Laura Kuenssberg - Political Editor of the BBC

[jcdenton08]

The BBC should not be used by Johnson to promote his forthcoming book of lies about Brexit and Partygate .

There are lots of things to like about the BBC. This is not one of them .

Now this I agree with. Most BBC guests appear on these things for a (relative) pittance (I’m not talking contracted stars like Lineker, but one off guests). They go on to advertise something. All of them. A new film, an album, a show, a book…

What I resent is that there are a million more worthy people than a disgraced ex-PM.

 

[Cheggers]

Not sure. I’ve seen her give it socks to Tories

I agree that she has. However, and I might be projecting onto LK unfairly, I always got the sense in the run up to the election that she was having a pop at Tories out of frustration and disappointment that they hadn't got their sh#t together, rather than rightful moral indignation. This was after LK seemed to be proudly stating that is was going to be close, in spite of many other commentators predicting a one sided outcome.

 

[jcdenton08]

I agree that she has. However, and I might be projecting onto LK unfairly, I always got the sense in the run up to the election that she was having a pop at Tories out of frustration and disappointment that they hadn't got their sh#t together, rather than rightful moral indignation. This was after LK seemed to be proudly stating that is was going to be close, in spite of many other commentators predicting a one sided outcome.

Could very well be right - or simply getting her ducks in a row knowing they were going to be mullered.

What I do remember in favour of the pro-Tory argument was she had a face like a smacked arse on election night when it became clear what a kicking they were getting.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I think she’s terrible. When she was appointed I thought that looks good - different face and all that. But during the referendum she gave no insight into implications of what was being said, didn’t gain any understanding to challenge the main players, and treated it like it was part of the Tory party leadership soap opera. Turns out she was besties with Cummings. The BBC didn’t cover itself in glory in that period.

Got that off my chest. She’s a terrible reporter.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Strange though it may sound, Labour actually got less votes in the 2024 election than in 2019 - 9.7m vs 10.2m.

It isn't strange, albeit in the context you present it, it may seem strange.

By comparison the tory vote fell from 13,966,454 in 2019 to 6,828,925.

f*** me, the tories lost half their support. That hadn't registered till I looked it up.

Christ.

Anyone attempting to score points by implying that Starmer was less popular in the 24 election than Corbyn in 19 (and some have attempted to do so, in particular old hard lefty types, and young 'O Jeremy Corbyn' fools) need to look up the word 'context'.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think she’s terrible. When she was appointed I thought that looks good - different face and all that. But during the referendum she gave no insight into implications of what was being said, didn’t gain any understanding to challenge the main players, and treated it like it was part of the Tory party leadership soap opera. Turns out she was besties with Cummings. The BBC didn’t cover itself in glory in that period.

Got that off my chest. She’s a terrible reporter.

To be fair.....I actually thought she was a correspondent rather than a flagship presenter, owing to the undigested nature of the content she presented (largely soundbites from partisan players with little or no critical assessment).

If she has been promoted to the Paxo stratosphere, I missed it (and am glad).

 

[keaton]

It isn't strange, albeit in the context you present it, it may seem strange.

By comparison the tory vote fell from 13,966,454 in 2019 to 6,828,925.

f*** me, the tories lost half their support. That hadn't registered till I looked it up.

Christ.

Anyone attempting to score points by implying that Starmer was less popular in the 24 election than Corbyn in 19 (and some have attempted to do so, in particular old hard lefty types, and young 'O Jeremy Corbyn' fools) need to look up the word 'context'.

I would think the context of having 5 years of Tory indeptitude, infighting and corruption would lead to more people voting Labour?

 

[Professor Plum]

With the Tories trying to focus on a new look, I should think the last they want is Boris Johnson hijacking their airtime and still preaching his failed mantra.
The four candidates for the Tory leadership also seem to be focusing on what they need to do to regain the voters that have moved towards Reform. Whereas what they should be doing is moving more to the centre ground to try and regain the massive number of voters who have moved to Labour. Unfortunately for the Conservative Party, they just don't get it.

The longer Boris keeps popping up and stirring shit into the Tory pot, plus Farage doing his bit by dividing the right, the more time it gives Labour to sort our country out.

The Labour strategists must be loving the Tories current battle plan.

The Boris Johnson book is being promoted and serialised now to coincide with the Tory Party conference. It often happens.

Your Tory analysis seems potty. Reform cost the Tories a large number of seats and will do so again unless they address the issue. They can’t afford to ignore them. There was no “massive number of voters moving to Labour.” The Labour vote went down yet people still misinterpret the huge majority of parliamentary seats as a big endorsement of them. It’s 100% a reflection of the crazy electoral system we have.

If you take a random, representative sample of 5 people on the street, just 1 would have voted Labour, 2 would have voted for parties other than Labour, and 2 wouldn’t have bothered voting at all. Yet Labour still win a huge landslide and many people pretend that there’s some massive tidal wave of support for the party. There isn’t.

The Tories were deeply unpopular at the election. Most people who voted, me included, did so to get them out. Only a minority of people actually seemed to vote positively for an alternative. The sooner we get some form of PR the better.

