These results only further reinforce the view that the tactic must be Tories v Rest of the World. Labour cannot win a GE outright, it looks like they've lost their traditional heartlands now but that doesn't matter if Lab / SNP / Lib Dems can work tactically together through the next few years.
Labour aren't offering anything. Starmer has been leader for 2 years and I still don't know what, if anything, he actually stands for because he's too busy trying to appease everyone, TWO YEARS IN! He's a weak leader and if he doesn't get out there hammering home what Labour will do differently the Tories will win another five years just on virtue of all the gerrymandering. I can't take another 5 years of the Tories in power and it keeps happening because of Labour in-fighting. Tactical voting can help but it doesn't seem to be quite the slam dunk we need it to be.
Yeah, we're not expecting any meaningful results until very late today or more likely the weekend. First results will always be those who got in on first preference votes alone, so there will be no surprises there.
The downside to the Alliance doing well is that they seem to be doing so at the expense of parties like the SDLP and Greens rather than unionist seats.
These results only further reinforce the view that the tactic must be Tories v Rest of the World. Labour cannot win a GE outright, it looks like they've lost their traditional heartlands now but that doesn't matter if Lab / SNP / Lib Dems can work tactically together through the next few years.
Labour aren't offering anything. Starmer has been leader for 2 years and I still don't know what, if anything, he actually stands for because he's too busy trying to appease everyone, TWO YEARS IN! He's a weak leader and if he doesn't get out there hammering home what Labour will do differently the Tories will win another five years just on virtue of all the gerrymandering. I can't take another 5 years of the Tories in power and it keeps happening because of Labour in-fighting. Tactical voting can help but it doesn't seem to be quite the slam dunk we need it to be.
I read his manifesto/essay and do know what Starmer is offering. Luke warm reheated neoliberalism with a slightly kinder face on it than the Tory kind. Not much has changed from the days of New Labour, the dominant mode of thought is that the left has lost the argument and Labour need to compete with Tories on their own terf. As long as every Labour speech centers around the amount of money avalible to "hard working families" you can pretty much assume this is still the case.
This is not a "both sides are the same" argument though. It's a "one side is slightly less bad so probably go for them" argument.
Also you can forget Labour accepting that they need to cooperate with other parties. Their idea of "realism" does not extend to acknowledging the British center/left has moved past a two party system and the right hasn't. They will not accept any reality that does not have them as the sole alternative to Tory rule, in that way they're almost as invested in the born to rule philosophy as the conservatives are.
Starmer said that that they would look at voting reform during the leadership campaign. Though I think they are looking more at PR than AV
“We’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed by electoral reform. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level.”
“I would consult the party membership on electoral reform and include it within the constitutional convention that looks at wider democratic renewal – including abolishing the Lords and furthering devolution on the principles of federalism.”
I will offer a modicum of sympathy to Starmer's position because it feels like Labour are now constantly on a knife edge. On one side is hostile media fury based around an idea that Labour is going to fall back into Corbynism. Which, whilst the policies are broadly what this country actually needs, is now electoral suicide by association. But the other side of that knife is bland, Blairite fluff that won't address the deep rooted issues in this country.
Good luck to anyone trying to win a majority between that rock and hard place.
Edit: and that's not saying anything about the absolute chaos that is Brexit and the response by media and leavers to being against Brexit as a party...
These results only further reinforce the view that the tactic must be Tories v Rest of the World. Labour cannot win a GE outright, it looks like they've lost their traditional heartlands now but that doesn't matter if Lab / SNP / Lib Dems can work tactically together through the next few years.
Labour aren't offering anything. Starmer has been leader for 2 years and I still don't know what, if anything, he actually stands for because he's too busy trying to appease everyone, TWO YEARS IN! He's a weak leader and if he doesn't get out there hammering home what Labour will do differently the Tories will win another five years just on virtue of all the gerrymandering. I can't take another 5 years of the Tories in power and it keeps happening because of Labour in-fighting. Tactical voting can help but it doesn't seem to be quite the slam dunk we need it to be.
