What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.
Awareness of violence against men is where awareness of violence against women was thirty years ago.
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.
On the issue of austerity: it seems to me that Lab have lost this argument with the public for the time being, so what's the point of keeping going on about it. Talk about something else. Elect someone who will talk about other matters, like how you grow through science, tech and innovation.
Only sane conclusion is that Labour DO NOT WANT TO WIN.
Winning an election doesn't matter now to them, they just want to feel clean and pure...
Dunno, they could have it both ways, couldn't they? Feel clean and pure when you answer the YouGov poll, then save worrying about who can win for the actual vote...
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).
Yeah, Sean's accusations were a teensy bit extreme. Saying that 'a very big base of support' within Labour 'wants to kill all White Men' should really be supported with some kind of evidence.
"Kill All White Men" is a reference to the Student Union Officer at LSE, who uses it as her hashtag. She means at as a "joke" rather than literally.
There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
For a supposedly very nice man, Jeremy Corbyn doesn't shy away from ad hominem attacks:
Michael Deacon ✔ @MichaelPDeacon Corbyn's response to Blair: "I think Tony Blair's big problem is we're still waiting for the Chilcot Report to come out"
I'm trying to recall how much of a surprise the Gang of Four split was at the time. We had lots of gnashing of teeth - but it seemed to come out of the blue that Labourites would actually do it.
Anyone here with a better recollection of how it played out. I mainly remember watching the TV open-mouthed when the Labour manifesto came out. It didn't leave any room for doubt that they'd lost their minds.
I'm neither a political expert or historian, irrespective of opinions there clearly some clever people on here and I'd like to know: has the Labour Party EVER been in such a mess?
As I see it they are split irrevocably.
This is a picnic compared to the eighties. Currently, we are contemplating something that may not happen. Back then the party split, Foot was leader and Militant had its mitts everywhere. This could all still largely turn out to be a storm in a teacup.
I was abroad at the time of the Gang of Four and only getting the news from week old copies of the Telegraph and the World Service (which was very much a hard news organisation in those days), and yes, in my memory the split and the formation of the SDP did come as a bolt out of the blue. The people I was with were a hard-bitten crew and greeted the news with surprising warmth - the SDP started with a lot of good will from ordinary voters. Shame it never worked out.
Foot's 1983 manifesto, aka The Longest Suicide Note in History, I remember as being greeted with huge derision and in some quarters despair. However, at that time it didn't really matter what Labour put into its manifesto, they were always going to lose that election and lose it badly.
There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
Like the Milifans - it sounds as if they need a little more bromide in their tea, and a cold shower.
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.
It depends on the man. I understand that TSE has a "friend" who is in to that sort of thing (and AV).
For a supposedly very nice man, Jeremy Corbyn doesn't shy away from ad hominem attacks:
Michael Deacon ✔ @MichaelPDeacon Corbyn's response to Blair: "I think Tony Blair's big problem is we're still waiting for the Chilcot Report to come out"
Is it really an ad hominem attack to point out that Tony Blair has a vested interest in criticizing Corbyn's leadership?
On the issue of austerity: it seems to me that Lab have lost this argument with the public for the time being, so what's the point of keeping going on about it. Talk about something else. Elect someone who will talk about other matters, like how you grow through science, tech and innovation.
...Oh, Chukka's not running.
Austerity, whether good or not, is the defining issue of the times. If you shut up about it, what's the point of being a politician?
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).
Yeah, Sean's accusations were a teensy bit extreme. Saying that 'a very big base of support' within Labour 'wants to kill all White Men' should really be supported with some kind of evidence.
"Kill All White Men" is a reference to the Student Union Officer at LSE, who uses it as her hashtag. She means at as a "joke" rather than literally.
OK, so a slight exaggeration on your part then? The 'joke' might not really have 'a very big base of support' within Labour.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.
Among feminists, being a men's rights activist is considered equivalent to being a white supremacist. Personally, I don't understand why we need to divide ourselves up to only campaign against crimes against our particular group. If you're concerned about domestic violence, why not be concerned about all people affected by it, male or female, black or white?
On the issue of austerity: it seems to me that Lab have lost this argument with the public for the time being, so what's the point of keeping going on about it. Talk about something else. Elect someone who will talk about other matters, like how you grow through science, tech and innovation.
...Oh, Chukka's not running.
Austerity, whether good or not, is the defining issue of the times. If you shut up about it, what's the point of being a politician?
