Not The Politics Thread.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

4 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Oh yes, that is true. Cheered me up a bit

Strangely enough, You Gov had Labour 2 points ahead just over a month ago, their first poll leads since January when that was also a You Gov poll.

Actually, from Nov 2020 to Jan 2021, You Gov did 12 polls... Labour led in 7, Tories 3 and 2 ties - while the other pollsters largely had the Tories in front.

 

PS You Gov did a poll of over 100,000 people in the week before the 2019 GE (polls are usually a couple of thousand) and it slightly underestimated the actual Tory vote and overestimated the actual Labour vote in the GE. So don't get too excited....

[SecretPro]

14 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Strangely enough, You Gov had Labour 2 points ahead just over a month ago, their first poll leads since January when that was also a You Gov poll.

Actually, from Nov 2020 to Jan 2021, You Gov did 12 polls... Labour led in 7, Tories 3 and 2 ties - while the other pollsters largely had the Tories in front.

 

PS You Gov did a poll of over 100,000 people in the week before the 2019 GE (polls are usually a couple of thousand) and it slightly underestimated the actual Tory vote and overestimated the actual Labour vote in the GE. So don't get too excited....

YouGov have never asked me shit

[SecretPro]

Why's YouGov so out of kilter with all the others anyway?

[UpTheLeagueFox]

26 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Why's YouGov so out of kilter with all the others anyway?

They are sometimes out of kilter the other way too ie in the same week YouGov had Labour 2% ahead last month, other pollsters had Tory leads of 9%, 8% and several at 4%

 

As I said earlier, You Gov nailed the 2019 GE almost bang on, with 100k polled, which was very impressive.

[FoxyPV]

1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Strangely enough, You Gov had Labour 2 points ahead just over a month ago, their first poll leads since January when that was also a You Gov poll.

Actually, from Nov 2020 to Jan 2021, You Gov did 12 polls... Labour led in 7, Tories 3 and 2 ties - while the other pollsters largely had the Tories in front.

 

PS You Gov did a poll of over 100,000 people in the week before the 2019 GE (polls are usually a couple of thousand) and it slightly underestimated the actual Tory vote and overestimated the actual Labour vote in the GE. So don't get too excited....

People don't like admitting that they vote Tory hence why exit polls are so radically different 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

People don't like admitting that they vote Tory hence why exit polls are so radically different 

The 2019 exit poll was similar to the final (and large survey) poll YouGov did before the GE.

But generally I think you're probably right on that.

[ClaphamFox]

I suspect that if an election were held tomorrow, the Tories would walk it. Labour has a massive task on its hands, but the divisions within the party are so vast and so bitter that I just can't see it uniting enough to mount a credible challenge.

[David Guiza]

Has anybody been watching the New Labour Revolution documentary series on BBC? I imagine@Alf Bentley may have done if nobody else! Really enjoying it so far, and even shed a tear at Gordon Brown's reaction to John Smith's death.  

The first episode is almost a carbon copy of today. Tories with unassailable leads, general public perception that Labour were out of touch and labelled the 'looney left' by some. I think I've mentioned in here before, but I do think (probably more hope than think) history may repeat itself with Starmer playing a Kinnock role of uniting the party into something electable and leading the way for a new leader to see the job through. The biggest difference perhaps is that there's nobody in the current opposition with the intelligence and firepower of Brown, or the personality and sheen of a young Blair, though I do think there's perhaps parallels to be drawn with Burnham and Blair. 

 

I completely understand that he had his faults, but I also cannot comprehend that Brown was tossed out in favour of Cameron and Clegg. Naturally the global economic crisis, Iraq war and other factors were largely at play, but I also think Brown's dour persona cost him dearly, which is silly. 

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Has anybody been watching the New Labour Revolution documentary series on BBC? I imagine@Alf Bentley may have done if nobody else! Really enjoying it so far, and even shed a tear at Gordon Brown's reaction to John Smith's death.  

The first episode is almost a carbon copy of today. Tories with unassailable leads, general public perception that Labour were out of touch and labelled the 'looney left' by some. I think I've mentioned in here before, but I do think (probably more hope than think) history may repeat itself with Starmer playing a Kinnock role of uniting the party into something electable and leading the way for a new leader to see the job through. The biggest difference perhaps is that there's nobody in the current opposition with the intelligence and firepower of Brown, or the personality and sheen of a young Blair, though I do think there's perhaps parallels to be drawn with Burnham and Blair. 

