GMB union: Jeremy Corbyn should be given 'a year or so' to prove himself Posted at 17:18 Jeremy Corbyn should be given "a year or so" to prove himself, according to Tim Roache, the general secretary of the GMB union.
He said the Labour leader's critics should rally around his leadership - but conceded the party "should be winning hundreds of seats" at this stage.
----------
How many times did we hear this about ed & 5 years later he was still there in a car park with a 7ft high tablet of stone...
So despite its pretensions as the world's greatest city it appears London can't even produce a quality newspaper of its own to report on its mayoral election. Maybe that seems unfair given we have a national newspaper media in this country that is based there. But it only goes to prove how London's strengths are based on being the capital of the UK. Time to ditch this fatuous 'capital of the world' ambition and embrace what you are. I'm sure blighty would happily welcome you back.
Mr. Urquhart, not to mention, that year will add inertia as well as giving Corbyn opportunity to rewrite the rulebook to try and permanently embed deranged far leftiness into Labour.
And Labour both dislikes and is incompetent at regicide.
So despite its pretensions as the world's greatest city it appears London can't even produce a quality newspaper of its own to report on its mayoral election. Maybe that seems unfair given we have a national newspaper media in this country that is based there. But it only goes to prove how London's strengths are based on being the capital of the UK. Time to ditch this fatuous 'capital of the world' ambition and embrace what you are. I'm sure blighty would happily welcome you back.
Why would anyone in their right mind start a newspaper.
FPT..Hitlers deal with the Zionists H..We will not kill you if you start shipping Jews out of Germany to Israel. Z..OK H..Deal done.. now piss off and get on with it...Schnell..
"I.am not sure Jezza is very wise to keep linking labour with extremists...surely he would be better saying Tories ran a very negative campaign etc etc etc, but he said numerous times in his speech about Tories claims of Sadiq connections to extremists.
I thought the advice was always never repeat your opponents allegations rather reframe them. Cameron going in about offshore tax.havens just makes people think he is a tax dodger."
Quite right. He's gone 67 years without needing to understand the finer points of his trade and it shows
The Merton gain could cost Murad Qureshi AM his list seat. It could be unlikely for Labour to confirm the 4th list seat with an extra constituency and UKIP making the threshold
My experience on the doorstep in inner London was that turnout was boosted by
a) Enthusiasm for Khan from some voters who have not always turned out in the past - many Asian origin but also others. Liberal (small l) Londoners from all backgrounds were outraged by what they saw as Goldsmith's appeal to racism and this motivated them to turn out; b) There were also a few - mainly WWC - who were enthused in the other direction - Goldsmith's accusations of extremism did resonate with some people - this would have had a greater impact in some of the outer boroughs I guess; c) Labour GOTV effort was pretty effective and there was no visible opposition in my area; d) Heightened awareness of politics generally, mainly due to EU referendum coverage; e) It was a beautiful day!
