. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
Jenrick was educated? Who would have guessed?
Grammar school then Cambridge University.
Actually it was (and is) an independent school. When I lived and worked in Wolverhampton (1998-2005) it seemed to have little relevance to the local population.
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
Jenrick was educated? Who would have guessed?
Grammar school then Cambridge University.
Actually it was (and is) an independent school. When I lived and worked in Wolverhampton (1998-2005) it seemed to have little relevance to the local population.
It's called Wolverhampton Grammar School and it's located near to the centre of Wolverhampton in a residential area. It employs local residents and allows the public to hire it's facilities.
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
Jenrick was educated? Who would have guessed?
Grammar school then Cambridge University.
Actually it was (and is) an independent school. When I lived and worked in Wolverhampton (1998-2005) it seemed to have little relevance to the local population.
It's called Wolverhampton Grammar School and it's located near to the centre of Wolverhampton in a residential area. It employs local residents and allows the public to hire it's facilities.
What it is called is irrelavent. It is an independent fee-paying school. I lived within a mile of that school, and, apart from the "chelsea tractors" lined up at closing time, it had zero impact on the local community.
Political discussion needs to move beyond the nonsense of who went to what school. A child doesn't make the decision on where it goes to school, that is down to parents: punishing anyone - politician, businessman, cleric, whoever - for a choice over which they had no control is lazy and childish.
Yes, I went to a famous public school but only because I took the exams and got a full scholarship, and that route is open to all bright children. The schools themselves are desperate to widen the demographic of their pupils - that's why places like Eton, Harrow, Winchester, etc have junior scholarships so that children who pass at 10/11 can go to "feeder" prep schools at their expense before going on to the main school. The question people should be asking is why is that necessary.
Whichever of the two is picked they will go chasing Reform. Reese Mogg will he happy. Maybe the moderates in the party will go over to the Lib Dems or even the Starmer party
. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
Sorry for the typo, I now have some horrible images of Jenrick in my mind.
I wonder if Jenrick being in the spotlight will uncover more of his shady dealings, I certainly hope so.
Bobby was born and educated in Wolverhampton so he gets my support. Problem is that I also like Kemi.
Jenrick was educated? Who would have guessed?
Grammar school then Cambridge University.
Actually it was (and is) an independent school. When I lived and worked in Wolverhampton (1998-2005) it seemed to have little relevance to the local population.
It's called Wolverhampton Grammar School and it's located near to the centre of Wolverhampton in a residential area. It employs local residents and allows the public to hire it's facilities.
What it is called is irrelavent. It is an independent fee-paying school. I lived within a mile of that school, and, apart from the "chelsea tractors" lined up at closing time, it had zero impact on the local community.
Zero impact ? How on earth can you know this ? Where do you think that the cleaners and other non teachers live ? My cricket club and many other clubs used their nets in the winter months.
It's a day school by the way. Where do you think the pupils live ?
Whichever of the two is picked they will go chasing Reform. Reese Mogg will he happy. Maybe the moderates in the party will go over to the Lib Dems or even the Starmer party
I wouldn't be so sure. As much as it was pleasing to see a Lib Dem resurgence in many parts of the country I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some traditional Conservatives who voted Lib Dem this time return to voting Tory next time round.
That's purely based on gut feel.
Whatever we think about the Conservative Party it is nothing if not resilient.
They certainly aren't in despair as they were in 1997 and some would argue that all they have to do is bide their time whilst Starmer continues to stuff things up.
Some Lib Dems are convinced that Starmer stuffing things up will lead to more Lib Dem support next time. I'm not so convinced, but would like to be proven wrong.
I don't see the Conservatives imploding anytime soon.
We've got a Labour MP here for the first time. People are already whingeing and complaining and she's only been in office a few months. Were they expecting her to transform everything overnight?
