Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
Any other would allow for the emergence of a British 'en marche', though the fortunes of TIG don't suggest that that's particularly likely.
The electoral system in Britain doesn not favour centrists like in France.
In France you can become President with less than 20% as long as you are 2nd and the most centrist candidate, that's why it's always a very unhappy country because it rarely has a President that has public approval.
Scotland rarely has a Prime Minister with public approval.
I think I’m right in saying that seven PMs since WWII had a purality of the votes in Scotland. I’m not sure I would describe that as “rarely”.
Scotland rarely gets the governments it votes for. Scots have voted for Labour or the SNP at every Westminster election since 1955, but by the time of the 2024 election will have had Conservative governments they didn’t want for 47 of the previous 69 years.
England always decides what government everyone else gets. Most of the time (roughly seven years out of ten since the Second World War) that’s been a government Scotland has rejected.
Anyone going to judge me for pointing out the irony that the last Conservative government was only able to be formed because of the 12 extra MPs it won in Scotland?
So, what you are saying is that Brexit is all down to the political genius Ruth Davidson. Oh, the irony.
Anyone remember when she wiped the floor with The Clown during the Brexit referendum?
Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.
This really is a clash for the ages.
Tis why they need Nandy.....
Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.
Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?
Labour’s Brexit betrayal will be remembered for a generation
Unless, of course, Brexit goes wrong. Worst case of course would be all to be well for a couple of years and then a really nasty crack appearing.
It Brexit "goes wrong" most leavers will never accept that it was a bad decision to leave the EU. If, for example, interest rates rise, or unemployment goes up, they will say "well it would have been worse if we had stayed in the EU". I think this will restrict any buyer`s remorse.
The recent Labour Leadership contenders comments about Better Together have gone down swimmingly amongst SLab twitter and no mistake.
My prediction is by the end of today Duncan Hothersall will be claiming that Scotland's natural state is a massive pro-Indy majority and only the heroic efforts of Better Together stopped Scotland going independent and taking Berwick-Upon-Tweed with it
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
Surveys before the 2017 GE said the same, do we really think that Ed Miliband would have won a big victory had he stayed on, (or whatever centrist took over from him?)
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
Any other would allow for the emergence of a British 'en marche', though the fortunes of TIG don't suggest that that's particularly likely.
The electoral system in Britain doesn not favour centrists like in France.
In France you can become President with less than 20% as long as you are 2nd and the most centrist candidate, that's why it's always a very unhappy country because it rarely has a President that has public approval.
Scotland rarely has a Prime Minister with public approval.
I think I’m right in saying that seven PMs since WWII had a purality of the votes in Scotland. I’m not sure I would describe that as “rarely”.
Scotland rarely gets the governments it votes for. Scots have voted for Labour or the SNP at every Westminster election since 1955, but by the time of the 2024 election will have had Conservative governments they didn’t want for 47 of the previous 69 years.
England always decides what government everyone else gets. Most of the time (roughly seven years out of ten since the Second World War) that’s been a government Scotland has rejected.
The UK is certainly unlikely to get an SNP government any time soon.
Apropos of nothing, I came across the most bizarre accent yesterday. I wanted to use a local undertaker, rather than the Co-op. The main man has the broadest Derbyshire accent you could ever wish to hear. Everything is "mi duck".
His assistant is from Mississippi, but she has been in Derbyshire for many years. Her southern drawl combined with the picked up "mi duck" is just hilarious!
Everything going smoothly, I trust. It's a time when one really doesn't want hassle.
Thank you sir, going as well as can be hoped. Death is an area of life I've never had to get involved in before. As someone else warned, it's just the amount of admin, made all the more so because of the very peculiar state of affairs my mother left behind. That's going to take an age to resolve.
Oh dear, not fun. Deal with the funeral etc first, worry about other matters afterwards. Bro-in-law had to deal with his aunts funeral. Everything was going OK until it was realised that to actually have the cremation the signature of the doctor who saw her last (or something like that) was required. Unfortunately this wasn't discovered until the day before the funeral and when someone went to see the doctor he was on his day off and wasn't co-operative. So, on the actual day of the funeral it had to be postponed. Unfortunately for us Essex people it was in NW Lancs and we were two-thirds the way there before we were told that it was off.
