UK General Election 2024

[jfollows]

Indeed, which is why I don't understand why the BBC are even mentioning it. Starmer campaigned for a Labour victory in 2019, for heaven's sake. It was second story on the Radio 2 10am news, while the much more significant Skidmore story was not mentioned at all.

(I do disagree that he would have been dreadful, though. While I do lean leftwards on most issues, I suspect that the Lib Dem coalition he would likely have been involved with would have moderated any more far-out policies).

He’d have been next to useless but I agree that the only way would have been in coalition as you say which would have tempered this.

 

[dosxuk]

Indeed, which is why I don't understand why the BBC are even mentioning it.

Partly because it's all over the front pages this morning, and partly because it is something that a notable amount of the electorate are concerned about. There will be people asking themselves this morning if they can trust Starmer after his comments because he might let Corbyn back in.

 

[ainsworth74]

Plenty of people, myself included, thought Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson. He would have been dreadful, no doubt, but not as bad as what we got.

I find myself torn on this slightly. Becuase until February 2022 I would agree wholeheartedly, part of the reason I was able to hold my nose and vote Labour in 2019 (that and I liked my MP) was that feeling.

But I can't help but suspect a Corbyn governments response to Ukraine (and whatever vandalism they'd have done to our security before hand) would have been somewhat catastrophic.

Whereas one of the few things Boris and his Government did get right was their response to Ukraine and that is one of the key issues facing us and the wider Western world.

 

[Gloster]

Partly because it's all over the front pages this morning, and partly because it is something that a notable amount of the electorate are concerned about. There will be people asking themselves this morning if they can trust Starmer after his comments because he might let Corbyn back in.

But can we trust Sunak after his support for Johnson, someone we now know to have been [fill in your own description]? Has anyone asked that question?

 

[nw1]

There will be people asking themselves this morning if they can trust Starmer after his comments because he might let Corbyn back in.

Really? They must be a bit clueless if so.

Of course the Labour leader would have expected the Labour candidate to have done a better job than the Tory candidate, especially given the nature of the Tory candidate. To me that is blindingly obvious.

How do you think Starmer would have looked if he'd have denied that Corbyn was better than Johnson? He'd have looked an utter fool, that's what. He'd have looked far more untrustworthy, too.

Also how is he going to "let Corbyn back in" given Corbyn is standing as an independent?

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is that you’re relying on developers building enough housing to significantly reduce prices and thus their profits, which seems unlikely.

Existing oligopoly developers probably won't, but ultimately they are not the only people who can build housing units.
The reason they have such a strangehold on housing supply is a consequence of extremely restrictive planning policy.

If someone could buy a kit house from Ikea (other retailers are available) and throw it up on a plot with minimal paperwork then the big housebuilders would have to build or lose their market share.

 

[WesternLancer]

How do you think Starmer would have looked if he'd have denied that Corbyn was better than Johnson? He'd have looked an utter fool, that's what. He'd have looked far more untrustworthy, too.

Also how is he going to "let Corbyn back in" given Corbyn is standing as an independent?

Lets be clear - it's not going to be Starmer who lets Jezza back in - it will be as a result of the massed rising of the people who declare Corbyn the leader in a popular revolution that will follow on from Glastonbury next week. The election campaign having triggered the final realisation that Jeremy did actually win in 2017 and has been denied his rightful premiership by the 'establishment' (as was Liz Truss)

err....shome mishtake surely (editor)

 

[nr758123]

Sounds like you are in a marginal seat!

I struggle with the idea that elections have a higher profile and more voter/candidate engagement in a marginal seat.

I live in a marginal seat in which all three main parties are or have been in contention in recent years. I live in what has historically been a marginal ward in which Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and independent candidates have all been elected.

In 33 years, in all the local, national and European elections, I have had just three canvassers or candidates knock on my door. So I don't take seriously the idea that there is meaningful engagement with voters.

I get leaflets through the letterbox, but that's a one-way conversation in which the parties tell me what they want to tell me and I don't get to ask questions. At previous elections up to 2017 there used to be hustings, but in 2019 the Conservative candidate declined to attend a hustings in this part of the constituency, ostensibly because the organisers were suspected of being hostile lefties so it got cancelled. No-one has been prepared to organise one this time round.

What passes for campaigning is controlled by the parties and the broadcasters, who decide what issues they think are important and who shy away from engagement with anyone who might ask awkward questions.

