the whole, I think it much more likely that the Tories will get well over 100 MPs and easily form His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
posted by plonkee at 2:07 PM on June 21 [1 favorite]
Today I learned that there are 29 constituencies in the UK. Currently the Tories have 28 of them. One of the links above is predicting that on July 5th they will only have 1 left.
There are 650 constituencies in the UK. Each constituency is represented by a Member of Parliament. When Parliament was dissolved so the election could take place, the Conservatives had 344 MPs.
posted by essexjan at 2:14 PM on June 21 [2 favorites]
There are 650 constituencies in the UK. Each constituency is represented by a Member of Parliament. When Parliament was dissolved so the election could take place, the Conservatives had 344 MPs.
posted by essexjan at 2:14 PM on June 21 [2 favorites]
Oops, I missed the very important part of that sentence, "29 constituencies starting with H" is what it should have said.
posted by biffa at 3:49 PM on June 21 [6 favorites]
posted by biffa at 3:49 PM on June 21 [6 favorites]
He was great on the Pod Save the UK podcast the other week, too
Thanks for that! Nish Kumar is getting more and more righteously incandescent with each episode.
Labour will act as a stay-behind operation for the Tories, until the latter can sweep back into power in five years
Kumar:
Thanks for that! Nish Kumar is getting more and more righteously incandescent with each episode.
Labour will act as a stay-behind operation for the Tories, until the latter can sweep back into power in five years
Kumar:
You know, I think if you go up to anybody in the street and say "do you think that the private water companies are succeeding, as you might have to boil your tap water given that it might contain a parasite, and the rivers are filled with human shit, and at the same time, while all this is happening and while ordinary people are panicking about what's coming out of the taps in their house: is it fair that wealth inequality has spiralled and the richest people in this country got richer in a half-decade that has been brutal for most of the people living in this country?" I think - I feel that the answers you would come to is that people would be in favour of nationalization of some public services and they would be in favour of a wealth tax.posted by flabdablet at 12:22 AM on June 22 [7 favorites]
And I feel it's incumbent on the Labour Party particularly to start asking those questions.
...
If the Tory Party get back in, I guess, just shit directly in your own mouths. Cut out the middleman! Save yourself some time, shit directly in your own mouth. And if you see Rishi Sunak, just give him twenty quid. Because that's essentially the country you'll be living in.
If the Labour Party is looking for somebody to run their comms, I am available.
Arch-shitbag JK Rowling had decided to criticise the Labour Party, and they've responded by bending over backwards to affirm that they are also cunts and bigots. Why not just say "we do not share your belief that equality is a zero sum game" and ignore her? Why let Rowling effectively dictate your policy positions, and which you're emphasising during campaigning? Just fucking ignore her!
posted by Dysk at 1:55 AM on June 22 [11 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:55 AM on June 22 [11 favorites]
nationalization of some public services
The downside of nationalization is that you have to pay off all the current owners to get them back. Even a single water company market cap is in the billions, which is money that would need to be borrowed, i.e. added to the UK public debt that needs to be serviced; currently about 98% of GDP, and servicing that is a pretty big chunk of current government spending. Yes, you arguably end up with an asset nominally worth what you just paid for it, but they've also been laden down with very large amounts of debt in their own right, so that shareholders could extract much of the value of the company into dividends over the last 20 years. And of course, that debt was *supposed* to pay for infrastructure upgrades to stop e.g. them pumping shit into the rivers, and wasn't because it went into private equity holder's pockets instead.
So you need to spend 10s of billions in the short term acquiring just the worst water companies, then 10s of billions more investing in the repairs and upgrades needed to the infrastructure; 100's if you're doing it country-wide. And that's borrowed money you can't then spend on other things. And see how much shit Labour got for e.g. planning to borrow 27 billion for investing in green energy, an absolutely essential small first step if we're going to transition to a low carbon economy.
Option B for the water companies is regulate the crap out of them, and force the current owners to do their job. And if they can't/won't, then they go bankrupt from fines and the government can swoop in and nationalize them on the cheap. But it's definitely not as sexy. They obviously never should have been sold off in the first place, and definitely shouldn't have been allowed to be asset stripped; but here we are, and there's no easy fix.
The real problem Labour faces is the tories have absolutely bled the economy dry by merrily allowing all the money to be sucked up by asset owners; e.g. landlords in the smaller scale, the big private equity firms and billionaires in the large. There really is no money left, with an aging population (and soaring NHS/care bills), productivity that hasn't shifted for a decade, and an underskilled, underpaid, sick and demotivated workforce. Going on a mass borrowing splurge risks a Truss-like crash, soaring interest payments for government debt, and very big problems. Post-election studies showed Corbyn lost in 2019 mostly because people simply didn't believe the manifesto economics and thought they'd get huge tax rises personally, which is why Starmer and Reeves are being very, very firm about not promising big flashy things, and ruling out personal tax rises. But it's a simple truth, if the government wants to actually FIX stuff, and not just tinker, they're going to need a lot more money; and that's growth, higher taxes or borrowing. (or printing money, true, but hopefully our recent experience of inflation partly due to the free money being thrown around to prop things up during covid shows the risks of that approach)
Corbyn and McDonnell promised many lovely things, and took Labour to its worst defeat in 80 years. Starmer and friends have been working hard to shed the image of Labour as spendthrifts, even though it means they're promising very little actual spending. It's not about the number of votes, per se, it's about where they are due to FPTP; without concentrating the votes, they're wasted. And there are key demographics they need to swing; 'red wall' working class voters that went to the tories over Brexit and immigration, and 'one nation' style tory voters who've gotten fed up with the UKIP-lite culture wars of the current Tories. Promising them their taxes won't go up so they feel safe to abandon the tories (as they didn't with Corbyn) is a big chunk of why Labour is now 20+ points ahead.
But one thing to note; Labour have been very, very cagy about not ruling out capital gains increases, or indeed wealth taxes, apart from ruling out applying capital gains from selling your main home. Reeves is very smart, and has real economic chops; I genuinely think she's going to be an outstanding chancellor. No matter what, stability is needed first; there are so many things to fix, and you can't do any of them if you don't get elected.
I don't think they're going to just spring into socialist action once elected, there's been too many promises that they won't. But even just avoiding a huge new wave of austerity in public services (that the tories put in the budget) that they absolutely can't afford is going to take a huge chunk of new money; and I would absolutely bet that that is going to be stealthily extracted from the better off.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 1:55 AM on June 22 [16 favorites]
The downside of nationalization is that you have to pay off all the current owners to get them back. Even a single water company market cap is in the billions, which is money that would need to be borrowed, i.e. added to the UK public debt that needs to be serviced; currently about 98% of GDP, and servicing that is a pretty big chunk of current government spending. Yes, you arguably end up with an asset nominally worth what you just paid for it, but they've also been laden down with very large amounts of debt in their own right, so that shareholders could extract much of the value of the company into dividends over the last 20 years. And of course, that debt was *supposed* to pay for infrastructure upgrades to stop e.g. them pumping shit into the rivers, and wasn't because it went into private equity holder's pockets instead.
So you need to spend 10s of billions in the short term acquiring just the worst water companies, then 10s of billions more investing in the repairs and upgrades needed to the infrastructure; 100's if you're doing it country-wide. And that's borrowed money you can't then spend on other things. And see how much shit Labour got for e.g. planning to borrow 27 billion for investing in green energy, an absolutely essential small first step if we're going to transition to a low carbon economy.
Option B for the water companies is regulate the crap out of them, and force the current owners to do their job. And if they can't/won't, then they go bankrupt from fines and the government can swoop in and nationalize them on the cheap. But it's definitely not as sexy. They obviously never should have been sold off in the first place, and definitely shouldn't have been allowed to be asset stripped; but here we are, and there's no easy fix.
The real problem Labour faces is the tories have absolutely bled the economy dry by merrily allowing all the money to be sucked up by asset owners; e.g. landlords in the smaller scale, the big private equity firms and billionaires in the large. There really is no money left, with an aging population (and soaring NHS/care bills), productivity that hasn't shifted for a decade, and an underskilled, underpaid, sick and demotivated workforce. Going on a mass borrowing splurge risks a Truss-like crash, soaring interest payments for government debt, and very big problems. Post-election studies showed Corbyn lost in 2019 mostly because people simply didn't believe the manifesto economics and thought they'd get huge tax rises personally, which is why Starmer and Reeves are being very, very firm about not promising big flashy things, and ruling out personal tax rises. But it's a simple truth, if the government wants to actually FIX stuff, and not just tinker, they're going to need a lot more money; and that's growth, higher taxes or borrowing. (or printing money, true, but hopefully our recent experience of inflation partly due to the free money being thrown around to prop things up during covid shows the risks of that approach)
Corbyn and McDonnell promised many lovely things, and took Labour to its worst defeat in 80 years. Starmer and friends have been working hard to shed the image of Labour as spendthrifts, even though it means they're promising very little actual spending. It's not about the number of votes, per se, it's about where they are due to FPTP; without concentrating the votes, they're wasted. And there are key demographics they need to swing; 'red wall' working class voters that went to the tories over Brexit and immigration, and 'one nation' style tory voters who've gotten fed up with the UKIP-lite culture wars of the current Tories. Promising them their taxes won't go up so they feel safe to abandon the tories (as they didn't with Corbyn) is a big chunk of why Labour is now 20+ points ahead.
