The 2024 UK General Election - news, speculation and updates

[tommers]

Its fair to argue that Labour "never move to the left" once in power - however you could argue that this election may throw up some unusual circumstance.
Labour look likely to have a huge majorty and facing a tory party in utter dissaray. Large chunks of the non-parliamentary power cetnres (the city of london, the civil service, much of the media, the CBI, The EU, international finance etc) are crying out for anyone vaugly competant to take over from the tories.
At the same time, public opinion is very much in favour of rescuing the NHS, dealing with cost of living, taking on the energy companies, rebuilsing public services and improving wages - as well as significenat support for greater action on the climate emergency.
This give labour poltical space to actaully be more progessive than was the case in 1997. And I am sure they will be under pressure to do more than the little that has been promised so far - not just from the unions and labour left - but from the public and from poltical reality - i.e they despreately need to find money for things like the NHS (and social care) and it may be easier for them do look at stuff like wealth taxes and council tax banding then further cuts on public services and benefits.

That sounds nice, so why aren't they saying all that now? When they're trying to win votes and are in competition with a conservative party that seems to be on the verge of non-existence.

If the public are so in favour of all these things.

Why are they lying about what they are going to do?

 

[Kaka Tim]

There is no chance of them moving left only futher right. Boris Johnson would be more likely to shift left then Starmer.

They will not do any of what you mention and so come the next GE I expect a significant Tory bounce back, I would not be surprised if they even win it.

so you think they will make significant spending cuts to LA budgets, public services and benefits rather than look for other sources of income? I think option could be more politically difficult - mainly because eveything been cut to the bone already and they will face significant resistance and widespread public anger. Politics is dynamic - there are varied and different influences on governement - its not just "the market" . In terms of economic orthodoxy we are in a very differnt plance to 1997 or 2010.

 

[Kaka Tim]

That sounds nice, so why aren't they saying all that now? When they're trying to win votes and are in competition with a conservative party that seems to be on the verge of non-existence.

If the public are so in favour of all these things.

Why are they lying about what they are going to do?

because they are uber cautious/cowardly ,dont wnat to create a shit storm and they dont know what sort of situation they will face next week in terms of make up of HofC and the exact nature of the nations finances. Also all the parties are being dishonest - there are big holes in public budgets which have to be met by tax rises, further cuts - or things like wealth taxes, council tax rebrands. Or combination of all three.

 

[MickiQ]

Had three together, another Tory, another Labour and my first Reform leaflet, To my amusement all three were delivered at the same time by the same spotty faced yoof who was clearly doing it for money and didn't give a shit whether it was political leaflets, pizza vouchers or religous tracts. They've all obviously subcontracted to the same deliverer round here.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

The Asian labour vote was historically slightly lower than that of Black Britons. Although it significantly higher amongst Pakistanis/Bangladeshis than Indians. Chinese were about the average, iirr.

in 2015 the asian vote was 55% Labour. Corbyn got it back up to 70% (73% of black britons also voted labour) in 2017, dropping back to 63% in 2019 (67% BBs).

The 'ethnic data gap' on voters - and why it matters to parties and pollsters

Calls emerge for better data and more investment to understand the political views of Britain's fastest growing electorate.

news.sky.com

Dropping down to 44% is awful. It's definitely the first time the vote will have gone to the Greens in big numbers.

You can’t mix the numbers of all Asians with one segment of them so as usual your respect for data is as embarrassing as your support for Magic Grandpa.

 

[belboid]

You can’t mix the numbers of all Asians with one segment of them so as usual your respect for data is as embarrassing as your support for Magic Grandpa.

I'm not 'mixing' anything. I am directly quoting a survey and pointing out how then group quoted within it have historically differed. It does, very very, clearly show support for Labour grew very significantly under Corbyn. The reasons for that are obvious, as are the reasons why that vote has fallen back again.

