|
|
Post by aristaeus on Jul 13, 2024 7:27:01 GMT
The low turnout at this election is probably a multifaceted problem:
Tory voters staying at home
The results seemingly a foregone conclusion
Starmer failing to enthuse people
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 13, 2024 9:22:51 GMT
How so? Are we forgetting the damage done to the party under the Blair /brown years , the milliband years , and from what I remember the only labour leader to take more votes than Corbyn did in 2017 was Blair in 1997 , never again to be matched. ok. That was the implication to me from your post , hence the question. Whatever problems Corbyn did or did not cause labour in the past are clearly nothing to do with starmers lacklustre election victory . Of course they are. Did you never see the 'vote Starmer get Corbyn' comments? No, I didn't. But then it wouldn't make a good explanation as: 1. Corbyn is no longer a member of the Labour Party 2. Labour got more votes under Corbyn than they did under Starmer I think Labour were very timid, and have been the entire Starmer leadership. They have offered a similar agenda to the Tories, and anything that was different they've rowed back on. They've simply won because they're not the Tories. But there's certainly no bold change vision. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 13, 2024 12:19:26 GMT
Years of dishonesty by the Tories and those dodgy years of Corbyn leading Labour have had a serious effect on many. wait...what? Are you implying starmer got half a million votes less than Corbyn did in their 2019 trouncing as the fault of Jeremy Corbyn? Nearly half a decade on ? How do you explain starmer losing half of the vote in his own seat , and Corbyn trouncing the labour candidate in islington if Corbyn is deeply unpopular ? You have to take into account the feelings of swing voters. Many expected Labour to win in 2017 as the Tories were very unpopular. But enough people couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn because of worries about his historical views. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 13, 2024 12:39:12 GMT
Of course they are. Did you never see the 'vote Starmer get Corbyn' comments? No, I didn't. But then it wouldn't make a good explanation as: 1. Corbyn is no longer a member of the Labour Party 2. Labour got more votes under Corbyn than they did under StarmerI think Labour were very timid, and have been the entire Starmer leadership. They have offered a similar agenda to the Tories, and anything that was different they've rowed back on. They've simply won because they're not the Tories. But there's certainly no bold change vision. Would that still be true if turn out were the same in this election? Who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 13, 2024 18:39:53 GMT
I doubt the low turnout was due to the UK’s current voting system — which was thought OK when an alternative PR system was rejected in a 2011 referendum. The lack of interest in voting last week seems to have been due to disillusion with parliamentary politics. And of those votes cast, it wouldn’t surprise me if many (if not most) were protest votes in a general Anyone But Conservative groundswell… AV is not PR, it's fairer than FPTP, but it isn't proportional. It's still one constituency one MP and a lot of wasted votes. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 13, 2024 18:47:52 GMT
I doubt the low turnout was due to the UK’s current voting system — which was thought OK when an alternative PR system was rejected in a 2011 referendum. The lack of interest in voting last week seems to have been due to disillusion with parliamentary politics. And of those votes cast, it wouldn’t surprise me if many (if not most) were protest votes in a general Anyone But Conservative groundswell… AV is not PR, it's fairer than FPTP, but it isn't proportional. It's still one constituency one MP and a lot of wasted votes. Whatever replaces the current system I want to vote for my representative, and not be a source of votes for people I don’t know on a list compiled by distant committees. Crack that and I’m in… |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Jul 13, 2024 20:31:42 GMT
That would be AV/single transferable vote then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2024 20:38:53 GMT
If you consider that turnout was only about 60 percent and Labour only got 34 percent of that, then only about 19 percent of all voting age adults voted Labour. And yet the vote for any of the others was even lower than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 13, 2024 22:43:53 GMT
wait...what? Are you implying starmer got half a million votes less than Corbyn did in their 2019 trouncing as the fault of Jeremy Corbyn? Nearly half a decade on ? How do you explain starmer losing half of the vote in his own seat , and Corbyn trouncing the labour candidate in islington if Corbyn is deeply unpopular ? You have to take into account the feelings of swing voters. Many expected Labour to win in 2017 as the Tories were very unpopular. But enough people couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn because of worries about his historical views. eh? What's swing voters got to do with starmer getting half a million votes less than Corbyn , yet winning the election on a low turnout? Surely if swing voters couldnt stomach Corbyn , then it stands to reason that if starmer is popular (he's not, he's polling similar to richi sunak in terns of negative ratings) then labour should have taken more votes than Corbyn , and at least won a majority on the standard 40% margin? The. fact they couldnt suggests the opposite to what you are implying. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 13, 2024 23:22:10 GMT
No, I didn't. But then it wouldn't make a good explanation as: 1. Corbyn is no longer a member of the Labour Party 2. Labour got more votes under Corbyn than they did under StarmerI think Labour were very timid, and have been the entire Starmer leadership. They have offered a similar agenda to the Tories, and anything that was different they've rowed back on. They've simply won because they're not the Tories. But there's certainly no bold change vision. Would that still be true if turn out were the same in this election? Who knows. That's not really the point. Unpopular as Corbyn was, he still garnered more to vote for Labour than Starmer has. My take: Corbyn had popular policies but was an unpopular leader. Starmer doesn't have any policies, and isn't that popular, but isn't the Tories. The good news is that little is expected of him, or the government, and they have a huge majority, so they do have the political opportunity to prove me wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2024 23:47:34 GMT
Indeed.