But one thing to note; Labour have been very, very cagy about not ruling out capital gains increases, or indeed wealth taxes, apart from ruling out applying capital gains from selling your main home. Reeves is very smart, and has real economic chops; I genuinely think she's going to be an outstanding chancellor. No matter what, stability is needed first; there are so many things to fix, and you can't do any of them if you don't get elected.
I don't think they're going to just spring into socialist action once elected, there's been too many promises that they won't. But even just avoiding a huge new wave of austerity in public services (that the tories put in the budget) that they absolutely can't afford is going to take a huge chunk of new money; and I would absolutely bet that that is going to be stealthily extracted from the better off.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 1:55 AM on June 22 [16 favorites]
Hey! That comment actually contains some gravitas.
posted by Molesome at 2:16 AM on June 22 [4 favorites]
posted by Molesome at 2:16 AM on June 22 [4 favorites]
Interview with Starmer in the Guardian today: who exactly is the man hoping to run Britain? Mostly fluff though.
posted by paduasoy at 2:49 AM on June 22
posted by paduasoy at 2:49 AM on June 22
Mostly fluff though.
A better summary of the man than the entire article.
posted by automatronic at 5:23 AM on June 22 [5 favorites]
A better summary of the man than the entire article.
posted by automatronic at 5:23 AM on June 22 [5 favorites]
The downside of nationalization is that you have to pay off all the current owners to get them back.
not exactly? keir starmer is no allende, though, it's true.
posted by busted_crayons at 12:41 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]
not exactly? keir starmer is no allende, though, it's true.
posted by busted_crayons at 12:41 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]
I can't imagine a world in which Keir Starmer of all people would have wanted to nationalise anything. Corbyn, however...
posted by dis_integration at 1:39 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 1:39 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]
BBC: A fourth Conservative is reportedly being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election. The Sunday Times is reporting that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.
posted by Wordshore at 2:53 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 2:53 AM on June 23 [2 favorites]
Meme: Who would have guessed that the hill the Tories would chose to die on is William Hill.
posted by Wordshore at 4:16 AM on June 23 [9 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 4:16 AM on June 23 [9 favorites]
The senior Labour figures are doing interviews with a rather power-in-waiting tone, which is making feel 1987ish. One with Rachel Reeves in the Times yesterday, covering food banks, the Salvation Army, chess, her first budget, not being a socialist ("I'd say I'm a social democrat"), ambition, working with her sisters, not waking up "thinking how can I tax people more", male environments, "wooing business leaders with a relentless smoked salmon and scrambled eggs breakfast meeting offensive", education as her priority, the negatives of social media for children, assisted dying.
posted by paduasoy at 10:17 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]
posted by paduasoy at 10:17 AM on June 23 [1 favorite]
I was done with Reeves the day she bragged she would be tougher on the unemployed than the Tories.
posted by biffa at 12:19 PM on June 23 [6 favorites]
posted by biffa at 12:19 PM on June 23 [6 favorites]
She talks about that in this New Statesman interview from 2021.
posted by paduasoy at 3:20 PM on June 23
posted by paduasoy at 3:20 PM on June 23
Arch-shitbag JK Rowling had decided to criticise the Labour Party, and they've responded by bending over backwards to affirm that they are also cunts and bigots. Why not just say "we do not share your belief that equality is a zero sum game" and ignore her? Why let Rowling effectively dictate your policy positions, and which you're emphasising during campaigning? Just fucking ignore her!
No don’t ignore her. All that transphobic crowd are causing deaths. What is happening here should be the next question to Keir Starmer. (edit abusing the system to say cw: suicide)
I will be voting Labour, that said, because when I’ve written to my own MP (Ruth Cadbury) she’s been excellent on this. If my candidate was, to pick the obvious option, Rosie Duffield, I would definitely vote otherwise. We all have to make our choices around tactical voting and parties with varied members (heck even the Greens have had horror shows of candidates), and the voting system is broken, and I recognise that some people might not agree with my choice but I’m ok with that.
posted by edd at 5:19 PM on June 23 [2 favorites]
No don’t ignore her. All that transphobic crowd are causing deaths. What is happening here should be the next question to Keir Starmer. (edit abusing the system to say cw: suicide)
I will be voting Labour, that said, because when I’ve written to my own MP (Ruth Cadbury) she’s been excellent on this. If my candidate was, to pick the obvious option, Rosie Duffield, I would definitely vote otherwise. We all have to make our choices around tactical voting and parties with varied members (heck even the Greens have had horror shows of candidates), and the voting system is broken, and I recognise that some people might not agree with my choice but I’m ok with that.
posted by edd at 5:19 PM on June 23 [2 favorites]
No don’t ignore her. All that transphobic crowd are causing deaths. What is happening here should be the next question to Keir Starmer.
Given the state of the Labour Party, and of the press, and that we're in an election and all the alternatives are at least as fucking bad, I respectfully disagree. Keep this shit out of the press, out of the discussion, until after the election. Doing otherwise will only lead to disappointment, pain, division, and with little to no hope it could even theoretically affect the outcome in a positive way. The only way a "controversial" topic like trans rights gets any mainstream political discussion that is even close to as much light as heat is outside of the pressures of an election. I don't like that that's the case, but it is.
posted by Dysk at 6:59 PM on June 23 [1 favorite]
Given the state of the Labour Party, and of the press, and that we're in an election and all the alternatives are at least as fucking bad, I respectfully disagree. Keep this shit out of the press, out of the discussion, until after the election. Doing otherwise will only lead to disappointment, pain, division, and with little to no hope it could even theoretically affect the outcome in a positive way. The only way a "controversial" topic like trans rights gets any mainstream political discussion that is even close to as much light as heat is outside of the pressures of an election. I don't like that that's the case, but it is.
posted by Dysk at 6:59 PM on June 23 [1 favorite]
(Like yes, in a good world they wouldn't ignore JKR, they'd tell her where to stick it, but we are nowhere near that reality. Involving her in a conversation in any way, acknowledging her or her positions, cannot have a positive effect in the present circumstances.)
posted by Dysk at 7:03 PM on June 23 [3 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 7:03 PM on June 23 [3 favorites]
It's reasonable to expect that the same phenomenon that brought people like Gullis into Westminster in 2019—i.e., a landslide that carried little-known and underexamined candidates across the line—will bring a variety of Labour voices beyond the Starmer acolytes into Parliament, and that they'll provide some balance. They'll mostly be people who've been in the party a long time, they won't have had their minds wiped.
posted by rory at 4:22 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]
posted by rory at 4:22 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]
So according to polling report uk 's poll, Reform is on 17.2% of the vote and on track for zero seats. Whilst the tories are 3% higher on 19.9% and get 189 seats.
Electoral Calculus has Cons on 19.9% for 76 seats and Reform 2% lower on 17.8% and getting 3 seats.
I think the die is pretty much cast for a labour government. The real effort should be in persuading Reform voters that they need to start agitating for a change to the electoral system. Because much as I think Farage and Reform are a bunch of racist grifters, I also think that if that's what people vote for then that's what they should get.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:26 AM on June 24
Electoral Calculus has Cons on 19.9% for 76 seats and Reform 2% lower on 17.8% and getting 3 seats.
I think the die is pretty much cast for a labour government. The real effort should be in persuading Reform voters that they need to start agitating for a change to the electoral system. Because much as I think Farage and Reform are a bunch of racist grifters, I also think that if that's what people vote for then that's what they should get.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:26 AM on June 24
She talks about that in this New Statesman interview from 2021.
She doesn't really recant though does she? Not like she recanted after promising to be Britain’s first “green chancellor” with “an additional” £28 billion a year to tackle the climate crisis. "No dither, no delay". She's already shown she can't be trusted on environmental issues or on investment in new industrial strategies.
posted by biffa at 5:09 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]
She doesn't really recant though does she? Not like she recanted after promising to be Britain’s first “green chancellor” with “an additional” £28 billion a year to tackle the climate crisis. "No dither, no delay". She's already shown she can't be trusted on environmental issues or on investment in new industrial strategies.
posted by biffa at 5:09 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]
will bring a variety of Labour voices beyond the Starmer acolytes into Parliament, and that they'll provide some balance. They'll mostly be people who've been in the party a long time, they won't have had their minds wiped.
