how can you possibly say that only those likely to shift from Labour to Reform are the problem for Starmer?
Can I invite you to read what I’ve written again?
If Starmer tacks left he might win back some of the people peeling off to his left, and head off the threat of ‘the serious alternative sitting to the left’. Absolutely.
But in terms of votes, if that motivates remaining Tories to break for Reform, shores up Reform, and annoys enough people who bluntly just don’t want left wing policies then it’s still game over for Labour in 2029. So, again, it’s not about Labour losing more voters to Reform.
It’s about what effect Labour going left will have on the voting intentions of the people to the right of them that already aren’t voting for them. I think Labour-Reform switchers are pretty near irrelevant, and likely to remain so until/unless we reach a tipping point of voter intention for whatever reason.
Again, if I were them I’d be governing as though I was already toast in 2029 so might as well think the unthinkable and be hanged as a tiger rather than a sheep. But they don’t seem to have the stomach for that.
The idea of a party choosing its policies according to their effect on the voting intentions of people who would never vote for them is simply bizarre. The whole political landscape is so odd at the moment.
Ran out of editing time. so I will add some more now. Everything feels like it's is so lowest common denominator, so completely devoid of ideas or ambition that all we are left with is marketing based axiom that all that matters is the rosette of the person in No 10. Policies arise out of a very prescribed pool - irrespective of the rosette in "power". There is no tolerance of variation, unless it is moving to the right, towards desiccation, towards closing down possibilities for all but the richest. All because punitive jealousy is the political recreation du jour.
The idea of a party choosing its policies according to their effect on the voting intentions of people who would never vote for them is simply bizarre. The whole political landscape is so odd at the moment.
In a perfectly spherical frictionless rigid political system where moving to the left unites the right out of fear it makes sense. The trouble is we don't live in that system. Not everyone votes tactically, and most people don't have views that fit neatly on a continuum from left to right or even on a two-dimensional economic/social chart. For starters you have a chunk of tories who consider Reform to be below-the-salt riff-raff and a chunk of Reform supporters who have bought the idea that they're somehow 'anti-establishment' so won't touch the tories.
This far out from an election people being polled are registering their views, not necessarily indicating how they might vote if they're tactically inclined.
Broadly, I think Labour trying to thread the needle of being left wing enough to not hemorrhaging support to the left and right wing enough to avoid scaring the right into unity is a mug's game. Even if it were possible there are too many variables to calibrate it effectively. It would also, in case anyone hasn't realised, be deeply immoral to use people's lives and livelihoods, and the services they depend on, as pawns that can be sacrificed to keep you in power.
The idea of a party choosing its policies according to their effect on the voting intentions of people who would never vote for them is simply bizarre. The whole political landscape is so odd at the moment.
No argument there. We’ve got a government on a historic low vote share, with a huge majority, and MPs of all colours sitting on historic low personal majorities. Labour staggered over the line with a safety first manifesto, boosted by a tailwind of people (rightly) being sick of the Tories and complete disarray on the right, with many Tory voters sitting on their hands rather than vote Tory. The right now appears to be at least open to coalescing again, because a party has appeared that short circuits the ‘normal’ political cycle that would have the Tories coming back in about ten years.
So the prize for Reform (God help us) is that essentially the 2019 red wall and southern shires coalition is not only there for the taking, but looks like it’s at least feasible. Both existing Labour and Conservative MPs are sitting on the sort of majority that would be gone in a tiny swing, never mind an electoral earthquake.
So it would get more bizarre if the wave that swept Labour in last year swept them back out again within one parliament (unprecedented - unthinkable- really) - but thanks to the basic maths of the ‘odd’ political landscape the last general election bequeathed us it is very much possible.
Which is why, arithmetically, this government is so vulnerable to what the people that don’t/didn’t vote for it last year do.
To be clear, I’m not supporting it, and nothing happens in a vacuum so it can’t be the whole story, but it is a big problem that most governments don’t face but this one does.
