Categories
Never go full Corbyn 2019 – politicalbetting.com
Never go full Corbyn 2019 – politicalbetting.com
Britons would be more upset by a 2024 Sunak victory than they would have been by a 2019 Corbyn triumphIf Sunak win a majority: 59% would be upset[Asked in 2019] If Corbyn wins a majority: 52% would have been upsethttps://t.co/QCNNUvBB9f pic.twitter.com/ByXRtDZ1DP
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1 lap remains
Top 10 still in grid order
Yawn
If Sunak won a majority
Happy: 15%
Unhappy: 59%
Wouldn't mind: 15%
If Starmer won a majority
Happy: 34%
Unhappy: 35%
Wouldn't mind: 17%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1794643556596064291
I am struggling to see how this isn't enthusiasm for SKS, can somebody explain where I am going wrong with my analysis?
51% of people either would be happy or wouldn't mind, that's hardly "he's just as bad as Sunak" is it?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13456697/Boris-Johnson-Keir-Starmer-dangerous-left-wing-1970s.html
How about 66% of voters aren't happy if Starmer won a majority.
The fans were heard chanting at King's Cross station: 'We are Leeds, we are vile, Rishi Sunak’s a paedophile.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13461283/Leeds-fans-filmed-singing-vile-chant-Southampton-supporting-Prime-Minister-Rishi-Sunak-ahead-Championship-play-final-against-Saints-Wembley.html
The most dangerous PM since the 1970s was BoZo himself
Are you saying people saying they wouldn't mind a SKS majority is as bad the commentary which is that everyone thinks he's as bad as Rishi Sunak? These numbers to be confirm that there's not a huge amount of enthusiasm for Starmer - but there's more than reported and he's more popular than Sunak by a country mile.
Prediction: the public is totally out of patience with politicians and doesn't want to hear any more hollow promises of the jam tomorrow variety. To govern is to choose, and sooner rather than later the next Government will have to choose either yet more austerity or a major raid on wealth. The latter might cost them the 2029 election; the former certainly will.
Question is what happens after that. Very little buffer if things go wrong but also room to surprise on the upside.
Either way, he gets five years.
The least worst option.
I might just add its mixing together leader and party brands though.
Starmer's underlying numbers for an opposition leader seeking to gain power aren't brilliant and unhappy exceeds happy even now.
That's apparent in his policy platform even now.
I think he's actually very New Labour, if New Labour was formed in 2020.
It of course looks bleak for Sunak but although it’s not been mentioned recently if the police charge Rayner that could cause the current Labour campaign to go off the rails at least for a time.
The Manchester police really need to make a decision quickly.
Inside Starmer’s plan to use private finance to boost Britain’s infrastructure
There are 468,400 FTE teachers, which is an increase of 2,800 since last year and an increase of 27,000 since 2010 when the school workforce census began.
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-workforce-in-england
Doesn't that suggest that Labour's plan might lead to a lower rate of teacher recruitment than what we currently have in 'everything is broken' Britain ?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
https://youtu.be/UDfAdHBtK_Q?t=469
I did mind Truss and I would have minded Corbyn.
Most people, most of the time don’t much mind. It’s only the truly politically engaged who are horrified. By that same token, over half being unhappy if Sunak won is… suboptimal for him.
I mean, losing to Blair was terrible. But he was also a genius at retail politics and he sort of accepted a lot of the Thatcherite consensus. So it wasn't too bad.
But losing to Starmer- the man's a ghastly lefty. And clearly not a great political player (though he's an impressively fast learner). For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
The problem with Corbyn is that he's never been on the right side of history; except when he opposed the Iraq War, Apartheid in South Africa, Poll Tax, supported miners strike, protested austerity, voted against tuition fees, stood up for Kurds/Palestinians, warned PFI would be an expensive disaster, warned against privatisation of water and rail would be a disaster.
Always wrong. Prsumably the good people of Islington North will realise the Private Health CEO is the way to go
BoZo
Truss
Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
To me, Robin Cook was far more principled on Iraq, as was, erh, Keir Starmer
I don't share this intense fear of him as dangerous that is trying to be whipped up, but he became an MP in 2015 and developed as a politician through one of the most intense periods in recent political history, and one of the most left wing stances the party has taken. Unless he really was lying the whole time, I'd assume he is probably more right wing than the New Labour days.
It's similar to how some people think Sunak is a centrist, but given the period he came to prominence in I think that's pretty unlikely too.
According to industry sources, the party has drawn up plans to increase private-sector financing and streamline the planning system for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). I'll believe the latter part when I see it - it should be a given that really big stuff should not be able to be held up so much, even if the trade off is allowing more hurdles for smaller scale stuff at local level.
But private sector financing is a pretty broad description, haven't we had issues arising from that?
Well done you, much as I resent saying it.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
As I've said a part of me would like to see him win for the humour value, but if he loses it's a bit of a grubby end, kicked out of the party he was part of his whole life and without even much following within it as the MPs will be so grateful to Starmer for returning them to power.
Would they have been as inept, and terrorist adjacent as Jezza turned out to be?
