Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 06, 2023, 02:57:47 PM
-
Of course
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/prominent-left-wing-activists-will-launch-stop-starmer-campaign
-
Of course
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/prominent-left-wing-activists-will-launch-stop-starmer-campaign
Starmer will be absolutely delighted by this. He needs to win from the centre ground and having extremists against him helps hugely with public perception.
-
Starmer will be absolutely delighted by this. He needs to win from the centre ground and having extremists against him helps hugely with public perception.
He needs to talk it up so that it appears widely and not just the Morning Star
-
I see that that bloody idiot Galloway is involved. No surprise there.
-
As the cockneys might say... they are talking a load of Audrey White.
-
I see that that bloody idiot Galloway is involved. No surprise there.
George is the reason my wife voted Labour for the only time. In the 2010 election in Poplar and Limehouse.
-
This is a use of the word 'prominent' that I've not come across before...
O.
-
George is the reason my wife voted Labour for the only time. In the 2010 election in Poplar and Limehouse.
I met George a couple of times - and I describe his as dangerously charismatic - he has an absolutely demeanour of surety in his own views that kind of defies anyone else to challenge him and is actually astonishingly compelling when you encounter it in person. That his views were often so extreme made me find him actually rather scary but I can see exactly how he has generated a cult of personality around him.
-
Starmer will be absolutely delighted by this. He needs to win from the centre ground and having extremists against him helps hugely with public perception.
As long as they don't get enough traction to take votes away from Labour at the next General Election.
I've got to say, these guys really are bonkers:
"He is the most untrustworthy political leader this country has seen " - Crispin Flintoff
Really? Has this idiot never heard of Boris Johnson?
-
As long as they don't get enough traction to take votes away from Labour at the next General Election.
It's more complicated than that.
It doesn't matter if some left wingers won't vote Labour provided that is at least balanced by greater numbers of moderates concluding that Labour are worth a punt this time. Particularly if those moderate voters are previously tories. I can't imagine that any left wingers concluding they cannot vote for Starmer will also conclude that their best option is to vote for Sunak.
-
It's more complicated than that.
It doesn't matter if some left wingers won't vote Labour provided that is at least balanced by greater numbers of moderates concluding that Labour are worth a punt this time.
You are relying on the idea that there is a class of voters that would vote Labour if it weren't for the loony left fringe so they are going to vote Tory instead. Furthermore, that this fringe group will persuade them that mainstream Labour does not have a loony left element because they are all outside fighting Labour.
You may be right but how many are there is the question. Do they outnumber the people on the left who would vote for mainstream Labour unless there is an extreme left alternative?
I don't think any of us know this.
Particularly if those moderate voters are previously tories. I can't imagine that any left wingers concluding they cannot vote for Starmer will also conclude that their best option is to vote for Sunak.
It isn't a straight choice between Tory and Labour. If you choose not to vote for Starmer, it's not compulsory to vote for Sunk. A normally-a-Labour-voter who chooses not to vote at all or to vote Lib-Dem or whatever wacko extremist left wing party George Galloway is representing is still damaging Labour's chances.
-
You are relying on the idea that there is a class of voters that would vote Labour if it weren't for the loony left fringe so they are going to vote Tory instead. Furthermore, that this fringe group will persuade them that mainstream Labour does not have a loony left element because they are all outside fighting Labour.
You may be right but how many are there is the question. Do they outnumber the people on the left who would vote for mainstream Labour unless there is an extreme left alternative?
I don't think any of us know this.
It isn't a straight choice between Tory and Labour. If you choose not to vote for Starmer, it's not compulsory to vote for Sunk. A normally-a-Labour-voter who chooses not to vote at all or to vote Lib-Dem or whatever wacko extremist left wing party George Galloway is representing is still damaging Labour's chances.
There is actually a lot of research looking at the shifts in voting (including non voting) from election to election.
The point is that it is much more complicated than whether voters at the extreme of one party choose not to vote for them at one election having done so at the previous one.
I know plenty of 'Labour' types on the left of the party who refused to vote for Blair, including even in 97 as he 'wasn't really Labour' - they drifted off to non-voting or, where possible voting for fringe left wing parties. It did Blair absolutely no harm as his more centrist positioning attracted huge numbers of traditionally non-labour voters allowing him to win by a landslide.
As a generalisation - elections tend to be won by the party that portrays itself to the electorate as the less extreme of the two credible options for government. Claiming the centre ground always loses you votes at the fringe, but wins you elections.
-
There is actually a lot of research looking at the shifts in voting (including non voting) from election to election.
The point is that it is much more complicated than whether voters at the extreme of one party choose not to vote for them at one election having done so at the previous one.
True.
I know plenty of 'Labour' types on the left of the party who refused to vote for Blair, including even in 97 as he 'wasn't really Labour' - they drifted off to non-voting or, where possible voting for fringe left wing parties. It did Blair absolutely no harm as his more centrist positioning attracted huge numbers of traditionally non-labour voters allowing him to win by a landslide.
As a generalisation - elections tend to be won by the party that portrays itself to the electorate as the less extreme of the two credible options for government. Claiming the centre ground always loses you votes at the fringe, but wins you elections.
Yes but just above you are claiming it is very complicated so what is your justification for this generalisation.
Just to be clear, I sort of agree with you - I never understood why the Conservatives who lost the general election in 1997 assumed it was because they weren't far enough to the right - but I don't think we can say for sure that any particular event will help or detract from a party's vote in the middle ground.
-
Just to be clear, I sort of agree with you - I never understood why the Conservatives who lost the general election in 1997 assumed it was because they weren't far enough to the right - but I don't think we can say for sure that any particular event will help or detract from a party's vote in the middle ground.
I think the problem is that almost by definition a party that wins an election from opposition (e.g. 1997 and 2010) will have successfully occupied the middle ground better than the party that loses. So there is little space for the new opposition to manoeuvre in the centre ground and hence the knee jerk to create 'clear blue water'/clear red water' from the new government is to shift to the extreme. This also aligns with the siren call of the left fringe of Labour and right fringe of the Tories that they didn't win because they weren't Labour enough or Conservative enough.
-
I met George a couple of times - and I describe his as dangerously charismatic - he has an absolutely demeanour of surety in his own views that kind of defies anyone else to challenge him and is actually astonishingly compelling when you encounter it in person. That his views were often so extreme made me find him actually rather scary but I can see exactly how he has generated a cult of personality around him.
Just think of him in his cat costume, and all ideas of 'dangerous charisma' vanish in an instant.
-
Just think of him in his cat costume, and all ideas of 'dangerous charisma' vanish in an instant.
True - I think my encounters were pre-cat!!