I'm left with the thought that the Labour and Conservative perspectives on this may be very different.
"To thine own self be true" someone once said. If the point of politics is the acquisition and retention of power is all that matters, one can be as pragmatic as possible so the journey from fiscal austerity to enormous borrowing for capital spending becomes easy.
On the other hand, if the point is to govern according to principles and it becomes impossible so to do or a leader is chosen who governs in defiance of the principle, what is the point?
As a supporter of a Party unlikely ever to gain power, could I support another Party if it chose, in Government, to do everything I'd want my Party if it were in Government? Yes, because the ends are what matters not the means.
If you want Blairite centralised social democracy, you can be happy with Johnson because he's delivering it. The Tories will deny it but Johnson is Blair's child but Thatcher's (as indeed was David Cameron so why should we be surprised?).
Sorry, but an Aga maker would have most likely been in the Boilermakers, which merged with the General & Municipal to form the GMB - and has just backed Lisa N.
Parody exception would almost certainly apply. It evokes an existing work while being noticeably different from it; is intended to be humorous; and it represents fair dealing in that the amount of material is pretty minor and unlikely to negatively impact on the market for the original.
Thanks.
Of course we all know who got the throne in the end. And it wasn't Sir Keir of Islington Isle.
He's just another in the long line of left wing sub-journalist blowhards.
You can argue against it by having a good knowledge of his output and at least the semblance of a critical faculty untainted by softhead bias.
There are things I would criticise Owen Jones for (self-righteousness; assuming bad faith in opponents), but they are minor flaws in a political sphere inhabited by Johnson and Cummings. The hatred he's getting on here is irrational.
Irrational? Labour's propagandist-in-chief thought he was going to overturn our entire economy and society and remake it in the image of the far left before the electorate gave their opinion on the subject. Ignominious silence is the least he could offer the country as recompense.
It's going to be maaany decades before I feel like being remotely generous to him.
Considering that Owen Jones is probably on the receiving end of many irrational comments like that every day, perhaps my criticism of him was unfair!
GMB for Nandy, though trailed last week, seems odd to me when she's apparently not caught the attention of members at all yet in the few polls that have been had. An interesting pick for them.
Labour love their losers and despise their winners.
The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister after winning general elections while leading the Labour Party since 1945.
Personal preference and all that, but surely even objectively it makes no sense to rate Corbyn as the best.
The question was not "Who is the best former Labour leader?" It was a binary favourable/unfavourable question. Corbyn doesn't have the highest net positive. Even if he did, it would be a completely different thing to saying he was the best.
You can appreciate why Jeremy Corbyn has a 71% favourable rating when you think about how he won three landslide election victories, was integral in enacting the minimum wage, negotiated the Good Friday Agreement, ran a government that pumped billions into the NHS, promoted gay rights, devolved power to Scotland & Wales etc.
And I suppose it's also obvious why Tony Blair has a 62% negative rating with his dreadful record of losing elections, the blind eye he turned to antisemitism, and the fact he basically spent his entire career on the fringes, never actually enacting a single one of his ideas or doing one iota of good for the working people he claimed to represent.
That track record of achievement by Corbyn must be true.
For how else could you explain that 32% of the supporters of the candidate dubbed "continuity Corbyn" are "completely unwilling to compromise any Labour values even if this means the party is unelectable" (as opposed to only 14% of members in general).
Personal preference and all that, but surely even objectively it makes no sense to rate Corbyn as the best.
The question was not "Who is the best former Labour leader?" It was a binary favourable/unfavourable question. Corbyn doesn't have the highest net positive. Even if he did, it would be a completely different thing to saying he was the best.
Fair enough, but I'd have assumed some overlap between thinking someone was the best and being favourable toward them, with an expected hit for Blair because of Iraq. Given the results how can it be so overwhelmingly positive, I'd have assumed at least some 'with hindsight' unfavourables.
Is that enough to get Nandy onto the ballot paper?
Think she will need any affiliate to get over the line (it could be a two-man band as membership size not important AIUI)
Fingers crossed it happens soon, then attending our CLP nomination meeting loses its importance.
Anyone else thing the CLP stage is largely pointless? Why not get the PLP noms and go straight out to members – unions free to make endorsements as they see fit.
