There’s been considerable discussion in the UK regarding the possibility of a progressive electoral alliance in order to preserve the NHS and to ensure a “soft” Brexit.

LibDems and Labour have poured cold water on the idea and the ship has probably sailed, but for my own amusement and edification I crunched the numbers based on the voting within the constituencies in the 2015 election, and on recent polling.

I’ve made some simplifying assumptions and while I don’t expect these to be accurate predictions for all constituencies, I do expect the errors to cancel, so these results should be a reasonable ballpark.

Short story: the effect of an EA depends heavily on compliance (ie the extent to which progressive voters are willing to vote for a party that is not their first choice). A 100% compliant EA makes a difference of 52 seats over the no-EA case. A 70% compliant EA makes a difference of only 35 seats. Expressed in swings: with a 100% compliant EA, a swing of 1.1% against the Conservatives between now and the election results in them being unable to form majority government. For a 70% compliant EA, a swing of 3.1% would be required.

More details here:
Progressive Electoral Alliance

dv said:

There’s been considerable discussion in the UK regarding the possibility of a progressive electoral alliance in order to preserve the NHS and to ensure a “soft” Brexit.

LibDems and Labour have poured cold water on the idea and the ship has probably sailed, but for my own amusement and edification I crunched the numbers based on the voting within the constituencies in the 2015 election, and on recent polling.

I’ve made some simplifying assumptions and while I don’t expect these to be accurate predictions for all constituencies, I do expect the errors to cancel, so these results should be a reasonable ballpark.

Short story: the effect of an EA depends heavily on compliance (ie the extent to which progressive voters are willing to vote for a party that is not their first choice). A 100% compliant EA makes a difference of 52 seats over the no-EA case. A 70% compliant EA makes a difference of only 35 seats. Expressed in swings: with a 100% compliant EA, a swing of 1.1% against the Conservatives between now and the election results in them being unable to form majority government. For a 70% compliant EA, a swing of 3.1% would be required.

More details here:
Progressive Electoral Alliance

Personally, not a swinging voter. The options aren’t really there to swing away from what I believe is the correct way to do things.

Not that my vote has ever won an election.

If the Labour Party were able to take such a pragmatic view of things, they wouldn’t be in their current predicament, as they wouldn’t be running with a highly unpopular leader.

Bubblecar said:

If the Labour Party were able to take such a pragmatic view of things, they wouldn’t be in their current predicament, as they wouldn’t be running with a highly unpopular leader.

Bill doesn’t see it that way. Somewhere back in the mists of time, somebody said that he would be the next leader of the Labor party but the mists haven’t yet showed any better vision.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

If the Labour Party were able to take such a pragmatic view of things, they wouldn’t be in their current predicament, as they wouldn’t be running with a highly unpopular leader.

Bill doesn’t see it that way. Somewhere back in the mists of time, somebody said that he would be the next leader of the Labor party but the mists haven’t yet showed any better vision.

We’re talking about the British Labour Party :)

Oh, you meant Labo*u*r. It slips my mind often that you don’t call yourself an Australian.

roughbarked said:

Oh, you meant Labo*u*r. It slips my mind often that you don’t call yourself an Australian.

This thread, posted by dv, is about the upcoming UK election.

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

If the Labour Party were able to take such a pragmatic view of things, they wouldn’t be in their current predicament, as they wouldn’t be running with a highly unpopular leader.

Bill doesn’t see it that way. Somewhere back in the mists of time, somebody said that he would be the next leader of the Labor party but the mists haven’t yet showed any better vision.

We’re talking about the British Labour Party :)

I’ve found that the UKIP vote has fallen off a cliff in my local electorate.

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Oh, you meant Labo*u*r. It slips my mind often that you don’t call yourself an Australian.

This thread, posted by dv, is about the upcoming UK election.

:) Yair but we have our own to think about as well.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Oh, you meant Labo*u*r. It slips my mind often that you don’t call yourself an Australian.

This thread, posted by dv, is about the upcoming UK election.

:) Yair but we have our own to think about as well.

I’m not sure that an electoral alliance would make much difference here, with our preferential voting system.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m not sure that an electoral alliance would make much difference here, with our preferential voting system.

This.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

This thread, posted by dv, is about the upcoming UK election.

:) Yair but we have our own to think about as well.

I’m not sure that an electoral alliance would make much difference here, with our preferential voting system.

