Keir Starmer's time is up

[butchersapron]

Don't post the s*n

 

[platinumsage]

Don't post the s*n

I didn't see any Guardian lobby hacks tweeting about it unfortunately.

 

[butchersapron]

So what? Don't post the s*n.

 

[Sprocket.]

I imagine Keith on the phone to Arlene Foster by now. Can I be friends with you now.

 

[belboid]

I’ve pasted the evidence up. Everyone can see what it says. Which is the opposite of what you say it does

I'll add 'meaning of the word 'popular'' to my long list of things you dont get

 

[Pickman's model]

How does the evidence posted above show that Labour is popular among self identified working class voters? Or that Labour’s support isn’t diminished among working class voters?

The evidence (if this is what you are referring to) indicates that even where self identification of class is factored in that Labour is relatively unpopular among working class voters regardless of NRS classification).

do you have anything from after the last general election?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I'll add 'meaning of the word 'popular'' to my long list of things you dont get

You’ll have to as I never realised 33% support indicated popularity.

 

[lazythursday]

Struggling to lay my hands on the data right now, but I'm sure I've seen analysis that makes it clear that even if you accept the flawed NRS methodology, working class people are still much more likely to vote / support Labour if you exclude pensioners. It's age that is the crucial factor right now. Is it more important for Labour to reconnect with NRS-defined working class pensioners than grow its appeal elsewhere on the age spectrum? I guess if you are looking at this purely in electoral terms it depends on the demographics of the key marginal seats. That isn't just the 'red wall', but I haven't read a lot of analysis of what seats Labour needs to win.

 

[Chilli.s]

Clive Lewis

Never heard of 'im. But a quick google suggests he's a whole lot more suitable for the job.

 

[JTG]

Struggling to lay my hands on the data right now, but I'm sure I've seen analysis that makes it clear that even if you accept the flawed NRS methodology, working class people are still much more likely to vote / support Labour if you exclude pensioners. It's age that is the crucial factor right now. Is it more important for Labour to reconnect with NRS-defined working class pensioners than grow its appeal elsewhere on the age spectrum? I guess if you are looking at this purely in electoral terms it depends on the demographics of the key marginal seats. That isn't just the 'red wall', but I haven't read a lot of analysis of what seats Labour needs to win.

I think Labour are particularly snookered because of demographic issues in that young people are over represented in the cities, which they are already winning handily, leaving behind their small town homes in, I dunno, County Durham or wherever, which then become ever more Tory friendly. There are more rural/semi-rural etc seats than there are urban/suburban ones and the upshot is that Labour need to win 2/3% more of the vote just to get parity in seats.

I'm pulling stuff out of my arse here so some bits of the above are up for debate but you get the picture.

There's loads more older people than there are younger ones as well. The people who are just about to retire are the ones who voted for Thatcher in their millions in 79/83 and have been doing so ever since. If you want to discuss w/c Tory pensioners then that's where you start and you're just not going to get them now.

There are signs that Labour may find it easier to take some of the indomitable blue suburbs around London before too long - they've got ever closer in places like Chingford, Uxbridge, High Wycombe etc in recent elections. People are moving out of London and bringing their politics with them - the politics of wanting to start a family but not being able to afford a house etc. But generally, things are pretty shit for Labour without some other change elsewhere, perhaps some revival of the Lib Dems that could take votes from the Tories

 

[Pickman's model]

I think Labour are particularly snookered because of demographic issues in that young people are over represented in the cities, which they are already winning handily, leaving behind their small town homes in, I dunno, County Durham or wherever, which then become ever more Tory friendly. There are more rural/semi-rural etc seats than there are urban/suburban ones and the upshot is that Labour need to win 2/3% more of the vote just to get parity in seats.

I'm pulling stuff out of my arse here so some bits of the above are up for debate but you get the picture.

There's loads more older people than there are younger ones as well. The people who are just about to retire are the ones who voted for Thatcher in their millions in 79/83 and have been doing so ever since. If you want to discuss w/c Tory pensioners then that's where you start and you're just not going to get them now.