Owen Jones v Dan Hannan (from before the EU referendum). They disagree with almost everything the other has to say, but they are both very polite and prepared to listen to each other’s opinions.
Have not got the time right now to listen to your YouTube clip but I will later.
Have you posted it to back me up or is your covering comment a sarcastic one?
GMB for Nandy, though trailed last week, seems odd to me when she's apparently not caught the attention of members at all yet in the few polls that have been had. An interesting pick for them.
Labour love their losers and despise their winners.
The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister leading the Labour Party since 1945.
Do they? I realise Thatcher stands alone but is Heath that popular among modern Conservatives, or Major - both of whom won (and of course lost) GEs. What about MacMillan and I wouldn't be surprised if Hague and IDS were quite unpopular - the former got trounced by Blair and the second got ousted by his own MPs.
Owen Jones v Dan Hannan (from before the EU referendum). They disagree with almost everything the other has to say, but they are both very polite and prepared to listen to each other’s opinions.
Have not got the time right now to listen to your YouTube clip but I will later.
Have you posted it to back me up or is your covering comment a sarcastic one?
Peter Hitchens’ interviewed by OJ was a cordial affair
Parody exception would almost certainly apply. It evokes an existing work while being noticeably different from it; is intended to be humorous; and it represents fair dealing in that the amount of material is pretty minor and unlikely to negatively impact on the market for the original.
Or, to take the view of the lawyers representing the other side, it’s neither parody nor satire, rather suggesting that their intellectual property should be associated with a certain political viewpoint, and the accompanying text (which is neither humorous nor satirical) might suggest that the owners of this intellectual property support or endorse this political viewpoint, which they don’t.
I've read an awful lot of the nonsense he's put out over the years, and have seen plenty of his interviews and panel appearances.
There's nothing benign about him unless you agree with him. He's a dogmatic machine activist who would be utterly merciless to his opposition if it were Corbyn with a majority of 80 instead of Boris.
Sorry but I detect a complete lack of objectivity.
Personal preference and all that, but surely even objectively it makes no sense to rate Corbyn as the best.
The question was not "Who is the best former Labour leader?" It was a binary favourable/unfavourable question. Corbyn doesn't have the highest net positive. Even if he did, it would be a completely different thing to saying he was the best.
Fair enough, but I'd have assumed some overlap between thinking someone was the best and being favourable toward them, with an expected hit for Blair because of Iraq. Given the results how can it be so overwhelmingly positive, I'd have assumed at least some 'with hindsight' unfavourables.
There would be some overlap, yes. I do think that this poll is being misinterpreted here though.
For example, I would answer favourable on Corbyn and unfavourable on Blair, because that is my view of them as people. The fact that Blair was a "winner" and Corbyn was a "loser" is irrelevant to my assessment of them as people. However, when voting for a Labour leader, I would absolutely vote for someone who I thought could win. I think Long-Bailey would be a bad choice, though I would also answer favourable on her.
Now, I'm not saying you can project my views onto the Labour membership. Certainly, there are some who don't want to learn from the election. But the commentary here seems to be that 71% fall into that camp, and this is nonsense.
This from Owen Jones is pretty cutting. Feels a little gratuitously mean-spirited but I think the central point holds.
"Centrist Hack Syndrome"
BTW, this YouGov "analysis" is pisspoor. They clearly want to say that Labour members are astonishingly ignorant of the great Attlee and as to be expected of such morons love the ghastly Corbyn and so they just go ahead and say this even though the data shows nothing of the sort.
The DKs for Attlee are about the same as for Callaghan, Wilson, less than for Gaitskell, MacDonald, and not much greater than for Foot and Smith. And the DK does not mean "never heard of" - it means "do not know enough to give a rating". That is quite different. Attlee was 75 years ago.
Ed Miliband has just a 1 pt less favourable rating than Corbyn and a better net rating. Smith, Attlee and Wilson all have better nets than Corbyn. The one Corbyn really beats by miles is - quelle surprise - the Great Satan Tony Blair.
And yet -
"Jeremy Corbyn is the most popular leader of the past century among Labour members (partly because a quarter don’t seem to know who Clement Attlee is)."
Pathetic.
Quite. There would be more justification in saying the people at YouGov don't even know whether Attlee is still alive...
