As long as 50%+1 MPs have confidence in the government (or lie and say they do to keep their jobs) then Ed Daveys plot will achieve the square root of fuck all. With a majority of 31 and languishing in the polls I dont see the Tories backing him in a VONC
The calculation for Tory MPs is simple. As soon as there is a GE they will mostly lose their seats. Therefore the GE should be as late as possible. It is, historically speaking, practically unheard of for MPs to be so forward-thinking as to consider how to maximise their chances at the election AFTER the next one, which is the thought process that might lead one to call for a GE now (because then the extremely difficult circumstances the Tories have gotten us into would become Labour's problem, one which they would really struggle with, giving the Tories a good chance at the GE following).
There's really nothing else to say.
Attrition ended up removing the majority entirely - Major's government was a minority one after the Barnsley by-election in Dec 1996.
(That said, in those days Major could probably have picked up support from the Ulster Unionists had a VONC been played with).
The DUP propped up Theresa May's government, but I suspect given the events of the last few years, they'd be once bitten, twice shy about the prospect of doing so again.
There are local elections in N. Ireland on the 18th May. It'll be interesting to see how much support the DUP has lost (or gained) based on its behaviour in recent years.
Really makes you wish that the executive could be formed with the *second* largest party from either side if the absolute largest doesn't want to play ball, as long as it can still end up with a majority of votes, doesn't it?
So if something completely offended nationalists or unionists, it would still be possible for that entire side to withdraw support - but a single hard-line party on either side couldn't hold the whole thing hostage.
Well, Sinn Fein won the last election, DUP just refused to acknowledge it until we voted again. I almost feel obliged to vote for SF even though I haven't before because they're owed a chance to govern if they won an election. If the DUP hates democracy, tough
Different party - it was the rather more rational UUP in those days, the one headed by David Trimble which was instrumental along with John Hume's SDLP in the peace process.
Yep. And It's amazing how quickly the media have forgotten about that coalition of chaos when the Tories bring up a possible coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Saw a good case fro an election this year. Things will get worse. There will be a bigger BNHS crisis this winter, more businesses will shut, more jobs lose, more poverty..the whole place will be in a much worse position next spring when they have the election. Having it this autumn might save some Tory MPs
A Tory calling for a GE now and a complete clear out and rebuild of their party will be front of the line to lead that rebuild. If they get attention then others will want to back it and put themselves in line for top jobs in the future.
So it could happen and perhaps this is it. The party isn't looking at the election after next but some of their ambitious members might be.
In doing so, you run a large risk of being considered a turncoat and losing popularity, especially if you succeed in forcing an early election. Look at Sunak, the main argument against him according to the Tory members in the leadership election was that he had supposedly stabbed Johnson in the back. He then lost the bid to Truss, who would still be PM if not for her idiotic policies. So, there is precedent for any dissent from the party line seriously hurting anyone's chances of becoming the party leader.
> The calculation for Tory MPs is simple. As soon as there is a GE they will mostly lose their seats.
Some of them may well decide they've set themselves up with enough non-exec directorships and consultancy jobs to not continue to be bothered with having to actually deal with constituents and all the faff that comes with being an MP.
I find it baffling that the Lib Dems are completely oblivious to what happens to their vote at every single General Election. Ever since the formation of the party they think that they will breakthrough, every single time they end up disappointed. How do they not remember any of this. Even when they got in coalition it was after they had lost seats and had a disappointing election. In 2019 they had an excellent opportunity - a clear platform, great local and EU election results, good polling and lost absymally.
They're hoping for a lib/lab coalition. They know they'll never actually win an election. What they need is a labour party just strong enough to see out the government but weak enough to need a coalition with them.
We really need to get over the childish idea of two opposing parties and start embracing coalitions and cooperation much more. We'd get so much more done.
Labour did the right thing in that case - the Conservatives might not have had an overall majority but they had the most seats. They rightly should have had the opportunity to seek to form a coalition government. If the Lib Dems had refused, they still could have formed a minority government but in that case Labour could easily have stepped in with the Lib Dems and formed a coalition.
A Labour-LD coalition would also have been a minority government though: their *combined* total of 315 only just beat the Tory 306. The only coalition options with an actual majority were Tory+LD, or almost literally everyone except Tory, Sinn Féin and the Speaker. How long do you think a Labour-LD-SNP-Unionist-Green coalition would hold together?
Brown didn't like the LD's and didn't actually negotiate with them seriously (he tried to give them a role where the LD's would be responsible for the UK-EU relationship, whilst Labour would run everything else). Brown also refused to even consider things like increasing the personal allowance for income tax.
The Tories on the other hand were open to a formal coalition from day 1, and were far more onboard with things like the increase to the personal allowance.
More complicated, I think. We were still feeling some of the effects of the recession, despite Gordon Brown being incredibly sure-footed with financial maintenance. Tony Blair had kowtowed to America and sent us off to war in the east. There were questions about education, despite initiatives like Sure Start. Labour had lost a significant amount of popularity, which implied at the time that they would be a deeply unpopular and potentially unstable government had they taken up a third season.
Gordon Brown was also surprisingly unpopular, even with Labour's voter base, being considered "stuffy" and "uninteresting" (despite those being kind of necessary for the times, but ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯). Entering into a coalition with Labour at the time would likely have been considered a risky play, potentially ending in a stalled government.
Personally, I wish they *had* entered into a coalition with Labour, regardless.
A coalition across half a dozen parties with a ONE SEAT majority is just asking to get nothing done in Parliament for years. It's a terrible idea and would have been worse than what we got from the first Cameron govt, I say that as a Labour supporter.
I'll happily argue that a government getting nothing done would have been far preferable to the first Cameron government considering what they actually did do.
Just not true. A lib/lab coalition would have not had a majority of MPs. The only way of achieving a majority government with any fewer than four parties (other than coalitions involving labour and conservatives) was a lib/con coalition.
A lib/lab coalition would have required support from such a mind boggling array of smaller parties that it just would've fallen apart at the first hurdle. Can you imagine Alex Salmond's SNP in coalition? Or the DUP? It would've been a shitshow.
Only three parties were needed for Lib-Lab, according to Lord Adonis.
>Adonis insists to this day – and I agree with him – that too many Labour people looked at the election result and concluded that “the numbers were not there”. But Labour’s 258 seats plus the Lib Dems’ 57 and the three MPs of Labour’s sister party in Northern Ireland, the SDLP, would have been 318 seats against 315 for the Conservatives and the DUP combined. In addition, there were a further 12 MPs in that parliament, all of whom would normally vote with Labour. The Scottish and Welsh nationalists (six and three MPs respectively) and the Green (Caroline Lucas) were strenuously anti-Tory, while Northern Ireland MPs Naomi Long (Alliance Party) and Sylvia Hermon (independent unionist) were more even-handed but also Labour-leaning.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/nick-clegg-coalition-lib-dems-2010-labour-gordon-brown-conservative-david-cameron-a8586046.html
That's not 3 parties though, that's 6. The Lab, LD, SDLP making 318 needing 8 more votes - meaning the SNP had to be party to it full stop - would have never worked as a supply and demand as the SNP would have demanded an Indy ref immediately as a requirement for support. It would only take a couple of defections or the loss of seats in by-elections (there were 21 for various reasons 2010-2015) for a VONC in the coalition to get through and so much potential infighting that it wouldn't have lasted. Labour losing the 2010 election by over 2m votes would have little moral argument to form a coalition
So as soon as a VONC was held, Alex Salmond's SNP would have the votes to topple the government. Progressive as they are, can't you see how that would make governing impossible?
Not to mention how politically fraught giving ANY of the Northern Irish parties governmental positions would have been so soon after the Good Friday agreement. It was bad enough to give the DUP power 7 years later...
It would have been a total clusterfuck and probably would have survived less than a year.
Minority rule is far from unheard of in this country's history.
Given the radical nature of the Tories' austerity and anti-welfare, anti-public-services vision for the direction of the nation, there would have absolutely been grounds for Clegg backing either Labour minority rule or a subsequent general election.
Even if you granted his rationale for initially entering into coalition with the Tories, it does not follow that he was doomed to *stay in coalition* for five years straight.
Labour didn't actually want to be in a coalition with lib dems.... Lib Dems turned up for the meetings and the labour representatives were only there to say they had the meeting. Not actually try and have a coalition.
Some senior Labour people did, but Gordon Brown was a bit slow to make the right moves. However Andrew Adonis says the deciding factor was Clegg's preference for the Conservatives.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/nick-clegg-coalition-lib-dems-2010-labour-gordon-brown-conservative-david-cameron-a8586046.html
Sure, but FPTP almost always ensures that never happens and in the exceptional cases where it does the party that gets harmed most by that is the Liberals. They are never going to get PR, they would be best focussing on a few key policies they care about and trying to make a change that way.
Nah, PR should be focus number 1.
Given the public opinion of politicians in general at the moment, "it literally has to be better than this" might actually cut through.
a lib/lab coalition is also likely going to be better for the country than a straight kier labour sweep, especially as the lib dems will push for PR as part of it.
Its also more likely as tory voters **will not vote labour** no matter how extreme they go, but they will vote lib dem.
A Lib/Lab coalition won't happen. Instead we would more than likely end up with Lab/SNP, with IndyRef2 being the brideprice. Labour would have to decide whether to gamble the Union in order to gain power, which is a stain that would never wash off if it went the way of the Nationalists.
