politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Mr Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Mr Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up non-voters might be flawed
Mr Corbyn’s plan has the major flaw that in the 100 seats with the lowest turnout in England Labour hold 94 of them, and 95 out of the 100 seats with the lowest turnout in England and Wales.
0
Comments
Agree entirely with the article, Labour need to take seats like Nuneaton, Bolton, Corby just keep the Tories out. To actually get a majority they need to be overturning 8000 majorities in Cheltenham and Milton Keynes. Getting a 30,000 majority in Liverpool won't make up for it!
Anne Summers trying to crack the nun market. Actually....
Truly stomach churning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tChvX-kDCV0&feature=youtu.be
Worst bit - when she tells some 8yo girl that she'll earn less than a 8yo boy when she grows up when the facts are, she'll earn more.
If you can't get people to vote for council elections - and the voting station was within walking distance (200 meters) of the area - it's unlikely they can be a##ed to vote in a GE..
Anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro defence etc etc.
Corbyn is offering the Green Party's 2015 manifesto as a prospectus.
I hope we're not at a stage where slagging off a poster is off-limits because said poster is lacking a winkie.
If I were to give TSE or Sunil or Max a verbal pasting, would that make me racist?
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
The main flaw with constituency polling was that and more people said they would vote than actually did.
"The flaw in Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up non-voters and the young might be flawed"
Whereas the URL says: "Why Mr Corbyn's plan ... might be flawed."
The erroneous one makes it sound as if the flaw might be flawed, and therefore Corbyn's flawed plan might not be flawed. I think this flawed headline should be unflawed before it causes someone to reach flawed conclusions ...
"SLAB have just put out the most nauseating and patronising PPB I've ever seen that didn't end with a splash for the Liberals."
Very poor. Such a difficult way of presenting I really can't imagine that it came through an agency. Perhaps it had something to do with having no money?
They are polar opposites.
Mmm.
Worse still is the dishonesty. He, and Labour, know perfectly well that their plans are a complete shambles and don't add up. They could so easily make space for themselves, but they don't. Instead they come out with meaningless generalities, and make preposterous claims. I really didn't think that any party could ever come up with someone that was worse than Brown, but I'm actually starting to warm to the steaming Scottish sack in comparison with the current nonsense from Labour.
And Corbyn is clearly targeting the young. We all want to sweep away the practicalities when we're young, and we all realise sooner or later that it's not that simple. For an ancient and supposedly wise man of Corbyn's years to simply come up with views that any teenager might espouse is just risible.
It's why the raw numbers looked so good for UKIP (and Labour too)
This problem would not exist if only Labour had elected Burnham. Sigh...
That's fine, except that they've immediately teleported onto Planet Stupid by talking to a bunch of serial non-voters. Knock yourselves out Labourites.
Now, I've certainly mentioned a few things about Corbyn, but I have been very surprised at the level of knowledge of him and Labour my relative has picked up, as I've not gone into anything like that kind of detail, so kudos to Corbyn and Labour for attracting the attention of some non-voters at least.
Granted, it will mean nothing in this seat, as I doubt they will choose to vote to stop Labour either, and in any case it is a safe Tory seat, but I declare this anecdote absolute proof of the gods that a 'target non-voters' strategy won't always result in Labour support picking up.
As for Plato: she gets attacked fairly mercilessly by certain posters, and it is hard to see a real reason aside from the fact she is a woman who dares to speak her mind and have an opinion. This is particularly true for Roger, who has a noted misogynistic past on here.
The following seems to sum up Roger's views on women who dare to have opinions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
For some reason people didn't bother to poll Clacton but I think downweighting non voters would have still shown Carswell winning.
I thought you was leaving us for a few months? Did Mike make you an offer you couldn't refuse?
Rise of DIP ?
Next time you hear how awful our striving to own a home culture is ...
I'll still make the occasional contribution below the line.
But that'll be your lot from me for a while.
Seriously, if this sort of thing continues for much longer, there's going to be some very interesting election results in Europe in the next couple of years. The current crop of politicians seem to believe that the views of the electorate can be ignored with impunity.
If I remember correctly winning South Thanet was massively dependent on non-voters turning out. I think Louise Mensch was banging on about it at the time.
Are you 12?
http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/muslim-migrants-sexual-assault-spree-in-holland.html/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
(What follows is entirely general and hypothetical - I'd not throw the woman out of her home for a moment)
She assumes that she has some sort of right to be housed by the state at the state's expense. Surely 'we got bored of you, figured you'd never amount to much, and decided that your home would be better used by these nice new shiny people' is an argument that could be made.
It seems to me that state hand-outs have to have some sort of limitation somewhere. Something that takes a 23-year supportee of the state and turns them into someone that benefits from their investment in the country. Equally a Syrian refugee needs to be going great guns to repay the state if and when they can.
Corbyn does the decent thing and shuffles off his mortal coil in 2018 leaving the scene set for a voter-friendly LOTO. Cue lots of sympathetic articles for Labour. There's no other way he won't lead Labour into 2020.
At least he can't go doolally - he's already there.
I think what happened (and this is based on my own campaigning experience as well what I've heard from other people)
When it came to election day people would always come back to the Tories. See the Lord Ashcroft poll that had Mark Reckless winning the by election in November 2014 but losing the seat at the general election.