Despite the majority, this government is probably best seen as part of the total instability we’ve seen since the 2017 election. I think 2029 is likely to result in a 2017 or 2015 style outcome, with some combination of Reform and the Conservatives governing on a coalition/confidence and supply basis mid70s/2010/2017), or Reform outright on a small majority (2015), but with a sensible vote share for the opposition on the basis of a ‘stop that happening’ ticket.
Which in the long run, assuming society gets to 2034, means ‘normal’ service with a ‘normal’ government might happen from the election after next. With the emphasis on an optimistic ‘might’
Comments
Can I invite you to read what I’ve written again?
If Starmer tacks left he might win back some of the people peeling off to his left, and head off the threat of ‘the serious alternative sitting to the left’. Absolutely.
But in terms of votes, if that motivates remaining Tories to break for Reform, shores up Reform, and annoys enough people who bluntly just don’t want left wing policies then it’s still game over for Labour in 2029. So, again, it’s not about Labour losing more voters to Reform.
It’s about what effect Labour going left will have on the voting intentions of the people to the right of them that already aren’t voting for them. I think Labour-Reform switchers are pretty near irrelevant, and likely to remain so until/unless we reach a tipping point of voter intention for whatever reason.
Again, if I were them I’d be governing as though I was already toast in 2029 so might as well think the unthinkable and be hanged as a tiger rather than a sheep. But they don’t seem to have the stomach for that.
In a perfectly spherical frictionless rigid political system where moving to the left unites the right out of fear it makes sense. The trouble is we don't live in that system. Not everyone votes tactically, and most people don't have views that fit neatly on a continuum from left to right or even on a two-dimensional economic/social chart. For starters you have a chunk of tories who consider Reform to be below-the-salt riff-raff and a chunk of Reform supporters who have bought the idea that they're somehow 'anti-establishment' so won't touch the tories.
This far out from an election people being polled are registering their views, not necessarily indicating how they might vote if they're tactically inclined.
Broadly, I think Labour trying to thread the needle of being left wing enough to not hemorrhaging support to the left and right wing enough to avoid scaring the right into unity is a mug's game. Even if it were possible there are too many variables to calibrate it effectively. It would also, in case anyone hasn't realised, be deeply immoral to use people's lives and livelihoods, and the services they depend on, as pawns that can be sacrificed to keep you in power.
No argument there. We’ve got a government on a historic low vote share, with a huge majority, and MPs of all colours sitting on historic low personal majorities. Labour staggered over the line with a safety first manifesto, boosted by a tailwind of people (rightly) being sick of the Tories and complete disarray on the right, with many Tory voters sitting on their hands rather than vote Tory. The right now appears to be at least open to coalescing again, because a party has appeared that short circuits the ‘normal’ political cycle that would have the Tories coming back in about ten years.
So the prize for Reform (God help us) is that essentially the 2019 red wall and southern shires coalition is not only there for the taking, but looks like it’s at least feasible. Both existing Labour and Conservative MPs are sitting on the sort of majority that would be gone in a tiny swing, never mind an electoral earthquake.
So it would get more bizarre if the wave that swept Labour in last year swept them back out again within one parliament (unprecedented - unthinkable- really) - but thanks to the basic maths of the ‘odd’ political landscape the last general election bequeathed us it is very much possible.
Which is why, arithmetically, this government is so vulnerable to what the people that don’t/didn’t vote for it last year do.
To be clear, I’m not supporting it, and nothing happens in a vacuum so it can’t be the whole story, but it is a big problem that most governments don’t face but this one does.
Despite the majority, this government is probably best seen as part of the total instability we’ve seen since the 2017 election. I think 2029 is likely to result in a 2017 or 2015 style outcome, with some combination of Reform and the Conservatives governing on a coalition/confidence and supply basis mid70s/2010/2017), or Reform outright on a small majority (2015), but with a sensible vote share for the opposition on the basis of a ‘stop that happening’ ticket.
Which in the long run, assuming society gets to 2034, means ‘normal’ service with a ‘normal’ government might happen from the election after next. With the emphasis on an optimistic ‘might’