Hopefully all that detail got signed off yesterday. Like having to confirm she wasn't fitted with a pacemaker, or anything else that was going to explode.... As I say, stuff you don't have to worry about day to day.
Turning to the Deputy Labour Leader race. Anyone have any insight on this?
BF have a market and Rayner is 1/4 which looks way too short to me. I`ve laid this a bit already.
Question - who else is likely to stand?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Dawn Butler, Richard Burgon, Khalid Mahmood, Conor McGinn and Ian Murray.
Allin-Khan did the really good "Love actually" canvassing video which went viral and Johnson later adapted for Tory use, but is otherwise not well-known. Murray is seen as Arch Anti-Corbyn, Burgon is seen as Corbyn But Even More So.
I can see Butler doing quite well but at present Rayner is certainly the favourite. 1-4 would be right if the vote was tomorrow, but of course favourites can trip up.
Why should he reduce student debt - the students willingly signed up and committed to it.
Because the ONS is dropping £10bn+ of bad student debt on the government borrowing every year.
And because inter-generational inequality is a bad thing for the country and damaging to the Conservative party's future prospects.
So 50% of students going to university is an expensive way of hiding youth unemployment/
Yep thought as much.
Blame Blair and Cameron for that.
We'd be better off reducing the number of crap universities and funding more technical education and training.
We would be better off actually road mapping and directing people to the training that is available online for free (or minimal cost - Udemy courses are usually £10 or so if you find a voucher).
The issue is that companies expect qualifications and use it as the initial recruitment filter. Which is why a lot of jobs that were previously a level courses require a degree and more clueful firms now offer degree apprenticeships.
Btw given the chose between the 2 go for a degree apprenticeship everytime - you will be years ahead of your contemporaries and without the debt.
Those recruitment filters you mention are the big problem. Often the so-called top universities are only top because big employers use their names to filter applications. It is not as if salt is NaCl at Cambridge but RbI at the University of Huddersfield. And half the time the subject taken is irrelevant anyway. Does Boris really need his degree in Classics to run the country?
Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.
This really is a clash for the ages.
Tis why they need Nandy.....
Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.
Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?
Labour’s Brexit betrayal will be remembered for a generation
And those who left Labour and voted Tory will find it less hard to do again in the future now the powerful bond is broken. Many of these working class Labour voters are conservatives by ideology after all. There is a chance they will realise that they`ve been voting for the "wrong" party all these years.
The next GE will be interesting. I`m hoping for a resurgent LibDem party and am optimistic if Labour proves to be mortally wounded.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
Any other would allow for the emergence of a British 'en marche', though the fortunes of TIG don't suggest that that's particularly likely.
The electoral system in Britain doesn not favour centrists like in France.
In France you can become President with less than 20% as long as you are 2nd and the most centrist candidate, that's why it's always a very unhappy country because it rarely has a President that has public approval.
Scotland rarely has a Prime Minister with public approval.
I think I’m right in saying that seven PMs since WWII had a purality of the votes in Scotland. I’m not sure I would describe that as “rarely”.
Scotland rarely gets the governments it votes for. Scots have voted for Labour or the SNP at every Westminster election since 1955, but by the time of the 2024 election will have had Conservative governments they didn’t want for 47 of the previous 69 years.
England always decides what government everyone else gets. Most of the time (roughly seven years out of ten since the Second World War) that’s been a government Scotland has rejected.
The UK is certainly unlikely to get an SNP government any time soon.
If the SNP tried governing for a while, taking responsibility for the things they are supposed to be running rather than blaming everything on everyone else, then they might have a stronger case for claiming to be fit to run an independent nation state. But they have yet to demonstrate that they are anything other than a noisy pressure group.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
Surveys before the 2017 GE said the same, do we really think that Ed Miliband would have won a big victory had he stayed on, (or whatever centrist took over from him?)
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
The interesting question is how Corbyn became so much more negative in 2019 than in 2017. CCHQ's social media campaigning? Antisemitism? Brexit? Corbyn becoming visibly older and grumpier in the past two years?
Turning to the Deputy Labour Leader race. Anyone have any insight on this?
