Labour 10 points ahead of Tories...

SuperStu

Well-known member
Ok, call it 112mph, for the number of seats Labour are projected to gain, they've gained ~90% of the seats the Tories are projected to lose, I don't ever remember such a turnaround in such a short space of time.

You make it sound like it's already happened! Nothing has been gained/lost/turned around yet.

I see Starmer was on LBC today. Against nationalisation for energy, against decriminalisation for cannabis. No other policy details as far as I'm aware so the pitch is still just covid investment bonds. 🤷‍♂️
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
You make it sound like it's already happened! Nothing has been gained/lost/turned around yet.

I see Starmer was on LBC today. Against nationalisation for energy, against decriminalisation for cannabis. No other policy details as far as I'm aware so the pitch is still just covid investment bonds. 🤷‍♂️
No, I realise that, and there will be some swings ahead of course, I just don't see what Labour could really do wrong now, even if they just kept themselves quiet.

Whereas the Tories have to deal with an energy crisis, Brexit, and whatever else comes out of the closet, they're in for a rough ride and I don't see where the positives are going to come from. They will get a boost from a leadership change, as it's evident now they're just trying to keep Boris as long as possible to nail all the crap on him, and then try and get that out of the way before a new guy comes in, but they'll be a clown also, just probably not to the same magnitude.

The only thing I can see hurting Labour is the in-fighting, from voters, as I can't see many of the MP's kicking off too much when they're ahead like this, if they did kick off then they unlikely have the best interests of the party at heart, and that best interest is winning, for now. But for the in fighting of voters, the way I see it, for every voter on the left that Labour lose, the Tories might lose one also (who would probably move to labour or lib dem), which is still a net gain against the Tories. Hopefully more are coming round to realising that a manifesto is completely pointless if you can't win first.

Energy is quite a key policy for me, but nationalisation isn't always the best idea, not when the energy companies are quite efficient with their operations, and charging a tiny margin, we would effectively run it worse, so it would likely cost more. But in the case of energy (specifically gas) it would not have saved us from price hikes as the raw cost went up, we don't have much of our own left (which also only currently supplies half our use) and have next to no storage, so that can't be solved soon either. Plus, it makes little sense to buy storage when prices are sky high, as they likely will not be that way forever. Putting storage in the manifesto would be silly, seeing as the gas prices could not be accurately forecast that long down the line, that needs to remain a "play by ear" play.

We need to get away from Gas anyway, as we can't be held to ransom by others who have it, and in the back of the queue for others who will pay more for it (or have a better deal for it). We need to switch over to renewable sources for heating, and stop using gas to create electricity, initially more to make us self sufficient rather for the lower carbon targets (which we will do well on as a by product anyway). We do need to stop importing electric mind, getting that from the EU is ludicrous, so if nationalisation stopped that, then I would be for it, would take some serious investment though, which would take money from elsewhere assuming taxes won't change much (as they don't want to **** off the Tories they're trying to attract). Wind is probably the current answer for major power generation, as that's even cheaper than nuclear these days I think, although I'm all for Nuclear too.

I'm not for or against Cannabis, it means next to nothing in the grand scheme of things, so don't mind minor policies like this being mentioned, but I'd rather be sitting tight and not mentioning key policies as it leaves no room for them to be attacked.
 

gizasqueezemister

Active member
Wouldn't it be better though if the large swing in the polls was a reflection of Labour policies and leadership rather than what appears to be a consequence of tory arrogance and ineptitude (and Boris)? What's to say there won't be a swing the other way once Labour decide to share their intentions? I admire your optimism (we wouldn't be boro fans would we if we weren't) and I hope you are right but.......
 

BoroFur

Well-known member
Wouldn't it be better though if the large swing in the polls was a reflection of Labour policies and leadership rather than what appears to be a consequence of tory arrogance and ineptitude (and Boris)? What's to say there won't be a swing the other way once Labour decide to share their intentions? I admire your optimism (we wouldn't be boro fans would we if we weren't) and I hope you are right but.......
Why would you show your hand by declaring major policies allowing Tories the opportunity to dress them up as their own?

There's only one game in town at the moment and it's Tory sleaze and incompetence.

Let them get on with destroying themselves.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
The policing bill is an interesting one. If the house of Lords reject the additional 18 pages that Patel added after it had gone through the lower house those 18 pages cannot be added again but the sitting government. If starmer suggests amendments to those 18 pages, those amendments are fair game again.

It's a bloody awful bill to begin with but Patel made a rick with the additional pages.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Why would you show your hand by declaring major policies allowing Tories the opportunity to dress them up as their own?

