Turn out is low. 37% at Kingswood (72% in 2019), 38% in Wellingborough (64% on 2019). So, looks mostly like Tory voters staying home, with some Labour voters doing the same - in Kingswood Labour got less votes than they did in 2019, Wellingborough about the same number of votes.
Yes, it's unwise to forecast a General Election result on the basis of these two byelections - but still, it's a shot in the arm for Labour, and a pain in the arse for the tories...
I was wandering around Twitter, looking at Tory comments, and the right wing ones are attacking Sunak for being socialist. Their view is scrap climate change measures, stop the boats, cut taxes. Of course, to do that, you need more austerity. Well, that would go down like cold sick. The Tories are stuck.
Another point is that Brexit was supposed to unleash the creative dynamism of the British people. To this end, Liz Truss proposed cutting taxes, deregulating some things, and pow! Growth would be like a speeding bullet. So this was the right wing wet dream. It didn't quite work out.
The mantra seems to be "cut taxes, get votes."
Doesn't seem to be working for a population that is witnessing its aged relatives die in hospital corridors because the NHS has been starved of funds and personnel.
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Sir Keir will be very worried about winning.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Starmer seems to be fully on board with the persona of the Hard Man making Hard Choices, to the point where one has to assume it makes him, well,...
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Sir Keir will be very worried about winning.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Starmer seems to be fully on board with the persona of the Hard Man making Hard Choices, to the point where one has to assume it makes him, well,...
Next year, he and his government will have to make good decisions and the public will expect good results
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Sir Keir will be very worried about winning.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Starmer seems to be fully on board with the persona of the Hard Man making Hard Choices, to the point where one has to assume it makes him, well,...
Next year, he and his government will have to make good decisions and the public will expect good results
We've seen before that blaming your predecessors for the mess can work for a surprisingly long time if the press is willing to support that line.
Aye, but that's where Starmer is likely to find being PM hard work ... the willingness (or, not) of the press to go along with the problems facing the country being created by the current government, and that it's not going to be possible to fix the mess in a couple of months.
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Sir Keir will be very worried about winning.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Starmer seems to be fully on board with the persona of the Hard Man making Hard Choices, to the point where one has to assume it makes him, well,...
Next year, he and his government will have to make good decisions and the public will expect good results
We've seen before that blaming your predecessors for the mess can work for a surprisingly long time if the press is willing to support that line.
Most of the papers support the Cons. Labour will have to be very good in government to even get a positive report from them.
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Sir Keir will be very worried about winning.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Starmer seems to be fully on board with the persona of the Hard Man making Hard Choices, to the point where one has to assume it makes him, well,...
Next year, he and his government will have to make good decisions and the public will expect good results
We've seen before that blaming your predecessors for the mess can work for a surprisingly long time if the press is willing to support that line.
Most of the papers support the Cons. Labour will have to be very good in government to even get a positive report from them.
True, but even papers can change their tune, if it suits them...
These results will not encourage the PM to call an early general election.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Sir Keir will be very worried about winning.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Starmer seems to be fully on board with the persona of the Hard Man making Hard Choices, to the point where one has to assume it makes him, well,...
Next year, he and his government will have to make good decisions and the public will expect good results
We've seen before that blaming your predecessors for the mess can work for a surprisingly long time if the press is willing to support that line.
Most of the papers support the Cons. Labour will have to be very good in government to even get a positive report from them.
I think a lot will depend on how insane the tories become in opposition. The Murdoch press, at least, will baulk at the worst extremities of Bedanoch in charge.
It seems to me that if the Tories are in power, the press* will blame the previous government (even if it was fifteen years ago), and if Labour are in power, they'll blame the present one.
It seems to me that if the Tories are in power, the press* will blame the previous government (even if it was fifteen years ago), and if Labour are in power, they'll blame the present one.
* except the Mirror and the Grauniad
I'm old enough to remember that in 1997, Major's government was still blaming the previous Labour administration so, if you're a Tory you can blame the previous government for at least 18 years.
Intriguingly, there have been situations recently where the Tories have blamed a future Labour government for the issues they have... (I kid you not...).
Being Tory means never having to take responsibility for anything. The irony is actually too much for me.
It seems to me that if the Tories are in power, the press* will blame the previous government (even if it was fifteen years ago), and if Labour are in power, they'll blame the present one.
* except the Mirror and the Grauniad
I'm old enough to remember that in 1997, Major's government was still blaming the previous Labour administration so, if you're a Tory you can blame the previous government for at least 18 years.