If Southampton do beat Leeds, perhaps the latter will sack Daniel Farke and he can go back to the Canaries, take them back to the Premiership and get them relegated again.
People say history never repeats...
@Leon and I rarely engage but yesterday he agreed with me terms like "left" and "right", in a political context, should be banned from this site. Apart from their use as perjoratives, they have lost all meaning.
He argued rightly for a new political topography - it's hard to know where to start but if we are going to make our politics relevant for the future we have to ditch the ideological irrelevancies of the past.
For a brief time the hard left had a chance to actually run the country. The fervour is entirely on account of this.
Counter intuitively Truss gave us a tiny insight into what it would be like when populist utopians have a go.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
Most of all, he invited convicted IRA volunteers to parliament just weeks after the Brighton bombing. A move that was both immoral and nasty.
Then there's the hoary aspects of his anti-Semitism - which I know you're blind to. In fact, I know you threaten PBers with Corbyn's legal team even if we have the temerity to call Corbyn what he is: an anti-Semite.
So 'on the right side of history' is, I think, true only if you are blind to history. Or morality.
Credit where it's due...
I like this thread leader from @TSE
However, the final part can just as easily work the opposite way. And I would suggest almost everyone is missing this.
'That more people would be unhappy with Starmer winning the election than happy it is further proof that Starmer and his government might become very unpopular quite quickly.’
But but but. If you start out with very low expectations and low personal ratings and if you do have some character and substance to you, then you might surprise on the upside.
I am beginning to believe this will be the case. People are terribly jaded and tired right now. Downright seething with the tories, yes, but also weary of politics and politicians generally.
Supposing that after the shitshow, and let’s not kid ourselves that it has been anything but, it’s very possible that Labour will be competent.
I suspect they’re going to surprise on the upside for at least one term and that they may do extremely well at the following General Election, especially if the tories are down a rabbit hole.
It’s in 6-9 years time that the Labour decline will have begun, not years 1-5.
You heard it here first.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/this-national-service-plan-is-a-patronising-gimmick/
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
The Conservatives did the same with Iain Duncan Smith and to an extent Michael Howard. Parties, as part of the period of internal reflection, need almost a period to find themselves before they go looking for the rest of us.
It needs a new membership, which has no experience of Government but hates Opposition, to start the road back.
Corbyn's message did resonate with groups who had previously felt disengaged from politics - the Brexit campaign achieved a similar goal. The 2017 GE campaign will stand as a unique experience and a salutary reminder nothing in politics is certain.
And I saw the exact games played here when the local private school gave up the ghost a few years ago.
It's the difference between the school surviving a bad year, and not surviving at all.
A 20% price shock is significant and reshapes the market.
So where do such people go to vent.
PB is where.
And that's why we're here. I mean if people can rub along with all of @Chris' bollocks they can handle @casino going off on one.
In the 2010 hustings (and I went to plenty of them), Diane Abbott would disappear as soon as she could. In 2015, Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't leave the hall if there was still one person who was waiting to chat with him. Personal connections matter and it wasn't calculated, it was 32 years of making connections before he ever thought about standing for the leadership.
Was a harmless eccentric, but does seem to have gone off the deep end.
It's not pathological hatred: I just strongly dislike his politics, think people have simply forgotten what a Labour government is like, and I don't particularly like him as an individual either.
His refusal to speak to Rosie Duffield and her snubbing at his Kent campaign launch (despite being one of the nicest MPs in politics, and one of the key success stories there) being but one example.
Basically all I'm seeing is a badly managed school blaming other people for their issues...
@LOS_Fisher
NEW: Sunak’s pledge to reintroduce compulsory UK national service, including assigning up to 30,000 18-year-olds to the military, was rejected *this week* by one of *his own defence ministers*
Defence personnel minister Andrew Murrison warned of a hit to morale, headcount and resources if “potentially unwilling national service recruits” were introduced alongside Britain’s professional armed forces
More in
@FT
from
@georgewparker
,
@jenwilliams_ft
& me here 👇
https://on.ft.com/3R1zo29
"Ok, so we mind our Ps and Qs, pull our punches, hide what we think, grovel to the Murdochs of this world, pander to social conservatives and apolitical apathetics, compromise with privilege and vested interests, and after all of that we get kicked in the head and the Tories win again. Well fuck this for a game of soldiers. Let's grow a pair and live our best authentic life. The papers can say what they like. People can vote for us or not. We'll have our self-respect."
That's how it was in the party. That's how it felt. That's why Jez happened.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
That's not a wealth fund, that's is a centrised PFI scheme.
Wealth funds take excess capital, invest it in business all around the world to make a return and distribute some of the profits to people of the country. This is take bankers money and spend it on things the private sector wouldn't fund if it was a business and of course they will want a return for that investment. No wonder the bankers are keen.
Which might just be what the country needs atm after the least three. Having said that, May was fairly grey...
(*) Unless they know him and have a personal grudge because he once stole a Laughing Cow at morning break...
Lifting VAT exemption may be the final nail for these small schools but it is only the final nail following many prior.