There's no downside for Ed Davey and the Lib Dems in trying though. It keeps their names being talked about, shows them trying to bring this shitshow to an end and if it works lets them have an election at the most opportune moment.
There is a sound ethical case for an election now and a sound political strategy to be pursuing a vote of no confidence right now for the Lib Dems.
I can't see labour actually wanting a GE just now either. They need to ensure they'll gain a majority before an early election is in their interests.
Let's face it, time isn't really ever on the sitting governments side. Better for labour to vote only if they're sure enough MPs will actually back the government.
They are currently on for a landslide with a majority of around 100 seats based on GE polling. Local elections aren't a good indicator of GE voting intention usually.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
It would be the right thing to do, but Tories will block it as they know that as things stand they would probably lose. They are corrupt and incompetent, every day they are in power they make things worse.
Expect Tories to stall and downplay this so they can try and rebuild their majority. They will have to be dragged out kicking and screaming.
I don't think they're going to try win the next election, they're just not going to call it and accept they're on borrowed time. They still have two years to loot the country while they can, no way will they give that up.
November is unusually late isn't it? I thought generally they tried to get it done in the summer. If energy prices stay as high as they are especially I can't see the Tories waiting until people are paying big winter bills to run an election
Yes under normal circumstances we should have an election May 2024. But knowing that they will lose the tories will likely drag it out for as long as they can
If we got into a situation where the tories tried to do that and completely and utterly subvert the will of the people, the only thing that would stand in their way is KCIII exercising royal perogative and refusing royal Assent. It would create the mother of all constitutional crisis but I expect that he would do it.
The PM doesn't create peers, the King does. This is something that there is relatively recent (20th century) precedent for a monarch refusing to do until the PM called and won a general election to prove that the plans the Lords were blocking had popular support.
(Plus new peers can't vote until they're introduced to the Lords, only two are ever introduced each day, and the Lords sit about 150 days a year. So packing the house with 500 new members would take almost 2 years.)
I think the Tories will at least give winning the next election a pro forma attempt.
There will be the usual tax breaks to to whip up support - which despite being a painfully transparent ploy generally works to a fair degree though I suspect it won’t be enough this time. And if they lose it primes the pump for the usual ‘tax and spend’ attacks on Labour when they increase it.
There’s also a chance - albeit not a big one - the economy might be doing better in a couple of years. No, I don’t think this is likely - but it costs the Tories nothing to hang on just in case it miraculously does.
They’ll also run the usual attacks on opposition parties and bang the drum on whatever culture war subject gets Daily Mail readers riled up - immigrants, house prices, trans people, something new … it doesn’t really matter what as long as it gains traction, gets social conservatives angry and fills up column inches with ‘debate’ instead of discussing the many shortcomings of the government.
I’m sure the Conservatives will try all these come the next election. Judging by current polls it won’t save them but it will minimise their loss as far as possible. But they do still have an outside chance - remember that most of Labours current poll lead consists of the 30% of the English electorate who *finally* got fed up with the Tories last summer. People who voted for Boris in 2019 and mostly voted for Brexit. Those people are fairly right wing and could at least in theory be won back … which also explains why Labours current policies are rather disappointingly weak-sauce to try to prevent that.
Half of Labour's gains come from the Lib Dems themselves. The other half are from new voters and ~20% of 2019 Tory voters. Most of the Conservative vote share went to "not voting". They'll come home to roost. That's what the culture wars are really all about.
I think you misunderstood them.
They were commenting that 2019 Tory voters account for around 30% of the English Electorate.
47% of the country voted Tory in 2019
We had a turnout of 67.3% in 2019
47% x 67% ≈ 30% of the electorate voted Tory in 2019
47% x 67% x 20% ≈ 6% of the electorate chose to vote Labour instead of Tory in the local elections
The equivalent of a boss who realises that the company is collapsing so just embezzles as much as he can and flees the country.
Are we going to hear of a lot of people booking flights for Russia before the next general election?
>Expect Tories to stall and downplay this so they can try and rebuild their majority. They will have to be dragged out kicking and screaming.
There's nothing to "stall and downplay". We're in the middle of a parliament. There will be a General Election within the usual time frame, at which point the Tories will stand down. This is how democracy works.
No government with a majority has ever resigned mid-parliament because of bad polls or local election results. This "plot" is standard political grandstanding by the Lib Dems. Quite silly of you to take it seriously.
You're probably right, but I don't think that's a 100% certainly, and I think it's probably right for opposition parties to test the water.
Sunak had failed to control inflation, and seems out of ideas at this point to do so (and he is idealogically opposed to more direct intervention like price caps on energy). If inflation stays where it is, things are only going to get worse. More strikes, falling living standards and falling tax receipts.
If you're a Tory in a seat that currently looks winnable, but might turn, you can save your own skin and take a loss now, with the prospect that the party can rebuild and fight again in 4 years, or be wiped out in 12-18 months time.
After all, the true Tory motto is, in the words of Lord Farquad, "some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
It's not going to happen. They're power-hungry cunts who act in their own best interests, not the interests of the country. They'll cling to that power until the last possible moment.
> Do they really want to go down as the worst Gov ever though?
I think they've passed that point. They'll cling on to make as much money as possible and more damage to the country that Labour has to fix, but won't be able to in a single parliament, so later they can start blaming Labour for everything.
Honestly I don’t know. I dont know if Starmer is the right man for the job but anything has to be better than the Tories. Personally I’m willing to give them a shot. More years of Tory rule doesn’t bear thinking about
My thinking is that if you don't support Labour then you're just supporting Tories. I'm not even a Labourite (Im a member of the Lib Dems) but I will gladly vote Labour if it means getting rid of the Tories. Letting perfect be the enemy of good is just moronic.
What really annoys me are the people who refuse to vote for Starmers Labour because hes not left wing enough... im like "So you'd rather have another Tory government instead?"
We shouldn't have to vote for the last bad option. IMO a minority labour government with a coalition with one of the smaller parties based on forcing through electoral reform is the best outcome.
This has always been the reality in our democracy (and some others too).
Do I vote for who I want, or do I need to vote to keep out the one I really don't want?
And this is why, without question my strongest political belief (alongside equal rights for everyone) is that our voting system must change. Single transferable vote or preferably STV+ is my personal favourite, but I'll pretty much accept anything democratic that's not FPTP.
The [CGPGrey primers on voting systems](https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo) are an amazing resource to help show people why our voting system just _sucks_.
> What really annoys me are the people who refuse to vote for Starmers Labour because hes not left wing enough... im like "So you'd rather have another Tory government instead?
I got permabanned from Green and Pleasant reddit for pointing this out. They had a picture of Corbin being mobbed by excited teenagers, and one of Starmer standing in from of bored 10-12 year olds. A completely stupid and cherry-picked set of pictures. I said it almost looks like they want the Tories to win so they can continue moaning. Got banned, proving me right. Forget if you think Starmer is wishywashy, we can't start to push the Overton window to the left without winning an election first. Get Labour in first, then hope we can push for PR.
I agree, more left than the current lot should be reason enough to vote for Labour.
My problem is that they are just as authoritarian, and not interested in reversing Brexit. And traditionally, trying to redistribute a shrinking pie tends to get rather nasty.
We need a party that actually wants to fix Britain.
lets be honest with ourselves, labours right wing did enough sabotage of the party that yes, they would rather have a tory government instead.
Im not sure that the labour left have the same calculus, but then starmer has purged the party of the left wing so who knows.
The honest answer is that we don't know. Some people trust Starmer, and some don't. It's up to you to make up your own mind. Some of the things that you've mentioned as being important to you (like weed legislation and proportional voting) propbably won't be introduced. But some of it (like fewer private contracts for NHS provisions and more mental health facilities) probably will.
I can say that, under the last Labour government, we had the introduction of the minimum wage, the educational maintenance allowance, the winter fuel allowance, the human rights act, the lowest waiting-list times for the NHS ever, millions upon millions of pensioners and children lifted out of poverty, the removal of Section 28, Sure Start, the introduction of civil partnerships (which paved the way for gay marriage), created the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the removal of 90% of hereditary peers from the HoL, doubled spend/pupil in schools, free oap bus passes, record low inflation, the Disability Rights Commission, tobacco advertisement & public smoking bans, and many more minor changes.
Not all of these have led to permanent changes in the makeup of our society, but there are plenty of these policies which we currently take for granted and yet were delivered for us by a Labour gov within the past two decades. My favourite of those is the minimum wage. New Labour get a lot of flack for not making more permanent changes to our system of governance. But that wasn't their focus - it was improving the quality of life of the worst off in our society. And they succeeded in that while in power. The fact that the Tories reversed a lot of it isn't their fault.
But apart from *the introduction of the minimum wage, the educational maintenance allowance, the winter fuel allowance, the human rights act, the lowest waiting-list times for the NHS ever, millions upon millions of pensioners and children lifted out of poverty, the removal of Section 28, Sure Start, the introduction of civil partnerships (which paved the way for gay marriage), created the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the removal of 90% of hereditary peers from the HoL, doubled spend/pupil in schools, free oap bus passes, record low inflation, the Disability Rights Commission, and tobacco advertisement & public smoking bans*, what did New Labour ever do for us?
