Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2024 7:32:23 GMT
Ok, hear me out here.
Andrew Feinstein (I), Wais Islam (I) and the Greens combined got 31% in Holborn & St Pancras to Starmer's 48%, so if those parties hadn't stood, we may seen Starmer's lead down to 17%. Starmer still wins by the same margin as Jeremy Corbyn in his own seat.
However, if the election had been a month earlier, we may have had many more students from UCL, SOAS, KCL, Birkbeck and LSE in the seat voting. Let's suppose that somehow Feinstein gets to 20,000 votes and defeats Starmer.
The result is:
FEINSTEIN 20,000 (43%) (na)
LAB 18,884 (41%) (-25)
CON 2,776 (6%)
RFM 2,371 (5%)
LD 2,236 (4%)
OTH 357 (<1%)
IND gain from LAB
Majority: 1,116 (2%)
Swing: 34%
Who becomes PM? Does Starmer go to the Lords?
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 13, 2024 8:08:06 GMT
Ok, hear me out here. Andrew Feinstein (I), Wais Islam (I) and the Greens combined got 31% in Holborn & St Pancras to Starmer's 48%, so if those parties hadn't stood, we may seen Starmer's lead down to 17%. Starmer still wins by the same margin as Jeremy Corbyn in his own seat. However, if the election had been a month earlier, we may have had many more students from UCL, SOAS, KCL, Birkbeck and LSE in the seat voting. Let's suppose that somehow Feinstein gets to 20,000 votes and defeats Starmer. The result is: FEINSTEIN 20,000 (43%) (na)LAB 18,884 (41%) (-25) CON 2,776 (6%) RFM 2,371 (5%) LD 2,236 (4%) OTH 357 (<1%) IND gain from LABMajority: 1,116 (2%) Swing: 34%Who becomes PM? Does Starmer go to the Lords? Put down the stick, bury the dead horse, move on. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,128
Member is Online
|
Post by cathyc on Jul 13, 2024 8:19:29 GMT
Ok, hear me out here. Andrew Feinstein (I), Wais Islam (I) and the Greens combined got 31% in Holborn & St Pancras to Starmer's 48%, so if those parties hadn't stood, we may seen Starmer's lead down to 17%. Starmer still wins by the same margin as Jeremy Corbyn in his own seat. However, if the election had been a month earlier, we may have had many more students from UCL, SOAS, KCL, Birkbeck and LSE in the seat voting. Let's suppose that somehow Feinstein gets to 20,000 votes and defeats Starmer. The result is: FEINSTEIN 20,000 (43%) (na)LAB 18,884 (41%) (-25) CON 2,776 (6%) RFM 2,371 (5%) LD 2,236 (4%) OTH 357 (<1%) IND gain from LABMajority: 1,116 (2%) Swing: 34%Who becomes PM? Does Starmer go to the Lords? Put down the stick, bury the dead horse, move on. The theory supposes that every Green supporter left without a candidate would have voted and done so for Feinstein. I would think that's far from the truth and Corbyn may not even have got a majority of them. Maybe if Feinsten hadn't stood then it might have been truer. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 13, 2024 9:24:09 GMT
This is a minor point perhaps, but in this scenario we are surely talking about an election in May rather than "a month earlier" - which would mean the GE being held alongside several other contests including the London mayoralty and assembly. Might that have made a difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 13, 2024 9:44:13 GMT
Who the fig is Andrew Feinstein?
|
|
swanarcadian
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 2,661
Member is Online
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jul 13, 2024 12:22:33 GMT
In this unlikely scenario I guess Angela Rayner would have become PM until a Labour leadership election could be held, which she could be a candidate for. Would losing a seat disqualify someone from continuing as Labour leader?
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 13, 2024 13:02:47 GMT
In this unlikely scenario I guess Angela Rayner would have become PM until a Labour leadership election could be held, which she could be a candidate for. Would losing a seat disqualify someone from continuing as Labour leader? it did when Arthur Henderson lost his seat |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 13, 2024 13:56:30 GMT
Who the fig is Andrew Feinstein? A gormless no-mark who appears to be a hero to our child prolific poster. He is an excellent speaker. Particularly the Israel-Palestine issue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2024 15:32:21 GMT
Who the fig is Andrew Feinstein? A gormless no-mark who appears to be a hero to our child prolific poster. Have you actually heard him speak? Can you clarify what you mean by "child prolific poster", mater? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 14, 2024 11:01:19 GMT
However, if the election had been a month earlier, we may have had many more students from UCL, SOAS, KCL, Birkbeck and LSE in the seat voting. Let's suppose that somehow Feinstein gets to 20,000 votes and defeats Starmer. You are aware of the student body of Birkbeck?! |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 14, 2024 11:04:12 GMT
In this unlikely scenario I guess Angela Rayner would have become PM until a Labour leadership election could be held, which she could be a candidate for. Would losing a seat disqualify someone from continuing as Labour leader? it did when Arthur Henderson lost his seat Henderson remained leader for a year with Lansbury as the parliamentary leader (wasn't it technically "Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party") but then stepped down to focus on the disarmament conference. However I suspect the Labour Party Rule Book has had some amendments since 1931. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 14, 2024 11:17:35 GMT
it did when Arthur Henderson lost his seat Henderson remained leader for a year with Lansbury as the parliamentary leader (wasn't it technically "Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party") but then stepped down to focus on the disarmament conference. However I suspect the Labour Party Rule Book has had some amendments since 1931. yes the left pushed for changes to the constitution in the 80s that the parliamentary leader was leader of the wider party |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 14, 2024 11:19:34 GMT
it did when Arthur Henderson lost his seat Henderson remained leader for a year with Lansbury as the parliamentary leader (wasn't it technically "Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party") but then stepped down to focus on the disarmament conference. However I suspect the Labour Party Rule Book has had some amendments since 1931. In the Annual Report of the Labour Party for 1931-32 is a report from the Parliamemtary Labour Party. At p.87: "At the first meeting of the Party after the Election a Resolution was carried expressing unabated confidence in Mr. Arthur Henderson, and requesting him to continue in the position of Leader. Mr. George Lansbury was re-elected as Chairman; Mr. C. R. Attlee was elected Vice-Chairman". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2024 16:48:20 GMT
While we're on the subject of Feinstein, I went to a post-election picnic with some of his team yesterday. Focusing on housing weas laudable, it was very pro Gaza as an event, to the point where alcohol wasn't allowed at the picnic - it honestly felt like some kind of Iftar / Eid homage. Feinstein insisted on speaking outside the London Central Mosque with that in the background. It does seem to be a single-issue campaign and of the upcoming local by-elections, they want to focus on Camden Square ward, and don't seem pragmatic at all about supporting the Greens in Kentish Town South (who are the clear challengers). The lack of pragmatism and flexibility with who they lend their support to if they want to rally around the anyone but Labour flag is staggering.
I also asked about who would stand in these wards and the zeitgeist is that we will basically sit around singing songs and have a community-driven selection process with this obsessions for candidates living in the wards - that would waste a lot of talent based on the arbitrary BCE maps. I came away from this thinking that this whole campaign lacks the left libertarianism I generally value, mostly based on alcohol banned.
It's shameful why they now talk about housing to what? Hope too tay relevant if and when Gaza subsides? Fine, but that seems a bit reactive an that their main thing is just Middle East etc. I never sang from the river to the sea because I know damn well how some of these folks interpret it, and nor do I sanction references to Starmer as a Zionist, because depending on your definition, using zionist as an insult suggests you yourself are anti Israel's right to exist even with the 1967 borders. I don't how to feel about this campaign, other than feeling a bit like a useful idiot.
|
|
