Election prediction time

[The Doctor]

11 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

Indulge me, what are Starmers "worst impulses"?

let's have a look at his record in opposition (including this campaign):

 

waved through the spy-cops protection 

allowed the tories to ride roughshod over devolution 

supports the two child benefit cap

welcomed right wing headbangers like Elphicke into labour

 

and outside of parliament:

 

described major human rights abuses (cutting off water to Palestine) as something that Israel has the right to do

fanboyed in the telegraph over Thatcher

 

the dude is not left wing, in a sane country where the right wing party weren't doing the Simpsons Republican convention skit (we're just plain evil, we want what's worst for everyone), he'd belong in that more moderate right wing party. 

[izzymuzzet]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

allowed the tories to ride roughshod over devolution

Can you explain what you mean by this?

[The Doctor]

28 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

Just out of interest, what are everyone's thoughts on National Service???  I'd be interested in seeing the general perception of the idea. They obviously thought it would poll well... But I'm not convinced it will. 

incredibly stupid idea, there's a reason very few countries have it and why conscription is generally not used by nations except in the worst case scenario of a major war, and it's because forcing a bunch of teenagers who don't want to be there into the army turns it into an ineffective babysitters. the volunteering in charity and civic causes is less bad but does still have the same issue of if you force people to do something you get ineffective people who resent being there.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, izzymuzzet said:

Can you explain what you mean by this?

abstained over the s35 vote for the GRR bill Scotland passed. the bill that holyrood passed did not touch on any reserved powers, they were very careful on that and voted down multiple amendments that would have brought it up against reserved powers. but the tories didn't like the bill and so made up a false clash and vetoed it under s35. Labour could have taken a stance about this affront to devolution but instead abstained 

[izzymuzzet]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

abstained over the s35 vote for the GRR bill Scotland passed. the bill that holyrood passed did not touch on any reserved powers, they were very careful on that and voted down multiple amendments that would have brought it up against reserved powers. but the tories didn't like the bill and so made up a false clash and vetoed it under s35. Labour could have taken a stance about this affront to devolution but instead abstained 

I thought this might be what you referring to, but was confused because Section 35 doesn't require Parliamentary legislation to be used - it's a statutory instrument. There was a standing order debate in the Commons but that has no bearing on whether S35 is applied.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, izzymuzzet said:

I thought this might be what you referring to, but was confused because Section 35 doesn't require Parliamentary legislation to be used - it's a statutory instrument. There was a standing order debate in the Commons but that has no bearing on whether S35 is applied.

and in that debate and vote on the debate Starmer whipped labour to not stand up for devolution and confirmed that he's also of the position that Westminster should be able to block the devolved parliaments doing anything, even if it's within the devolved parliament remit, if the Westminster government doesn't like it. in which case, why even have devolution?

 

unfortunately we don't really have a pro scottish independence party in Yorkshire for pretty obvious reasons, so I'll be voting Women's Equality Party if they stand, Greens if they dont, and if neither stand in my constituency then there's a beer garden with my name on it that day.

[Bilo]

23 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

I reckon Reform have maybe a 30% chance of winning Boston and Skegness but that's it. The absolute funniest (unfortunately unlikely) scenario there is that Reform and Conservatives split the gammon vote and Labour squeeze through the middle.

That's my local constituency funnily enough.

 

The response to Tice standing here has been lukewarm due to his lack of local connections, the Tory MP is only moderately popular and Labour have just selected an ex-Army teacher and businesswoman who's rooted in the community and is generally perceived to be a strong candidate.

 

There's a reasonable chance that it becomes a three way marginal, which is incredible considering that Warman currently has a 61% majority. 

[Daggers]

51 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

Just out of interest, what are everyone's thoughts on National Service???  I'd be interested in seeing the general perception of the idea. They obviously thought it would poll well... But I'm not convinced it will. 

Check out the reasons it was scraped, then see who in the military is calling for it, and finally factor in what the military actually want.

 

It was, is, and will remain an idea for elderly white people who never did conscription and like to wank over thatched cottage pictures on chocolate boxes. And there’s the real problem - thatched cottage pictures no longer appear on chocolate boxes, maybe that is why the are so pissed off and want to destroy the country.

 

£12 on Etsy if you know such an angry old person.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[izzymuzzet]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

and in that debate and vote on the debate Starmer whipped labour to not stand up for devolution and confirmed that he's also of the position that Westminster should be able to block the devolved parliaments doing anything, even if it's within the devolved parliament remit, if the Westminster government doesn't like it. in which case, why even have devolution?

 

unfortunately we don't really have a pro scottish independence party in Yorkshire for pretty obvious reasons, so I'll be voting Women's Equality Party if they stand, Greens if they dont, and if neither stand in my constituency then there's a beer garden with my name on it that day.

