Its a bout time that politicians started to treat the electorate as sensible adults in the real world instead of toddlers in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes and have wonderful, free public services.
The problem is that the right-wing media would get up in arms about it.
Which makes it all the more galling that a nominally socialist party with an unassailable majority and five years to make things better for the people of Britain has instantly kowtowed to that media. If ever there was a chance to tell the right wing media to fuck themselves it was now.
I think it should be illegal for one company or person to have a controlling interest in more than one of any type of media (ie you could have a newspaper and a TV station - you can not have seven newspapers and eight TV channels).
But the vast majority of the votes for Reform are not coming from Labour. AND the vast majority of votes Labour are losing/at risk of losing are not going to Reform.
Reform got 12,645 votes in Runcorn yesterday. That’s an increase of 4,983. The Tories lost 4,415 votes compared to last year, Labour lost 9,719. No other party had a significant change. The maths alone suggests that at least 500 voters (2% - quite a swing even in itself) switched from Labour to Reform.
It’s possible that all of the drop in turnout was from Labour voters and all of the swing was from Tory voters switching to Reform. But it seems more likely to me that a good proportion of Labour voters switched to Reform.
Of course, if that’s true then it makes it even less of a good strategy for Labour to ape Reform, given that that’s what they’ve been doing so far and it has manifestly not worked. They need to change tack and start actually making people’s lives better rather than attacking scapegoats as a diversionary tactic.
Of course, if that’s true then it makes it even less of a good strategy for Labour to ape Reform, given that that’s what they’ve been doing so far and it has manifestly not worked. They need to change tack and start actually making people’s lives better rather than attacking scapegoats as a diversionary tactic.
Yep, and aping Reform just directs political energy at a set of issues on which Labour - being in government - can't outflank Reform because they are bounded by reality. ("We will reduce the boats", "Ah .. but will you shoot the boats/leave the EHRC/leave the earth/crucify asylum seekers")
Of course, if that’s true then it makes it even less of a good strategy for Labour to ape Reform, given that that’s what they’ve been doing so far and it has manifestly not worked. They need to change tack and start actually making people’s lives better rather than attacking scapegoats as a diversionary tactic.
But that means having a plan. And a clue. Thus far there's no sign of either.
Of course, if that’s true then it makes it even less of a good strategy for Labour to ape Reform, given that that’s what they’ve been doing so far and it has manifestly not worked. They need to change tack and start actually making people’s lives better rather than attacking scapegoats as a diversionary tactic.
But that means having a plan. And a clue. Thus far there's no sign of either.
Indeed. My hope - and it’s no more than that - is that Starmer, being devoid of any actual guiding principles, will start to see that a pivot to the left may actually be a winning (or at least breaking even, which still wins the next general election) strategy.
Of course, if that’s true then it makes it even less of a good strategy for Labour to ape Reform, given that that’s what they’ve been doing so far and it has manifestly not worked. They need to change tack and start actually making people’s lives better rather than attacking scapegoats as a diversionary tactic.
But that means having a plan. And a clue. Thus far there's no sign of either.
Indeed. My hope - and it’s no more than that - is that Starmer, being devoid of any actual guiding principles, will start to see that a pivot to the left may actually be a winning (or at least breaking even, which still wins the next general election) strategy.
This is where I do my Peter Snow bit (‘can’t extrapolate from limited locals, just for fun’, mostly shire seats this time, etc) - vote shares currently as declared (ie lots to go still) are Reform 35%, Tories 25%, Labour 15%, Liberals 12%.
If I was Labour, I’d be worried about some sort of Tory-Reform deal before the next general election.
If I was Labour, I’d be worried about some sort of Tory-Reform deal before the next general election.
I think, between Farage's ego and tory arrogance, that's reasonably unlikely. The tories will defenestrate Badenoch sooner or later, and cooler heads among the tories will recognise that FPTP means they're likely to make gains even on a small swing against Labour, not to mention that many people who vote Reform wouldn't actually want Farage in charge if it ever became a realistic prospect.
If I was Labour, I’d be worried about some sort of Tory-Reform deal before the next general election.
I think, between Farage's ego and tory arrogance, that's reasonably unlikely. The tories will defenestrate Badenoch sooner or later, and cooler heads among the tories will recognise that FPTP means they're likely to make gains even on a small swing against Labour, not to mention that many people who vote Reform wouldn't actually want Farage in charge if it ever became a realistic prospect.