On thread, given that Labour had in excess of 100,000 new members since the GE. I wonder how representative the YouGov panel base is. They will have had to be extremely adroit to pick up the new members in their panel. If not, their results could be skewed. It's reported that a lot of the new members are people returning after having left under Corbyn (like me), but I do wonder. It's one of the few factors that could be capable of tripping Starmer up, if the anecdotal reports are wrong.
He's a shameless propagandist. His first book completely missed the point of what its eponym means to the working class. He's been effective in keeping Labour out of power for all the time that he's been campaigning for them.
He also came out with this hilarious bilge, so at least he once made me laugh inadvertently:
He argues the Left case passionately and fairly. His first book was astute and well argued. A great achievement for somebody so young. It deservedly made his name. He has not kept Labour out of power for the last decade. The voters have done that. The linked article on Russell Brand would not be one of his finest IMO. So what? Nobody gets it right all the time. He has written some outstanding stuff over the years.
Owen Jones v Dan Hannan (from before the EU referendum). They disagree with almost everything the other has to say, but they are both very polite and prepared to listen to each other’s opinions.
Have not got the time right now to listen to your YouTube clip but I will later.
Have you posted it to back me up or is your covering comment a sarcastic one?
Not sarcastic at all. The two men had a genuinely polite conversation and agreed to disagree, as opposed to the usual Twitter-based slanging match usually seen between left and right.
Twitter-based OJ is quite different from in-person OJ.
Labour love their losers and despise their winners.
The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister after winning general elections while leading the Labour Party since 1945.
Not necessarily, IDS and Hague and Howard are far more popular with Tory members than Cameron, Major or Heath for example, only Thatcher and Boris won elections while still being popular with the membership.
Wilson and Attlee won elections and are still popular with the Labour membership on the Yougov chart even if Blair is not
He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it. ... It's not only him, it's the culture around him. It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.
And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it.
Labour love their losers and despise their winners.
The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister after winning general elections while leading the Labour Party since 1945.
Not necessarily, IDS and Hague are far more popular with Tory members than Cameron, Major or Heath for example, only Thatcher and Boris won elections while still being very popular with the membership of recent leaders.
Wilson and Attlee won elections and are still popular with the Labour membership on the Yougov chart even if Blair is not
He's a shameless propagandist. His first book completely missed the point of what its eponym means to the working class. He's been effective in keeping Labour out of power for all the time that he's been campaigning for them.
He also came out with this hilarious bilge, so at least he once made me laugh inadvertently:
He argues the Left case passionately and fairly. His first book was astute and well argued. A great achievement for somebody so young. It deservedly made his name. He has not kept Labour out of power for the last decade. The voters have done that. The linked article on Russell Brand would not be one of his finest IMO. So what? Nobody gets it right all the time. He has written some outstanding stuff over the years.
I don't agree with him but I like him because he's very cute ;-)
Where have such influential thought leaders brought your party?
It's not fascinating. It's just useful context. What has he achieved? Well, not a GE success for Labour if this is your point. And it's a good point. It's fair comment. But remember that winning a GE from the Left in this country is massively difficult.
Now how about answering my question -
What did you mean by Jones "literally had a go" at a Labour MP?
Because it sounds quite nasty and perhaps it's something I've missed.
There are things I would criticise Owen Jones for (self-righteousness; assuming bad faith in opponents), but they are minor flaws in a political sphere inhabited by Johnson and Cummings. The hatred he's getting on here is irrational.
It is. We are getting quite some triumphalist groupthink on here since the Con landslide.
OJ is far from a paragon but he is NOT a purveyor of low grade propaganda or possessed of a mean spirit.
Labour love their losers and despise their winners.
The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister after winning general elections while leading the Labour Party since 1945.
Not necessarily, IDS and Hague are far more popular with Tory members than Cameron, Major or Heath for example, only Thatcher and Boris won elections while still being very popular with the membership of recent leaders.
Wilson and Attlee won elections and are still popular with the Labour membership on the Yougov chart even if Blair is not
Parody exception would almost certainly apply. It evokes an existing work while being noticeably different from it; is intended to be humorous; and it represents fair dealing in that the amount of material is pretty minor and unlikely to negatively impact on the market for the original.