How accurate were the final London Mayor polls? If first round finishes as Khan 44 Goldsmith 35, comparing that to the final polls =
TNS in Khan 45% Goldsmith 33% (Pidgeon 3rd on 7%, Whittle 4th on 5%). ComRes in London 45% Khan 36% Goldsmith, with Pidgeon and Berry both on 6%. Yougov's final Khan 43%, Goldsmith 32%, Whittle 7%, Berry 7%, Pidgeon 6%; Opinium Khan 48 Goldsmith 35 Survation (21st-25th Apr) Khan 49 Goldsmith 34
(Calcs – please check) TNS 1% too high Khan and 2% too low on Goldsmith Opinium 4% too high Khan and accurate on Goldsmith Survation 5% too high Khan and 1% too low on Goldsmith Yougov 1% too low Khan and 4% too low on Goldsmith Comres 1% too high Khan and 1% too high on Goldsmith
Conclusion = Polls had the scale and order right, but 3 out of 5 too low on Goldsmith and 4 out of 5 too high on Khan. Almost the usual problem of 1% extra on Labour and at least 1% too low on Conservatives…… Of course rounding up/down may exaggerate the gaps. Data = http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
How accurate were the final London Mayor polls? If first round finishes as Khan 44 Goldsmith 35, comparing that to the final polls =
TNS in Khan 45% Goldsmith 33% (Pidgeon 3rd on 7%, Whittle 4th on 5%). ComRes in London 45% Khan 36% Goldsmith, with Pidgeon and Berry both on 6%. Yougov's final Khan 43%, Goldsmith 32%, Whittle 7%, Berry 7%, Pidgeon 6%; Opinium Khan 48 Goldsmith 35 Survation (21st-25th Apr) Khan 49 Goldsmith 34
(Calcs – please check) TNS 1% too high Khan and 2% too low on Goldsmith Opinium 4% too high Khan and accurate on Goldsmith Survation 5% too high Khan and 1% too low on Goldsmith Yougov 1% too low Khan and 4% too low on Goldsmith Comres 1% too high Khan and 1% too high on Goldsmith
Conclusion = Polls had the scale and order right, but 3 out of 5 too low on Goldsmith and 4 out of 5 too high on Khan. Almost the usual problem of 1% extra on Labour and at least 1% too low on Conservatives…… Of course rounding up/down may exaggerate the gaps. Data = http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
In what us effectively a two horse race some polls still seem way out ie 15 points
I think the explanation for the turnout is that people were motivated by Zak throwing around allegations that didn't stack up. I wrote yesterday that they'd either researched it and found the link to terrorists was believed or they had just flown a kite in which case they would be punished for breaking the first rule of advertising. Making a claim that the public don't believe
KEN LIVINGSTONE: Hello. Have you heard the good news about Hitler?
I know ken is his own man, but you would have thought labour would have done everything possible to keep him off the media eg locked him in the toilets.
The Tories successfully reawakened the dormant anti-Tory vote, it seems. It looks like Labour's share is just about exactly what it got last year at the GE.
"I.am not sure Jezza is very wise to keep linking labour with extremists...surely he would be better saying Tories ran a very negative campaign etc etc etc, but he said numerous times in his speech about Tories claims of Sadiq connections to extremists.
I thought the advice was always never repeat your opponents allegations rather reframe them. Cameron going in about offshore tax.havens just makes people think he is a tax dodger."
Quite right. He's gone 67 years without needing to understand the finer points of his trade and it shows
Unless it is more convincing to speak what you actually believe. The artificial pause while you think about the right way to say it might make you come across as insincere or even dishonest. Miliband was well drilled in that sort of thing but never really convincing. Corbyn might do much better just by being who he is.
I think the explanation for the turnout is that people were motivated by Zak throwing around allegations that didn't stack up. I wrote yesterday that they'd either researched it and found the link to terrorists was believed or they had just flown a kite in which case they would be punished for breaking the first rule of advertising. Making a claim that the public don't believe
It could have been a dry-run of these kinds of tactics - road-testing before GE 2020.
Thinking about turnout - is part of the increase due to IVR? (ie there are less 'ghost' entries on the register and so the turnout (as a %) is higher?. Not looked at the raw numbers, but at least theoretically it could be a factor.
The Tories successfully reawakened the dormant anti-Tory vote, it seems. It looks like Labour's share is just about exactly what it got last year at the GE.
Thinking about turnout - is part of the increase due to IVR? (ie there are less 'ghost' entries on the register and so the turnout (as a %) is higher?. Not looked at the raw numbers, but at least theoretically it could be a factor.
I think the explanation for the turnout is that people were motivated by Zak throwing around allegations that didn't stack up. I wrote yesterday that they'd either researched it and found the link to terrorists was believed or they had just flown a kite in which case they would be punished for breaking the first rule of advertising. Making a claim that the public don't believe
It could have been a dry-run of these kinds of tactics - road-testing before GE 2020.
He didn't need to road test it. He could have asked any first year advertising student. There are enough of them!
So has there been a dampening of PB Tory exuberance during the day ?
Because there should have been - the Bullingdon Boys have just had their arse kicked by a superannuated Dave Spart.
A few more things can now be confirmed by today's results:
Middle class metropolitans and liberals have not been won over by the Cameron Project whatever Steve Hilton might believe. Those who voted Conservative in 2015 did so because they didn't want an EdM government controlled by Salmond and Sturgeon and not because of overseas aid and gay marriage.