Whichever of the two is picked they will go chasing Reform. Reese Mogg will he happy. Maybe the moderates in the party will go over to the Lib Dems or even the Starmer party
I wouldn't be so sure. As much as it was pleasing to see a Lib Dem resurgence in many parts of the country I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some traditional Conservatives who voted Lib Dem this time return to voting Tory next time round.
That's purely based on gut feel.
Whatever we think about the Conservative Party it is nothing if not resilient.
They certainly aren't in despair as they were in 1997 and some would argue that all they have to do is bide their time whilst Starmer continues to stuff things up.
Some Lib Dems are convinced that Starmer stuffing things up will lead to more Lib Dem support next time. I'm not so convinced, but would like to be proven wrong.
I don't see the Conservatives imploding anytime soon.
We've got a Labour MP here for the first time. People are already whingeing and complaining and she's only been in office a few months. Were they expecting her to transform everything overnight?
To me that just speaks of the Tories in denial.
Labour haven't stuffed anything up, they've just had a complete PR catastrophe. Whilst polling numbers are down, they're volatile. So much rush to judgment is desperately premature.
The Tories are making the classic mistake of believing their own propaganda. They seem to think that all they have to do is play nice with their base and Labour will gift them a return to power. On this they are gravely mistaken.
The current noise and media environment has made for a very rocky start for the Labour government but genuinely I think it's more dangerous for the Tories. Labour will improve their comms and start doing things that matter. As policies start to become real, things will change and the Tories are very likely to be deeper in their own hole.
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
Nope. No one is ignoring that. The Tories are assuming that all support that they lost is desperate to come back to them. The evidence suggests that is not the case.
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
A particular meaning of 'everyone' which excludes everyone in both threads on these boards making the same point and professional psephologists writing for the public broadcaster. Shades of 'these days, if you say you're English' perhaps.
I'll leave discussion of that issue for the other thread; but the corresponding problem for the Tories is that they still need to re-assemble their voting coalition, which included voters who have since died, some voters which went to Reform, a smaller number which went to the Lib Dems and an unknown number who just stayed at home.
They can't assume that every Reform voter is can be won, firstly because Reform take votes from both major parties, and secondly a lot of lifelong Tory voters will have voted for another party for the first time, and the psychological impact of that shift isn't to be underestimated. Further, Jenrick - if it is him - seems to be pinning all his hopes on 'this one weird trick' of leaving the EHRC, and I'm not sure that voters are going to buy that offer the second time around.
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
A particular meaning of 'everyone' which excludes everyone in both threads on these boards making the same point and professional psephologists writing for the public broadcaster. Shades of 'these days, if you say you're English' perhaps.
I'll leave discussion of that issue for the other thread; but the corresponding problem for the Tories is that they still need to re-assemble their voting coalition, which included voters who have since died, some voters which went to Reform, a smaller number which went to the Lib Dems and an unknown number who just stayed at home.
They can't assume that every Reform voter is can be won, firstly because Reform take votes from both major parties, and secondly a lot of lifelong Tory voters will have voted for another party for the first time, and the psychological impact of that shift isn't to be underestimated. Further, Jenrick - if it is him - seems to be pinning all his hopes on 'this one weird trick' of leaving the EHRC, and I'm not sure that voters are going to buy that offer the second time around.
I don't think they are finished. I think it will take them some time to recover though and if they've got any sense they should avoid populism and lurching to the right.
I don't think they are finished. I think it will take them some time to recover though and if they've got any sense they should avoid populism and lurching to the right.
But I don't think they've got much sense.
They don't need to lurch anywhere. Labour went from No Hopers in 2019 to Government in 2024.
I don't think they are finished. I think it will take them some time to recover though and if they've got any sense they should avoid populism and lurching to the right.
But I don't think they've got much sense.
Oh, I think the rats-in-a-sack infighting will kick-off within weeks, if not days, of the new Tory leader being named and continue for at least one parliamentary term. Last time it took them 8 years to stop the feuding and the CP back in the 90s/early 2000s was a far more sensible beast than the current one.
I don't think they are finished. I think it will take them some time to recover though and if they've got any sense they should avoid populism and lurching to the right.