Moreover, there's significant evidence of differences between the voters and many of the voters for both parties would not vote for an amalgamation of the two.
But the vast majority of the votes for Reform are not coming from Labour. AND the vast majority of votes Labour are losing/at risk of losing are not going to Reform.
Reform got 12,645 votes in Runcorn yesterday. That’s an increase of 4,983. The Tories lost 4,415 votes compared to last year, Labour lost 9,719. No other party had a significant change. The maths alone suggests that at least 500 voters (2% - quite a swing even in itself) switched from Labour to Reform.
It’s possible that all of the drop in turnout was from Labour voters and all of the swing was from Tory voters switching to Reform. But it seems more likely to me that a good proportion of Labour voters switched to Reform.
At this point, this is all guesswork, of course but in this context, 500 voters switching Labour to Reform is not significant. I mean, obviously, with a vote margin of 6, for this particular seat, it is... but in terms of the national picture, it really isn't. You neglected the fact that the Reform voters could have come from elsewhere - i.e. not just the Tories. Some might not have voted last time and some for other parties as well. It takes some in depth analysis to work this out. More importantly, voter behaviour is demonstrably different in a by-election that has no meaningful effect on the make-up of parliament than in a general election.
This analysis predates this specific by-election, obviously but it is not from Labour that Reform are getting votes for the most part. The evidence we have shows that there simply is not a large number of voters who have voted Labour previously and switched to Reform. Similarly, there is not a large cohort who voted Labour in '24 who would seriously consider voting Reform next time. Whilst we do have large numbers of Labour voters who are interested in voted LibDem or Green instead. So, what we have is Reform getting enough support that a fall in Labour votes (with people voting for other parties or not voting), means that Reform can beat Labour in these seats.
I reiterate, Labour is not losing voters to Reform. Labour is losing voters elsewhere whilst Reform are picking up votes elsewhere. The results of this in terms of electoral outcome are the same, of course, but the political strategy needed to combat it is entirely different.
If I was Labour, I’d be worried about some sort of Tory-Reform deal before the next general election.
I think, between Farage's ego and tory arrogance, that's reasonably unlikely. The tories will defenestrate Badenoch sooner or later, and cooler heads among the tories will recognise that FPTP means they're likely to make gains even on a small swing against Labour, not to mention that many people who vote Reform wouldn't actually want Farage in charge if it ever became a realistic prospect.
Moreover, there's significant evidence of differences between the voters and many of the voters for both parties would not vote for an amalgamation of the two.
But the vast majority of the votes for Reform are not coming from Labour. AND the vast majority of votes Labour are losing/at risk of losing are not going to Reform.
Reform got 12,645 votes in Runcorn yesterday. That’s an increase of 4,983. The Tories lost 4,415 votes compared to last year, Labour lost 9,719. No other party had a significant change. The maths alone suggests that at least 500 voters (2% - quite a swing even in itself) switched from Labour to Reform.
It’s possible that all of the drop in turnout was from Labour voters and all of the swing was from Tory voters switching to Reform. But it seems more likely to me that a good proportion of Labour voters switched to Reform.
At this point, this is all guesswork, of course but in this context, 500 voters switching Labour to Reform is not significant. I mean, obviously, with a vote margin of 6, for this particular seat, it is... but in terms of the national picture, it really isn't. You neglected the fact that the Reform voters could have come from elsewhere - i.e. not just the Tories. Some might not have voted last time and some for other parties as well. It takes some in depth analysis to work this out. More importantly, voter behaviour is demonstrably different in a by-election that has no meaningful effect on the make-up of parliament than in a general election.
This analysis predates this specific by-election, obviously but it is not from Labour that Reform are getting votes for the most part. The evidence we have shows that there simply is not a large number of voters who have voted Labour previously and switched to Reform. Similarly, there is not a large cohort who voted Labour in '24 who would seriously consider voting Reform next time. Whilst we do have large numbers of Labour voters who are interested in voted LibDem or Green instead. So, what we have is Reform getting enough support that a fall in Labour votes (with people voting for other parties or not voting), means that Reform can beat Labour in these seats.
I reiterate, Labour is not losing voters to Reform. Labour is losing voters elsewhere whilst Reform are picking up votes elsewhere. The results of this in terms of electoral outcome are the same, of course, but the political strategy needed to combat it is entirely different.
