Local Elections.

How do those factors prevent you raising taxation on the highest 5% tax payers?

You know how a fiat economies work in terms of what can be paid for. All decisions are political decisions.

Do you genuinely think that every single pledge is not deliverable. Freedom of Movement for example what prevents him sticking to his pledge on that. Joining SM with its boost of 4% of GDP. What prevents him doing that? Or are we saying some are were lies and some are the result of changed circumstances.

COL crisis makes nationalising utilities more not less important and is a cost neutral exercise.

 

There's no need to expel left leaning Members of the party - they have been leaving in droves for some time. (Can't believe I've used the term "left leaning party Member" You'd think that would be a pre-requisite for being a Member in the first place). Sadly the party is reverting to what it has been for most of its existence: A cult dominated to the exclusion of all others, by the Parliamentary Party; Zero concern for its Members; even less concern for its founding fathers and paymaster in the Trades Unions, not much concern for those who rely on it in the wider Country. Essentially a Party that "will do what the Conservatives do - only better."

We've had decades of that and my view (for decades) has been 'reform from within'. I've given up on that now. It's a bit like entrusting the future of football to the Premier League and saying 'Reform from within'. Keeps people occupied but has no chance of success.

 

Rejoining the Single Market is not a unilateral decision that the UK Government could make. It would need acceptance by all EU countries, and anyone suggesting they will just bow down and let us rejoin is no better than those rabid Brexiteers that said the EU would bow to all of our demands when leaving.

 

No one is suggesting that. Starmer has stated that we will never rejoin the single market not because of others but because he now violently opposes it.

 

Bloody crank left Lib Dem peers.

Another shameful day for Labour who refuse to oppose the forced repatriation of women who have been trafficked or the criminalisation of child asylum seekers.

 

Except that - as was stated by the Labour peers - the Lords veto effectively simply delays the passage of the bill unamended, by a period of one year. And the ability to effect further amendments and/or delay the passage of the bill indefinitely is lost. So yet again ideological purity crashes up against political reality!

 

https://archive.md/4ucb8

 

Hadn't picked up on this prevously, but the figures quoted in the OP (which are visible in Mido's post above) appear to be worthy of the Stats For Lefties twitter account, in terms of how inaccurate they are.

The 35% Labour figure for 2023 comes from the projection that Prof John Curtice produced from a sample of the local election results (45 council results out of 230 used for the projection). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65475817
2023 Projection:
LAB 35%
CON 26%
LD 20%
OTH 19%

Fair enough for us to use them. There are no easily available popular vote totals yet published, but these tend not to be shown as part of local election results analysis, so these projected results are 'the norm' in terms of LE analysis.

OP states that this is 'exactly the same as Corbyn in 2019'. The only problem with this is it's untrue. The equivalent analysis for the 2019 local elections (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48091592) had Labour level with the Tories on 28%.
2019 Projection:
LAB 28%
CON 28%
LD 19%
OTH 25%

So 'exactly the same' actually translates to a 7% increase for LAB in vote share and a 9% lead over the Tories, compared to 0% in 2019. The 7% increase is actually referenced in the 2023 analysis. Forensic.

I did wonder if OP had perhaps used the 2019 GE result instead to get the result he was desperate to construct, but Labour's 2019 GE vote share was 32.1%, so that doesn't look to be the source either.

It's worth highlighting that neither of the above set of results reflect the actual popular vote in the election. These don't tend to be easily available, probably due to the fact that the main parties don't field candidates is as many seats as they do at a GE, so you're counting votes across a varying number of candidates for each party. Tories stood in 96%/93% of seats in 2019 and 2023 respectively, Labour in 77%/77% and Lib Dems in 53%/60%. These are much lower than at a GE (2019 GE: Tories 98%, Labour 97%, Lib Dem 97%).

There is popular vote info available for 2019, but no equivalent figures for 2023 that I've found as yet. The 2019 projections of 28% each for LAB & CON compare to a popular vote share of 26.1% for Labour and 31.4% for the Tories, so there's some adjustment made to attempt to project these onto a General Election result. We also have the benefit of an actual GE result in 2019 to compare these projections to, which resulted in LAB 32.1% and CON 43.6% about 6 months after they were produced, so the LE projection wasn't remotely accurate as a GE prediction.