That’s probably true.

There is what I consider to be an unstable contrast in the polls in that the Labour leader is unpopular, but his policies are very popular.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-poll-voters-back-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html

Parties can win elections with very unpopular leaders (eg Abbott in 2013) but there are vote-structural reasons that make it very difficult in the current UK context. The recent polls indicate 31-32% of voters intend to vote Labour, which is the same level as at the 2015 election. However, the collapse of UKIP means that the small-c conservative vote is no longer split, meaning that Labour can lose dozens of seats even if its vote share improves a bit beyond the 2015 level.

Corbyn’s stated reasons for going cold on an electoral alliance is that he wants to govern unencumbered, but i’truth Labour’s chances of governing in their own right as much, MUCH better if an electoral alliance is in place. This may be counter-intuitive.

Right now a 5.4% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 12.6% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

Under an Electoral Alliance with 70% compliance, a 3.1% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 9.4% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

Under an Electoral Alliance with 100% compliance, a 1.1% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 8.0% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

There are still some scandals hovering over the Conservatives and there is still time for Labour’s manifesto to sink in more broadly but an 8 or 9% swing before the election is unlikely, to put it mildly. This doesn’t change the fact that if majority government is Labour’s do-or-die goal, an electoral alliance would bring them close to their goals.

dv said:

There is what I consider to be an unstable contrast in the polls in that the Labour leader is unpopular, but his policies are very popular.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-poll-voters-back-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html

Parties can win elections with very unpopular leaders (eg Abbott in 2013) but there are vote-structural reasons that make it very difficult in the current UK context. The recent polls indicate 31-32% of voters intend to vote Labour, which is the same level as at the 2015 election. However, the collapse of UKIP means that the small-c conservative vote is no longer split, meaning that Labour can lose dozens of seats even if its vote share improves a bit beyond the 2015 level.

Corbyn’s stated reasons for going cold on an electoral alliance is that he wants to govern unencumbered, but i’truth Labour’s chances of governing in their own right as much, MUCH better if an electoral alliance is in place. This may be counter-intuitive.

Right now a 5.4% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 12.6% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

Under an Electoral Alliance with 70% compliance, a 3.1% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 9.4% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

Under an Electoral Alliance with 100% compliance, a 1.1% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 8.0% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

There are still some scandals hovering over the Conservatives and there is still time for Labour’s manifesto to sink in more broadly but an 8 or 9% swing before the election is unlikely, to put it mildly. This doesn’t change the fact that if majority government is Labour’s do-or-die goal, an electoral alliance would bring them close to their goals.

Who are the people in Britain these days, I would imagine there have been some massive changes of nationality descent since the close of WWII?

8% isn’t too much to ask for, in troubled times.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

There is what I consider to be an unstable contrast in the polls in that the Labour leader is unpopular, but his policies are very popular.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-poll-voters-back-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html

Parties can win elections with very unpopular leaders (eg Abbott in 2013) but there are vote-structural reasons that make it very difficult in the current UK context. The recent polls indicate 31-32% of voters intend to vote Labour, which is the same level as at the 2015 election. However, the collapse of UKIP means that the small-c conservative vote is no longer split, meaning that Labour can lose dozens of seats even if its vote share improves a bit beyond the 2015 level.

Corbyn’s stated reasons for going cold on an electoral alliance is that he wants to govern unencumbered, but i’truth Labour’s chances of governing in their own right as much, MUCH better if an electoral alliance is in place. This may be counter-intuitive.

Right now a 5.4% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 12.6% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

Under an Electoral Alliance with 70% compliance, a 3.1% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 9.4% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

Under an Electoral Alliance with 100% compliance, a 1.1% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 8.0% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

There are still some scandals hovering over the Conservatives and there is still time for Labour’s manifesto to sink in more broadly but an 8 or 9% swing before the election is unlikely, to put it mildly. This doesn’t change the fact that if majority government is Labour’s do-or-die goal, an electoral alliance would bring them close to their goals.

Who are the people in Britain these days, I would imagine there have been some massive changes of nationality descent since the close of WWII?

Khumars?

PermeateFree said:

Who are the people in Britain these days, I would imagine there have been some massive changes of nationality descent since the close of WWII?

The Britons.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Who are the people in Britain these days, I would imagine there have been some massive changes of nationality descent since the close of WWII?

