156
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
156 points (99.4% liked)
UK Politics
2966 readers
64 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, this is clearly not correct, because - unlike Corbyn where this is absolutely correct - she has never been elected, and has now lost twice.
Do I think it's fair what happened? No, I don't.
But goal #1 is to remove the Tories from Parliament. If you are not best placed to do that - and coming third proves she wasn't - you need to put your ego aside and let someone else do it.
Again, is that fair? No, it isn't.
She only started standing as an independent on the 5 June, less than a month from the election, and got only 78 less votes than Labour. Regardless of what you think of her, that's impressive and it's clear if Labour hadn't deselected her, they would've won.
Coming third does not make it clear she would have won.
Corbyn winning does make it clear he would win, because, he did win.
Corbyn is - rightly - more popular than Labour in his constituency. She isn't, and wasn't.
How do you simultaneously hold the positions that she split the vote but wouldn't have won if she was the Labour candidate? If she was the Labour candidate, the vote wouldn't have been split.
Because I'm talking about people voting for her specifically, instead of Labour as a party.
She may well have been elected it she had still been the Labour candidate, but she wasn't. Infact she got less votes than the person who was the Labour candidate.
After she was deselected, she chose to run herself. She chose to prioritise trying to prove Labour wrong instead of getting rid of IDS.
If she had won - like Corbyn - it would prove that she didn't need to wear a Labour rosette to win. But she didn't, so she does need it.
So all she has achieved in that is maintaining one of the worst Tories there is. The result matters, and she enabled that.
This assumes that the people that voted for Shaheen would've voted Labour if she didn't stand. IDS got 35% of the vote, so Labour (who got 25%) would've needed just under half of Shaheen's 25% to win. I'm sure some would have switched to Labour, but 40%? Do you think the kind of voter that would vote for Shaheen directly wouldn't vote Green out of protest of what happened to her?
Every other seat in the country - bar Islington North and Corbyn - shows extensive tactical voting to unseat the Tories, so, yes I do absolutely expect that at least 40% would have held their nose.
Do I think what happened to her was fair? No, I don't. But running out of spite sure is a very individualist approach to a political philosophy defined by the needs of the many outweighing the few.