 

I completely understand that he had his faults, but I also cannot comprehend that Brown was tossed out in favour of Cameron and Clegg. Naturally the global economic crisis, Iraq war and other factors were largely at play, but I also think Brown's dour persona cost him dearly, which is silly. 

Starmer doesn't seem to be as ruthless as Kinnock was, and - as you say - there doesn't seem to be any equivalents of Blair or Brown waiting in the wings to step in. It's looking bleak, to be honest. 

The next election should be about the post-Brexit economy, but I get the sense it's shaping up to be about social/cultural issues as much as the economy. If that happens, it will work massively in the Tories' favour.

[Lionator]

27 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

The 2019 exit poll was similar to the final (and large survey) poll YouGov did before the GE.

But generally I think you're probably right on that.

Maybe Brexit has affected this a bit. Elder relatives who would never previously admit voting tory seem to be a lot more vocal since Brexit made the tories a leave the EU party rather than a party for the rich (without going into why this is bs). 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Starmer doesn't seem to be as ruthless as Kinnock was, and - as you say - there doesn't seem to be any equivalents of Blair or Brown waiting in the wings to step in. It's looking bleak, to be honest. 

The next election should be about the post-Brexit economy, but I get the sense it's shaping up to be about social/cultural issues as much as the economy. If that happens, it will work massively in the Tories' favour.

Would you mind unpacking this a bit?

[Dunge]

12 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Has anybody been watching the New Labour Revolution documentary series on BBC? I imagine@Alf Bentley may have done if nobody else! Really enjoying it so far, and even shed a tear at Gordon Brown's reaction to John Smith's death.  

The first episode is almost a carbon copy of today. Tories with unassailable leads, general public perception that Labour were out of touch and labelled the 'looney left' by some. I think I've mentioned in here before, but I do think (probably more hope than think) history may repeat itself with Starmer playing a Kinnock role of uniting the party into something electable and leading the way for a new leader to see the job through. The biggest difference perhaps is that there's nobody in the current opposition with the intelligence and firepower of Brown, or the personality and sheen of a young Blair, though I do think there's perhaps parallels to be drawn with Burnham and Blair. 

 

I completely understand that he had his faults, but I also cannot comprehend that Brown was tossed out in favour of Cameron and Clegg. Naturally the global economic crisis, Iraq war and other factors were largely at play, but I also think Brown's dour persona cost him dearly, which is silly. 

I caught a little bit the other week. What struck me - and what I’d forgotten to an extent - was just how much charisma the young Tony Blair had. He was able to hold the conference room in the palm of his hand; they were hanging on his every word.

 

I don’t think this alone won Labour the election of course - there was obviously substance, no great fear of Labour like when the hard left get power, plus the Tories were shaky economically and had the weak and dull Major in charge. (More peas, dear?)

[Lionator]

36 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Has anybody been watching the New Labour Revolution documentary series on BBC? I imagine@Alf Bentley may have done if nobody else! Really enjoying it so far, and even shed a tear at Gordon Brown's reaction to John Smith's death.  

The first episode is almost a carbon copy of today. Tories with unassailable leads, general public perception that Labour were out of touch and labelled the 'looney left' by some. I think I've mentioned in here before, but I do think (probably more hope than think) history may repeat itself with Starmer playing a Kinnock role of uniting the party into something electable and leading the way for a new leader to see the job through. The biggest difference perhaps is that there's nobody in the current opposition with the intelligence and firepower of Brown, or the personality and sheen of a young Blair, though I do think there's perhaps parallels to be drawn with Burnham and Blair. 

 

I completely understand that he had his faults, but I also cannot comprehend that Brown was tossed out in favour of Cameron and Clegg. Naturally the global economic crisis, Iraq war and other factors were largely at play, but I also think Brown's dour persona cost him dearly, which is silly. 

Burnham definitely isn't Blair, but there are definitely pro's and con's for Burnham. The con's are that he's tainted with the Mid-staffs scandal on his watch (although given what recent tory health secretary's have gotten away with, it's really not that bad) and his association with Blair. The pro's are that he reinvented himself as mayor of Manchester, has a genuine vision in terms of a national care service, taking power away from Westminster, and is ultimately charismatic. Living in the NorthWest he's very well thought off but whether that would expand beyond the Liverpool to Manchester corridor is another thing. The fact that he's the most appealing person (alongside Ed ****ing Miliband) is a sad indictment on Labour.

[Sampson]

46 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Has anybody been watching the New Labour Revolution documentary series on BBC? I imagine@Alf Bentley may have done if nobody else! Really enjoying it so far, and even shed a tear at Gordon Brown's reaction to John Smith's death.  