The Britons.

Bloody Irish.

The betting markets seem to think there is about a 7% chance that the Conservatives will be denied majority government. I ain’t no political analyst but I am thinking it will be difficult for the Conservatives to obtain minority government with anyone.

That feels about right.

Given that a formal EA is probably not going to happen, I suspect that any path to victory will involve both a significant swing and the decision of individual voters to vote tactically. I have no idea how many people are into that. If the effect of tactical voting was about the same as a formal electoral alliance with 50% compliance, then a 4% swing would see the Conservatives lose majority government.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

There is what I consider to be an unstable contrast in the polls in that the Labour leader is unpopular, but his policies are very popular.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-manifesto-poll-voters-back-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html

Parties can win elections with very unpopular leaders (eg Abbott in 2013) but there are vote-structural reasons that make it very difficult in the current UK context. The recent polls indicate 31-32% of voters intend to vote Labour, which is the same level as at the 2015 election. However, the collapse of UKIP means that the small-c conservative vote is no longer split, meaning that Labour can lose dozens of seats even if its vote share improves a bit beyond the 2015 level.

Corbyn’s stated reasons for going cold on an electoral alliance is that he wants to govern unencumbered, but i’truth Labour’s chances of governing in their own right as much, MUCH better if an electoral alliance is in place. This may be counter-intuitive.

Right now a 5.4% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 12.6% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

Under an Electoral Alliance with 70% compliance, a 3.1% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 9.4% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

Under an Electoral Alliance with 100% compliance, a 1.1% swing would be needed to deny the Conservatives a majority government. A 8.0% swing would be needed to give Labour a majority government.

There are still some scandals hovering over the Conservatives and there is still time for Labour’s manifesto to sink in more broadly but an 8 or 9% swing before the election is unlikely, to put it mildly. This doesn’t change the fact that if majority government is Labour’s do-or-die goal, an electoral alliance would bring them close to their goals.

Who are the people in Britain these days, I would imagine there have been some massive changes of nationality descent since the close of WWII?

There have been considerable immigration into the UK since 1951, the most influential as follows:

The Republic of Ireland was the top non-UK country of birth for foreign born in each census from
1951 until 2001, but the numbers of Irish-born declined after 1961.

In 1951, India was the third highest non-UK country of birth. The number of people born in India
then increased and almost doubled between 1961 and 1971. From 1961 until 2001 Indian-born
was the second highest ranking non-UK country of birth and in 2011 became the largest foreign
born population.

The Pakistani-born population saw a noticeable rise between 1961 and 1971 (and to a lesser
extent 1971 to 1981), and has continued to increase since then, ranking third in 1981 and
subsequent censuses.

In 1951 Poland was the second highest non-UK country of birth; however this population did not
grow again substantially until a new influx of Polish-born migrants in the period following Poland’s
accession to the EU before the 2011 Census, when the Polish-born were once again the second
highest non-UK born group, although with a much larger number of residents.

The Jamaican-born population saw substantial rises between 1951 and 1971 before peaking in
1971.

There is a detailed chart of Non-UK countries of birth 2a.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_346219.pdf

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Who are the people in Britain these days, I would imagine there have been some massive changes of nationality descent since the close of WWII?

The Britons.

The Great Britons, if you don’t mind.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Who are the people in Britain these days, I would imagine there have been some massive changes of nationality descent since the close of WWII?

The Britons.

The Great Britons, if you don’t mind.

They’re okay I guess but don’t oversell it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Who are the people in Britain these days, I would imagine there have been some massive changes of nationality descent since the close of WWII?

The Britons.

The Great Britons, if you don’t mind.

King of the Britons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITJFfUptaGo

One thing I’ve not taken into account is that the minor parties might need to be thrown a bone. e.g. the only seats where the Greens even look like having a chance at winning are Brighton Pavilion and Bristol West, and the Tories have no chance at all there, so technically an EA isn’t needed.
But the Greens withdrawing from all other seats BUT Brighton Pavilion and Bristol West would significantly boost Labour’s chances in dozens of seats, so participants in an EA might just let the Greens have those two seats.