Intriguingly, there have been situations recently where the Tories have blamed a future Labour government for the issues they have... (I kid you not...).
Being Tory means never having to take responsibility for anything. The irony is actually too much for me.
AFZ
Labour were left with a strong economy in 1997
If Labour had not crashed ehe economy in 2007/08 the country would not have needed austerity in 2010. Just when things were getting better we had Covil in 2010 followed by the war in Ukraine.
Labour were left with a strong economy in 1997
If Labour had not crashed ehe economy in 2007/08 the country would not have needed austerity in 2010. Just when things were getting better we had Covil in 2010 followed by the war in Ukraine.
Labour didn't crash the economy.
The difficulties started in the USA with their sub-prime mortgages.
The world economy crashed.
And if part of the problem was the lack of regulation of the financial sector. It's worth remembering who was calling for lighter touch regulation at the time? - yes, our old friends the Tory party.
Who are still calling for lighter touch regulation.
And who are the party who genuinely crashed the economy. Thank you Liz Truss.
It seems to me that if the Tories are in power, the press* will blame the previous government (even if it was fifteen years ago), and if Labour are in power, they'll blame the present one.
* except the Mirror and the Grauniad
I'm old enough to remember that in 1997, Major's government was still blaming the previous Labour administration so, if you're a Tory you can blame the previous government for at least 18 years.
Intriguingly, there have been situations recently where the Tories have blamed a future Labour government for the issues they have... (I kid you not...).
Being Tory means never having to take responsibility for anything. The irony is actually too much for me.
AFZ
Labour were left with a strong economy in 1997
If Labour had not crashed ehe economy in 2007/08 the country would not have needed austerity in 2010. Just when things were getting better we had Covil in 2010 followed by the war in Ukraine.
I'm not the first to correct you on this but it deserves being repeated. It is only correct to say Labour crashed the economy in the same way as it is correct to say the Conservatives caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Governments are responsible for their responses to such events, but it is simply ludicrous to hold them responsible for something which they in no way caused.* Ludicrous. Beyond ridiculous.
As to the other half of your comment. It is true that Labour inherited a growing economy in 1997. After 3 recessions. After squandering massive North Sea oil and gas revenues and after multiple national assets had been sold off cheap, finally the Tories got some growth without inflation. The "benign economic inheritance story" suits the Tories well but is mostly economic nonsense. Short term growth is easy. Long term economic success is very different.
Of course, there was another inheritance Labour had in 1997; a public sector on its knees. It took more than a decade to fix this mess.
AFZ
*I'll save the discussion for another time, except to say that faced with a national and international crisis, one of Brown and Johnson showed leadership. The other not so much.
The public sector is back on its knees I'm afraid. Hence all the industrial action in the NHS, shortages of social workers, long waits for EHCPs, closed libraries, delays in the justice system and roads decaying into bits of tarmac linking potholes.
The public sector is back on its knees I'm afraid. Hence all the industrial action in the NHS, shortages of social workers, long waits for EHCPs, closed libraries, delays in the justice system and roads decaying into bits of tarmac linking potholes.
This is what you always get with light touch, business is the answer Conservative ideas. Also remember the Thatcher era was goof for the likes of bankers and those that had money. For those on a low income it was close to hell. Not as bad as it is now but still hell. I have my problems with New Labour and its modern disciple Starmer, but they brought the economy back to health. Brown was unfortunate with the crash but as hinted made a better job of it than Johnson did of COVID.
I suppose yet another tory bloodbath and defenestration might be mildly entertaining to the suffering country, but if they really think they could win a General Election by this kind of lunacy, then lovely Rwanda is truly the place for them to go to.
Predictions.
Labour will easily win the general election
The Conservatives will not be destoyed but a comeback will be more difficult after Labour give the vote to school children
Schoolchildren? Do you mean 16 year-olds?
Anyway, by the time that happens, the old school tories will have mostly died off. It's the real fascists we may have to look out for, as the tory party of the past will have disappeared up its own bum.
Predictions.
Labour will easily win the general election
The Conservatives will not be destoyed but a comeback will be more difficult after Labour give the vote to school children
Schoolchildren? Do you mean 16 year-olds?
You know that I do.
You do realise some people of school age will be able to vote in the coming general election (more of them in May than in October)? Is it their age or the fact that they're at school that is a problem to you? Is it better if they're at college or doing an apprenticeship?
In England, young adults who are 16 and 17 years old will still be in education (full or part time school or college, or training through an apprenticeship or similar). Many would be working part time, and as a result paying taxes and NI and contributing to the national economy. Many young people are working part time before they're 16. It wouldn't have been that long ago when many young adults left school at 16 and went into full time employment.
