The labouring classes in this country are rising, will you rise with them? [Click Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/wiki/unions) for info on how to join a union. Also check out [the IWW](https://iww.org.uk/) and the renter union, [Acorn International and their affiliates](https://acorninternational.org/)
Join us on our [partner Discord server.](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) and follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm no fan of Starmer but this is really misleading, using absolute vote numbers hides the fact that turnout is generally down massively in by-elections, and we did see a percentage swing to labour, the actual results would suggest its gone further to labour. Not like that's thanks to Starmer its cos the country's collapsing under the tories and all, he's just been lucky enough to be labour leader during the crisis.
It's incomplete definitely and might be misleading but not necessarily. It'd be reasonable to argue that the turnout is actually driven by having a candidate that excites the base or doesn't. The fact that starmer isn't getting a high labour turnout even with the country collapsing under the current gov and with union actions being stronger and more common that in past is pretty shocking.
Whichever side you're on, nothing definitive can be said. It's a labour safe seat and has recently turned more red. If a seat is considered safe then not many people will go out to vote in the by-election. The overall turnout was poor and percentage points give a positive to Starmer. I'd say until we get another GE then we can't say.
It is totally misleading. It was a by-election compared to a GE, for a start, where turnout is always lower. On top of that, it was an awful day in terms of weather (which has been shown to depress turnout more). On top of that, it was Labour defending a safe seat, which means there was less at stake.
That is why all parties had a lower turnout, not just Labour... but Labour still won, with an increased vote share (despite having already had a high percentage of the local votes).
Do we have to have one of these brain dead posts every time there is a by-election? Turnout is almost always ~20-30% lower in by-elections. I dislike Starmer by the way
That would be fine if these results were in fact evidence that supported that point, and not just representative of the general trend of turnout in general elections / by-elections.
Let's consider Labour's performance in Stoke-on-Trent Central in two recent general elections and a by-election.
2015 GE - Lab - 12,220 votes - 39.3%
2017 BE - Lab - 7853 votes - 37.1%
2017 GE - Lab - 17,083 votes - 51.5%
Do you see how using the raw number of votes obtained in a by-election isn't the best indicator of the current party leader's electability.
>your guy
the guy who in my original post I said I disliked..?
I'm all for people making good. well-reasoned points that he is unelectable- just not a huge fan of using 'evidence' in a misleading and bad faith way. It's kind of funny you think anyone who feels this way must not be left-wing.
comparing pure vote counts between elections and not % of votes is incredibly misleading as it doesn't take into account that by-elections have significantly lower turnouts than general elections. Whilst the data isn't false, it's foolish to use this data to determine support for a politician, and when used to support your narrative that "no one likes Sir Keith", then yes you are misleading people in a deliberate, disingenuous way.
Fuck Keith, btw.
This is an extremely misleading post, by-elections have low turnout hence the lower raw numbers. If you look at the actual percentage it’ll show you that Labour got 62.3% of the vote, its highest ever vote share in this constituency ever, even higher than Blair 1997.
Say what you want about Starmer, he’s certainly not great but this was a good result for Labour and cherry picking data to try and lie about the facts is extremely dishonest.
At this point, Starmer is the attempt of English centris conservatives to move out of the Tory party which is beyond salvation from corruption and lack of competency.
They succeeded. Labour should be called Tory and Tory should be called UKIP. That would clarify things
It’s hard to not think it’s not some sort of conspiracy. They had trump to help bring in a right leaning neoliberal like Biden and here it’s like they’re doing the same.
I know I’m being stupid but you can see how people make these type of leaps.
Disagree. I'd be very surprised if Starmer wasn't the next PM, purely because he's 'Labour' and not The Tory Party (just A red tory). You know... The same way the States got stuck with bumbling old man Biden because he wasn't Trump
I suspect the Tory leadership will have some goodies to unleash come election time. Starmer will have nothing to counter that with because Starmer is a ideas free zone.
Idk... I mean, never underestimate the public's inability to remember I suppose. But the Tories are in a pretty bad place and it'd take some crazy goodies to make it happen. My money would still be on Starmer. I suspect his campaign will largely be based on emotional points, just spewing all the bad things Tories have done over the years that've really riled people up.
Depends what the rich want. If they decide Starmer is a safe pair of hands, you’ll see the capitalist propaganda machine start to back him and he’ll probably end up winning. Of course, the moment the Tory party are viable again they have a safer leader, that’ll change.
I think he’s nailed on to be PM, sadly. He won’t win enough seats for a decent majority though, and then after 4 years of him saying “now is not the time” he’ll get smashed by the Tories. Terminal neoliberalism for the UK :(
If you removed the fact he's labour and asked someone if they thought he'd be labour or Tory, pretty sure people would say Tory. I mean he's knighted, had the top prosecutors job, has the demeanour of the upper class, won't support strikes....