The last week of polls were quite scattered but averaged at about 42% for Conservatives, 38% for Labour. By my algorithm this results in 318 seats for the blue menace if there is 50% compliance with tactical voting for progressive voters. It is right on the edge of a majority.

dv said:

The last week of polls were quite scattered but averaged at about 42% for Conservatives, 38% for Labour. By my algorithm this results in 318 seats for the blue menace if there is 50% compliance with tactical voting for progressive voters. It is right on the edge of a majority.

Being a humble man I hardly like to point out that I made this post before a single vote was counted and my estimate appears to be exactly correct.

If the deal with the DUP holds, the Cons will have a majority of three seats. Obv, this is a phenomenal result for Labour, and their vote share is much higher than was achieved by Brown in 2010 or Miliband in 2015, or even Blair in 2005. It’s inspiring but also a bit draining to think of what they might have achieved if the BBC and the Guardian had not somehow morphed into the Conservative’s media wing during the last year. Even self-identified progressives were mouthing their ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Labour leadership.

It was good to see that there was no shift to the right following the terrorist attacks, as Labour’s increase in the polls was basically monotonic since the election was called. People responded well to a common-sense progressive platform. The Conservatives made the UK less safe through a combination of police cuts and foreign policy, there would be no sane reason to reward them for terrorist attacks, but some in the press predicted that would happen. So, thumbs up to the UK voting public for seeing through that.

Good news is that the DUP-Con coalition will probably not hold, so there could be another election before the end of the year.

A more realistic summary:

What is there to rejoice about? Britain has just voted for irony
Deborah Orr

Labour’s revival is symptomatic of a retreat into binary politics. Brexit is still happening, and there’s still going to be a Tory government

I’m told that as a remainer I ought to be pleased with the result of this election. Pleased? The country is to be run by the Tories, led by a woman who ran through fields of hubris and fell over, only to be propped up by postcolonial sectarians – until the chaff settles, anyway. Pleased? I’m revolted.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/10/general-election-nothing-to-celebrate-brexit-still-happening-tory-government

I was wrong about Corbyn’s chances, but I still doubt him
Nick Cohen

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/10/i-was-wrong-about-jeremy-corbyn-still-doubt-him

dv said:

dv said:

The last week of polls were quite scattered but averaged at about 42% for Conservatives, 38% for Labour. By my algorithm this results in 318 seats for the blue menace if there is 50% compliance with tactical voting for progressive voters. It is right on the edge of a majority.

Being a humble man I hardly like to point out that I made this post before a single vote was counted and my estimate appears to be exactly correct.

If the deal with the DUP holds, the Cons will have a majority of three seats. Obv, this is a phenomenal result for Labour, and their vote share is much higher than was achieved by Brown in 2010 or Miliband in 2015, or even Blair in 2005. It’s inspiring but also a bit draining to think of what they might have achieved if the BBC and the Guardian had not somehow morphed into the Conservative’s media wing during the last year. Even self-identified progressives were mouthing their ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Labour leadership.

It was good to see that there was no shift to the right following the terrorist attacks, as Labour’s increase in the polls was basically monotonic since the election was called. People responded well to a common-sense progressive platform. The Conservatives made the UK less safe through a combination of police cuts and foreign policy, there would be no sane reason to reward them for terrorist attacks, but some in the press predicted that would happen. So, thumbs up to the UK voting public for seeing through that.

Good news is that the DUP-Con coalition will probably not hold, so there could be another election before the end of the year.

I acknowledged your little algorithms success in chat on Friday because I couldn’t be arsed finding this thread.

didja see this mr car?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsGVghRBdKI

It does seem odd to me that those of us who’ve long predicted there was no way Labour under Corbyn could win an election are now supposed to be eating our words, even though Labour under Corbyn has lost the election.

sarahs mum said:

didja see this mr car?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsGVghRBdKI

Yes, I thought it was rather silly though – still herding most Labour MPs into a mythical “Blairite” camp simply because they want a more effective and popular leader.

Let’s recall that Corbyn was pretty useless as Opposition leader throughout his term in that role so far. And now it’s now going to be more difficult than ever to get him replaced with a more competent leader.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

didja see this mr car?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsGVghRBdKI

Yes, I thought it was rather silly though – still herding most Labour MPs into a mythical “Blairite” camp simply because they want a more effective and popular leader.

Let’s recall that Corbyn was pretty useless as Opposition leader throughout his term in that role so far. And now it’s now going to be more difficult than ever to get him replaced with a more competent leader.

And the SNP result is also sad.