AFZ
I think it’s a very fast moving picture tbh. The Lancashire results in the last 10 minutes - collapse of Tories and Labour, are horrifying.
The most alarming, for anyone who has ever canvassed door to door, is the breaking suggestion that Reform have taken Derbyshire by doing something that it is a truism doesn’t happen - successful mobilisation of habitual non-voters.
Reform are riding slightly high now. It’s a bit cliched but there is a decent time before the next election. What most governments do is time the good things to come into play as the election draws near. Labour are hoping for this.
I've had a very depressing two days trying to get out the vote and failing and then seeing Reform doing very well here in Nottinghamshire. They seem to be policy free as far as local government is concerned, they did very little campaigning just posted 'vote Reform' under any Facebook posts other parties put up. It doesn't help that our MP, Jenrick, is basically already a Reform MP. My hope is that they don't have a clue and muck things up so badly that no-one will want to vote for them ever again.
Having said that Labour needs to use this to try and start actually sounding like the Labour Party and not the Tories.
The Conservatives lost 676 council seats, Reform won 677. Meanwhile Labour lost 186 to respectively 163 and 45 Lib Dem & Green gains. I hope the Labour leadership see this as a call to tack for the progressive vote.
The Conservatives lost 676 council seats, Reform won 677. Meanwhile Labour lost 186 to respectively 163 and 45 Lib Dem & Green gains. I hope the Labour leadership see this as a call to tack for the progressive vote.
Disaster for both big parties tbh. Tories fell through the floor from an absolute historic high position, Labour have managed to fall from the historic low they managed the last time these seats were up for grabs.
The Conservatives lost 676 council seats, Reform won 677. Meanwhile Labour lost 186 to respectively 163 and 45 Lib Dem & Green gains. I hope the Labour leadership see this as a call to tack for the progressive vote.
Disaster for both big parties tbh. Tories fell through the floor from an absolute historic high position, Labour have managed to fall from the historic low they managed the last time these seats were up for grabs.
That is true but only a partial analysis. The seats in question are very much Tory country (the big cities didn't have elections this year) and 2021 was a funny year when post Covid vaccine roll out, the government had a temporary boost in their support.
It is always a mistake to over read local results.
Sadly our media thrive on doing so.
This shapes the narrative and forces* parties to respond.
Making it all a self-fufilling prophecy which feeds por politics and even worse governance.
AFZ
*the wrong verb but it's how the national leaders feel.
"Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s chief of staff, has already started deploying what is loosely called a “Blue Labour” strategy: Starmer has cut the overseas aid budget, retreated from positions on trans issues, taken tough stances on defence and sounded more “patriotic”, including hosting the first St George’s Day reception at Number 10."
Both these issues are ones that excise the hard-through-further right; the changes to both were spun as the process of relatively pragmatic/independent deliberation, but here they are being described to the FT as a step in the culture war.
Parking morality for a moment, even from a totally machiavellian viewpoint this doesn't make any sense, this is a way of implementing policies that alienate your core support while simultaneously ensuring you aren't going get credit from the voters who you are trying to attract - who are going to go with Reform's more extreme policies anyway.
The Conservatives lost 676 council seats, Reform won 677. Meanwhile Labour lost 186 to respectively 163 and 45 Lib Dem & Green gains. I hope the Labour leadership see this as a call to tack for the progressive vote.
Disaster for both big parties tbh. Tories fell through the floor from an absolute historic high position, Labour have managed to fall from the historic low they managed the last time these seats were up for grabs.
That is true but only a partial analysis. The seats in question are very much Tory country (the big cities didn't have elections this year) and 2021 was a funny year when post Covid vaccine roll out, the government had a temporary boost in their support.
It is always a mistake to over read local results.
Sadly our media thrive on doing so.
This shapes the narrative and forces* parties to respond.
Making it all a self-fufilling prophecy which feeds por politics and even worse governance.
AFZ
*the wrong verb but it's how the national leaders feel.
Which is both partly true and also the straw Labour are currently grasping for.
Partly true because it includes places like Derbyshire and Notts which not only were Labour controlled in the last 10 years but (as I’m aware from family connections) Derbyshire in particular, up until about December, and off the back of a good showing at last year’s general election, Labour were genuinely hopeful of winning back off the Tories this year.