Hahahaha. In one constituency I'm familiar with, the Labour candidate was an extremely popular local politician who had led the local council for many years, and who I can directly credit with helping the lives of a lot of people I know. They were deselected a month before the election in favour of a Starmer-approved candidate with no meaningful experience nor any connection to the area.
posted by automatronic at 5:42 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]
Hahahaha. In one constituency I'm familiar with, the Labour candidate was an extremely popular local politician who had led the local council for many years, and who I can directly credit with helping the lives of a lot of people I know. They were deselected a month before the election in favour of a Starmer-approved candidate with no meaningful experience nor any connection to the area.
posted by automatronic at 5:42 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]
I think there's a real problem with society, with metafilter, with politics, however you want to frame it. That we can even begin to imagine accepting the idea of "he's running on a false platform, support him till then"
Absolutely No-You-Know-What, you talk as if the difference between Labour 2019 and 2024 is merely one of immediate policy. Like aim, direction, goals, etc, make no difference.
As dis_integration points out, its not just a question of whether Starmer or Corbyn *could* get nationalisation though. It's also a question of whether they *would*. Starmer believes in nothing. Which is to say he believes in continuing the *normalised* "apolitical" game of "I run the nation like you run the household budget". He doesn't believe in racism, the Forde report he comissioned on racism in the Labour party is barely making the news. A hierarch of racism in the party. How dare he. Look at what they did to Diane Abbott.
He doesn't believe in women or mothers, the two-child cap and end of school meals says that. Sir Kid Starver. Labour are out there running not against the Tories but against McDonnell's manifesto. They're saying it was uncosted. They're saying Corbyn was worse for the country than the Tories, and that's their argument for getting in.
He doesn't believe in disability, he doesn't believe in labour class consciousness, he doesn't believe in queer people, as Dysk has pointed out. The best to be hoped for is silence. Sir Queer Harmer.
Faiza Shaheen ate Labour's shit on the genocide in Gaza for months and then they cut her for liking a Jon Stewart clip. I want to highlight this for Metafilter users who aren't as up on this. I know he's popular here. Here is his comment "This is the dumbest thing The UK has done since electing Boris Johnson…what the actual fuck…". Here is the video she liked. As best I could find it.
Remember, a vote for Labour is a vote for genocide. They'll win anyway. You don't need to be this complicit (because MeFi is crazy, adjust for your location. True often enough though, excepting certain seats. They'll try and convince you the tiny margin of people voting on conscience will upset the landslide. It's not true, it'll just make them slightly less confident in punishing climate protestors like JSO. This is not like Biden V Trump. It's not half that close. Labour is pretty much guaranteed an insane victory, although they'll fight the term "supermajority")
It's not a coincidence that Tories and managers and business owners are vocally opting for him. They want stable competence, and you're right, he's threatening nothing. For a campaign labelled "Change", he's promising no change. Tory governance with a a little more competence, and the desperate pathetic pandering of a left/centre-party trying to prove they can be as racist as Reform.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:52 AM on June 24 [7 favorites]
Absolutely No-You-Know-What, you talk as if the difference between Labour 2019 and 2024 is merely one of immediate policy. Like aim, direction, goals, etc, make no difference.
As dis_integration points out, its not just a question of whether Starmer or Corbyn *could* get nationalisation though. It's also a question of whether they *would*. Starmer believes in nothing. Which is to say he believes in continuing the *normalised* "apolitical" game of "I run the nation like you run the household budget". He doesn't believe in racism, the Forde report he comissioned on racism in the Labour party is barely making the news. A hierarch of racism in the party. How dare he. Look at what they did to Diane Abbott.
He doesn't believe in women or mothers, the two-child cap and end of school meals says that. Sir Kid Starver. Labour are out there running not against the Tories but against McDonnell's manifesto. They're saying it was uncosted. They're saying Corbyn was worse for the country than the Tories, and that's their argument for getting in.
He doesn't believe in disability, he doesn't believe in labour class consciousness, he doesn't believe in queer people, as Dysk has pointed out. The best to be hoped for is silence. Sir Queer Harmer.
Faiza Shaheen ate Labour's shit on the genocide in Gaza for months and then they cut her for liking a Jon Stewart clip. I want to highlight this for Metafilter users who aren't as up on this. I know he's popular here. Here is his comment "This is the dumbest thing The UK has done since electing Boris Johnson…what the actual fuck…". Here is the video she liked. As best I could find it.
Remember, a vote for Labour is a vote for genocide. They'll win anyway. You don't need to be this complicit (because MeFi is crazy, adjust for your location. True often enough though, excepting certain seats. They'll try and convince you the tiny margin of people voting on conscience will upset the landslide. It's not true, it'll just make them slightly less confident in punishing climate protestors like JSO. This is not like Biden V Trump. It's not half that close. Labour is pretty much guaranteed an insane victory, although they'll fight the term "supermajority")
It's not a coincidence that Tories and managers and business owners are vocally opting for him. They want stable competence, and you're right, he's threatening nothing. For a campaign labelled "Change", he's promising no change. Tory governance with a a little more competence, and the desperate pathetic pandering of a left/centre-party trying to prove they can be as racist as Reform.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:52 AM on June 24 [7 favorites]
They were deselected a month before the election in favour of a Starmer-approved candidate with no meaningful experience nor any connection to the area.
keir starmer went to the doctor in 2020 to do something about the chronic constipation that explains his default facial expression; the doctor didn't realise when using the word "purge" that they should have specified "colon, not stalin".
posted by busted_crayons at 2:07 AM on June 25
keir starmer went to the doctor in 2020 to do something about the chronic constipation that explains his default facial expression; the doctor didn't realise when using the word "purge" that they should have specified "colon, not stalin".
posted by busted_crayons at 2:07 AM on June 25
JK Rowling agrees to meeting with Labour about gender transition policy - Author responds after shadow chancellor says party would be ‘really happy’ to ‘give her assurances’.
Keir Starmer: " During interviews with broadcasters on Monday morning, Starmer was asked if he would scrap the proposed ban on teaching young people in England about transgender identity in school.
“No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender," he said.
“I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate.
"That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.”"
Wes Streeting: Mr Streeting told LBC: "Wes Streeting said he was left feeling “sad” after the Harry Potter author criticised his party for “abandoning” women.
Rowling, a former Labour Party donor, told the Times she would struggle to vote for Sir Keir Starmer because she had a "poor opinion" of his character.
Mr Streeting told LBC: “I was really sad and disappointed to read what she said because, firstly, I have a lot of respect for her both in terms of what she's done on children's literacy, but also violence against women and girls.
“She's an outstanding campaigner in that area. Secondly, I do feel like the Labour Party has been listening.
“I feel like we've been learning, reflecting, and our position is in a much better place than it was."
The "very smart, and has real economic chops" Rachel Reeves: Speaking in Scotland, Reeves said protection for women-only spaces would “absolutely stay”, adding: “We’re not going to be changing anything around biological sex … We’re really happy to talk to JK Rowling to give her assurances about that.”
Is that part of what we think is "very smart"?
Before someone tries to say "ah but they're also not saying they *will* do transphobia, just that they'll listen to her, which is actually brilliant 7th dimensional chess": Validating her position isn't neutrality. They *could* have ignored her. They've chosen to speak positively about her when trans issues are being discussed. She's an "outstanding campaigner [on women's rights, apparently]". They also haven't said "nope, we don't want to be transphobic", and even if you believe this is all tactical lying, it still does harm. People still deal with the stress of not knowing if they can see their doctor next year, children know they're not welcome in society, hell, companies and organisations pre-emptively respond to what they think might happen and cut services.
What a political party says and does influences the electorate. If Labour say that austerity *must* happen, more people believe it. There's a bizarre abnegation of political responsibility going on in today's world where politicians throw up their hands and say "the people want what they want", instead of acknowledging and acting on the fact that they are in fact part of the tastemakers for social organisation. I mean, not weird that they do it, weird that even somewhere like the blue, anyone gives the idea any credit.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:25 AM on June 25 [6 favorites]
Keir Starmer: " During interviews with broadcasters on Monday morning, Starmer was asked if he would scrap the proposed ban on teaching young people in England about transgender identity in school.
“No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender," he said.
“I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate.
"That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.”"
Wes Streeting: Mr Streeting told LBC: "Wes Streeting said he was left feeling “sad” after the Harry Potter author criticised his party for “abandoning” women.
