Virtually no change at all on GE17 on those figures other than UKIP slightly up
So, quick summary. Con and Lab neck and neck with Lab always a bit behind, Lib failing to launch, UKIP moribund, the rest nowhere. 365 days of screaming and everybody is still where they started the year. Where is Thanos when you need him?...
Virtually no change at all on GE17 on those figures other than UKIP slightly up
So, quick summary. Con and Lab neck and neck with Lab always a bit behind, Lib failing to launch, UKIP moribund, the rest nowhere. 365 days of screaming and everybody is still where they started the year. Where is Thanos when you need him?...
Nothing has changed, nothing has changed!
Happy 2019, and I hope that Brexit is the damp squib that I expect, rather than the more lurid scenarios.
The prime minister’s personal ratings have returned to levels last seen before she called the disastrous snap election in 2017, however. The latest poll confirms the dangers posed to Jeremy Corbyn from Brexit. Of those backing Labour 50 per cent voted to remain in the EU and 22 per cent voted to leave.
What’s the saying ? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice....
Mind you, that applies equally to Corbyn.
You can clearly fool quite a lot of the people quite a lot of the time.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Virtually no change at all on GE17 on those figures other than UKIP slightly up
So, quick summary. Con and Lab neck and neck with Lab always a bit behind, Lib failing to launch, UKIP moribund, the rest nowhere. 365 days of screaming and everybody is still where they started the year. Where is Thanos when you need him?...
Nothing has changed, nothing has changed!
Happy 2019, and I hope that Brexit is the damp squib that I expect, rather than the more lurid scenarios.
As credible a set of rationales as anything else out there, but it could just as easily prove wrong.
One of the interesting bits, should May’s deal go through, is his thoughts on the DUP - “DUP will prefer not to risk veto power over the next stage of negotiations....” That would be a rational response on their part - abandoning May would see them lose any influence on how Brexit progressed post the deal - but would their response to the ‘betrayal’ (itself an irrational epithet) be rational ?
Virtually no change at all on GE17 on those figures other than UKIP slightly up
So, quick summary. Con and Lab neck and neck with Lab always a bit behind, Lib failing to launch, UKIP moribund, the rest nowhere. 365 days of screaming and everybody is still where they started the year. Where is Thanos when you need him?...
Nothing has changed, nothing has changed!
Happy 2019, and I hope that Brexit is the damp squib that I expect, rather than the more lurid scenarios.
As credible a set of rationales as anything else out there, but it could just as easily prove wrong.
One of the interesting bits, should May’s deal go through, is his thoughts on the DUP - “DUP will prefer not to risk veto power over the next stage of negotiations....” That would be a rational response on their part - abandoning May would see them lose any influence on how Brexit progressed post the deal - but would their response to the ‘betrayal’ (itself an irrational epithet) be rational ?
It has the superficial tang of plausibility about it but the longer May pushes on into the political death zone above 8,000m the more unpredictable things will become.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
The prime minister’s personal ratings have returned to levels last seen before she called the disastrous snap election in 2017, however. The latest poll confirms the dangers posed to Jeremy Corbyn from Brexit. Of those backing Labour 50 per cent voted to remain in the EU and 22 per cent voted to leave.
What’s the saying ? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice....
Mind you, that applies equally to Corbyn.
You can clearly fool quite a lot of the people quite a lot of the time.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time. And those are the ones you want..." George W. Bush
Happy New Year to all. I expect 2019 to deliver a Brexit that is not what the Brexiteers had hoped it would deliver, nor what the Remainers had most feared.
So, Theresa May's Shit Deal (or pretty close). But it will mean we Leave the European Union.
And there will be a new Prime Minister of the UK in 2019.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
Virtually no change at all on GE17 on those figures other than UKIP slightly up
So, quick summary. Con and Lab neck and neck with Lab always a bit behind, Lib failing to launch, UKIP moribund, the rest nowhere. 365 days of screaming and everybody is still where they started the year. Where is Thanos when you need him?...
Nothing has changed, nothing has changed!
Happy 2019, and I hope that Brexit is the damp squib that I expect, rather than the more lurid scenarios.
As credible a set of rationales as anything else out there, but it could just as easily prove wrong.
One of the interesting bits, should May’s deal go through, is his thoughts on the DUP - “DUP will prefer not to risk veto power over the next stage of negotiations....” That would be a rational response on their part - abandoning May would see them lose any influence on how Brexit progressed post the deal - but would their response to the ‘betrayal’ (itself an irrational epithet) be rational ?
They've been very quiet since the wee smog's failed coup, with a couple of rumoured stories about their considering their position. I reckon the first surprise of the new year might very well be that they are supporting the deal, enabling May to gather in the less idiotic Brexiters as well.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
It's good to be behind this shambles of a government!?
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
Just to try a devil's advocate counter-argument: the traditional midterm scenario is a lot of negative attention on whatever the government is doing, hence a poll boost for the opposition, which melts away as the GE approaches and people start to weigh up the choice of future plans. But maybe, just maybe, this Brexit crisis is focusing rather more attention than normal on the opposition position (the meme that Labour hasn't a clue, or won't decide, seems to have permeated quite widely imo), hence the polls are closer to the pre-GE scenario than we would expect in midterm?
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
To be honest Miliband's poll ratings outside the campaign meant little as he couldn't turn those into votes come the election. Corbyn didn't have that problem last election.
Also the 10 point lead would put us on around 50% of the vote, not realistic.
And there have been a few polls over the last couple of months that have had Labour ahead more than just 2 small comres leads, admittedly the good ones for the Tories tend to get more repetition on here whereas the less Tory friendly ones get the odd mention which can give a bit a distorting effect.
If we want to go on previous, as you have done, then Corbyn started 20 points behind so we will easily win next time. Now obviously he isn't going to gain 20 points just because he did last time but equally he seems unlikely to have 10 odd point swing against him just because Ed did.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
Needs to be, perhaps, but if Bill Clinton is right that what matters is the economy, stupid and if the Conservative cheerleaders are right about record employment and so on, then maybe it is the blue team that should have a poll lead.
Though if the economy is propping up the Conservatives, they'd better be hoping that nothing happens in the spring, at the end of March, say, that might cause job losses or other disruption.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
Needs to be, perhaps, but if Bill Clinton is right that what matters is the economy, stupid and if the Conservative cheerleaders are right about record employment and so on, then maybe it is the blue team that should have a poll lead.
Though if the economy is propping up the Conservatives, they'd better be hoping that nothing happens in the spring, at the end of March, say, that might cause job losses or other disruption.
Economically I'd think we're due for a downturn anyway, but given the disruption even with an orderly brexit and the impacts of that, and given how no one will be satisfied completely and some will be very angry, I think more Tories need to be prepared to fall regularly behind in the polls. They've forgotten it is common for governments to be behind and get spooked too easily.
It’s extraordinary that a party which to all intents and purposes no longer exists as a single functioning entity remains on course to win the next general election. But for as long as Labour members continue to prioritise Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership over taking power this will remain the case.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
It's good to be behind this shambles of a government!?
To be only 2 points behind with YouGov is pretty good going as they have been pretty much the worst pollster for Labour for a while.
Obviously doesn't mean they've been wrong or right but if even the worst have you close then you must be close.
In terms of the closeness look at Trump in America, he hasn't even got a Democrat leader to attack in the same way the Conservatives have in Corbyn and for all I dislike the Conservatives you'd be hard pressed to put them down as being as bad as Trump's republicans but they have massive support, they might even win the next election.
America like Britain is very partisan, the Republican voters loyally turn out even when things look terrible and much the same with Tory voters.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
Its your comments that defy logic
Yes pointing out that replacing the reason almost half the Labour vote gave for voting Labour isn't necessarily going to lead to Labour looking like winning a landslide victory is obviously a crazy suggestion......
I am not really sure what else to add, it defies logic.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
It's good to be behind this shambles of a government!?
To be only 2 points behind with YouGov is pretty good going as they have been pretty much the worst pollster for Labour for a while.
Obviously doesn't mean they've been wrong or right but if even the worst have you close then you must be close.
In terms of the closeness look at Trump in America, he hasn't even got a Democrat leader to attack in the same way the Conservatives have in Corbyn and for all I dislike the Conservatives you'd be hard pressed to put them down as being as bad as Trump's republicans but they have massive support, they might even win the next election.
America like Britain is very partisan, the Republican voters loyally turn out even when things look terrible and much the same with Tory voters.
