Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s leader rating with YouGov drops to a calamitous mi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s leader rating with YouGov drops to a calamitous minus 41%
Corbyn's YouGov well/badly ratings drops to new low. Just 24% saying he is doing well and 65% badly. Amongst GE2015 LAB voters he's a net -6
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Con 41% (+4) Lab 30% (-1) UKIP 16 (-1) LD 6 (-1)
Changes since late September
BTW what's with all this Discussion ID nonsense I keep getting?
Conservative 350 Labour 218 LD 3 UKIP 1
http://tinyurl.com/nt86h6c
a calamitous minus 41% - Are these numbers worse than Ed?
David Aaronovitch has convinced me even more that these strikes are a bad idea. "As for the question of who will take Raqqa after ISIL are defeated....the answer to that is I don't know."
It's exactly that attitude in the lead-up to Iraq 2003 that led to this mess: when you're only focussed on getting rid of today's evil and don't do any forward planning on what will replace it, leaving a vacuum where this sort of extremism can flourish even more than now.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/12/almost-four-in-five-party-members-back-air-strikes-on-isis-in-syria-in-our-monthly-poll.html
Let's wait for real votes on Thursday.
I think there is an element of fury in his comments. Sure, political tactics, whether good or bad, too. But I think he is genuine in thinking Corbyn a friend of terrorists and unpatriotic, in a way which no-one thought of Charlie Kennedy as being, despite him taking a similar "no war" stance on Iraq.
And I want to live in a gold-plated mansion.
At this point in the last parliament, Labour was drawing level with the Conservatives, with both parties scoring in high thirties, low forties and oscillating between the two. Labour really are in a mess.
(PS, is it possible to delete old posts?)
http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farrons-email-to-party-members-48480.html
I have my doubts.
Re deleted posts. Only if you ask Mike or Robert nicely, you have about six minutes to edit a post after first publication.
What happens after is not in our gift, we are part of a coalition. You and Corbun and all the rest of the bunch who want to prostrate themselves servile before terror do not want us to be part of anything, even better if you can weaken the aforesaid coalition.
With Orangemen and sandal wearers on board, Cameron doesn't need many from Labour to get a comfy majority.
In all seriousness, what was the context of that comment? I don't really see how it is relevant to anything being discussed, because that possibility is not on the table, not for a loooong time at least, so why bring it up? Is it to suggest other people don't want that?
In any case, since we're dreaming, shouldn't it be a 'democratically elected Syrian government in charge of a united country that also shares our values? I bet she wouldn't be happy if they elected in a government which did all sorts of things we disliked.
History suggests his ratings will now only go one way now and it isn't upwards.
Terrorist.
Sympathiser.
That is going to stick. It is very close to sticking to the entire Labour party - Terrorist Sympathisers. I admit to never really rating Cameron. But he waited and waited and waited and then STRUCK. Labour are finished.
If we just say that the bombing is intended to hurt those who have hurt us, and admit that at heart we actually don't care about the post-bombing political system, then the problem becomes more clearly defined and soluble. You can't kill an idea, but if you kill enough of its proponents you eventually make them too afraid to act on it.
@GoodwinMJ: Con vote in Oldham not all blue-collar. Won't defect en masse to Ukip. Not enough Lib Dems. Seat not as white w.class as Heywood. Lab hold.
It wasnt always the case, around 2012/13. Some very prosperous areas near where I live, probably considered the better off area of the constituency, we were getting lots of ukip switchers, often on issues like gay marriage, and the tax that never was, the 'granny tax'.
That melted away. We were getting the old two thumbs up, voting Tory, all the way kind of enthusiasm from those we had in the past picked up as UKIP.
Oh how MacDonnell must have cheered. The swine does have a track record of openly behaving like that.
I know we'd expect them to be doing better, honeymoon period and all that, but clearly this is no normal leadership, so things could be different. And although it is apparent more MPs support him than we had seen reported, given the possibly low number of Lab MPs going to vote with the government, with the narrative being how little support he has there, might not they manage to avoid any blowback if electoral disaster forces him out? The narrative is that they too wanted him gone after all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria–Lebanon_Campaign
A good book on the subject here:
http://amzn.to/1OvbcPE
I am sure we will get a poll of Labour members shortly, saying that Kim John Jez and McMao are utterly brilliant. 90% approval among the members.
Philip_Thompson said:
"Bull.
"If the UNSC authorises action it is legal that is undisputed international law. What is disputed is when action is legal without UNSC backing. The UNSC has passed a resolution backing military action unanimously therefore it is unquestionably legal."
Slight clarification. There are many ways, most arguable rather than crystal clear, in which preemptive action in self-defense is legal.
Regardless, a military action becomes legal if the UN Security Council authorizes it while explicitly acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. If it does not have words to the effect of "acting under Chapter VII of the Charter", the UNSCR will not have legal authority to legitimize military action.
Surprisingly, while calling on States that are capable of acting against ISIS to do so and to coordinate efforts, this latest UNSCR (2249 (2015)) is not (NOT) a Chapter VII resolution.
The relevant operative paragraph, absent one noting an action under Chapter VII, is this:
"Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria"
Thus, from a prima facie reading, authority for action relies upon previous resolutions, not this one, and relates to those actions endorsed by the UNSC on 14 November based on the recommendations of the ISSG.
It is an interesting resolution, presumably considerably modified from a French draft (to protect civilians and refugees) by the Russians (to add protections to the Assad regime - the references to international law and the UN Charter). It shouts out, between the lines, that any action is to be quite overtly constrained action.
The references to humanitarian law in particular remind would be participants to observe proportionality in their actions. All the other references in this context talk to the need to protect civilians and refugees. In essence, they are superfluous references as the need to comply with them would still exist without their mention, but that they are so explicitly highlighted shows some of the concerns in the UNSC debates.
I'm not expecting to win.
331 + 8 + 2 + 8 = 349
324 to win
NB. Counting Speakers on both sides of the equation - without Speakers he has 347 but only needs 322. So buffer = 25.
That will answer a few questions.
You have to vote no.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Deir_ez_Zor