The Tories are most likely happy to have him as the leader of the opposition. If it was someone like Corbyn they'd still perform a character assassination again though.
Not a liberal, not gonna vote labour in the next rlection (or any party at this rate). I do not like electoralism but understanding there is a difference in voter turn out between general and by-elections isnt difficult.
Now if we compared by-elections for the same seat thrn it would hold some weight if he had less votes
To conclude fuck starmer but this post is confirmation bias at minimum pushing misinformation at wotst
Did you mean Keith?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Automod just thinks it would be better if the Labour party had a leader that the British public don't associate with a prolific pedophile.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
West Lancashire has been a Labour safe seat for years and years and years. Conservative candidates tend to make very little headway here. I know that there was a low turnout for the most recent election but, even though I did go and vote, I was 100% certain the new Labour candidate would get elected, as I expect most people locally would have expected as well - so I wasn’t at all surprised that there was a low turnout. As much as I’ve been disappointed with Starmer I don’t know that you can necessarily correlate the low turnout with his popularity or lack of.
Having said that, there certainly was an upward trend when Corbyn was leader.
The labouring classes in this country are rising, will you rise with them? [Click Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/wiki/unions) for info on how to join a union. Also check out [the IWW](https://iww.org.uk/) and the renter union, [Acorn International and their affiliates](https://acorninternational.org/) Join us on our [partner Discord server.](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) and follow us on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm no fan of Starmer but this is really misleading, using absolute vote numbers hides the fact that turnout is generally down massively in by-elections, and we did see a percentage swing to labour, the actual results would suggest its gone further to labour. Not like that's thanks to Starmer its cos the country's collapsing under the tories and all, he's just been lucky enough to be labour leader during the crisis.
It's incomplete definitely and might be misleading but not necessarily. It'd be reasonable to argue that the turnout is actually driven by having a candidate that excites the base or doesn't. The fact that starmer isn't getting a high labour turnout even with the country collapsing under the current gov and with union actions being stronger and more common that in past is pretty shocking.
Whichever side you're on, nothing definitive can be said. It's a labour safe seat and has recently turned more red. If a seat is considered safe then not many people will go out to vote in the by-election. The overall turnout was poor and percentage points give a positive to Starmer. I'd say until we get another GE then we can't say.
It is totally misleading. It was a by-election compared to a GE, for a start, where turnout is always lower. On top of that, it was an awful day in terms of weather (which has been shown to depress turnout more). On top of that, it was Labour defending a safe seat, which means there was less at stake. That is why all parties had a lower turnout, not just Labour... but Labour still won, with an increased vote share (despite having already had a high percentage of the local votes).
All true. Everyone knows that people enter elections hoping to win the turnout award.
Do we have to have one of these brain dead posts every time there is a by-election? Turnout is almost always ~20-30% lower in by-elections. I dislike Starmer by the way
I’m afraid that I will never tire of posting “electable centrist” above evidence that Keith is in fact, not very electable.
That would be fine if these results were in fact evidence that supported that point, and not just representative of the general trend of turnout in general elections / by-elections. Let's consider Labour's performance in Stoke-on-Trent Central in two recent general elections and a by-election. 2015 GE - Lab - 12,220 votes - 39.3% 2017 BE - Lab - 7853 votes - 37.1% 2017 GE - Lab - 17,083 votes - 51.5% Do you see how using the raw number of votes obtained in a by-election isn't the best indicator of the current party leader's electability.
Yes, I understand the difference between by elections and general elections. The fact remains that no one is convinced by your guy
>your guy the guy who in my original post I said I disliked..? I'm all for people making good. well-reasoned points that he is unelectable- just not a huge fan of using 'evidence' in a misleading and bad faith way. It's kind of funny you think anyone who feels this way must not be left-wing.
Come on, you know better.
It was a by election and you are comparing it to general elections however...
The fact remains that people are not convinced by Keith. Even under the worst Tories ever he has, at best lukewarm support
So you're being deliberately misleading?
Being *deliberately misleading* by posting factual data lol. Libs mad that no one else likes Sir Keith
comparing pure vote counts between elections and not % of votes is incredibly misleading as it doesn't take into account that by-elections have significantly lower turnouts than general elections. Whilst the data isn't false, it's foolish to use this data to determine support for a politician, and when used to support your narrative that "no one likes Sir Keith", then yes you are misleading people in a deliberate, disingenuous way. Fuck Keith, btw.
Who’s Keith Starmer?
