Starmer's vision quest

[C R]

As the tories lurch further and further to the right chasing the Reform vote labour are filling in the centre right.
The leftie labour supporters will be dismayed but it is a good re-election strategy.

Two points

1. Labour has been centre right since Blair.

2. Labour are also chasing the reform vote, can they afford to lose votes from the left given that their majority hinges on wafer thin margins?

 

[BoldonLad]

Two points

1. Labour has been centre right since Blair.

2. Labour are also chasing the reform vote, can they afford to lose votes from the left given that their majority hinges on wafer thin margins?

I think it also worth noting that, in some of Labour's "heartlands" (like the area in which I live) the votes are much more likely to be lost to Reform than to the Conservatives, or Lib-Dems. No, I don't have any stats to support that.

 

[Pblakeney]

Two points

1. Labour has been centre right since Blair.

2. Labour are also chasing the reform vote, can they afford to lose votes from the left given that their majority hinges on wafer thin margins?

1. They were. Then they went left with Corbyn. Starmer is slightly to the right of Blair.
2. Starmer is to the left of Farage and would like to regain some of the red wall, but not by going that far.

 

[C R]

2. Starmer is to the left of Farage and would like to regain some of the red wall, but not by going that far.

He is hiding that well.

 

[Psamathe]

As the tories lurch further and further to the right chasing the Reform vote labour are filling in the centre right.
The leftie labour supporters will be dismayed but it is a good re-election strategy.

I wonder if any/many of those left Labour will move to the Greens to reflect their left wing views.

Ian

 

[C R]

I wonder if any/many of those left Labour will move to the Greens to reflect their left wing views.

Ian

Which may be enough to tip labour out. In Worcester the greens are breathing down Labour's neck, and I am sure labour got the seat thanks to tactical voting. Losing too many of those votes would risk the seat. I am sure many other seats are equally precarious, which makes Starmer's position all the more confusing.

 

[BoldonLad]

I wonder if any/many of those left Labour will move to the Greens to reflect their left wing views.

Ian

Not statistically significant in any way, and, I appreciate that Local Elections are not the same as General Elections, however my local Council has gone from 55 labour, 1 conservative, to 27 labour, 17 "independent", 9 Green. This transformation has occurred over the past 2 or 3 local elections. The "independents" are not of course Reform, but, their rhetoric and general behaviour is very similar. This is in an area where Labour had a massive majority in General Elections for as long as I can remember (I am vintage 1947).

 

[Psamathe]

I am sure many other seats are equally precarious, which makes Starmer's position all the more confusing.

I guess mid-term Starmer's cheer leaders can go in front of the cameras and declare how party in power always does badly.

And I guess he's thinking it's a long time until the next election and either things will recover eg NHS or he can change policy nearer the election without time for results to be assessed eg "we've put an extra £££" into the NHS which will bring down waiting lists" but difficult to know if it will work so many will vote with their left or right position giving Starmer the benefit of the doubt.

Ian

 

[All uphill]

As the tories lurch further and further to the right chasing the Reform vote labour are filling in the centre right.
The leftie labour supporters will be dismayed but it is a good re-election strategy.

Leaving a gaping hole on the left - or not?

 

[Pblakeney]

Leaving a gaping hole on the left - or not?

They tried left with Corbyn. It didn't work.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

They tried left with Corbyn. It didn't work.

Thank you for your considered input caller.

 

[Pblakeney]

Thank you for your considered input caller.

Show me the error in my workings.

 

[monkers]

Show me the error in my workings.

Gladly.

GE 2015 ... Miliband ... 30.4% ... ^1.4% pp - Cameron 36.9% - required further swing - 3.25%
GE 2017 ... Corbyn ... 40.0% ... ^ 4.0% pp - May 42.3% - required further swing - 1.55%
GE 2019 ... Corbyn ... 32.1% ... v7.9% pp - Johnson 43.6% - required further swing - 5.75%
GE 2024 ... Starmer ... 33.7% ... ^1.6% pp - Sunak 23.7% - majority achieved by swing of 1.6%

Analysis.
In these last four elections, no party has achieved a popular vote majority.

GE2015. Cameron was surprised to win. He won by a small number of seats.

GE2017 required a further swing to Labour of just 1.55%. This result is the closest Labour got to a majority which was achieved under Corbyn with a swing of 4%. The narrative on the Conservative benches was that May had been ''an electoral disaster''.

GE2019 was atypical because UKIP stood aside to help Johnson, meaning electoral arithmetic is less simple. Although Johnson claimed a landslide, even with the help of Farage standing down his candidates, Johnson achieved just 1.3% more than May. Johnson's epic win compared to May even with the help of Farage was just 0.65%.

GE2024. Starmer's landslide win was 6.3% short of that achieved by Corbyn in 2017, and only 1.6% better than that achieved by Corbyn in 2019.

Conclusion.

Your summary is incorrect, mostly because the UK electoral system is broken. Majority votes do not translate into seats. The 2017 GE result translated as Conservatives winning 317 seats with 42.3% of the vote and Labour losing with only 262 seats for 40.0% of the vote.

By comparison Labour won under Starmer with 411 seats for just a 33.7% share of the vote.

The system ignores the ''will of the people'' in favour of a system prone to external influences, such as unequal population densities and the potential for electioneering, gerrymandering, and candidate fixing.

They say a country gets the government that it deserves. Under the UK's broken electoral system, this can never be true.

 

[C R]

Gladly.

GE 2015 ... Miliband ... 30.4% ... ^1.4% pp - Cameron 36.9% - required further swing - 3.25%
GE 2017 ... Corbyn ... 40.0% ... ^ 4.0% pp - May 42.3% - required further swing - 1.55%
GE 2019 ... Corbyn ... 32.1% ... v7.9% pp - Johnson 43.6% - required further swing - 5.75%
GE 2024 ... Starmer ... 33.7% ... ^1.6% pp - Sunak 23.7% - majority achieved by swing of 1.6%

Analysis.
In these last four elections, no party has achieved a popular vote majority.

GE2015. Cameron was surprised to win. He won by a small number of seats.

GE2017 required a further swing to Labour of just 1.55%. This result is the closest Labour got to a majority which was achieved under Corbyn with a swing of 4%. The narrative on the Conservative benches was that May had been ''an electoral disaster''.

GE2019 was atypical because UKIP stood aside to help Johnson, meaning electoral arithmetic is less simple. Although Johnson claimed a landslide, even with the help of Farage standing down his candidates, Johnson achieved just 1.3% more than May. Johnson's epic win compared to May even with the help of Farage was just 0.65%.

GE2024. Starmer's landslide win was 6.3% short of that achieved by Corbyn in 2017, and only 1.6% better than that achieved by Corbyn in 2019.

Conclusion.

Your summary is incorrect, mostly because the UK electoral system is broken. Majority votes do not translate into seats. The system ignores the ''will of the people'' in favour of a system prone to external influences, such as unequal population densities and the potential for electioneering, gerrymandering, and candidate fixing.

Corollary

Starmer's "landslide" majority is as precarious as de Pfeffel's was.

 

[Pblakeney]

GE 2019 ... Corbyn ... 32.1% ... v7.9% pp - Johnson 43.6% - required further swing - 5.75%

You just proved my point that Labour performed worse while left wing Corbyn was in charge.



I thank you for your assistance.