Labour's position among wwc voters is still tenuous and medium sized towns in the midlands are still moving rightwards.
The Conservatives did well in Brent & Harrow suggesting the Hindu vote continues to trend their way.
The LibDems are NOT dead.
There was an awful lot of bollox reports predicting Labour disaster - from Merton ** to Sheffield to Portsmouth to Wales.
** Has Dixie made an appearance to comment on the Labour gain of Merton & Wandsworth - the place where we were told Labour's candidate was invisible / incompetent / unpopular.
Peter Kellner — Labour making no progress in terms of share of the vote for London Assembly seats.
But, but, but ... Jeremy Corbyn is a net positive for Labour in London :-)
You mean you don't believe this increased turnout is all due to Jezza's new politics enthusing DNVs? I'm shocked, I tell you...
Is there any research on people who consistently do not vote? I strongly suspect their main attitude is 'they are all the same', 'all in it for themselves' etc and not because there is no true socialist option on the ballot paper.
Thinking about turnout - is part of the increase due to IVR? (ie there are less 'ghost' entries on the register and so the turnout (as a %) is higher?. Not looked at the raw numbers, but at least theoretically it could be a factor.
It's just motivation.
London is the heart of Corbynism. It's where over half of all Labour members are based.
The number of second preferences that end up with the Greens in GLA areas that Khan wins are a reasonable indicator of the demographic who have been keenest to vote.
Peter Kellner — Labour making no progress in terms of share of the vote for London Assembly seats.
But, but, but ... Jeremy Corbyn is a net positive for Labour in London :-)
You mean you don't believe this increased turnout is all due to Jezza's new politics enthusing DNVs? I'm shocked, I tell you...
I am actually really pleased Khan won in London. He ran a dignified, positive campaign, with loads of reach-out to parts of the electorate that have proved to be problematic for Labour. He showed how to do it by getting out of his comfort zone and engaging. There is plenty for the wider party to learn from the approach he took. And fair play to Corbyn for keeping well away.
BBC radio news, main headline — "Corbyn says Labour are 'holding on' after losing seats in England, Scotland and Wales."
They are holding on and are heading to a result in 2020 which is pretty much like the one they had last year. In some ways that is a remarkable testimony to the ongoing strength of the Labour brand amongst its core voter base. But Labour needs much more on top to get to where it must be to actually make a difference to the country's trajectory. It would be good if the membership gave some indication that it understood this. It would not mean dumping Corbyn or anything like that, but it would mean holding him to a much higher standard of performance and asking him and his advisers a few hard questions.
Thinking about turnout - is part of the increase due to IVR? (ie there are less 'ghost' entries on the register and so the turnout (as a %) is higher?. Not looked at the raw numbers, but at least theoretically it could be a factor.
Any Scots know how this lady managed to survive what is surely a step up from Naz Shah? Might this not provide a hostage to fortune when the numbers are so tight?
So has there been a dampening of PB Tory exuberance during the day ?
Because there should have been - the Bullingdon Boys have just had their arse kicked by a superannuated Dave Spart.
A few more things can now be confirmed by today's results:
Middle class metropolitans and liberals have not been won over by the Cameron Project whatever Steve Hilton might believe. Those who voted Conservative in 2015 did so because they didn't want an EdM government controlled by Salmond and Sturgeon and not because of overseas aid and gay marriage.
Labour's position among wwc voters is still tenuous and medium sized towns in the midlands are still moving rightwards.
The Conservatives did well in Brent & Harrow suggesting the Hindu vote continues to trend their way.
The LibDems are NOT dead.
There was an awful lot of bollox reports predicting Labour disaster - from Merton ** to Sheffield to Portsmouth to Wales.
** Has Dixie made an appearance to comment on the Labour gain of Merton & Wandsworth - the place where we were told Labour's candidate was invisible / incompetent / unpopular.
The Lib Dems are pretty close to being dead in Wales...
Any Scots know how this lady managed to survive what is surely a step up from Naz Shah? Might this not provide a hostage to fortune when the numbers are so tight?