I read his manifesto/essay and do know what Starmer is offering. Luke warm reheated neoliberalism with a slightly kinder face on it than the Tory kind. Not much has changed from the days of New Labour, the dominant mode of thought is that the left has lost the argument and Labour need to compete with Tories on their own terf. As long as every Labour speech centers around the amount of money avalible to "hard working families" you can pretty much assume this is still the case.
This is not a "both sides are the same" argument though. It's a "one side is slightly less bad so probably go for them" argument.
Also you can forget Labour accepting that they need to cooperate with other parties. Their idea of "realism" does not extend to acknowledging the British center/left has moved past a two party system and the right hasn't. They will not accept any reality that does not have them as the sole alternative to Tory rule, in that way they're almost as invested in the born to rule philosophy as the conservatives are.
Labour are in a difficult position in the sense that they tried a leftwing politics run and it catastrophically failed
I think the problem was never really the policies though. I'd like to see Starmer show the politics that display Labour not being out of touch with the national character, and the policies that show concrete changes to our economy/services and the will to actually embed them permanently into society.
The problem is that either the politics and policies of both wings of the party are insufficient. The left is genuinely not very palatable to the electorate, the centre left unwilling to do what is needed
These results only further reinforce the view that the tactic must be Tories v Rest of the World. Labour cannot win a GE outright, it looks like they've lost their traditional heartlands now but that doesn't matter if Lab / SNP / Lib Dems can work tactically together through the next few years.
Labour aren't offering anything. Starmer has been leader for 2 years and I still don't know what, if anything, he actually stands for because he's too busy trying to appease everyone, TWO YEARS IN! He's a weak leader and if he doesn't get out there hammering home what Labour will do differently the Tories will win another five years just on virtue of all the gerrymandering. I can't take another 5 years of the Tories in power and it keeps happening because of Labour in-fighting. Tactical voting can help but it doesn't seem to be quite the slam dunk we need it to be.
I read his manifesto/essay and do know what Starmer is offering. Luke warm reheated neoliberalism with a slightly kinder face on it than the Tory kind. Not much has changed from the days of New Labour, the dominant mode of thought is that the left has lost the argument and Labour need to compete with Tories on their own terf. As long as every Labour speech centers around the amount of money avalible to "hard working families" you can pretty much assume this is still the case.
This is not a "both sides are the same" argument though. It's a "one side is slightly less bad so probably go for them" argument.
Also you can forget Labour accepting that they need to cooperate with other parties. Their idea of "realism" does not extend to acknowledging the British center/left has moved past a two party system and the right hasn't. They will not accept any reality that does not have them as the sole alternative to Tory rule, in that way they're almost as invested in the born to rule philosophy as the conservatives are.
Typo?
...that's not a typo, is it.
Since it fits well I'm claiming it was intentional and rolling with it.
SCons taking an absolute kicking. Spotted a ward where the SNP first pref votes fell but they still managed to take a seat of the SCons because the Scons are vote transfer poison.
Scottish Greens going well as are the Scottish Lib Dems
SCons taking an absolute kicking. Spotted a ward where the SNP first pref votes fell but they still managed to take a seat of the SCons because the Scons are vote transfer poison.
Scottish Greens going well as are the Scottish Lib Dems
A great example of why STV is great and also why the tories will never ever implement it in England.
SCons taking an absolute kicking. Spotted a ward where the SNP first pref votes fell but they still managed to take a seat of the SCons because the Scons are vote transfer poison.
Scottish Greens going well as are the Scottish Lib Dems
A great example of why STV is great and also why the tories will never ever implement it in England.
And it felt great giving literally everyone except the Tories and Salmonds tartan themed Moscow shills a vote!
+8
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The rules apply to everyone.
Naturally, even if Starmer had broken rules and did the right thing and resign, Fuckrag Johnson would not and the broader tory supporting mouth breathers would rejoice.
Has a whiff of corruption about it to me. They'd better have a damned good explanation for re-investigating something they'd already cleared, and 'the papers told us to' or 'government told us to' aren't the correct answers.