There are signs that Labour may find it easier to take some of the indomitable blue suburbs around London before too long - they've got ever closer in places like Chingford, Uxbridge, High Wycombe etc in recent elections. People are moving out of London and bringing their politics with them - the politics of wanting to start a family but not being able to afford a house etc. But generally, things are pretty shit for Labour without some other change elsewhere, perhaps some revival of the Lib Dems that could take votes from the Tories

of course it might be that everyone knows what the tories stand for and no one knows what the labour party stand for now. there has probably never been a more loyal opposition in parliament. keir starmer's usp seems to be simply wanting johnson to be better at the job, not opposing him on grounds of principle.

 

[hitmouse]

You’ll have to as I never realised 33% support indicated popularity.

I mean, it's all relative, innit? If there was a poll showing 33% support for the Lib Dems/Greens/Brexit Party/UKIP/BNP/TUSC or someone, we'd be going "wow, that's a really impressive level of popularity."
In this case, it does show that Labour are/were more popular among C2DEs who identify as working class than among anyone else:

Obviously that doesn't say much about how it compares to Labour's support in the past, and there's no guarantee that people will feel the same about Starmer's Labour than they did about Corbyn's. But going back a bit:

Labour have been 10 points adrift from the Tories nationally amongst w/class voters and 10 points up in the middle class for months

If this is accurate then it's a big change from the 2019 polling. Although tbf that polling did show Labour just trailing by at least 10 points among everyone.

 

[killer b]

If this is accurate then it's a big change from the 2019 polling. Although tbf that polling did show Labour just trailing by at least 10 points among everyone.

this is from the most recent Yougov I could find:

 

[JTG]

of course it might be that everyone knows what the tories stand for and no one knows what the labour party stand for now. there has probably never been a more loyal opposition in parliament. keir starmer's usp seems to be simply wanting johnson to be better at the job, not opposing him on grounds of principle.

Well there's that as well, I'm just trying to talk through the electoral map and numbers rather than the actual politics

 

[Pickman's model]

Well there's that as well, I'm just trying to talk through the electoral map and numbers rather than the actual politics

the problem is that they can attract more votes than they did in 2005, when they won, and still end in opposition. in 2019 they got more votes than at any time this century since 2001, yet we're told it's all up for labour. the real reason it's all up for labour is they will never get over the next hurdle unless either the tories fuck it up so badly they are unelectable or (and suspend your disbelief) the labour party actual gives people an actual reason to vote for them.

 

[JTG]

the problem is that they can attract more votes than they did in 2005, when they won, and still end in opposition. in 2019 they got more votes than at any time this century since 2001, yet we're told it's all up for labour. the real reason it's all up for labour is they will never get over the next hurdle unless either the tories fuck it up so badly they are unelectable or (and suspend your disbelief) the labour party actual gives people an actual reason to vote for them.

Yeah I mean one very big difference between now and 97-05 is the relative strength of the Liberal Democrats in England at that time - who largely took advantage of a weakened Tory vote (and from 05 a subsiding Labour vote though not enough to stop them winning on, what 35% of the vote). The third party vote in England has been pathetic since 2015.
Then there's the SNP, who have made things even harder for Labour both by taking a large chunk of their vote and also making it more acceptable for unionists to vote Tory again in Scotland.
So the Tories fucked up so badly by the late 90s that they lost voters to Lab & LDs. Then Lab started fucking it up badly and losing voters to LDs and eventually the Tories again. After that the LDs fucked it up so badly their voters decided they may as well either vote for the actual Tories or someone else. And Lab fucked up Scotland so badly no fucker wants to vote for them any more.

Your last point is so beyond the realms of fantasy at this stage that I'm not sure it's worth discussing

 

[Ax^]

hmm so is their any truth in the idea Starmers latest plan is to turn labour in the party of Flag waving nationalists

 

[JTG]

hmm so is their any truth in the idea Starmers latest plan is to turn labour in the party of Flag waving nationalists

He hasn't the imagination or desire to do owt else

 

[hitmouse]

this is from the most recent Yougov I could find:

Cheers for that. So bearing in mind all the extensive discussion about the dangers of conflating different categories and not using one thing to stand in for another, we can at least say that the past year of rebranding as Sir Keith's Flag-Shagging Extravaganza has been much more attractive to ABC1s than anyone else.