BF have a market and Rayner is 1/4 which looks way too short to me. I`ve laid this a bit already.
Question - who else is likely to stand?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Dawn Butler, Richard Burgon, Khalid Mahmood, Conor McGinn and Ian Murray.
Allin-Khan did the really good "Love actually" canvassing video which went viral and Johnson later adapted for Tory use, but is otherwise not well-known. Murray is seen as Arch Anti-Corbyn, Burgon is seen as Corbyn But Even More So.
I can see Butler doing quite well but at present Rayner is certainly the favourite. 1-4 would be right if the vote was tomorrow, but of course favourites can trip up.
I`ve a few quid on Butler, but the guy I`m keeping an eye on is Ian Murray. I keep looking but he`s not included in the BF market at present.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
The interesting question is how Corbyn became so much more negative in 2019 than in 2017. CCHQ's social media campaigning? Antisemitism? Brexit? Corbyn becoming visibly older and grumpier in the past two years?
Jeremy Corbyn just led Labour to its most crushing defeat in our lifetimes. Racking up a good vote count did him no good whatsoever because a lot more people voted in a way to keep him out of power. This isn't flowery language. That is, as you would say, a raw fact.
You're assuming that his own vote count was down to him rather than greater antipathy to his opponent. I suggest that is a brave assumption.
I'd suggest the pertinent raw fact, as I would say, was his opponent honouring the referendum result, whilst he had his hands tied by people who wouldn't/couldn't accept they lost
That's supposition (and flowery argument). The epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn is something that you really ought to take into account.
His worst election result was better than Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband's best. He had thousands of youngsters singing his name at Glastonbury, a remarkable thing for a politician, and achieved Labour's 2nd best amount of votes ever. I am not defending him from the pov of a supporter. I just think it is complacent to assume that those enthused by Corbyn, and they do exist, 2017 did happen, are necessarily Labour voters in 2024 with a centrist in charge
I really enjoyed the Dominic Cummings video about winning Brexit. One point that stood out was that he said it was a Westminster illusion that people are on a simple left to right spectrum with the weight being in the middle where politicians think they win elections. In fact the physicists' analysis of the Facebook data showed that people were both more left wing and right wing at the same time than the moderate consensus. They liked nationalisation and seizing assets off rich people but they also liked locking up criminals and really cutting back on immigration. Corbyn's platform was way to the left of the centre ground but it was undoubtedly popular none the less.
It's interesting that the 'young buck' leadership trend seems to have ended. Not so long ago we had Cameron, Clegg, Miliband (all about 40 when first elected). Since then May (late 50s/early60s) and Corbyn (late 60s into his 70s) followed by Johnson (mid 50s) and possibly Starmer (similar). Wonder if the LDs will go back to experience with Davey rather than another young one after the Swinson disaster.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
Surveys before the 2017 GE said the same, do we really think that Ed Miliband would have won a big victory had he stayed on, (or whatever centrist took over from him?)
I'm talking about the polling since the election that asked why people didn't vote Labour.
It wasn't all Corbyn - Brexit was a huge issue, but one that Labour couldn't deal with. They could never be as Leave as the Tories/Brexit party, and never as Remain as the Lib Dems. They tilted Remain because the majority of Labour voters voted Remain (even in those heavy leave seats), and the calculations showed that they would lose more seats if they went full Leave.
The left of the labour party is going to see just how bad the selection of Long-Bailey was for the leadership election when Rayner takes the deputy slot on the first ballot.
Turning to the Deputy Labour Leader race. Anyone have any insight on this?
BF have a market and Rayner is 1/4 which looks way too short to me. I`ve laid this a bit already.
Question - who else is likely to stand?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Dawn Butler, Richard Burgon, Khalid Mahmood, Conor McGinn and Ian Murray.
Allin-Khan did the really good "Love actually" canvassing video which went viral and Johnson later adapted for Tory use, but is otherwise not well-known. Murray is seen as Arch Anti-Corbyn, Burgon is seen as Corbyn But Even More So.
I can see Butler doing quite well but at present Rayner is certainly the favourite. 1-4 would be right if the vote was tomorrow, but of course favourites can trip up.
I saw that video and agree, Allin-Khan has talent.