But I don't think they've got much sense.
They don't need to lurch anywhere. Labour went from No Hopers in 2019 to Government in 2024.
Labour did that while losing votes. The tories need to recover votes from Reform Ltd and the lib dems to overtake Labour.
I don't think they are finished. I think it will take them some time to recover though and if they've got any sense they should avoid populism and lurching to the right.
But I don't think they've got much sense.
They don't need to lurch anywhere. Labour went from No Hopers in 2019 to Government in 2024.
Labour did that while losing votes. The tories need to recover votes from Reform Ltd and the lib dems to overtake Labour.
and also Labour. I doubt that Labour will manage nearly 34% next time.
I don't think they are finished. I think it will take them some time to recover though and if they've got any sense they should avoid populism and lurching to the right.
But I don't think they've got much sense.
They don't need to lurch anywhere. Labour went from No Hopers in 2019 to Government in 2024.
Labour did that while losing votes. The tories need to recover votes from Reform Ltd and the lib dems to overtake Labour.
and also Labour. I doubt that Labour will manage nearly 34% next time.
Today I randomly overheard two tory members (chips of more mature years) chatting about who they would vote for and interestingly neither had made up their mind.
I don't think they are finished. I think it will take them some time to recover though and if they've got any sense they should avoid populism and lurching to the right.
But I don't think they've got much sense.
They don't need to lurch anywhere. Labour went from No Hopers in 2019 to Government in 2024.
Labour did that while losing votes. The tories need to recover votes from Reform Ltd and the lib dems to overtake Labour.
I heard a political pundit on the radio today observe that the Reform vote cost the Conservatives 60 seats. So chasing the Reform vote and trying to out-Reform them makes some kind of sense.
Thing is, though, as was also pointed out, Reform voters may be very right-wing on issues like immigration but they aren't necessarily that way inclined on economic issues. Bit of a conundrum there for the Tories to resolve.
I do think it's the case that the Conservatives lost the last election rather than Labour winning it. Next time it might be Labour losing it unless they make up for ground lost over the last 100 days.
I don't think they are finished. I think it will take them some time to recover though and if they've got any sense they should avoid populism and lurching to the right.
But I don't think they've got much sense.
They don't need to lurch anywhere. Labour went from No Hopers in 2019 to Government in 2024.
Labour did that while losing votes. The tories need to recover votes from Reform Ltd and the lib dems to overtake Labour.
and also Labour. I doubt that Labour will manage nearly 34% next time.
No. It will be more.
No point in arguing about this because I doubt if I will see the next election.
The Tories are making the classic mistake of believing their own propaganda. They seem to think that all they have to do is play nice with their base and Labour will gift them a return to power. On this they are gravely mistaken.
Well, quite.
Did they take part in the same election as the rest of the country? Starmer didn't win the election - the Tories lost it. Voters were fleeing the Tory party in all directions. If the lesson you learn from this is "Labour are screwing up, so we'll win next time", then you're very much not paying attention.
The Tories lost the last election all by themselves. This isn't the Blair years, where Labour presented a compelling positive argument to vote for them, fronted by a charismatic leader. The story of the last election was that nobody wanted to vote for the Tories at all. Labour's "landslide victory" came on the back of one third of the national vote. If the Tories want to win the next election, they have to change this story - they need to become a party that people want to vote for again.
The Tories are making the classic mistake of believing their own propaganda. They seem to think that all they have to do is play nice with their base and Labour will gift them a return to power. On this they are gravely mistaken.
Well, quite.
Did they take part in the same election as the rest of the country? Starmer didn't win the election - the Tories lost it. Voters were fleeing the Tory party in all directions. If the lesson you learn from this is "Labour are screwing up, so we'll win next time", then you're very much not paying attention.
The Tories lost the last election all by themselves. This isn't the Blair years, where Labour presented a compelling positive argument to vote for them, fronted by a charismatic leader. The story of the last election was that nobody wanted to vote for the Tories at all. Labour's "landslide victory" came on the back of one third of the national vote. If the Tories want to win the next election, they have to change this story - they need to become a party that people want to vote for again.