Might I suggest that debt is the defining issue of the times. The squabbles about austerity are just arguments about how best to deal with the issue.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.
It's because men are conditioned to accept that it's not "manly" to complain. (It's also why it is so difficult for some men to go to the Doctors.) I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves. (They reject the anti-male extremists) It's am agenda that I readily support.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).
Yeah, Sean's accusations were a teensy bit extreme. Saying that 'a very big base of support' within Labour 'wants to kill all White Men' should really be supported with some kind of evidence.
"Kill All White Men" is a reference to the Student Union Officer at LSE, who uses it as her hashtag. She means at as a "joke" rather than literally.
OK, so a slight exaggeration on your part then? The 'joke' might not really have 'a very big base of support' within Labour.
The Student Union Officer in question has joked about killing white men and supports events where whites are barred. Yet she is still in good standing in her post. Can you imagine how the university would have reacted had a male officer joked about killing black women and supported events where blacks are barred? Clearly, among segments of the left, certain types or racism and sexism are tolerated.
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves.
Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k Lab - 18.9k UKIP - 7.8k LD - 2.3k Green - 1.9k Other - 0.4k Non-Voters - Approx 31k Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
I am old enough to remember the celebrations in Labour circles back in February 1975 when Thatcher ousted Heath. Many thought her to be far too right-wing and shrill to ever be able to win an election. Things turned out a bit differently!
There is actually an argument - if you are a Liz Kendall supporter - to put Jeremy Corbyn as your second preference i.e. that he proves such a disaster that the party comes to its senses and votes for Liz after JC is deposed. Burnham and Cooper, on the other hand, would mean Liz would not have a chance to become leader, at least before 2020.
In that case, JC may become leader when LK is knocked out and her votes distributed.
Awareness of violence against men is where awareness of violence against women was thirty years ago.
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.
I wouldn't be surprised if violence against men is dramatically under-reported. The gender-stereotype that men must but stoic, strong, and not cry, seen in the awfully jokey attitude to male rape, for example is still very much a part of our society. It's one of the reasons why I'm a Feminist who fights against gender stereotypes - it creates stupid expectations of what 'being a man' is, and makes many male victims of violence feel they will not be taken seriously.
I don't think Miliband was being intentionally 'misrandic' - there is a wide-prevailing narrative in our society of seeing women and girls as vulnerable, in a way that men just aren't seen, and there isn't enough done to counter that, so people buy into it as a default view. I'm not surprised Miliband, like many others, has as well. Many of the victims of the Rotherham scandal, for example are young men. This is something I found out a short while ago. Yet the media narrative focuses on the young female victims - because the idea of the young, vulnerable female sells. It's all very sad.
On the discounting of male violence, I think looking at CIF, and Telegraph articles on any gender equality issue can partly explain why. I think there are some out there who, everytime any issue on violence against women, or rape is discussed engage in whataboutery. The most recent example I saw was on a Telegraph article on suicide being one of the biggest killers of young girls/women across the world. As I said before, among quite a few men they don't even feel women's equality groups should be involved in these issues. Reading CIF articles on this in particular, that seems to be the message, along with blaming Feminism for male suicides.
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
Does that include churn? If you give me a link to the data I'll try and work it out for myself, and report back to the thread. Ta.
Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k Lab - 18.9k UKIP - 7.8k LD - 2.3k Green - 1.9k Other - 0.4k Non-Voters - Approx 31k Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
From the Guardian Article I linked to earlier:
"Reluctance to talk about what it would take to befriend that constituency [2015 Conservative voters] is a symptom of deeper delusion in the Labour party. It is the belief that there is some way of doing politics that navigates around Conservative voters instead of sailing towards them"
Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k Lab - 18.9k UKIP - 7.8k LD - 2.3k Green - 1.9k Other - 0.4k Non-Voters - Approx 31k Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
JC will find it very hard to get half of the UKIP vote - many of the "Red Kippers" have very strident views on immigration, defence etc and are likely to be repelled by his views. If anything, it will push more traditional Labour WWC voters to UKIP.
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.
Among feminists, being a men's rights activist is considered equivalent to being a white supremacist. Personally, I don't understand why we need to divide ourselves up to only campaign against crimes against our particular group. If you're concerned about domestic violence, why not be concerned about all people affected by it, male or female, black or white?
I have to say, I really don't have a good opinion of MRAs.
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves.
...
Are such people actually feminists?