She has apologised but I wonder if it was a personal opinion or a reflection of government opinion.
It's basically a statement of fact. Ms Badenock was playing the same sick game at PMQs last Wednesday. If it wasn't clear then her last question gave it away where basically she said "vote Conservative or get more grooming gangs..."
Or put it another way: There was a major trial in Liverpool last week with several perpetrators being sentenced. Did you see any coverage of this?
He’s unprincipled. So he may listen to the polls. A vicar of Bray would have turned his coat by now.
Quote from Labour Party Principles on Social Justice
A central theme in Labour's ideology is social justice. The party has consistently advocated for policies aimed at reducing the inequality of income and wealth. This includes progressive taxation, strong labour rights, and social welfare programs to support the most vulnerable in society.
She has apologised but I wonder if it was a personal opinion or a reflection of government opinion.
It's basically a statement of fact. Ms Badenock was playing the same sick game at PMQs last Wednesday. If it wasn't clear then her last question gave it away where basically she said "vote Conservative or get more grooming gangs..."
Or put it another way: There was a major trial in Liverpool last week with several perpetrators being sentenced. Did you see any coverage of this?
AFZ
How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
What crime do you think they've committed for which the CPS would have a reasonable chance of conviction? Not all poor judgement amounts to criminality.
Yougov showing that Labour in Wales have been hemorrhaging support to Plaid to the tune of 24% of their 2024 vote. It's the Tories losing lots of votes to Reform
Meanwhile Starmer going on about how 'all decent British people 'have a deep and enduring love for Churchill (He'd better not go to Dundee- it might shock) and Louise Haigh opening up about the misogyny and briefing against women in cabinet (what a surprise from a bunch of transphobes! This is my surprised face!)
How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
What crime do you think they've committed for which the CPS would have a reasonable chance of conviction? Not all poor judgement amounts to criminality.
A full enquiry would inform us of all the instances of poor judgement.
I think it should become mandatory for news pieces talking about sexual exploitation to include what percentage of reported sexual abuse the particular cohort they are talking about are responsible for. For example:
This priest has been convicted of sexual abuse of choirboys (clerical abusers make up X% known offenders and Y% known offences in any decade in the UK: data source), this grooming gang of five people have been convicted (grooming gang members makeup %X known offenders and Y% known offences in any decade in the UK: data source).
This might help both politicians and the general public focus amounts of attention and intervention proportionate to risk.
How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
What crime do you think they've committed for which the CPS would have a reasonable chance of conviction? Not all poor judgement amounts to criminality.
A full enquiry would inform us of all the instances of poor judgement.
That may have been an answer to a question but it wasn't an answer to mine.
How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
What crime do you think they've committed for which the CPS would have a reasonable chance of conviction? Not all poor judgement amounts to criminality.
A full enquiry would inform us of all the instances of poor judgement.
That may have been an answer to a question but it wasn't an answer to mine.
How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
What crime do you think they've committed for which the CPS would have a reasonable chance of conviction? Not all poor judgement amounts to criminality.
A full enquiry would inform us of all the instances of poor judgement.
That may have been an answer to a question but it wasn't an answer to mine.
Many of them would be guilty as an accessory
Rubbish. "People in authority" (whoever they might be) haven't done anything to encourage these crimes, they've not provided aid to those who commit these crimes, they've not provided advice or otherwise helped in other ways. At worst they might be considered to be similar to those who witness a crime but do nothing to intervene to prevent it, and being present at a crime isn't the same as being an accessory to that crime, even less so when you're witnessing it from a distance in space and time - otherwise every time a police officer who knows a crime has happened and is unable to prevent it or gather the evidence to convict would be charged as an accessory.
1. The vast majority of abuse occurs in the home
2. Grooming gangs are evil
3. Grooming gangs of every ethnicity exist but the majority are white
4. The lack of a proper response to victims by authorities was shameful and unacceptable
5. The purpose of an enquiry is to find out what went wrong and work out how to fix it to protect future victims/potential victims
6. Such an enquiry has happened and there are detailed recommendations
7. The previous government did not act on these recommendations
8. The current government is but not quickly enough.
Ok.
Therefore I remain of the view that when certain people only focus on certain gangs they are bring racist.