Here's a survey from 2021, the results are pretty much as you'd expect from my previous comment, tho the discrepancy between Indians & Pakistani/Bangladeshi voters somewhat more pronounced.




lots of data on that site, which is all very interesting

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2021/11/britains-new-swing-voters-a-survey-of-british-indian-attitudes?lang=en

 

[Sue]

Well, I got my first leaflet (and not delivered by Royal Mail). It's from Reform which shows enthusiasm i guess as can't see them doing very well in Hackney.

 

[Pickman's model]

Its fair to argue that Labour "never move to the left" once in power - however you could argue that this election may throw up some unusual circumstance.
Labour look likely to have a huge majorty and facing a tory party in utter dissaray. Large chunks of the non-parliamentary power cetnres (the city of london, the civil service, much of the media, the CBI, The EU, international finance etc) are crying out for anyone vaugly competant to take over from the tories.
At the same time, public opinion is very much in favour of rescuing the NHS, dealing with cost of living, taking on the energy companies, rebuilsing public services and improving wages - as well as significenat support for greater action on the climate emergency.
This give labour poltical space to actaully be more progessive than was the case in 1997. And I am sure they will be under pressure to do more than the little that has been promised so far - not just from the unions and labour left - but from the public and from poltical reality - i.e they despreately need to find money for things like the NHS (and social care) and it may be easier for them do look at stuff like wealth taxes and council tax banding then further cuts on public services and benefits.

People are crying out for competency but they'll get shammer instead - unless andrew feinstein topples the mendacious twat

 

[tommers]

because they are uber cautious/cowardly ,dont wnat to create a shit storm and they dont know what sort of situation they will face next week in terms of make up of HofC and the exact nature of the nations finances. Also all the parties are being dishonest - there are big holes in public budgets which have to be met by tax rises, further cuts - or things like wealth taxes, council tax rebrands. Or combination of all three.

So they're being uber cautious about policies that are wildly popular? Mate, this doesn't make any sense.

The nations finances are totally transparent. I did notice the story they put out about "well have to see what the books are actually like". It's nonsense. Just as an example: https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...24, UK government,level since the early 1980s. This is all very public.

I'd love you to be right but this is wishful thinking. I get that things might change over the next five years, but they're "more austerity, tough on benefits, stop the boats" at the moment.

 

[The39thStep]

You can’t mix the numbers of all Asians with one segment of them so as usual your respect for data is as embarrassing as your support for Magic Grandpa.

Thank you Child A

 

[tommers]

I mean, I guess the biggest thing going for it is that he's lied about every other fucking thing

 

[SpookyFrank]

Got a whole set of election flyers this morning. The Reform one is very generic, a picture of Farage and Rice and then a little box on the front where they've printed constituency: this one, candidate: some arsehole. Neither arsehole nor constituency is mentioned anywhere else, it's just generic send 'em all back drivel.

Still, nice to see they're apparently aiming at voters who don't know where they live and need a flyer to remind them.

 

[tommers]

Got a whole set of election flyers this morning. The Reform one is very generic, a picture of Farage and Rice and then a little box on the front where they've printed constituency: this one, candidate: some arsehole. Neither arsehole nor constituency is mentioned anywhere else, it's just generic send 'em all back drivel.

Still, nice to see they're apparently aiming at voters who don't know where they live and need a flyer to remind them.

Weird, ours has the usual stop the boats stuff, but also zero NHS waiting times and make work pay.

And that's somewhere where the boats are very close.

 

[Kaka Tim]

So they're being uber cautious about policies that are wildly popular? Mate, this doesn't make any sense.

The nations finances are totally transparent. I did notice the story they put out about "well have to see what the books are actually like". It's nonsense. Just as an example: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/#:~:text=Documents to download&text=In 2023/24, UK government,level since the early 1980s. This is all very public.

I'd love you to be right but this is wishful thinking. I get that things might change over the next five years, but they're "more austerity, tough on benefits, stop the boats" at the moment.

it does make sense. Those polices may be popuar - but the push back would be from the polictical and media establishment who would go full on shroud waving about evil red labour and they are far too cowardly to actually make the case and see the best path to power selling themselves as sensible, being right of centre as teh left have nowhere else to go.
And im not saying "this will happen" Im saying its not a given that labour will go full on austerity etc. "tough on benefits" has got very little road left in terms of saving money rather than gammon signalling- as costs just get passed onto LA's and the reality of it would mean people with disablities begging on the streets - the area well you could save money in terms of benefits is pensions - and no way are they touching that. If the tories won they would have to make the same choices - but it would be more difficult for them politically.
I suspect they dont really know exactly what they are going to do and are planning on winging it.