The first episode is almost a carbon copy of today. Tories with unassailable leads, general public perception that Labour were out of touch and labelled the 'looney left' by some. I think I've mentioned in here before, but I do think (probably more hope than think) history may repeat itself with Starmer playing a Kinnock role of uniting the party into something electable and leading the way for a new leader to see the job through. The biggest difference perhaps is that there's nobody in the current opposition with the intelligence and firepower of Brown, or the personality and sheen of a young Blair, though I do think there's perhaps parallels to be drawn with Burnham and Blair. 

 

I completely understand that he had his faults, but I also cannot comprehend that Brown was tossed out in favour of Cameron and Clegg. Naturally the global economic crisis, Iraq war and other factors were largely at play, but I also think Brown's dour persona cost him dearly, which is silly. 

I watched it and enjoyed it. 

Even though it was obviously Brown and Blair telling their own story, along with other key figures like Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw etc., so obviously biased it was a good reminder of much less populist and divided the country all seemed back then.

New Labour will always be remembered for the Iraq War primarily, but I definitely feel like the country was most harmonious and felt like it was going in a direction I liked during my adult life in those times.

As for the 2010 election, well, I voted Clegg and like a lot of LibDem voters I wanted him to form a coalition with Labour rather than the Tories, but I was a lot warmer on Cameron in those days before the EU referendum. Sadly the now half-forgotten AV referendum was also a bizarre disaster as it would actually have given us the choice to be able say who we wanted people to go into coalitions with in the case of hung parliments.

Regardless of the bigger referendums and Scotland and the EU to come, that voting system one was just baffling to me. It was poorly communicated, but there's objectively absolutely no advantages of FPTP over AV - as every single disadvantage AV has which you can come up with, FPTP has either the same disadvantage or worse. And it should have been a landslide in AV's favour - yet people still supported FPTP because they'd chosen that side before they even understood what they were voting on. That was one vote where I couldn't even understand the argument on the opposite side, the whole referendum campaign made zero sense to me, but the FPTP campaign was solely about muddying the waters and not talking about the voting systems actually meant. And the fact people voted for FPTP made me realise how misinformed people genuinely are and that maybe the "people vote how the media tells them even against their own interests" was not a far-right/far-left conspiracy theory after all.

Edited 14 October 2021 by Sampson

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Has anybody been watching the New Labour Revolution documentary series on BBC? I imagine@Alf Bentley may have done if nobody else! Really enjoying it so far, and even shed a tear at Gordon Brown's reaction to John Smith's death.  

The first episode is almost a carbon copy of today. Tories with unassailable leads, general public perception that Labour were out of touch and labelled the 'looney left' by some. I think I've mentioned in here before, but I do think (probably more hope than think) history may repeat itself with Starmer playing a Kinnock role of uniting the party into something electable and leading the way for a new leader to see the job through. The biggest difference perhaps is that there's nobody in the current opposition with the intelligence and firepower of Brown, or the personality and sheen of a young Blair, though I do think there's perhaps parallels to be drawn with Burnham and Blair. 

 

I completely understand that he had his faults, but I also cannot comprehend that Brown was tossed out in favour of Cameron and Clegg. Naturally the global economic crisis, Iraq war and other factors were largely at play, but I also think Brown's dour persona cost him dearly, which is silly. 

 

Yes, I've been watching it - a good watch for anyone with an interest in politics. The programme makers have done well in coaxing some apparently honest and revealing comment out of major players, particularly Blair & Brown themselves. Mandelson comes across as spiteful (if clever) as I remember and Charlie Whelan as even more of a damaging prat than I recalled.

 

Almost nostalgic to be reminded of a Govt that did some things I really liked (as well as some I really didn't like). I think Brown was tossed out largely due to the financial crisis and the perception that this was somehow "Labour mismanaging the public finances  again" (the 1970s cast a ridiculously long and selective shadow, as the Tory Heath Govt arguably got in as big an economic mess back then, without the party ever getting the long-term blame that Labour did).

 

As I recall, Cameron hadn't looked like becoming PM until the financial crisis and Brown being blamed for that - and that was many years into the Iraq War debacle. Indeed, Labour won a substantial, if reduced majority and third term in 2005, a couple of years after the main invasion of Iraq.