13% of the Labour vote was pro-Corbyn; 14% of the Tory vote was anti-Corbyn.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
Its your comments that defy logic
Yes pointing out that replacing the reason almost half the Labour vote gave for voting Labour isn't necessarily going to lead to Labour looking like winning a landslide victory is obviously a crazy suggestion......
I am not really sure what else to add, it defies logic.
13% is not almost half. It is a smaller number than 14%.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
Oh for the days when Labour used to be upset about being two points behind in the polls.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
As has been mentioned ad infinitum, Conservative support has a massive support leg in Corybn et al. The change would be a relative gain.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
It's good to be behind this shambles of a government!?
To be only 2 points behind with YouGov is pretty good going as they have been pretty much the worst pollster for Labour for a while.
Obviously doesn't mean they've been wrong or right but if even the worst have you close then you must be close.
In terms of the closeness look at Trump in America, he hasn't even got a Democrat leader to attack in the same way the Conservatives have in Corbyn and for all I dislike the Conservatives you'd be hard pressed to put them down as being as bad as Trump's republicans but they have massive support, they might even win the next election.
America like Britain is very partisan, the Republican voters loyally turn out even when things look terrible and much the same with Tory voters.
13% of the Labour vote was pro-Corbyn; 14% of the Tory vote was anti-Corbyn.
There was very little to distinguish the 2015 and 2017 Labour manifestos.
If Jeremy Corbyn really is the only figure the Labour left has to offer then the Labour left is only a couple of years from oblivion.
And 28% voted for policies, policies that were in place because Corbyn was leader.
Also I'm sure the Tories picked up plenty of anti Ed votes in the 2015 election, I somehow can't see the same being true in terms of numbers inspired to vote Labour because of the leader under Ed.
Just to try a devil's advocate counter-argument: the traditional midterm scenario is a lot of negative attention on whatever the government is doing, hence a poll boost for the opposition, which melts away as the GE approaches and people start to weigh up the choice of future plans. But maybe, just maybe, this Brexit crisis is focusing rather more attention than normal on the opposition position (the meme that Labour hasn't a clue, or won't decide, seems to have permeated quite widely imo), hence the polls are closer to the pre-GE scenario than we would expect in midterm?
I agree with this up to a point: I think that people feel politics=Brexit at the moment, so as Labour has appeared to be largely off the field on that, we are simply sitting on our core vote. It's noticeable that when we do anything that attracts attention, our vote goes up - the 3-point increase here may well be people pleased to see Corbyn reported as showing resistance, even if it's just by muttering "stupid [whatever]". By contrast, Cable wasn't reported as saying anything.
Now this is of course somewhat unfair, in that Corbyn and for all I know Cable are making speeches all the time. But although the media are pathetic in their unwillingness to report anything that isn't easily-summarised and a good headline, it's also true that we're not saying much that is new at the moment, and even helpful media can't keep reporting "Corbyn condemns austerity in [new location]".
But the Tories would be remarkably unwise to think that their position is essentially solid.
If even YouGov has us only 2 points behind that is pretty good, be interesting to see if Labour moves up in other polls as well or if YouGov was coming more into line with others.
It's good to be behind this shambles of a government!?
To be only 2 points behind with YouGov is pretty good going as they have been pretty much the worst pollster for Labour for a while.
Obviously doesn't mean they've been wrong or right but if even the worst have you close then you must be close.
In terms of the closeness look at Trump in America, he hasn't even got a Democrat leader to attack in the same way the Conservatives have in Corbyn and for all I dislike the Conservatives you'd be hard pressed to put them down as being as bad as Trump's republicans but they have massive support, they might even win the next election.
America like Britain is very partisan, the Republican voters loyally turn out even when things look terrible and much the same with Tory voters.
13% of the Labour vote was pro-Corbyn; 14% of the Tory vote was anti-Corbyn.
There was very little to distinguish the 2015 and 2017 Labour manifestos.
If Jeremy Corbyn really is the only figure the Labour left has to offer then the Labour left is only a couple of years from oblivion.
And 28% voted for policies, policies that were in place because Corbyn was leader.
Also I'm sure the Tories picked up plenty of anti Ed votes in the 2015 election, I somehow can't see the same being true in terms of numbers inspired to vote Labour because of the leader under Ed.
Was keeping 80% of Tory welfare cuts a Corbyn policy?
What does YouGov tell us about how Corbyn is perceived in the country now?
Serious question - only vaguely Brexit related....
UK Border Force have recalled 2 cutters from overseas to reinforce border.
Question - where did they think the border was?
Was amazed to hear that UK has 5 such boats whilst Italy has 600, kind of puts it in perspective. How did we manage to be run by such a bunch of morons.
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
As has been mentioned ad infinitum, Conservative support has a massive support leg in Corybn et al. The change would be a relative gain.
Really?
Polling only showed 14% voting for anti Corbyn reasons. I bet the Conservatives got some anti Ed votes as well, maybe not quite 14% but I wouldn't be surprised to see it around double figures.
So if you subtract the difference we would be removing the primary voting cause of maybe at best 7% of Tory voters as there will always be some voting for anti Labour leader reasons.
And the trade off for peeling off the main reason for 7% of Tories voting Tory is to get rid of the main reason of close to half* of the Labour vote...
The result of that certainly does not equal landslide, it doesn't even equal advancement. That would take Labour backwards electorally.
*You can make the same argument here in fairness that there will always be some pro leader and pro policies/manifesto votes.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
We can and have taken leads and have a lead now with other pollsters..
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this i the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
As has been mentioned ad infinitum, Conservative support has a massive support leg in Corybn et al. The change would be a relative gain.
Really?
Polling only showed 14% voting for anti Corbyn reasons. I bet the Conservatives got some anti Ed votes as well, maybe not quite 14% but I wouldn't be surprised to see it around double figures.
So if you subtract the difference we would be removing the primary voting cause of maybe at best 7% of Tory voters as there will always be some voting for anti Labour leader reasons.
And the trade off for peeling off the main reason for 7% of Tories voting Tory is to get rid of the main reason of close to half* of the Labour vote...
The result of that certainly does not equal landslide, it doesn't even equal advancement. That would take Labour backwards electorally.
*You can make the same argument here in fairness that there will always be some pro leader and pro policies/manifesto votes.
Your belief that Jeremy Corbyn is unique in being able to advocate retaining 80% of Tory welfare cuts is an intriguing one.
Twenty years ago tomorrow, I did the first walk for my website - a simple 7-mile stroll to Shining Tor on the Derbyshire / Cheshire border.
Tomorrow, twenty years to the day, I'll be off to London to do a stretch of the London LOOP trail.
That is twenty years, 1029 walks, 18,100 miles, and 1.5 million feet of ascent and descent.
Memories forever dear, holidays of yesteryear.
If you didn't have to come home, you would be a long way away by now.
At one time I was tempted to try a walk around the Earth. But I decided that was too silly, and would ultimately be far from enjoyable.
Instead, I have made one of my ambitions to walk the equivalent distance of the circumference of the Earth. Since that's about 25,000 miles, I am just under three-quarters of the way there. And all done within the UK, without too many repeat walks.
Edit: the story of the first person to walk around the Earth is fascinating and a little sad. He started with his brother, who got killed by bandits in Afghanistan, and ended the walk with another brother.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
Its your comments that defy logic
Yes pointing out that replacing the reason almost half the Labour vote gave for voting Labour isn't necessarily going to lead to Labour looking like winning a landslide victory is obviously a crazy suggestion......
I am not really sure what else to add, it defies logic.
13% is not almost half. It is a smaller number than 14%.
41% is pretty close though, call me crazy but I don't think the last Labour manifesto was the one Tories are imagining when they say Labour would be 15-20% ahead with a centrist leader.
We would dump the 'crazy left wing policies' with the 'crazy left wing leader' and return to the gloriously popular centrism which would deliver us a landslide.
Just to try a devil's advocate counter-argument: the traditional midterm scenario is a lot of negative attention on whatever the government is doing, hence a poll boost for the opposition, which melts away as the GE approaches and people start to weigh up the choice of future plans. But maybe, just maybe, this Brexit crisis is focusing rather more attention than normal on the opposition position (the meme that Labour hasn't a clue, or won't decide, seems to have permeated quite widely imo), hence the polls are closer to the pre-GE scenario than we would expect in midterm?