 

[chilango]

Been out and about around some posh bits of Berkshire the last few days. Very few placards/posters out in the sticks. I've seen a couple of Lib Dem ones though!!!

 

[MickiQ]

Got a whole set of election flyers this morning. The Reform one is very generic, a picture of Farage and Rice and then a little box on the front where they've printed constituency: this one, candidate: some arsehole. Neither arsehole nor constituency is mentioned anywhere else, it's just generic send 'em all back drivel.

Still, nice to see they're apparently aiming at voters who don't know where they live and need a flyer to remind them.

I've had the same one!

 

[moochedit]

I've had the same one!

Yeah sounds like the one i had as well.

 

[Steel Icarus]

Well yeah, that's what generic means

 

[MickiQ]

I suspect they dont really know exactly what they are going to do and are planning on winging it.

"No say it ain't so!!"

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Going to be tough to weed out the nutters choose who to vote for.

Zarah Sultana is one of the few Labour candidates I could vote for.

 

[iona]

Got a whole set of election flyers this morning. The Reform one is very generic, a picture of Farage and Rice and then a little box on the front where they've printed constituency: this one, candidate: some arsehole. Neither arsehole nor constituency is mentioned anywhere else, it's just generic send 'em all back drivel.

Still, nice to see they're apparently aiming at voters who don't know where they live and need a flyer to remind them.

Had that one up here too, because people crossing the English Channel in dinghies is definitely an important issue in Orkney and Shetland. Local candidate hasn't mentioned immigration at all that I've seen - it's mostly been climate / net zero loonspuddery with a smattering of covid-related dribble and the odd mention of fishing. Amusingly, Reform couldn't even get their shit together enough to forward any of the requests for him to turn up and sign a pledge to protect the fishing industry here, so he was the only candidate that didn't, despite having worked as a fisherman all his life and being head of the local creel fishing association or something

 

[planetgeli]

That sounds nice, so why aren't they saying all that now? When they're trying to win votes and are in competition with a conservative party that seems to be on the verge of non-existence.

If the public are so in favour of all these things.

Why are they lying about what they are going to do?

Yes. And not only this.

No Labour gvt has ever gone Left. They are immediately Establishment with Establishment pressures. The media won't relent. But what's more, a substantial Labour majority, which is obviously going to happen, will allow Starmer to ignore whatever remnants of left-wing ideology and revolt is left in the PLP after all the purging.

Things are only going to get worse.

At a slower rate. Yippee.

 

[tommers]

Yes. And not only this.

No Labour gvt has ever gone Left. They are immediately Establishment with Establishment pressures. The media won't relent. But what's more, a substantial Labour majority, which is obviously going to happen, will allow Starmer to ignore whatever remnants of left-wing ideology and revolt is left in the PLP after all the purging.

Things are only going to get worse.

At a slower rate. Yippee.

I mean to be cynical, wait until reform get properly up and running after five years of Labour "caution".

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Its fair to argue that Labour "never move to the left" once in power - however you could argue that this election may throw up some unusual circumstance.
Labour look likely to have a huge majorty and facing a tory party in utter dissaray. Large chunks of the non-parliamentary power cetnres (the city of london, the civil service, much of the media, the CBI, The EU, international finance etc) are crying out for anyone vaugly competant to take over from the tories.
At the same time, public opinion is very much in favour of rescuing the NHS, dealing with cost of living, taking on the energy companies, rebuilsing public services and improving wages - as well as significenat support for greater action on the climate emergency.
This give labour poltical space to actaully be more progessive than was the case in 1997. And I am sure they will be under pressure to do more than the little that has been promised so far - not just from the unions and labour left - but from the public and from poltical reality - i.e they despreately need to find money for things like the NHS (and social care) and it may be easier for them do look at stuff like wealth taxes and council tax banding then further cuts on public services and benefits.