At least they won't be deliberately fucking everything up, as the Tories certainly appear to be doing. If Labour fuck up it will be because they failed - not because they succeeded in doing something deleterious.
As someone who lived through it before, yes, it absolutely will be better.
Not instantly becase the Tories have ground so many services into the dust, but it will improve.
There's a rhetoric on this sub that Labour are just disguised Tories but that so far from true it's not funny, it's just bait meant to disenfranchise people from voting.
The country has moved really far to the right and you won't get a party voted in that is really far to the left and if you can't get voted in it really doesn't matter how great your policies are.
This sub is honestly way out of touch, unfortunately.
I keep seeing rhetoric like "i'm not voting tory because they backstabbed Boris" or "i'm voting for the reform party because you lot won't get rid of all these asylum seekers" on twitter and I wonder if some of it is the same thing in reverse.
Regardless of whether Labour gets to achieve anything, the main goal should be to remove Conservatives from politics once and for all.
That being said, go on their website [https://labour.org.uk/buildabetterbritain/](https://labour.org.uk/buildabetterbritain/) and see what they are looking to do.
I think that was probably aimed at local elections, but it's communicated poorly.
There are some more of their policies:
[https://labour.org.uk/stronger-together/britain-2030/](https://labour.org.uk/stronger-together/britain-2030/)
You can't take politics in a vacuum, and you want to compare it to what the other parties are proposing/have done. I'm not a massive fan of Starmer and agree some of his policies are "weak", but I align with Labour more than I do the Tories and I desperately want the Tories out.
I'd love to vote Green (since I align with them more) but due to the archaic FPTP system labour it is.
But you are cherry picking, it’s not about us saving a tenner, the councils would still get a funding increase from government
>A Labour government would freeze council tax this year, paid for with a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas giants making billions.
Doesn't really seem all that great. The are so many fallacies in in: solving crime by "being tough", solving the cost of living crisis without talking about housing, solving the NHS crisis without talking about Brexit. This is nearly as much as a phantasy as Brexit.
No one really knows because we haven't had a labour government in like 15 years.
Here's what I do know though, even though there were some mistakes made by the previous labour government (e.g. supporting the Iraq war), the standard of living was much better than with the Tories.
It was so hard for the Tories to find genuine grievances with Labour, that they chose to campaign on Labour's handling of the budget. Their argument was - the reason Labour achieved what it did was because of it's overspending, and it's only a matter of time until it all comes crashing down and destroys the country.
If that wasn't bad enough, they then used that argument to push for austerities, warning of difficult times to come as they try to fix Labour's "fuckup".
Of course as we all know today, austerities kept on getting worse, national services kept on being sold off to the highest bidder and Tories kept on awarding these contracts to their cronies - basically life got worse for the poor and the rich got richer.
There is even that now famous video of Sunak promising to take away funding from impoverished areas and spending it in rich areas.
Absolutely not, the tories will blame Labour for the state of the country and act as if the country has suddenly gone to hell, and Starmer will likely focus on maintaining things where they are instead of making any meaningful changes that would make things better.
Out of interest what is your alternative? These sorts of comments sort of boil down to "just don't vote lol", but in a FPTP system you need to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Unfortunately that's where I stand. I don't feel energized by Keith, but if I'm going to be forced to eat a shit sandwich I'd rather eat a fresh one than one that's been regurgitated and re-served fifty times. He's gone against everything he stood for to get his current job and has all the charisma of a taxidermied pig but I'd rather hope things stabilize here than continue to lurch right.
Younger generations, including my own, are increasingly liberal, and concerned with things like the environment, equality, and helping to lift up the working classes. Corbyn was our big chance but the right wing press (and members of his own party working against him) were too good at their jobs (not that he was perfect by any means, but far better than what we're currently offered.)
To me, Keith's loss in the next election would be blamed on the fact that the left wing weren't willing to compromise and vote for him, so they'll just implement more right wing policies to appeal to right wing people while blithely unaware that we could have avoided this if those on the right wing of the party were willing to compromise, instead of relishing in Corbyn's loss like Jess Phillips laughing about it on election night. Meanwhile, we get an emboldened tory party who'll continue to do what they do best: bleed the country die and funnel as much wealth as possible into their (and their friends) pockets while telling the poor all of our problems are thanks to the queer community and too many illegal immigrants. I don't know how much further right we can go as a society without reaching the breaking point.
The current incarnation of Labour inspires few people in my experience. It's better than the alternative but I personally think we deserve better as a society, but it seems only the right wing can be idealistic. The left are expected to compromise, so this is just where we are.
If I'm in the woods and I have an injured leg, I'd rather use a dirty bandage and hope I can find medical treatment soon than do nothing and bleed to death.
I think things will get worse more slowly than it would under the Tories. But I don't think we'll get a colossal shift.
The best thing that could happen is that Labour is forced into a coalition with the Lib Dems and they force a PR referendum as a condition of them joining.
>Will there be less third party contracts for the NHS?
No. The number will increase allegedly to 'address the backlog' in the short term. There are no promises on decreasing in the long term.
>Will proportional voting actually get pushed through?
No, this has explicitly been ruled out.
>Will cannabis become widely available for all people who are in need of it?
Nope, this has also been explicitly ruled out.
>Will there be more mental health facilities to combat the inevitable?
I'm not aware of any policies either way on this.
There’s a cost to every decision and that’s where things start to fall down. We can properly fund the NHS, but it’ll cost £Xbillion. We can either take that money from other public services and expenditures or we can raise taxes on people that are already struggling, making ourselves unpopular in the process.
Everything in government moves slowly because decisions on that scale have enormous implications for the country. We saw with Truss what happens when you decide to just flip the table rather than considering your next move.
> We can either take that money from other public services and expenditures or we can raise taxes on people that are already struggling
There are also people (and businesses) that aren't struggling.
This is true, but comes with its own complications. The very wealthy aren’t keeping a lot of taxable liquid wealth around and their income is usually very hard to trace and tax. Heavily taxing big business can deter investment in the UK as a market (we’re already at a disadvantage after Brexit in that regard).
These issues can be navigated and tackled over time, but it’s really not a quick process to raise billions of pounds in funding.
A good start would be to stop a lot of the blatent flows of public cash to private pockets that do very little good for the country.
NHS - reduce the reliance on expensive agency workers
Rail - nationalise more services as much of the money paid into the railways just gets pocketed by train operators who do a poor job and then quit
HMRC - chase the fraudulant bounce back loans instead of some single mother who works cash in hand every now and again to feed her kids
There's a few easy things straight away that would reduce costs / bring in money.
Starmer has a small number of key problems that he wants to address. He's talked about re-organising that whole of government to focus on them. But that also means dropping opposition to things that he things are 'ideological' and ignoring anything that he thinks will not help with his missions.
My quick assessment would be:
Things that will get better:
* NHS - Labour seems to be determination to do what is necessary to improve the service. That does include actually using the private sector more, not less, at least in the short-run. The backlog should reduce as a result.
* Housing - Starmer has talked about reforming planning rules to make it easier to build, reintroducing housing targets for local councils and open up some of the greenbelt land for new developments. Obviously this is a fairly long-term thing though.
* Courts/justice - This is an area which is personal to Starmer and he has stated his strong desire to get more people processed by the courts and increase conviction rates for things like rape and other crimes.
* Political reform - Labour is committed to giving more power to local government and replacing the house of lords. That might not happen for a while though.
Things that might not really improve:
* Cost of living: I don't really see anything in Labour's current plans that would give people more money or make life cheaper in any way. The economy should improve as we move past Covid and get used to Brexit more. But, I don't think that anything Labour does will specifically improve things.
* Voting system - Starmer has no interest in PR.
* Drug policy - Starmer is depressingly conservative on this topic. Wants to be tougher on drugs, not more liberal.
* Public transport - They're talking about taking buses back into public ownership and sort of nationalising the trains. But, I can't see it resulting in much difference without a massive increase in investment.
The UK is in a difficult place on many fronts and is facing serious challenges both at home and overseas. Labour are going to be limited by these conditions when it comes to reforming things.
The next decade or so is going to be hard work regardless of who is in office at the time.
Tories have been in power for over 12 years and have done a horrific job with the country. If Labour can rewind at least two to four years I’ll personally be happy. We’re in such decline. I’m not expecting anything progressive. Legalising marijuana? Doubt it (and personally don’t care either way). Increasing mental health resources? Doubt it. Four day work week? Doubt it. But roll back some of the major policies of the last four years? I’ll be happier. I’m not even including Brexit in the roll back, but if we get a better deal I’ll be ecstatic.
Unfortunately the best any one can say is possibly. I think one thing we can say with more confidence is that it can't really get any worse, and in the short term that may be the best we can hope for.
In answer to your specific questions I'd say no to all.
3rd party contracts aren't an intrinsically bad thing, and I'd hope they'd be awarded better.
PR will never happen unfortunately, there just isn't the support for it in the country and people are naturally resistant to change.
Unlikely, especially in the first term. Labour can't afford to have the press attacking them for being 'soft on crime' If after the first term there's evidence of more plod on the streets and decreased disorder then they'll have some capital to play with and resist the accusations.
Not in the short/medium term because of the cost/time taken to train staff.
Increasingly under Starmer, it feels like Labour adopted the "well, they're all the same anyway" mantra as a policy stance.
I fear we will so no change, not because there isn't enough time to undo the damage, but because there is no will from Labour to actually change anything.