Rowling, a former Labour Party donor, told the Times she would struggle to vote for Sir Keir Starmer because she had a "poor opinion" of his character.
Mr Streeting told LBC: “I was really sad and disappointed to read what she said because, firstly, I have a lot of respect for her both in terms of what she's done on children's literacy, but also violence against women and girls.
“She's an outstanding campaigner in that area. Secondly, I do feel like the Labour Party has been listening.
“I feel like we've been learning, reflecting, and our position is in a much better place than it was."
The "very smart, and has real economic chops" Rachel Reeves: Speaking in Scotland, Reeves said protection for women-only spaces would “absolutely stay”, adding: “We’re not going to be changing anything around biological sex … We’re really happy to talk to JK Rowling to give her assurances about that.”
Is that part of what we think is "very smart"?
Before someone tries to say "ah but they're also not saying they *will* do transphobia, just that they'll listen to her, which is actually brilliant 7th dimensional chess": Validating her position isn't neutrality. They *could* have ignored her. They've chosen to speak positively about her when trans issues are being discussed. She's an "outstanding campaigner [on women's rights, apparently]". They also haven't said "nope, we don't want to be transphobic", and even if you believe this is all tactical lying, it still does harm. People still deal with the stress of not knowing if they can see their doctor next year, children know they're not welcome in society, hell, companies and organisations pre-emptively respond to what they think might happen and cut services.
What a political party says and does influences the electorate. If Labour say that austerity *must* happen, more people believe it. There's a bizarre abnegation of political responsibility going on in today's world where politicians throw up their hands and say "the people want what they want", instead of acknowledging and acting on the fact that they are in fact part of the tastemakers for social organisation. I mean, not weird that they do it, weird that even somewhere like the blue, anyone gives the idea any credit.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:25 AM on June 25 [6 favorites]
I mean, I also oppose teaching gender ideology on schools. Reject the false binary! Reject patriarchy! Work on opposing the omnipresent gender ideology that permeates society, with its strict rules and norms!
...that's not what he means, is it?
posted by Dysk at 5:32 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]
...that's not what he means, is it?
posted by Dysk at 5:32 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]
Audreynachrome:
You're right, Starmer isn't Corbyn, and Reeves isn't McDonnell. Those two had their chance to put their Real Labour offer to the country, twice. And lost, twice. If you want to say that's because the voters are stupid, fine, they did vote for Brexit so no argument from me. But you can enact absolutely zero changes in government policy when the tories are in power, and that's exactly all that Corbyn achieved in the end. (Not that his predecessor did any better). Starmer is not repeating their failures, for good or ill.
Both the tories and Labour are lying by omission. There is a huge financial black hole coming in the next parliament, and neither cutting taxes for the rich/austerity+ (Tories) or relying on 'growth' (Labour) will avoid it. How will it actually be handled? Guess we'll find out.
Some of the complaints about Starmer's Labour are also a little rich given the amount of stacking the deck of the power structures Corbyn did when he was in charge such as the NEC, and at the very least tolerance of antisemitism in the party when he was leader. Speaking as an outside observer, as a result of FPTP it seems you have at least two parties stuck together under one roof, and the perpetual internecine struggle for control of the party often seems more important to the membership than whether they're actually in power or not.
You also seem to think I'm a supporter of Starmer, and will vote Labour, and support the Israeli genocide. None are correct. Not that my vote will likely make a jot of difference, I'm in one of the seats that will almost certainly still be blue even if they go down to 50 MPs.
And for the jabs about 'very smart' - I'm referring to her ability to do a better job as Chancellor than say, Jeremy Hunt, nothing more, nothing less. I do appreciate you using that to imply my support for transphobia though.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 6:36 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
You're right, Starmer isn't Corbyn, and Reeves isn't McDonnell. Those two had their chance to put their Real Labour offer to the country, twice. And lost, twice. If you want to say that's because the voters are stupid, fine, they did vote for Brexit so no argument from me. But you can enact absolutely zero changes in government policy when the tories are in power, and that's exactly all that Corbyn achieved in the end. (Not that his predecessor did any better). Starmer is not repeating their failures, for good or ill.
Both the tories and Labour are lying by omission. There is a huge financial black hole coming in the next parliament, and neither cutting taxes for the rich/austerity+ (Tories) or relying on 'growth' (Labour) will avoid it. How will it actually be handled? Guess we'll find out.
Some of the complaints about Starmer's Labour are also a little rich given the amount of stacking the deck of the power structures Corbyn did when he was in charge such as the NEC, and at the very least tolerance of antisemitism in the party when he was leader. Speaking as an outside observer, as a result of FPTP it seems you have at least two parties stuck together under one roof, and the perpetual internecine struggle for control of the party often seems more important to the membership than whether they're actually in power or not.
You also seem to think I'm a supporter of Starmer, and will vote Labour, and support the Israeli genocide. None are correct. Not that my vote will likely make a jot of difference, I'm in one of the seats that will almost certainly still be blue even if they go down to 50 MPs.
And for the jabs about 'very smart' - I'm referring to her ability to do a better job as Chancellor than say, Jeremy Hunt, nothing more, nothing less. I do appreciate you using that to imply my support for transphobia though.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 6:36 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
I know it's a tired line but like... there's no safeguarding in any of this. We need better rules to stop abusive parents taking kids out of school. We need to learn to better protect student's personal information, to make sure if they're going to be in a sound-proofed musical performance room alone with a teacher, they feel safe.
We don't need to single out trans children for extra scrutiny and suspicion. We need to clamp down on anti-LGBT bullying. We need to recognise children as people who can assert their own independence and rights to their bodies.
***record scratch***
Would you like to explain to us anything about anti-semitism in the Labour party? I would also appreciate hearing about how you feel Labour today is handling anti-Semitism. I think that's a crucial part of this discussion. Do you have anything to say about Abbott or Shaheen? Do you think it is helpful to Jewish people to have the law mandate that people support all the dead kids on their timelines?
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:40 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]
We don't need to single out trans children for extra scrutiny and suspicion. We need to clamp down on anti-LGBT bullying. We need to recognise children as people who can assert their own independence and rights to their bodies.
***record scratch***
Would you like to explain to us anything about anti-semitism in the Labour party? I would also appreciate hearing about how you feel Labour today is handling anti-Semitism. I think that's a crucial part of this discussion. Do you have anything to say about Abbott or Shaheen? Do you think it is helpful to Jewish people to have the law mandate that people support all the dead kids on their timelines?
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:40 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]
You barely read a word I said. Fine. I'm out.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 6:41 AM on June 25
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 6:41 AM on June 25
"You also seem to think I'm a supporter of Starmer"
Do you think people should vote for him? As general advice, ceteris paribus, would you advocate that?
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:42 AM on June 25
Do you think people should vote for him? As general advice, ceteris paribus, would you advocate that?
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:42 AM on June 25
You barely read a word I said. Fine. I'm out.
As I thought I made clear in my comment, I was mostly through making a new comment when your comment dropped.
You can exact exactly zero changes when you're in power but you don't change anything. Convince me Starmer actually wants to challenge neoliberal ideology. He's literally not repeating Corbyn's mistakes for ill. Like, I'm not unaware that Corbyn lost. What I don't understand is thinking changing the people but none of the decisions will help.
Regarding Corbyn as the dreaded Jew-hater, unlike all the good Labour MPs who say that killing kids is actually woke and chill for Israel, I might ask, do you think questioning the existence of state of Israel is anti-Semitic?
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:48 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
As I thought I made clear in my comment, I was mostly through making a new comment when your comment dropped.
You can exact exactly zero changes when you're in power but you don't change anything. Convince me Starmer actually wants to challenge neoliberal ideology. He's literally not repeating Corbyn's mistakes for ill. Like, I'm not unaware that Corbyn lost. What I don't understand is thinking changing the people but none of the decisions will help.
Regarding Corbyn as the dreaded Jew-hater, unlike all the good Labour MPs who say that killing kids is actually woke and chill for Israel, I might ask, do you think questioning the existence of state of Israel is anti-Semitic?
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:48 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
I don't say it's because voters are stupid. I do say that you're *still* completely ignoring the idea that political parties and actors influence the discourse. You can't have it both ways. Starmer can't say he was lying when he asked people to vote for Labour in 2019, and that he always knew and hated Corbyn. Now they're campaigning against the Tories by calling them commies. FFS.
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:57 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
posted by Audreynachrome at 6:57 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
Then I'll answer this at least. Do you think people should vote for him (Starmer)? As general advice, ceteris paribus, would you advocate that?