Your optimism is sadly misplaced. As events will show. Do you really think Starmer purged the Left in order to…move Left?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

it does make sense. Those polices may be popuar - but the push back would be from the polictical and media establishment who would go full on shroud waving about evil red labour and they are far too cowardly to actually make the case and see the best path to power selling themselves as sensible, being right of centre as teh left have nowhere else to go.
And im not saying "this will happen" Im saying its not a given that labour will go full on austerity etc. "tough on benefits" has got very little road left in terms of saving money rather than gammon signalling- as costs just get passed onto LA's and the reality of it would mean people with disablities begging on the streets - the area well you could save money in terms of benefits is pensions - and no way are they touching that. If the tories won they would have to make the same choices - but it would be more difficult for them politically.
I suspect they dont really know exactly what they are going to do and are planning on winging it.

They've already made commitments, though. No tax rises and reduced borrowing.

As for the comparison with 1997, Blair did have big room to manoeuvre then. He didn't have to commit to the tory spending plan, but he did, just as Starmer is committing to the tory tax levels and reducing debt. Blair reduced debt (until things went pear-shaped in 2008). He didn't have to. He could have borrowed public money instead of creating private partnerships that we're still paying for now. He chose not to, wasn't forced not to. He was ideologically of that mind, and Starmer is surely the same.

 

[The39thStep]

it does make sense. Those polices may be popuar - but the push back would be from the polictical and media establishment who would go full on shroud waving about evil red labour and they are far too cowardly to actually make the case and see the best path to power selling themselves as sensible, being right of centre as teh left have nowhere else to go.
And im not saying "this will happen" Im saying its not a given that labour will go full on austerity etc. "tough on benefits" has got very little road left in terms of saving money rather than gammon signalling- as costs just get passed onto LA's and the reality of it would mean people with disablities begging on the streets - the area well you could save money in terms of benefits is pensions - and no way are they touching that. If the tories won they would have to make the same choices - but it would be more difficult for them politically.
I suspect they dont really know exactly what they are going to do and are planning on winging it.

Everything will have been planned, first 100 days etc , low hanging fruits will be picked . Of course how they respond to challenges, crises etc will be a test but amongst their first scapegoats will be any unions who challenge 'modernisation' and then we will witness the spectacle of Labour's keenest supporters ( but not members ) on here blaming workers in trade unions for intransigence.

 

[Silas Loom]

Stop subtweeting. It’s unbecoming.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Everything will have been planned, first 100 days etc , low hanging fruits will be picked . Of course how they respond to challenges, crises etc will be a test but amongst their first scapegoats will be any unions who challenge 'modernisation' and then we will witness the spectacle of Labour's keenest supporters ( but not members ) on here blaming workers in trade unions for intransigence.

agree they will be playing hardman with then unions. But its not about them pretending to be "moderate" (barf) and then tacking left - its more political reality may push them that way.

 

[The39thStep]

agree they will be playing hardman with then unions. But its not about them pretending to be "moderate" (barf) and then tacking left - its more political reality may push them that way.

I think this illustrates the political reality and the direction its pushing

Labour set to land billions in new investment from banks and international firms within months, as part of a plan to use private finance to rebuild Britain that it hopes will avoid a need for sweeping tax rises​

• Would-be chancellor Reeves has wooed investors for months
• Spending power hemmed in by shallow growth, tax pledges

"The plans hark back to the last Labour government in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships were expanded. They’ve since come in for criticism due to questions over their value-for-money, the quality of privately-delivered projects and arrangements used to keep debt off the government’s balance sheet."

https://archive.ph/jUJBR#selection-2173.0-2173.395

 

[PR1Berske]

Probably all paying for their own deposits. £500 isn’t much for a friendless monomaniac to spend on their hobby.

Related to this and Reform putting up candidates, I do wonder what would happen if Westminster parties conclude that £500 (set at level in 1987) is now 'too affordable '. Could it be ramped up? £1,250? Higher?