I have now cast my postal vote, having received two Labour leaflets, one from Reform but nothing from the outgoing Conservative MP or any of the other candidates.

 

[jfollows]

I struggle with the idea that elections have a higher profile and more voter/candidate engagement in a marginal seat.

I live in a marginal seat in which all three main parties are or have been in contention in recent years. I live in what has historically been a marginal ward in which Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and independent candidates have all been elected.

In 33 years, in all the local, national and European elections, I have had just three canvassers or candidates knock on my door. So I don't take seriously the idea that there is meaningful engagement with voters.

I get leaflets through the letterbox, but that's a one-way conversation in which the parties tell me what they want to tell me and I don't get to ask questions. At previous elections up to 2017 there used to be hustings, but in 2019 the Conservative candidate declined to attend a hustings in this part of the constituency, ostensibly because the organisers were suspected of being hostile lefties so it got cancelled. No-one has been prepared to organise one this time round.

What passes for campaigning is controlled by the parties and the broadcasters, who decide what issues they think are important and who shy away from engagement with anyone who might ask awkward questions.

I have now cast my postal vote, having received two Labour leaflets, one from Reform but nothing from the outgoing Conservative MP or any of the other candidates.

I agree, I have no recollection of ever having anyone asking in person at my house for any election, and I've lived here now since before 2010, and I haven't gone to work and therefore am home for most of the day since 2015.
In the past I put it down to arrogance in that Conservatives always won here anyway.
This time I've had something from the Labour candidate which included an email address and I've had a useful email conversation with him now.

 

[DarloRich]

I note Sunak was getting very tetchy again in the QT interviews yesterday. he REALLY doesn't like being challenged by randoms! He was quite rude to a young girl who asked about Rwanda. He was also laughed at again.

 

[WesternLancer]

I struggle with the idea that elections have a higher profile and more voter/candidate engagement in a marginal seat.

I live in a marginal seat in which all three main parties are or have been in contention in recent years. I live in what has historically been a marginal ward in which Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and independent candidates have all been elected.

In 33 years, in all the local, national and European elections, I have had just three canvassers or candidates knock on my door. So I don't take seriously the idea that there is meaningful engagement with voters.

I get leaflets through the letterbox, but that's a one-way conversation in which the parties tell me what they want to tell me and I don't get to ask questions. At previous elections up to 2017 there used to be hustings, but in 2019 the Conservative candidate declined to attend a hustings in this part of the constituency, ostensibly because the organisers were suspected of being hostile lefties so it got cancelled. No-one has been prepared to organise one this time round.

What passes for campaigning is controlled by the parties and the broadcasters, who decide what issues they think are important and who shy away from engagement with anyone who might ask awkward questions.

I have now cast my postal vote, having received two Labour leaflets, one from Reform but nothing from the outgoing Conservative MP or any of the other candidates.

Much in what you say of course - but with 20k homes on avg in every constituency it's hard for the candidates / parties to get round them all given the number of people actively prepared to volunteer to do that.

I've been to hustings in my constituency on the past but I have to say my experience was fewer than 20 to 30 people in the room - at least two thirds of them being supporters / members of one of the parties standing and on the panel simply there to cheer on their candidate or post hostile questions to the other candidates - and not being undecided voters at all - so in terms of the use of the candidates time they would be better off finding a few more doors to knock on during the time concerned.

 

[AlterEgo]

I did have a knock at the door from the Conservative campaign team the other day.

Was asked if I'd be voting for our existing MP and when I responded no, the response was along the lines of
"We all know we won't win, but James Sutherland has been a good MP for the area, so please vote for him based on what he's achieved rather than what you thinkof Rishi".

Glorious to hear. They are totally finished.

I've been calling this since Sunak took office that this was The End. Can't wait for them all to just slope off back to whichever sunlit uplands they came from and not bother the rest of us again.

Plenty of people, myself included, thought Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson. He would have been dreadful, no doubt, but not as bad as what we got.

I share this view.

 

[DarloRich]

Plenty of people, myself included, thought Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson. He would have been dreadful, no doubt, but not as bad as what we got.

But I can't help but suspect a Corbyn governments response to Ukraine (and whatever vandalism they'd have done to our security before hand) would have been somewhat catastrophic.

Agreed - I couldn't vote for Corbyn because of his, erm, naivety about geopolitical affairs, his blindness/obsession with Palestine and his stance on defence aka stop the (western) wars. His response to the Salisbury poisonings was indicative.