She's also persuasive. Persuasive enough perhaps to convince some Corbynites to shelve dogma in return for power.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
The interesting question is how Corbyn became so much more negative in 2019 than in 2017. CCHQ's social media campaigning? Antisemitism? Brexit? Corbyn becoming visibly older and grumpier in the past two years?
It's been said that Jezza's personal ratings plummeted the moment he made some slippery utterances about Putin's responsibility for the Salisbury attack. Absolutely deserved if so, but I don't remember it cutting through much at the time.
Why should he reduce student debt - the students willingly signed up and committed to it.
Because it is significantly reducing consumption, is an incentive for our graduates to work abroad rather than here, is reducing the demand for house ownership and thus culling the next generation of Tory voters?
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Jeremy Corbyn just led Labour to its most crushing defeat in our lifetimes. Racking up a good vote count did him no good whatsoever because a lot more people voted in a way to keep him out of power. This isn't flowery language. That is, as you would say, a raw fact.
You're assuming that his own vote count was down to him rather than greater antipathy to his opponent. I suggest that is a brave assumption.
I'd suggest the pertinent raw fact, as I would say, was his opponent honouring the referendum result, whilst he had his hands tied by people who wouldn't/couldn't accept they lost
That's supposition (and flowery argument). The epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn is something that you really ought to take into account.
His worst election result was better than Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband's best.
Huh?
Gordon Brown 259 seats Ed 232 seats Corbyn '17 262 seats Corbyn '19 202 seats
Why should he reduce student debt - the students willingly signed up and committed to it.
Because it is significantly reducing consumption, is an incentive for our graduates to work abroad rather than here, is reducing the demand for house ownership and thus culling the next generation of Tory voters?
Sorry why should the taxpayer shell out for the mistakes of others?
Its becoming patently clear an ordinary humanities degree at a mediocre university is often a passport to low pay and very limited career options.
Nobody forcing these graduates to select that option.
It's interesting that the 'young buck' leadership trend seems to have ended. Not so long ago we had Cameron, Clegg, Miliband (all about 40 when first elected). Since then May (late 50s/early60s) and Corbyn (late 60s into his 70s) followed by Johnson (mid 50s) and possibly Starmer (similar). Wonder if the LDs will go back to experience with Davey rather than another young one after the Swinson disaster.
Moran would be a bigger disaster. Davey is dull but that is perhaps necessary for now
Though the prospect of two so-called progressive parties bring run by Knights is rather ironic
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
Any other would allow for the emergence of a British 'en marche', though the fortunes of TIG don't suggest that that's particularly likely.
The electoral system in Britain doesn not favour centrists like in France.
In France you can become President with less than 20% as long as you are 2nd and the most centrist candidate, that's why it's always a very unhappy country because it rarely has a President that has public approval.
Scotland rarely has a Prime Minister with public approval.
I think I’m right in saying that seven PMs since WWII had a purality of the votes in Scotland. I’m not sure I would describe that as “rarely”.
Scotland rarely gets the governments it votes for. Scots have voted for Labour or the SNP at every Westminster election since 1955, but by the time of the 2024 election will have had Conservative governments they didn’t want for 47 of the previous 69 years.
England always decides what government everyone else gets. Most of the time (roughly seven years out of ten since the Second World War) that’s been a government Scotland has rejected.
The Conservatives got more votes and seats in England than Labour did in 64 and February 1974, so it was because of Scotland we got the Labour governments of the 60s and 70s. And though Labour won more seats in Scotland in 59, the Tories actually got more votes.
The left of the labour party is going to see just how bad the selection of Long-Bailey was for the leadership election when Rayner takes the deputy slot on the first ballot.
I really enjoyed the Dominic Cummings video about winning Brexit. One point that stood out was that he said it was a Westminster illusion that people are on a simple left to right spectrum with the weight being in the middle where politicians think they win elections. In fact the physicists' analysis of the Facebook data showed that people were both more left wing and right wing at the same time than the moderate consensus. They liked nationalisation and seizing assets off rich people but they also liked locking up criminals and really cutting back on immigration. Corbyn's platform was way to the left of the centre ground but it was undoubtedly popular none the less.