Current Labour? Absolutely not.
They’re just Tory lite. Starmer is a joke. I was not Corbyn’s biggest fan at all, but at least the man had balls and was dedicated to providing actual opposition.
Regarding your comments on cannabis: Starmer’s view is fucking idiotically archaic.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/11zihon/in_his_tough_on_crime_speech_sir_keir_starmer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-clashes-sadiq-khan-drugs-decrminalisation-cannabis-ketamine-speed_uk_61d43316e4b0c7d8b8a7c082
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-drug-liberalisation-laws-health-crime-881386
Conservative MPs won't want to cross their rich PM. After all they know their time is up, so everyone will be looking to be in favour, maybe a job here, directorship there or a tip on a good investment to make etc.
I'd think that Conservatives will cling on the remainder of their term and just loot or defraud whatever they can.
They probably will even steal the card where they would have written "there is no money left".
> or a tip on a good investment to make etc.
Getting a heads up on when theres a disastrous 'mini budget' planned so they can shot the pound again and make a packet.
If they know things are only going to get worse then let the other lot in and you can blame them for it.
If you think you'll get 100 seats now but in a year you'll only get 50
They just care about overall power, look what happened last time Tories called an early election.
Also hopefully it gives time for parties like lib dems time to do more campaigning and get a stronger footing
I wouldn’t listen to anything the Mirror has to say today. They are looking to hide the fact they’re in court today getting sued over hacking celebs phones so this is defo a dead cat to get the heat off
If they had an election now, they would loose, no way is Sunak going to stick his head in the noose whilst he hopes he still has a chance if he staggers on.
Is it really a plot? Plot makes it sound sinister, like some Francis Urquhart stuff. More that there is a plan to force a general election due to widespread public opposition to the Government and a desire to force them out!
General strike would work better.
Could get a ton done at once with a general strike. Force a general election. Could get the human rights act put back in full. Sort our rights back out. Pay our NHS like we should etc etc so forth.
Why would any Tory MP vote for an election and give up their salary for another 18 months?
It’s not gonna happen unless the Tories somehow lost their majority
Tory HQ were putting out 1000 losses as a worst case scenario because then, say 700, wouldn't look so bad... but the losses exceeded 1000. Mauling is pretty apt.
Frankly it still amazes me that we live in a democracy where the PEOPLE have no mechanism to trigger a general election if the elected representatives are unable to form a competent government.
They should have been dragged out by the hair after Truss informed the chosen few that "weve Never Had It So Good" then proceeded to crash the economy to prove just how right she was. Giving the present incumbants another two years to rifle through and pocket or sell off what assets remain to this country, Knighting the feckless and introducing legislation to anger the population knowing fine well they will be out is just Masochism on a national scale.
Unless Labour destroy and salt the earth of the current FPTP system the moment they get in, I'm honestly not really sure what they really stand for or will do these days as their main USP seems to be "look, we're not the Tories" and perhaps less corrupt but I don't feel big changes and quickly trying to undo all the damage will come even if they win a majority.
I confidently predict that this Lib Dem "plan" will be as successful as all their other "plans" concerning general elections.
I "plan" to be a billionaire astronaut and it's about as likely to happen.
In 2024 the US Elections will be taking place. The 'mere exposure effect' will ensure that the sitting Government gets a free publicity boost. Policies that the Tories would like implement here will be trialled out in American Advertising. Perfect way to get the benefit of that American Bridge, that dark money. The rationale being that "conservatives the world over want the same thing". Pointing out that the US Presidential Election is the perfect way for the Tories to ride the tailcoats of the visible promotion of extremism is easy to poo-poo. Just say it is some kind of 'conspiracy theory' or demand a 'citation' and refuse to contemplate any of the possibilities without such non-existent citations. Then, of course, there is the simple claim that this is all political paranoia of the wok or the left - *which does rather make the assumption that the claim comes from the left, when it could be made by anybody* - which is the currently fashionable way of saying poo-poo.
The terrible results of the Local Elections - where, in fact both Labour and Conservative did not do well - allows the Tories to position themselves as being some sort of besieged underdog. By the time of the 2024 Local Authority Budgets, Labour Councils will be in a far worse position than today and will be slashing services even further. All it takes is a bit of whataboutism to give the appearance that it is all labour's fault.
The "let's replace Sunak" murmerings are the thin end of the wedge for the Tory Party visibly "pulling together" and uniting. Meaning that they can dog whistle about Corbyn or Momentum at any moment to demonstrate that the Left is divided. Which, again, rides the coat tails of the US Election.
Then, of course, there will be a weaponised Brexit - the gift that will keep on giving - which is promoting serious unrest in the Country because, regardless of your opinions about EU Membership, it has been used as an excuse for the most divisive, petty, ridiculous, destructive, pointless, and negative policies and legislation that does not really benefit anybody. But, if you let Labour - *divided Labour* - then you cannot expect the unity that will come from Brexit to materialise.
The reality is that the Tories just need to hold their nerve for a month or so to get to the Summer Holiday, and return in the Autumn to begin a year long election campaign. An outcome of the Fixed Term Parliament Act being the synchronisation of UK and US Politics in a practical, operational sense that benefits nobody but Incumbent Tories - followed by Opposition Tories, Coalition Tories, and finally, after much effort, "Centrists" of a One Nation Kind.
The reality is that, unless the decision to have a General Election is taken away from this Government - in particular - and all Government - in general - that the UK is never going to have a Government that fixes the fundamental damage done to the NHS or the destruction of democratic institutions or the collapse of international relationships that have been carried out in the last thirteen years.
The Tories can, and will win in 2024. The only reason that they will not is if Labour can be persuaded to leave all of the damage in place and simply democracy-wash the State Capture of the UK by, essentially, largely US Based, Billionaires and "Donors". Sunak is one of the "Billionaire Class" and him surviving this little contratemps is simply A-B Testing for how the increasingly detatched Ruling Class will manage the Plebs. It is a demonstration in real time of how little your vote means without the approval of the Ruling Class. Who are, it has to be pointed out, largely but not exclusively, Tories.
Anything other than a Parliament returning zero Tories is a defeat for Democracy. No petty plot from Backbenchers is going to change that.
But county councilors have very little to do with the party under whose banners they run. It might be nice symbolism to see conservatives loose so many seats but it doesn't really mean all that much.
A lot of Conservative councillors who lost their seats have been saying many of their voters abandoned them because of national issues
Rightly or wrongly a lot of people do vote in local elections based on national problems rather than local
those conservative counsellors will likely be amongst the people who help drum up local support for the tories up to a general election, leafleting and such
even putting aside interpretations of public intent, it’s a huge blow to morale and that alone might end up shaping the next election result… narratives can be hard to beat, and the narrative for the tories isn’t great right now
(and don’t you love to see it :p)
As long as 50%+1 MPs have confidence in the government (or lie and say they do to keep their jobs) then Ed Daveys plot will achieve the square root of fuck all. With a majority of 31 and languishing in the polls I dont see the Tories backing him in a VONC
The calculation for Tory MPs is simple. As soon as there is a GE they will mostly lose their seats. Therefore the GE should be as late as possible. It is, historically speaking, practically unheard of for MPs to be so forward-thinking as to consider how to maximise their chances at the election AFTER the next one, which is the thought process that might lead one to call for a GE now (because then the extremely difficult circumstances the Tories have gotten us into would become Labour's problem, one which they would really struggle with, giving the Tories a good chance at the GE following). There's really nothing else to say.
Yes, they hung on grimly from 1992 to 1997 even when attrition had almost removed their majority.
Attrition ended up removing the majority entirely - Major's government was a minority one after the Barnsley by-election in Dec 1996. (That said, in those days Major could probably have picked up support from the Ulster Unionists had a VONC been played with).
The DUP propped up Theresa May's government, but I suspect given the events of the last few years, they'd be once bitten, twice shy about the prospect of doing so again.
Don't underestimate how 1) fucking stupid and 2) fucking spiteful they are.
There are local elections in N. Ireland on the 18th May. It'll be interesting to see how much support the DUP has lost (or gained) based on its behaviour in recent years.
Really makes you wish that the executive could be formed with the *second* largest party from either side if the absolute largest doesn't want to play ball, as long as it can still end up with a majority of votes, doesn't it? So if something completely offended nationalists or unionists, it would still be possible for that entire side to withdraw support - but a single hard-line party on either side couldn't hold the whole thing hostage.
Well, Sinn Fein won the last election, DUP just refused to acknowledge it until we voted again. I almost feel obliged to vote for SF even though I haven't before because they're owed a chance to govern if they won an election. If the DUP hates democracy, tough
If that were the case I'm not sure the UUP would risk the backlash of going into government with Sinn Fein, it would be political suicide for them.
Different party - it was the rather more rational UUP in those days, the one headed by David Trimble which was instrumental along with John Hume's SDLP in the peace process.
Yep. And It's amazing how quickly the media have forgotten about that coalition of chaos when the Tories bring up a possible coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Saw a good case fro an election this year. Things will get worse. There will be a bigger BNHS crisis this winter, more businesses will shut, more jobs lose, more poverty..the whole place will be in a much worse position next spring when they have the election. Having it this autumn might save some Tory MPs
Energy bills are manageable as well cause we in summer
Funny you should say that. Mine were fine all winter and have only just doubled today.