Also anyone who knew Labour politics knew he was totally unsuited to leadership and totally toxic to the majority of the electorate. His elections were the only time in my life i did not vote Labour. I just couldn't do it.

 

[jfollows]

Agreed - I couldn't vote for Corbyn because of his, erm, naivety about geopolitical affairs, his blindness/obsession with Palestine and his stance on defence aka stop the (western) wars. His response to the Salisbury poisonings was indicative.

Also anyone who knew Labour politics knew he was totally unsuited to leadership and totally toxic to the majority of the electorate. His elections were the only time in my life i did not vote Labour. I just couldn't do it.

Interesting to know, thank you for telling us this.

I've now voted (post) for Labour for the second time in succession. I'm looking forward to July 5th.

 

[DarloRich]

Interesting to know, thank you for telling us this.

I also agree with the point that Corbyn, whilst awful, would have been less awful than terrible Johnson. Always remember that when the crisis of our age came we were led by people unsuited for the job.

I've now voted (post) for Labour for the second time in succession. I'm looking forward to July 5th.

welcome on board!

 

[dosxuk]

Really? They must be a bit clueless if so.

Of course the Labour leader would have expected the Labour candidate to have done a better job than the Tory candidate, especially given the nature of the Tory candidate. To me that is blindingly obvious.

How do you think Starmer would have looked if he'd have denied that Corbyn was better than Johnson? He'd have looked an utter fool, that's what. He'd have looked far more untrustworthy, too.

Also how is he going to "let Corbyn back in" given Corbyn is standing as an independent?

Who says anything about any of those fears being based in reality? For some reason the right have this unhinged fear of Corbyn. I've seen stuff on Twitter saying that the only reason he's standing as an independent is to trick people into thinking he can't come back, so when he gets elected, he can re-join and the extreme left (aka Labour) can re-appoint him as leader. It's the same lunacy that makes them believe that ex-banker, private schooled, EU-passport holding, Nigel Farage is speaking for the common man.

 

[DarloRich]

There will be people asking themselves this morning if they can trust Starmer after his comments because he might let Corbyn back in.

only if you have had your head completely emptied and then refilled with conspiracy nonsense!

 

[takno]

only is you have had your head completely emptied and then refilled with conspiracy nonsense!

You say that like it doesn't describe a significant proportion of the population

 

[507021]

Agreed - I couldn't vote for Corbyn because of his, erm, naivety about geopolitical affairs, his blindness/obsession with Palestine and his stance on defence aka stop the (western) wars. His response to the Salisbury poisonings was indicative.

Also anyone who knew Labour politics knew he was totally unsuited to leadership and totally toxic to the majority of the electorate. His elections were the only time in my life i did not vote Labour. I just couldn't do it.

I voted Labour in 2017, but only as an endorsement for Stephen Twigg to continue as my MP, it certainly wasn't a vote of confidence in Corbyn. I abstained in 2019 because the former didn't stand for re-election, so no longer had a reason to vote Labour. I couldn't vote for a party which such incompetent, repulsive leadership which was more interested in "winning the argument" and turning the party into something resembling a student protest movement, not a credible option to govern the country. I did flirt with the idea of voting for the Lib Dems as a pro-Remain vote if nothing else, but soon thought better of it.

As for this election, I'm looking forward to voting Labour again and have a nice bottle of chablis in the fridge which I'll be enjoying on July 5th.

 

[nw1]

It's the same lunacy that makes them believe that ex-banker, private schooled, EU-passport holding, Nigel Farage is speaking for the common man.

Never knew that. How did he wangle that one?

 

[D6130]

Never knew that. How did he wangle that one?

His ex-wife is German....if that had anything to do with it?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But I can't help but suspect a Corbyn governments response to Ukraine (and whatever vandalism they'd have done to our security before hand) would have been somewhat catastrophic.
Whereas one of the few things Boris and his Government did get right was their response to Ukraine and that is one of the key issues facing us and the wider Western world.

A foreign policy meeting in 2020 between Jeremy Corbyn as UK PM and Donald Trump as US president would have been interesting.
We may have a Starmer/Trump summit in 6 months or so, and Putin will be pushing for a Ukraine settlement on his terms.
It's a rocky road ahead, foreign-policy-wise.

 

[nw1]

A foreign policy meeting in 2020 between Jeremy Corbyn as UK PM and Donald Trump as US president would have been interesting.
We may have a Starmer/Trump summit in 6 months or so, and Putin will be pushing for a Ukraine settlement on his terms.
It's a rocky road ahead, foreign-policy-wise.