A big part of Starmer's MO over the last four years is to not do anything pointless that makes no difference to the actual policy outcomes but could give the Tories a stick to beat them with. Think that vote falls squarely into that category. As it looks like he's on course to win a triple figure majority I'd say it's a strategy that's worked. Obviously it's a matter of opinion whether getting into power is more important than the outcomes of individual votes while in opposition. Personally I think it is.

[Daggers]

 

[Daggers]

 

[The Doctor]

36 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

A big part of Starmer's MO over the last four years is to not do anything pointless that makes no difference to the actual policy outcomes but could give the Tories a stick to beat them with. Think that vote falls squarely into that category. As it looks like he's on course to win a triple figure majority I'd say it's a strategy that's worked. Obviously it's a matter of opinion whether getting into power is more important than the outcomes of individual votes while in opposition. Personally I think it is.

my problem with that is it then becomes an article of faith "oh no, he totally believes in [progressive policy he didn't defend], he's just ensuring he can have power to enact it", and frankly I'm more of a "when someone tells you who they are, believe them" person.

[Voll Blau]

36 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

A big part of Starmer's MO over the last four years is to not do anything pointless that makes no difference to the actual policy outcomes but could give the Tories a stick to beat them with. Think that vote falls squarely into that category. As it looks like he's on course to win a triple figure majority I'd say it's a strategy that's worked. Obviously it's a matter of opinion whether getting into power is more important than the outcomes of individual votes while in opposition. Personally I think it is.

Exactly. The problem with Labour under Corbyn (which I voted for twice, before anyone starts) was that it was guilty of trying to play the electorate it wanted, rather than the electorate it had.

 

I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but them's the breaks. You have to play the system you're in, because you haven't a chance in hell of changing anything unless you get the keys to Downing Street.

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

Just out of interest, what are everyone's thoughts on National Service???  I'd be interested in seeing the general perception of the idea. They obviously thought it would poll well... But I'm not convinced it will. 

This isn't National Service in the traditional sense, this is something different that's being labelled as National Service.  It think the idea addresses a number of serious issues which need addressing.  Is "National Service" the best way to go? I'm not sure.

 

Here's how I view it:

 

From a national security perspective, I am becoming concerned about some of the noise coming out about what the future might look like... Russia, China, Middle East, etc... Here in the UK we have had a long period of peace, something most of us take for granted but there is a growing sense of unease and our armed forces need bolstering.  How do we do that?  There are a few options, but the key thing is that this National Service thing will be the cheapest.

 

The military part of NS seems to be aimed at a small number of 18 year olds, about 4% or something like that, and it seems there will be quite an application process to actually get in.  I can see it being quite appealing to quite a few young people.  Learning skills from the military in cyber security or logistics are valuable life skills and could well send some on a successful career path - an appealing prospect for 18 year olds who don't really know what they want to do in life.  So they get skills and experience and the government get a somewhat bolstered military.

 

The "Public Service" part is nothing but a cheap way of getting more hours on the clock.  Yes, there are some benefits.  Some young people will learn skills, some will do a great job, and the public may see some benefits.  But look at the maths...

 

Let's say 500,000 people actually take part, allowing for around 200,000 to be exempted or just refuse.

 

500,000 x 25 days per year = 12.5 million working days.

12.5 million days at 8 hours per day = 100,000,000 hours.

Let's say the job they'd be doing costs £15 per hour, that means the government get £1.5b worth of labour for free every year (I know it's not free to administrate).

 

So is NS a good idea?  Well I don't think it's terrible (as a parent of 2 children who would likely be affected), I'm not dead against it, but it won't make me place a X in the blue box.

 

The public services and military need bolstering and some young people need a helping hand at age 18 to give them some direction.  So NS does, on paper, go some distance to addressing these important issues.

 

The alternative? Spend more money (lots of it - where does it come from?).  Make careers in public services and the armed forces more appealing?   I'd like to see more of this, but that costs money too and is a tough sell given the way the public sector has been treated over the last 15+ years.

 

Essentially the Tories have backed themselves into a corner.  Getting public services to where they need to be will take massive money that the country doesn't have.  It's a mess.  NS is something, not nothing, but it's not the same as tempting the brightest and best into a public service career, giving them the tools to do the job and the pay that recognises the professionalism required.

 

My fear is that whether it's Labour or Conservative in power for the next 5 years, there is no quick fix.

[izzymuzzet]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

my problem with that is it then becomes an article of faith "oh no, he totally believes in [progressive policy he didn't defend], he's just ensuring he can have power to enact it", and frankly I'm more of a "when someone tells you who they are, believe them" person.

Yeah, I don't think he's secretly a communist or anything. My view is that opposition is really different to government, it's mainly about positioning, and once you're in government a lot of what you do is dictated by events rather than what's in your manifesto anyway.