Or, to take the view of the lawyers representing the other side, it’s neither parody nor satire, rather suggesting that their intellectual property should be associated with a certain political viewpoint, and the accompanying text (which is neither humorous nor satirical) might suggest that the owners of this intellectual property support or endorse this political viewpoint, which they don’t.
That argument just wouldn't have any real prospect of success.
It may not be a particularly brilliant joke, but it is certainly intended as a joke, and that's all that matters.
It's also inconceivable that a reasonable person would see it as an endorsement by the makers of Game of Thrones rather than by the GMB. The clue is that it explicitly says it's an endorsement by the GMB).
Lots of legal cases are arguable either way. This one really wouldn't be.
He's not an idiot - he keeps it the right side of the line, but is pretty mean-spirited just the same. Yesterday's example being his reaction to the idea of Tom Watson getting a peerage... "yuck".
His books are well written but aren't particularly well regarded. They are what they are - populist polemics, preaching to the choir (as are a lot of books by journos on the right). I don't begrudge people with a good turn of phrase making a few bob, but let's not make him out to be some sort of intellectual titan.
He is neither an intellectual titan nor a low grade, nasty propaganda merchant. He is an articulate and intelligent voice of the Left.
Re the peerages -
"Yuck. Labour are completely out of order giving figures from the top of the party unelected peerages, whoever they are. Demand the abolition of the House of Lords and leave it at that."
Where have such influential thought leaders brought your party?
It's not fascinating. It's just useful context. What has he achieved? Well, not a GE success for Labour if this is your point. And it's a good point. It's fair comment. But remember that winning a GE from the Left in this country is massively difficult.
Now how about answering my question -
What did you mean by Jones "literally had a go" at a Labour MP?
Because it sounds quite nasty and perhaps it's something I've missed.
I recall it - the Canterbury MP unfollowed him by mistake and he reacted with a hysterical rant about her lack of gratitude for his help. The whole episode was cringemaking
Remember his hilarious 'Unseat' campaign with Momentum, lauched in August 2017?
The group apparently sought 'to create a series of Portillo moments' (!) Well, Owen, you succeeded pretty spectacularly with that one, just not in the way you intended!
This is simply gloating at somebody who tried hard to achieve something very challenging and failed. It's unappetizing and reprehensible.
On thread, given that Labour had in excess of 100,000 new members since the GE. I wonder how representative the YouGov panel base is. They will have had to be extremely adroit to pick up the new members in their panel. If not, their results could be skewed. It's reported that a lot of the new members are people returning after having left under Corbyn (like me), but I do wonder. It's one of the few factors that could be capable of tripping Starmer up, if the anecdotal reports are wrong.
Have labour relay gained 100,000 new members since the election?
They may, I'm not saying its wrong, I just haven't seen any evedance, e.g. a link to a statement by the party, or similar.
I have seen quotes of X constituency has had almost 100 new members, and the extrapolation that if that's typical that would be 60,000, which was followed a few days later by 60,000 to 90,000 new members and now 100,000.
there properly are a reasonable number of people who are rejoining, and I've got nothing to base that estimation on. It may come down to Symantec's, if a person left during the finical year then rejoined, is that a new member, or an existing member with a brack in membership?
But I look at the number of 'Resisted Supporters' that this time are paying £25 not the £20 or £3 of the last two leadership elections. only 14,700 joined this time compared to over 10 times that last time. I perceive, maybe incorrectly that as labour seems further from power, people have less interest or enthusiasm about who will lead, at least compared to the last two elections.
p.s. Full credit to you for rejoining and Corbyn is gone, best of luck with getting a better replacement.
Mentioning she came from a comfortable background was not intended to be a positive, he did so in order to disparage her while comparing her to someone posher
I was just correcting your statement that he "attacked Jess for being posh".
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
If sheer volume of the sound of his own voice is what it takes to be effective then yes absolutely he is an incredibly effective self publicist.
If convincing rather than putting off the rest of the country is what it takes to be considered effective then I would posit he is not that effective.
If the election of a hard left Labour government in Britain is the test by which we measure the effectiveness of those who advocate it then they are all, at this point, failures.
So perhaps we should look for other measures in order for this debate to be meaningful.