Indeed. It is also noticeable that Boris's Conservative Party is radically different from Cameron's, no doubt partly due to Cummings' involvement. In becoming so, it shot a lot of Labour's foxes, and the budget (which clashes with Cheltenham) will shoot even more (so pb Tories should prepare to reverse ferret, and so should pb Labour types, as what they previously condemned/advocated is now carried out by their side/the other side).
But there is a Brexit corrolary here which is that as Cummings (and Arron Banks from the other Leave campaign) acknowledge, a lot of the Brexit vote was more NOTA than about Brexit itself. Much of the plannned investment is in recognition of this.
Jeremy Corbyn just led Labour to its most crushing defeat in our lifetimes. Racking up a good vote count did him no good whatsoever because a lot more people voted in a way to keep him out of power. This isn't flowery language. That is, as you would say, a raw fact.
You're assuming that his own vote count was down to him rather than greater antipathy to his opponent. I suggest that is a brave assumption.
I'd suggest the pertinent raw fact, as I would say, was his opponent honouring the referendum result, whilst he had his hands tied by people who wouldn't/couldn't accept they lost
That's supposition (and flowery argument). The epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn is something that you really ought to take into account.
His worst election result was better than Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband's best. He had thousands of youngsters singing his name at Glastonbury, a remarkable thing for a politician, and achieved Labour's 2nd best amount of votes ever. I am not defending him from the pov of a supporter. I just think it is complacent to assume that those enthused by Corbyn, and they do exist, 2017 did happen, are necessarily Labour voters in 2024 with a centrist in charge
I really enjoyed the Dominic Cummings video about winning Brexit. One point that stood out was that he said it was a Westminster illusion that people are on a simple left to right spectrum with the weight being in the middle where politicians think they win elections. In fact the physicists' analysis of the Facebook data showed that people were both more left wing and right wing at the same time than the moderate consensus. They liked nationalisation and seizing assets off rich people but they also liked locking up criminals and really cutting back on immigration. Corbyn's platform was way to the left of the centre ground but it was undoubtedly popular none the less.
That was a very good video, well worth watching especially in the context of him now having a senior position in the No 10 office. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDbRxH9Kiy4
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
The interesting question is how Corbyn became so much more negative in 2019 than in 2017. CCHQ's social media campaigning? Antisemitism? Brexit? Corbyn becoming visibly older and grumpier in the past two years?
I think 2017 was him getting a genuine second chance to make a first impression. He'd had two years of abuse in the press, but this would be the first time that many people would have seen him regularly on TV.
May was awful in that campaign, and Corbyn sharpened up considerably. He tidied up his dress, kept his temper in check, and was simply a lot better than people expected.
He then had two years where the only issues that seemed to cut through were Salisbury, antisemitism, Venezuela (bizarrely!) and his fence sitting on Brexit.
In 2019, people had seem him at his best and worst and weren't going to change their minds.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Jeremy Corbyn just led Labour to its most crushing defeat in our lifetimes. Racking up a good vote count did him no good whatsoever because a lot more people voted in a way to keep him out of power. This isn't flowery language. That is, as you would say, a raw fact.
You're assuming that his own vote count was down to him rather than greater antipathy to his opponent. I suggest that is a brave assumption.
I'd suggest the pertinent raw fact, as I would say, was his opponent honouring the referendum result, whilst he had his hands tied by people who wouldn't/couldn't accept they lost
That's supposition (and flowery argument). The epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn is something that you really ought to take into account.
His worst election result was better than Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband's best.
Huh?
Gordon Brown 259 seats Ed 232 seats Corbyn '17 262 seats Corbyn '19 202 seats
That's a bit rich coming from someone who constantly reminds everyone that Gore and Clinton got more votes than Bush and Trump.
I really enjoyed the Dominic Cummings video about winning Brexit. One point that stood out was that he said it was a Westminster illusion that people are on a simple left to right spectrum with the weight being in the middle where politicians think they win elections. In fact the physicists' analysis of the Facebook data showed that people were both more left wing and right wing at the same time than the moderate consensus. They liked nationalisation and seizing assets off rich people but they also liked locking up criminals and really cutting back on immigration. Corbyn's platform was way to the left of the centre ground but it was undoubtedly popular none the less.
