UK - Politika i društvo

ćaća wrote:I izgleda da je Angus Robertson uzeo Edinburgh Central.

Gde pratiš

Levo dosad proglašeno (32 jedinice, 28 uzeo SNP, 3 LibDem, 1 konzervativci) - desno prošli izbori.

Koliko vidim, jedina promena je da su laburisti izgubili jedno mesto od SNP-a.



https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19284757.scottish-election-results-live-updating-maps-charts-results-begin/

Mór Thököly wrote:

ćaća wrote:I izgleda da je Angus Robertson uzeo Edinburgh Central.

Gde pratiš

Twitter, uglavnom Britain Elects

Wowsers. Labour has lost control of Sheffield city council and its leader, after a Green and Lib Dem surge https://t.co/MFsJzcTk5r

NEW: Exclusive polling for @Channel4News by @JLPartnersPolls shows the top reason given for not voting Labour in elections in England yesterday was Sir Keir Starmer's leadership.

More in @GaryGibbonC4's report on @Channel4 and @All4 tonight at 7pm.

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) May 7, 2021

EP UK PROJECTION

EP projects that when all the votes are counted, the SNP will have a majority in the Scottish Parliament.

This is *NOT* an official result - but looking at the current numbers, I am 100% confident that this will be the outcome. pic.twitter.com/6u7AJob6QP

— Election Projections UK (@UKProjections) May 7, 2021

Del Cap wrote:

NEW: Exclusive polling for @Channel4News by @JLPartnersPolls shows the top reason given for not voting Labour in elections in England yesterday was Sir Keir Starmer's leadership.

More in @GaryGibbonC4's report on @Channel4 and @All4 tonight at 7pm.

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) May 7, 2021

Izgleda da je to uvek nekako razlog. A to u sustini znaci da se drustvena koalicija oko koje lezi stranka raspada.

Ništa neočekivano. Sve ovo je deo globalnog trenda. Prekrajanje političke scene, i posledični kolaps starog poretka. Kraj soc-dema i pristojnity šuvar desnice. Uspon urbanog, zelenog, woke, PMC puritanizma sa jedne, i dionizijske, amoralne, sitnosopstveničke, vulgarne desnice sa druge strane.

Again, Labour je sebe strateski sjebo kad je bio protiv promene izbornog sistema 2011. Bukvalno sve bi bilo drugacije.

Možda Labour kao organizacija. Ali Labour kao the party of labour ne bi.

Pa dobro...imalo bi prostora da se pojavi  neko drugi ili treci. Kao i na desnici uostalom. Sadasnji izvorni sistem je em silovanje politickog realnog raspolozenja glasaca, em, a to nisu uspeli da prepoznaju, mnogo vise cuvar pozicija tory partije nego lab partije. Mislim, jeste i cuvar njih, ali vise cuvar torijevaca. Jer, a to su morali da skapiraju, laburisticka drustvena koalicija je krhkija ili postala vec odavno krhkija od torijevske.

First preference votes

Khan 39%
Bailey 37%

Mór Thököly wrote:Pa dobro...imalo bi prostora da se pojavi  neko drugi ili treci. Kao i na desnici uostalom. Sadasnji izvorni sistem je em silovanje politickog realnog raspolozenja glasaca, em, a to nisu uspeli da prepoznaju, mnogo vise cuvar pozicija tory partije nego lab partije. Mislim, jeste i cuvar njih, ali vise cuvar torijevaca. Jer, a to su morali da skapiraju, laburisticka drustvena koalicija je krhkija ili postala vec odavno krhkija od torijevske.

Ima tu prostora još za deset partija da se formira, ali je linija političkog sukoba povučena tako kako jeste, i od toga više nema odstupanja. Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right, i to je to. Može npr. u budućnosti da se pojavi neka nominalno socijaldemokratska, nominalno radnička partija, na tradiciji Sandersa i Korbina, ali ona realno neće biti leva u onom starinskom smislu reči. To će biti partija visokoobrazovanog, urbanog prekarijata - sa jakom skromnim zahvatom u tradicionalnim levim uporištima.

Nebitno je sta su ako imaju glasace. Mogla bi da se formira i neka nova UKIP-type partija koja bi terala konzervativce udesno, a time bi gubili pozicije na centru. Pri tom bio je predlozen preferencijali sistem, a ne cist proporcionalni.

Verovatno se laburisti drže na koaliciji iz nužde woke liberala i šarenih fragmenata druge i treće generacije radništva koje bi komotno moglo da bude i za neku desnu partiju, i ta se koalicija možda nepovratno raspada.

Jeste, ali treba imati i jednu drugu stvar u vidu. Hartlepool je jako demografski staro, ili ostarelo, mesto. I ima dosta takvih. Hocu da kazem, strateski nije sve tako crno, ali moraju ozbiljno da razmisle na koju ce stranu.