I recall it - the Canterbury MP unfollowed him by mistake and he reacted with a hysterical rant about her lack of gratitude for his help. The whole episode was cringemaking
Not sarcastic at all. The two men had a genuinely polite conversation and agreed to disagree, as opposed to the usual Twitter-based slanging match usually seen between left and right.
Twitter-based OJ is quite different from in-person OJ.
Thank you!
Yes, Twitter. He's meant to be scaling back on all that. Let's see.
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
Oh boy, but he so would have been.
He might have ended up with ever fewer seats than Hague did in 2001.
No, when IDS was ousted Yougov had the Tories on 34%, Howard got 32%, Hague got 31%
There wasn’t a general election when he was ousted, so it’s a midterm poll and therefore bollocks.
I don't see why, Howard won very few Labour or LD converts IDS had not already got and a few Tories defected to UKIP when Howard replaced IDS
IDS was incompetent. A majority of Tory MPs agreed and defenestrated him in a vote that was unprecedented.
Had he remained leader Blair would have made mincemeat of him during the 2005 campaign whilst he pursued a naive targeting strategy. The weaknesses that MPs saw would have been plain for all voters to see.
Sure, Howard wasn’t loved. But he was competent and put in place a professional campaign that steadied the ship, gained 30+ seats and brought in the next generation of talent.
I’m amazed that Owen Jones attracts such strong opinions one way or the other. I find him a fairly benign turnoff in the same way I find Julia Hartley-Brewer a fairly benign turnoff. Who cares?
I’m amazed that Owen Jones attracts such strong opinions one way or the other. I find him a fairly benign turnoff in the same way I find Julia Hartley-Brewer a fairly benign turnoff. Who cares?
It's the very fact he is articulate that gets him attention and makes people, for and against, get a bit too over the top about it. Supposedly he gets shirty about being called an activist, which he definitely is, but I cannot speak to that.
So Owen's right wing equivalent is - well it's not Julia Hartley Brewer (c'mon!).
No it's, it's - nope nothing is occurring atm. And I do not want to say something silly that I might come to bitterly regret, so more thought required.
On thread, given that Labour had in excess of 100,000 new members since the GE. I wonder how representative the YouGov panel base is. They will have had to be extremely adroit to pick up the new members in their panel. If not, their results could be skewed. It's reported that a lot of the new members are people returning after having left under Corbyn (like me), but I do wonder. It's one of the few factors that could be capable of tripping Starmer up, if the anecdotal reports are wrong.
Have labour relay gained 100,000 new members since the election?
They may, I'm not saying its wrong, I just haven't seen any evedance, e.g. a link to a statement by the party, or similar.
I have seen quotes of X constituency has had almost 100 new members, and the extrapolation that if that's typical that would be 60,000, which was followed a few days later by 60,000 to 90,000 new members and now 100,000.
there properly are a reasonable number of people who are rejoining, and I've got nothing to base that estimation on. It may come down to Symantec's, if a person left during the finical year then rejoined, is that a new member, or an existing member with a brack in membership?
But I look at the number of 'Resisted Supporters' that this time are paying £25 not the £20 or £3 of the last two leadership elections. only 14,700 joined this time compared to over 10 times that last time. I perceive, maybe incorrectly that as labour seems further from power, people have less interest or enthusiasm about who will lead, at least compared to the last two elections.
p.s. Full credit to you for rejoining and Corbyn is gone, best of luck with getting a better replacement.
The much higher number of registered supporters last time was because the option of joining as a member was closed off, which wasn't the case this time. Given that you can pay monthly by direct debit, it was actually the cheaper option if your intention was only to join in order to vote.
The 100,000 has been repeated in a number of papers but I think the original source was the Huff Post who put it out there well before the deadline.
So Owen's right wing equivalent is - well it's not Julia Hartley Brewer (c'mon!).
No it's, it's - nope nothing is occurring atm. And I do not want to say something silly that I might come to bitterly regret, so more thought required.
Have to admit I independently thought of her. Purely in talking-head-on-panels terms. I have no idea whether she's written any books or has any connection to serious politicians as he does.
In one sense they're opposites. She presents herself as the voice of reason while saying fairly wacky things, whereas he comes across as radical even when saying middle-of-the-road things. But that's characteristic of the right and left, respectively.