There's only one game in town at the moment and it's Tory sleaze and incompetence.

Let them get on with destroying themselves.
Starmer has already started intruducing, in broad strokes, labour's next manifesto with their contract with the people.

This year he has to start forming that manifesto and turning the contract into policy, and they will do.

He really doesn't have any choice of labour want to be seen to be a government in waiting.
 

gizasqueezemister

Active member
Why would you show your hand by declaring major policies allowing Tories the opportunity to dress them up as their own?

There's only one game in town at the moment and it's Tory sleaze and incompetence.

Let them get on with destroying themselves.
Brave strategy.. some may say foolish. Not showing your hand could imply you are not confident in what you have.. or worse, nothing worth showing. Either way it attracts unwanted negative press at a time when the press are busy with the other party.
 

Scrote

Well-known member
Wouldn't it be better though if the large swing in the polls was a reflection of Labour policies and leadership rather than what appears to be a consequence of tory arrogance and ineptitude
This was part of the Centrist strategic calculations when they set themselves against Corbyn. They got 'lucky' under Blair with the death of John Smith (who wasn't exactly a Trot himself ;) ) as it was fairly obvious the Tories were about to implode due to sleaze etc. at the time. It would have been a minor miracle for the Tories to beat a unified Labour in 1997.

They were fairly confident that leaving the Tories in would give them a decent shot at power in similar circumstances. They didn't care about the collateral damage.

They got 'lucky' again with Covid. It made the Tory strategy of siphoning off public money while running down the NHS (and BBC to a lesser extent) much clearer. Even those who aren't normally political are appalled and sickened by the current government.

Had the Centrists backed an election win in 2017 (or even 2019 - not that there'd have been an election then which is another part of the anti-Corbyn myth-making) there was a real opportunity for something better. They decided another five years of Tory rule (especially under Boris) would more or less guarantee a victory next time.

Covid has given them a stronger starting position (assuming nothing worse than Starmer having a drink mid-meeting comes out). It has emboldened the purge against the left as they're confident they can bring in enough of middle-England just off the back of Tory-hate.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out but while the Centrists have been playing games, the people who most needed a Labour government in 2017 have been left to rot and many are at rock-bottom with increased energy costs and rising food prices on the horizon.

The anti-Corbyn brigade thought that was a price worth paying. And for what?

We now have a country in ruins (and in a vastly worse position globally than it would have been after five years of some minor leftism) to give Centrism half-a-chance of being in charge of the peerages.

All utterly depressing.
 

Cardiffdaffs

Well-known member
This was part of the Centrist strategic calculations when they set themselves against Corbyn. They got 'lucky' under Blair with the death of John Smith (who wasn't exactly a Trot himself ;) ) as it was fairly obvious the Tories were about to implode due to sleaze etc. at the time. It would have been a minor miracle for the Tories to beat a unified Labour in 1997.

They were fairly confident that leaving the Tories in would give them a decent shot at power in similar circumstances. They didn't care about the collateral damage.

They got 'lucky' again with Covid. It made the Tory strategy of siphoning off public money while running down the NHS (and BBC to a lesser extent) much clearer. Even those who aren't normally political are appalled and sickened by the current government.

Had the Centrists backed an election win in 2017 (or even 2019 - not that there'd have been an election then which is another part of the anti-Corbyn myth-making) there was a real opportunity for something better. They decided another five years of Tory rule (especially under Boris) would more or less guarantee a victory next time.

Covid has given them a stronger starting position (assuming nothing worse than Starmer having a drink mid-meeting comes out). It has emboldened the purge against the left as they're confident they can bring in enough of middle-England just off the back of Tory-hate.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out but while the Centrists have been playing games, the people who most needed a Labour government in 2017 have been left to rot and many are at rock-bottom with increased energy costs and rising food prices on the horizon.

The anti-Corbyn brigade thought that was a price worth paying. And for what?

We now have a country in ruins (and in a vastly worse position globally than it would have been after five years of some minor leftism) to give Centrism half-a-chance of being in charge of the peerages.

All utterly depressing.
Depressing that all that tory sleaze back in 1992-97 was forgotten and we have seen it again, and significantly more of it!
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
Wouldn't it be better though if the large swing in the polls was a reflection of Labour policies and leadership rather than what appears to be a consequence of tory arrogance and ineptitude (and Boris)? What's to say there won't be a swing the other way once Labour decide to share their intentions? I admire your optimism (we wouldn't be boro fans would we if we weren't) and I hope you are right but.......
It would be better yes, but we don't have an electorate who want the policies that a lot of us want, so you have to accept what we can get, from the electorate have, in order to win. From there we can look to sway the electorates views/ morals etc, it's harder to do when you're not in charge.