In England, young adults who are 16 and 17 years old will still be in education (full or part time school or college, or training through an apprenticeship or similar). Many would be working part time, and as a result paying taxes and NI and contributing to the national economy. Many young people are working part time before they're 16. It wouldn't have been that long ago when many young adults left school at 16 and went into full time employment.
Yes. Referring to them as *schoolchildren* betrays a certain ignorance of the way the world is - and, as you say, it's not that long since young people went into full-time employment at 16.
In fairness to Telford, who I don't usually agree with, may I point out that being at work doesn't necessarily make you an adult.
According to Oxford Languages, *adult* can be used as a verb, indicating to behave in a way characteristic of a responsible adult, especially by accomplishing mundane but necessary tasks.
This could well apply to a 16 year-old at work in the way @Alan Cresswell describes.
We're straying off the point, though. It remains to be seen how much Labour may need to rely on younger voters in future, in order to keep the remains of the tory party in the Outer Darkness where they belong...
Given the way the tories are self-destructing at the moment, Labour might not have to worry about them - it's the fascists who will bring us all to ruin, if we let them.
With several recent studies showing that people are now moving to the left as they get older, unlike earlier generations where studies showed people became more conservative, in the long term the problems Labour will face remaining in office aren't the shrinking number of people further to the right than they are but the growing number of people to the left. Unless Labour return to their roots another party will fill that position and benefit from the votes of people who are both more likely to be leftwing and less likely to have historic loyalties to one of the (current) main parties.
Calling a 16 year-old a *schoolchild* might be thought to be somewhat patronising or derogatory.
It’s literally and factually true.
Of course, as with so many things, this is one of those issues where it depends on where the speaker has their sympathies. I remember a certain shooting in the US a few years back where the victim was 17, and from the way he was being described as an innocent child by those seeking to have the shooter strung up you’d have thought he was 10 at the oldest.
Not really a child anymore either. Adolescent, teen, young adult ... but not really a child. If a 14yo (for example, my daughter) can be asked to write persuasive essays in English and chooses "Israel is committing genocide in Gaza", run a mock-election campaign for a political party and have informed discussion of politics is that the behaviour of a child? Admittedly not everyone in her year as politically informed or active, but there's also still a couple of years before they'll get a chance to vote.
I was 18 in 1969, the year in which the voting age was lowered to 18, but the first General Election in which I could vote was that of 1970.
Still, I was fairly well informed politically, and, indeed, the events of 1968 (the May riots in Paris, and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August) made a lasting impression on many *children* of my age...
Hopefully, today's 16/17 year-olds will be able to vote sooner rather than later, though it's by no means certain that they'll mostly choose Labour...
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
I'd say that today's 16/17 year olds won't be able to vote before they turn 18 (unless in Wales or Scotland where they already can in non-UK elections) because the changes to the law will take a year or two, and it won't be the first item of business for the new government. It might be today's 14 year olds or younger who will get that chance to vote in England before they turn 18.
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/
Comments
(I haven't seen turnout figures, but I see it as running from Tories rather than running to Labour).
Doesn't seem to be working for a population that is witnessing its aged relatives die in hospital corridors because the NHS has been starved of funds and personnel.
You may well be right, but on the other hand the chances are that the longer he leaves it, the worse things will get. The *technical* recession isn't going to magically vanish, and nor are the NHS queues etc. etc.
Poor Sushi seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place...
Sir Keir will be very worried about winning.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Starmer seems to be fully on board with the persona of the Hard Man making Hard Choices, to the point where one has to assume it makes him, well,...
Next year, he and his government will have to make good decisions and the public will expect good results
We've seen before that blaming your predecessors for the mess can work for a surprisingly long time if the press is willing to support that line.
True, but even papers can change their tune, if it suits them...
I think a lot will depend on how insane the tories become in opposition. The Murdoch press, at least, will baulk at the worst extremities of Bedanoch in charge.
* except the Mirror and the Grauniad
I'm old enough to remember that in 1997, Major's government was still blaming the previous Labour administration so, if you're a Tory you can blame the previous government for at least 18 years.
Intriguingly, there have been situations recently where the Tories have blamed a future Labour government for the issues they have... (I kid you not...).
Being Tory means never having to take responsibility for anything. The irony is actually too much for me.
AFZ
If Labour had not crashed ehe economy in 2007/08 the country would not have needed austerity in 2010. Just when things were getting better we had Covil in 2010 followed by the war in Ukraine.