Indeed. It is also noticeable that Boris's Conservative Party is radically different from Cameron's, no doubt partly due to Cummings' involvement. In becoming so, it shot a lot of Labour's foxes, and the budget (which clashes with Cheltenham) will shoot even more (so pb Tories should prepare to reverse ferret, and so should pb Labour types, as what they previously condemned/advocated is now carried out by their side/the other side).
But there is a Brexit corrolary here which is that as Cummings (and Arron Banks from the other Leave campaign) acknowledge which is that a lot of the Brexit vote was more NOTA than about Brexit itself. Much of the plannned investment is in recognition of this.
Again, a point he made well. "Take back control" was by no means just about Brussels when you got outside the M25. As you say it will be interesting to see if Boris can keep these new supporters on board. The proposed changes in the budget seem a good start.
The recent Labour Leadership contenders comments about Better Together have gone down swimmingly amongst SLab twitter and no mistake.
My prediction is by the end of today Duncan Hothersall will be claiming that Scotland's natural state is a massive pro-Indy majority and only the heroic efforts of Better Together stopped Scotland going independent and taking Berwick-Upon-Tweed with it
To be fair, the whole 'we'll campaign separately to the Tories' in EU referendum didn't exactly work out well for Labour in the end: either in getting the result they wanted or in avoiding losing their heartland seats.
The left of the labour party is going to see just how bad the selection of Long-Bailey was for the leadership election when Rayner takes the deputy slot on the first ballot.
Is Rayner your tip for deputy?
It's reflected in the odds tbh so not a tip per se but yes she looks very likely to win to me. 1-4 is probably technically a lay though as per Stocky if you're going to trade it on Betfair.
Why should he reduce student debt - the students willingly signed up and committed to it.
Because it is significantly reducing consumption, is an incentive for our graduates to work abroad rather than here, is reducing the demand for house ownership and thus culling the next generation of Tory voters?
Sorry why should the taxpayer shell out for the mistakes of others?
Its becoming patently clear an ordinary humanities degree at a mediocre university is often a passport to low pay and very limited career options.
Nobody forcing these graduates to select that option.
I think the answer to that question was in the last line of my post but, less cynically, the increase in interest rates on student debt was essentially a breach of contract and completely unwarranted. It should be reversed. And Universities should be required to publish the average time taken by their graduates by course to pay off their student debt. Might make a few people think twice.
Why should he reduce student debt - the students willingly signed up and committed to it.
Because it is significantly reducing consumption, is an incentive for our graduates to work abroad rather than here, is reducing the demand for house ownership and thus culling the next generation of Tory voters?
What has a graduate tax have to do with demand for house ownership. The demand is there the reason most people can't buy isn't due to the amount of "tax" they pay it's because house prices are far higher than the amount they income allows them to borrow.
And I can't see how removing any tax would resolve that issue - house prices would just increase by the increased income.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Surely the fact that all the surveys after the election had Corbyn as the biggest negative is significant?
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
The interesting question is how Corbyn became so much more negative in 2019 than in 2017. CCHQ's social media campaigning? Antisemitism? Brexit? Corbyn becoming visibly older and grumpier in the past two years?
The odd part about Corbyn was that for... the politically engaged (us) our perception of him barely changed from 2017 to 2019. All of his "links" and views etc were old hat by the 2017 election to us lot and more of the same in 2019.
But much of it hadn't cut through to the public by 2017 and seems to have done so by 2019... - the ultimate example of needing to say stuff till you're blue in the face and bored to tears of it is when Joe Public just about starts to listen ?
Why should he reduce student debt - the students willingly signed up and committed to it.
Because it is significantly reducing consumption, is an incentive for our graduates to work abroad rather than here, is reducing the demand for house ownership and thus culling the next generation of Tory voters?
What has a graduate tax have to do with demand for house ownership. The demand is there the reason most people can't buy isn't due to the amount of "tax" they pay it's because house prices are far higher than the amount they income allows them to borrow.
And I can't see how removing any tax would resolve that issue - house prices would just increase by the increased income.