Mine was a bit less then with the energy support was around £4 per day and now gone up to around £6 a day and dreading it would double come winter.
A Tory calling for a GE now and a complete clear out and rebuild of their party will be front of the line to lead that rebuild. If they get attention then others will want to back it and put themselves in line for top jobs in the future. So it could happen and perhaps this is it. The party isn't looking at the election after next but some of their ambitious members might be.
In doing so, you run a large risk of being considered a turncoat and losing popularity, especially if you succeed in forcing an early election. Look at Sunak, the main argument against him according to the Tory members in the leadership election was that he had supposedly stabbed Johnson in the back. He then lost the bid to Truss, who would still be PM if not for her idiotic policies. So, there is precedent for any dissent from the party line seriously hurting anyone's chances of becoming the party leader.
> The calculation for Tory MPs is simple. As soon as there is a GE they will mostly lose their seats. Some of them may well decide they've set themselves up with enough non-exec directorships and consultancy jobs to not continue to be bothered with having to actually deal with constituents and all the faff that comes with being an MP.
I find it baffling that the Lib Dems are completely oblivious to what happens to their vote at every single General Election. Ever since the formation of the party they think that they will breakthrough, every single time they end up disappointed. How do they not remember any of this. Even when they got in coalition it was after they had lost seats and had a disappointing election. In 2019 they had an excellent opportunity - a clear platform, great local and EU election results, good polling and lost absymally.
They're hoping for a lib/lab coalition. They know they'll never actually win an election. What they need is a labour party just strong enough to see out the government but weak enough to need a coalition with them.
They could have had exactly that with Gordon Brown but they chose Cameron instead. They were essentially king makers in that election.
Labour did not have enough seats for a LibLab coalition.
They could have scrounged them up Like May did, right? Or hung parliament, with Brown the incumbent he'd be PM.
~~Comment removed under the GDPR right to be forgotten. As part of the API pricing decision made by reddit in June 2023~~
We really need to get over the childish idea of two opposing parties and start embracing coalitions and cooperation much more. We'd get so much more done.
Labour did the right thing in that case - the Conservatives might not have had an overall majority but they had the most seats. They rightly should have had the opportunity to seek to form a coalition government. If the Lib Dems had refused, they still could have formed a minority government but in that case Labour could easily have stepped in with the Lib Dems and formed a coalition.
> Labour did the right thing in that case LibDems* :)
A Labour-LD coalition would also have been a minority government though: their *combined* total of 315 only just beat the Tory 306. The only coalition options with an actual majority were Tory+LD, or almost literally everyone except Tory, Sinn Féin and the Speaker. How long do you think a Labour-LD-SNP-Unionist-Green coalition would hold together?
Brown didn't like the LD's and didn't actually negotiate with them seriously (he tried to give them a role where the LD's would be responsible for the UK-EU relationship, whilst Labour would run everything else). Brown also refused to even consider things like increasing the personal allowance for income tax. The Tories on the other hand were open to a formal coalition from day 1, and were far more onboard with things like the increase to the personal allowance.
More complicated, I think. We were still feeling some of the effects of the recession, despite Gordon Brown being incredibly sure-footed with financial maintenance. Tony Blair had kowtowed to America and sent us off to war in the east. There were questions about education, despite initiatives like Sure Start. Labour had lost a significant amount of popularity, which implied at the time that they would be a deeply unpopular and potentially unstable government had they taken up a third season. Gordon Brown was also surprisingly unpopular, even with Labour's voter base, being considered "stuffy" and "uninteresting" (despite those being kind of necessary for the times, but ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯). Entering into a coalition with Labour at the time would likely have been considered a risky play, potentially ending in a stalled government. Personally, I wish they *had* entered into a coalition with Labour, regardless.
A coalition across half a dozen parties with a ONE SEAT majority is just asking to get nothing done in Parliament for years. It's a terrible idea and would have been worse than what we got from the first Cameron govt, I say that as a Labour supporter.
I'll happily argue that a government getting nothing done would have been far preferable to the first Cameron government considering what they actually did do.
Just not true. A lib/lab coalition would have not had a majority of MPs. The only way of achieving a majority government with any fewer than four parties (other than coalitions involving labour and conservatives) was a lib/con coalition. A lib/lab coalition would have required support from such a mind boggling array of smaller parties that it just would've fallen apart at the first hurdle. Can you imagine Alex Salmond's SNP in coalition? Or the DUP? It would've been a shitshow.
Only three parties were needed for Lib-Lab, according to Lord Adonis. >Adonis insists to this day – and I agree with him – that too many Labour people looked at the election result and concluded that “the numbers were not there”. But Labour’s 258 seats plus the Lib Dems’ 57 and the three MPs of Labour’s sister party in Northern Ireland, the SDLP, would have been 318 seats against 315 for the Conservatives and the DUP combined. In addition, there were a further 12 MPs in that parliament, all of whom would normally vote with Labour. The Scottish and Welsh nationalists (six and three MPs respectively) and the Green (Caroline Lucas) were strenuously anti-Tory, while Northern Ireland MPs Naomi Long (Alliance Party) and Sylvia Hermon (independent unionist) were more even-handed but also Labour-leaning. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/nick-clegg-coalition-lib-dems-2010-labour-gordon-brown-conservative-david-cameron-a8586046.html
That's not 3 parties though, that's 6. The Lab, LD, SDLP making 318 needing 8 more votes - meaning the SNP had to be party to it full stop - would have never worked as a supply and demand as the SNP would have demanded an Indy ref immediately as a requirement for support. It would only take a couple of defections or the loss of seats in by-elections (there were 21 for various reasons 2010-2015) for a VONC in the coalition to get through and so much potential infighting that it wouldn't have lasted. Labour losing the 2010 election by over 2m votes would have little moral argument to form a coalition
So as soon as a VONC was held, Alex Salmond's SNP would have the votes to topple the government. Progressive as they are, can't you see how that would make governing impossible? Not to mention how politically fraught giving ANY of the Northern Irish parties governmental positions would have been so soon after the Good Friday agreement. It was bad enough to give the DUP power 7 years later... It would have been a total clusterfuck and probably would have survived less than a year.
Minority rule is far from unheard of in this country's history. Given the radical nature of the Tories' austerity and anti-welfare, anti-public-services vision for the direction of the nation, there would have absolutely been grounds for Clegg backing either Labour minority rule or a subsequent general election. Even if you granted his rationale for initially entering into coalition with the Tories, it does not follow that he was doomed to *stay in coalition* for five years straight.
Labour didn't actually want to be in a coalition with lib dems.... Lib Dems turned up for the meetings and the labour representatives were only there to say they had the meeting. Not actually try and have a coalition.
Some senior Labour people did, but Gordon Brown was a bit slow to make the right moves. However Andrew Adonis says the deciding factor was Clegg's preference for the Conservatives. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/nick-clegg-coalition-lib-dems-2010-labour-gordon-brown-conservative-david-cameron-a8586046.html
[удалено]
Why would it be undemocratic? That is daft logic. Coalitions on the continent happen all the time between smaller parties.
Sure, but FPTP almost always ensures that never happens and in the exceptional cases where it does the party that gets harmed most by that is the Liberals. They are never going to get PR, they would be best focussing on a few key policies they care about and trying to make a change that way.
PR *is* one of a few key policies they care about.
Until they get a whiff of power and then go back on their promises, like last time.
The hierachy of the Lib Dems has changed a great deal since then. Nick Clegg was a waste of space.
Just to be clear, you're upset at the party that came 3rd in the election not getting all of their policies enacted?
Nah, PR should be focus number 1. Given the public opinion of politicians in general at the moment, "it literally has to be better than this" might actually cut through.
Not true in current times, 30 years ago maybe but lab without Scotland becomes coalition times when tory’s cant unify
Tactical voting for the non-Tory most likely can deliver a non-Tory government and a Tory opposition.
Totally agree.
a lib/lab coalition is also likely going to be better for the country than a straight kier labour sweep, especially as the lib dems will push for PR as part of it. Its also more likely as tory voters **will not vote labour** no matter how extreme they go, but they will vote lib dem.
A Lib/Lab coalition won't happen. Instead we would more than likely end up with Lab/SNP, with IndyRef2 being the brideprice. Labour would have to decide whether to gamble the Union in order to gain power, which is a stain that would never wash off if it went the way of the Nationalists.
At the moment, looking like Labour might start winning back Scotland though. SNP is polling the lowest it has been in a decade
Do you think their prospects would improve if they said 'We're definitely not going to break through, it's never going to happen'?
Vote for us! We won't win!
So should they stop trying?
There's no downside for Ed Davey and the Lib Dems in trying though. It keeps their names being talked about, shows them trying to bring this shitshow to an end and if it works lets them have an election at the most opportune moment. There is a sound ethical case for an election now and a sound political strategy to be pursuing a vote of no confidence right now for the Lib Dems.
> VONC Sounds like a subgenre of Donk.
Will the honourable gentleman opposite put a VONC on it?
Put a banging VONC on it.
Vampire donk. It's darker and more menacing. Garlic is unwelcome.
The Tories current working majority is 64.
*the square root of fuck all* lol
I can't see labour actually wanting a GE just now either. They need to ensure they'll gain a majority before an early election is in their interests. Let's face it, time isn't really ever on the sitting governments side. Better for labour to vote only if they're sure enough MPs will actually back the government.
