Interestingly our vote share under Corbyn in 2017 was higher than we appear to have got in this election (40% vs 37%). It was 33% in the Brexit election in 2019, also under Corbyn.
Waking up to the news of Labour's majority in the House of Commons. My constituency is a Labour gain from Conservative but if all the Reform votes had gone to the Conservatives Labout would have won by one vote.
To disappoint there would have to be some expectation of improvement. But, yes, let's enjoy the moment of so many arses getting righteously kicked.
There are some real questions for Starmer, however. It may change but currently Labour are looking at less than 35% of the vote. This doesn't seem to match at all with the rhetoric of people coming back to Labour in their droves after Corbyn. In fact it looks like fewer people may have voted Labour than in 2019, despite the easy ride from the press. Labour have simply stood still while the tories split down the middle. Pretty well all the gain Labour vote share has been in Scotland at the expense of the SNP (a big fuck you goes to Joanna Cherry for blaming trans people), with England flat. A landslide in parliament but not in the country, and I suspect that unless Starmer can come up with tangible improvements soon that majority will vanish like mist in 2029 (assuming Starmer doesn't start an illegal war or do something else that jolts his pliant lobby fodder into conscious thought before then).
A few two hours of sleep observations, so please forgive the bleedin' obvious and already said.
According to the BBC the Labour lead was only 11% in the end. Well below opinion polls' estimate. This is why I was nervous at 10pm and even after - the Shy Tory phenomenon.
The Daily Mail was right that in mamy cases voting Reform just allowed Labour to win. Where we differ is that the Heil considered that a bad thing.
Labour did not win; the Tories lost it and Labour were helped in by Reform. That means they have absolutely everything to prove or 2029 will look like last night in reverse.
Greens are on the up. Long way to go. But they used their vote share far more successfully than Reform did.
I am distressed as that the Midlands and North have so much support for Reform.
To disappoint there would have to be some expectation of improvement. But, yes, let's enjoy the moment of so many arses getting righteously kicked.
There are some real questions for Starmer, however. It may change but currently Labour are looking at less than 35% of the vote. This doesn't seem to match at all with the rhetoric of people coming back to Labour in their droves after Corbyn. In fact it looks like fewer people may have voted Labour than in 2019, despite the easy ride from the press. Labour have simply stood still while the tories split down the middle. Pretty well all the gain Labour vote share has been in Scotland at the expense of the SNP (a big fuck you goes to Joanna Cherry for blaming trans people), with England flat. A landslide in parliament but not in the country, and I suspect that unless Starmer can come up with tangible improvements soon that majority will vanish like mist in 2029 (assuming Starmer doesn't start an illegal war or do something else that jolts his pliant lobby fodder into conscious thought before then).
Completely agree - just heard (never mind the appalling share of the vote / the lowest *ever* for a party forming a government) the average majority across the UK is around 6k.
In normal circumstances that translates in 2029 to the average seat being a marginal….
In normal circumstances that translates in 2029 to the average seat being a marginal….
I was thinking throughout the night that there are going to be a lot of marginals next time. And in most of them the pertinent swing is (and presumably will be) between Conservative and Reform, even if Labour holds the seat.
Basically, the strategy the Tories have to follow to win the next election is to win back voters from Reform, not Labour or the Lib Dems - which makes a shift to the right from them quite likely. Will Labour’s strategy for consolidating this win be to tack further right to try to hoover up the remaining moderate Tories, or will they stick to their principles (assuming Starmer has any) and accept that their chances next time are largely out of their own hands?
Unfortunately the Labour army is confined to barracks in the battle of ideas.
With my cynic's hat on, I must query what Labour has to do with the Left...
I think that's more or less the same point with different framing. The problem we've got is that (as we saw with the results coverage last night) the BBC are happy to put up an equal number of Labour and tory MPs/peers along with Farage and call it balance. The left doesn't get a look in unless it controls Labour.
Unfortunately the Labour army is confined to barracks in the battle of ideas.
With my cynic's hat on, I must query what Labour has to do with the Left...
I think that's more or less the same point with different framing. The problem we've got is that (as we saw with the results coverage last night) the BBC are happy to put up an equal number of Labour and tory MPs/peers along with Farage and call it balance. The left doesn't get a look in unless it controls Labour.
It’s chicken and egg - yes if you believe that the media made Farage. And they certainly helped.
But.
When an articulate, seductive left populist builds a movement that starts eating Labour’s lunch from the left (as UKIP did through the 90s and 00s with the Tory lunch from the right) then the media will give them a voice to the same extent. At the moment, there’s an argument that no one’s doing that. Maybe the Greens from today.