The already do swing as a reflection of Labour policies/ standard practice though, everyone knows roughly what Labour stand for traditionally and I don't think what the current crop propose will be much different to previous Labour PM's (albeit more green). People are becoming more and more aware of what the Tories stand for, because Labour are just letting them realise this on their own, without trying to make them look like fools. Sometimes you have to just let people learn they've made mistakes on their own, they really don't like it ramming down their throat.

It's not just Boris, it's the whole party, but all of this was going to come out no matter who was in charge, the whole party would not have done any better with the pandemic, and they kicked out those who wanted a better Brexit approach. Now they're just pinning all the bad tails on their donkey, he will get a fat brown envelope and be told thanks for taking the flack, but now we need to start a fresh with the new guy, when there's less flack left.

The Labour leadership is good, the tactics are practically 100% spot on, people may disagree on the method, but can't disagree on the result (current projection).

Actual specific policies do not mean a great deal this early mind, and putting them in the open just leaves a great deal of time for them to be picked apart, let the Tories destroy themselves now, don't give out any ammo to destroy us, and go into the finer detail on policies later.

There will be some swings both ways (of varying magnitude), but if Labour can keep a decent lead for a long time, then the Tories will have less momentum. People don't like voting for losers, and it takes a while for word to get around and people to switch sides.

The more I think about it, the more I realise how key Scotland could be, if Labour get a big lead then the Scottish will hopefully be less worried about the Tories, so not need to vote SNP as much. They would have more faith in England being on their side under Labour, and might sway more towards not having Indyref 2, or it not getting through. If Labour get a decent lead they could even offer indyref 2, as it will have a less chance of succeeding. If the Tories keep getting in, Scotland will end up leaving the UK no matter what, albeit I'm not sure how they could do it, unless the Tories offer it. Can't see that happening mind, as under this Tory rule, indyref 2 has a far better chance of success.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
This was part of the Centrist strategic calculations when they set themselves against Corbyn. They got 'lucky' under Blair with the death of John Smith (who wasn't exactly a Trot himself ;) ) as it was fairly obvious the Tories were about to implode due to sleaze etc. at the time. It would have been a minor miracle for the Tories to beat a unified Labour in 1997.

They were fairly confident that leaving the Tories in would give them a decent shot at power in similar circumstances. They didn't care about the collateral damage.

They got 'lucky' again with Covid. It made the Tory strategy of siphoning off public money while running down the NHS (and BBC to a lesser extent) much clearer. Even those who aren't normally political are appalled and sickened by the current government.

Had the Centrists backed an election win in 2017 (or even 2019 - not that there'd have been an election then which is another part of the anti-Corbyn myth-making) there was a real opportunity for something better. They decided another five years of Tory rule (especially under Boris) would more or less guarantee a victory next time.

Covid has given them a stronger starting position (assuming nothing worse than Starmer having a drink mid-meeting comes out). It has emboldened the purge against the left as they're confident they can bring in enough of middle-England just off the back of Tory-hate.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out but while the Centrists have been playing games, the people who most needed a Labour government in 2017 have been left to rot and many are at rock-bottom with increased energy costs and rising food prices on the horizon.

The anti-Corbyn brigade thought that was a price worth paying. And for what?

We now have a country in ruins (and in a vastly worse position globally than it would have been after five years of some minor leftism) to give Centrism half-a-chance of being in charge of the peerages.

All utterly depressing.

I disagree with virtually all of this unfortunately.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
This was part of the Centrist strategic calculations when they set themselves against Corbyn. They got 'lucky' under Blair with the death of John Smith (who wasn't exactly a Trot himself ;) ) as it was fairly obvious the Tories were about to implode due to sleaze etc. at the time. It would have been a minor miracle for the Tories to beat a unified Labour in 1997.

They were fairly confident that leaving the Tories in would give them a decent shot at power in similar circumstances. They didn't care about the collateral damage.

They got 'lucky' again with Covid. It made the Tory strategy of siphoning off public money while running down the NHS (and BBC to a lesser extent) much clearer. Even those who aren't normally political are appalled and sickened by the current government.

Had the Centrists backed an election win in 2017 (or even 2019 - not that there'd have been an election then which is another part of the anti-Corbyn myth-making) there was a real opportunity for something better. They decided another five years of Tory rule (especially under Boris) would more or less guarantee a victory next time.

