Starmer's vision quest

[BoldonLad]

Sounds reasonable. My Tory friends and neighbours are but a very small sample, but they all say they sat on their hands and remain embarrassed by the events of the last decade.

Speaking of small samples, my almost exclusively Labour supporting friends and acquaintances may TALK a good Corbyn vote, but, when it comes to the actuality, they seem somewhat reluctant. I think it is because they are unsure of the boundary line between “them” and “us”.

 

[icowden]

Starmer won, Corbyn didn't. It is a fairly straightforward point.

It is, but it doesn't really tell us much about the actual support for the Labour Party. Corbyn couldn't generate enough support. Starmer could have been a lettuce and done no election publicity at all and I suspect the result would have been broadly similar.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

You think democracy is a popularity contest. Maybe that's what it's becoming. However, people who understand the fundamental principles of democracy are much less confused than you.

I think you underestimate how much it has now become a popularity contest. From your own quoted stats, Corbyn's % of the popular vote dropped nearly 8% from 2017-19. I have no particular views on Corbyn but there is no doubt his popularity with the public at large diminished considerably. I am sure a large part of this is the fact that the right wing press did a spectacular hatchet job on him and that dramatically altered public perceptions of him (regularly presented in press as dangerous, terrorist sympathiser, communist etc etc.). In 2019 he also came up against Johnson. Like him or loathe him (I loathe and detest him), the fact is that at the time he had a huge amount of press backing and a lot of the public liked him and bought into his whole charming buffoon schtick. That coupled with a general malaise over Brexit and people's foolish belief in Johnson's 'oven ready deal' resulted in a large Tory majority. I think 2019 was a slight anomaly as this was more about the cult of two very different personality's, rather than a vote for a particular party, but it was, in my opinion, largely a popularity contest.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Starmer won, Corbyn didn't. It is a fairly straightforward point.

So that's your starting point, and unsurprisingly I agree with you.

Here's your conclusion

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

You then ask

Show me the error in my workings.

But you haven't shown any workings.
Let's make it easy for you and accept that Corbyn was left wing.
You might want to show to what extent the electorate rejected Corbyn and to what extent they rejected the policies.
Then you can get back to answering the issues raised above regarding the relative popularity of the Starmer's election platform and the collapse of the Tory vote.

After that we can get back to discussing the problems with Starmer's actual performance since taking power.

 

[monkers]

I think you underestimate how much it has now become a popularity contest

I really don't. I think it a significant problem. I didn't comment on that, I just gave the numbers. But even if the argument is presented as a popularity contest, and whether you want to present the argument as the total popular vote scorecard, or a percentage of the vote, in 2017 Corbyn beat Starmer's effort in 2024. Who wins is not absolutely dependent on the popularity contest but other factors, because as we know votes do not proportionately turn into seats. And that's my point.

GE2017 ... Corbyn ... 12 877 918 ... 40% ... Fail

GE2024 ... Starmer ... 9 708 716 ... 33.7% ... Win (landslide)

Footnote: I didn't vote for either of them.

 

[Pblakeney]

It is, but it doesn't really tell us much about the actual support for the Labour Party. Corbyn couldn't generate enough support. Starmer could have been a lettuce and done no election publicity at all and I suspect the result would have been broadly similar.

This is in the realms of we'll never know, even if you may well be correct. I think the results would have been very different if Corbyn (or similar) was still in charge though. Some can grudgingly accept Starmer but wouldn't contemplate Corbyn.

 

[Pblakeney]

But you haven't shown any workings.
Let's make it easy for you and accept that Corbyn was left wing.
You might want to show to what extent the electorate rejected Corbyn and to what extent they rejected the policies.

The workings are very simple. Left wing Corbyn lost while mid to right Starmer won.
The extent of the shift was enough to win an election.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I really don't. I think it a significant problem. I didn't comment on that, I just gave the numbers. But even if the argument is presented as a popularity contest, and whether you want to present the argument as the total popular vote scorecard, or a percentage of the vote, in 2017 Corbyn beat Starmer's effort in 2024. Who wins is not absolutely dependent on the popularity contest but other factors, because as we know votes do not proportionately turn into seats. And that's my point.

GE2017 ... Corbyn ... 12 877 918 ... 40% ... Fail

GE2024 ... Starmer ... 9 708 716 ... 33.7% ... Win (landslide)

Footnote: I didn't vote for either of them.

PB's point was that labour tried to win an election under Corbyn and were not successful. You gave the numbers that proved his point, they didn't win an election under Corbyn.

 

[icowden]

Footnote: I didn't vote for either of them.

And that;s the point really. There are a great number of people disengaged from voting because their votes "don't count", and a great number of people who voted but their votes still didn't count.