So Owen's right wing equivalent is - well it's not Julia Hartley Brewer (c'mon!).
No it's, it's - nope nothing is occurring atm. And I do not want to say something silly that I might come to bitterly regret, so more thought required.
On thread, given that Labour had in excess of 100,000 new members since the GE. I wonder how representative the YouGov panel base is. They will have had to be extremely adroit to pick up the new members in their panel. If not, their results could be skewed. It's reported that a lot of the new members are people returning after having left under Corbyn (like me), but I do wonder. It's one of the few factors that could be capable of tripping Starmer up, if the anecdotal reports are wrong.
Have labour relay gained 100,000 new members since the election?
They may, I'm not saying its wrong, I just haven't seen any evedance, e.g. a link to a statement by the party, or similar.
I have seen quotes of X constituency has had almost 100 new members, and the extrapolation that if that's typical that would be 60,000, which was followed a few days later by 60,000 to 90,000 new members and now 100,000.
there properly are a reasonable number of people who are rejoining, and I've got nothing to base that estimation on. It may come down to Symantec's, if a person left during the finical year then rejoined, is that a new member, or an existing member with a brack in membership?
But I look at the number of 'Resisted Supporters' that this time are paying £25 not the £20 or £3 of the last two leadership elections. only 14,700 joined this time compared to over 10 times that last time. I perceive, maybe incorrectly that as labour seems further from power, people have less interest or enthusiasm about who will lead, at least compared to the last two elections.
p.s. Full credit to you for rejoining and Corbyn is gone, best of luck with getting a better replacement.
The much higher number of registered supporters last time was because the option of joining as a member was closed off, which wasn't the case this time. Given that you can pay monthly by direct debit, it was actually the cheaper option if your intention was only to join in order to vote.
The 100,000 has been repeated in a number of papers but I think the original source was the Huff Post who put it out there well before the deadline.
I don't think there's any real doubt about it - have heard it from multiple constituencies in similar terms. I don't by contrast know anyone who has signed to be a registered supporter, though one was considering it as he didn't want to join but wanted to express a view on the leadership.
I have no idea what the new members think, but they are nearly all new names to me, rather than people rejoining.
So Owen's right wing equivalent is - well it's not Julia Hartley Brewer (c'mon!).
No it's, it's - nope nothing is occurring atm. And I do not want to say something silly that I might come to bitterly regret, so more thought required.
I suppose one thing that can be said about both the Tory and Labour historical rating polls is that the question is "do you have a favourable or unfavourable view of X?" not "Was X a good or bad party leader?"
Those are different things. Hague and Callaghan are/were quite likable characters in my view, but neither won an election. You can also see why an anti-EU Tory would like IDS, and why a socialist (as opposed to social democrat) Labour supporter would like Corbyn, even though they were unsuccessful leaders. Likewise, the politics of Blair and Major are very much out of fashion in their respective parties, even though one has a flawless electoral record and the other at least won one election he wasn't expected to win.
The ones I find perhaps a little surprising on that measure are Miliband (neither successful nor socialist) and MacMillan (probably wouldn't be keen on the modern Tory Party were he alive today). However, both have a certain comforting likeability.
Usual small sample (500) but some interesting detailed questions. Sanders is streets ahead of Warren on "most progressive", but more voters care about who can beat Trump than about policies. Buttigieg does well in 2nd prefs, but not by a huge margin. Warren and Biden apparently disappointed NH people in the last debate. But lots of don't knows (which is why nearly everyone is down on the last poll).
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
Oh boy, but he so would have been.
He might have ended up with ever fewer seats than Hague did in 2001.
No, when IDS was ousted Yougov had the Tories on 34%, Howard got 32%, Hague got 31%
There wasn’t a general election when he was ousted, so it’s a midterm poll and therefore bollocks.
I don't see why, Howard won very few Labour or LD converts IDS had not already got and a few Tories defected to UKIP when Howard replaced IDS
IDS was incompetent. A majority of Tory MPs agreed and defenestrated him in a vote that was unprecedented.
Had he remained leader Blair would have made mincemeat of him during the 2005 campaign whilst he pursued a naive targeting strategy. The weaknesses that MPs saw would have been plain for all voters to see.