Covid has given them a stronger starting position (assuming nothing worse than Starmer having a drink mid-meeting comes out). It has emboldened the purge against the left as they're confident they can bring in enough of middle-England just off the back of Tory-hate.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out but while the Centrists have been playing games, the people who most needed a Labour government in 2017 have been left to rot and many are at rock-bottom with increased energy costs and rising food prices on the horizon.

The anti-Corbyn brigade thought that was a price worth paying. And for what?

We now have a country in ruins (and in a vastly worse position globally than it would have been after five years of some minor leftism) to give Centrism half-a-chance of being in charge of the peerages.

All utterly depressing.
Lucky? :LOL: You play the hands you're dealt and if you do that with skill, over time you get a far better outcome, whether that's maximising gains, or decreasing the losses. I think Labour got lucky with Blair, he was clearly competent and well liked at the time, which is not common for recent leaders. One of the main reasons he went was because of the media, but unfortunately the media will always be ran by rich old people, and those rich old people are more likely to side with the Tories, and they will control the narrative.

Corbyn was no saint and was very good at getting on the wrong side of voters, he was also a very poor/ weak leader who had zero clue about tactics. His policies were ok (for me, in the centre, and I voted for him), but it's not just about policies to everyone, if you don't have the other skill sets to put them in place.

The Tories have messed up Covid, but that's also partly due to us having loads of selfish pricks in the electorate, and that would not have changed with Labour in charge. As for the NHS, this is just par for the course, Labour always have that ammo, they've had the waiting list ammo for nearly 10 years, as well as other opportunities, but they blew it. Corbyn got beat my May and BOJO FFS, hardly political or competent powerhouses.

In 2017 Labour got almost as many votes as they could for the guy in charge and his policies, there was nobody else to get, and you can't expect people to completely change their views in an instant and move over to where Labour are, and with JC in charge. It wasn't a bad result for those policies and the guy in charge, but those polices and guy in charge have a limit which is 60 seats short of a majority. If they and Corbyn had a clear idea what they wanted to do about brexit then they could have got more votes, but they didn't.

It's not games, it's people voting for policies, people and parties who they like, if your character and leadership don't appeal, then you just lose.

It's not just the centre, it's Labour balancing the Tories and also has other aspects at play like the SNP, LD, Greens, DUP etc, they don't need many seats to play a major part. As we've seen in recent elections.

As if you're depressed about a massive projected labour lead, were you happy when JC got beat by May and hammered by BoJo?

The country you want is not the country which exists, and certainly not for the electorate we have, you just need to accept that, just make sure you vote, even if it's for the greens or whatever, or move somewhere else where they do fit your criteria, but that will be a short list.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
May and BOJO FFS, hardly political or competent powerhouses.

May had the highest approval ratings of any PM since records began when she called the 2017 election. People were confidently predicting a 200 seat majority. That you don't think she's a powerhouse now, is testament to Labour's performance in that election.

Boris won London mayor. Twice. And he seemed to even surprise himself winning the referendum. And the sort of majority the tories haven't had since the 80s. Definitely a political powerhouse. If he's replaced before the next election, and the tories do badly for a while, they'll have party members desperate for him to come back, like the centrists in Labour pining for Blair to return for years.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
As stu says, there is so much wrong with your posts on this thread Andy.

To dismiss Corbyn in the way you have is just plain wrong. 2017 showed clearly that at the very least his policies were seen as good policies. Polling on those policies alone clearly showed that.

In 2019 Johnson won lots of seats with a tiny majority, pushed over the line, not by brexit voters but by people fed up of brexit. Corbyns policy of another vote, whilst adult and grown up didn't appeal to a lot of people who were fed up with brexit dominating out politics.

To describe Johnson as anything other than a master political campaigner is just plain silly.

Johnson got the 2019 campaign right, Corbyn got it wrong. Nothing to do with good or bad leadership. Corbyn was a terrible campaigner he was a country mile away from being weak.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
Wouldn't it be better though if the large swing in the polls was a reflection of Labour policies and leadership rather than what appears to be a consequence of tory arrogance and ineptitude (and Boris)? What's to say there won't be a swing the other way once Labour decide to share their intentions? I admire your optimism (we wouldn't be boro fans would we if we weren't) and I hope you are right but.......
Not really, people are thick and have been entrenched by brexit. It was always going to take a scandal to bring them down
 

gizasqueezemister

Active member
Not really, people are thick and have been entrenched by brexit. It was always going to take a scandal to bring them down
'People are thick'.. and there you have it. Telling people they are 'thick' for not voting labour because they have the temerity to ask to see policies, or how they are going to be paid for. This is not the way to turn traditional labour voting towns red again. This strategy is in itself 'thick' by definition.
 
Top
X