Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
The gang of 4
Damaged goods?
The gang of 4
Nothing in it for the Tories to ally with a minority Labour govt. If a hung parliament were to happen, that would exceed all Tory expectations right now. They'd be pleased, and they'd surely be doing all they could to topple the government asap, not to prop it up.Can't see it as all that would happen is seeking Tory etc votes which make any policy likely more rightwing...
given the labour party's usp is being the tories but more efficient it's more remote even than a dreamCorbyn and Abbott holding the balance of power in a hung parliament? We can but dream a little.
A hung parliament with a coalition means the Gang of Four has very little chance of influencing anything. A hung parliament with a confidence and supply Labour government is essentially the same outcome. For the leftists of that type to have any chance of influence they'd need 30-40 MPs. And given the utter inability for the left to organise themselves properly even when they ran the party I wouldn't bet money of that working either.Nothing in it for the Tories to ally with a minority Labour govt. If a hung parliament were to happen, that would exceed all Tory expectations right now. They'd be pleased, and they'd surely be doing all they could to topple the government asap, not to prop it up.
when did leftists run the labour party? it's another pile of steaming kid eternity shitA hung parliament with a coalition means the Gang of Four has very little chance of influencing anything. A hung parliament with a confidence and supply Labour government is essentially the same outcome. For the leftists of that type to have any chance of influence they'd need 30-40 MPs. And given the utter inability for the left to organise themselves properly even when they ran the party I wouldn't bet money of that working either.
In short, it's a pipe dream to think those four MPs will be the tail wagging the dog.
Yes plus poorer outcomes for Black/POC in maternity services.I disagree. Not least as I work in the bit that disproportionately sections black people to a massive degree.
In this very alphabetical order!Abbot, Anderson, Corbyn and Galloway holding the balance of power.
Actually, there was a substantial increase in the Conservative vote in the 2017 General Election, under the leadership of May, compared the 2015 General Election under CameronA couple of months out, everyone was predicting that May would romp home in 2017. She expected a big majority, ended up having to throw cash at the DUP loons to cobble something together.
It's not a prediction as such from me that there could be a hung parliament. It's more a hope. I don't want Starmer to have a clear majority. He does more damage if he has one. A weak, unstable Labour govt that has to actually listen to its backbenchers and those from other parties is the best of a very, very bad set of possible options from this year's election.
Isn't that likely to be because Corbyn was standing in 2017? More left wing platform would likely bring tory voters out.Actually, there was a substantial increase in the Conservative vote in the 2017 General Election, under the leadership of May, compared the 2015 General Election under Cameron
Conservative 2015: 11,299,609 votes = 36.8%
Conservative 2017: 13,636,684 votes = 42.3%
And the collapse of ukipIsn't that likely to be because Corbyn was standing in 2017? More left wing platform would likely bring tory voters out.
I was thinking Entertainment!Damaged goods?
Collapse of UKIP explains just about all of it. 12 percentage points to be shared out among the other parties, mostly going to the Tories (who had virtually turned themselves into UKIP by 2017), some to Labour. While the Tories increased their vote by 6 percentage points, Labour increased theirs by 10. Turnout was up a little, but not by much.Isn't that likely to be because Corbyn was standing in 2017? More left wing platform would likely bring tory voters out.
It was the increase in the Conservative vote in some Red Wall seats under May in 2017 that the Conervatives under Johnson built on in 2019. In terms of increasing the Conservative vote, May was a success.Collapse of UKIP explains just about all of it. 12 percentage points to be shared out among the other parties, mostly going to the Tories (who had virtually turned themselves into UKIP by 2017), some to Labour. While the Tories increased their vote by 6 percentage points, Labour increased theirs by 10. Turnout was up a little, but not by much.
That the Tory vote went up isn't really relevant. In England, it had turned back into virtually a two-horse race in 2017.
May was lucky that a) the stupid system we have gave her a disproportionately high number of seats (Labour's seats were roughly proportionate), and b) the DUP were there to push them just over the line (nobody else was going to work with them). It was a desperately close-run thing.
I don't really buy that. Labour closed the gap from 6 percentage points in 2015 to 2 in 2017. May very very nearly blew it and lost power. Yes, the 'Red Wall' fell in 2019 due to Brexit, and May had already picked up some of those voters in 2017 because of Brexit. But I don't see that in and of itself as success.It was the increase in the Conservative vote in some Red Wall seats under May in 2017 that the Conervatives under Johnson built on in 2019. In terms of increasing the Conservative vote, May was a success.
How can it not be a success to increase the vote for a party? If the distribution of the votes has been different, May would have had a majority, and no-one would have said she was a failure.I don't really buy that. Labour closed the gap from 6 percentage points in 2015 to 2 in 2017. May very very nearly blew it and lost power. Yes, the 'Red Wall' fell in 2019 due to Brexit, and May had already picked up some of those voters in 2017 because of Brexit. But I don't see that in and of itself as success.
As it was, it was Labour who blew it between 2017 and 2019. With hindsight, if they had got behind something like the Common Market 2.0 idea, I think they could have done a lot better (and Brexit would have been far less of a fuck up than it turned out to be). In the end, who even knew what Labour's Brexit plan was? I didn't. They allowed the Tories to dictate what 'real Brexit' really meant and we ended up with just about the worst Brexit we could possibly have had. We're all paying for it now.
It can be a failure to increase your vote share if another party's vote share increases more. Number of Tory MPs went down, not up.How can it not be a success to increase the vote for a party? If the distribution of the votes has been different, May would have had a majority, and no-one would have said she was a failure.
Corbyn was very successful, in that the Labour Party received its largest increase in the vote share since 1945.
Two stiking photos from the article - and presumably the book‘I’ll stay an MP for as long as I can’: Diane Abbott’s tumultuous political journey
The long read: Britain’s first black female MP faced hostility from the media and political establishment from the start. Nearly 40 years on, she is still not giving upwww.theguardian.com
headline could be read to say Abbott will be standing in the next general election as an independent, but don't think that's what was necessarily meant.
Headline would be better if she'd said "as long as my constituents want me".‘I’ll stay an MP for as long as I can’: Diane Abbott’s tumultuous political journey
The long read: Britain’s first black female MP faced hostility from the media and political establishment from the start. Nearly 40 years on, she is still not giving upwww.theguardian.com
headline could be read to say Abbott will be standing in the next general election as an independent, but don't think that's what was necessarily meant.
The right honourable gentleman caught the Whigs bathing, and walked away with their clothes. He has left them in the full enjoyment of their liberal positions, and he is himself a strict conservative of their garments.