Let's hope that the US isn't insane enough to vote for that hard-right, bordering on far-right, convicted felon.

I still think middle-of-the-road Americans won't touch him with a bargepole.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2024 ==

His ex-wife is German....if that had anything to do with it?

Maybe. Trump-supporting Brexiter John "Man of the People" Lydon is another one, with his Irish and US passports giving him freedom of movement through a vast proportion of the Western world.

 

[DarloRich]

We may have a Starmer/Trump summit in 6 months or so, and Putin will be pushing for a Ukraine settlement on his terms.
It's a rocky road ahead, foreign-policy-wise.

Starmer is a much more mature person than Corbyn. He will try to work with Trump or at least not work against him but it will be hard if we are not aligned with the USA and have to pivot towards the EU!

We can but hope Trump isn't elected

 

[jon0844]

Who says anything about any of those fears being based in reality? For some reason the right have this unhinged fear of Corbyn. I've seen stuff on Twitter saying that the only reason he's standing as an independent is to trick people into thinking he can't come back, so when he gets elected, he can re-join and the extreme left (aka Labour) can re-appoint him as leader. It's the same lunacy that makes them believe that ex-banker, private schooled, EU-passport holding, Nigel Farage is speaking for the common man.

It's far, far more likely that if Nigel becomes MP he will ditch Reform in a heartbeat and defect to the Tories and continue his aim to be PM by 2029.

The Tories are going to do one of two things after July 5th. The first will be to try and move back towards the centre and become more moderate for the next election. The second is lurch further to the right to try and appeal to the likes of Reform voters and racists/xenophobes, making up that supposed silent majority*, which would mean Nigel would be ideal to lead the party in opposition and fight for an election in a similar way to how Boris did in 2019.

I fear they'll actually think option two is the right move, and if Labour can't make a good start of change in five years then Nigel could possibly do it too. Nigel can play the long game just as Boris did.

How long Nigel could last is questionable, but he wouldn't be worried about that. His supporters would ensure any action taken against him and the party for likely breaking many laws would just be a 'witch-hunt' and unfair.

Never knew that. How did he wangle that one?

Many Brexiteers have dual nationality. Funny that.

* The silent majority of bots and paid-for comments on social media that sadly can't vote.

 

[SteveP29]

I thought they were more or less entirely funded by Tice, who is a millionaire

Hopefully after this he'll be reduced to the status of Thousandaire and we hear no more from the chancers

 

[DarloRich]

It's far, far more likely that if Nigel becomes MP he will ditch Reform in a heartbeat and defect to the Tories and continue his aim to be PM by 2029.

Agreed - although that depends on who becomes leader. I know that the old school Tories are dead against him coming anywhere near thier party but the whoppers love him.

Also his name is Farage. he isn't your mate. I mean he isn't obviously your mate but he certainly isn't your "mate" either.

The Tories are going to do one of two things after July 5th. The first will be to try and move back towards the centre and become more moderate for the next election. The second is lurch further to the right to try and appeal to the likes of Reform voters and racists/xenophobes, making up that supposed silent majority*, which would mean Nigel would be ideal to lead the party in opposition and fight for an election in a similar way to how Boris did in 2019.

they will lurch right. they always do!

Nigel can play the long game just as Boris did.

I am not sure he actually wants to be an MP or PM. There are rules that should limit his outbursts and statements. He actually has more power/influence now.

He also has no policy agenda, instead being defined by what he is against.

How long Nigel could last is questionable, but he wouldn't be worried about that. His supporters would ensure any action taken against him and the party for likely breaking many laws would just be a 'witch-hunt' and unfair.

they could go full on MAGA!

 

[nw1]

they will lurch right. they always do!

As if they aren't right-wing enough already!

Bad move for them if they do though. They will only have a chance of winning again in five years' time if they move back towards the centre.

 

[AlterEgo]

I see a Trump victory in the US election and a rightward lurch from the Tories, which will be enough to kill them as a party. It's not inconceivable that in another election cycle, the Greens or Lib Dems might be the second party.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I see a Trump victory in the US election and a rightward lurch from the Tories, which will be enough to kill them as a party. It's not inconceivable that in another election cycle, the Greens or Lib Dems might be the second party.

I don't think the Tories would be killed, the center-right of the party will move to Labour/Lib Dems, the right of the party will be merged with Reform.