Thinking about turnout - is part of the increase due to IVR? (ie there are less 'ghost' entries on the register and so the turnout (as a %) is higher?. Not looked at the raw numbers, but at least theoretically it could be a factor.
That's exactly what I thought when I saw the thread header. I suspect the old registers had a lot of people who had long since moved away.
So has there been a dampening of PB Tory exuberance during the day ?
Because there should have been - the Bullingdon Boys have just had their arse kicked by a superannuated Dave Spart.
A few more things can now be confirmed by today's results:
Middle class metropolitans and liberals have not been won over by the Cameron Project whatever Steve Hilton might believe. Those who voted Conservative in 2015 did so because they didn't want an EdM government controlled by Salmond and Sturgeon and not because of overseas aid and gay marriage.
Labour's position among wwc voters is still tenuous and medium sized towns in the midlands are still moving rightwards.
The Conservatives did well in Brent & Harrow suggesting the Hindu vote continues to trend their way.
The LibDems are NOT dead.
There was an awful lot of bollox reports predicting Labour disaster - from Merton ** to Sheffield to Portsmouth to Wales.
** Has Dixie made an appearance to comment on the Labour gain of Merton & Wandsworth - the place where we were told Labour's candidate was invisible / incompetent / unpopular.
The Lib Dems are pretty close to being dead in Wales...
Didn't they do surprisingly well in Brecon ?
But indeed the growth of alternatives in UKIP and Greens in Wales does damage the LibDems.
BBC radio news, main headline — "Corbyn says Labour are 'holding on' after losing seats in England, Scotland and Wales."
They are holding on and are heading to a result in 2020 which is pretty much like the one they had last year. In some ways that is a remarkable testimony to the ongoing strength of the Labour brand amongst its core voter base. But Labour needs much more on top to get to where it must be to actually make a difference to the country's trajectory. It would be good if the membership gave some indication that it understood this. It would not mean dumping Corbyn or anything like that, but it would mean holding him to a much higher standard of performance and asking him and his advisers a few hard questions.
He should be sent on a tour of middle England to listen to what people have to tell him. Scotland too.
Mr. 86, better to use the percentage of the vote, I think. People who choose not to exercise their right to vote lose the right to have their opinion taken seriously.
" Unsuccessful Labour candidate Peter Batty, who was beaten in Bridgemary South, caused a post-result stir by ripping his rosette off his jacket lapel and throwing it on the floor. “I’m quitting Labour and am joining the Conservatives in the morning,” he announced. His wife Linda, a sitting councillor, made an identical party switch last month." http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14475262.Tories_hold_Gosport_but_ex_mayor_loses_his_seat/
BBC radio news, main headline — "Corbyn says Labour are 'holding on' after losing seats in England, Scotland and Wales."
They are holding on and are heading to a result in 2020 which is pretty much like the one they had last year. In some ways that is a remarkable testimony to the ongoing strength of the Labour brand amongst its core voter base. But Labour needs much more on top to get to where it must be to actually make a difference to the country's trajectory. It would be good if the membership gave some indication that it understood this. It would not mean dumping Corbyn or anything like that, but it would mean holding him to a much higher standard of performance and asking him and his advisers a few hard questions.
He should be sent on a tour of middle England to listen to what people have to tell him. Scotland too.
Easier to listen to the 'ordinary folk' of Dartmouth Park as EdM.
Labour beat the Tories by 44% to 35% in the 2015 GE in London. If Khan beats Goldsmith by 43% to 36%, you could argue that Goldsmith did rather well in the circumstances.
BBC radio news, main headline — "Corbyn says Labour are 'holding on' after losing seats in England, Scotland and Wales."
They are holding on and are heading to a result in 2020 which is pretty much like the one they had last year. In some ways that is a remarkable testimony to the ongoing strength of the Labour brand amongst its core voter base. But Labour needs much more on top to get to where it must be to actually make a difference to the country's trajectory. It would be good if the membership gave some indication that it understood this. It would not mean dumping Corbyn or anything like that, but it would mean holding him to a much higher standard of performance and asking him and his advisers a few hard questions.