But there were a couple of steps to the left. And that makes me happier.

sarahs mum said:

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

didja see this mr car?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsGVghRBdKI

Yes, I thought it was rather silly though – still herding most Labour MPs into a mythical “Blairite” camp simply because they want a more effective and popular leader.

Let’s recall that Corbyn was pretty useless as Opposition leader throughout his term in that role so far. And now it’s now going to be more difficult than ever to get him replaced with a more competent leader.

And the SNP result is also sad.

Yes, although the Scottish Tory leader is not as awful as the English Tories.

sarahs mum said:

But there were a couple of steps to the left. And that makes me happier.

True, but with a more effective leadership clique and less divided party, this ought to have been a Labour landslide after all the chaos and hardship the Tories have unleashed in recent years.

My congrats to DV on his predictions.

I suspect the right-wing tabloid overkill helped Labour, because a lot of the people who were inclined to absorb it were convinced that Labour are currently so OTT wacky that few people would be voting for them. So they didn’t bother voting.

It would be interesting see how many who voted Leave in the referendum actually voted in this election.

I don’t understand your objection to the term Blairite.

The British Labour party under Blair made some changes, supporting privatisation of transport and health services, strongly supporting the house of Saud, loosening labour market restrictions and opposing public housing.( In 13 years of Blair/Brown, 7800 council houses were built, fewer than under Thatcher/Major.)

The long term results of these changes have been bad for actual humans and so of course Labour and they had two disastrous elections spruiking more of the same. Labour now has different policies: protecting workers again, raising minimum wage and doing away with zero-hours contracts, building hundreds of thousands of council homes, renationalising all NHS services and railways, opposing ties with Saudi.

You can’t make these policy reversals without admitting that the policies of the Blair/Brown era were wrong, and “Blairite” is a regularly formed term for that era and the supporters of those ideas. Blair himself dropped to even deeper levels of disgrace by trying to kneecap Labour’s campaign, and given the lack of success of his efforts I can’t imagine where he would be welcome now outside of Riyadh or Texas.

And it all worked, Labour has broad popular support again and hopefully even some of the older hands have remembered why they got involved in progressive politics in the first place.

Bubblecar said:

I suspect the right-wing tabloid overkill helped Labour, because a lot of the people who were inclined to absorb it were convinced that Labour are currently so OTT wacky that few people would be voting for them. So they didn’t bother voting.

It would be interesting see how many who voted Leave in the referendum actually voted in this election.

Fair point. I’ll see what I can glean.

Bubblecar said:

A more realistic summary:

What is there to rejoice about? Britain has just voted for irony
Deborah Orr

Labour’s revival is symptomatic of a retreat into binary politics. Brexit is still happening, and there’s still going to be a Tory government

I’m told that as a remainer I ought to be pleased with the result of this election. Pleased? The country is to be run by the Tories, led by a woman who ran through fields of hubris and fell over, only to be propped up by postcolonial sectarians – until the chaff settles, anyway. Pleased? I’m revolted.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/10/general-election-nothing-to-celebrate-brexit-still-happening-tory-government

Patience, patience.

Bubblecar said:

It does seem odd to me that those of us who’ve long predicted there was no way Labour under Corbyn could win an election are now supposed to be eating our words, even though Labour under Corbyn has lost the election.

I don’t think it does, really. You understand.

>I don’t understand your objection to the term Blairite.

Blair left politics a decade ago. The term “Blairite” is now just used as a general insult directed at anyone who wants Labour to be a convincing party of government rather than just a protest group.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

It does seem odd to me that those of us who’ve long predicted there was no way Labour under Corbyn could win an election are now supposed to be eating our words, even though Labour under Corbyn has lost the election.

I don’t think it does, really. You understand.

I understand that Corbynites continue to be predictably unreasonable, yes :)

It’s interesting that when Clinton lost the US presidential election (despite gaining the popular vote), there was a huge noise about what a dismal failure this was for progressive politics, and how backing the wrong candidate ensured failure. And yet when Corbyn lost this election, there’s a similar noise about what a significant victory this is for progressive politics, and how “right” those who backed Corbyn have been shown to be.

It doesn’t make much sense.

And incidentally, had I been a UK voter, I would have voted Labour in this election (unless I was in a seat in which a Lib Dem candidate had a better chance of winning), and I’m confident most of Corbyn’s other progressive critics did indeed vote Labour.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

It does seem odd to me that those of us who’ve long predicted there was no way Labour under Corbyn could win an election are now supposed to be eating our words, even though Labour under Corbyn has lost the election.