People vote for their actual MP, who can hold different views to the leadership. But most people treat elections as a vote for party leader, so in that spirit:
No. Personally, I'd like us to first vote for a party who are going to try and make real changes to our climate trajectory, so we at least try and fend off giving our kids a world where they all die of heat stroke or starvation, which is where we're currently headed. I would also like to reverse Brexit, as any meaningful economic improvement will almost certainly require it.
I do not think the stance of any UK government is going to make a meaningful difference to Israel or Palestine, we are almost entirely irrelevant.
But all things are very far from equal, our electoral system sucks, and you have to pick from a bunch of bad options and half the time your vote doesn't even matter, so people should vote according to their conscience. As long as it's not for the fucking Tories.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 7:01 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
People vote for their actual MP, who can hold different views to the leadership. But most people treat elections as a vote for party leader, so in that spirit:
No. Personally, I'd like us to first vote for a party who are going to try and make real changes to our climate trajectory, so we at least try and fend off giving our kids a world where they all die of heat stroke or starvation, which is where we're currently headed. I would also like to reverse Brexit, as any meaningful economic improvement will almost certainly require it.
I do not think the stance of any UK government is going to make a meaningful difference to Israel or Palestine, we are almost entirely irrelevant.
But all things are very far from equal, our electoral system sucks, and you have to pick from a bunch of bad options and half the time your vote doesn't even matter, so people should vote according to their conscience. As long as it's not for the fucking Tories.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 7:01 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]
To be honest, I think Corbyn would win if he were Labour leader now, and I think Starmer would have lost the Brexit elections. Ed Milliband or Gordon Brown could win now, even if they still couldn't eat a sandwich or smile convincingly.
posted by Dysk at 7:06 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 7:06 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments and responses removed. Please stop interrogating other users and demanding they answer you, Audreynachrome consider taking a break from this thread.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:39 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:39 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]
Sign-watch: Worcester
Conservatives currently hold from Labour, with a majority of 6,758 in the 2019 general election. None of the other parties are anywhere near. It's a classic "Labour must win here to form a comfortable majority" constituency.
There are seven candidates this time around. The Reform vote will eat into the Conservative vote. However, votes for the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition candidate will eat into the Labour vote, so there's a lot of uncertainty here. I remember 1992 and "Prime Minister-elect Neil Kinnock" (more recent: "President-elect Hillary Clinton" and "Yeah, Remain will easily win so there's no point in voting") so I'm not taking anything for granted.
Signs seen this last week (I walk a lot around some parts of the city)
- 1 Conservative sign on Friday, though this had disappeared as of this morning. The neighbours on either side are now displaying Labour signs.
- 1 Reform party sign, though someone had set fire* to it.
- Many Liberal Democrat signs; no idea why they are spending this much here.
- A few, not many, Labour signs.
- Only 1 Green party sign; their candidate has a very rural Worcestershire name.
What's the "state of play" in your constituency?
* Not me; I have an alibi, and as they are eating into the Tory vote they provide a useful function, perhaps akin to rats who eat rotting food.
posted by Wordshore at 8:16 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
Conservatives currently hold from Labour, with a majority of 6,758 in the 2019 general election. None of the other parties are anywhere near. It's a classic "Labour must win here to form a comfortable majority" constituency.
There are seven candidates this time around. The Reform vote will eat into the Conservative vote. However, votes for the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition candidate will eat into the Labour vote, so there's a lot of uncertainty here. I remember 1992 and "Prime Minister-elect Neil Kinnock" (more recent: "President-elect Hillary Clinton" and "Yeah, Remain will easily win so there's no point in voting") so I'm not taking anything for granted.
Signs seen this last week (I walk a lot around some parts of the city)
- 1 Conservative sign on Friday, though this had disappeared as of this morning. The neighbours on either side are now displaying Labour signs.
- 1 Reform party sign, though someone had set fire* to it.
- Many Liberal Democrat signs; no idea why they are spending this much here.
- A few, not many, Labour signs.
- Only 1 Green party sign; their candidate has a very rural Worcestershire name.
What's the "state of play" in your constituency?
* Not me; I have an alibi, and as they are eating into the Tory vote they provide a useful function, perhaps akin to rats who eat rotting food.
posted by Wordshore at 8:16 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
South Warwickshire, very narrow victory (fewer than a thousand votes) in 2019 for the incumbent Labour MP, who only got in unexpectedly in 2017 with a similar narrow margin. The redistricting here is likely to slightly favour the Conservatives. Six candidates standing: Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Green Reform, and UKIP.
So far have had one door knocker from Labour, and nothing from any other party. There are a few Labour posters/signs up, but significantly fewer than in previous elections. No visible presence for any other party. I only know the local Tory candidate's name because I just looked it up. Know nothing else about him. It's like they aren't campaigning at all.
posted by Dysk at 8:32 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
So far have had one door knocker from Labour, and nothing from any other party. There are a few Labour posters/signs up, but significantly fewer than in previous elections. No visible presence for any other party. I only know the local Tory candidate's name because I just looked it up. Know nothing else about him. It's like they aren't campaigning at all.
posted by Dysk at 8:32 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
What's the "state of play" in your constituency?
I'm in Colne Valley, semi-rural and posh in parts, we have grouse moors and livery stables, but being on the edge of the West Yorkshire conurbation we have plenty of run down postindustrial towns and villages too, so we're often something of a bellwether.
Historically marginal Lib/Lab until the 80s, went Tory in '87 (with an MP who got caught in the Sunday Times Cash-For-Questions sting), Labour in the Blair years, Tory again in 2010 and '15, Lab '17, Tory '19. The Lib Dems were punished for the coalition and even lost their deposit in '17 so aren't really a force here anymore, if you want the Tory out you have to vote Labour.
Anyway, I've seen quite a few Labour posters around the place, but not crazy amounts. Labour have leafleted quite a bit, everyone else has used the post. There are one or two posters up for Яeform, and a few of their Facebook profile pics on the local moan-about-dogshit groups next to old-white-bloke names, but it's nothing like the UKIP waves of the mid 2010s. Apart from the usual lamppost signs I don't think I've seen any Tory posters at all, not even in the farmers' fields, which is very unusual, those guys usually have massive near-billboard sized things up. If the Tories have lost the Range-Rovers-And-Ponies votes then they are absolutely toast.
posted by tomsk at 9:08 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
I'm in Colne Valley, semi-rural and posh in parts, we have grouse moors and livery stables, but being on the edge of the West Yorkshire conurbation we have plenty of run down postindustrial towns and villages too, so we're often something of a bellwether.
Historically marginal Lib/Lab until the 80s, went Tory in '87 (with an MP who got caught in the Sunday Times Cash-For-Questions sting), Labour in the Blair years, Tory again in 2010 and '15, Lab '17, Tory '19. The Lib Dems were punished for the coalition and even lost their deposit in '17 so aren't really a force here anymore, if you want the Tory out you have to vote Labour.
Anyway, I've seen quite a few Labour posters around the place, but not crazy amounts. Labour have leafleted quite a bit, everyone else has used the post. There are one or two posters up for Яeform, and a few of their Facebook profile pics on the local moan-about-dogshit groups next to old-white-bloke names, but it's nothing like the UKIP waves of the mid 2010s. Apart from the usual lamppost signs I don't think I've seen any Tory posters at all, not even in the farmers' fields, which is very unusual, those guys usually have massive near-billboard sized things up. If the Tories have lost the Range-Rovers-And-Ponies votes then they are absolutely toast.
posted by tomsk at 9:08 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
I'm in a Tory stronghold in Kent, where the tactical voting sites are (again) telling me Labour have a real shot at victory. Last time, they were very wrong, with a 63% vote share for the Conservative incumbent. To be fair, they were right that Labour came second... but on a mere 20%. I have been feeling rather like Charlie Brown with the football when I think about voting tactically again.
Anyway. I went for a long evening walk around town to see what posters people had up in their windows.
Tactical Voter: 1
I'm a Climate Voter: 1
Reform: 1
Green: 6
Lib Dem: 6
Labour: 16
Conservative: 0
BDP (very far right): 0
Maybe the tactical voting sites are right this time! Or maybe the 63% were mostly drawn from the rest of the constituency last time, and what I see locally isn't representative enough to be useful. Ugh, perhaps I'll just flip a coin to decide.
Also seen: 1 Union Jack, 2 evil eyes, 5 England flags (probably related to the Euros), 6 exhortations to object to Yet Another Executive Housing Estate or to Executive Housing Estates in general, and so many estate agent signs I lost track. Never mind politics, we vote to flee the town / county / country.
posted by ManyLeggedCreature at 11:53 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
Anyway. I went for a long evening walk around town to see what posters people had up in their windows.
