there is lots of muttering about vote share Ive noticed amongst pundits ...because labour as we know have won a large majority with not many votes
personally I think that is a good thing as that will mean MPs cant be complacent because if they only have a few thousand buffer, they easily lose.
MPs with 25,000 majority can think stuff the electorate
Yes - it's seats that matter - not votes. Two thirds of voters didn't vote Labour.
Quote:
Labour gained 211 seats – but just 1.6 per cent increase in share of the vote
Though pollsters were predicting a large Labour majority in both seats and vote share, Sir Keir Starmer’s party has not managed to move the needle far when it comes to its proportion of national votes overall. Due to lower turnout, Labour won fewer votes at this election, at 9.7 million, compared to 10.3 million in 2019.
Labour’s total vote share sits at 33.8 per cent, a minute increase from 32.2 per cent in 2019, and well below the Tories’ 43.6 per cent in the last election. Nonetheless, Labour has won 412 seats, an increase of 211 from 2019. On the other hand, the Conservative Party has seen crippling losses by both metrics. It has lost 251 seats, and nearly half of its supporters nationwide, with national vote share at just 23.7 per cent (6.8 million votes).
Unquote:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...1&cvid=11a77971682e4778a4267f2c6be761d3&ei=73
There's much I don't like about some of Labour's policies, but I'm pleased they've got an overall majority so for good or ill, will be able to implement policies without relying on the support of other fringe parties, as with a 'hung parliament'. I think that in their desire to get elected, they've under-estimated the costs, and over-estimated the extent to which they can create wealth by 'getting the economy going' rather than by raising taxes. Regardless of which part is in power, it seems to me, given the size of budgets politicians are responsible for, they should be intelligent, articulate, numerate, literate, astute and well educated on subjects such as economics, statistics. and accounting. The sort of people who - if they were in industry or commerce - would be capable of operating at Board level.
Looking at the background and education of those who will take cabinet posts, most are from working class families educated in State schools, yet have gain honours degrees, often from Oxford and Cambridge, so all credit to them. Had those such as Rachell Reeves and Wes Streeting, have not gone into politics, I've no doubt that by now, they'd be in highly paid senior positions in banking, finance, or consultancy.
Rachel Reeves was educated at a comprehensive in Beckenham. While at secondary school she won a British Under-14 girls chess championship title in a tournament organised by the now-defunct British Women's Chess Association. After sitting A-Levels in politics, economics, mathematics and further mathematics she read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at New College Oxford, gaining a BA. She then obtained an
MSc in economics from the London School of Economics. Her first job after leaving university was with the Bank of England, then she worked for the retail arm of HBOS. She was interviewed for a job at Goldman Sachs. but turned it down, despite claiming that the job could have made her "a lot richer". (As indeed it would have).
She looks well suited to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Wes Streeting's parents were teenagers when he was born. He has five brothers, a sister and a stepsister. His maternal grandfather was an armed robber who spent time in prison. His grandmother became embroiled in his granddad's crimes and ended up in Holloway prison. She was released from prison to give birth to his mother. He grew up in poverty living in a council flat. He attended a comprehensive state school in Victoria, London, where he studied History, Politics, and Religious Studies at A-level, receiving 3 A grades. He went on to study history at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, gaining a BA. He previously had left the Labour Party because he opposed its decision to enter the Iraq war. He was elected Cambridge University Students Union President for the 2004–05 academic year.
I think he'll do a good job.
The one who impresses me least is Angela Rayner, who ironically is the most senior member, apart from Kier Starmer. Sure, she's confident, assertive, (perhaps a tad bombastic?), and has a lot to say for herself, which is not the same as being articulate. (Delusions of adequacy?). She left school at sixteen with no qualifications and did menial jobs, which didn't call for knowledge or qualifications in statistics, economics, law, accounting, or even English or maths. I'm not really sure how she got where she is, other than as a 'poster girl' for the Corbyn end of the Labour Party spectrum.
I know she threw a hissy fit back in 2021 and went from being sacked to being promoted:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...acking-of-angela-rayner-after-election-losses
Applying the test of: 'outside of politics could she attain a senior role in industry or commerce on anything like the level of Deputy PM?' No - I don't think she could. I guess she is to Starmer what John Prescott was to Tony Blair. That said, I've no doubt that her heart is in the job. I wish her well, and I hope for all our sakes, that along with the rest of them, they get along together, come up to expectations and fulfil the promises they've made.
It will make a change from years of Tories fighting each other like rats in a sack.
But being well-qualified isn't in itself a guarantee of competence of course.
David Lammy qualified as a barrister, went studied at Harvard University where he became the first black Briton to attend Harvard Law School, where he studied for a Masters of Law degree and graduated in 1997. After Harvard, Lammy was employed as an attorney at Howard Rice in California from 1997 to 1998, and with D.J. Freeman from 1998 to 2000. He is a visiting professor of practice at School of Oriental and African Studies. He's to be Foreign Secretary and is more than a little gaffe prone. Not uneducated - just a bit daft.
He's previously called Donald Trump a "neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath". But he has changed his tone in recent months and has said he would find "common cause" with the de-facto Republican nominee for president. In a speech last week at a Republican think tank in Washington, Lammy said Mr Trump was "often misunderstood" over his commitment to European security.
But Labour's London Mayor Sadiq Khan said in an interview this week that Mr Trump was "not misunderstood", adding: "He's a racist. He's a sexist. He's a homophobe. "And it's very important, particularly when you've got a special relationship, that you treat them as a best mate. "If my best mate was a racist, or a sexist or a homophobe, I'd call him out and I'd explain to him why those views are wrong."
Not that Trump would listen of course, even if Lammy had the gumption to say so.
He also criticised Marine Le Pen whose Right Wind National Rally Party leads in the first round of voting in France's national elections, saying she's 'malevolent and toxic'. Before too long, he might be having to suck up to her as well a Trump.
In February 2019, Lammy criticised Stacy Dooley for photographs she posted on social media of her trip to Uganda for Comic Relief, and said that "the world does not need any more white saviours", and that she was "perpetuating 'tired and unhelpful stereotypes' about Africa". The donations received for the Red Nose Day broadcast in March 2019 fell by £8 million and the money raised that year was the lowest since 2007, which some have blamed on Lammy's remarks.
The most bizarre utterance by Lammy is that ‘a man can grow a cervix’. How can anyone reach the age of 52 and know so little about male/female anatomy?
https://x.com/LBC/status/1443125834...htHhZy7tNkTQ9VDatw42kmnR0qGZv8thQpKWHiLrVhtGY
You couldn't make it up.