 

I don't know about your Kinnock-Starmer comparison. Very different, more complicated political times now compared to the 1980s, perhaps? Amazing to remember that Kinnock was Labour leader for 9 years without ever winning an election - whereas some people want Starmer out because he's not storming ahead after 18 months as leader, most of it during a pandemic (which is not meant as praise for him, just a comment on impatience - we all seem to be the Watford FC owners now!). Kinnock and Starmer are very different politicians, too. Kinnock was actually much better than Starmer at rhetoric and public speaking, but too few Tory voters warmed to him - maybe partly because he was up against a truly dominant opponent with a strong political identity in Thatcher. Johnson is very good at winning elections (God help us) and has a strong personal identity, but does he really have a genuine political identity at all, despite the "levelling up" slogans?

 

If a Starmer handover to a new leader is after 9 years, it would be in 2029, and the hypothetical "new Blair" would be a new MP first elected in 2019, who becomes leader in 2031 and PM in 2034!

 

I reckon future historians may give Brown a better reputation than he has now. In contrast, Blair's reputation may be more tarnished, notwithstanding him being a big, charismatic figure - and having a massive achievement to his credit in the N. Ireland peace deal (as well as a truly massive stain on his reputation via the Iraq WMDs deceit as a way of keeping in with George W. Bush).

[urban.spaceman]

I want that last quote on a t shirt.

 

[CosbehFox]

She’s an embarrassment - Starmer should be getting her gone ASAP. Surely no dimwit can defend her?

[Footballwipe]

10 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I've been watching it - a good watch for anyone with an interest in politics. The programme makers have done well in coaxing some apparently honest and revealing comment out of major players, particularly Blair & Brown themselves. Mandelson comes across as spiteful (if clever) as I remember and Charlie Whelan as even more of a damaging prat than I recalled.

 

Really enjoyed the series, binged it on iPlayer.

 

One thing I found was Gordon Brown was like blood from a stone at times. Didn't seem very forthcoming at all in certain moments (mainly the breakdown of the relationship). There were a couple of moments (well edited though) where he'd say something and it would be directly contradicted by someone else immediately. Found that difficult because you're then in the realm of 'who is telling the truth here?'

 

Overall though it is revealing, it is insightful, and it is as honest and deep as you're going to get. I do like it when they cut between the archive footage and the interviews, too.

 

Two obvious but intriguing sliding doors moments for me though. How long are New Labour in power for if the Iraq war doesn't happen? What happens if Brown HAD called that snap election? Would he have won a majority?

 

 

[Voll Blau]

21 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

She’s an embarrassment - Starmer should be getting her gone ASAP. Surely no dimwit can defend her?

Whip was already removed when she was charged. Next step is expulsion from the party full stop.

[urban.spaceman]

7 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Whip was already removed when she was charged. Next step is expulsion from the party full stop.

Worth noting this is the second MP selected/promoted by Corbyn to be a convicted criminal. 

[ClaphamFox]

56 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

She’s an embarrassment - Starmer should be getting her gone ASAP. Surely no dimwit can defend her?

Corbyn defended her vigorously the day after it was revealed in court that she'd threatened an acid attack against somebody, but then he probably belongs in a sub-dimwit category so your assertion may still hold.

Edited 15 October 2021 by ClaphamFox

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

She’s an embarrassment - Starmer should be getting her gone ASAP. Surely no dimwit can defend her?

 

They withdrew the whip and she's sitting as an independent; what more can Starmer do?

[ClaphamFox]

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Would you mind unpacking this a bit?

Sure. Assuming the economy is still struggling at the time of the next election, it will clearly be in the interests of the Tories to make the election about other issues. I think they will try to make it about culture and position themselves as the defenders of common sense and pragmatism against a diffuse threat from the ‘woke left’. The pro-Brexit campaign used this approach to great effect – one of the reasons we’re out of the EU is because the leave campaign was far more effective at tapping into people’s sense of identity. For many people, the vote was never really about a hard cost-benefit analysis of leaving the single market – it was more to do with a vague, though powerful, sense of how they saw themselves and the country. The leave campaign exploited that very effectively.

 

I think the Tories will try to replicate that in the next general election campaign. In this, they might be helped by the current debate over transgender issues. If Labour goes into the next election campaigning for self-identification for transgender people (with the implication that any biological male who identifies as a women has free access to women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, rape shelters, etc) and the Tories position themselves as the defenders of women’s right to single-sex spaces, then I suspect Labour will lose a lot of women’s votes, which could seriously harm its electoral prospects.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Sure. Assuming the economy is still struggling at the time of the next election, it will clearly be in the interests of the Tories to make the election about other issues. I think they will try to make it about culture and position themselves as the defenders of common sense and pragmatism against a diffuse threat from the ‘woke left’. The pro-Brexit campaign used this approach to great effect – one of the reasons we’re out of the EU is because the leave campaign was far more effective at tapping into people’s sense of identity. For many people, the vote was never really about a hard cost-benefit analysis of leaving the single market – it was more to do with a vague, though powerful, sense of how they saw themselves and the country. The leave campaign exploited that very effectively.

