• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is very true.

Whoever Momentum swings behind is going to be very hard to stop given the party's selection system.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/15/qa-how-will-the-labour-party-choose-its-next-leader

more on how Labour will elect their next leader. They've first got to get 10% of the Parliamentary support from Labour MPs so at least 20. Not clear on MEPs counting if election is held by end of March.

If Rebecca Long-Bailey wins we're utterly ****** and is favourite.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ns-as-senior-figures-back-rebecca-long-bailey

yep. On face value she is way too light weight, but who knows how she would develop into leader. Enough to win in 5 years? Difficult to see at this point, but who else? Labour could also now do with a female leader, if Starmer doesn't get support from the Unions.

The only way Tories are going to lose a 80 seat majority in 5 years is if they really do stuff up Brexit and fail to deliver to the Northern voters who have really lent their votes to Boris to get the uncertainly over with. The only way now is for this majority to diminish next time round.

Electorally speaking Labour and Lib Dems couldn't be any lower. So the only way is up now.
 
2015 and 17 were lower for the LD but it takes years to rebuild a collapse of support.

Rebecca Long-Bailey is part of the Corbyn clique she won't win in 5 years....
 
2015 and 17 were lower for the LD but it takes years to rebuild a collapse of support.

Rebecca Long-Bailey is part of the Corbyn clique she won't win in 5 years....

Of course, the collapse in 2015 was much more steep and so felt more catastrophic. 2017 gained 4 seats over and above 2015. But this time round the loss was just 1 and that was the leader is just Symbolic of where Lib Dem's are at the moment, regardless of who their leader is: their share or numbers of votes has improved, but translating that into seats is nigh on impossible in an electoral voting system which does them absolutely no favours. Their only hope is only ever going to be as part of a coalition or supporting a minority Labour government.

I agree on RLB, but was just trying to put a positive spin on it. 5 years is a long time. Right now it all seems so bleak with such a massive Tory majority. If history is any guide I.e. 1983 election, the last time Labour had the equivalent of Corbyn then Tories could be in power for the next 14 years.
 
Look at Ceredigion there

Young people vote Labour
Age 25-64 people vote Lib Dem
Old people vote Tory...

And PC wins the seat by 6000+
Any evidence or just spurious comments , back with a source when posting information.
Its believable then otherwise just sour grapes.
I refrain from judgement allowing you post the source of this statement.
Aa generally interested to see if this correct.

A bit confused by that comment... but ok:

Ceredigion is easy to spot - It's the only orange constituency in Wales. (in the top-right and lower-left maps)
You'll have to ask Olyy for the source of that map, but it seems plenty plausible to me.
Saw this earlier:
18-24, 25-49,
50-64, 65+
OYBkpz3.jpg

As for the total result, that info is from the BBC - PC majority: 6,329
 
What about a
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/15/qa-how-will-the-labour-party-choose-its-next-leader

more on how Labour will elect their next leader. They've first got to get 10% of the Parliamentary support from Labour MPs so at least 20. Not clear on MEPs counting if election is held by end of March.



https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ns-as-senior-figures-back-rebecca-long-bailey

yep. On face value she is way too light weight, but who knows how she would develop into leader. Enough to win in 5 years? Difficult to see at this point, but who else? Labour could also now do with a female leader, if Starmer doesn't get support from the Unions.

The only way Tories are going to lose a 80 seat majority in 5 years is if they really do stuff up Brexit and fail to deliver to the Northern voters who have really lent their votes to Boris to get the uncertainly over with. The only way now is for this majority to diminish next time round.

Electorally speaking Labour and Lib Dems couldn't be any lower. So the only way is up now.

I agree with your point that for there to be any hope of a hung parliament or a labour win then Conservatives really have to bugger up Brexit, have a struggling economy and still have huge issues with the NHS and other services like police. Possible, but a long way to go.