I also remain on the view that Conservatives have no leg to stand on and are being political opportunists. Ms Badenoch at last week's PMQs was a particularly egregious example.
Using victims like this is sick and evil.
Labour are being too slow but I'll take that every day of the week over Reform or the Tories.
But we should not let Labour off the hook either. However, I have no truck with and no interest in what those grubby right-wingers in both parties are saying.
How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
What crime do you think they've committed for which the CPS would have a reasonable chance of conviction? Not all poor judgement amounts to criminality.
A full enquiry would inform us of all the instances of poor judgement.
That may have been an answer to a question but it wasn't an answer to mine.
Many of them would be guilty as an accessory
I really hope you had a better understanding of the law when you were responsible for enforcing it.
watching the Trump/Starmer love-in with my jaw on the floor. Am I right to think that nailing us into this sort of deal also basically nails us out of closer alignment with the EU?
watching the Trump/Starmer love-in with my jaw on the floor. Am I right to think that nailing us into this sort of deal also basically nails us out of closer alignment with the EU?
What is actually happening???
I suspect it’s a case of the mythical reversion to mean in terms of economic growth failing to materialise and then a lack of alternate strategy.
This is old - Rory Stewart interviewed on Novato media - but I think it is a really interesting proper discussion between two people with wildly differing views.
watching the Trump/Starmer love-in with my jaw on the floor. Am I right to think that nailing us into this sort of deal also basically nails us out of closer alignment with the EU?
What is actually happening???
I suspect it’s a case of the mythical reversion to mean in terms of economic growth failing to materialise and then a lack of alternate strategy.
watching the Trump/Starmer love-in with my jaw on the floor. Am I right to think that nailing us into this sort of deal also basically nails us out of closer alignment with the EU?
What is actually happening???
I suspect it’s a case of the mythical reversion to mean in terms of economic growth failing to materialise and then a lack of alternate strategy.
How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
What crime do you think they've committed for which the CPS would have a reasonable chance of conviction? Not all poor judgement amounts to criminality.
A full enquiry would inform us of all the instances of poor judgement.
That may have been an answer to a question but it wasn't an answer to mine.
Many of them would be guilty as an accessory
I really hope you had a better understanding of the law when you were responsible for enforcing it.
Very few people have a full understanding of the law, which changes all the time. Solicitors and Barristers usually have to look things up in the large books which they have need to purchase. Their skill is not knowing the law, it's their ability to 'find' the law.
Police Officers on the street have to make instant decisions based on the law they learned at training school. Station Sergeants/Custody Officers would have access to an out of date Stones Justices Manual. It's good that decisions are now made by the CPS who have plenty of time and all the relevant information.
watching the Trump/Starmer love-in with my jaw on the floor. Am I right to think that nailing us into this sort of deal also basically nails us out of closer alignment with the EU?
What is actually happening???
I suspect it’s a case of the mythical reversion to mean in terms of economic growth failing to materialise and then a lack of alternate strategy.
watching the Trump/Starmer love-in with my jaw on the floor. Am I right to think that nailing us into this sort of deal also basically nails us out of closer alignment with the EU?
What is actually happening???
I suspect it’s a case of the mythical reversion to mean in terms of economic growth failing to materialise and then a lack of alternate strategy.
It's "leaves the UK open to do a much more significant EU deal" in a kind of negative sense doesn't it ? i.e the reason it does is that the US trade deal isn't that significant.
Yes there is nothing in the deal that denies us further closeness to the EU. As I understand it this deal was being discussed before Liberation Day. It has potential to save a good number of jobs.
To be clear I am only saying what happened here. I don’t think immigrants should do the work Brits don’t want to do. Anyone who comes into the UK deserves to build a good life for themselves and their families. Anyone seeking shelter from war or any other bad situation deserve our help because they are human beings.
Labour are proposing basically the same as the Cons, no surprise there. Let in those people from abroad that have money and skills and expect Brits to pick up the jobs that none skilled immigrants do. No matter what you think about it, Brits did not want to pick cockles on Morecambe bay. They did not want to harvest crops by hand, they wanted to do the better jobs. Cutting immigration by not accepting unskilled workers was not a popular idea with voters.