So none of the 6,828,925 who voted for the Conservatives, didn't want to. They just put their X in the wrong box ?
Indeed, although I understood Leorning Cniht hyperbolically rather than literally.
Of course there were people who voted Conservative.
The point they were making was that it was a case of the Conservatives losing the election this time rather than Labour winning it, unlike 1997.
I think we would all agree with that whatever our politics.
I can see the Conservatives recovering. They are nothing if not robust. I think it will take them a good while though. Sadly, there are those who see that recovery as involving a wannabe Reform style approach with the kind of Rees-Moggery that makes the Conservatives the toxic brand they have become today.
Indeed, although I understood Leorning Cniht hyperbolically rather than literally.
Of course there were people who voted Conservative.
The point they were making was that it was a case of the Conservatives losing the election this time rather than Labour winning it, unlike 1997.
I think we would all agree with that whatever our politics.
I can see the Conservatives recovering. They are nothing if not robust. I think it will take them a good while though. Sadly, there are those who see that recovery as involving a wannabe Reform style approach with the kind of Rees-Moggery that makes the Conservatives the toxic brand they have become today.
They will gradually become less toxic, mainly because they wont be in government
One might expect so but on current performance the leadership seems hell-bent on increasing the levels of toxicity in the belief that it will help them recover lost ground.
It's as if they are saying to those who deserted them in a leftward or more centrist direction, 'Get lost! We don't want your votes. We don't want you back. We'd rather court those right-wing bastards who deserted us for Reform.'
One might expect so but on current performance the leadership seems hell-bent on increasing the levels of toxicity in the belief that it will help them recover lost ground.
It's as if they are saying to those who deserted them in a leftward or more centrist direction, 'Get lost! We don't want your votes. We don't want you back. We'd rather court those right-wing bastards who deserted us for Reform.'
On the raw numbers that might not be an awful strategy. If they win back half of Reform Ltd votes they could well be close to jeopardising Labour's majority.
"close to jeopardising Labour's majority" is still a fair bit short of forming a majority of their own, or even being in government in coalition with someone else (and, as they move to the right options for a coalition partner shrink - if Reform lose half their votes they won't be in Parliament, the DUP won't supply many MPs for a coalition).
One might expect so but on current performance the leadership seems hell-bent on increasing the levels of toxicity in the belief that it will help them recover lost ground.
It's as if they are saying to those who deserted them in a leftward or more centrist direction, 'Get lost! We don't want your votes. We don't want you back. We'd rather court those right-wing bastards who deserted us for Reform.'
On the raw numbers that might not be an awful strategy. If they win back half of Reform Ltd votes they could well be close to jeopardising Labour's majority.
No it's not. Because the data suggests that very few Reform voters are Tory-voters-in-waiting. The ones who voted Labour in '24 are the easiest to win back, followed by the LibDems. These right wingers are not coming back easily.
Did they take part in the same election as the rest of the country? Starmer didn't win the election - the Tories lost it. Voters were fleeing the Tory party in all directions. If the lesson you learn from this is "Labour are screwing up, so we'll win next time", then you're very much not paying attention.
The Tories lost the last election all by themselves. This isn't the Blair years, where Labour presented a compelling positive argument to vote for them, fronted by a charismatic leader. The story of the last election was that nobody wanted to vote for the Tories at all. Labour's "landslide victory" came on the back of one third of the national vote. If the Tories want to win the next election, they have to change this story - they need to become a party that people want to vote for again.
Or a party that people dislike slightly less than they dislike Labour.
I think this is a dangerous time for UK politics. Neither of the major parties is particularly popular, and the lesson they seem to be taking from that is that all they have to do is be less unpopular than the other. Neither of them seems to be driven by a positive vision of where they want to take the country, or even a particular desire to be a party that people like the most (as opposed to a party people hate the least).