Tactical Voter: 1
I'm a Climate Voter: 1
Reform: 1
Green: 6
Lib Dem: 6
Labour: 16
Conservative: 0
BDP (very far right): 0
Maybe the tactical voting sites are right this time! Or maybe the 63% were mostly drawn from the rest of the constituency last time, and what I see locally isn't representative enough to be useful. Ugh, perhaps I'll just flip a coin to decide.
Also seen: 1 Union Jack, 2 evil eyes, 5 England flags (probably related to the Euros), 6 exhortations to object to Yet Another Executive Housing Estate or to Executive Housing Estates in general, and so many estate agent signs I lost track. Never mind politics, we vote to flee the town / county / country.
posted by ManyLeggedCreature at 11:53 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]
I would also like to reverse BrexitYou know this is impossible, right? UK could eventually rejoin, without the special opt-outs it had before, but not until the public is firmly and consistently behind the idea.
posted by haapsane at 8:25 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]
It's not impossible any more than reversing joining was. Yes, joining the EU is a process, and yes it'll take fairly broad support (though that may be less of a challenge than you imagine - Brexit is not popular here). The fact that the UK wound have to be a more 'standard' member without a load of special exemptions and opt-outs, that's a feature not a bug for a lot of us.
posted by Dysk at 11:53 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 11:53 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]
On my mother's constituency across the water, the Isle of Wight, she says the signs are skewed Tory on one side of the Island and LD on the other. The Island has been the largest constituency in the UK by number of voters, and is now two of the smallest, having been chopped up in the boundary doings. So it'll be interesting to see what happens there. One of her neighbours works on the council telephone line and had a caller the other day wanting Something Done about a LD poster up on the roadside. She put them through to Roads.
I haven't had any door-knockers, or not been in if so. I have had stuff through the door for five of the six parties, excluding Green.
posted by paduasoy at 1:03 AM on June 26 [1 favorite]
I haven't had any door-knockers, or not been in if so. I have had stuff through the door for five of the six parties, excluding Green.
posted by paduasoy at 1:03 AM on June 26 [1 favorite]
I'm in a safe Lib Dem seat. I've still been deluged with Lib Dem leaflets, surprised they're spending so much resources here instead of aiming at marginals. Had one solitary Tory leaflet. A handful of Lib Dem signs are up, and one Green Party on our road.
A few links.
ConHome: How the proportionality of swing can turn a big Conservative defeat into a wipeout. Slightly wonkish poll analysis explaining how whether you assume the swing is proportional or uniform makes a big difference to how many seats come out of a vote share. Also sums up the MRP polls:
Wolfgang Münchau: Brexit will haunt a Labour government too: A closer relationship with the EU will be increasingly difficult to develop.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:58 AM on June 26 [4 favorites]
A few links.
ConHome: How the proportionality of swing can turn a big Conservative defeat into a wipeout. Slightly wonkish poll analysis explaining how whether you assume the swing is proportional or uniform makes a big difference to how many seats come out of a vote share. Also sums up the MRP polls:
Pollster, Con Seats, Lab SeatsI think the 1983 election result looks like the closest analogue to the current polls. Labour got 27.6% of the vote, the SDP/Liberal Alliance close behind on 25.4%. But Labour got 209 sets, the Alliance only 23. So firstly, just being a couple of points ahead can make a huge difference. Secondly, the second party still got a greater share of the seats than its share of the vote. So don't bet on the defeated Tories suddenly converting to Proportional Representation.
YouGov, 108, 425
Focaldata, 110, 450
Savanta, 53, 516
More in Common, 155, 406
IPSOS, 115, 453
Survation, 71, 487
Electoral Calculus , 66, 476
Wolfgang Münchau: Brexit will haunt a Labour government too: A closer relationship with the EU will be increasingly difficult to develop.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:58 AM on June 26 [4 favorites]
Another MRP from WeThink/The Economist dropped.
Labour 465
Con 76
Lib Dem 52
SNP 29
Reform 3
Green 3
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:54 AM on June 26 [1 favorite]
Labour 465
Con 76
Lib Dem 52
SNP 29
Reform 3
Green 3
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:54 AM on June 26 [1 favorite]
Last Starmer vs Sunak TV debate tonight. Wondering what, possibly in desperation, Mr D-Day Deserter will say to try and wrest a few points back in the polls? Place your *cough* bets now...
My guess is he'll double down on the "Labour will massively tax you", adding some "Labour will take your pensions away" to get wavering seniors out to vote Tory, with the Mail-Express-Telegraph-Times parroting the same "line" tomorrow.
posted by Wordshore at 11:06 AM on June 26
My guess is he'll double down on the "Labour will massively tax you", adding some "Labour will take your pensions away" to get wavering seniors out to vote Tory, with the Mail-Express-Telegraph-Times parroting the same "line" tomorrow.
posted by Wordshore at 11:06 AM on June 26
This morning's post came with leaflets for Reform and the British Democrats, both of which I'd not seen anything from previously. Mildly amused to notice that I reacted with the same revulsion I'd feel if I'd picked the post up from the mat and found I'd grabbed hold of a slug. (I know, unfair to slugs, which can't be held responsible for having slime so resilient it takes an age to get off your hands.)
posted by ManyLeggedCreature at 11:12 AM on June 26 [2 favorites]
posted by ManyLeggedCreature at 11:12 AM on June 26 [2 favorites]
Only eight more sleeps till Political Christmas! Admittedly, one where Santa Keir won't bring much in the way of presents, but at least we'll be shot of Krampus.
Meanwhile, Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants': “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.” Check out the photo of his Facebook friend, a cosplay Oswald Mosley.
The Tories are cratering so badly that they're nearing the point where Reform could win more than just a few seats.
posted by rory at 1:10 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants': “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.” Check out the photo of his Facebook friend, a cosplay Oswald Mosley.
The Tories are cratering so badly that they're nearing the point where Reform could win more than just a few seats.
posted by rory at 1:10 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]
TheophileEscargot: I think the 1983 election result looks like the closest analogue to the current polls. Labour got 27.6% of the vote, the SDP/Liberal Alliance close behind on 25.4%. But Labour got 209 sets, the Alliance only 23. So firstly, just being a couple of points ahead can make a huge difference.
This makes me think that FPTP encourages regionalism, whether it's north-vs-south or rural-vs-urban. Much better to get 50% in half of the ridings and 0% in the other half than to get 25% everywhere.
posted by clawsoon at 7:47 PM on June 26
This makes me think that FPTP encourages regionalism, whether it's north-vs-south or rural-vs-urban. Much better to get 50% in half of the ridings and 0% in the other half than to get 25% everywhere.
posted by clawsoon at 7:47 PM on June 26
It is worth noting, of course, that the Reform Party winning any seats would be both a first (even in Farage's old UKIP days, he only got anyone in via by-elections and defections) and a cause for general alarm. They will respond to even the smallest wins and their increased vote share with proclamations of newfound relevance and demands to be taken seriously as contenders. While they are not QUITE as loathsome as the likes of the BNP/BDP or the old National Front, who married outright fascism instead of merely flirting with it, one seat for Reform UK is one too many.
Reform know as well as anyone that their ideas and policy stances are not gaining widespread acceptance, but rather that this is a protest vote by Tories fleeing a sinking ship, still greatly butthurt by Boris's ouster, Sunak's selection, and the Tories' failure to Get Brexit Done Right (by whatever vague metric of continental dominance that would entail in fantasyland). The Boats have not been Stopped, and Those People have not been shipped off to Rwanda yet, and Suella Braverman has not been held up as a divine prophet by all, so since conservatism can never fail and only be failed, it's simply time for an exercise in trying to draw the Tories in a more Trumpward direction.
But they'll take what they can get in terms of relevance. And since the Labour candidate and his campaign staff in Clacton are not only not getting party support but are being lectured for attempting to win there (Grauniad), there's a reasonable chance Farage will slip in this time.
posted by delfin at 8:02 PM on June 26 [5 favorites]
Reform know as well as anyone that their ideas and policy stances are not gaining widespread acceptance, but rather that this is a protest vote by Tories fleeing a sinking ship, still greatly butthurt by Boris's ouster, Sunak's selection, and the Tories' failure to Get Brexit Done Right (by whatever vague metric of continental dominance that would entail in fantasyland). The Boats have not been Stopped, and Those People have not been shipped off to Rwanda yet, and Suella Braverman has not been held up as a divine prophet by all, so since conservatism can never fail and only be failed, it's simply time for an exercise in trying to draw the Tories in a more Trumpward direction.