 

I think the Tories will try to replicate that in the next general election campaign. In this, they might be helped by the current debate over transgender issues. If Labour goes into the next election campaigning for self-identification for transgender people (with the implication that any biological male who identifies as a women has free access to women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, rape shelters, etc) and the Tories position themselves as the defenders of women’s right to single-sex spaces, then I suspect Labour will lose a lot of women’s votes, which could seriously harm its electoral prospects.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

My own take is that if it does turn out that way it will be an incredibly disappointing thing, as the Tories would be using a threat that is nowhere near as potent as they make out for their own political purposes, at the cost of the safety of a lot of already marginalised people.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Footballwipe said:

Really enjoyed the series, binged it on iPlayer.

 

One thing I found was Gordon Brown was like blood from a stone at times. Didn't seem very forthcoming at all in certain moments (mainly the breakdown of the relationship). There were a couple of moments (well edited though) where he'd say something and it would be directly contradicted by someone else immediately. Found that difficult because you're then in the realm of 'who is telling the truth here?'

 

Overall though it is revealing, it is insightful, and it is as honest and deep as you're going to get. I do like it when they cut between the archive footage and the interviews, too.

 

Two obvious but intriguing sliding doors moments for me though. How long are New Labour in power for if the Iraq war doesn't happen? What happens if Brown HAD called that snap election? Would he have won a majority?

 

 

 

Yes, being outgoing, charming and personable wasn't exactly Brown's strong suit. I preferred his charisma-free focus on substance, particularly economic/social policy - and he genuinely did play a major global role during the financial crisis.

But I'm in a minority, I think. Most voters want to have a leader who is appealing in some way (Wilson, Thatcher, Blair, Johnson - very different leaders, but all with personal appeal to voters).

 

The other side of the coin is that some of Blair's personal appeal now seems utterly cringeworthy - and seemed so at the time to me: e.g. "She was the people's princess" about Diana; "this is not the time for soundbites, but I feel the hand of history on my shoulder" about N. Ireland. But he deserves enormous credit (along with other politicians in Ireland, UK & internationally) for securing the N. Ireland peace deal. Even helping persuade Bush to go down the UN route on Iraq for so long deserves respect.

 

But the single most revealing moment for me was when Blair said that, when the chips were down, the UK would join the US in the Iraq venture even without UN approval as he felt it was in Britain's long-term interests to maintain a strong trans-Atlantic alliance. He subsequently argued his case about hard decisions & flawed security briefings, but that's a bit of a red herring. A criticism of the programme: it downplayed the extent to which the UN route on Iraq was still possible. Although Saddam had been dragging his feet, the UN inspectors had already examined a high proportion of potential WMD sites without finding anything - and the French and others only wanted Blix to be given 2-3 more months to complete the inspections. Essentially, I think Bush wanted to attack Iraq, preferably with UN support but without if not. Blair wanted to maintain the US-UK alliance, preferably without an unjustified war but with one in British interests, if necessary. They really should have included footage of Robin Cook's speech to parliament pulling the case for war apart. He was a bigger figure (ex-Foreign Secretary) than Clare Short and ultimately spoke up more effectively than she did on Iraq - that was a bit of a sop to Blair's case by diluting the articulacy of his Iraq opponents.

 

On "who is telling the truth".... I suppose that's inevitably subjective to an extent. As guidance on commentators, I'd say: Mandelson was very much in Blair's camp; Campbell slightly similar but a bit more even-handed; Whelan very much in Brown's camp. Some biases were quite clear. In general, they seemed to speak to more Blairites than Brownites, though Jonathan Powell was another who seemed honest and even-handed.

 

Sliding doors? I've not seen Part 5 yet, but reckon New Labour would still have lost power in 2010 even without Iraq - it cost them a few seats in 2005, but they retained power. On the other hand, if Brown had called a snap election in 2007-08 I reckon he might have retained a small, reduced majority or Labour might at least have been the biggest party and forming a coalition with the LDs in 07-08, before losing power to the Tories in 2012-13 after the financial crash....unless Brown had done an extraordinary job in dealing with the crash and this had been recognised (the former is possible, the latter unlikely, I think). I've checked my memory on this: after a brief Brown honeymoon period, pre-crash polls in 07-08 showed a small lead for the Tories. But Govts often close such narrow gaps in the run-up to an election.