Ultimately, there are many things that can be argued about the local election results, and what they tell us, in terms of a forward projection. However, one thing that is indisputable is that they do not represent 'exactly the same' result as that achieved by Corbyn in the 2019 equivalent elections, which was the entire basis on which this thread was started.

 

Had Labour voted with the Lib Dems against the Bill and it had been rejected by a majority of the HoL then the Government could have invoked the Parliament Act which would have reduced the ability to amend the Bill before it becomes law. The Parliament Act was introduced to prevent the unelected Chamber constantly overturning Bills and throwing them back to the Commons.

 

Rejoining the Single Market means we become a rule taker and not a rule maker plus we have to accept freedom of movement so will be a hard sell to the country at large. Also, as you point out, it would need to be agreed by the EU and it probably suits them to keep us on the outside and struggling economically as a warning sign to other EU states who might fancy heading for the out door.

 

For us to rejoin the single market, we would have to join EFTA (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland). Norway effectively run EFTA and have said that they would not allow us to joins as we would usurp their position as leaders. Our only way into the single market is through full EU membership I'm afraid.

 

No different to our current situation then. If we want to trade with countries in the EU we have to abide by their rules.

 

Agreed, with the likelihood that we'll not enjoy the rebates we had when we were last in the EU and will probably have to agree to replace our currency with the Euro.

 

There is no benefit for the EU to not have frictionless trade with us.

 

There are a few new EU members that, according to EU rules, should adopt the Euro but have so far not done so. The EU don't really enforce it.
No chance of the rebates we had if we rejoin.

Brexit was a really BIG mistake.

 

I suspect that's behind today's announcement that the Government are rowing back on repealing EU derived legislation.

 

Exactly. See post #86 above!

 

Five pages on a thread about Starmer being a liar who hasn’t increased LE vote share from Corbyn in 2019, when in actual fact the vote share at last weeks elections was in the region of 35%, can’t find an official figure, yet 2019 was 28%. So to say he hasn’t improved the share is an outright lie. Somewhat ironic

I also challenge the rhetoric that he’s a liar. Certainly when compared to be as big a liar as Boris Johnson - that’s just very clearly untrue.

Has he changed his stance on some things he set out to do when appointed leader? Of course. You may conclude him to have lied, but you’ve nothing to prove that conclusion any more than someone who would state that he has changed his outlook in the face of having seen the landscape of everything change over the last three years, multiple lockdowns, further economic disaster as a result of brexit, economic suicide by brain dead Tory policy. He can only implement anything when in power, and if he took over today things are markedly worse than they were three years ago and changes would have to be a damn sight more moderate.

Criticise him if you want. But be careful. Killing him from the inside will not lead to anything but another five years of Conservative government. If he was replaced before the next election, the tories and their fan club in the majority of the media outlets would have a field day and go to town on anything and everything; the new candidate would have no chance at all.

Vote green. Even if it is a wasted vote where you are.

But live with the fact that you, and the people who think like you, have kept the nastiest, most morally bankrupt and furthest right government in power, should that end up being the case. It really could be, and despite all the whataboutery about FPTP and PR, it really is as simple as one or the other. Even if you detest the fact that you see one as merely being less bad than the other, if it is a choice of two, then even if you like neither side, we need to go with the less bad one.

The current Labour Party are quite far away from my personal ideology. But they’re a damn sight closer to it than the tories.

 

That's what happens when you read threads from the newest to the oldest!

 

I'm going off the top a bit here Brush, but I don't think that's quite right. As far as I'm aware the Norwegian Govt did not say they would not allow us to join... papers and pundits surmised that but I don't remember them stating that as a formal position, Norway's Govt were careful not to influence the debate...what I do remember being voiced was that it wouldn't be likely that membership could be granted if the UK opted to be a member of the EU Customs Union...one or the other was possible but not both.