 

[chickens]

The WFA thing is a little concerning. If it sent a message despite having much impact, then that may have mapped to a 'clever politics' agenda. Instead it seems ill judged with scope to annoy, disadvantage and disappoint for no obvious advantage.

A bit like if we play Spuds on Sunday with a high line of slow defenders.

Don’t understand why it couldn’t have been mapped to the higher tax band.

Households with an individual paying higher rate tax don’t get it, those without do.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I would think the context of having 5 years of Tory indeptitude, infighting and corruption would lead to more people voting Labour?

Yes, there's context to every election. That Corbyn got more votes than Starmer is indisputable and evidence that Starmer can't take his big majority for granted. Starmer hasn't before the election or since convinced the electorate to trust him.

 

[A1X]

I would think the context of having 5 years of Tory indeptitude, infighting and corruption would lead to more people voting Labour?

Not necessarily as it depends on why people turned off from the Tories. Many of the “incompetent Government” ilk will have gone to Labour (as the only realistic alternative party of Government). Some will have gone to the Lads for their softer, more Europhile approach to the Tory headbangers. Then there are the “they betrayed our Boris and our Brexit” ones who flocked to Reform.

Not to mention we saw more tactical voting than I think we’ve ever seen at a General Election before. Many normally Labour types in places like Sussex will have voted Lib Dem to “oust the Tory”, hence why huge swathes of the county are now yellow.

 

[Machiavelli]

It isn't strange, albeit in the context you present it, it may seem strange.

By comparison the tory vote fell from 13,966,454 in 2019 to 6,828,925.

f*** me, the tories lost half their support. That hadn't registered till I looked it up.

Christ.

Anyone attempting to score points by implying that Starmer was less popular in the 24 election than Corbyn in 19 (and some have attempted to do so, in particular old hard lefty types, and young 'O Jeremy Corbyn' fools) need to look up the word 'context'.

Thanks for sharing this. I hadn't computed the vote number figure, but that's so stark and, I know I'm being pedantic here but I think it's worth saying, they actually lost more than half their 2019 vote number.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Don’t understand why it couldn’t have been mapped to the higher tax band.

Households with an individual paying higher rate tax don’t get it, those without do.

Yep. Easy peasy.

I hope they learn from this.

Some very well intentioned labourites in my penumbra can bamboozle themselves with numbers when the numbers come into conflict with perceived imperatives. Let's hope the chancellor isn't one of them.

(f***ing beta-test it, innit!!!)

 

[Bish Bosh]

I agree. As a Labour member she has consistently failed to alarm me by her apparent bias. She sticks it to the Tories as well as to Labour as far as I have seen.

One could criticize several journalists for tedious negative whataboutery, and there are several that seem to be gleefully leaping about because Starmer is certain to make Lord Alli the next archbishop of Canterbury, and manipulate UEFA so that Arsenal win the Champion's league. But that's all part of the panto aspect of politics.

I have been told LK has dubious antecedents, but it is only her worktime activities that interest me. If she likes to fondle a blow-up doll of Jimmy Cleverly in the privacy of her own dungeon, that's her business.

Kuenssberg is very clearly in love with Boris Johnson, and sending him the interview qs surely the most Freudian of slips.

 

[Motogull]

Still would.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would think the context of having 5 years of Tory indeptitude, infighting and corruption would lead to more people voting Labour?

Yes but Starmer is so dull. He doesn't have the charisma of a Johnson, which is the sort of thing that millions of voters apparently like.

This is why Farage vacuumed up 4,117,610 votes. More than the liberals (but spread around to thinly to win many seats. Thankfully.). The liberals only got 3,519,143. (I absolutely love FPTP, and all these 'fair vote' fools can do one. FFS.)

In short, I don't think Starmer is popular. As long as Labour don't recreate some sort of weird lefty Johnson, that will be a positive.

But....we get the governments we deserve. There was no clamour for lefty-ism this year, so the current Labour configuration cannot be anything other than dull technocrat, with a nudge to the proletariat. If people find themselves hankering for charisma in 4 years, maybe we will see (looks up Wikipedia), er, Cleverly marching into number ten. Or possible Nigel. That would be exciting!

 

[Zeberdi]

There was no “massive number of voters moving to Labour.” The Labour vote went down yet people still misinterpret the huge majority of parliamentary seats as a big endorsement of them. It’s 100% a reflection of the crazy electoral system we have.

Yep - partly that. But also the snafu the Tories were making of running the Country (or rather running it down)

1983 Thatcher won her second term on the back of the “longest suicide note in history” and a split vote in the opposition with the new SDP-Liberal Alliance.

1997 The Cons had their worst election defeat in history to date winning just 165 seats - financial and sexual scandals in the Party, economic crisis (Black Wednesday) combined with Blair‘s New Labour moving into the centre.

2001 Blair won a second landslide on the back of the lowest turnout since the franchise was extended in 1918 of only 59%. Tory infighting over Europe and policies drifting to the right.

Context is everything.

 

[Ooh it’s a corner]

 

[Ooh it’s a corner]

Sorry it’s so big!

 

[Screaming J]

Sorry it’s so big!

As Boris probably never ever said to any woman ever........