But they'll take what they can get in terms of relevance. And since the Labour candidate and his campaign staff in Clacton are not only not getting party support but are being lectured for attempting to win there (Grauniad), there's a reasonable chance Farage will slip in this time.
posted by delfin at 8:02 PM on June 26 [5 favorites]
Deputy leader of the Labour group on Tower Hamlets council resigns:
Starmer stepped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric – this time, with a racist dogwhistle about people from Bangladesh:posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:22 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]I’ll make sure we got planes going off… back to the countries where people came from. At the moment people coming from Bangladesh are not being removed.Labour’s shadow minister Jonathan Ashworth also targeted Bangladeshi people. He said:When they come from countries like Bangladesh or wherever, we’re going to send them back.Now, because of this Starmer has lost deputy leader of the Labour Group on Tower Hamlets Council, Sabina Akhtar. She resigned, saying in her departing letter that:I cannot be proud of this party any more when the leader of the party singles out my community and insults my Bangladeshi identity.
And since the Labour candidate and his campaign staff in Clacton are not only not getting party support but are being lectured for attempting to win there (Grauniad)
Worse than lectured - if I'm reading the article right, the candidate isn't even allowed to campaign in Clacton and was reassigned to campaign in another area? If so, that sounds absolutely insane.
posted by trig at 1:48 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]
Worse than lectured - if I'm reading the article right, the candidate isn't even allowed to campaign in Clacton and was reassigned to campaign in another area? If so, that sounds absolutely insane.
posted by trig at 1:48 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]
If so, that sounds absolutely insane.
Absolutely. Sounds as if they felt they Starmer was being crowded out by Jovan Owusu-Nepaul on social media, which Wouldn't Do—as if having stylish young Labour candidates was a problem. If they have a chance of being the ones to beat Farage in Clacton they should grab it with both hands—if he gets a foothold in Westminster we'll never hear the end of it.
posted by rory at 3:02 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]
Absolutely. Sounds as if they felt they Starmer was being crowded out by Jovan Owusu-Nepaul on social media, which Wouldn't Do—as if having stylish young Labour candidates was a problem. If they have a chance of being the ones to beat Farage in Clacton they should grab it with both hands—if he gets a foothold in Westminster we'll never hear the end of it.
posted by rory at 3:02 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]
To play devil's advocate:
The party's argument is that, in the modern age of tactical voting, the bean-counters at Labour's HQ viewed Clacton as a lost cause, being the one place where UKIP had ever scored a victory historically and being heavily conservative. Owusu-Nepaul was tapped to fill that candidacy more out of social obligation than from a strong hope of winning there, and once Farage declared, a bean-counter drew a line through that seat and said, welp, let's redirect even our token efforts to a place where victory is possible. The best chance to keep Farage out in Clacton is for its former Tory MP to manage to win, and every vote won by Labour there distracts from that.
And that is the way that polling in Clacton is falling out. Owusu-Nepaul's support seems as high as
Labour has ever done there, but that's still about a quarter of the vote, whereas the seat where they were redirected to campaign appears to be a strong pickup opportunity.
But the sense of betrayal there by the locals is substantial, as the article demonstrates. The general Labour strategy "makes sense to people who do things by spreadsheets," as another disgruntled member put it, but doesn't do much for anyone else. If the twinned seat seems well-in-hand, why NOT contest this one, even in a Quixotic manner? Why not at least undermine a hated enemy and chip away at him before he even takes his seat?
How much of this saga is smart campaigning and how much of it is Starmer's faction flexing its firm control over the party, demonstrating that things will be done there way and there will be no further Corbyn-esque uprisings, is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by delfin at 5:47 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]
The party's argument is that, in the modern age of tactical voting, the bean-counters at Labour's HQ viewed Clacton as a lost cause, being the one place where UKIP had ever scored a victory historically and being heavily conservative. Owusu-Nepaul was tapped to fill that candidacy more out of social obligation than from a strong hope of winning there, and once Farage declared, a bean-counter drew a line through that seat and said, welp, let's redirect even our token efforts to a place where victory is possible. The best chance to keep Farage out in Clacton is for its former Tory MP to manage to win, and every vote won by Labour there distracts from that.
And that is the way that polling in Clacton is falling out. Owusu-Nepaul's support seems as high as
Labour has ever done there, but that's still about a quarter of the vote, whereas the seat where they were redirected to campaign appears to be a strong pickup opportunity.
But the sense of betrayal there by the locals is substantial, as the article demonstrates. The general Labour strategy "makes sense to people who do things by spreadsheets," as another disgruntled member put it, but doesn't do much for anyone else. If the twinned seat seems well-in-hand, why NOT contest this one, even in a Quixotic manner? Why not at least undermine a hated enemy and chip away at him before he even takes his seat?
How much of this saga is smart campaigning and how much of it is Starmer's faction flexing its firm control over the party, demonstrating that things will be done there way and there will be no further Corbyn-esque uprisings, is left as an exercise for the reader.
posted by delfin at 5:47 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]
It's all quite low key here. The election isn't the big local news and discussion point. This is the big local news.
posted by Wordshore at 6:57 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 6:57 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]
Bleah. Some of my mum's extended family live in Clacton and I spent Christmas with them there the year I was a foreign student in England 30+ years ago. Now those fond memories will be forever tainted by association with Farage.
posted by rory at 9:24 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]
posted by rory at 9:24 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]
ive had some leaflets from the greens and a weird sad one from the lib dems and today's surprise was one from some execrable fascist terfs who should fuck back off to hogwarts and that's it. (i can't vote; i reckon i'd vote green if i could (in what looks like a close labour/green contest) but the naturalisation application is ludicrously expensive and Kafkaesque so i have procrastinated and now it's
too late.)
posted by busted_crayons at 6:17 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]
too late.)
posted by busted_crayons at 6:17 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]
Reform know as well as anyone that their ideas and policy stances are not gaining widespread acceptance, but rather that this is a protest vote by Tories fleeing a sinking ship
Gary's Economics has produced a video talking about Immigration (the issue I've been avoiding). He talks about it being a wedge issue amongst left-aligned voters that is being exploited by Reform. Left wing policy makers tend to be pro-immigration while, to many working class voters - the idea that it is an immigrant who is the one taking your job, your house has an intuitive simplicity. His take is that, with the Conservatives having clearly failed to fix inequality Labour is about to get a go. Since they will also likely fail - there is a risk that the far-right will then be taken more seriously as the next people in line with a plan.
posted by rongorongo at 10:27 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]
Gary's Economics has produced a video talking about Immigration (the issue I've been avoiding). He talks about it being a wedge issue amongst left-aligned voters that is being exploited by Reform. Left wing policy makers tend to be pro-immigration while, to many working class voters - the idea that it is an immigrant who is the one taking your job, your house has an intuitive simplicity. His take is that, with the Conservatives having clearly failed to fix inequality Labour is about to get a go. Since they will also likely fail - there is a risk that the far-right will then be taken more seriously as the next people in line with a plan.
posted by rongorongo at 10:27 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]
Well I'm now disenfranchised since it's apparently unusual to have two weeks holiday in the summer. I applied for a postal vote while Rishi was still looking for a towel and got the approval but they sent them out to arrive at the weekend just gone when we left and we won't be back to the weekend after. We live in a Tory constituency which seems likely to go Labour (4500 majority in 2019) but which has also been lib dem in recent history, so lots of leafletting before we left, Labour doorknockers, even constituency targeted Labour ads on YT. Lots of lib dem and Labour signs out. No sign of the useless Tory wretch who is our current MP.
posted by biffa at 12:45 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
posted by biffa at 12:45 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
I know a few other people for whom that's the case as well. The ones who applied for a proxy vote are good, postal votes less so. The whole thing has been so rushed there hasn't really been time to make arrangements, get postal votes out properly.
posted by Dysk at 12:50 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 12:50 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
Gary's Economics has produced a video talking about Immigration (the issue I've been avoiding).
That was brilliant—thanks for sharing it, rongorongo. He starts by talking about how he's struggled to find a way to find the right framing to talk about it, and yet that is the right framing—saying "I don't know how to talk about it" is an effective way to talk about it, because it makes clear that he isn't dismissing the struggles that have led so many to buy into the demonization of immigrants, he's showing how the framing of those struggles is everything. And that's how the rich have been getting away with using immigration as a wedge issue: they've controlled the frame.