But Reform look like they’ve come third in votes. So they are news. Or is that happening because the media gave them the platform? Or did the movement (god help us) draw the media because it was and is real?
Probably both. The media will cover left insurgents when they cause credible problems for the left mainstream party - that’s the moment UKIP/Farage started getting covered, when they were a threat to the right mainstream party.
It’s both, it’s not (IMO) all down to a conspiracy of silence against the left.
Interestingly our vote share under Corbyn in 2017 was higher than we appear to have got in this election (40% vs 37%). It was 33% in the Brexit election in 2019, also under Corbyn.
Checking the BBC this morning, the vote share for Labour is 33.8% - so the difference between our historic worst and best performance in terms of seats is 0.8% of the vote share.
I think we can’t extrapolate too much on likely future Reform performance - in that I am not sure how much Reform support by ex-Tories is policy rather than protest.
What's interesting is that Reform got more votes than the LibDems yet 4 seats against the LibDems' 71.
They also got ten times the vote of Plaid and half the vote of Green but all got the same number of seats.
It's the difference between parties drawing their support from GB News viewers and the terminally online and real parties with real life members in real communities.
What's interesting is that Reform got more votes than the LibDems yet 4 seats against the LibDems' 71.
They also got ten times the vote of Plaid and half the vote of Green but all got the same number of seats.
I think part of this is down to the experience and resources of different parties in campaigning. Larger parties have years of data on who is likely to vote for them, which seats are marginal and which are not etc. Many of our volunteers who would normally campaign here went off to campaign in the nearest marginal, with the bare minimum being done locally.
If PR came in campaigning would change substantially, but the larger parties know how to maximise their results under the current system.
Where I am we got rid of Douglas “three jobs” Ross. Though he made it easy - his leaflet told us what to do. It read “It’s either Douglas Ross or the SNP”. SNP it is then.
I see that Reform have 4 seats (rather less than the 13 predicted), but the Greens also have 4...
I wonder if they'll have to sit near each other in Westminster?
Caroline Lucas remarked on how much pressure she was under, being the sole Green MP, but at least the new quartet can share the load.
A fair few shocks for the tories, but I can't say I'm sorry to see Rees-Mogg, Truss, Shapps, and Coffey all unseated...they'll not be missed by the country at large.
That's because there is no overnight fix. Waiting lists won't be reduced for a long time unless Labour find a particular area that requires relatively little medical expertise and throw some resaources at it. To improve things requires more medical practioners and it takes years to train people.
Mind you it doesn't help that in one area of the NHS that I'm aware of there is a large management structure, all of who are qualified but don't practice.
Also. to train new people requires some supervision and guidane from the existing staff but they are stretched thinly already thanks to years of the NHS being run down so don't have the time (or energy) to help new folk.
What's interesting is that Reform got more votes than the LibDems yet 4 seats against the LibDems' 71.
They also got ten times the vote of Plaid and half the vote of Green but all got the same number of seats.
I think part of this is down to the experience and resources of different parties in campaigning. Larger parties have years of data on who is likely to vote for them, which seats are marginal and which are not etc. Many of our volunteers who would normally campaign here went off to campaign in the nearest marginal, with the bare minimum being done locally.
If PR came in campaigning would change substantially, but the larger parties know how to maximise their results under the current system.
There are also some differences in the way that tactical voting works, which is a feature of FPTP that will be different under a more rational election system. The LibDems do well when they present themselves as the alternative to the party of government (in this case, the best option to keep the Tories out, in 2010 they did the same as the party to keep Labour out), and know where to play that card most effectively. The Greens managed to target a few seats and present themselves as credible victors in those, which resulted in fantastic results beyond what might be expected from tactical "keep the Tories out" voting - you don't get 55%+ votes in a constituency just on not being a Tory.
Leaving aside personalities, it's going to take the new regime a while to make any noticeable improvements in anything, given the mess the tories have left behind.
At least we now have a government made up largely of sane adults, rather than cruel, mendacious, grasping toddlers.
That's because there is no overnight fix. Waiting lists won't be reduced for a long time unless Labour find a particular area that requires relatively little medical expertise and throw some resaources at it. To improve things requires more medical practioners and it takes years to train people.
Mind you it doesn't help that in one area of the NHS that I'm aware of there is a large management structure, all of who are qualified but don't practice.
A quick step in the right direction is to improve pay and conditions to encourage qualified staff to stay in post (not move to Australia, take up less demanding management positions or early retirement, etc).
When an articulate, seductive left populist builds a movement that starts eating Labour’s lunch from the left (as UKIP did through the 90s and 00s with the Tory lunch from the right) then the media will give them a voice to the same extent.