 

I think what you can determine from Starmer's positioning in oppposition is that his government is going to try to prioritise the economy and revitalising public services, and everything else is regarded as a distraction. Not only does he actually believe in that stuff, but it also happens to be what the electorate are most bothered about. There's nothing wrong of course with being passionate about trans rights, or Palestine, or the undercover policing scandal. But let's face it, most people don't care about that stuff so if oppositions are percieved to be focusing on those issues they risk being percieved as out of touch. Case Study 101: The Labour Party 2010-2020.

[The Doctor]

3 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

Yeah, I don't think he's secretly a communist or anything. My view is that opposition is really different to government, it's mainly about positioning, and once you're in government a lot of what you do is dictated by events rather than what's in your manifesto anyway.

 

I think what you can determine from Starmer's positioning in oppposition is that his government is going to try to prioritise the economy and revitalising public services, and everything else is regarded as a distraction. Not only does he actually believe in that stuff, but it also happens to be what the electorate are most bothered about. There's nothing wrong of course with being passionate about trans rights, or Palestine, or the undercover policing scandal. But let's face it, most people don't care about that stuff so if oppositions are percieved to be focusing on those issues they risk being percieved as out of touch. Case Study 101: The Labour Party 2010-2020.

I'm not expecting him to be a communist, particularly given corbyn was a bog standard democratic socialist, what I'm expecting is for the human rights lawyer to actually, y'know, speak up in defence of human rights as the tories signal their desire to destroy them, a test he has repeatedly failed

[izzymuzzet]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

I'm not expecting him to be a communist, particularly given corbyn was a bog standard democratic socialist, what I'm expecting is for the human rights lawyer to actually, y'know, speak up in defence of human rights as the tories signal their desire to destroy them, a test he has repeatedly failed

'Democratic socialist' is a phrase which means a lot of different things to different people, so I suspect we won't agree on Corbyn. But that's ok. Let's return in 2029 and we can discuss what Labour have done in government.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

let's have a look at his record in opposition (including this campaign):

 

waved through the spy-cops protection 

allowed the tories to ride roughshod over devolution 

supports the two child benefit cap

welcomed right wing headbangers like Elphicke into labour

 

and outside of parliament:

 

described major human rights abuses (cutting off water to Palestine) as something that Israel has the right to do

fanboyed in the telegraph over Thatcher

 

the dude is not left wing, in a sane country where the right wing party weren't doing the Simpsons Republican convention skit (we're just plain evil, we want what's worst for everyone), he'd belong in that more moderate right wing party. 

I see Starmer as a bit of a Putin (stay with me). Basically, work from the assumption that he has no fixed set of beliefs and everything is a big-tent (anything is Labour policy if it's popular). He's playing off different factions against each other and then moving whichever way the wind blows. Johnson was fairly similar although he had a bit more conviction in his beliefs.

 

Starmer will win easily because of this strategy, because it's uncontroversial. The problems will come in a few years time once the Tories sort themselves out.

[The Doctor]

19 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I see Starmer as a bit of a Putin (stay with me). Basically, work from the assumption that he has no fixed set of beliefs and everything is a big-tent (anything is Labour policy if it's popular). He's playing off different factions against each other and then moving whichever way the wind blows. Johnson was fairly similar although he had a bit more conviction in his beliefs.

 

Starmer will win easily because of this strategy, because it's uncontroversial. The problems will come in a few years time once the Tories sort themselves out.

I think that's a fair assessment and as you say, the problem is that the tories will eventually sort themselves out. he is going to be PM purely because the tories have taken very deliberate aim at their own feet. like he's currently got a -10% approval rating: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating

 

with starmer, labour will be in charge for 5 years then in the wilderness for another 15-20.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I think that's a fair assessment and as you say, the problem is that the tories will eventually sort themselves out. he is going to be PM purely because the tories have taken very deliberate aim at their own feet. like he's currently got a -10% approval rating: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating

 

with starmer, labour will be in charge for 5 years then in the wilderness for another 15-20.

It's a possibility.

 

That being said, I'm struggling to think of another scenario where it's definitely less of a possibility.

[Daggers]

“It’s the last thing Putin will expect…”

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Sunak has got to be deliberately trying to lose as many seats as possible, there's no other explanation.

[LiberalFox]

Can anyone explain what Labour are actually proposing to do? 

 

So far I'm only aware of votes for 16 year olds and charging VAT on private school tuition fees. 

 

I can't remember an election where the opposition was considered such a favourite without actually having any policies. 

[BKLFox]

8 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Can anyone explain what Labour are actually proposing to do? 

 

So far I'm only aware of votes for 16 year olds and charging VAT on private school tuition fees. 

 

I can't remember an election where the opposition was considered such a favourite without actually having any policies. 

He’s said he won’t scrap Uni fees so the young will still start life in debt.

He’s sugar coated it by saying it’s between this or putting it into the NHS so will be over looked of course.

Id much rather he said I’ll look into why the NHS spu4ks so much money per day and address that 1st rather than just keep putting good money on top of bad.