I agree with this up to a point: I think that people feel politics=Brexit at the moment, so as Labour has appeared to be largely off the field on that, we are simply sitting on our core vote. It's noticeable that when we do anything that attracts attention, our vote goes up - the 3-point increase here may well be people pleased to see Corbyn reported as showing resistance, even if it's just by muttering "stupid [whatever]". By contrast, Cable wasn't reported as saying anything.
Now this is of course somewhat unfair, in that Corbyn and for all I know Cable are making speeches all the time. But although the media are pathetic in their unwillingness to report anything that isn't easily-summarised and a good headline, it's also true that we're not saying much that is new at the moment, and even helpful media can't keep reporting "Corbyn condemns austerity in [new location]".
But the Tories would be remarkably unwise to think that their position is essentially solid.
I would be surprised if 39% is anything close to Labour's core vote.
Serious question - only vaguely Brexit related....
UK Border Force have recalled 2 cutters from overseas to reinforce border.
Question - where did they think the border was?
Was amazed to hear that UK has 5 such boats whilst Italy has 600, kind of puts it in perspective. How did we manage to be run by such a bunch of morons.
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
Its your comments that defy logic
Yes pointing out that replacing the reason almost half the Labour vote gave for voting Labour isn't necessarily going to lead to Labour looking like winning a landslide victory is obviously a crazy suggestion......
I am not really sure what else to add, it defies logic.
13% is not almost half. It is a smaller number than 14%.
41% is pretty close though, call me crazy but I don't think the last Labour manifesto was the one Tories are imagining when they say Labour would be 15-20% ahead with a centrist leader.
We would dump the 'crazy left wing policies' with the 'crazy left wing leader' and return to the gloriously popular centrism which would deliver us a landslide.
The 2017 manifesto was pretty similar to the 2015 one and was centred on an acceptance of most of the Tory welfare cuts. As I say, the belief that only Jeremy Corbyn can deliver such a set of policies is an intriguing one - it also speaks volumes for the paucity of talent you believe there must be on the left of the Labour party. But, if you wish to cite YouGov as a source for 2017 voting motivations, we should also be looking at YouGov now to find out what voters think about Jeremy, shouldn't we?
Virtually no change at all on GE17 on those figures other than UKIP slightly up
So, quick summary. Con and Lab neck and neck with Lab always a bit behind, Lib failing to launch, UKIP moribund, the rest nowhere. 365 days of screaming and everybody is still where they started the year. Where is Thanos when you need him?...
Nothing has changed, nothing has changed!
Happy 2019, and I hope that Brexit is the damp squib that I expect, rather than the more lurid scenarios.
As credible a set of rationales as anything else out there, but it could just as easily prove wrong.
One of the interesting bits, should May’s deal go through, is his thoughts on the DUP - “DUP will prefer not to risk veto power over the next stage of negotiations....” That would be a rational response on their part - abandoning May would see them lose any influence on how Brexit progressed post the deal - but would their response to the ‘betrayal’ (itself an irrational epithet) be rational ?
The DUP are utterly hard nosed (even more so than the Yanks).
Polling only showed 14% voting for anti Corbyn reasons. I bet the Conservatives got some anti Ed votes as well, maybe not quite 14% but I wouldn't be surprised to see it around double figures.
So if you subtract the difference we would be removing the primary voting cause of maybe at best 7% of Tory voters as there will always be some voting for anti Labour leader reasons.
And the trade off for peeling off the main reason for 7% of Tories voting Tory is to get rid of the main reason of close to half* of the Labour vote...
The result of that certainly does not equal landslide, it doesn't even equal advancement. That would take Labour backwards electorally.
*You can make the same argument here in fairness that there will always be some pro leader and pro policies/manifesto votes.
14% for anti-corbyn reasons is exactly the amount we seem to be talking about...
Equally 14% voting Tory for anti-Corbyn figures is a swing of 28% if all of them switched to Labour were it to have a new leader. Now not all of them would switch but enough would...
Serious question - only vaguely Brexit related....
UK Border Force have recalled 2 cutters from overseas to reinforce border.
Question - where did they think the border was?
Was amazed to hear that UK has 5 such boats whilst Italy has 600, kind of puts it in perspective. How did we manage to be run by such a bunch of morons.
Meanwhile our Navy has more Admiral's than boats.
Yes and all we hear is about how we are a world power and that clown at MOD wanting to open new bases in the sunshine.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Just to try a devil's advocate counter-argument: the traditional midterm scenario is a lot of negative attention on whatever the government is doing, hence a poll boost for the opposition, which melts away as the GE approaches and people start to weigh up the choice of future plans. But maybe, just maybe, this Brexit crisis is focusing rather more attention than normal on the opposition position (the meme that Labour hasn't a clue, or won't decide, seems to have permeated quite widely imo), hence the polls are closer to the pre-GE scenario than we would expect in midterm?
I agree with this up to a point: I think that people feel politics=Brexit at the moment, so as Labour has appeared to be largely off the field on that, we are simply sitting on our core vote. It's noticeable that when we do anything that attracts attention, our vote goes up - the 3-point increase here may well be people pleased to see Corbyn reported as showing resistance, even if it's just by muttering "stupid [whatever]". By contrast, Cable wasn't reported as saying anything.
Now this is of course somewhat unfair, in that Corbyn and for all I know Cable are making speeches all the time. But although the media are pathetic in their unwillingness to report anything that isn't easily-summarised and a good headline, it's also true that we're not saying much that is new at the moment, and even helpful media can't keep reporting "Corbyn condemns austerity in [new location]".
But the Tories would be remarkably unwise to think that their position is essentially solid.
I would be surprised if 39% is anything close to Labour's core vote.
I can imagine that 39% is the core anti-Tory vote...
You've had very small leads with ComRes in their last two polls.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this i the next election.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
As has been mentioned ad infinitum, Conservative support has a massive support leg in Corybn et al. The change would be a relative gain.
Really?
Polling only showed 14% voting for anti Corbyn reasons. I bet the Conservatives got some anti Ed votes as well, maybe not quite 14% but I wouldn't be surprised to see it around double figures.
So if you subtract the difference we would be removing the primary voting cause of maybe at best 7% of Tory voters as there will always be some voting for anti Labour leader reasons.
And the trade off for peeling off the main reason for 7% of Tories voting Tory is to get rid of the main reason of close to half* of the Labour vote...
The result of that certainly does not equal landslide, it doesn't even equal advancement. That would take Labour backwards electorally.
*You can make the same argument here in fairness that there will always be some pro leader and pro policies/manifesto votes.
Your belief that Jeremy Corbyn is unique in being able to advocate retaining 80% of Tory welfare cuts is an intriguing one.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Have to tell you, if that turkey gets elected, you will not see many left wing policies enacted , they will resort to type and just be Tory clones.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Labour policy was to retain 80% of Tory welfare spending cuts. Can you explain how that is left wing?
Just to try a devil's advocate counter-argument: the traditional midterm scenario is a lot of negative attention on whatever the government is doing, hence a poll boost for the opposition, which melts away as the GE approaches and people start to weigh up the choice of future plans. But maybe, just maybe, this Brexit crisis is focusing rather more attention than normal on the opposition position (the meme that Labour hasn't a clue, or won't decide, seems to have permeated quite widely imo), hence the polls are closer to the pre-GE scenario than we would expect in midterm?
I agree with this up to a point: I think that people feel politics=Brexit at the moment, so as Labour has appeared to be largely off the field on that, we are simply sitting on our core vote. It's noticeable that when we do anything that attracts attention, our vote goes up - the 3-point increase here may well be people pleased to see Corbyn reported as showing resistance, even if it's just by muttering "stupid [whatever]". By contrast, Cable wasn't reported as saying anything.
Now this is of course somewhat unfair, in that Corbyn and for all I know Cable are making speeches all the time. But although the media are pathetic in their unwillingness to report anything that isn't easily-summarised and a good headline, it's also true that we're not saying much that is new at the moment, and even helpful media can't keep reporting "Corbyn condemns austerity in [new location]".
But the Tories would be remarkably unwise to think that their position is essentially solid.
I would be surprised if 39% is anything close to Labour's core vote.
I can imagine that 39% is the core anti-Tory vote...
Yep - that is probably a lot closer to the reality.
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn went I know we would lose the hard left nutter scab element who in 2015 were busy campaigning against us - I can live with that. But we might end up with a leader who didn't repulse as many voters who could broaden our appeal out of the core. Its not our policies that are the problem remember - people like them and indeed the Tories started to run some of them. And the notion that a bearded pensioner is the only person who can mobilise the young is absurd - the very leadership cult bullshit that you (Jezziah) insist is a figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Have to tell you, if that turkey gets elected, you will not see many left wing policies enacted , they will resort to type and just be Tory clones.