Sure, Howard wasn’t loved. But he was competent and put in place a professional campaign that steadied the ship, gained 30+ seats and brought in the next generation of talent.
Corbyn and Kinnock were incompetent, they still made gains at a general election (even if Corbyn lost them 2nd time around). On the polling the Tories were showing at the time IDS was ousted they would have gained at least as many seats as they did under Howard
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
I would be surprised if more than half that vote in the leadership elections, maybe just a third.
But what do I know, we will find out in a couple of months time.
Turnout in 2015 and 2016 was 76 and 78% respectively - with over half a million voters last time.
I do think it might be less this time, because although Corbyn was just as hot a favourite in 2016, as Keir is now, I don't think people are as furiously passionate this time.
Not because it doesn't matter, but in 2016 both sides were very angry, and it appeared that Corbyn's supporters were keen for the win to be as big as possible, while the rest were keen to register their unhappiness with him.
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
Oh boy, but he so would have been.
He might have ended up with ever fewer seats than Hague did in 2001.
No, when IDS was ousted Yougov had the Tories on 34%, Howard got 32%, Hague got 31%
There wasn’t a general election when he was ousted, so it’s a midterm poll and therefore bollocks.
I don't see why, Howard won very few Labour or LD converts IDS had not already got and a few Tories defected to UKIP when Howard replaced IDS
IDS was incompetent. A majority of Tory MPs agreed and defenestrated him in a vote that was unprecedented.
Had he remained leader Blair would have made mincemeat of him during the 2005 campaign whilst he pursued a naive targeting strategy. The weaknesses that MPs saw would have been plain for all voters to see.
Sure, Howard wasn’t loved. But he was competent and put in place a professional campaign that steadied the ship, gained 30+ seats and brought in the next generation of talent.
Corbyn and Kinnock were incompetent, they still made gains at a general election (even if Corbyn lost them 2nd time around). On the polling the Tories were showing at the time IDS was ousted they would have gained at least as many seats as they did under Howard
Polling midterm is meaningless bollocks though its not an oracle of truth. You do understand that don't you?
On thread, given that Labour had in excess of 100,000 new members since the GE. I wonder how representative the YouGov panel base is. They will have had to be extremely adroit to pick up the new members in their panel. If not, their results could be skewed. It's reported that a lot of the new members are people returning after having left under Corbyn (like me), but I do wonder. It's one of the few factors that could be capable of tripping Starmer up, if the anecdotal reports are wrong.
Have labour relay gained 100,000 new members since the election?
They may, I'm not saying its wrong, I just haven't seen any evedance, e.g. a link to a statement by the party, or similar.
p.s. Full credit to you for rejoining and Corbyn is gone, best of luck with getting a better replacement.
The much higher number of registered supporters last time was because the option of joining as a member was closed off, which wasn't the case this time. Given that you can pay monthly by direct debit, it was actually the cheaper option if your intention was only to join in order to vote.
The 100,000 has been repeated in a number of papers but I think the original source was the Huff Post who put it out there well before the deadline.
Thanks, and very good point about membership being cheaper than becoming a registered supporter.
I think this is Huff post artical you where referring to:
but again it quotes an unnamed 'senior party insider' which may or may not be accurat. but gose on to say:
'Local constituency Labour parties (CLPs) are said to have been reporting rises in membership of up to 20% with the deadline to sign up as a member to vote in the leadership contest looming'
20% increase on the 500,000 would be 100,000.
Some CLPs may have seen increases of 20% but that's not the same as all CLPs or the average of CLP. and that 500,000 finger may be unhelpful if a significant number of the new members are re-joiners who have left in the last year.
I don't know why I care, we will see how many vote soon enough. I think I'm just get annoyed when somebody gets hold of a statistic or 'fact' that reinforces there postilion of being right, good, or popular. and rater than check it validity or use appropriate caviats its, repeats it as FACT!
My guess, ready to be shown as totally wrong, less than 350,000 members vote in this election.
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
Oh boy, but he so would have been.
He might have ended up with ever fewer seats than Hague did in 2001.
No, when IDS was ousted Yougov had the Tories on 34%, Howard got 32%, Hague got 31%
There wasn’t a general election when he was ousted, so it’s a midterm poll and therefore bollocks.