Ma nisu laburisti, nego torijevci bili stranka pred pucanjem. Brexit je bio njihova poslednja sansa to redraw the lines, i nazalost, uspeo im je. Pitanje je koliko ce potrajati.

Istu stvar su uradili republikanci sa Tramparim, ali to je trajalo 4 godine, a ovi je trajno.

Erős Pista wrote:Ma nisu laburisti, nego torijevci bili stranka pred pucanjem. Brexit je bio njihova poslednja sansa to redraw the lines, i nazalost, uspeo im je. Pitanje je koliko ce potrajati.

Istu stvar su uradili republikanci sa Tramparim, ali to je trajalo 4 godine, a ovi je trajno.

 
Dobro, ruku na srce Demokrate su ozbiljnija (for better or worse) organizacija od Laburista. 

Jedina stvarna korbinova greska je sto nije 110% zalegao za Remain. Da nije uspeo Brexit ovi odavno ne bi bili na vlasti.

stižu promene

Konkretna priča

Prvo da dovrši čistku antisemita po kojima je ta partija poznata, pa onda ostalo.

Oven Džons:

Here are the facts. From Theresa May’s vantage point in 2017, seats like Hartlepool were for the winning. Labour was kneecapped in 2015, and following the 2016 EU referendum and the waning support for Ukip, votes were up for grabs. The Conservatives believed those who voted Ukip in 2015 – and, after all, rejected Ed Miliband’s Labour – would simply march into the Tory column, delivering seats such as Hartlepool. But something else happened: Labour won a sizeable chunk of those Ukip voters, gaining the party’s biggest vote share and majority since 2001. By 2019, many had defected to the Brexit party, but Labour still managed to retain the seat with an increased majority from 2015.
With these numbers in front of us, there are some obvious questions to be asked. If Corbyn is to blame, why did Hartlepool’s citizens vote Labour twice under his leadership and in higher numbers than in 2015? What does it tell us, comparing 2017 to this year’s election, that Tories won only 1,210 more votes while Labour has lost more than 13,000?
If Corbyn had been seen as a legitimate Labour leader, there would be no debate about learning lessons from the 2017 election: why was it insufficient for the party to win? When Owen Smith – Corbyn’s defeated leadership challenger – declared Labour’s success back then was down to the party’s “incredibly popular” manifesto, that then uncontroversial conclusion accorded with the experiences of all his colleagues. Arguably, what unites the 2017 Labour manifesto and the current Conservative agenda is a coherent and bold vision for the country (albeit radically different ones), backed with cold hard cash.
But Starmer’s team has decided there is nothing to be learned or salvaged from the Corbyn era, violating the promises made during Starmer’s election campaign. Rather than a new vision being crafted, the void is being filled by soundbites gleaned from focus groups, echoing and affirming the current political climate – one in which the party doesn’t thrive.
The Tories could have opted to do this during the 2008 financial crash, but instead they built their own version of events and repeated their own message with iron discipline – Labour spent too much, they didn’t fix the roof while the sun was shining – until the focus groups repeated it back verbatim.
Starmer’s team are on safari, knowing nothing about communities they didn’t grow up in, leading to cosplay, caricature and flag-waving, which screeches inauthenticity and nothing more. Yes, the party is the victim of long-term trends – not least as Labour-voting younger people empty from ex-industrial communities, leaving home-owning pensioners predisposed to the Tories – but Starmerism, whatever that is, has no answer to it, unlike the gleefully spendthrift Conservatives.
Labour’s right is now on manoeuvres, but it has nothing to say: its intellectual cupboard is as empty as Tesco’s toilet roll shelves at the start of the pandemic. While the Tories splash the cash, Labour is trapped in a pre-2015 rubric, fretting about fiscal responsibility. Much of Labour’s leading echelons don’t just lack a vision; on economic policy, they are to the right of Boris Johnson’s Tories, and so we ended in the grotesque position of a Labour opposition – a Labour opposition – scuttling around TV studios arguing against Rishi Sunak’s corporation tax hike.
Lacking a coherent analysis or solution, Labour’s right will resort to the only tactic it knows – punching left. It will castigate the traditional aspirations of the Labour party as impossible dreams while the Tories spend, spend, spend, and will demonise anyone who has the audacity to champion them. Where will this lead? Cast your eyes across the Channel, where Labour’s European sister parties are in even direr straits.
Starmer’s pitch was always relational – he was more capable than his predecessor and opponent. His team believed that by acting like the grownups in the room, like the characters in Bugsy Malone, it would all fall into place. But they bet the house on competence – a dividing line incinerated by the NHS’s successful vaccine rollout – rather than a compelling alternative vision for the country. Having lost a seat that Corbyn outperformed him in twice, it’s Starmer who looks like the less than competent politician now, with no values to compensate. Instead of pointing out what he stood against, he should have decided what he stood for. The electorate doesn’t have a clue – and increasingly, it seems, neither does he.

Ne secam se brze potrosenog lidera.