On top though they also need someone who can bring back the labour voters lost and win some centre voters from the Tories. That's simply not Rebecca Long-Bailey as long as the extreme left in Labour continue to believe that they can drag everyone over to their way of thinking. They need someone closer to the centre, but who is still far enough on the left to be different to the Tories and offer a clear alternative as Johnson is likely to take the party back towards the centre with this majority as he no longer needs to likes of the ERG. They also need to purge the party of anyone even remotely linked to antisemitism. If they still appear weak on it then they have no hope. Also need to limit momentum's influence and the NEC's. It's a big ask for any leader. I think Starmer won't have the support of the unions/far left of the party and as a londoner wouldn't be able to win back the north.
I'd personally go with Jess Phillips as leader (maybe early, but she's not a puppet of the left, she's young and northern and has shown that she can stand up to those in power and then have Starmer as chancellor/deputy leader to help bring those in the centre who voted Tory last time. Then maybe have a corbynite as deputy to represent that side of the party.
Thornberry would be another liability on the doorstep and is already underattack from those in her party, so is unlikely to bring it together.
I haven't read much about Lisa Nandy or Angela Rayner tbh, so can't give an opinion on them recently. Both are northerners though, so that's a plus for them.

I think Lib Dems should go with Ed Vaizey for experience and to try and keep what they gained, if not slightly improve next time, whilst looking for a younger/newer leader who isn't tainted by the coalition to take them further.

Finally apparently Diane Abbott ruled herself out of the race, telling the Guardian it was important that whoever was the new leader was able to stand up to "all the attacks that will come from Johnson and Donald Trump". She couldn't stand up to a wet paper bag. Saw a picture that she went a voted with two mis-matching left shoes on. Honestly I'm worried about her mental health and I wouldn't be surprised if she stands down in the near future. She comes out with some absolute nonsense and has become a huge liability for the party.
 
The only way Tories are going to lose a 80 seat majority in 5 years is if they really do stuff up Brexit and fail to deliver to the Northern voters who have really lent their votes to Boris to get the uncertainly over with. The only way now is for this majority to diminish next time round.
Tell that to Winston Churchill in 1945. (admittedly that was over 10 years)
 
A bit confused by that comment... but ok:

Ceredigion is easy to spot - It's the only orange constituency in Wales. (in the top-right and lower-left maps)
You'll have to ask Olyy for the source of that map, but it seems plenty plausible to me.

OYBkpz3.jpg

As for the total result, that info is from the BBC - PC majority: 6,329

Wow so Plaid didn't top any of the voting age brackets, but still came out with a majority of 6,329. Problem is the map only shows those who most people voted for. PC could have been behind each party in those brackets by 1 vote and yet it wouldn't show up. Reality is there is so much data you can get from this to support any narrative. 18-24 is almost all red, but it could only be just all red with other parties not far behind, where as 65+ is mostly blue and that could be a strong blue way ahead of other parties. Got to be careful not to draw too many conclusions, especially complex ones from a small amount of data or general data that isn't very specific.
 
Haven't bothered coming back to this thread, but I see the three amoeba's are the ones to quote/rate my post as usual.

I think this is one of the issues nowadays. It's not the people who are thick, they're just not very good at thinking for themselves.

Take Lilly Allen, who is no longer going to post her extreme left views on twitter, because she feels it give a platform to the far right...

They surround themselves with people who think the same thing, then can't handle it when they discover that some people have a different opinion.

The latest 'not my pm' hashtag crap is a perfect example. Just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean they're not the PM. It's called democracy. That thing that makes the 'Liberal Democrat' party into an oxymoron.

The big issue is how it got to this stage, and the so called 'social' media giants need to be taken into account, otherwise the ill informed will continue to stray farther and farther to each end of the political spectrum.
 
I'd personally go with Jess Phillips as leader (maybe early, but she's not a puppet of the left, she's young and northern
Jess Phillips isn't Northern...

There does seem to be some momentum growing behind her, though.
I've seen a lot suggesting Starmer as leader and JP deputy, as well
 
They surround themselves with people who think the same thing, then can't handle it when they discover that some people have a different opinion.

The latest 'not my pm' hashtag crap is a perfect example. Just because you didn't vote for them doesn't mean they're not the PM. It's called democracy. That thing that makes the 'Liberal Democrat' party into an oxymoron.
So you didn't answe anyone questions from last time and came in attacking everyone again? @noah_jo was able to express his opinions without acting like a twat and I have perfectly reasonable conversations with other people on my social media....have you considered the problem might be you?

Anyway what's not Libereral and Democratic about the Libereral Democrats? For one look up social liberalism. Liberalism is also define by allowing people to live their lives without interference as long as it does not harm others. As for democratic, ah yes not being democratic by trying to stop something they disagree with through getting a democratic mandate to so though a parliamentary majority or failing that putting said thing to a democratic vote. Is it that they wanted to democratically overturn something you wanted?