I think Corbyn is a bit of a tricky one to paint with the Red Tory jibe, anyone can do anything of course but in terms of wanting to push through left wing policy it seems likely that the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell are fairly genuine. Or at least they played the perfect build up to the part if their not.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Labour policy was to retain 80% of Tory welfare spending cuts. Can you explain how that is left wing?
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Have to tell you, if that turkey gets elected, you will not see many left wing policies enacted , they will resort to type and just be Tory clones.
I think Corbyn is a bit of a tricky one to paint with the Red Tory jibe, anyone can do anything of course but in terms of wanting to push through left wing policy it seems likely that the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell are fairly genuine. Or at least they played the perfect build up to the part if their not.
Although they did advocate retaining the vast majority of Tory welfare cuts at the last GE.
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn went I know we would lose the hard left nutter scab element who in 2015 were busy campaigning against us - I can live with that. But we might end up with a leader who didn't repulse as many voters who could broaden our appeal out of the core. Its not our policies that are the problem remember - people like them and indeed the Tories started to run some of them. And the notion that a bearded pensioner is the only person who can mobilise the young is absurd - the very leadership cult bullshit that you (Jezziah) insist is a figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
Precisely. If I were on the Labour left I would not be comfortable with the notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the only possible option if Labour wants to advocate left-wing policies, that there is no-one else equipped or able to do it.
F1: market up on Hamilton wins during the season. He's 1.9 for 9.5 (over or under).
Given that I got 9 on Hamilton hitting/exceeding 92 wins and he only needs about 20, that suggests the odds on that longer term bet were rather too long (indeed, that's why I backed it).
There's also a market on the title without the big 6. Worth noting the each way for the title itself has a fifth the odds top three, whereas the market excluding the top 6 has just a third the odds top two.
The teams to consider for such a market are likely Renault, Force India (which may be renamed, incidentally), and Haas. For those curious, Force India would've finished marginally behind Renault even had they not had their points confiscated.
Ricciardo and Hulkenberg are 4.33 and 4.5 respectively. Perez and Stroll are 5 and 10. Grosjean and Magnussen are 8.5 and 10.
Raikkonen's also up there, at 9. Sauber had a good year last time but they'd be pushing it to become the top midfield team in 2019.
Magnussen beat Grosjean last year, making his slightly longer odds interesting. I think the Perez/Stroll odds are likely correct, though the Canadian hasn't ever had a good car (and does start races well).
The tightness of the Renault pairing's odds makes sense to me, but there is 2.2 on Hulkenberg to beat Ricciardo on a season match market. If you're feeling bullish about Renault, you could back that, then back Ricciardo (perhaps with a slightly smaller stake) for the title excluding the big 6.
Hmm. The odds are too tight to tempt me. At the moment. There may be a bargain in the future. At one point Raikkonen was about 61 for the title in 2018, and each way was still available for top 3.
Corbyn is gradually becoming known to the voters. PB readers tend to be more politically savvy than most voters who take time to assimilate how radically different Jezza really is.
Mrs May is a poor politician, but strangely enough has a slight advantage being a woman. But she hasn't improved with viewing. Jezza was a very poor politician but has improved a little with practice. The downside for him is that his policies have become better known, as has his slipperiness with the truth at times.
It's the robot vs the metronome.
As I've aged, I moved across the political spectrum a little, as do most people. Hence Labour cannot rely on the young, the bastards keep getting older.
I voted for Michael Foot in the early eighties and perhaps I wouldn't now, but there's no way I'd have voted for Jezza even then. I quite liked Kinnock and cheered him on against Militant. Now it's returned in the guise of Momentum.
It had the advantage of being new and sparkly but the novelty is wearing off. After Brexit, I suspect we'll be looking for a more comfort-blanket type party. It could be the LDs under the right leader, although Labour should have the advantage because of history. But not with Jezza.
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Have to tell you, if that turkey gets elected, you will not see many left wing policies enacted , they will resort to type and just be Tory clones.
I think Corbyn is a bit of a tricky one to paint with the Red Tory jibe, anyone can do anything of course but in terms of wanting to push through left wing policy it seems likely that the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell are fairly genuine. Or at least they played the perfect build up to the part if their not.
They will revert to typical Labour once elected, different kettle of fish once they actually have the powers rather than just playing pretend. Will be just like Wolfie.
Just to try a devil's advocate counter-argument: the traditional midterm scenario is a lot of negative attention on whatever the government is doing, hence a poll boost for the opposition, which melts away as the GE approaches and people start to weigh up the choice of future plans. But maybe, just maybe, this Brexit crisis is focusing rather more attention than normal on the opposition position (the meme that Labour hasn't a clue, or won't decide, seems to have permeated quite widely imo), hence the polls are closer to the pre-GE scenario than we would expect in midterm?
I agree with this up to a point: I think that people feel politics=Brexit at the moment, so as Labour has appeared to be largely off the field on that, we are simply sitting on our core vote. It's noticeable that when we do anything that attracts attention, our vote goes up - the 3-point increase here may well be people pleased to see Corbyn reported as showing resistance, even if it's just by muttering "stupid [whatever]". By contrast, Cable wasn't reported as saying anything.
Now this is of course somewhat unfair, in that Corbyn and for all I know Cable are making speeches all the time. But although the media are pathetic in their unwillingness to report anything that isn't easily-summarised and a good headline, it's also true that we're not saying much that is new at the moment...
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn went I know we would lose the hard left nutter scab element who in 2015 were busy campaigning against us - I can live with that. But we might end up with a leader who didn't repulse as many voters who could broaden our appeal out of the core. Its not our policies that are the problem remember - people like them and indeed the Tories started to run some of them. And the notion that a bearded pensioner is the only person who can mobilise the young is absurd - the very leadership cult bullshit that you (Jezziah) insist is a figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if you aren't a Blairite calling you one (given your close political proximity) is a whole lot more accurate than labelling the left as cultists. You can't whinge about being called a Blairite whilst labelling your opponents as cultists. You want to dish it out then learn to man up and take it as well. If you want civilised debate which includes neither Blairite, cultists, hard left then that is fair enough as well but you don't seem to want that.
Edit: Also have I ever actually called you a Blairite or is this part of your I am directly responsible for all insults and slights done to you by other left wing people mantra you seem to have adopted?
Good morning colleagues, comrades, friends and even Brexiteers. A Happy New Year, at least on a personal level to one and all!
And on that note, has anyone seen anything of DavidL?
I am here OKC, thanks for asking. Got sent home from the hospital yesterday but was out for the count well before the bells. A few quiet days with my most energetic activity being reading PB seems in order.
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn went I know we would lose the hard left nutter scab element who in 2015 were busy campaigning against us - I can live with that. But we might end up with a leader who didn't repulse as many voters who could broaden our appeal out of the core. Its not our policies that are the problem remember - people like them and indeed the Tories started to run some of them. And the notion that a bearded pensioner is the only person who can mobilise the young is absurd - the very leadership cult bullshit that you (Jezziah) insist is a figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if you aren't a Blairite calling you one (given your close political proximity) is a whole lot more accurate than labelling the left as cultists. You can't whinge about being called a Blairite whilst labelling your opponents as cultists. You want to dish it out then learn to man up and take it as well. If you want civilised debate which includes neither Blairite, cultists, hard left then that is fair enough as well but you don't seem to want that.
People positively voted for a manifesto and leader who promised to retain 80% of Tory welfare cuts. They voted for a manifesto that looked very like the 2015 one. And what does YouGov tell us now about how Jeremy is perceived in the country?
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Labour policy was to retain 80% of Tory welfare spending cuts. Can you explain how that is left wing?
Good morning colleagues, comrades, friends and even Brexiteers. A Happy New Year, at least on a personal level to one and all!
And on that note, has anyone seen anything of DavidL?
I am here OKC, thanks for asking. Got sent home from the hospital yesterday but was out for the count well before the bells. A few quiet days with my most energetic activity being reading PB seems in order.
And a Happy New Year to all.
Good news; thanks. Don't jeopardise recovery by getting aerated by comments from whoever you normally disagree with!
I can imagine that 39% is the core anti-Tory vote...