Labour didn't crash the economy.
The difficulties started in the USA with their sub-prime mortgages.
The world economy crashed.
And if part of the problem was the lack of regulation of the financial sector. It's worth remembering who was calling for lighter touch regulation at the time? - yes, our old friends the Tory party.
Who are still calling for lighter touch regulation.
And who are the party who genuinely crashed the economy. Thank you Liz Truss.
I'm not the first to correct you on this but it deserves being repeated. It is only correct to say Labour crashed the economy in the same way as it is correct to say the Conservatives caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Governments are responsible for their responses to such events, but it is simply ludicrous to hold them responsible for something which they in no way caused.* Ludicrous. Beyond ridiculous.
As to the other half of your comment. It is true that Labour inherited a growing economy in 1997. After 3 recessions. After squandering massive North Sea oil and gas revenues and after multiple national assets had been sold off cheap, finally the Tories got some growth without inflation. The "benign economic inheritance story" suits the Tories well but is mostly economic nonsense. Short term growth is easy. Long term economic success is very different.
Of course, there was another inheritance Labour had in 1997; a public sector on its knees. It took more than a decade to fix this mess.
AFZ
*I'll save the discussion for another time, except to say that faced with a national and international crisis, one of Brown and Johnson showed leadership. The other not so much.
Indeed.
I weep for my country.
Capitalism only works for 95% of us if it is properly regulated.
What extreme Tories want is the law of the jungle. They hate civilisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/18/tory-mps-pushing-for-rishi-sunak-to-quit-before-he-is-deposed
I suppose yet another tory bloodbath and defenestration might be mildly entertaining to the suffering country, but if they really think they could win a General Election by this kind of lunacy, then lovely Rwanda is truly the place for them to go to.
In small boats, of course.
It is the least they deserve.
Labour will easily win the general election
The Conservatives will not be destoyed but a comeback will be more difficult after Labour give the vote to school children
I agree, but nature abhors a vacuum...so the gap might be filled by the equally-swivel-eyed loons of Reform, and the like (PopCon, anyone?).
Schoolchildren? Do you mean 16 year-olds?
Anyway, by the time that happens, the old school tories will have mostly died off. It's the real fascists we may have to look out for, as the tory party of the past will have disappeared up its own bum.
You do realise some people of school age will be able to vote in the coming general election (more of them in May than in October)? Is it their age or the fact that they're at school that is a problem to you? Is it better if they're at college or doing an apprenticeship?
Don't try to be funny.
I can't read your mind, although I supposed that's what you meant.
Calling a 16 year-old a *schoolchild* might be thought to be somewhat patronising or derogatory.
Yes. Referring to them as *schoolchildren* betrays a certain ignorance of the way the world is - and, as you say, it's not that long since young people went into full-time employment at 16.
According to Oxford Languages, *adult* can be used as a verb, indicating to behave in a way characteristic of a responsible adult, especially by accomplishing mundane but necessary tasks.
This could well apply to a 16 year-old at work in the way @Alan Cresswell describes.
We're straying off the point, though. It remains to be seen how much Labour may need to rely on younger voters in future, in order to keep the remains of the tory party in the Outer Darkness where they belong...
Given the way the tories are self-destructing at the moment, Labour might not have to worry about them - it's the fascists who will bring us all to ruin, if we let them.
What were you doing at at 16 and 17 ?
It’s literally and factually true.
Of course, as with so many things, this is one of those issues where it depends on where the speaker has their sympathies. I remember a certain shooting in the US a few years back where the victim was 17, and from the way he was being described as an innocent child by those seeking to have the shooter strung up you’d have thought he was 10 at the oldest.
Not if they're at work at 16...
Still, I was fairly well informed politically, and, indeed, the events of 1968 (the May riots in Paris, and the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August) made a lasting impression on many *children*
Hopefully, today's 16/17 year-olds will be able to vote sooner rather than later, though it's by no means certain that they'll mostly choose Labour...
And, yes they will vote for different parties, or none (anecdotally, turnout for younger voters is lower than for older voters though I can't find a breakdown of turnout by age). There seems to be evidence that 16/17 year olds attend polls with their parents (assuming parents vote), and once they start to vote they continue to do so (though, only 10y data in Scotland), whereas for 18 year olds many will be at university and don't have that prompt to start voting.
Labour lowered the voting age to 18 because they thought it would be to their advantage.
They want to lower it to 16 to give them a permanent advantage. Same applies to the SNP/