Has a whiff of corruption about it to me. They'd better have a damned good explanation for re-investigating something they'd already cleared, and 'the papers told us to' or 'government told us to' aren't the correct answers.
TBF that is exactly how the Police work. They were happy to completely ignore the Downing Street violations until the papers made a huge stink about it. I don't think they even pretended that wasn't the reason for the U-Turn?
From Durham's perspective, I can see the rationale of changing their stance and investigating the matter as they must have been hounded by all sorts over the last couple of weeks and could have seen this as the only way to put the matter to bed.
However, based on the information given it seems pretty ludicrous to draw any kind of moral equivalence between BJ and Starmer from this. Starmer & co were campaigning in a by-election whilst pubs and restaurants were closed. What were the reasonable options to feed 20 / 30 people, some of whom, like Starmer, were not near their place of residence?
The beer is a misstep but to equate that to the organising of actual drink events, in advance, during lockdown is absolutely not the same. But then again, I'm not the target audience for this smear campaign...
+2
Options
CaptainBeyondI've been out walkingRegistered Userregular
Salmond says Alba ‘undaunted’ after failing to win any seats and losing the one they had
Salmond says Alba ‘undaunted’ after failing to win any seats and losing the one they had
‘Unwanted’ is the word I’d use
I have the biggest grin on my face right now. Hate this man and his party so much.
Fuck off Eck.
+2
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
interesting so many people called this a "moderately bad" set of results for cons - i wonder if partly an artifact of the staggered reporting - but heading for nearly 500 seats lost over the uk
I would like to say the total failure for Alba has brought joy to this cold, cynical heart. Watching former SNP councillors who clearly thought they had a personal vote get 169 first preference votes when standing for Alba is a balm to the soul.
Early predictions were for 250 losses for the Tories and its now pushing 400. The scumbag press will be all about Starmer tomorrow but the thought of 400 Tories angrily clearing their desks and fucking off will put me to bed with a smile on my face.
486 across england wales scotland rn which is quite juiceful
The Guardian ticker says 397 with almost all councils announced. Plainly they are holding back some good news.
i just added the 3 separately on the bbc website (because for some reason it doesnt show a total across all 3?) which were england -341 scotland -63 and wales -82 but i imagine synchronicity will be achieved at some point
So the analysis by Prof Curtice is that Labour hasn't actually gained any votes, their wins have been caused by a lack of Tory votes, and their losses have gone to the Lib Dems and Greens. So despite a party that is blatantly corrupt to the core and at the center of the worst living crisis in recent memory, Labour have not performed better than when Corbyn was in power.
Sky and the BBC also have the Tories losing 80 or so seats in the general election based on these results which would obviously be a considerable improvement over the last time. Sky predicted Labour as the biggest party, though still short of a majority.
ye lab largest party is a non-con coalition gov which i will take honestly
So what happens when none of the parties can agree on a coalition?
I just ask because I feel that we're still running on Dumbest Timeline Rules.
To find the answer, we need to go all the way back in UK political history to the dark days of June 2017 when, following a shambolic General election, Theresa May found herself with no overall majority and had to rule as a minority government. They had an agreement with the DUP but it wasn't a coalition.
Fucking hell, 2016 - 2019 was a mad fucking time on reflection.
ye lab largest party is a non-con coalition gov which i will take honestly
So what happens when none of the parties can agree on a coalition?
I just ask because I feel that we're still running on Dumbest Timeline Rules.
To find the answer, we need to go all the way back in UK political history to the dark days of June 2017 when, following a shambolic General election, Theresa May found herself with no overall majority and had to rule as a minority government. They had an agreement with the DUB but it wasn't a coalition.
Fucking hell, 2016 - 2019 was a mad fucking time on reflection.
Posts
Labour aren't offering anything. Starmer has been leader for 2 years and I still don't know what, if anything, he actually stands for because he's too busy trying to appease everyone, TWO YEARS IN! He's a weak leader and if he doesn't get out there hammering home what Labour will do differently the Tories will win another five years just on virtue of all the gerrymandering. I can't take another 5 years of the Tories in power and it keeps happening because of Labour in-fighting. Tactical voting can help but it doesn't seem to be quite the slam dunk we need it to be.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The downside to the Alliance doing well is that they seem to be doing so at the expense of parties like the SDLP and Greens rather than unionist seats.