It's a lot higher than that. The Conservatives polled 44% in 1983 which means 56% of those who voted didn't vote for them so we can probably say 55% is a fair mark. The anti-Conservative and anti-Labour majorities are probably similar and significantly smaller than the anti-LD, anti-UKIP and anti-Green majorities.
So, what is propping up the 41% Conservative vote share? Fear of Corbyn - to an extent but probably over-stated. The Conservatives hold their share because their supporters have nowhere else to go. They stay with May because they "trust" her only to the extent they don't trust anyone else to deliver Brexit in all its myriad forms.
What then would break that share down - two thoughts, IF the WA falls and May moves to supporting No Deal, what then? Initially, the support base will hold up well as we are, as someone once said, "all in this together", exhortations to the Dunkirk Spirit and the usual unsubtle jibes at Europe and especially the key EU leaders and figures.
If, of course, No Deal ends up as bad as some say, who will the Conservative voting bloc blame? Probably not the Government, perhaps specific Ministers but it will be somehow "Europe's fault" if avocadoes run short.
What then of revocation? If May stands up and states it is in the national interest to prevent No Deal so she will go to Europe and (essentially) beg for more time either through an A50 extension or revocation? How will the supporters of a Party committed to taking us out of the EU on 29/3/19 react to being told it will either be delayed several months or not happen at all? That's going to be interesting especially given the strength of the "let's get this over with" bloc.
This is the central point - for May to even hint at delaying or stopping A50 would be political and electoral suicide. She has to plough on - IF, of course, the Commons, led mainly by the Opposition, pass motions opposing No Deal and seeking either revocation or a delay, May can say she is only following the will of the Commons and try to pass the blame for stopping Brexit to the Opposition which would be electorally strong for the Conservatives.
Without that, her only route is No Deal and Parliament opposing it is totally and utterly irrelevant. As far as the EU is concerned, if we reject the WA, we leave without a Deal on 29/3. It doesn't matter if Parliament rejects No Deal or votes for Canada +++, Norway --- or whatever, that isn't where the A50 negotiations are. There is a WA - we either accept it or we leave without a Deal, It's really that simple - everything else is obfuscation.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Have to tell you, if that turkey gets elected, you will not see many left wing policies enacted , they will resort to type and just be Tory clones.
I think Corbyn is a bit of a tricky one to paint with the Red Tory jibe, anyone can do anything of course but in terms of wanting to push through left wing policy it seems likely that the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell are fairly genuine. Or at least they played the perfect build up to the part if their not.
Although they did advocate retaining the vast majority of Tory welfare cuts at the last GE.
There might be a chance that left wing political thought is not centred around one subject alone that decides whether a set of policies is left wing but around all the subjects politics touches...
I suspect with a middle of the party (Cooper, Benn.....) leader ~Labour would be 15-20% ahead...
One day somebody will show me the workings behind this huge lead that would be gained by putting into place someone they would prefer...
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
You seem to imply that Corbyn's has created a left wing set of voters and members that have appeared from nowhere - I just don't think that's the case - the people you describe above were always armchair labour supporters.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
Corbyn hasn't created left wing people.
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
Labour policy was to retain 80% of Tory welfare spending cuts. Can you explain how that is left wing?
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if you aren't a Blairite calling you one (given your close political proximity) is a whole lot more accurate than labelling the left as cultists. You can't whinge about being called a Blairite whilst labelling your opponents as cultists. You want to dish it out then learn to man up and take it as well. If you want civilised debate which includes neither Blairite, cultists, hard left then that is fair enough as well but you don't seem to want that.
Edit: Also have I ever actually called you a Blairite or is this part of your I am directly responsible for all insults and slights done to you by other left wing people mantra you seem to have adopted?
You believe only Jeremy Corbyn is fit to lead the Labour party. I suspect that Rochdale - like me - believes there are multiple better candidates from all wings of the party. There is only one cultist among us.
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if you aren't a Blairite calling you one (given your close political proximity) is a whole lot more accurate than labelling the left as cultists. You can't whinge about being called a Blairite whilst labelling your opponents as cultists. You want to dish it out then learn to man up and take it as well. If you want civilised debate which includes neither Blairite, cultists, hard left then that is fair enough as well but you don't seem to want that.
People positively voted for a manifesto and leader who promised to retain 80% of Tory welfare cuts.
Well that is a slam dunk, I am glad somebody has provided the evidence that Cooper or Benn would be 15-20% in the lead...
Do you actually have a point with this beyond Corbyn is teh bad?
It doesn't seem to indicate that the almost half of Labour voters who voted positively for Corbyn and a left wing manifesto would do the same for a centrist one?
If you want me to say Corbyn is teh bad I will say it to advance the conversation but with my fingers crossed.
Good morning colleagues, comrades, friends and even Brexiteers. A Happy New Year, at least on a personal level to one and all!
And on that note, has anyone seen anything of DavidL?
I am here OKC, thanks for asking. Got sent home from the hospital yesterday but was out for the count well before the bells. A few quiet days with my most energetic activity being reading PB seems in order.
And a Happy New Year to all.
Good news; thanks. Don't jeopardise recovery by getting aerated by comments from whoever you normally disagree with!
I never do Mr Cole. I look for the humour, even if it is expressing a view I don't agree with. Thankfully there is always plenty of that on here.
I sometimes wonder if it is something politicians might think about a bit more. Those who can use humour effectively can reach parts of the electorate that they wouldn't normally get near. Boris used to do it to good effect and Cameron had genuine wit on occasions but active politicians using wit right now are hard to come by. Definitely a gap in the market.
Of course, despite Marf's best efforts, humour and Brexit are not easy bed fellows.
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if you aren't a Blairite calling you one (given your close political proximity) is a whole lot more accurate than labelling the left as cultists. You can't whinge about being called a Blairite whilst labelling your opponents as cultists. You want to dish it out then learn to man up and take it as well. If you want civilised debate which includes neither Blairite, cultists, hard left then that is fair enough as well but you don't seem to want that.
Edit: Also have I ever actually called you a Blairite or is this part of your I am directly responsible for all insults and slights done to you by other left wing people mantra you seem to have adopted?
You believe only Jeremy Corbyn is fit to lead the Labour party. I suspect that Rochdale - like me - believes there are multiple better candidates from all wings of the party. There is only one cultist among us.
The two of you have been members of progress. I don't think making accusations of cultist is really wise considering.
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if you aren't a Blairite calling you one (given your close political proximity) is a whole lot more accurate than labelling the left as cultists. You can't whinge about being called a Blairite whilst labelling your opponents as cultists. You want to dish it out then learn to man up and take it as well. If you want civilised debate which includes neither Blairite, cultists, hard left then that is fair enough as well but you don't seem to want that.
People positively voted for a manifesto and leader who promised to retain 80% of Tory welfare cuts.
Well that is a slam dunk, I am glad somebody has provided the evidence that Cooper or Benn would be 15-20% in the lead...
Do you actually have a point with this beyond Corbyn is teh bad?
It doesn't seem to indicate that the almost half of Labour voters who voted positively for Corbyn and a left wing manifesto would do the same for a centrist one?
If you want me to say Corbyn is teh bad I will say it to advance the conversation but with my fingers crossed.
My point is that you selectively quote YouGov polling data to support your claim that Corbyn is a major benefit to the Labour party while refusing to accept the YouGov polling data which shows that he is, in fact, a drag on the Labour vote. You also fail to explain how promising to retain 80% of Tory welfare cuts is left-wing - I suspect that is because you can't.
I understand we will never agree. Your priority is Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour party - and you have have what you want; mine is seeing the end of this destructive, incompetent, disastrous government - and, sadly, you having what you want precludes me getting that.
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
If Corbyn figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if you aren't a Blairite calling you one (given your close political proximity) is a whole lot more accurate than labelling the left as cultists. You can't whinge about being called a Blairite whilst labelling your opponents as cultists. You want to dish it out then learn to man up and take it as well. If you want civilised debate which includes neither Blairite, cultists, hard left then that is fair enough as well but you don't seem to want that.
Edit: Also have I ever actually called you a Blairite or is this part of your I am directly responsible for all insults and slights done to you by other left wing people mantra you seem to have adopted?
You believe only Jeremy Corbyn is fit to lead the Labour party. I suspect that Rochdale - like me - believes there are multiple better candidates from all wings of the party. There is only one cultist among us.
The two of you have been members of progress. I don't think making accusations of cultist is really wise considering.