There are people who support Labour around here but their votes don't count. I think Reform are appalling but it's very hard to justify that they only have 5 seats given their vote share.

Under PR parties would have been represented as:-

• Labour 228
• Conservative 139
• Reform 100
• Lib Dem 73
• Green 71
• SNP 16
• Plaid 4
• N.Ireland 18

No single party would have been in overall control. Whilst the Tories could partner with Reform they would still not have a parliamentary majority. The most likely outcome would have been a Liberal Coalition between Labour, Lib Dems and Green and would most likely have produced better policy and better results for UK citizens. Labour wouldn't be chasing after the Reform vote or worrying about red walls etc.

It's hard to see how PR wouldn't just be better.

 

[monkers]

PB's point was that labour tried to win an election under Corbyn and were not successful. You gave the numbers that proved his point, they didn't win an election under Corbyn.

Well that's inane. Anyone can say that after any election and proclaim themselves being the only one making some genius point. He invited people to check his working. There was none.

''The Tories tried right with Sunak. They didn't win''. Then we can simply ignore all other factors, and think we've outsmarted everyone. Terrific.

 

[Pblakeney]

I'm not claiming to be any genius. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious.
You don't like the results, fine. They are what they are though. No point in winning a system that doesn't exist.

 

[monkers]

I'm not claiming to be any genius. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious.
You don't like the results, fine. They are what they are though. No point in winning a system that doesn't exist.

You asked people to check your workings leading to the assumption that you were trying to calculate something rather than make an inane comment. You had no workings - a false steer. You were then presented with the workings, now your excuse is that you just were pointing to the obvious.

But the obvious point is that Corbyn didn't lose, because to paraphrase your later statements, ''he wasn't popular enough''. The numbers show that he was, but that popularity did not translate into seats because the system is skewed.

Incidentally, I didn't have a problem with your earlier posts re: parties and their shifting positions. I tend to agree.

As for not liking the results, I neither voted Tory or Labour. As far as my vote is concerned, the outcome was what I expected it to be - but I don't go to the polls to back the predicted winner, I have a considered vote after carefully reading policies and manifestos.

And finally, there is a point in winning a system that doesn't exist - you get to form the next government.

 

[Pblakeney]

You asked people to check your workings leading to the assumption that you were trying to calculate something rather than make an inane comment. You had no workings - a false steer. You were then presented with the workings, now your excuse is that you just were pointing to the obvious.

But the obvious point is that Corbyn didn't lose, because to paraphrase your later statements, ''he wasn't popular enough''. The numbers show that he was, but that popularity did not translate into seats because the system is skewed.

Incidentally, I didn't have a problem with your earlier posts re: parties and their shifting positions. I tend to agree.

As for not liking the results, I neither voted Tory or Labour. As far as my vote is concerned, the outcome was what I expected it to be - but I don't go to the polls to back the predicted winner, I have a considered vote after carefully reading policies and manifestos.

And finally, there is a point in winning a system that doesn't exist - you get to form the next government.

There is no clearer result than who won or lost an election. My workings are who won the most seats. Simple as.
Nobody "wins" an election by winning a system that doesn't exist. The system is flawed, I agree, but that is another topic.

 

[monkers]

There is no clearer result than who won or lost an election. My workings are who won the most seats. Simple as.
Nobody "wins" an election by winning a system that doesn't exist. The system is flawed, I agree, but that is another topic.

Well that is not a case of you working anything out at all. You've made a big deal out of nothing.

By your now admission you had no workings to check. Bob nailed that point early on, but you've persisted.

Any analysis of election results amply shows, Corbyn was 'popular' enough, but the skew in the system prevented that from being a winning number of seats. So nothing much about the left trying and failing, and more about the poor health of UK democracy, which is proven in the election results.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Well that is not a case of you working anything out at all. You've made a big deal out of nothing.

By your now admission you had no workings to check. Bob nailed that point early on, but you've persisted.

Any analysis of election results amply shows, Corbyn was 'popular' enough, but the skew in the system prevented that from being a winning number of seats. So nothing much about the left trying and failing, and more about the poor health of UK democracy, which is proven in the election results.

Respectfully, I am struggling slightly with your argument. From 2017 to 2019 Labour (let's remove Corbyn for a second) saw an 8% drop in vote share, received around 2.5 million less votes and lost 30 seats. How does that translate to a 'skew' in the system that prevented them from winning enough seats? AMS and STV projections for 2019 (both being forms of PR) would have given Labour approx. 188 and 221 seats respectively, neither of which would have won them the 2019 election.

I am asking this in good faith, how does this show that Labour under Corbyn were popular enough to win an election? As far as I can see the total % percentage does not translate to an election win under any of the three voting scenario's suggested, therefore it was not the system that denied Labour an election win in 2019.

By the way, I have no problem being corrected if I am wrong.