Yes. I'm one. Most Feminists I've met do not believe in gender stereotypes.
There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
Like the Milifans - it sounds as if they need a little more bromide in their tea, and a cold shower.
In the words of Edmund Blackadder "blind, desperate, and haven't had it in months."
What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.
It's because men are conditioned to accept that it's not "manly" to complain. (It's also why it is so difficult for some men to go to the Doctors.) I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves. (They reject the anti-male extremists) It's am agenda that I readily support.
I know of two men - one who was repeatedly assaulted and stalked by his girlfriend. And another who committed suicide after being virtually being hen-pecked to death by emotional abuse.
That I know two tells me that it's not that rare. I'd much rather domestic abuse was simply that - nothing to do with your chromosomes.
Awareness of violence against men is where awareness of violence against women was thirty years ago.
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.
I wouldn't be surprised if violence against men is dramatically under-reported. The gender-stereotype that men must but stoic, strong, and not cry, seen in the awfully jokey attitude to male rape, for example is still very much a part of our society. It's one of the reasons why I'm a Feminist who fights against gender stereotypes - it creates stupid expectations of what 'being a man' is, and makes many male victims of violence feel they will not be taken seriously.
I don't think Miliband was being intentionally 'misrandic' - there is a wide-prevailing narrative in our society of seeing women and girls as vulnerable, in a way that men just aren't seen, and there isn't enough done to counter that, so people buy into it as a default view. I'm not surprised Miliband, like many others, has as well. Many of the victims of the Rotherham scandal, for example are young men. This is something I found out a short while ago. Yet the media narrative focuses on the young female victims - because the idea of the young, vulnerable female sells. It's all very sad.
On the discounting of male violence, I think looking at CIF, and Telegraph articles on any gender equality issue can partly explain why. I think there are some out there who, everytime any issue on violence against women, or rape is discussed engage in whataboutery. The most recent example I saw was on a Telegraph article on suicide being one of the biggest killers of young girls/women across the world. As I said before, among quite a few men they don't even feel women's equality groups should be involved in these issues. Reading CIF articles on this in particular, that seems to be the message, along with blaming Feminism for male suicides.
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
Does that include churn? If you give me a link to the data I'll try and work it out for myself, and report back to the thread. Ta.
I think it is probably a Net figure to be fair. TSE covered on a Thread here on June 29th.
Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k Lab - 18.9k UKIP - 7.8k LD - 2.3k Green - 1.9k Other - 0.4k Non-Voters - Approx 31k Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
What makes you think that anymore of the lib dems will go to labour? If anything Farron should start eating back into Labour s they move on from the defeat of the coalition and set themselves up again as a party of the left.
and thats assuming Corbyn wouldn't suffer any further losses from the middle to the Tory.
There's a whole lot of hoops to jump and basically saying they'll mop up everything possible to the left (including UKIP support, whilst being pro-immigration and pro multicultual) without losing anything at all in the centre...
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves.
There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
Mumsnet is like CiF for left-wing mothers. I'm surprised they don't view Corbyn as a sellout.
Awareness of violence against men is where awareness of violence against women was thirty years ago.
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.
I wouldn't be surprised if violence against men is dramatically under-reported. The gender-stereotype that men must but stoic, strong, and not cry, seen in the awfully jokey attitude to male rape, for example is still very much a part of our society. It's one of the reasons why I'm a Feminist who fights against gender stereotypes - it creates stupid expectations of what 'being a man' is, and makes many male victims of violence feel they will not be taken seriously.
I don't think Miliband was being intentionally 'misrandic' - there is a wide-prevailing narrative in our society of seeing women and girls as vulnerable, in a way that men just aren't seen, and there isn't enough done to counter that, so people buy into it as a default view. I'm not surprised Miliband, like many others, has as well. Many of the victims of the Rotherham scandal, for example are young men. This is something I found out a short while ago. Yet the media narrative focuses on the young female victims - because the idea of the young, vulnerable female sells. It's all very sad.
On the discounting of male violence, I think looking at CIF, and Telegraph articles on any gender equality issue can partly explain why. I think there are some out there who, everytime any issue on violence against women, or rape is discussed engage in whataboutery. The most recent example I saw was on a Telegraph article on suicide being one of the biggest killers of young girls/women across the world. As I said before, among quite a few men they don't even feel women's equality groups should be involved in these issues. Reading CIF articles on this in particular, that seems to be the message, along with blaming Feminism for male suicides.