He should be sent on a tour of middle England to listen to what people have to tell him. Scotland too.
Easier to listen to the 'ordinary folk' of Dartmouth Park as EdM.
Or whatever Corbyn's equivalent is.
Islington North has a pub called the Che Guevara. The ordinary folk of Islington North have a very different political centre of gravity to the rest of the country.
Looking at Wales vote shares as opposed to set changes seem something like this:
Constituency: Labour -7.6 Conservative -3.9 PC +1.2 LD -2.9 Ukip +12.5
A very efficient vote distribution for Labour. It might also suggest that Labour loses two votes to UKIP in Wales to each Conservative vote lost to UKIP. Which would correspond to the 2015 results and would be reasonable when allowing for the traditional class based voting in Wales.
Labour appear to be approaching a tipping point in Wales. They got away with it this time but the trend points to Labour losing power in Wales.
BBC radio news, main headline — "Corbyn says Labour are 'holding on' after losing seats in England, Scotland and Wales."
They are holding on and are heading to a result in 2020 which is pretty much like the one they had last year. In some ways that is a remarkable testimony to the ongoing strength of the Labour brand amongst its core voter base. But Labour needs much more on top to get to where it must be to actually make a difference to the country's trajectory. It would be good if the membership gave some indication that it understood this. It would not mean dumping Corbyn or anything like that, but it would mean holding him to a much higher standard of performance and asking him and his advisers a few hard questions.
I agree with a good chunk of that, which is remarkable given where our respective views started the day... however I'm not wholly clear how the membership are empowered to do what you suggest. Those with Labour MPs probably have the best chance as the change surely needs to come from the parliamentary party working with Corbyn, and perhaps that could be driven from the constituency level. But there remains a problem that much of the PLP sees members' views as essentially illegitimate at best, and de facto bullying at worse, which makes it hard to see how we can play a part.
Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
Lab 81,482
Con 65,242
Green 16,996
LD 11,204
UKIP 9,057
Posted at 17:18
Jeremy Corbyn should be given "a year or so" to prove himself, according to Tim Roache, the general secretary of the GMB union.
He said the Labour leader's critics should rally around his leadership - but conceded the party "should be winning hundreds of seats" at this stage.
----------
How many times did we hear this about ed & 5 years later he was still there in a car park with a 7ft high tablet of stone...
Goldsmith has been singularly unimpressive.
Dismore held comfortably (even with a swing against): 81k to 65k
Con hold Croydon and Sutton
And Labour both dislikes and is incompetent at regicide.
Con hold Cambridgeshire PCC
Con hold Essex PCC
Team Corbyn shd buy Rallings&Thrasher a big bottle of champers. Their forecast of Lab losing 150 seats set the bar the party cleared today
H..We will not kill you if you start shipping Jews out of Germany to Israel.
Z..OK
H..Deal done.. now piss off and get on with it...Schnell..
Navin Shah (Lab) 79,902 (45.74%, -2.79%)
Joel Davidson (C) 59,147 (33.86%, +5.87%)
Anton Georgiou (LD) 11,534 (6.60%, -4.21%)
Jafar Hassan (Green) 9,874 (5.65%, -1.62%)
Rathy Alagaratnam (UKIP) 9,074 (5.19%, -0.20%)
Akib Mahmood (Respect GG) 5,170 (2.96%)
"I.am not sure Jezza is very wise to keep linking labour with extremists...surely he would be better saying Tories ran a very negative campaign etc etc etc, but he said numerous times in his speech about Tories claims of Sadiq connections to extremists.
I thought the advice was always never repeat your opponents allegations rather reframe them. Cameron going in about offshore tax.havens just makes people think he is a tax dodger."
Quite right. He's gone 67 years without needing to understand the finer points of his trade and it shows
Sausages everywhere are getting nervous.
*knock on the door*
*door is opened*
KEN LIVINGSTONE: Hello. Have you heard the good news about Hitler?