This "those-guys-are-awful-so-vote-for-us-ism" leaves a massive gap into which parties with a genuine vision can move. The Lib Dems seem to be of the same mould as Labour and the Tories, and the nationalist/NI parties stand in too few seats to make a significant difference. Who will move into the gap?
The left-wing optimists on this board will immediately say "The Greens". But while they made gains at the election in terms of seats, their vote share only increased by 4.1%, and that in virtually ideal electoral conditions for them.
Who did people actually want to vote for? ISTM that the two answers there are Reform and Independent - and other than Corbyn, all the Independents were elected in constituencies with significant Muslim populations voting against the government's response to the Gaza crisis. I fear that this may pressage the rise of ethnicity-based politics in the UK (with Reform, of course, being the party of White Britain), stoking further division within society.
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
What really annoys me is governments claiming that they have a "mandate" or that they are supported by a landslide, when well under 50% of those that voted, chose them. The ridiculous electoral system is such that nobody really knows, or can possibly say, what the public would really like, or would vote for, if it had the freedom not to have to vote tactically.
The ridiculous electoral system is such that nobody really knows, or can possibly say, what the public would really like, or would vote for, if it had the freedom not to have to vote tactically.
And, that just relates to parties. It's even harder to say what policies within a party people support or what they don't support but vote for that party because they like everything else the party stands for. At, least from the votes cast on election day, of course we can get some information on those lines from quality opinion polls relating to policies rather than just "if there was an election tomorrow, who would you vote for?"
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010.
The difference is that the number of voters that Labour got over the previous election went down, something that's only true of 1964 (the other point of note is that their popularity started to drop as soon as the general election campaign started).
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010.
The difference is that the number of voters that Labour got over the previous election went down, something that's only true of 1964 (the other point of note is that their popularity started to drop as soon as the general election campaign started).
Well, it appears that at least on of the remaining candidates for leader believes there is an intellectual threat to the party...
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010.
The difference is that the number of voters that Labour got over the previous election went down, something that's only true of 1964 (the other point of note is that their popularity started to drop as soon as the general election campaign started).
Well, it appears that at least on of the remaining candidates for leader believes there is an intellectual threat to the party...
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992. Blair won where Kinnock lost, because Blair made a better positive pitch for votes, and was personally more popular and charismatic. And he successfully sold the pitch that voting Labour was safe for "Mondeo Man".
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010. I was too young to remember the one in 1951, but I'm pretty sure the same applied then.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992.
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
What everyone seems to ignore is that the Labour share of the vote at the GE was not massive: they didn't so much win the GE as the Conservatives lost it.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
In my lifetime, I can't think of any election that somebody won rather than somebody who is already in power lost. That was certainly true of the big sea changes in 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010.
The difference is that the number of voters that Labour got over the previous election went down, something that's only true of 1964 (the other point of note is that their popularity started to drop as soon as the general election campaign started).
Well, it appears that at least on of the remaining candidates for leader believes there is an intellectual threat to the party...
Comments
Actually it was (and is) an independent school. When I lived and worked in Wolverhampton (1998-2005) it seemed to have little relevance to the local population.
It's called Wolverhampton Grammar School and it's located near to the centre of Wolverhampton in a residential area. It employs local residents and allows the public to hire it's facilities.
What it is called is irrelavent. It is an independent fee-paying school. I lived within a mile of that school, and, apart from the "chelsea tractors" lined up at closing time, it had zero impact on the local community.
Yes, I went to a famous public school but only because I took the exams and got a full scholarship, and that route is open to all bright children. The schools themselves are desperate to widen the demographic of their pupils - that's why places like Eton, Harrow, Winchester, etc have junior scholarships so that children who pass at 10/11 can go to "feeder" prep schools at their expense before going on to the main school. The question people should be asking is why is that necessary.
It's a day school by the way. Where do you think the pupils live ?
I wouldn't be so sure. As much as it was pleasing to see a Lib Dem resurgence in many parts of the country I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some traditional Conservatives who voted Lib Dem this time return to voting Tory next time round.