Hopefully, Starmer will prove me wrong about him and do all the right things.
Everything I've read about him and his cabinet picks indicates otherwise though, unfortunately
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 14, 2024 7:00:23 GMT
You have to take into account the feelings of swing voters. Many expected Labour to win in 2017 as the Tories were very unpopular. But enough people couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn because of worries about his historical views. eh? What's swing voters got to do with starmer getting half a million votes less than Corbyn , yet winning the election on a low turnout? Surely if swing voters couldnt stomach Corbyn , then it stands to reason that if starmer is popular (he's not, he's polling similar to richi sunak in terns of negative ratings) then labour should have taken more votes than Corbyn , and at least won a majority on the standard 40% margin? The. fact they couldnt suggests the opposite to what you are implying. I don't agree. The Tories were unpopular and Starmer was safe, if not charismatic. The Tories were unpopular but Corbyn was not safe. My opinion is that enough people voted to make sure Corbyn didn't get in. I know I did. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 14, 2024 7:14:42 GMT
Would that still be true if turn out were the same in this election? Who knows. But he garnered even more to vote against him. That's my point even if its not yours. A leader cannot get elected in this country by just being popular with one set of people. They have to be not too bad for the other set, surely Blair proved that. My view at the time was that Corbyn had very many policies but I had no idea how they were to be implemented. Therefore they worried me because of his history. Starmer did have policies they just weren't as exciting, his policy was about small changes, working with business, pushing UK energy, stopping Rwanda. Not sure what policies you wanted him to have? |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 14, 2024 7:17:10 GMT
Indeed. Hopefully, Starmer will prove me wrong about him and do all the right things. Everything I've read about him and his cabinet picks indicates otherwise though, unfortunately As with I asked Andrew, it would be interesting to hear what you would be all the right things for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 14, 2024 10:19:47 GMT
eh? What's swing voters got to do with starmer getting half a million votes less than Corbyn , yet winning the election on a low turnout? Surely if swing voters couldnt stomach Corbyn , then it stands to reason that if starmer is popular (he's not, he's polling similar to richi sunak in terns of negative ratings) then labour should have taken more votes than Corbyn , and at least won a majority on the standard 40% margin? The. fact they couldnt suggests the opposite to what you are implying. I don't agree. The Tories were unpopular and Starmer was safe, if not charismatic. The Tories were unpopular but Corbyn was not safe. My opinion is that enough people voted to make sure Corbyn didn't get in. I know I did. rubbish. I see we are back to reinventing political history to suit the latest waffling narrative regarding starmers disastrous electoral support this election. The tories were unpopular........tick. labour were unpopular......tick FPTP , not voters , elected labour ......tick. The disaster that was labours defeat in 2019 (despite Corbyn handsomely winning half a million more votes than starmer ) wasn't because Corbyn was unpopular. We saw in his time in power as labour leader , how he enthused hundreds of thousands to join labour, came within a whisker of winning the 2017 general election , and came across to many voters , including myself , as a fairly decent human being despite the muck thrown at him constantly from not just the tories , but the blairites in his own party. so what happened between 2017 and 2019? Getting Brexit done. That was what the problem was. General starmer and his blairite cronies refused to accept the referendum result from 2016 , spent years trying to use every trick in the book to either overturn Brexit or somehow give a BRINO , to the extent starmer pissed off two thirds of labours 2017 constituencies that voted Brexit the year before. Labours disastrous Brexit policy was what hamstrung Corbyn in 2019. I know it doesn't suit your narrative , but everyone outside of liberal centrist la la land know fine well the public had had enough of remain politicians shenanigans , and by 2019 , were determined to get Brexit done and dusted and hammer any party that didnt go along with what the public had voted for. |
|