It is a tax on their income when they are not much more than starting out. It reduces the affordability of mortgages and restricts how much they can borrow. Graduate debt is probably the biggest single factor in the increase in the median age at which people buy a house.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Jeremy Corbyn just led Labour to its most crushing defeat in our lifetimes. Racking up a good vote count did him no good whatsoever because a lot more people voted in a way to keep him out of power. This isn't flowery language. That is, as you would say, a raw fact.
You're assuming that his own vote count was down to him rather than greater antipathy to his opponent. I suggest that is a brave assumption.
That's supposition (and flowery argument). The epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn is something that you really ought to take into account.
His worst election result was better than Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband's best.
Huh?
Gordon Brown 259 seats Ed 232 seats Corbyn '17 262 seats Corbyn '19 202 seats
That's a bit rich coming from someone who constantly reminds everyone that Gore and Clinton got more votes than Bush and Trump.
Oh, was iSam talking about votes? Ooops, sorry!
Well, in 2000, Gore got 48.4%, Dubya got 47.9%. Very close, but Gore just pipped the popular vote.
And in 2016, Hillary got 48.2%, whereas the Racist Warmonger-in-Chief got only 46.1%.
Why should he reduce student debt - the students willingly signed up and committed to it.
Because it is significantly reducing consumption, is an incentive for our graduates to work abroad rather than here, is reducing the demand for house ownership and thus culling the next generation of Tory voters?
Sorry why should the taxpayer shell out for the mistakes of others?
Its becoming patently clear an ordinary humanities degree at a mediocre university is often a passport to low pay and very limited career options.
Nobody forcing these graduates to select that option.
I think the answer to that question was in the last line of my post but, less cynically, the increase in interest rates on student debt was essentially a breach of contract and completely unwarranted. It should be reversed. And Universities should be required to publish the average time taken by their graduates by course to pay off their student debt. Might make a few people think twice.
As well as the Cummings video, people should re-watch When Boris Met Dave. It is entertaining but with one very large clue hidden in plain sight. Boris has a bust of Pericles. Boris worships the ancient Athenian ruler. And what was Pericles' slogan? For the many, not the few!
I really enjoyed the Dominic Cummings video about winning Brexit. One point that stood out was that he said it was a Westminster illusion that people are on a simple left to right spectrum with the weight being in the middle where politicians think they win elections. In fact the physicists' analysis of the Facebook data showed that people were both more left wing and right wing at the same time than the moderate consensus. They liked nationalisation and seizing assets off rich people but they also liked locking up criminals and really cutting back on immigration. Corbyn's platform was way to the left of the centre ground but it was undoubtedly popular none the less.
Indeed. It is also noticeable that Boris's Conservative Party is radically different from Cameron's, no doubt partly due to Cummings' involvement. In becoming so, it shot a lot of Labour's foxes, and the budget (which clashes with Cheltenham) will shoot even more (so pb Tories should prepare to reverse ferret, and so should pb Labour types, as what they previously condemned/advocated is now carried out by their side/the other side).
But there is a Brexit corrolary here which is that as Cummings (and Arron Banks from the other Leave campaign) acknowledge which is that a lot of the Brexit vote was more NOTA than about Brexit itself. Much of the plannned investment is in recognition of this.
Again, a point he made well. "Take back control" was by no means just about Brussels when you got outside the M25. As you say it will be interesting to see if Boris can keep these new supporters on board. The proposed changes in the budget seem a good start.
Any measures that show Boris has at least listened will be very welcome. The NOTA cohort were essentially those who had given up on politicians, because "Whoever you vote for, they never listen to you...." Just listening will be enough to keep many onside.
Talking of student debt, according to the BBC, if Jackson Carlaw wins the SCon leadership election he is going to ditch their long-standing opposition to free university tuition. That’ll make all Ruth Davidson’s wind-baggery on the topic look rather daft.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Jeremy Corbyn just led Labour to its most crushing defeat in our lifetimes. Racking up a good vote count did him no good whatsoever because a lot more people voted in a way to keep him out of power. This isn't flowery language. That is, as you would say, a raw fact.
You're assuming that his own vote count was down to him rather than greater antipathy to his opponent. I suggest that is a brave assumption.