That's purely based on gut feel.
Whatever we think about the Conservative Party it is nothing if not resilient.
They certainly aren't in despair as they were in 1997 and some would argue that all they have to do is bide their time whilst Starmer continues to stuff things up.
Some Lib Dems are convinced that Starmer stuffing things up will lead to more Lib Dem support next time. I'm not so convinced, but would like to be proven wrong.
I don't see the Conservatives imploding anytime soon.
We've got a Labour MP here for the first time. People are already whingeing and complaining and she's only been in office a few months. Were they expecting her to transform everything overnight?
To me that just speaks of the Tories in denial.
Labour haven't stuffed anything up, they've just had a complete PR catastrophe. Whilst polling numbers are down, they're volatile. So much rush to judgment is desperately premature.
The Tories are making the classic mistake of believing their own propaganda. They seem to think that all they have to do is play nice with their base and Labour will gift them a return to power. On this they are gravely mistaken.
The current noise and media environment has made for a very rocky start for the Labour government but genuinely I think it's more dangerous for the Tories. Labour will improve their comms and start doing things that matter. As policies start to become real, things will change and the Tories are very likely to be deeper in their own hole.
YMMV, of course.
A PR disaster is just as disastrous as a policy one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
It's all fairly meaningless at the point. Especially council by-election results.
Meanwhile, the PR cock-ups continue ...
Nope. No one is ignoring that. The Tories are assuming that all support that they lost is desperate to come back to them. The evidence suggests that is not the case.
A particular meaning of 'everyone' which excludes everyone in both threads on these boards making the same point and professional psephologists writing for the public broadcaster. Shades of 'these days, if you say you're English' perhaps.
I'll leave discussion of that issue for the other thread; but the corresponding problem for the Tories is that they still need to re-assemble their voting coalition, which included voters who have since died, some voters which went to Reform, a smaller number which went to the Lib Dems and an unknown number who just stayed at home.
They can't assume that every Reform voter is can be won, firstly because Reform take votes from both major parties, and secondly a lot of lifelong Tory voters will have voted for another party for the first time, and the psychological impact of that shift isn't to be underestimated. Further, Jenrick - if it is him - seems to be pinning all his hopes on 'this one weird trick' of leaving the EHRC, and I'm not sure that voters are going to buy that offer the second time around.
There's some data on this, as I linked to above.
It's still an indication that the Conservatives are not yet finished.
But I don't think they've got much sense.
They don't need to lurch anywhere. Labour went from No Hopers in 2019 to Government in 2024.
Oh, I think the rats-in-a-sack infighting will kick-off within weeks, if not days, of the new Tory leader being named and continue for at least one parliamentary term. Last time it took them 8 years to stop the feuding and the CP back in the 90s/early 2000s was a far more sensible beast than the current one.
Labour did that while losing votes. The tories need to recover votes from Reform Ltd and the lib dems to overtake Labour.
and also Labour. I doubt that Labour will manage nearly 34% next time.
No. It will be more.
Ah, missed that: thanks.
I heard a political pundit on the radio today observe that the Reform vote cost the Conservatives 60 seats. So chasing the Reform vote and trying to out-Reform them makes some kind of sense.
Thing is, though, as was also pointed out, Reform voters may be very right-wing on issues like immigration but they aren't necessarily that way inclined on economic issues. Bit of a conundrum there for the Tories to resolve.
I do think it's the case that the Conservatives lost the last election rather than Labour winning it. Next time it might be Labour losing it unless they make up for ground lost over the last 100 days.
But a week is a long time in politics.
No point in arguing about this because I doubt if I will see the next election.
Well, quite.
Did they take part in the same election as the rest of the country? Starmer didn't win the election - the Tories lost it. Voters were fleeing the Tory party in all directions. If the lesson you learn from this is "Labour are screwing up, so we'll win next time", then you're very much not paying attention.