I don’t like Blairism one bit - particularly with its fixation on boosting welfare spending at the cost of low earners who for one reason or another are not entitled, and of economic competitiveness.
But it’s clear that it didn’t have the cult like following of Corbynism.
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if ythat.
Edit: Also have I ever actually called you a Blairite or is this part of your I am directly responsible for all insults and slights done to you by other left wing people mantra you seem to have adopted?
You believe only Jeremy Corbyn is fit to lead the Labour party. I suspect that Rochdale - like me - believes there are multiple better candidates from all wings of the party. There is only one cultist among us.
The two of you have been members of progress. I don't think making accusations of cultist is really wise considering.
You back Labour because of Jeremy. You believe only Jeremy is capable of delivering left wing policies. You will not entertain any alternatives. Bless you.
Good morning colleagues, comrades, friends and even Brexiteers. A Happy New Year, at least on a personal level to one and all!
And on that note, has anyone seen anything of DavidL?
I am here OKC, thanks for asking. Got sent home from the hospital yesterday but was out for the count well before the bells. A few quiet days with my most energetic activity being reading PB seems in order.
And a Happy New Year to all.
Good news; thanks. Don't jeopardise recovery by getting aerated by comments from whoever you normally disagree with!
I never do Mr Cole. I look for the humour, even if it is expressing a view I don't agree with. Thankfully there is always plenty of that on here.
I sometimes wonder if it is something politicians might think about a bit more. Those who can use humour effectively can reach parts of the electorate that they wouldn't normally get near. Boris used to do it to good effect and Cameron had genuine wit on occasions but active politicians using wit right now are hard to come by. Definitely a gap in the market.
Of course, despite Marf's best efforts, humour and Brexit are not easy bed fellows.
Very commendable. And wise.
When one thinks that Vince Cable was able to significantly up his political career on a base of one rather good joke.....
Just to chip in to the Labour debate - I voted for Jezza in 2015 as he was the only candidate for the leadership saying anything different and interesting. By 2016 I knew he wasn't up to the job so voted against him. I was as surprised as anyone by how well we did in the 2017 GE, and credit Jezza with inspiring a tranche of voters - while also repelling others. This success in the campaign does not equate with leadership, however.
I essentially support our current economic and wider domestic policy position. I agreed with just about everything McDonnell said when he visited our constituency before Christmas. However, I think we would have a better chance of winning an election and putting our policies into practice with a different leader.
I've thought that Starmer was the best option for some time and still hold to that view.
Just to chip in to the Labour debate - I voted for Jezza in 2015 as he was the only candidate for the leadership saying anything different and interesting. By 2016 I knew he wasn't up to the job so voted against him. I was as surprised as anyone by how well we did in the 2017 GE, and credit Jezza with inspiring a tranche of voters - while also repelling others. This success in the campaign does not equate with leadership, however.
I essentially support our current economic and wider domestic policy position. I agreed with just about everything McDonnell said when he visited our constituency before Christmas. However, I think we would have a better chance of winning an election and putting our policies into practice with a different leader.
I've thought that Starmer was the best option for some time and still hold to that view.
Yep, I don't think the argument is about domestic policy.
OT the various bets on things happening or not by the end of 2018 should be boosting our accounts this morning. It looks like at one point Betfair settled Trump wrongly, or perhaps just prematurely, given time zones and the rotation of the Earth.
Good morning colleagues, comrades, friends and even Brexiteers. A Happy New Year, at least on a personal level to one and all!
And on that note, has anyone seen anything of DavidL?
I am here OKC, thanks for asking. Got sent home from the hospital yesterday but was out for the count well before the bells. A few quiet days with my most energetic activity being reading PB seems in order.
And a Happy New Year to all.
Happy New Year David, glad to hear you are on the mend.
Just to chip in to the Labour debate - I voted for Jezza in 2015 as he was the only candidate for the leadership saying anything different and interesting. By 2016 I knew he wasn't up to the job so voted against him. I was as surprised as anyone by how well we did in the 2017 GE, and credit Jezza with inspiring a tranche of voters - while also repelling others. This success in the campaign does not equate with leadership, however.
I essentially support our current economic and wider domestic policy position. I agreed with just about everything McDonnell said when he visited our constituency before Christmas. However, I think we would have a better chance of winning an election and putting our policies into practice with a different leader.
I've thought that Starmer was the best option for some time and still hold to that view.
Agree, he is about the only Labour politician I have heard who sounds like he actually has a clue.
No it doesn't. Currently we have both parties "led" by leaders loved and loathed by their own side. The duopoly sees both Labour and Tory with their core vote and their likely vote on board but little enthusiasm for the leader. Why? Because fear of the other has become visceral - must vote Labour/Tory to stop the evil Tory/Labour.
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
Both your statements go against the evidence though.
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if ythat.
Edit: Also have I ever actually called you a Blairite or is this part of your I am directly responsible for all insults and slights done to you by other left wing people mantra you seem to have adopted?
You believe only Jeremy Corbyn is fit to lead the Labour party. I suspect that Rochdale - like me - believes there are multiple better candidates from all wings of the party. There is only one cultist among us.
The two of you have been members of progress. I don't think making accusations of cultist is really wise considering.
You back Labour because of Jeremy. You believe only Jeremy is capable of delivering left wing policies. You will not entertain any alternatives. Bless you.
Citation required. On the second bit to clarify, the first bit is true, I along with many other people backed Labour because of the leftward shift under Corbyn.
You believe only Jeremy Corbyn is fit to lead the Labour party. I suspect that Rochdale - like me - believes there are multiple better candidates from all wings of the party. There is only one cultist among us.
The two of you have been members of progress. I don't think making accusations of cultist is really wise considering.
I don’t like Blairism one bit - particularly with its fixation on boosting welfare spending at the cost of low earners who for one reason or another are not entitled, and of economic competitiveness.
But it’s clear that it didn’t have the cult like following of Corbynism.
It isn't Blairism in its prime so much, though I am sure it contained some of the nonsense they complain about now. I could even understand that somewhat back then.
It is the crazy obsessives of progress who have not moved on, Blair, New Labour and 1997 is some weird moment on repeat that they can't move on from, they certainly have more claim to a cult than Corbyn supporters. The latter at least live in the modern day.
People positively voted for a manifesto and leader who promised to retain 80% of Tory welfare cuts.
Well that is a slam dunk, I am glad somebody has provided the evidence that Cooper or Benn would be 15-20% in the lead...
Do you actually have a point with this beyond Corbyn is teh bad?
It doesn't seem to indicate that the almost half of Labour voters who voted positively for Corbyn and a left wing manifesto would do the same for a centrist one?
If you want me to say Corbyn is teh bad I will say it to advance the conversation but with my fingers crossed.
My point is that you selectively quote YouGov polling data to support your claim that Corbyn is a major benefit to the Labour party while refusing to accept the YouGov polling data which shows that he is, in fact, a drag on the Labour vote. You also fail to explain how promising to retain 80% of Tory welfare cuts is left-wing - I suspect that is because you can't.
I understand we will never agree. Your priority is Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour party - and you have have what you want; mine is seeing the end of this destructive, incompetent, disastrous government - and, sadly, you having what you want precludes me getting that.
The policies and Corbyn himself were the cause of almost half the votes and our vote share raised the most since WW2!
The fact you can claim Corbyn was a drag in the face of this is delusional.
But you are right we will never agree, my priority is left wing leadership of the country and yours isn't.
Just to chip in to the Labour debate - I voted for Jezza in 2015 as he was the only candidate for the leadership saying anything different and interesting. By 2016 I knew he wasn't up to the job so voted against him. I was as surprised as anyone by how well we did in the 2017 GE, and credit Jezza with inspiring a tranche of voters - while also repelling others. This success in the campaign does not equate with leadership, however.
I essentially support our current economic and wider domestic policy position. I agreed with just about everything McDonnell said when he visited our constituency before Christmas. However, I think we would have a better chance of winning an election and putting our policies into practice with a different leader.
I've thought that Starmer was the best option for some time and still hold to that view.
I'd disagree but it is a plausible view, keeping the policies is more important to the Labour vote than keeping Corbyn at least judging by the polling, although Corbyn's campaigning ability shouldn't be underestimated.
One difficult thing to measure is how successful Corbyn was in getting his message across so a less charismatic messenger may struggle with exactly the same message.
Serious question - only vaguely Brexit related....
UK Border Force have recalled 2 cutters from overseas to reinforce border.
Question - where did they think the border was?