I don’t think it does, really. You understand.

I understand that Corbynites continue to be predictably unreasonable, yes :)

It’s interesting that when Clinton lost the US presidential election (despite gaining the popular vote), there was a huge noise about what a dismal failure this was for progressive politics, and how backing the wrong candidate ensured failure. And yet when Corbyn lost this election, there’s a similar noise about what a significant victory this is for progressive politics, and how “right” those who backed Corbyn have been shown to be.

It doesn’t make much sense.

Nah it makes perfect sense. Clinton lost an election that should have been unloseable because her opponent was hopeless and the press was by and large on her side. After twelve years in the wilderness, Corbyn brought his party to the brink of power and might well be PM by year’s end, despite unprecedented establishment opposition from the right and centre and some of the left.
It’s not that hard to understand when you think about it for a little while.

>>and might well be PM by year’s end

Steady lad, steady.

Bubblecar said:

>I don’t understand your objection to the term Blairite.

Blair left politics a decade ago. The term “Blairite” is now just used as a general insult directed at anyone who wants Labour to be a convincing party of government rather than just a protest group.

I disagree. It has a specific meaning that does not match the one you’ve presented above. For instance, Corbyn is someone who has made Labour a convincing party of government rather than just a protest group, unlike Brown and Miliband, but no one calls Corbyn a Blairite. It refers to a Conservative-lite polity of which Blair was the exemplar.

The fact that he no longer runs for office doesn’t retire the term Blairite. Should I stop saying Churchillian and Thatcherite?

I think it is not an entirely unreasonable contention that the UK electorate has moved left since Blair and Brown lost power. It could be the case that Labour couldn’t have won power under Blair if he took Corbyn’s manifesto to the election.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it is not an entirely unreasonable contention that the UK electorate has moved left since Blair and Brown lost power. It could be the case that Labour couldn’t have won power under Blair if he took Corbyn’s manifesto to the election.

This is a reasonable point. He was probably the man for the time.

I also have time to reflect on how bad these modern Conservatives seem to be at politicking. Cameron calls a needless referendum to shore up support to work within the EU: blows up in his face. May calls a needless election to shore up her support to negotiate Brexit: loses majority rule.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

I don’t think it does, really. You understand.

I understand that Corbynites continue to be predictably unreasonable, yes :)

It’s interesting that when Clinton lost the US presidential election (despite gaining the popular vote), there was a huge noise about what a dismal failure this was for progressive politics, and how backing the wrong candidate ensured failure. And yet when Corbyn lost this election, there’s a similar noise about what a significant victory this is for progressive politics, and how “right” those who backed Corbyn have been shown to be.

It doesn’t make much sense.

Nah it makes perfect sense. Clinton lost an election that should have been unloseable because her opponent was hopeless and the press was by and large on her side. After twelve years in the wilderness, Corbyn brought his party to the brink of power and might well be PM by year’s end, despite unprecedented establishment opposition from the right and centre and some of the left.
It’s not that hard to understand when you think about it for a little while.

Nah it makes no sense. Corbyn lost the election, as nearly everyone predicted he would.

That he did much better than expected just goes to show that the British aren’t as stupid as we were fearing – they know that the Conservatives have been anything but “strong and stable” in recent years and have unleashed endless chaos and needless hardship.

But the Tories still weren’t unappealing enough to ensure a Labour victory under Corbyn.

Anyway Labour is well and truly stuck with him now, even after he loses the next one.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it is not an entirely unreasonable contention that the UK electorate has moved left since Blair and Brown lost power. It could be the case that Labour couldn’t have won power under Blair if he took Corbyn’s manifesto to the election.

The fact is the great majority of Labour MPs are dismissed as “Blairites” by the Trots, but I’m sure most of those who voted no confidence in Corbyn not long ago would have been happy with a reasonably left-wing manifesto under a more convincing leader.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it is not an entirely unreasonable contention that the UK electorate has moved left since Blair and Brown lost power. It could be the case that Labour couldn’t have won power under Blair if he took Corbyn’s manifesto to the election.