 

[brogdale]

hmm so is their any truth in the idea Starmers latest plan is to turn labour in the party of Flag waving nationalists

Nah, the mad Marxist commie (who hates his own country) only has 1 flag...everyone knows you need at least 4 these days.

 

[killer b]

Cheers for that. So bearing in mind all the extensive discussion about the dangers of conflating different categories and not using one thing to stand in for another, we can at least say that the past year of rebranding as Sir Keith's Flag-Shagging Extravaganza has been much more attractive to ABC1s than anyone else.

The flag shagging is a new pivot isn't it? They've scooped up all the lib-demish types and now need to pull in some of the thick proles...

 

[lazythursday]

I think Labour are particularly snookered because of demographic issues in that young people are over represented in the cities, which they are already winning handily, leaving behind their small town homes in, I dunno, County Durham or wherever, which then become ever more Tory friendly. There are more rural/semi-rural etc seats than there are urban/suburban ones and the upshot is that Labour need to win 2/3% more of the vote just to get parity in seats.

I'm pulling stuff out of my arse here so some bits of the above are up for debate but you get the picture.

There's loads more older people than there are younger ones as well. The people who are just about to retire are the ones who voted for Thatcher in their millions in 79/83 and have been doing so ever since. If you want to discuss w/c Tory pensioners then that's where you start and you're just not going to get them now.

There are signs that Labour may find it easier to take some of the indomitable blue suburbs around London before too long - they've got ever closer in places like Chingford, Uxbridge, High Wycombe etc in recent elections. People are moving out of London and bringing their politics with them - the politics of wanting to start a family but not being able to afford a house etc. But generally, things are pretty shit for Labour without some other change elsewhere, perhaps some revival of the Lib Dems that could take votes from the Tories

And this is where

this is from the most recent Yougov I could find:

View attachment 252619

Notable from that chart is the fact that despite all the discourse that Labour is now the party of London and has lost the north, actually the north remains the strongest region for Labour.

 

[hitmouse]

The flag shagging is a new pivot isn't it? They've scooped up all the lib-demish types and now need to pull in some of the thick proles...

I mean, to some extent, but it's also consistent with some of his past actions - the whole "it's impossible to say whether doing war crimes is good or bad" line, the shift from being The Great Remain Hope to backing Johnson's deal and so on.

 

[JTG]

And this is where

Notable from that chart is the fact that despite all the discourse that Labour is now the party of London and has lost the north, actually the north remains the strongest region for Labour.

Yeah I mean Labour remain strong in the north of England (lots of metropolitan areas) and metropolitan areas everywhere else as well. They're losing in small and medium sized towns and short of a reason for young people to stay in those places (maybe some kind of Green Industrial Revolution, who can say) I can't see that changing really

ETA: and wrt the smaller northern towns and semi rural seats that they lost last time around, they didn't lose loads of them by THAT much. Bishop Auckland looks a challenge now but places like Blyth Valley or NW Durham are a hair's breadth away from flipping back again. As you say, narratives have the north surfing a tidal wave of blue when most of the urban areas are deep red and the new swing seats are marginal to say the least

 

[FridgeMagnet]

tweet

 

[Raheem]

Nah, the mad Marxist commie (who hates his own country) only has 1 flag...everyone knows you need at least 4 these days.

View attachment 252622

Someone's nicked his bowl of soup as well.

 

[DotCommunist]

 

[Wilf]

The flag shagging is a new pivot isn't it? They've scooped up all the lib-demish types and now need to pull in some of the thick proles...

If they wave the flag too much, they'll get Jacob Rees Mogg in.

 

[Raheem]

If they wave the flag too much, they'll get Jacob Rees Mogg in.

Easier just to say his name into a mirror 13 times.

 

[SpookyFrank]

hmm so is their any truth in the idea Starmers latest plan is to turn labour in the party of Flag waving nationalists

His party is and will remain nothing. This is all just about what colour they paint that nothing.