Was amazed to hear that UK has 5 such boats whilst Italy has 600, kind of puts it in perspective. How did we manage to be run by such a bunch of morons.
I wonder what the point is of putting more cutters in the channel (beyond The Hood being seen to be DOING SOMETHING). Even if they make an interception they can't return them directly to France with French permission - which will 100% not be forthcoming. They will just end up acting as a cross channel ferry for the Tehran Yacht Club.
Just to chip in to the Labour debate - I voted for Jezza in 2015 as he was the only candidate for the leadership saying anything different and interesting. By 2016 I knew he wasn't up to the job so voted against him. I was as surprised as anyone by how well we did in the 2017 GE, and credit Jezza with inspiring a tranche of voters - while also repelling others. This success in the campaign does not equate with leadership, however.
I essentially support our current economic and wider domestic policy position. I agreed with just about everything McDonnell said when he visited our constituency before Christmas. However, I think we would have a better chance of winning an election and putting our policies into practice with a different leader.
I've thought that Starmer was the best option for some time and still hold to that view.
I'd disagree but it is a plausible view, keeping the policies is more important to the Labour vote than keeping Corbyn at least judging by the polling, although Corbyn's campaigning ability shouldn't be underestimated.
One difficult thing to measure is how successful Corbyn was in getting his message across so a less charismatic messenger may struggle with exactly the same message.
How is Corbyn going to inspire the urban masses next time around when he’s screwed them by not doing everything in his power to stop a disastrous Brexit?
Serious question - only vaguely Brexit related....
UK Border Force have recalled 2 cutters from overseas to reinforce border.
Question - where did they think the border was?
Was amazed to hear that UK has 5 such boats whilst Italy has 600, kind of puts it in perspective. How did we manage to be run by such a bunch of morons.
I wonder what the point is of putting more cutters in the channel (beyond The Hood being seen to be DOING SOMETHING). Even if they make an interception they can't return them directly to France with French permission - which will 100% not be forthcoming. They will just end up acting as a cross channel ferry for the Tehran Yacht Club.
Yes pretty pathetic all round, might as well just buy them Eurostar tickets. What a joke.
Comments
Virtually no change at all on GE17 on those figures other than UKIP slightly up
Happy 2019, and I hope that Brexit is the damp squib that I expect, rather than the more lurid scenarios.
My predictions are very much like this thread:
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1079791685087969281?s=19
Mind you, that applies equally to Corbyn.
You can clearly fool quite a lot of the people quite a lot of the time.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/12/dont-go-out-new-years-eve/578836/
If you have ever turned on your television on New Year’s Eve and felt even a little bit jealous of the partyers gathered in Times Square to watch the ball drop, I want you to remember one thing: A lot of those people are wearing diapers....
One of the interesting bits, should May’s deal go through, is his thoughts on the DUP - “DUP will prefer not to risk veto power over the next stage of negotiations....”
That would be a rational response on their part - abandoning May would see them lose any influence on how Brexit progressed post the deal - but would their response to the ‘betrayal’ (itself an irrational epithet) be rational ?
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
As Yeats or Morrissey (I forget which) said...
And on that note, has anyone seen anything of DavidL?
Happy New Year to all. I expect 2019 to deliver a Brexit that is not what the Brexiteers had hoped it would deliver, nor what the Remainers had most feared.
So, Theresa May's Shit Deal (or pretty close). But it will mean we Leave the European Union.
And there will be a new Prime Minister of the UK in 2019.
If you can't take a lead under these circumstances, when are you ever going to? Even William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith took occasional poll leads when New Labour wasn't in what looks like a death spiral.
Getting a lead with YouGov seems to require a bit extra than with other pollsters. Also the government has the disadvantage of having to do something regarding Brexit, classing doing nothing and dropping out to no deal as doing something.
Given Brexit is the main policy that plays well for the Tories it being over even without them annoying anyone is a loss electorally to them. Presumably though there will be some people displeased by whatever they do whereas Brexit isn't anywhere near the driving force on the Labour voting side.
A thread with both Miss Marf and Ave It is a nice way to start the year.
One hopes 2019 is rather better.
You should be 10 points clear with every pollster.
To put this in context, in the last Parliament 18 months after the 2010 election, Miliband-led Labour was between 7 and 11 points clear with every pollster. He still lost the next election.
Also the 10 point lead would put us on around 50% of the vote, not realistic.
And there have been a few polls over the last couple of months that have had Labour ahead more than just 2 small comres leads, admittedly the good ones for the Tories tend to get more repetition on here whereas the less Tory friendly ones get the odd mention which can give a bit a distorting effect.
If we want to go on previous, as you have done, then Corbyn started 20 points behind so we will easily win next time. Now obviously he isn't going to gain 20 points just because he did last time but equally he seems unlikely to have 10 odd point swing against him just because Ed did.
Though if the economy is propping up the Conservatives, they'd better be hoping that nothing happens in the spring, at the end of March, say, that might cause job losses or other disruption.
41% of Labour voters voted Labour because of Corbyn and the policies, which are largely there because of the direction Corbyn has taken Labour.
We can afford to remove the reasons for almost half the huge Labour vote at the recent election and not only be in a winning position but be on course for a landslide....
It defies logic.
Obviously doesn't mean they've been wrong or right but if even the worst have you close then you must be close.
In terms of the closeness look at Trump in America, he hasn't even got a Democrat leader to attack in the same way the Conservatives have in Corbyn and for all I dislike the Conservatives you'd be hard pressed to put them down as being as bad as Trump's republicans but they have massive support, they might even win the next election.
America like Britain is very partisan, the Republican voters loyally turn out even when things look terrible and much the same with Tory voters.
I am not really sure what else to add, it defies logic.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/07/11/why-people-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener
There was very little to distinguish the 2015 and 2017 Labour manifestos.
If Jeremy Corbyn really is the only figure the Labour left has to offer then the Labour left is only a couple of years from oblivion.
Also I'm sure the Tories picked up plenty of anti Ed votes in the 2015 election, I somehow can't see the same being true in terms of numbers inspired to vote Labour because of the leader under Ed.
Now this is of course somewhat unfair, in that Corbyn and for all I know Cable are making speeches all the time. But although the media are pathetic in their unwillingness to report anything that isn't easily-summarised and a good headline, it's also true that we're not saying much that is new at the moment, and even helpful media can't keep reporting "Corbyn condemns austerity in [new location]".
But the Tories would be remarkably unwise to think that their position is essentially solid.
What does YouGov tell us about how Corbyn is perceived in the country now?
Polling only showed 14% voting for anti Corbyn reasons. I bet the Conservatives got some anti Ed votes as well, maybe not quite 14% but I wouldn't be surprised to see it around double figures.
So if you subtract the difference we would be removing the primary voting cause of maybe at best 7% of Tory voters as there will always be some voting for anti Labour leader reasons.
And the trade off for peeling off the main reason for 7% of Tories voting Tory is to get rid of the main reason of close to half* of the Labour vote...
The result of that certainly does not equal landslide, it doesn't even equal advancement. That would take Labour backwards electorally.
*You can make the same argument here in fairness that there will always be some pro leader and pro policies/manifesto votes.
Belated New Year greetings to all on PB.
My viewpoint always has been that voters don't pick the best option in an election, most simply vote for their least worst option out of the choices available and it's on that basis that I would argue that Labour are 15-20% behind where they should be as it's Corbyn that is making Labour a poorer choice than the dysfunctional Tories...
And going back to your 41% argument my take is that the social care death tax gave Labour those votes as with that policy in place Labour even with Corbyn in charge was a lesser risk to their wealth...
We would dump the 'crazy left wing policies' with the 'crazy left wing leader' and return to the gloriously popular centrism which would deliver us a landslide.
Not Politics: Start my new job on Thursday! Unemployed dosser no more
They scream”betrayal” but it’s only rhetoric
They will take May for everything they can get
Equally 14% voting Tory for anti-Corbyn figures is a swing of 28% if all of them switched to Labour were it to have a new leader. Now not all of them would switch but enough would...
To give my own non Labour voting example I was always around. I just hadn't had a left wing Labour party to vote for until Corbyn. Ed made some moves in the direction in fairness.
The idea that all these people, like me, who came out because we actually had a left wing option will automatically vote for a return to New Labour is silly. I won't.
The YouGov polling doesn't indicate what you said either, best of a bad bunch made up only 3% of the Labour vote.
13% for Corbyn and 28% for Labour policies/manifesto.