In England and Wales it was a far less crushing defeat than 1983 and 1987. Moreover, Labour did win 15 seats last month which were won by the Tories in the 2015 election - and also held on to Sheffield Hallam. Over a five year period it has been far from being one way traffic. Overall I believe Labour finds itself better placed than post 1987 - and faces a 1992 type challenge at the next election.
Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.
Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better
There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.
I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.
You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.
I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.
Jeremy Corbyn just led Labour to its most crushing defeat in our lifetimes. Racking up a good vote count did him no good whatsoever because a lot more people voted in a way to keep him out of power. This isn't flowery language. That is, as you would say, a raw fact.
You're assuming that his own vote count was down to him rather than greater antipathy to his opponent. I suggest that is a brave assumption.
In England and Wales it was a far less crushing defeat than 1983 and 1987. Moreover, Labour did win 15 seats last month which were won by the Tories in the 2015 election - and also held on to Sheffield Hallam. Over a five year period it has been far from being one way traffic. Overall I believe Labour finds itself better placed than post 1987 - and faces a 1992 type challenge at the next election.
In England, perhaps. In Wales the result was comparable (22/40 against 20/38).
Comments
It certainly chimes with comments (and abuse), I had campaigning in a seat which went from Labour to Tory.
Anyone remember when she wiped the floor with The Clown during the Brexit referendum?
My prediction is by the end of today Duncan Hothersall will be claiming that Scotland's natural state is a massive pro-Indy majority and only the heroic efforts of Better Together stopped Scotland going independent and taking Berwick-Upon-Tweed with it
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/04/26/corbyn-favourability-remains-rock-bottom-ahead-gen
Allin-Khan did the really good "Love actually" canvassing video which went viral and Johnson later adapted for Tory use, but is otherwise not well-known. Murray is seen as Arch Anti-Corbyn, Burgon is seen as Corbyn But Even More So.
I can see Butler doing quite well but at present Rayner is certainly the favourite. 1-4 would be right if the vote was tomorrow, but of course favourites can trip up.
The next GE will be interesting. I`m hoping for a resurgent LibDem party and am optimistic if Labour proves to be mortally wounded.
Corbyn did worse in 2019 than in 2017.
It wasn't all Corbyn - Brexit was a huge issue, but one that Labour couldn't deal with. They could never be as Leave as the Tories/Brexit party, and never as Remain as the Lib Dems. They tilted Remain because the majority of Labour voters voted Remain (even in those heavy leave seats), and the calculations showed that they would lose more seats if they went full Leave.
She's also persuasive. Persuasive enough perhaps to convince some Corbynites to shelve dogma in return for power.
Gordon Brown 259 seats
Ed 232 seats
Corbyn '17 262 seats
Corbyn '19 202 seats
https://twitter.com/_F_B_G_/status/1214321289630027777?s=20
Its becoming patently clear an ordinary humanities degree at a mediocre university is often a passport to low pay and very limited career options.
Nobody forcing these graduates to select that option.
Though the prospect of two so-called progressive parties bring run by Knights is rather ironic
But there is a Brexit corrolary here which is that as Cummings (and Arron Banks from the other Leave campaign) acknowledge, a lot of the Brexit vote was more NOTA than about Brexit itself. Much of the plannned investment is in recognition of this.
The upcoming ECHR report will cement him in the memory for a generation - or more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDbRxH9Kiy4
May was awful in that campaign, and Corbyn sharpened up considerably. He tidied up his dress, kept his temper in check, and was simply a lot better than people expected.
He then had two years where the only issues that seemed to cut through were Salisbury, antisemitism, Venezuela (bizarrely!) and his fence sitting on Brexit.
In 2019, people had seem him at his best and worst and weren't going to change their minds.
1-4 is probably technically a lay though as per Stocky if you're going to trade it on Betfair.
And I can't see how removing any tax would resolve that issue - house prices would just increase by the increased income.
But much of it hadn't cut through to the public by 2017 and seems to have done so by 2019... - the ultimate example of needing to say stuff till you're blue in the face and bored to tears of it is when Joe Public just about starts to listen ?
Well, in 2000, Gore got 48.4%, Dubya got 47.9%. Very close, but Gore just pipped the popular vote.
And in 2016, Hillary got 48.2%, whereas the Racist Warmonger-in-Chief got only 46.1%.
New Thread