The way that manifests itself the most is in the very high rates of male suicides. Often in violent ("manly") ways, like throwing yourself off a building or in front of a train rather than drugs OD.
There is actually an argument - if you are a Liz Kendall supporter - to put Jeremy Corbyn as your second preference i.e. that he proves such a disaster that the party comes to its senses and votes for Liz after JC is deposed. Burnham and Cooper, on the other hand, would mean Liz would not have a chance to become leader, at least before 2020.
In that case, JC may become leader when LK is knocked out and her votes distributed.
I wouldn't be so sure - knifing Corbyn without giving him a chance to fight an election could provoke a split that loses half the base. But Ed Miliband's result will have left a lot of Labour supporters thinking it would have been good to have a policy of ditching unconvincingly left-wing, vaguely populist leaders who are generally turning out to be a bit shit, and Andy Burnham seems to be auditioning for that role.
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves.
...
Are such people actually feminists?
Yes. I'm one. Most Feminists I've met do not believe in gender stereotypes.
On that basis I am a feminist too. Somewhere I think I am missing something?
Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k Lab - 18.9k UKIP - 7.8k LD - 2.3k Green - 1.9k Other - 0.4k Non-Voters - Approx 31k Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
Yeah, and if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.
That does rather strike me as starting from the conclusion you'd like to see, and then making some assumptions about how that could happen to convince yourself it's feasible.
We saw similar things about the Red Liberals in the 2010-2015 parliament.
The Liberal Democrats were decimated, and the Tories won a majority.
I have to say, I really don't have a good opinion of MRAs.
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.
That's because people are often attacked by the centre-left consensus for campaigning on men's rights, so most of the ones willing to actively identify themselves as such are the aggressive ones that don't care. I have certainly had some very nasty verbal attacks from online feminists for pointing out that men also suffer from rape and domestic violence, or for mentioning that young men have unfairly had their lives wrecked by lack of due process in US universities, or that men face discrimination in both criminal and family courts. To explicitly describe myself as a "men's right activist" on top of that would not go down well. I thus just call myself an egalitarian, supporting equal rights for both men and women.
There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
Mumsnet is like CiF for left-wing mothers. I'm surprised they don't view Corbyn as a sellout.
There are some quite vociferous hard left voices on MN, but it's not CiF. The AIBU threads can be very funny, and the regular Friday Night Bum-Sex threads certainly raise a few eyebrows...
I have to say, I really don't have a good opinion of MRAs.
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.
That's because people are often attacked by the centre-left consensus for campaigning on men's rights, so most of the ones willing to actively identify themselves as such are the aggressive ones that don't care. I have certainly had some very nasty verbal attacks from online feminists for pointing out that men also suffer from rape and domestic violence, or for mentioning that young men have unfairly had their lives wrecked by lack of due process in US universities, or that men face discrimination in both criminal and family courts. To explicitly describe myself as a "men's right activist" on top of that would not go down well. I thus just call myself an egalitarian, supporting equal rights for both men and women.
The trouble is, is that Men's Rights, actively implies Men do not have rights. Where I think men face issues and problems, is in social attitudes and behaviours towards them (such male violence, gender stereotypes) not that they literally have no rights. I think there are extremists on both sides - I've been the recipient of attacks from MRAs, especially during the Elliot Rogers saga.
It's like women/Feminism in the West - women today have rights, and although there some important structural inequalities they face, a large part of the battle for equality is down to social attitudes towards women, and rape/violence etc. Where women do not have rights, is in countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia.
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k) North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k Lab - 18.9k UKIP - 7.8k LD - 2.3k Green - 1.9k Other - 0.4k Non-Voters - Approx 31k Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
Yeah, and if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.
That does rather strike me as starting from the conclusion you'd like to see, and then making some assumptions about how that could happen to convince yourself it's feasible.
We saw similar things about the Red Liberals in the 2010-2015 parliament.
The Liberal Democrats were decimated, and the Tories won a majority.
There's no chance that half of UKIP voters would switch to Labour under Corbyn.
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k) North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.
I have to say, I really don't have a good opinion of MRAs.
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.