I find this argument incredibly naive; a 'left populist' movement (which in the UK means mild social democracy) would pose too much of a threat to the livelihoods of people personally known to members of the media to get a fair hearing. It would be a rolling round of gurning, lying on the floor clutching ankles and failures to understand until they were seen out of politics.
UKIP were puffer-fished because there was always a fraction of capital who stood to do well out of their policies (the same people who backed and funded the various pro-Brexit vanity outlets, think-tanks etc)
To improve things requires more medical practioners and it takes years to train people.
People say this like they’ve never heard of immigration. One problem with NHS staffing is that we are struggling to retain overseas staff we’ve already hired because we treat them like shit in the “hostile environment”. One of our staff nurses has left because he can bring his family to Australia, but he can’t bring them here.
Recruiting ready trained folks from abroad is not a long term solution - but it would help in the short to medium term.
To improve things requires more medical practioners and it takes years to train people.
People say this like they’ve never heard of immigration. One problem with NHS staffing is that we are struggling to retain overseas staff we’ve already hired because we treat them like shit in the “hostile environment”. One of our staff nurses has left because he can bring his family to Australia, but he can’t bring them here.
Recruiting ready trained folks from abroad is not a long term solution - but it would help in the short to medium term.
It does not help the qualified staff availability in the countries they come from.
When an articulate, seductive left populist builds a movement that starts eating Labour’s lunch from the left (as UKIP did through the 90s and 00s with the Tory lunch from the right) then the media will give them a voice to the same extent.
I find this argument incredibly naive; a 'left populist' movement (which in the UK means mild social democracy) would pose too much of a threat to the livelihoods of people personally known to members of the media to get a fair hearing. It would be a rolling round of gurning, lying on the floor clutching ankles and failures to understand until they were seen out of politics.
UKIP were puffer-fished because there was always a fraction of capital who stood to do well out of their policies (the same people who backed and funded the various pro-Brexit vanity outlets, think-tanks etc)
Fair enough. But equally I find this argument incredibly doctrinaire.
I’m not saying I knew you’d say it, but I could have written that in terms of ‘what would someone who thinks this say?’
Fair enough. But equally I find this argument incredibly doctrinaire.
I’m not saying I knew you’d say it, but I could have written that in terms of ‘what would someone who thinks this say?’
In the past I'd have been much more willing to lend credence to the idea of 'balanced coverage'; it's watching the differing coverage - across the Western World - of populist movements of different stripes that changed my opinion.
"doctrinaire" is wonderfully dismissive word, but fails to contend with either history or the centres willingness to burn down institutions when it comes to stopping certain political tendencies.
But sure; 'Would you nationalise sausages?' and portraying the LOTO as Voldemort on a flagship news programme was non-doctrinaire.
Comments
The Lib Dem’s got very close (or Reform depending on how you look at it).
Labour have a majority
You'll have your work cut out.
And it looks like Reform aren't gonna get much much more than four seats.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
There are some real questions for Starmer, however. It may change but currently Labour are looking at less than 35% of the vote. This doesn't seem to match at all with the rhetoric of people coming back to Labour in their droves after Corbyn. In fact it looks like fewer people may have voted Labour than in 2019, despite the easy ride from the press. Labour have simply stood still while the tories split down the middle. Pretty well all the gain Labour vote share has been in Scotland at the expense of the SNP (a big fuck you goes to Joanna Cherry for blaming trans people), with England flat. A landslide in parliament but not in the country, and I suspect that unless Starmer can come up with tangible improvements soon that majority will vanish like mist in 2029 (assuming Starmer doesn't start an illegal war or do something else that jolts his pliant lobby fodder into conscious thought before then).
According to the BBC the Labour lead was only 11% in the end. Well below opinion polls' estimate. This is why I was nervous at 10pm and even after - the Shy Tory phenomenon.
The Daily Mail was right that in mamy cases voting Reform just allowed Labour to win. Where we differ is that the Heil considered that a bad thing.
Labour did not win; the Tories lost it and Labour were helped in by Reform. That means they have absolutely everything to prove or 2029 will look like last night in reverse.
Greens are on the up. Long way to go. But they used their vote share far more successfully than Reform did.
I am distressed as that the Midlands and North have so much support for Reform.
The left has a massive battle for ideas to win.
Hallelujah! 🙂
Unfortunately the Labour army is confined to barracks in the battle of ideas.
Completely agree - just heard (never mind the appalling share of the vote / the lowest *ever* for a party forming a government) the average majority across the UK is around 6k.
In normal circumstances that translates in 2029 to the average seat being a marginal….
With my cynic's hat on, I must query what Labour has to do with the Left...
I was thinking throughout the night that there are going to be a lot of marginals next time. And in most of them the pertinent swing is (and presumably will be) between Conservative and Reform, even if Labour holds the seat.