You can almost certainly keep the 3% of voters who picked Labour as the best of a bad bunch but I would suggest they are far less important than the 41% who voted positively for a left wing Corbyn led Labour.
Which costs Labour the chance of victory in the next election rather than resulting in a landslide.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/20/labour-manifesto-keep-planned-tory-benefit-cuts-resolution-foundation
Meanwhile the classic swing voter - apolitical, not particularly bothered either way - sits on their hands. They really are all the same, all as bad as each other, and if thats my choice of government let someone else make the choice.
If Corbyn went I know we would lose the hard left nutter scab element who in 2015 were busy campaigning against us - I can live with that. But we might end up with a leader who didn't repulse as many voters who could broaden our appeal out of the core. Its not our policies that are the problem remember - people like them and indeed the Tories started to run some of them. And the notion that a bearded pensioner is the only person who can mobilise the young is absurd - the very leadership cult bullshit that you (Jezziah) insist is a figment of my Blairite* imagination
*I'm not Blairite. But anyone who points out that they can see magic grandpa's knackers gets called it
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cSXV6qJJrME/VNd5JmcxmDI/AAAAAAAAALk/RXKwhEpILw0/s1600/AB.jpg
Given that I got 9 on Hamilton hitting/exceeding 92 wins and he only needs about 20, that suggests the odds on that longer term bet were rather too long (indeed, that's why I backed it).
There's also a market on the title without the big 6. Worth noting the each way for the title itself has a fifth the odds top three, whereas the market excluding the top 6 has just a third the odds top two.
The teams to consider for such a market are likely Renault, Force India (which may be renamed, incidentally), and Haas. For those curious, Force India would've finished marginally behind Renault even had they not had their points confiscated.
Ricciardo and Hulkenberg are 4.33 and 4.5 respectively. Perez and Stroll are 5 and 10. Grosjean and Magnussen are 8.5 and 10.
Raikkonen's also up there, at 9. Sauber had a good year last time but they'd be pushing it to become the top midfield team in 2019.
Magnussen beat Grosjean last year, making his slightly longer odds interesting. I think the Perez/Stroll odds are likely correct, though the Canadian hasn't ever had a good car (and does start races well).
The tightness of the Renault pairing's odds makes sense to me, but there is 2.2 on Hulkenberg to beat Ricciardo on a season match market. If you're feeling bullish about Renault, you could back that, then back Ricciardo (perhaps with a slightly smaller stake) for the title excluding the big 6.
Hmm. The odds are too tight to tempt me. At the moment. There may be a bargain in the future. At one point Raikkonen was about 61 for the title in 2018, and each way was still available for top 3.
Mrs May is a poor politician, but strangely enough has a slight advantage being a woman. But she hasn't improved with viewing. Jezza was a very poor politician but has improved a little with practice. The downside for him is that his policies have become better known, as has his slipperiness with the truth at times.
It's the robot vs the metronome.
As I've aged, I moved across the political spectrum a little, as do most people. Hence Labour cannot rely on the young, the bastards keep getting older.
I voted for Michael Foot in the early eighties and perhaps I wouldn't now, but there's no way I'd have voted for Jezza even then. I quite liked Kinnock and cheered him on against Militant. Now it's returned in the guise of Momentum.
It had the advantage of being new and sparkly but the novelty is wearing off. After Brexit, I suspect we'll be looking for a more comfort-blanket type party. It could be the LDs under the right leader, although Labour should have the advantage because of history. But not with Jezza.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu
People didn't sit on their hands, more people actively voted Labour and Conservatives than previous elections and turnout was up.
Also Labour's vote were overwhelmingly driven by positive reasons. Anti Tory Anti May and best of a bad bunch (all the negative categories) take up only 22% of the Labour vote.
Almost all the rest of the reason listed are positive reasons, voting for party at 78%. The overwhelming majority of Labour votes were positive ones not negative ones.
You would rather Labour lose under your preferred leader than win under Corbyn, that is why you are happy to get rid of the positive reasons for many people Labour votes.
And there you go with the cult stuff whilst having a little whinge about being branded a blairite.
Even if you aren't a Blairite calling you one (given your close political proximity) is a whole lot more accurate than labelling the left as cultists. You can't whinge about being called a Blairite whilst labelling your opponents as cultists. You want to dish it out then learn to man up and take it as well. If you want civilised debate which includes neither Blairite, cultists, hard left then that is fair enough as well but you don't seem to want that.
Edit: Also have I ever actually called you a Blairite or is this part of your I am directly responsible for all insults and slights done to you by other left wing people mantra you seem to have adopted?
And a Happy New Year to all.
So, what is propping up the 41% Conservative vote share? Fear of Corbyn - to an extent but probably over-stated. The Conservatives hold their share because their supporters have nowhere else to go. They stay with May because they "trust" her only to the extent they don't trust anyone else to deliver Brexit in all its myriad forms.
What then would break that share down - two thoughts, IF the WA falls and May moves to supporting No Deal, what then? Initially, the support base will hold up well as we are, as someone once said, "all in this together", exhortations to the Dunkirk Spirit and the usual unsubtle jibes at Europe and especially the key EU leaders and figures.
If, of course, No Deal ends up as bad as some say, who will the Conservative voting bloc blame? Probably not the Government, perhaps specific Ministers but it will be somehow "Europe's fault" if avocadoes run short.
What then of revocation? If May stands up and states it is in the national interest to prevent No Deal so she will go to Europe and (essentially) beg for more time either through an A50 extension or revocation? How will the supporters of a Party committed to taking us out of the EU on 29/3/19 react to being told it will either be delayed several months or not happen at all? That's going to be interesting especially given the strength of the "let's get this over with" bloc.
This is the central point - for May to even hint at delaying or stopping A50 would be political and electoral suicide. She has to plough on - IF, of course, the Commons, led mainly by the Opposition, pass motions opposing No Deal and seeking either revocation or a delay, May can say she is only following the will of the Commons and try to pass the blame for stopping Brexit to the Opposition which would be electorally strong for the Conservatives.
Without that, her only route is No Deal and Parliament opposing it is totally and utterly irrelevant. As far as the EU is concerned, if we reject the WA, we leave without a Deal on 29/3. It doesn't matter if Parliament rejects No Deal or votes for Canada +++, Norway --- or whatever, that isn't where the A50 negotiations are. There is a WA - we either accept it or we leave without a Deal, It's really that simple - everything else is obfuscation.
Just a hunch.
So it is just about possible that 2019 could be better than 2018.
Do you actually have a point with this beyond Corbyn is teh bad?
It doesn't seem to indicate that the almost half of Labour voters who voted positively for Corbyn and a left wing manifesto would do the same for a centrist one?
If you want me to say Corbyn is teh bad I will say it to advance the conversation but with my fingers crossed.
I sometimes wonder if it is something politicians might think about a bit more. Those who can use humour effectively can reach parts of the electorate that they wouldn't normally get near. Boris used to do it to good effect and Cameron had genuine wit on occasions but active politicians using wit right now are hard to come by. Definitely a gap in the market.
Of course, despite Marf's best efforts, humour and Brexit are not easy bed fellows.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jimmy-carter-how-to-repair-the-us-china-relationship--and-prevent-a-modern-cold-war/2018/12/31/cc1d6b94-0927-11e9-85b6-41c0fe0c5b8f_story.html
I understand we will never agree. Your priority is Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour party - and you have have what you want; mine is seeing the end of this destructive, incompetent, disastrous government - and, sadly, you having what you want precludes me getting that.
But it’s clear that it didn’t have the cult like following of Corbynism.
When one thinks that Vince Cable was able to significantly up his political career on a base of one rather good joke.....
I essentially support our current economic and wider domestic policy position. I agreed with just about everything McDonnell said when he visited our constituency before Christmas. However, I think we would have a better chance of winning an election and putting our policies into practice with a different leader.
I've thought that Starmer was the best option for some time and still hold to that view.
(I will resist the urge to type #despiteBrexit, oh, damn).
It is the crazy obsessives of progress who have not moved on, Blair, New Labour and 1997 is some weird moment on repeat that they can't move on from, they certainly have more claim to a cult than Corbyn supporters. The latter at least live in the modern day.
The fact you can claim Corbyn was a drag in the face of this is delusional.
But you are right we will never agree, my priority is left wing leadership of the country and yours isn't.
One difficult thing to measure is how successful Corbyn was in getting his message across so a less charismatic messenger may struggle with exactly the same message.