That's because people are often attacked by the centre-left consensus for campaigning on men's rights, so most of the ones willing to actively identify themselves as such are the aggressive ones that don't care. I have certainly had some very nasty verbal attacks from online feminists for pointing out that men also suffer from rape and domestic violence, or for mentioning that young men have unfairly had their lives wrecked by lack of due process in US universities, or that men face discrimination in both criminal and family courts. To explicitly describe myself as a "men's right activist" on top of that would not go down well. I thus just call myself an egalitarian, supporting equal rights for both men and women.
The trouble is, is that Men's Rights, actively implies Men do not have rights. Where I think men face issues and problems, is in social attitudes and behaviours towards them (such male violence, gender stereotypes) not that they literally have no rights. I think there are extremists on both sides - I've been the recipient of attacks from MRAs, especially during the Elliot Rogers saga.
It's like women/Feminism in the West - women today have rights, and although there some important structural inequalities they face, a large part of the battle for equality is down to social attitudes towards women, and rape/violence etc. Where women do not have rights, is in countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia.
I don't think it means that men have no rights. It just means that they are fighting for men's rights to be protected and upheld.
As I said though, I don't like when people only are interested in the rights of a particular demographic. It feels divisive.
The Labour party's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn today is reminiscent of the Leonard Cohen line: "you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win".
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k) North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.
We are at cross purposes. I have been talking about the 2010 election not 2015. My point was there is a large chunk of the electorate who switched from Blair in 2005 to Cameron in 2010. Labour should be targetting these people, rather than DNV (unlikely to again) or the Greens and LDs (I can't see the remaining LDs switching if they didn't in 2015)
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k) North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.
You're making a mistake. You're looking at all seats.
You need to look at the seats that matter, such as the marginals.
For example the Tories increased their share of the vote by around 3% in the marginals.
Helps explain why in marginals like Warwickshire North and Stockton South the Tory majority increased substantially.
Labour increasing their share of the vote by lots in places like Manchester Gorton skews the national picture.
@HurstLlama, Well it's up to you, if you see yourself as a Feminist or not. I can't make that decision
I'll try the idea out on Herself when she gets home this evening (off on a day's walk with her friend and that despite the work that needs doing on the allotment and God knows when she last cleaned behind the fridge). "Dearest", I shall say, "A lady on PB.com suggests that I might be a feminist, what do you think?" The howls of derisive laughter will probably be heard in the next village.
The Labour party's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn today is reminiscent of the Leonard Cohen line: "you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win".
I've managed to segue in lyrics from Hallelujah into this weekend's thread about Corbyn/AV
Top two candidates at final voting stage 8/13 Corbyn/Burnham 5/2 Corbyn/Cooper 4/1 Burnham/Cooper 20/1 Corbyn/Kendall 33/1 Burnham/Kendall 66/1 Cooper/Kendall
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k) North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.
We are at cross purposes. I have been talking about the 2010 election not 2015. My point was there is a large chunk of the electorate who switched from Blair in 2005 to Cameron in 2010. Labour should be targetting these people, rather than DNV (unlikely to again) or the Greens and LDs (I can't see the remaining LDs switching if they didn't in 2015)
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k) North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.
You're making a mistake. You're looking at all seats.
You need to look at the seats that matter, such as the marginals.
For example the Tories increased their share of the vote by around 3% in the marginals.
Helps explain why in marginals like Warwickshire North and Stockton South the Tory majority increased substantially.
Labour increasing their share of the vote by lots in places like Manchester Gorton skews the national picture.
The conservatives also gained circa a million votes (0.63 rounded up)
Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votes
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k) North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.
You're making a mistake. You're looking at all seats.
You need to look at the seats that matter, such as the marginals.
For example the Tories increased their share of the vote by around 3% in the marginals.
Helps explain why in marginals like Warwickshire North and Stockton South the Tory majority increased substantially.
Labour increasing their share of the vote by lots in places like Manchester Gorton skews the national picture.
I am aware of all of that - and I am indeed looking at the overall GB changes!
I have to say that personally, no matter what his politics, I could not support Corbyn given the choice he made to separate from his wife over a matter of ideology - or political expediency. To break up your family because you disagree where your son should go to school for ideological reasons seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
Reading the comments section in Labour list is an enlightening experience. Absolutely bonkers and yet they are absolutely convinced people will vote for a) higher taxes and b) more borrowing.
On another note, I've been blocked by Diane Abbott for calling one of her comments 'patronising. If this is corbyns gang then I really see no hope for Labour.
I have to say that personally, no matter what his politics, I could not support Corbyn given the choice he made to separate from his wife over a matter of ideology - or political expediency. To break up your family because you disagree where your son should go to school for ideological reasons seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.