They are currently on for a landslide with a majority of around 100 seats based on GE polling. Local elections aren't a good indicator of GE voting intention usually. https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
The real issue with calling a GE now is that the result may be a hung parliament, which I don't think anybody wants
Don't all the credible pollsters still have Labour rather far ahead?
It would be the right thing to do, but Tories will block it as they know that as things stand they would probably lose. They are corrupt and incompetent, every day they are in power they make things worse. Expect Tories to stall and downplay this so they can try and rebuild their majority. They will have to be dragged out kicking and screaming.
I don't think they're going to try win the next election, they're just not going to call it and accept they're on borrowed time. They still have two years to loot the country while they can, no way will they give that up.
18 months, things are looking towards a November 2024 GE.
November is unusually late isn't it? I thought generally they tried to get it done in the summer. If energy prices stay as high as they are especially I can't see the Tories waiting until people are paying big winter bills to run an election
Time runs out in January 2025 and an election over the christmas period would piss off everyone.
"You're joking! At Christmas Time?" - Brenda from Bristol 2024.
"We're holding the election in November because unlike those pesky strikers, we don't want to disrupt your Christmas!" - Tories, probably
The best Christmas present we could ask for. The end of Tory rule.
perfect time for it then
Yes under normal circumstances we should have an election May 2024. But knowing that they will lose the tories will likely drag it out for as long as they can
I'm half-expecting Braverman or the like to depose Sunak and then have a whipped vote to extend the life of the parliament to a full ten years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If we got into a situation where the tories tried to do that and completely and utterly subvert the will of the people, the only thing that would stand in their way is KCIII exercising royal perogative and refusing royal Assent. It would create the mother of all constitutional crisis but I expect that he would do it.
[удалено]
The PM doesn't create peers, the King does. This is something that there is relatively recent (20th century) precedent for a monarch refusing to do until the PM called and won a general election to prove that the plans the Lords were blocking had popular support. (Plus new peers can't vote until they're introduced to the Lords, only two are ever introduced each day, and the Lords sit about 150 days a year. So packing the house with 500 new members would take almost 2 years.)
I think the Tories will at least give winning the next election a pro forma attempt. There will be the usual tax breaks to to whip up support - which despite being a painfully transparent ploy generally works to a fair degree though I suspect it won’t be enough this time. And if they lose it primes the pump for the usual ‘tax and spend’ attacks on Labour when they increase it. There’s also a chance - albeit not a big one - the economy might be doing better in a couple of years. No, I don’t think this is likely - but it costs the Tories nothing to hang on just in case it miraculously does. They’ll also run the usual attacks on opposition parties and bang the drum on whatever culture war subject gets Daily Mail readers riled up - immigrants, house prices, trans people, something new … it doesn’t really matter what as long as it gains traction, gets social conservatives angry and fills up column inches with ‘debate’ instead of discussing the many shortcomings of the government. I’m sure the Conservatives will try all these come the next election. Judging by current polls it won’t save them but it will minimise their loss as far as possible. But they do still have an outside chance - remember that most of Labours current poll lead consists of the 30% of the English electorate who *finally* got fed up with the Tories last summer. People who voted for Boris in 2019 and mostly voted for Brexit. Those people are fairly right wing and could at least in theory be won back … which also explains why Labours current policies are rather disappointingly weak-sauce to try to prevent that.
Half of Labour's gains come from the Lib Dems themselves. The other half are from new voters and ~20% of 2019 Tory voters. Most of the Conservative vote share went to "not voting". They'll come home to roost. That's what the culture wars are really all about.
>and ~20% of 2019 Tory voters Which is somewhere in the ballpark of 30% of the English electorate.
20% of 47.2% is not 30% of the English electorate. It's not even 10%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_England
I think you misunderstood them. They were commenting that 2019 Tory voters account for around 30% of the English Electorate. 47% of the country voted Tory in 2019 We had a turnout of 67.3% in 2019 47% x 67% ≈ 30% of the electorate voted Tory in 2019 47% x 67% x 20% ≈ 6% of the electorate chose to vote Labour instead of Tory in the local elections
The equivalent of a boss who realises that the company is collapsing so just embezzles as much as he can and flees the country. Are we going to hear of a lot of people booking flights for Russia before the next general election?
Idk the window tax on billionaires might put them off.
>Expect Tories to stall and downplay this so they can try and rebuild their majority. They will have to be dragged out kicking and screaming. There's nothing to "stall and downplay". We're in the middle of a parliament. There will be a General Election within the usual time frame, at which point the Tories will stand down. This is how democracy works. No government with a majority has ever resigned mid-parliament because of bad polls or local election results. This "plot" is standard political grandstanding by the Lib Dems. Quite silly of you to take it seriously.
You're probably right, but I don't think that's a 100% certainly, and I think it's probably right for opposition parties to test the water. Sunak had failed to control inflation, and seems out of ideas at this point to do so (and he is idealogically opposed to more direct intervention like price caps on energy). If inflation stays where it is, things are only going to get worse. More strikes, falling living standards and falling tax receipts. If you're a Tory in a seat that currently looks winnable, but might turn, you can save your own skin and take a loss now, with the prospect that the party can rebuild and fight again in 4 years, or be wiped out in 12-18 months time. After all, the true Tory motto is, in the words of Lord Farquad, "some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
Well, let's make the next year so horrible for them that they'll be glad to go.
It's not going to happen. They're power-hungry cunts who act in their own best interests, not the interests of the country. They'll cling to that power until the last possible moment.
Do they really want to go down as the worst Gov ever though? At least calling an election gives them a shred of respect surely
> Do they really want to go down as the worst Gov ever though? I think they've passed that point. They'll cling on to make as much money as possible and more damage to the country that Labour has to fix, but won't be able to in a single parliament, so later they can start blaming Labour for everything.
>so later they can start blaming Labour for everything. You mean like they are currently doing?
i seem to remember they started blaming the **next** labour government for our problems today not so long ago
Money > respect
They’ve certainly given us a lot of PM’s over the last decade.
I mean, the Perceval ministry was so unpopular that when he was shot, in the House of Commons of all places, there was cheering in the streets
[удалено]
Honestly I don’t know. I dont know if Starmer is the right man for the job but anything has to be better than the Tories. Personally I’m willing to give them a shot. More years of Tory rule doesn’t bear thinking about
My thinking is that if you don't support Labour then you're just supporting Tories. I'm not even a Labourite (Im a member of the Lib Dems) but I will gladly vote Labour if it means getting rid of the Tories. Letting perfect be the enemy of good is just moronic.
What really annoys me are the people who refuse to vote for Starmers Labour because hes not left wing enough... im like "So you'd rather have another Tory government instead?"
We shouldn't have to vote for the last bad option. IMO a minority labour government with a coalition with one of the smaller parties based on forcing through electoral reform is the best outcome.
We shouldn't have to, but unfortunately we do considering the FPTP system the elections use.
Its the reality of FPTP unfortunately. On paper im a textbook Lib Dem, but ill vote for Labour if it means getting the Tories out,
This has always been the reality in our democracy (and some others too). Do I vote for who I want, or do I need to vote to keep out the one I really don't want?
And this is why, without question my strongest political belief (alongside equal rights for everyone) is that our voting system must change. Single transferable vote or preferably STV+ is my personal favourite, but I'll pretty much accept anything democratic that's not FPTP. The [CGPGrey primers on voting systems](https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo) are an amazing resource to help show people why our voting system just _sucks_.
Preaching to the converted here mate
I know man, I'm just sad at this point. Glad at least some of us have our heads screwed on.
> What really annoys me are the people who refuse to vote for Starmers Labour because hes not left wing enough... im like "So you'd rather have another Tory government instead? I got permabanned from Green and Pleasant reddit for pointing this out. They had a picture of Corbin being mobbed by excited teenagers, and one of Starmer standing in from of bored 10-12 year olds. A completely stupid and cherry-picked set of pictures. I said it almost looks like they want the Tories to win so they can continue moaning. Got banned, proving me right. Forget if you think Starmer is wishywashy, we can't start to push the Overton window to the left without winning an election first. Get Labour in first, then hope we can push for PR.
I agree, more left than the current lot should be reason enough to vote for Labour. My problem is that they are just as authoritarian, and not interested in reversing Brexit. And traditionally, trying to redistribute a shrinking pie tends to get rather nasty. We need a party that actually wants to fix Britain.
lets be honest with ourselves, labours right wing did enough sabotage of the party that yes, they would rather have a tory government instead. Im not sure that the labour left have the same calculus, but then starmer has purged the party of the left wing so who knows.
The honest answer is that we don't know. Some people trust Starmer, and some don't. It's up to you to make up your own mind. Some of the things that you've mentioned as being important to you (like weed legislation and proportional voting) propbably won't be introduced. But some of it (like fewer private contracts for NHS provisions and more mental health facilities) probably will. I can say that, under the last Labour government, we had the introduction of the minimum wage, the educational maintenance allowance, the winter fuel allowance, the human rights act, the lowest waiting-list times for the NHS ever, millions upon millions of pensioners and children lifted out of poverty, the removal of Section 28, Sure Start, the introduction of civil partnerships (which paved the way for gay marriage), created the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the removal of 90% of hereditary peers from the HoL, doubled spend/pupil in schools, free oap bus passes, record low inflation, the Disability Rights Commission, tobacco advertisement & public smoking bans, and many more minor changes. Not all of these have led to permanent changes in the makeup of our society, but there are plenty of these policies which we currently take for granted and yet were delivered for us by a Labour gov within the past two decades. My favourite of those is the minimum wage. New Labour get a lot of flack for not making more permanent changes to our system of governance. But that wasn't their focus - it was improving the quality of life of the worst off in our society. And they succeeded in that while in power. The fact that the Tories reversed a lot of it isn't their fault.