I read his manifesto/essay and do know what Starmer is offering. Luke warm reheated neoliberalism with a slightly kinder face on it than the Tory kind. Not much has changed from the days of New Labour, the dominant mode of thought is that the left has lost the argument and Labour need to compete with Tories on their own terf. As long as every Labour speech centers around the amount of money avalible to "hard working families" you can pretty much assume this is still the case.
This is not a "both sides are the same" argument though. It's a "one side is slightly less bad so probably go for them" argument.
Also you can forget Labour accepting that they need to cooperate with other parties. Their idea of "realism" does not extend to acknowledging the British center/left has moved past a two party system and the right hasn't. They will not accept any reality that does not have them as the sole alternative to Tory rule, in that way they're almost as invested in the born to rule philosophy as the conservatives are.
“We’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed by electoral reform. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level.”
“I would consult the party membership on electoral reform and include it within the constitutional convention that looks at wider democratic renewal – including abolishing the Lords and furthering devolution on the principles of federalism.”
Good luck to anyone trying to win a majority between that rock and hard place.
Edit: and that's not saying anything about the absolute chaos that is Brexit and the response by media and leavers to being against Brexit as a party...
Yeah, unfortunately after last time, they need to put up or shut up
Typo?
...that's not a typo, is it.
Steam | XBL
I think the problem was never really the policies though. I'd like to see Starmer show the politics that display Labour not being out of touch with the national character, and the policies that show concrete changes to our economy/services and the will to actually embed them permanently into society.
The problem is that either the politics and policies of both wings of the party are insufficient. The left is genuinely not very palatable to the electorate, the centre left unwilling to do what is needed
Since it fits well I'm claiming it was intentional and rolling with it.
Scottish Greens going well as are the Scottish Lib Dems
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
A great example of why STV is great and also why the tories will never ever implement it in England.
And it felt great giving literally everyone except the Tories and Salmonds tartan themed Moscow shills a vote!
Goddamnit.
The rules apply to everyone.
Naturally, even if Starmer had broken rules and did the right thing and resign, Fuckrag Johnson would not and the broader tory supporting mouth breathers would rejoice.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
TBF that is exactly how the Police work. They were happy to completely ignore the Downing Street violations until the papers made a huge stink about it. I don't think they even pretended that wasn't the reason for the U-Turn?
However, based on the information given it seems pretty ludicrous to draw any kind of moral equivalence between BJ and Starmer from this. Starmer & co were campaigning in a by-election whilst pubs and restaurants were closed. What were the reasonable options to feed 20 / 30 people, some of whom, like Starmer, were not near their place of residence?
The beer is a misstep but to equate that to the organising of actual drink events, in advance, during lockdown is absolutely not the same. But then again, I'm not the target audience for this smear campaign...
‘Unwanted’ is the word I’d use
It's almost as if the Scottish people don't want the country to turn into Belarus.
Fuck off Eck.
good news really
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The Guardian ticker says 397 with almost all councils announced. Plainly they are holding back some good news.
Can’t find a handy single figure on the BBC website but adding together the results from all three areas is plainly more than 397. How strange.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
i just added the 3 separately on the bbc website (because for some reason it doesnt show a total across all 3?) which were england -341 scotland -63 and wales -82 but i imagine synchronicity will be achieved at some point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61347764
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
not least because it would give both ni and scotland a decent chance of having an honest look at referendums
I just ask because I feel that we're still running on Dumbest Timeline Rules.
To find the answer, we need to go all the way back in UK political history to the dark days of June 2017 when, following a shambolic General election, Theresa May found herself with no overall majority and had to rule as a minority government. They had an agreement with the DUP but it wasn't a coalition.
Fucking hell, 2016 - 2019 was a mad fucking time on reflection.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The entire decade, really
Oh, it can? Fuck.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3