@SamCoatesTimes: Margaret Beckett: I was moron to nominate Jeremy Corbyn -I'm told to expect more "morons" to come out in coming days http://t.co/UG7goCDQ7D
Yougov is WRONG, they used the WRONG demographic weightings on their Labour leadership poll. Normally the Labour members skew about 70/30 towards Men, but Yougov weighted it 50/50, if corrected that alone reduces Corbyn's total by 2% and makes the 2nd place too close to call, also they haven't used any turnout filters. All those corrections will have to be done now manually.
My first impression now is that Corby is ahead by far less than thought, and Burnham and Cooper are tied for second place.
The Labour party's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn today is reminiscent of the Leonard Cohen line: "you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win".
I've managed to segue in lyrics from Hallelujah into this weekend's thread about Corbyn/AV
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
I have to say that personally, no matter what his politics, I could not support Corbyn given the choice he made to separate from his wife over a matter of ideology - or political expediency. To break up your family because you disagree where your son should go to school for ideological reasons seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.
Party before Family.
More than that, he chose his personal purity over the well being of his family.
There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
Mumsnet is like CiF for left-wing mothers. I'm surprised they don't view Corbyn as a sellout.
Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k Lab - 18.9k UKIP - 7.8k LD - 2.3k Green - 1.9k Other - 0.4k Non-Voters - Approx 31k Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
Yeah, and if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.
That does rather strike me as starting from the conclusion you'd like to see, and then making some assumptions about how that could happen to convince yourself it's feasible.
We saw similar things about the Red Liberals in the 2010-2015 parliament.
The Liberal Democrats were decimated, and the Tories won a majority.
It isn't a prediction. In fact I think it is highly unlikely. I'm just showing that it not entirely out of the question.
The Labour party's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn today is reminiscent of the Leonard Cohen line: "you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win".
I've managed to segue in lyrics from Hallelujah into this weekend's thread about Corbyn/AV
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
Corbyn's Gang of Five? What must they be thinking today?
Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy
Like the captain of this vessel. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kAjQdeyiHc
I believe so. It's the actor Paul Darrow. Everyone I knew in those days used to love Blake's Seven, but I never had time for TV. I was working like a dog at the time.
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.
This "couldn't even win his own state" business is a pile of pants, the state in question is Tennessee, which Obama lost 60/40 to Romney. US politics has a home-state advantage, especially for small states, but it's not that big.
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.
PPP and Suffolk all have Clinton up against various GOP opponents at the moment, to be honest its all noise at this stage really.
She's in trouble if they nominate Rubio IMHO. She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).
She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).
Promising to rip up deals is generally good politics, you can pretend you'd have negotiated a better deal that keeps all the good bits and makes the other side give more concessions.
I have to say that personally, no matter what his politics, I could not support Corbyn given the choice he made to separate from his wife over a matter of ideology - or political expediency. To break up your family because you disagree where your son should go to school for ideological reasons seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.
I actually prefer it to the usual hypocrisy we get from the political class.
Corbyn is anti-war, anti Heathrow and more Eurosceptic than most in Labour. Of course his opinions on the economy and immigration are daft, but then so is every Labour politician's, it's just he doesn't pretend to have contrary opinions.
She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).
Promising to rip up deals is generally good politics, you can pretend you'd have negotiated a better deal that keeps all the good bits and makes the other side give more concessions.
Good politics for the base at this stage. More difficult when you're trying to project a image of competence at a presidential debate.
He's also just signed an abortion ban beyond 20 weeks in Wisconsin. This has already been deemed unconstitutional in a couple of states. So he's basically saying 'Screw the Constitution, I'm going to waste loads of tax payers money on layers to boost my conservative credentials'.
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.
PPP and Suffolk all have Clinton up against various GOP opponents at the moment, to be honest its all noise at this stage really.
She's in trouble if they nominate Rubio IMHO. She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).
Hilary opposes the Iran deal too, also she was the nut who has been the driving force behind Libya and the Ukraine. An extreme R2P interventionist.
Hilary really struggling against Walker who I rate and I expect to win, if and its a big if, the well ahead Trump fades.
If you want to undersand just how completely out with the fairies Jeremy Corbyn is simply on economic matters, consider his speech today:
Another option would be to strip out some of the huge tax reliefs and subsidies on offer to the corporate sector. These amount to £93 billion a year - money which would be better used in direct public investment, which in turn would give a stimulus to private sector supply chains.