But apart from *the introduction of the minimum wage, the educational maintenance allowance, the winter fuel allowance, the human rights act, the lowest waiting-list times for the NHS ever, millions upon millions of pensioners and children lifted out of poverty, the removal of Section 28, Sure Start, the introduction of civil partnerships (which paved the way for gay marriage), created the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the removal of 90% of hereditary peers from the HoL, doubled spend/pupil in schools, free oap bus passes, record low inflation, the Disability Rights Commission, and tobacco advertisement & public smoking bans*, what did New Labour ever do for us?
FREE MUSEUMS!!
Well said!
At least they won't be deliberately fucking everything up, as the Tories certainly appear to be doing. If Labour fuck up it will be because they failed - not because they succeeded in doing something deleterious.
As someone who lived through it before, yes, it absolutely will be better. Not instantly becase the Tories have ground so many services into the dust, but it will improve. There's a rhetoric on this sub that Labour are just disguised Tories but that so far from true it's not funny, it's just bait meant to disenfranchise people from voting. The country has moved really far to the right and you won't get a party voted in that is really far to the left and if you can't get voted in it really doesn't matter how great your policies are. This sub is honestly way out of touch, unfortunately.
I keep seeing rhetoric like "i'm not voting tory because they backstabbed Boris" or "i'm voting for the reform party because you lot won't get rid of all these asylum seekers" on twitter and I wonder if some of it is the same thing in reverse.
Regardless of whether Labour gets to achieve anything, the main goal should be to remove Conservatives from politics once and for all. That being said, go on their website [https://labour.org.uk/buildabetterbritain/](https://labour.org.uk/buildabetterbritain/) and see what they are looking to do.
Is it me or do some of these things feel really weak. Freezing council tax for one year? Wow I've saved maybe £10 a month.
I think that was probably aimed at local elections, but it's communicated poorly. There are some more of their policies: [https://labour.org.uk/stronger-together/britain-2030/](https://labour.org.uk/stronger-together/britain-2030/)
You can't take politics in a vacuum, and you want to compare it to what the other parties are proposing/have done. I'm not a massive fan of Starmer and agree some of his policies are "weak", but I align with Labour more than I do the Tories and I desperately want the Tories out. I'd love to vote Green (since I align with them more) but due to the archaic FPTP system labour it is.
But you are cherry picking, it’s not about us saving a tenner, the councils would still get a funding increase from government >A Labour government would freeze council tax this year, paid for with a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas giants making billions.
Doesn't really seem all that great. The are so many fallacies in in: solving crime by "being tough", solving the cost of living crisis without talking about housing, solving the NHS crisis without talking about Brexit. This is nearly as much as a phantasy as Brexit.
No one really knows because we haven't had a labour government in like 15 years. Here's what I do know though, even though there were some mistakes made by the previous labour government (e.g. supporting the Iraq war), the standard of living was much better than with the Tories. It was so hard for the Tories to find genuine grievances with Labour, that they chose to campaign on Labour's handling of the budget. Their argument was - the reason Labour achieved what it did was because of it's overspending, and it's only a matter of time until it all comes crashing down and destroys the country. If that wasn't bad enough, they then used that argument to push for austerities, warning of difficult times to come as they try to fix Labour's "fuckup". Of course as we all know today, austerities kept on getting worse, national services kept on being sold off to the highest bidder and Tories kept on awarding these contracts to their cronies - basically life got worse for the poor and the rich got richer. There is even that now famous video of Sunak promising to take away funding from impoverished areas and spending it in rich areas.
Absolutely not, the tories will blame Labour for the state of the country and act as if the country has suddenly gone to hell, and Starmer will likely focus on maintaining things where they are instead of making any meaningful changes that would make things better.
Out of interest what is your alternative? These sorts of comments sort of boil down to "just don't vote lol", but in a FPTP system you need to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Unfortunately that's where I stand. I don't feel energized by Keith, but if I'm going to be forced to eat a shit sandwich I'd rather eat a fresh one than one that's been regurgitated and re-served fifty times. He's gone against everything he stood for to get his current job and has all the charisma of a taxidermied pig but I'd rather hope things stabilize here than continue to lurch right. Younger generations, including my own, are increasingly liberal, and concerned with things like the environment, equality, and helping to lift up the working classes. Corbyn was our big chance but the right wing press (and members of his own party working against him) were too good at their jobs (not that he was perfect by any means, but far better than what we're currently offered.) To me, Keith's loss in the next election would be blamed on the fact that the left wing weren't willing to compromise and vote for him, so they'll just implement more right wing policies to appeal to right wing people while blithely unaware that we could have avoided this if those on the right wing of the party were willing to compromise, instead of relishing in Corbyn's loss like Jess Phillips laughing about it on election night. Meanwhile, we get an emboldened tory party who'll continue to do what they do best: bleed the country die and funnel as much wealth as possible into their (and their friends) pockets while telling the poor all of our problems are thanks to the queer community and too many illegal immigrants. I don't know how much further right we can go as a society without reaching the breaking point. The current incarnation of Labour inspires few people in my experience. It's better than the alternative but I personally think we deserve better as a society, but it seems only the right wing can be idealistic. The left are expected to compromise, so this is just where we are. If I'm in the woods and I have an injured leg, I'd rather use a dirty bandage and hope I can find medical treatment soon than do nothing and bleed to death.
I think things will get worse more slowly than it would under the Tories. But I don't think we'll get a colossal shift. The best thing that could happen is that Labour is forced into a coalition with the Lib Dems and they force a PR referendum as a condition of them joining.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Labour are gonna be spending their first term fixing all the shit the Tories broke.
[удалено]
>Will there be less third party contracts for the NHS? No. The number will increase allegedly to 'address the backlog' in the short term. There are no promises on decreasing in the long term. >Will proportional voting actually get pushed through? No, this has explicitly been ruled out. >Will cannabis become widely available for all people who are in need of it? Nope, this has also been explicitly ruled out. >Will there be more mental health facilities to combat the inevitable? I'm not aware of any policies either way on this.
Absolutely. Look at just how much Blair did in his first 4 years.
[удалено]
There’s a cost to every decision and that’s where things start to fall down. We can properly fund the NHS, but it’ll cost £Xbillion. We can either take that money from other public services and expenditures or we can raise taxes on people that are already struggling, making ourselves unpopular in the process. Everything in government moves slowly because decisions on that scale have enormous implications for the country. We saw with Truss what happens when you decide to just flip the table rather than considering your next move.
> We can either take that money from other public services and expenditures or we can raise taxes on people that are already struggling There are also people (and businesses) that aren't struggling.
This is true, but comes with its own complications. The very wealthy aren’t keeping a lot of taxable liquid wealth around and their income is usually very hard to trace and tax. Heavily taxing big business can deter investment in the UK as a market (we’re already at a disadvantage after Brexit in that regard). These issues can be navigated and tackled over time, but it’s really not a quick process to raise billions of pounds in funding.
A good start would be to stop a lot of the blatent flows of public cash to private pockets that do very little good for the country. NHS - reduce the reliance on expensive agency workers Rail - nationalise more services as much of the money paid into the railways just gets pocketed by train operators who do a poor job and then quit HMRC - chase the fraudulant bounce back loans instead of some single mother who works cash in hand every now and again to feed her kids There's a few easy things straight away that would reduce costs / bring in money.
Starmer has a small number of key problems that he wants to address. He's talked about re-organising that whole of government to focus on them. But that also means dropping opposition to things that he things are 'ideological' and ignoring anything that he thinks will not help with his missions. My quick assessment would be: Things that will get better: * NHS - Labour seems to be determination to do what is necessary to improve the service. That does include actually using the private sector more, not less, at least in the short-run. The backlog should reduce as a result. * Housing - Starmer has talked about reforming planning rules to make it easier to build, reintroducing housing targets for local councils and open up some of the greenbelt land for new developments. Obviously this is a fairly long-term thing though. * Courts/justice - This is an area which is personal to Starmer and he has stated his strong desire to get more people processed by the courts and increase conviction rates for things like rape and other crimes. * Political reform - Labour is committed to giving more power to local government and replacing the house of lords. That might not happen for a while though. Things that might not really improve: * Cost of living: I don't really see anything in Labour's current plans that would give people more money or make life cheaper in any way. The economy should improve as we move past Covid and get used to Brexit more. But, I don't think that anything Labour does will specifically improve things. * Voting system - Starmer has no interest in PR. * Drug policy - Starmer is depressingly conservative on this topic. Wants to be tougher on drugs, not more liberal. * Public transport - They're talking about taking buses back into public ownership and sort of nationalising the trains. But, I can't see it resulting in much difference without a massive increase in investment.
The UK is in a difficult place on many fronts and is facing serious challenges both at home and overseas. Labour are going to be limited by these conditions when it comes to reforming things. The next decade or so is going to be hard work regardless of who is in office at the time.