The Tories lost the last election all by themselves. This isn't the Blair years, where Labour presented a compelling positive argument to vote for them, fronted by a charismatic leader. The story of the last election was that nobody wanted to vote for the Tories at all. Labour's "landslide victory" came on the back of one third of the national vote. If the Tories want to win the next election, they have to change this story - they need to become a party that people want to vote for again.
Of course there were people who voted Conservative.
The point they were making was that it was a case of the Conservatives losing the election this time rather than Labour winning it, unlike 1997.
I think we would all agree with that whatever our politics.
I can see the Conservatives recovering. They are nothing if not robust. I think it will take them a good while though. Sadly, there are those who see that recovery as involving a wannabe Reform style approach with the kind of Rees-Moggery that makes the Conservatives the toxic brand they have become today.
They will gradually become less toxic, mainly because they wont be in government
It's as if they are saying to those who deserted them in a leftward or more centrist direction, 'Get lost! We don't want your votes. We don't want you back. We'd rather court those right-wing bastards who deserted us for Reform.'
On the raw numbers that might not be an awful strategy. If they win back half of Reform Ltd votes they could well be close to jeopardising Labour's majority.
No it's not. Because the data suggests that very few Reform voters are Tory-voters-in-waiting. The ones who voted Labour in '24 are the easiest to win back, followed by the LibDems. These right wingers are not coming back easily.
Farage won't go into coalition with anyone. And he's not cut out for the nuts-and-bolts of governing, he's purely a disrupter.
Or a party that people dislike slightly less than they dislike Labour.
I think this is a dangerous time for UK politics. Neither of the major parties is particularly popular, and the lesson they seem to be taking from that is that all they have to do is be less unpopular than the other. Neither of them seems to be driven by a positive vision of where they want to take the country, or even a particular desire to be a party that people like the most (as opposed to a party people hate the least).
This "those-guys-are-awful-so-vote-for-us-ism" leaves a massive gap into which parties with a genuine vision can move. The Lib Dems seem to be of the same mould as Labour and the Tories, and the nationalist/NI parties stand in too few seats to make a significant difference. Who will move into the gap?
The left-wing optimists on this board will immediately say "The Greens". But while they made gains at the election in terms of seats, their vote share only increased by 4.1%, and that in virtually ideal electoral conditions for them.
Who did people actually want to vote for? ISTM that the two answers there are Reform and Independent - and other than Corbyn, all the Independents were elected in constituencies with significant Muslim populations voting against the government's response to the Gaza crisis. I fear that this may pressage the rise of ethnicity-based politics in the UK (with Reform, of course, being the party of White Britain), stoking further division within society.
I hope I'm wrong.
What really annoys me is governments claiming that they have a "mandate" or that they are supported by a landslide, when well under 50% of those that voted, chose them. The ridiculous electoral system is such that nobody really knows, or can possibly say, what the public would really like, or would vote for, if it had the freedom not to have to vote tactically.
The difference is that the number of voters that Labour got over the previous election went down, something that's only true of 1964 (the other point of note is that their popularity started to drop as soon as the general election campaign started).
Well, it appears that at least on of the remaining candidates for leader believes there is an intellectual threat to the party...
https://x.com/CorruptsPower/status/1846499036699709823?t=yPDJFmj30QB_16B_SSuQow&s=19
"Kemi Badenoch claims Tory Party could cease to exist if Robert Jenrick wins leadership race "
Well, she owes me a new irony meter at any rate.
I don't think this is right. I think the Blair government largely won the 1997 election. Sure - the Tories did their part, but the divisions in the Tory party weren't really all that different in 1997 as compared to 1992. Blair won where Kinnock lost, because Blair made a better positive pitch for votes, and was personally more popular and charismatic. And he successfully sold the pitch that voting Labour was safe for "Mondeo Man".
The difference is that in 92 Major could run as a fresh face; nevertheless Blair gained 2 million more votes over 1992 and came in with 43% of the vote.
Would it be the same day as the result is announced ?