Basically, the strategy the Tories have to follow to win the next election is to win back voters from Reform, not Labour or the Lib Dems - which makes a shift to the right from them quite likely. Will Labour’s strategy for consolidating this win be to tack further right to try to hoover up the remaining moderate Tories, or will they stick to their principles (assuming Starmer has any) and accept that their chances next time are largely out of their own hands?
I think she'll be the next Tory leader.
I think that's more or less the same point with different framing. The problem we've got is that (as we saw with the results coverage last night) the BBC are happy to put up an equal number of Labour and tory MPs/peers along with Farage and call it balance. The left doesn't get a look in unless it controls Labour.
It’s chicken and egg - yes if you believe that the media made Farage. And they certainly helped.
But.
When an articulate, seductive left populist builds a movement that starts eating Labour’s lunch from the left (as UKIP did through the 90s and 00s with the Tory lunch from the right) then the media will give them a voice to the same extent. At the moment, there’s an argument that no one’s doing that. Maybe the Greens from today.
But Reform look like they’ve come third in votes. So they are news. Or is that happening because the media gave them the platform? Or did the movement (god help us) draw the media because it was and is real?
Probably both. The media will cover left insurgents when they cause credible problems for the left mainstream party - that’s the moment UKIP/Farage started getting covered, when they were a threat to the right mainstream party.
It’s both, it’s not (IMO) all down to a conspiracy of silence against the left.
They also got ten times the vote of Plaid and half the vote of Green but all got the same number of seats.
Checking the BBC this morning, the vote share for Labour is 33.8% - so the difference between our historic worst and best performance in terms of seats is 0.8% of the vote share.
I think we can’t extrapolate too much on likely future Reform performance - in that I am not sure how much Reform support by ex-Tories is policy rather than protest.
It's the difference between parties drawing their support from GB News viewers and the terminally online and real parties with real life members in real communities.
I think part of this is down to the experience and resources of different parties in campaigning. Larger parties have years of data on who is likely to vote for them, which seats are marginal and which are not etc. Many of our volunteers who would normally campaign here went off to campaign in the nearest marginal, with the bare minimum being done locally.
If PR came in campaigning would change substantially, but the larger parties know how to maximise their results under the current system.
Labour,
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Votes
15,855
Conservative,
Ameet Jogia
Votes
15,840
Electoral Calculus got that badly wrong:
Party 2019 Votes 2019 Share Pred Votes
CON 23,032 47.4% 22.4%
LAB 20,618 42.4% 51.6%
I wonder if they'll have to sit near each other in Westminster?
Caroline Lucas remarked on how much pressure she was under, being the sole Green MP, but at least the new quartet can share the load.
A fair few shocks for the tories, but I can't say I'm sorry to see Rees-Mogg, Truss, Shapps, and Coffey all unseated...they'll not be missed by the country at large.
Mind you it doesn't help that in one area of the NHS that I'm aware of there is a large management structure, all of who are qualified but don't practice.
And Basildon South and East Thurrock has a recount this afternoon - Reform said to be 120 ahead as it stands.
At least we now have a government made up largely of sane adults, rather than cruel, mendacious, grasping toddlers.
I find this argument incredibly naive; a 'left populist' movement (which in the UK means mild social democracy) would pose too much of a threat to the livelihoods of people personally known to members of the media to get a fair hearing. It would be a rolling round of gurning, lying on the floor clutching ankles and failures to understand until they were seen out of politics.
UKIP were puffer-fished because there was always a fraction of capital who stood to do well out of their policies (the same people who backed and funded the various pro-Brexit vanity outlets, think-tanks etc)
People say this like they’ve never heard of immigration. One problem with NHS staffing is that we are struggling to retain overseas staff we’ve already hired because we treat them like shit in the “hostile environment”. One of our staff nurses has left because he can bring his family to Australia, but he can’t bring them here.
Recruiting ready trained folks from abroad is not a long term solution - but it would help in the short to medium term.
We can but hope ... and pray.
It does not help the qualified staff availability in the countries they come from.
Fair enough. But equally I find this argument incredibly doctrinaire.
I’m not saying I knew you’d say it, but I could have written that in terms of ‘what would someone who thinks this say?’
In the past I'd have been much more willing to lend credence to the idea of 'balanced coverage'; it's watching the differing coverage - across the Western World - of populist movements of different stripes that changed my opinion.
"doctrinaire" is wonderfully dismissive word, but fails to contend with either history or the centres willingness to burn down institutions when it comes to stopping certain political tendencies.
But sure; 'Would you nationalise sausages?' and portraying the LOTO as Voldemort on a flagship news programme was non-doctrinaire.