Migration for work is a positive to the receiving nations. People are only going to migrate if there is work available, and will thus be filling vacancies that would otherwise go unfilled. More people working means more tax revenue, and more money being spent in local communities. Working age people have a low impact on the demand for services, less likely than the average person to need medical care and in a lot of cases with young people no need for schools etc either - though if those migrants stay long term (many, of course, don't as they retain links to their original country and having made some money and gained some experience then move back to be with family - which is possibly the only economic downside, having invested in training staff they're less likely to stay long term for the fullest returns on that investment) then they'll settle down and have families.
Non-work migration is a slightly different issue. Migration to retire puts a larger demand on medical and care services, without any associated substantial taxable income to contribute to that.
Asylum seekers and refugees also have additional needs, though they're usually able to work (and, want to) they may not have evidence of their qualifications, and they'll usually be suffering from various traumas that exacerbate problems working or integrating into local communities (some of which could be traumas associated with their journey, especially if regular routes are closed down and they're forced to rely on criminal gangs for transport, and may be avoidable if there was a humane and rational system for helping refugees).
It doesn't generally make much difference where someone is migrating from. The vast majority of migrants move within their national borders. If the false argument of "they're taking our jobs" is valid, then does it make any difference if a job in London is taken by someone from Leeds or someone from Lahore? If it's true that there's insufficient housing, does it make any difference if a small flat in London is rented by someone from Manchester or Mumbai?
To be clear I am only saying what happened here. I don’t think immigrants should do the work Brits don’t want to do.
People doing those jobs deserve to be treated with dignity and receive fair wages. It's also true that employment in the UK is at relatively high levels, so to talk about the jobs being done by 'people who are already here' is really to consider which other jobs you would rather not have done instead. If you want to improve pay and conditions, that would require stronger enforcement of existing legislation, rather than trying to use the blunt instrument of net migration targets to drive the change.
Also, this is all lies:
"Government insiders say that the “failed free-market experiment” of allowing overseas workers to freely enter the UK has been a major factor in generating political chaos over the past decade."
Comments
Which makes it all the more galling that a nominally socialist party with an unassailable majority and five years to make things better for the people of Britain has instantly kowtowed to that media. If ever there was a chance to tell the right wing media to fuck themselves it was now.
Reform got 12,645 votes in Runcorn yesterday. That’s an increase of 4,983. The Tories lost 4,415 votes compared to last year, Labour lost 9,719. No other party had a significant change. The maths alone suggests that at least 500 voters (2% - quite a swing even in itself) switched from Labour to Reform.
It’s possible that all of the drop in turnout was from Labour voters and all of the swing was from Tory voters switching to Reform. But it seems more likely to me that a good proportion of Labour voters switched to Reform.
Of course, if that’s true then it makes it even less of a good strategy for Labour to ape Reform, given that that’s what they’ve been doing so far and it has manifestly not worked. They need to change tack and start actually making people’s lives better rather than attacking scapegoats as a diversionary tactic.
Yep, and aping Reform just directs political energy at a set of issues on which Labour - being in government - can't outflank Reform because they are bounded by reality. ("We will reduce the boats", "Ah .. but will you shoot the boats/leave the EHRC/leave the earth/crucify asylum seekers")
But that means having a plan. And a clue. Thus far there's no sign of either.
Indeed. My hope - and it’s no more than that - is that Starmer, being devoid of any actual guiding principles, will start to see that a pivot to the left may actually be a winning (or at least breaking even, which still wins the next general election) strategy.
This is where I do my Peter Snow bit (‘can’t extrapolate from limited locals, just for fun’, mostly shire seats this time, etc) - vote shares currently as declared (ie lots to go still) are Reform 35%, Tories 25%, Labour 15%, Liberals 12%.
If I was Labour, I’d be worried about some sort of Tory-Reform deal before the next general election.
I think, between Farage's ego and tory arrogance, that's reasonably unlikely. The tories will defenestrate Badenoch sooner or later, and cooler heads among the tories will recognise that FPTP means they're likely to make gains even on a small swing against Labour, not to mention that many people who vote Reform wouldn't actually want Farage in charge if it ever became a realistic prospect.
Moreover, there's significant evidence of differences between the voters and many of the voters for both parties would not vote for an amalgamation of the two.
At this point, this is all guesswork, of course but in this context, 500 voters switching Labour to Reform is not significant. I mean, obviously, with a vote margin of 6, for this particular seat, it is... but in terms of the national picture, it really isn't. You neglected the fact that the Reform voters could have come from elsewhere - i.e. not just the Tories. Some might not have voted last time and some for other parties as well. It takes some in depth analysis to work this out. More importantly, voter behaviour is demonstrably different in a by-election that has no meaningful effect on the make-up of parliament than in a general election.