£93bn of tax reliefs and subsidies 'which would be better used in direct public investment"? What is this money?
The answer can be found in his source, a Guardian article of quite spectacular financial, arithmetic and logical ineptitude even by Guardian standards:
Included in the figure are regional development funds (does he really want to cancel these?), payments for government procurement, subsidies to train operators (I admire his über-right wing credentials if he wants full market rates for railways), alleged 'subsidies' to airlines by not charging duty on aircraft fuel (good luck with that one, Jeremy - you do realise they can fill up in other countries, I suppose?), capital allowances (you can be quite certain that he doesn't understand these at all), and the costs of dismantling the public-sector built nuclear power stations.
It is dismal that the once-great Guardian newspaper would publish such utter tosh, but that a prospective leader of the Labour Party actually takes it seriously is even more astonishing.
Yougov is WRONG, they used the WRONG demographic weightings on their Labour leadership poll. Normally the Labour members skew about 70/30 towards Men, but Yougov weighted it 50/50, if corrected that alone reduces Corbyn's total by 2% and makes the 2nd place too close to call, also they haven't used any turnout filters. All those corrections will have to be done now manually.
My first impression now is that Corby is ahead by far less than thought, and Burnham and Cooper are tied for second place.
LOL, typical. YouGov haven't learned anything from May 2015.
Surely it has to be factored in that Corbyn's position should significantly improve from where it is today.
The reason is that UNITE is still signing up people to vote. And this poll is going to give them a heck of a lot of encouragement to sign up as many more as they can. And these new sign-ups are going to be disproportionately for Corbyn.
In contrast Burnham and Cooper are not going to be able to get late sign-ups to anything like the same degree.
Comments
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/abuse/Pages/domestic-violence-against-men.aspx
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.
On the issue of austerity: it seems to me that Lab have lost this argument with the public for the time being, so what's the point of keeping going on about it. Talk about something else. Elect someone who will talk about other matters, like how you grow through science, tech and innovation.
...Oh, Chukka's not running.
Michael Deacon
✔ @MichaelPDeacon
Corbyn's response to Blair: "I think Tony Blair's big problem is we're still waiting for the Chilcot Report to come out"
Foot's 1983 manifesto, aka The Longest Suicide Note in History, I remember as being greeted with huge derision and in some quarters despair. However, at that time it didn't really matter what Labour put into its manifesto, they were always going to lose that election and lose it badly.
The 'joke' might not really have 'a very big base of support' within Labour.
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves. (They reject the anti-male extremists) It's am agenda that I readily support.
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
In that case, JC may become leader when LK is knocked out and her votes distributed.
I don't think Miliband was being intentionally 'misrandic' - there is a wide-prevailing narrative in our society of seeing women and girls as vulnerable, in a way that men just aren't seen, and there isn't enough done to counter that, so people buy into it as a default view. I'm not surprised Miliband, like many others, has as well. Many of the victims of the Rotherham scandal, for example are young men. This is something I found out a short while ago. Yet the media narrative focuses on the young female victims - because the idea of the young, vulnerable female sells. It's all very sad.
On the discounting of male violence, I think looking at CIF, and Telegraph articles on any gender equality issue can partly explain why. I think there are some out there who, everytime any issue on violence against women, or rape is discussed engage in whataboutery. The most recent example I saw was on a Telegraph article on suicide being one of the biggest killers of young girls/women across the world. As I said before, among quite a few men they don't even feel women's equality groups should be involved in these issues. Reading CIF articles on this in particular, that seems to be the message, along with blaming Feminism for male suicides.
If you give me a link to the data I'll try and work it out for myself, and report back to the thread. Ta.
"Reluctance to talk about what it would take to befriend that constituency [2015 Conservative voters] is a symptom of deeper delusion in the Labour party. It is the belief that there is some way of doing politics that navigates around Conservative voters instead of sailing towards them"
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.
In the words of Edmund Blackadder "blind, desperate, and haven't had it in months."
That I know two tells me that it's not that rare. I'd much rather domestic abuse was simply that - nothing to do with your chromosomes.
and thats assuming Corbyn wouldn't suffer any further losses from the middle to the Tory.
There's a whole lot of hoops to jump and basically saying they'll mop up everything possible to the left (including UKIP support, whilst being pro-immigration and pro multicultual) without losing anything at all in the centre...