I don't think you know Liberal or Democracy is...
 
l

I think Lib Dems should go with Ed Vaizey for experience and to try and keep what they gained, if not slightly improve next time, whilst looking for a younger/newer leader who isn't tainted by the coalition to take them further.
Vaizey is a Tory, has never been a LD and is no longer an MP

I think you mean Davy, who's great but has exactly the same problems as Swinson but a man so will get slightly less a rough ride.
 
Haven't bothered coming back to this thread, but I see the three amoeba's are the ones to quote/rate my post as usual.
Let me get this straight, in your genuine opinion, the people trying to have a reasoned, rational debate are a bunch of trolls, whilst those whose sole contribution is to throw insults and downvotes is the reasonable and rational section?

Oh, and your obviously just a victim of the liberal elite when the people you've insulted and downvoted for no reason respond with a downvote.
Poor little diddums.

ETA: I am genuinely sorry that you feel personally offended about the existence of people with a different opinion to yourself (or is it just that they feel the ability to express their opinion that you find offensive?) - I genuinely hadn't realised there were any 6-year-olds on the forum.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to Winston Churchill in 1945. (admittedly that was over 10 years)
:confused: :confused::confused:????
I should have clarified...

A ~100 seat Conservative majority was wiped out, and then some (Labour got a 146 seat majority). This for a PM who notably didn't stuff up WWII. "Thanks for winning, now we don't need you any more."

I'm suggesting that In 2024 something similar could easily happen, even if BoJo doesn't stuff up Brexit. It will be an entirely different campaign from 2019.
 
It should be noted during WW2 we had a government of national unity that included Labour of which Attlee was a vital component of the war at home.

It was a very different time.
 
I should have clarified...

A ~100 seat Conservative majority was wiped out, and then some (Labour got a 146 seat majority). This for a PM who notably didn't stuff up WWII. "Thanks for winning, now we don't need you any more."

I'm suggesting that In 2024 something similar could easily happen, even if BoJo doesn't stuff up Brexit. It will be an entirely different campaign from 2019.

what Ncurd said. Totally different time.

However the Tories want to paint Brexit as we are not at War. Post WW2 we were a physically and mentally broken country. People were then not voting against Churchill they were voting for a party to rebuild the country.
 
Ugh seen the Corbyn got more votes than Blair thing too many times, so I ran the numbers. Posting here so not to **** off a friend.

In 2005: Blair 35.2% of the vote share of a 61.4% turnout, where as Corbyn 32.1% of a 67.3% turnout. There were 47,587,254 registered voters in this election as opposed to 44,215,814. Of which 31,829,630 votes were cast against 27,148,510 2005 so with increased voting electorate of 4,681,120 Corbyn managed to secure 716,640 of those additional votes or 15%....

Sorry just been annoying 'he got more votes than Blair' has been bandying around as an accomplishment but with increased electorate over 14 years its actually another failure. Corbyn should of always got more votes than Blair as with any leader over a significant amount of time due to increasing populations.
 
what Ncurd said. Totally different time.

However the Tories want to paint Brexit as we are not at War. Post WW2 we were a physically and mentally broken country. People were then not voting against Churchill they were voting for a party to rebuild the country.

They were also voting against the old guard. The war had empowered the working class (and woman to a lesser extent) and soldiers returning home wanted hospitals and good schools for their children not to go back to a them and us scenario. They had just been through the most brutal war in human history and everything seemed possible and there were no longer any loyalties to the lord of manor.
 
Gonna be interesting to see what happens - apparently labour is pretty comfortably the biggest party (members wise) in Europe. These members repeatedly voted for Corbyn and are unlikely to vote for a Blair-esque Tory-in-Red.
Awkward situation cause in this climate a real left wing party will not be elected, however you're never going to convince the member base to go against their beliefs and vote in someone they don't believe in and don't agree with.
So are you saying momentum run the labour party, if so I cant see the labour party winning the next election either, they could pick someone centre left, but far left is not the way to win an election, we are not living in the 30s when times were hard for all the working classes.
Today life is so much different for many of us, after the war my father grew things for us to eat, today many just hold their hand out and expect, what I'm saying is that times have changed not necessarily for the better for everyone, but as the labour party found out this election, majorities rule
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top