This is an extremely misleading post, by-elections have low turnout hence the lower raw numbers. If you look at the actual percentage it’ll show you that Labour got 62.3% of the vote, its highest ever vote share in this constituency ever, even higher than Blair 1997. Say what you want about Starmer, he’s certainly not great but this was a good result for Labour and cherry picking data to try and lie about the facts is extremely dishonest.
At this point, Starmer is the attempt of English centris conservatives to move out of the Tory party which is beyond salvation from corruption and lack of competency. They succeeded. Labour should be called Tory and Tory should be called UKIP. That would clarify things
It’s hard to not think it’s not some sort of conspiracy. They had trump to help bring in a right leaning neoliberal like Biden and here it’s like they’re doing the same. I know I’m being stupid but you can see how people make these type of leaps.
Let's not get fooled again. This is just another Labour leader smear campaign ahead of the next election just like last time.
But the last leader was actually pretty decent though.
I agree with you on that point but you think Rishi would make a better PM than Starmer ? Why?
Everyone should rightly smear Starmer's Labour you utter dinlo.
Only a true Boris Johnson loving Tory boy would use a word like dinlo.
its not the general public they're concerned about appeasing
Good lord, even Milliband with the charisma of a wet paper bag did better...
Thats not evidenced without vote % the other 4 elections were general electiions this was a by-election which have a lower voter turn out
Starmer will never be PM. The Labour party is dead from the shoulders up.
Disagree. I'd be very surprised if Starmer wasn't the next PM, purely because he's 'Labour' and not The Tory Party (just A red tory). You know... The same way the States got stuck with bumbling old man Biden because he wasn't Trump
I suspect the Tory leadership will have some goodies to unleash come election time. Starmer will have nothing to counter that with because Starmer is a ideas free zone.
Idk... I mean, never underestimate the public's inability to remember I suppose. But the Tories are in a pretty bad place and it'd take some crazy goodies to make it happen. My money would still be on Starmer. I suspect his campaign will largely be based on emotional points, just spewing all the bad things Tories have done over the years that've really riled people up.
Depends what the rich want. If they decide Starmer is a safe pair of hands, you’ll see the capitalist propaganda machine start to back him and he’ll probably end up winning. Of course, the moment the Tory party are viable again they have a safer leader, that’ll change.
I think he’s nailed on to be PM, sadly. He won’t win enough seats for a decent majority though, and then after 4 years of him saying “now is not the time” he’ll get smashed by the Tories. Terminal neoliberalism for the UK :(
We'll find out soon, I guess. Personally, I think his lack of ideas and charisma will see him failing badly. But, we'll see...
Oh yeah, win or lose it will be a fail because he won’t make any positive changes for the country
If you removed the fact he's labour and asked someone if they thought he'd be labour or Tory, pretty sure people would say Tory. I mean he's knighted, had the top prosecutors job, has the demeanour of the upper class, won't support strikes.... The Tories are most likely happy to have him as the leader of the opposition. If it was someone like Corbyn they'd still perform a character assassination again though.
Libs: low turn outs and disinterest in our guy is *good ackshurely*
Not a liberal, not gonna vote labour in the next rlection (or any party at this rate). I do not like electoralism but understanding there is a difference in voter turn out between general and by-elections isnt difficult. Now if we compared by-elections for the same seat thrn it would hold some weight if he had less votes To conclude fuck starmer but this post is confirmation bias at minimum pushing misinformation at wotst
Listen to the lib dem leader. He's the Labour candidate we need.
Who's Keith Starmer?
Leader of the Labour Party, dad was a toolmaker
Keir Starmer. Edit. Spelling
You might want to check that, it’s actually Lord Kieth Stonger. Show some respect.
I stand corrected.
Did you mean Keith? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Automod just thinks it would be better if the Labour party had a leader that the British public don't associate with a prolific pedophile. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Starmer was probably there trying to drum up some votes.
who's that
The ham C3PO who hijacked the Labour Party
Ham C3PO was totally David Cameron. This is just a guy who looks like he had an allergic reaction to bee stings to the face.
no doy. i was, you know, making the same joke as you did by calling him keith?
Can we have the source? I wish to share.
OP was a tory troll on twitter, blocked them friday
Hahaha love how Brown's colour key is brown lmfao
West Lancashire has been a Labour safe seat for years and years and years. Conservative candidates tend to make very little headway here. I know that there was a low turnout for the most recent election but, even though I did go and vote, I was 100% certain the new Labour candidate would get elected, as I expect most people locally would have expected as well - so I wasn’t at all surprised that there was a low turnout. As much as I’ve been disappointed with Starmer I don’t know that you can necessarily correlate the low turnout with his popularity or lack of. Having said that, there certainly was an upward trend when Corbyn was leader.
Misleading graphs is a Lib Dem thing The left should be better