Katy Bourne (Con) 139,335
Michael Jones (Lab) 86,392
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/council-and-democracy/voting-and-elections/police-and-crime-commissioner-election
a) Enthusiasm for Khan from some voters who have not always turned out in the past - many Asian origin but also others. Liberal (small l) Londoners from all backgrounds were outraged by what they saw as Goldsmith's appeal to racism and this motivated them to turn out;
b) There were also a few - mainly WWC - who were enthused in the other direction - Goldsmith's accusations of extremism did resonate with some people - this would have had a greater impact in some of the outer boroughs I guess;
c) Labour GOTV effort was pretty effective and there was no visible opposition in my area;
d) Heightened awareness of politics generally, mainly due to EU referendum coverage;
e) It was a beautiful day!
TNS in Khan 45% Goldsmith 33% (Pidgeon 3rd on 7%, Whittle 4th on 5%).
ComRes in London 45% Khan 36% Goldsmith, with Pidgeon and Berry both on 6%.
Yougov's final Khan 43%, Goldsmith 32%, Whittle 7%, Berry 7%, Pidgeon 6%;
Opinium Khan 48 Goldsmith 35
Survation (21st-25th Apr) Khan 49 Goldsmith 34
(Calcs – please check)
TNS 1% too high Khan and 2% too low on Goldsmith
Opinium 4% too high Khan and accurate on Goldsmith
Survation 5% too high Khan and 1% too low on Goldsmith
Yougov 1% too low Khan and 4% too low on Goldsmith
Comres 1% too high Khan and 1% too high on Goldsmith
Conclusion = Polls had the scale and order right, but 3 out of 5 too low on Goldsmith and 4 out of 5 too high on Khan. Almost the usual problem of 1% extra on Labour and at least 1% too low on Conservatives……
Of course rounding up/down may exaggerate the gaps.
Data = http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
So when does Project heepers jeepers start ramping up then?
It's the same coalition of voters.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/728581685957296132
He also said the Labour candidate's victory was more to do with Boris Johnson leaving the office, not thanks to Jeremy Corbyn.
* I thought he had / was standing down from involvement with yougov?
Because there should have been - the Bullingdon Boys have just had their arse kicked by a superannuated Dave Spart.
A few more things can now be confirmed by today's results:
Middle class metropolitans and liberals have not been won over by the Cameron Project whatever Steve Hilton might believe. Those who voted Conservative in 2015 did so because they didn't want an EdM government controlled by Salmond and Sturgeon and not because of overseas aid and gay marriage.
Labour's position among wwc voters is still tenuous and medium sized towns in the midlands are still moving rightwards.
The Conservatives did well in Brent & Harrow suggesting the Hindu vote continues to trend their way.
The LibDems are NOT dead.
There was an awful lot of bollox reports predicting Labour disaster - from Merton ** to Sheffield to Portsmouth to Wales.
** Has Dixie made an appearance to comment on the Labour gain of Merton & Wandsworth - the place where we were told Labour's candidate was invisible / incompetent / unpopular.
London is the heart of Corbynism. It's where over half of all Labour members are based.
The number of second preferences that end up with the Greens in GLA areas that Khan wins are a reasonable indicator of the demographic who have been keenest to vote.
Constituency:
Labour -7.6
Conservative -3.9
PC +1.2
LD -2.9
Ukip +12.5
SLAB is another matter entirely.
Labour's big problem is its wwc vote in swing constituencies.
31% again, the same share Labour got in last year's general election.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3316442/SNP-forced-apologise-race-hate-row.html
It might also suggest that Labour loses two votes to UKIP in Wales to each Conservative vote lost to UKIP.
Which would correspond to the 2015 results and would be reasonable when allowing for the traditional class based voting in Wales.
But indeed the growth of alternatives in UKIP and Greens in Wales does damage the LibDems.
Certainly Labour aren't on their way back to government, they're not even on their way to most seats.
But they might be on the way to making a Conservative government unfeasible.
“I’m quitting Labour and am joining the Conservatives in the morning,” he announced.
His wife Linda, a sitting councillor, made an identical party switch last month."
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14475262.Tories_hold_Gosport_but_ex_mayor_loses_his_seat/
Or whatever Corbyn's equivalent is.
Resistance is futile.
Maybe I'll email him. I've heard he likes that.