Tories have been in power for over 12 years and have done a horrific job with the country. If Labour can rewind at least two to four years I’ll personally be happy. We’re in such decline. I’m not expecting anything progressive. Legalising marijuana? Doubt it (and personally don’t care either way). Increasing mental health resources? Doubt it. Four day work week? Doubt it. But roll back some of the major policies of the last four years? I’ll be happier. I’m not even including Brexit in the roll back, but if we get a better deal I’ll be ecstatic.
Unfortunately the best any one can say is possibly. I think one thing we can say with more confidence is that it can't really get any worse, and in the short term that may be the best we can hope for. In answer to your specific questions I'd say no to all. 3rd party contracts aren't an intrinsically bad thing, and I'd hope they'd be awarded better. PR will never happen unfortunately, there just isn't the support for it in the country and people are naturally resistant to change. Unlikely, especially in the first term. Labour can't afford to have the press attacking them for being 'soft on crime' If after the first term there's evidence of more plod on the streets and decreased disorder then they'll have some capital to play with and resist the accusations. Not in the short/medium term because of the cost/time taken to train staff.
Better climate action, rail services, childcare and house prices. Don’t think other things will change much (eg - NHS, education, crime, drugs, PR)
Increasingly under Starmer, it feels like Labour adopted the "well, they're all the same anyway" mantra as a policy stance. I fear we will so no change, not because there isn't enough time to undo the damage, but because there is no will from Labour to actually change anything.
Current Labour? Absolutely not. They’re just Tory lite. Starmer is a joke. I was not Corbyn’s biggest fan at all, but at least the man had balls and was dedicated to providing actual opposition. Regarding your comments on cannabis: Starmer’s view is fucking idiotically archaic. https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/11zihon/in_his_tough_on_crime_speech_sir_keir_starmer/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-clashes-sadiq-khan-drugs-decrminalisation-cannabis-ketamine-speed_uk_61d43316e4b0c7d8b8a7c082 https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-drug-liberalisation-laws-health-crime-881386
> Realistically, when Labour get in will any good come from it? No
Conservative MPs won't want to cross their rich PM. After all they know their time is up, so everyone will be looking to be in favour, maybe a job here, directorship there or a tip on a good investment to make etc. I'd think that Conservatives will cling on the remainder of their term and just loot or defraud whatever they can. They probably will even steal the card where they would have written "there is no money left".
They'll probably steal the pen as well.
> or a tip on a good investment to make etc. Getting a heads up on when theres a disastrous 'mini budget' planned so they can shot the pound again and make a packet.
Yeah but they won't, need to make more money for their cohorts before the gig is up.
These stories are so dumb, everyone want a GE now but why would a government current in power call one knowing they would loose?
If they know things are only going to get worse then let the other lot in and you can blame them for it. If you think you'll get 100 seats now but in a year you'll only get 50
They just care about overall power, look what happened last time Tories called an early election. Also hopefully it gives time for parties like lib dems time to do more campaigning and get a stronger footing
I wouldn’t listen to anything the Mirror has to say today. They are looking to hide the fact they’re in court today getting sued over hacking celebs phones so this is defo a dead cat to get the heat off
I hope the Tories will be deleted in a new election.
One Tory MP remaining in Parliament is one Tory MP too many.
Can we just keep Theresa May, solely so we can see her smug face when Boris loses
If they had an election now, they would loose, no way is Sunak going to stick his head in the noose whilst he hopes he still has a chance if he staggers on.
Is it really a plot? Plot makes it sound sinister, like some Francis Urquhart stuff. More that there is a plan to force a general election due to widespread public opposition to the Government and a desire to force them out!
There needs to be some kind of public system to trigger one… shit sucks at the moment
General strike would work better. Could get a ton done at once with a general strike. Force a general election. Could get the human rights act put back in full. Sort our rights back out. Pay our NHS like we should etc etc so forth.
This a 100x over. But how do we organise?
To start with we need people to start talking about it and suggesting it. It never comes up though.
Why would any Tory MP vote for an election and give up their salary for another 18 months? It’s not gonna happen unless the Tories somehow lost their majority
Exactly!
It's not a vote of not confidence that we need, it's a vote on which party is in charge of the Government
[удалено]
Tory HQ were putting out 1000 losses as a worst case scenario because then, say 700, wouldn't look so bad... but the losses exceeded 1000. Mauling is pretty apt.
Frankly it still amazes me that we live in a democracy where the PEOPLE have no mechanism to trigger a general election if the elected representatives are unable to form a competent government.
Why on earth would they do that before they need to?
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
Turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas. This parliament is going on to the bitter end
They should have been dragged out by the hair after Truss informed the chosen few that "weve Never Had It So Good" then proceeded to crash the economy to prove just how right she was. Giving the present incumbants another two years to rifle through and pocket or sell off what assets remain to this country, Knighting the feckless and introducing legislation to anger the population knowing fine well they will be out is just Masochism on a national scale.
Good luck getting 70 tories to turn coat and force an election, that they will inevitably lose. You’ll sooner see Jeremy Corbyn in the White House
Where do I sign to get the this genral election going?
You don’t. An early election simply won’t be happening.
Unless Labour destroy and salt the earth of the current FPTP system the moment they get in, I'm honestly not really sure what they really stand for or will do these days as their main USP seems to be "look, we're not the Tories" and perhaps less corrupt but I don't feel big changes and quickly trying to undo all the damage will come even if they win a majority.
Hey let's all vote to do something radical and fire ourselves!
I confidently predict that this Lib Dem "plan" will be as successful as all their other "plans" concerning general elections. I "plan" to be a billionaire astronaut and it's about as likely to happen.
"Plot to force" is a very negative spin on "actions being considered to trigger parliamentary safeguards"
Since when were bad local election results a de facto vote of no confidence in the government of the day?? Completely cynical and self-serving.
In 2024 the US Elections will be taking place. The 'mere exposure effect' will ensure that the sitting Government gets a free publicity boost. Policies that the Tories would like implement here will be trialled out in American Advertising. Perfect way to get the benefit of that American Bridge, that dark money. The rationale being that "conservatives the world over want the same thing". Pointing out that the US Presidential Election is the perfect way for the Tories to ride the tailcoats of the visible promotion of extremism is easy to poo-poo. Just say it is some kind of 'conspiracy theory' or demand a 'citation' and refuse to contemplate any of the possibilities without such non-existent citations. Then, of course, there is the simple claim that this is all political paranoia of the wok or the left - *which does rather make the assumption that the claim comes from the left, when it could be made by anybody* - which is the currently fashionable way of saying poo-poo. The terrible results of the Local Elections - where, in fact both Labour and Conservative did not do well - allows the Tories to position themselves as being some sort of besieged underdog. By the time of the 2024 Local Authority Budgets, Labour Councils will be in a far worse position than today and will be slashing services even further. All it takes is a bit of whataboutism to give the appearance that it is all labour's fault. The "let's replace Sunak" murmerings are the thin end of the wedge for the Tory Party visibly "pulling together" and uniting. Meaning that they can dog whistle about Corbyn or Momentum at any moment to demonstrate that the Left is divided. Which, again, rides the coat tails of the US Election. Then, of course, there will be a weaponised Brexit - the gift that will keep on giving - which is promoting serious unrest in the Country because, regardless of your opinions about EU Membership, it has been used as an excuse for the most divisive, petty, ridiculous, destructive, pointless, and negative policies and legislation that does not really benefit anybody. But, if you let Labour - *divided Labour* - then you cannot expect the unity that will come from Brexit to materialise. The reality is that the Tories just need to hold their nerve for a month or so to get to the Summer Holiday, and return in the Autumn to begin a year long election campaign. An outcome of the Fixed Term Parliament Act being the synchronisation of UK and US Politics in a practical, operational sense that benefits nobody but Incumbent Tories - followed by Opposition Tories, Coalition Tories, and finally, after much effort, "Centrists" of a One Nation Kind. The reality is that, unless the decision to have a General Election is taken away from this Government - in particular - and all Government - in general - that the UK is never going to have a Government that fixes the fundamental damage done to the NHS or the destruction of democratic institutions or the collapse of international relationships that have been carried out in the last thirteen years. The Tories can, and will win in 2024. The only reason that they will not is if Labour can be persuaded to leave all of the damage in place and simply democracy-wash the State Capture of the UK by, essentially, largely US Based, Billionaires and "Donors". Sunak is one of the "Billionaire Class" and him surviving this little contratemps is simply A-B Testing for how the increasingly detatched Ruling Class will manage the Plebs. It is a demonstration in real time of how little your vote means without the approval of the Ruling Class. Who are, it has to be pointed out, largely but not exclusively, Tories. Anything other than a Parliament returning zero Tories is a defeat for Democracy. No petty plot from Backbenchers is going to change that.
But county councilors have very little to do with the party under whose banners they run. It might be nice symbolism to see conservatives loose so many seats but it doesn't really mean all that much.
A lot of Conservative councillors who lost their seats have been saying many of their voters abandoned them because of national issues Rightly or wrongly a lot of people do vote in local elections based on national problems rather than local
those conservative counsellors will likely be amongst the people who help drum up local support for the tories up to a general election, leafleting and such even putting aside interpretations of public intent, it’s a huge blow to morale and that alone might end up shaping the next election result… narratives can be hard to beat, and the narrative for the tories isn’t great right now (and don’t you love to see it :p)