That does rather strike me as starting from the conclusion you'd like to see, and then making some assumptions about how that could happen to convince yourself it's feasible.
We saw similar things about the Red Liberals in the 2010-2015 parliament.
The Liberal Democrats were decimated, and the Tories won a majority.
@HurstLlama, Well it's up to you, if you see yourself as a Feminist or not. I can't make that decision
There are some quite vociferous hard left voices on MN, but it's not CiF. The AIBU threads can be very funny, and the regular Friday Night Bum-Sex threads certainly raise a few eyebrows...
It's like women/Feminism in the West - women today have rights, and although there some important structural inequalities they face, a large part of the battle for equality is down to social attitudes towards women, and rape/violence etc. Where women do not have rights, is in countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k)
North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy
As I said though, I don't like when people only are interested in the rights of a particular demographic. It feels divisive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kAjQdeyiHc
And that's Avon from Blake's Seven isn't it?
You need to look at the seats that matter, such as the marginals.
For example the Tories increased their share of the vote by around 3% in the marginals.
Helps explain why in marginals like Warwickshire North and Stockton South the Tory majority increased substantially.
Labour increasing their share of the vote by lots in places like Manchester Gorton skews the national picture.
http://t.co/S5z7iShQKu
Top two candidates at final voting stage
8/13 Corbyn/Burnham
5/2 Corbyn/Cooper
4/1 Burnham/Cooper
20/1 Corbyn/Kendall
33/1 Burnham/Kendall
66/1 Cooper/Kendall
AH BUT YOU'VE ROUNDED IT UP, I hear
Labour gained 0.74 million votes.
It's really, hardly worth crowing about.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/its_time_to_draft_al_gore_if_democrats_want_to_win_its_clear_neither_hillary_nor_sanders_is_the_way/
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.
On another note, I've been blocked by Diane Abbott for calling one of her comments 'patronising. If this is corbyns gang then I really see no hope for Labour.
Yougov is WRONG, they used the WRONG demographic weightings on their Labour leadership poll.
Normally the Labour members skew about 70/30 towards Men, but Yougov weighted it 50/50, if corrected that alone reduces Corbyn's total by 2% and makes the 2nd place too close to call, also they haven't used any turnout filters.
All those corrections will have to be done now manually.
My first impression now is that Corby is ahead by far less than thought, and Burnham and Cooper are tied for second place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
Left-wing mothers...is there a missing word?
http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-no-slump-after-attacks-on-mccain/
She's in trouble if they nominate Rubio IMHO. She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).
Corbyn is anti-war, anti Heathrow and more Eurosceptic than most in Labour. Of course his opinions on the economy and immigration are daft, but then so is every Labour politician's, it's just he doesn't pretend to have contrary opinions.
He's also just signed an abortion ban beyond 20 weeks in Wisconsin. This has already been deemed unconstitutional in a couple of states. So he's basically saying 'Screw the Constitution, I'm going to waste loads of tax payers money on layers to boost my conservative credentials'.
New thread.
Hilary really struggling against Walker who I rate and I expect to win, if and its a big if, the well ahead Trump fades.
Another option would be to strip out some of the huge tax reliefs and subsidies on offer to the corporate sector. These amount to £93 billion a year - money which would be better used in direct public investment, which in turn would give a stimulus to private sector supply chains.
£93bn of tax reliefs and subsidies 'which would be better used in direct public investment"? What is this money?
The answer can be found in his source, a Guardian article of quite spectacular financial, arithmetic and logical ineptitude even by Guardian standards:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake
Included in the figure are regional development funds (does he really want to cancel these?), payments for government procurement, subsidies to train operators (I admire his über-right wing credentials if he wants full market rates for railways), alleged 'subsidies' to airlines by not charging duty on aircraft fuel (good luck with that one, Jeremy - you do realise they can fill up in other countries, I suppose?), capital allowances (you can be quite certain that he doesn't understand these at all), and the costs of dismantling the public-sector built nuclear power stations.
It is dismal that the once-great Guardian newspaper would publish such utter tosh, but that a prospective leader of the Labour Party actually takes it seriously is even more astonishing.
The reason is that UNITE is still signing up people to vote. And this poll is going to give them a heck of a lot of encouragement to sign up as many more as they can. And these new sign-ups are going to be disproportionately for Corbyn.
In contrast Burnham and Cooper are not going to be able to get late sign-ups to anything like the same degree.