I think they were always going to lose voters back to the Tories, but the SNP angle amplified it in the English marginals.
The two things very few of us saw was Lab to UKIP swing and the Lib Dem to Con swing.
Everyone assumed UKIP would damage the Tories and they didn't.
I didn't think it was possible for UKIP to poll 13% and for there to be a Tory majority.
But that's what we got.
And as TSE has pointed out, there are fewer non-voters in marginal (unsurprisingly, as their vote matters more there and is sought after more).
I jest, of course.
From the video it looks like Russia is using anti personnel bomblets as well as missiles and heavier bombs.
"In Holland new arrivals go on a rape spree:"
From the website "Stop the Islamization of America"
Why a racist like you is allowed to post on a website like this amazes me. But it seems you're among friends.
It requires an assumption. That is that Jeremy Corbyn has absolutely no interest in becoming PM of the United Kingdom.
Once you accept that it is pretty clear that everything which is going on is a smokescreen, the chaos, the bizarre cabinet appointments who are more of an opposition to him than the Tories, the concilliatory but contradictory statements he is making.
It's all a cover to get the PLPs eye off the ball while hee floods the NEC with his supporters. As I understand it, the NEC is *everything* in Labour and the way it currently works was specifically designed by Kinnock and enhanced by Blair to put complete complete control of the party into the few hands on the NEC.
The NEC controls the policy, the agenda and the candidates. And Jezza is now in complete control of that. He can now use the next few years to transform Labour into a "proper" Socialist party, with a socialist platform and socialist PPCs for 2020.
He loses in 2020 but at that point he has replaced the bulk of Blairites and Brownits with the loony left, he can stand aside and let one of the younger generation (probably someone he's placed on the NEC and not in the Shadow Cabinet) take over.
To me this seems to be a worthwhile goal for someone with Corbyn's mindset. If that is his goal, he has already succeeded.
You might have spotted Jezza's cunning plan.
I assume the best way to second guess Jezza is to consider ... what would Napoleon do?
Napoleon the pig in Animal Farm, of course.
I still disagree with him, though. Such power rarely leads to anything other than evil.
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
That was fundamental to everything that happened in Labour (for good and bad after 1987. The NEC became everything, all powerful and all controlling. Because : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
This is the core of the lunacy when Ed Miliband decided to replace the College with OMOV for Leader. As soon as the decision was made to go to OMOV the party suddenly put all the power into the hands of the party members so that, if they chose the "right" leader the NEC would reform in that new leaders image. It was utter stupidity. Because : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
Look at Blair, who in 1997 had nearly unparalleled power in British politics.
Now, if we had PR. .......
No, NOT AV!
Kinnock must be going bonkers that the various idiots he spent a decade kicking out of the party are now back with a vengeance.
I'll be honest, I reckon I could write a barnstormer of a speech for an anti-establishment, anti-Murdoch politician like Corbyn. It wouldn't be difficult to put together a real tub-thumper to have them banging the walls. It needn't be economically coherent or aimed at the middle ground either, it could be pitched merely as an anti-establishment spectacular. One to make them go nuts.
Why didn't Corbyn do this? His effort, for want of a better word, was just boring.
"Barrister who dodged rail fares into London for two years avoids prison.”
And it was his second offence!
There was an argument as to whether he owed the railway company £20k or £6k.
If that had been benefit fraud he’d be in the Scrubs tonight!
Corbyn declines to say 'Israel' while addressing Labour Friends of Israel http://htz.li/3vQ
Archbishop Cranmer @His_Grace 11m11 minutes ago
Archbishop Cranmer Retweeted Haaretz.com
Considering how freely he speaks of Palestine and Gaza, it's almost as though to utter "Israel" would corrupt him.
In fact, when you look at the increase in Russian oil production over the last 15 years, as Western technology was applied to Russian oilfields, it looks pretty awful.
Worth remembering that Russia's total exports in 2014 were the same size as Belgium's. And Belgium doesn't have any oil or gas. (In 2015, Russia's exports will, of course, be less than Belgium's.)
Territorial grabs for the sake of bolstering regimes are not good. And, as much as people may not like them, Blair and Brown did not make territorial grabs in Afghanistan or Iraq.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/a2958691.html
With a lefty audience, a whole raft of new Swampy-hugging followers and targets including Murdoch, America, The Mail, The Tories, posh people, public schoolboys, anyone with money, bankers, energy companies, pro footballers, Thatcher, Katie Hopkins, Clarkson, The Express and the cast of Made in Chelsea I'm sure you'd have them creaming in the aisles.
Not really. The Trident thing shows that Corbyn isn't remotely interested in debate or carrying a message to the voters, or even to the party. Less still is he interested in accommodating his views or compromise.
The idea is you just agree with him. Or you get replaced by someone who does.
He should just put up two fingers at his MPs and say: "The members and others voted for me. They knew very well what I stood for, and that should be our platform."
Instead, he is compromising, and that is the thing that will kill his leadership. Not only does it make him seem fake to his supporters, but it makes him seem weak to his detractors. Unless it is a ploy that will only be kept up until the takeover of the party is complete.