The fact is the great majority of Labour MPs are dismissed as “Blairites” by the Trots, but I’m sure most of those who voted no confidence in Corbyn not long ago would have been happy with a reasonably left-wing manifesto under a more convincing leader.

Hopefully all of this unpleasantness will now be a thing of the past.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it is not an entirely unreasonable contention that the UK electorate has moved left since Blair and Brown lost power. It could be the case that Labour couldn’t have won power under Blair if he took Corbyn’s manifesto to the election.

The fact is the great majority of Labour MPs are dismissed as “Blairites” by the Trots, but I’m sure most of those who voted no confidence in Corbyn not long ago would have been happy with a reasonably left-wing manifesto under a more convincing leader.

Hopefully all of this unpleasantness will now be a thing of the past.

I can’t see Corbyn becoming any more competent and effective as Opposition leader than he’s already shown himself to (not) be.

But who knows, the Tories’ capacity for self-destruction might prove even more spectacular than we’ve so far seen.

My criticism of the Guardian has been a bit one sided as they did go to the trouble of putting out an advisory guide on how to vote tactically in order to displace May.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The fact is the great majority of Labour MPs are dismissed as “Blairites” by the Trots, but I’m sure most of those who voted no confidence in Corbyn not long ago would have been happy with a reasonably left-wing manifesto under a more convincing leader.

Hopefully all of this unpleasantness will now be a thing of the past.

I can’t see Corbyn becoming any more competent and effective as Opposition leader than he’s already shown himself to (not) be.

But who knows, the Tories’ capacity for self-destruction might prove even more spectacular than we’ve so far seen.

I’m ever the optimist.

Peace be unto you, Bubblecar. You’re a good egg and our disagreement over JC is a curiosity to me. He’s not without flaws. For one thing, there’s no way in the world I’d be advocating nuclear disarmament at this time.

Overall turnout was pretty high, 68.7%, highest since 1997.

dv said:

Peace be unto you, Bubblecar. You’re a good egg and our disagreement over JC is a curiosity to me. He’s not without flaws. For one thing, there’s no way in the world I’d be advocating nuclear disarmament at this time.

Cheers. I can assure you I’d prefer a Corbyn Labour government to a Tory government. I just can’t see it happening.

But who knows:

Labour now has a six-point lead over the Tories, new poll finds

Figures show a swing of eight points for Jeremy Corbyn’s party since the general election

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-lead-theresa-may-conservatives-tories-survation-poll-general-election-a7784171.html

Bubblecar said:

But who knows:

Labour now has a six-point lead over the Tories, new poll finds

Figures show a swing of eight points for Jeremy Corbyn’s party since the general election

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-lead-theresa-may-conservatives-tories-survation-poll-general-election-a7784171.html

Nothing, as they say, succeeds like success

dv said:

Overall turnout was pretty high, 68.7%, highest since 1997.

I’m hoping this means that the youngsters have finally realised that they can do something by getting involved and by voting.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Peace be unto you, Bubblecar. You’re a good egg and our disagreement over JC is a curiosity to me. He’s not without flaws. For one thing, there’s no way in the world I’d be advocating nuclear disarmament at this time.

Cheers. I can assure you I’d prefer a Corbyn Labour government to a Tory government. I just can’t see it happening.

Oh, that JC.

For a minute I thought you meant the bloke who preached equally well-meaning but unrealistic stuff a couple of 1000 years ago.

Bubblecar said:

But who knows:

Labour now has a six-point lead over the Tories, new poll finds

Figures show a swing of eight points for Jeremy Corbyn’s party since the general election

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-lead-theresa-may-conservatives-tories-survation-poll-general-election-a7784171.html

Makes you wonder why that 8 percent didn’t just vote Labour at the election.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Peace be unto you, Bubblecar. You’re a good egg and our disagreement over JC is a curiosity to me. He’s not without flaws. For one thing, there’s no way in the world I’d be advocating nuclear disarmament at this time.

Cheers. I can assure you I’d prefer a Corbyn Labour government to a Tory government. I just can’t see it happening.

Oh, that JC.

For a minute I thought you meant the bloke who preached equally well-meaning but unrealistic stuff a couple of 1000 years ago.

Oh good heavens, we don’t want that well meaning but unrealistic stuff. We believe in the Judeo-Christian way. The bits that leave out the well meaning stuff, but. Not the bits that talk about feeding the poor, or welcoming the stranger, or loving your enemies, or….