The whole "stop the boats" frame makes it seem as if it's all about the policing of the Channel, when the reason there are small boats overloaded with people is that regular crossings are barred to them. When people are denied the opportunity to front up at a regular border post and claim asylum, they get on a boat. When they're denied the opportunity for short-term work visas because they aren't from the right country or income level, they get on a boat. When their countries have been allowed to fail and collapse because of a system of international relations and foreign aid that doesn't care about addressing problems in other countries because they aren't "us", people get on a boat. The policy choices elsewhere in the immigration system have created the demand for the boats and opportunities for unscrupulous criminals to exploit the desperate. There's a direct connection between Theresa May's vans and the boats Rishi Sunak says he wants to stop.
posted by rory at 1:10 AM on June 28 [4 favorites]
That was brilliant—thanks for sharing it, rongorongo. He starts by talking about how he's struggled to find a way to find the right framing to talk about it, and yet that is the right framing—saying "I don't know how to talk about it" is an effective way to talk about it, because it makes clear that he isn't dismissing the struggles that have led so many to buy into the demonization of immigrants, he's showing how the framing of those struggles is everything. And that's how the rich have been getting away with using immigration as a wedge issue: they've controlled the frame.
The whole "stop the boats" frame makes it seem as if it's all about the policing of the Channel, when the reason there are small boats overloaded with people is that regular crossings are barred to them. When people are denied the opportunity to front up at a regular border post and claim asylum, they get on a boat. When they're denied the opportunity for short-term work visas because they aren't from the right country or income level, they get on a boat. When their countries have been allowed to fail and collapse because of a system of international relations and foreign aid that doesn't care about addressing problems in other countries because they aren't "us", people get on a boat. The policy choices elsewhere in the immigration system have created the demand for the boats and opportunities for unscrupulous criminals to exploit the desperate. There's a direct connection between Theresa May's vans and the boats Rishi Sunak says he wants to stop.
posted by rory at 1:10 AM on June 28 [4 favorites]
Why does everyone disagree on MRP?
MRP aggregator with a table showing every poll prediction for every seat.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:54 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
MRP aggregator with a table showing every poll prediction for every seat.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:54 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
Oof. Well, very nearly everyone seems to agree that if Helen Whately loses her seat, it'll owe more to Reform splitting the right-wing vote than to a decisive swing to the left. That's disappointing. On the bright side, there is still a definite leftward swing expected from 2019, but only Savanta thinks the entire left-of-Tory vote will add up to even as much as 51%.
Britain Predicts seem to think 8% of the constituency will vote for the BDP (the only "other" standing). I do hope not.
posted by ManyLeggedCreature at 5:59 AM on June 28
Britain Predicts seem to think 8% of the constituency will vote for the BDP (the only "other" standing). I do hope not.
posted by ManyLeggedCreature at 5:59 AM on June 28
Gary's Economics has produced a video talking about Immigration (the issue I've been avoiding).
And he's absolutely right partway through when he addresses it in two points:
1) "I don't know how to stop ordinary people who are being told the reason that they can't afford the house, the reason they can't get a good job, is because of foreigners. I don't know how to stop them from believing that."
and
2) "And I'm very, very confident that the economic situation will get worse because the inequality will get worse."
It's a global thing and a very elemental thing, not just a UK thing. People are going to leave places where they can't have a better life and migrate to places where they hope that they can, where better opportunities might exist. People are going to view bureaucratic red tape and legal restrictions as noise and route around them by any means necessary if their need is great enough. A culture, a society, a nation can either recognize this, adapt to it and implement changes to improve the situation for as many as possible, or it can declare that nothing should ever have to change in any way and that the newcomers are the problem and faceless alien hordes are coming to steal everything we have and murder us all in our beds.
And economic inequality, the endless drumbeat of more and more flowing to fewer and fewer hands, IS a gigantic driver of that. Blaming economic issues on the lazy poor and on unwarranted handouts and on ethnic differences is Conservative 101; it's the most wear-worn page in their playbook, and yet its message -- you're not the problem, nothing about your life ought to ever change, this is your land, this is your culture, this is your birthright, wall out the Other -- is seductive to many who are struggling.
A GIF comes to mind, one depicting class economics as cookies. The rich person steals the middle person's cookies surreptitiously, then tells him that it's the poor person (who's glumly staring at crumbs instead of cookies) who stole them, and enjoys his bigger stack of cookies whilst the other two fight it out.
And if Labour gains a sweeping mandate but does nothing to tackle either of these issues head-on, if demonization of the Other and growing economic inequality are both allowed to continue unimpeded, the cry for CHANGE! will rise again at the next election but this time it won't be the Tories getting wiped.
posted by delfin at 6:05 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
And he's absolutely right partway through when he addresses it in two points:
1) "I don't know how to stop ordinary people who are being told the reason that they can't afford the house, the reason they can't get a good job, is because of foreigners. I don't know how to stop them from believing that."
and
2) "And I'm very, very confident that the economic situation will get worse because the inequality will get worse."
It's a global thing and a very elemental thing, not just a UK thing. People are going to leave places where they can't have a better life and migrate to places where they hope that they can, where better opportunities might exist. People are going to view bureaucratic red tape and legal restrictions as noise and route around them by any means necessary if their need is great enough. A culture, a society, a nation can either recognize this, adapt to it and implement changes to improve the situation for as many as possible, or it can declare that nothing should ever have to change in any way and that the newcomers are the problem and faceless alien hordes are coming to steal everything we have and murder us all in our beds.
And economic inequality, the endless drumbeat of more and more flowing to fewer and fewer hands, IS a gigantic driver of that. Blaming economic issues on the lazy poor and on unwarranted handouts and on ethnic differences is Conservative 101; it's the most wear-worn page in their playbook, and yet its message -- you're not the problem, nothing about your life ought to ever change, this is your land, this is your culture, this is your birthright, wall out the Other -- is seductive to many who are struggling.
A GIF comes to mind, one depicting class economics as cookies. The rich person steals the middle person's cookies surreptitiously, then tells him that it's the poor person (who's glumly staring at crumbs instead of cookies) who stole them, and enjoys his bigger stack of cookies whilst the other two fight it out.
And if Labour gains a sweeping mandate but does nothing to tackle either of these issues head-on, if demonization of the Other and growing economic inequality are both allowed to continue unimpeded, the cry for CHANGE! will rise again at the next election but this time it won't be the Tories getting wiped.
posted by delfin at 6:05 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
Don't know why but I'm personally feeling especially hopeless and helpless around this particular election it might just be ::gestures at everything :: but I've sent off my postal vote and so I'm going to mentally check out now until after the elections.
I've done all I can.
posted by Faintdreams at 7:11 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
I've done all I can.
posted by Faintdreams at 7:11 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
My Constituency (North East Hertfordshire) has been solidly Tory. Last election Sir Oliver Heald got reelected with 32k votes whilst the second place labour got only 13k.
However, he's stood down and they've replaced him with Nikki Da Costa who's claim to fame was that she wrote the recommendation that Boris Johnson prorogue parliament. I wonder if "a safe seat" was intended to be a reward of some kind.
Anyway, according to Electoral Calculus labour are very very strongly favoured to win.
There's been some boundary changes involved, but all the wards which are now part of the constituency previously voted conservative (as did most of hertfordshire. It's solidly Middle England tory country).
I do wonder how much some of these constituencies have been impacted by Covid. In that a lot of people have moved out of London because they could do hybrid working more easily now (I moved here last year for that reason). Cities have always swayed more left than rural, but maybe that'll start to change?
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 8:07 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]
However, he's stood down and they've replaced him with Nikki Da Costa who's claim to fame was that she wrote the recommendation that Boris Johnson prorogue parliament. I wonder if "a safe seat" was intended to be a reward of some kind.
Anyway, according to Electoral Calculus labour are very very strongly favoured to win.
There's been some boundary changes involved, but all the wards which are now part of the constituency previously voted conservative (as did most of hertfordshire. It's solidly Middle England tory country).
I do wonder how much some of these constituencies have been impacted by Covid. In that a lot of people have moved out of London because they could do hybrid working more easily now (I moved here last year for that reason). Cities have always swayed more left than rural, but maybe that'll start to change?
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 8:07 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]
Why Did We Normalise Reform UK? (A Different Bias, YouTube, 14m30s)
posted by flabdablet at 9:17 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]
posted by flabdablet at 9:17 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]
I finally got a few more leaflets in the post today (South Edinburgh): Greens, Lib Dems, Labour. The SNP were ahead of the game with two, the first a few weeks ago, the second this week.
Nothing from the Tories yet, or Reform. If I got one from the latter I'd be tempted to keep it—could be a nice little earner in my retirement, there's a market for Nazi memorabilia.
posted by rory at 10:06 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]
Nothing from the Tories yet, or Reform. If I got one from the latter I'd be tempted to keep it—could be a nice little earner in my retirement, there's a market for Nazi memorabilia.
posted by rory at 10:06 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]
« Older Half the size & twice the fun | Green Conscience Newer »
posted by Brioche at 12:17 AM on June 21 [2 favorites]