This analysis predates this specific by-election, obviously but it is not from Labour that Reform are getting votes for the most part. The evidence we have shows that there simply is not a large number of voters who have voted Labour previously and switched to Reform. Similarly, there is not a large cohort who voted Labour in '24 who would seriously consider voting Reform next time. Whilst we do have large numbers of Labour voters who are interested in voted LibDem or Green instead. So, what we have is Reform getting enough support that a fall in Labour votes (with people voting for other parties or not voting), means that Reform can beat Labour in these seats.
I reiterate, Labour is not losing voters to Reform. Labour is losing voters elsewhere whilst Reform are picking up votes elsewhere. The results of this in terms of electoral outcome are the same, of course, but the political strategy needed to combat it is entirely different.
AFZ
I think it’s a very fast moving picture tbh. The Lancashire results in the last 10 minutes - collapse of Tories and Labour, are horrifying.
The most alarming, for anyone who has ever canvassed door to door, is the breaking suggestion that Reform have taken Derbyshire by doing something that it is a truism doesn’t happen - successful mobilisation of habitual non-voters.
Having said that Labour needs to use this to try and start actually sounding like the Labour Party and not the Tories.
Disaster for both big parties tbh. Tories fell through the floor from an absolute historic high position, Labour have managed to fall from the historic low they managed the last time these seats were up for grabs.
That is true but only a partial analysis. The seats in question are very much Tory country (the big cities didn't have elections this year) and 2021 was a funny year when post Covid vaccine roll out, the government had a temporary boost in their support.
It is always a mistake to over read local results.
Sadly our media thrive on doing so.
This shapes the narrative and forces* parties to respond.
Making it all a self-fufilling prophecy which feeds por politics and even worse governance.
AFZ
*the wrong verb but it's how the national leaders feel.
https://www.ft.com/content/20598c6b-3884-4f31-a874-e5a3a827cc4d
There's a section worth calling out here:
"Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s chief of staff, has already started deploying what is loosely called a “Blue Labour” strategy: Starmer has cut the overseas aid budget, retreated from positions on trans issues, taken tough stances on defence and sounded more “patriotic”, including hosting the first St George’s Day reception at Number 10."
Both these issues are ones that excise the hard-through-further right; the changes to both were spun as the process of relatively pragmatic/independent deliberation, but here they are being described to the FT as a step in the culture war.
Parking morality for a moment, even from a totally machiavellian viewpoint this doesn't make any sense, this is a way of implementing policies that alienate your core support while simultaneously ensuring you aren't going get credit from the voters who you are trying to attract - who are going to go with Reform's more extreme policies anyway.
Which is both partly true and also the straw Labour are currently grasping for.
Partly true because it includes places like Derbyshire and Notts which not only were Labour controlled in the last 10 years but (as I’m aware from family connections) Derbyshire in particular, up until about December, and off the back of a good showing at last year’s general election, Labour were genuinely hopeful of winning back off the Tories this year.
In the event, they went from 14 seats to three.
She has apologised but I wonder if it was a personal opinion or a reflection of government opinion.
If you believe that Reform types who raise this issue do so out of concern for the victims I've got a bridge to sell you.
It's basically a statement of fact. Ms Badenock was playing the same sick game at PMQs last Wednesday. If it wasn't clear then her last question gave it away where basically she said "vote Conservative or get more grooming gangs..."
Or put it another way: There was a major trial in Liverpool last week with several perpetrators being sentenced. Did you see any coverage of this?
AFZ
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2025-05-06/labour-support-collapses-as-plaid-cymru-and-reform-battle-it-out-itv-poll
Astonishing - Starmer really is screwing up on a grand scale.
Quote from Labour Party Principles on Social Justice
Back to basics wouldn’t be a bad idea.
It's not just about victims.It's about those in authority who did nothing about it. They need to be bought to account How many people in authority have been prosecuted ?
What crime do you think they've committed for which the CPS would have a reasonable chance of conviction? Not all poor judgement amounts to criminality.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52116-first-yougov-voting-intention-in-wales-since-2024-general-election-shows-collapse-in-labour-support
Meanwhile Starmer going on about how 'all decent British people 'have a deep and enduring love for Churchill (He'd better not go to Dundee- it might shock) and Louise Haigh opening up about the misogyny and briefing against women in cabinet (what a surprise from a bunch of transphobes! This is my surprised face!)
Welcome to the club
A full enquiry would inform us of all the instances of poor judgement.
This might help both politicians and the general public focus amounts of attention and intervention proportionate to risk.
That may have been an answer to a question but it wasn't an answer to mine.
Many of them would be guilty as an accessory
1. The vast majority of abuse occurs in the home
2. Grooming gangs are evil
3. Grooming gangs of every ethnicity exist but the majority are white
4. The lack of a proper response to victims by authorities was shameful and unacceptable
5. The purpose of an enquiry is to find out what went wrong and work out how to fix it to protect future victims/potential victims
6. Such an enquiry has happened and there are detailed recommendations
7. The previous government did not act on these recommendations
8. The current government is but not quickly enough.
Ok.
Therefore I remain of the view that when certain people only focus on certain gangs they are bring racist.
I also remain on the view that Conservatives have no leg to stand on and are being political opportunists. Ms Badenoch at last week's PMQs was a particularly egregious example.
Using victims like this is sick and evil.
Labour are being too slow but I'll take that every day of the week over Reform or the Tories.
But we should not let Labour off the hook either. However, I have no truck with and no interest in what those grubby right-wingers in both parties are saying.
AFZ
I really hope you had a better understanding of the law when you were responsible for enforcing it.
Sexual abuse is an Epiphanies topic. Please take any further discussion of it there.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
What is actually happening???
I suspect it’s a case of the mythical reversion to mean in terms of economic growth failing to materialise and then a lack of alternate strategy.
And it bears all the hallmarks of being rushed:
https://x.com/joncstone/status/1920516885965046204
Ffs
Very few people have a full understanding of the law, which changes all the time. Solicitors and Barristers usually have to look things up in the large books which they have need to purchase. Their skill is not knowing the law, it's their ability to 'find' the law.
Police Officers on the street have to make instant decisions based on the law they learned at training school. Station Sergeants/Custody Officers would have access to an out of date Stones Justices Manual. It's good that decisions are now made by the CPS who have plenty of time and all the relevant information.
What do you reckon to this analysis ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8kl9yxrdo
It's "leaves the UK open to do a much more significant EU deal" in a kind of negative sense doesn't it ? i.e the reason it does is that the US trade deal isn't that significant.
Labour are proposing basically the same as the Cons, no surprise there. Let in those people from abroad that have money and skills and expect Brits to pick up the jobs that none skilled immigrants do. No matter what you think about it, Brits did not want to pick cockles on Morecambe bay. They did not want to harvest crops by hand, they wanted to do the better jobs. Cutting immigration by not accepting unskilled workers was not a popular idea with voters.
Non-work migration is a slightly different issue. Migration to retire puts a larger demand on medical and care services, without any associated substantial taxable income to contribute to that.
Asylum seekers and refugees also have additional needs, though they're usually able to work (and, want to) they may not have evidence of their qualifications, and they'll usually be suffering from various traumas that exacerbate problems working or integrating into local communities (some of which could be traumas associated with their journey, especially if regular routes are closed down and they're forced to rely on criminal gangs for transport, and may be avoidable if there was a humane and rational system for helping refugees).
It doesn't generally make much difference where someone is migrating from. The vast majority of migrants move within their national borders. If the false argument of "they're taking our jobs" is valid, then does it make any difference if a job in London is taken by someone from Leeds or someone from Lahore? If it's true that there's insufficient housing, does it make any difference if a small flat in London is rented by someone from Manchester or Mumbai?
People doing those jobs deserve to be treated with dignity and receive fair wages. It's also true that employment in the UK is at relatively high levels, so to talk about the jobs being done by 'people who are already here' is really to consider which other jobs you would rather not have done instead. If you want to improve pay and conditions, that would require stronger enforcement of existing legislation, rather than trying to use the blunt instrument of net migration targets to drive the change.
Also, this is all lies:
"Government insiders say that the “failed free-market experiment” of allowing overseas workers to freely enter the UK has been a major factor in generating political chaos over the past decade."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/11/labours-immigration-shake-up-challenges-decades-of-party-policy