I don't see why, Howard won very few Labour or LD converts IDS had not already got and a few Tories defected to UKIP when Howard replaced IDS
IDS was incompetent. A majority of Tory MPs agreed and defenestrated him in a vote that was unprecedented.
Had he remained leader Blair would have made mincemeat of him during the 2005 campaign whilst he pursued a naive targeting strategy. The weaknesses that MPs saw would have been plain for all voters to see.
Sure, Howard wasn’t loved. But he was competent and put in place a professional campaign that steadied the ship, gained 30+ seats and brought in the next generation of talent.
Corbyn and Kinnock were incompetent, they still made gains at a general election (even if Corbyn lost them 2nd time around). On the polling the Tories were showing at the time IDS was ousted they would have gained at least as many seats as they did under Howard
Polling midterm is meaningless bollocks though its not an oracle of truth. You do understand that don't you?
A Howard led Tories was on 33% in the same poll, they got 32% in 2005 so no it was not wrong in terms of the relative performance of the leaders
Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.
I mean, really??
IDS was never defeated at a general election
Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
IDS held his seat despite Momentum flooding it every weekend when a seat like Putney with not dissimilar demographics fell
Comments
I'm left with the thought that the Labour and Conservative perspectives on this may be very different.
"To thine own self be true" someone once said. If the point of politics is the acquisition and retention of power is all that matters, one can be as pragmatic as possible so the journey from fiscal austerity to enormous borrowing for capital spending becomes easy.
On the other hand, if the point is to govern according to principles and it becomes impossible so to do or a leader is chosen who governs in defiance of the principle, what is the point?
As a supporter of a Party unlikely ever to gain power, could I support another Party if it chose, in Government, to do everything I'd want my Party if it were in Government? Yes, because the ends are what matters not the means.
If you want Blairite centralised social democracy, you can be happy with Johnson because he's delivering it. The Tories will deny it but Johnson is Blair's child but Thatcher's (as indeed was David Cameron so why should we be surprised?).
Of course we all know who got the throne in the end. And it wasn't Sir Keir of Islington Isle.
The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister after winning general elections while leading the Labour Party since 1945.
For how else could you explain that 32% of the supporters of the candidate dubbed "continuity Corbyn" are "completely unwilling to compromise any Labour values even if this means the party is unelectable" (as opposed to only 14% of members in general).
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/21/five-more-things-we-discovered-about-labour-member
The pub beckons.
Have you posted it to back me up or is your covering comment a sarcastic one?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/everyones-missed-most-important-endorsement-labour-leadership-campaign
What about May?
Test -
Who IYO is his closest right wing equivalent?
For example, I would answer favourable on Corbyn and unfavourable on Blair, because that is my view of them as people. The fact that Blair was a "winner" and Corbyn was a "loser" is irrelevant to my assessment of them as people. However, when voting for a Labour leader, I would absolutely vote for someone who I thought could win. I think Long-Bailey would be a bad choice, though I would also answer favourable on her.
Now, I'm not saying you can project my views onto the Labour membership. Certainly, there are some who don't want to learn from the election. But the commentary here seems to be that 71% fall into that camp, and this is nonsense.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/radicalisation-laurence-fox-shows-worrying-power-right-wing-youtube
Twitter-based OJ is quite different from in-person OJ.
Wilson and Attlee won elections and are still popular with the Labour membership on the Yougov chart even if Blair is not
I can see her winning over soft Tories. Which is precisely why she won’t win.
https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/01/inequality-under-new-labour.html
Note in particular the bar for the richest 5% in the second graph.
Now how about answering my question -
What did you mean by Jones "literally had a go" at a Labour MP?
Because it sounds quite nasty and perhaps it's something I've missed.
OJ is far from a paragon but he is NOT a purveyor of low grade propaganda or possessed of a mean spirit.
*the Incredible Sulk continues for a few more decades...*
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/21/dentist-hoverboard-teeth-extraction-alaska
It may not be a particularly brilliant joke, but it is certainly intended as a joke, and that's all that matters.
It's also inconceivable that a reasonable person would see it as an endorsement by the makers of Game of Thrones rather than by the GMB. The clue is that it explicitly says it's an endorsement by the GMB).
Lots of legal cases are arguable either way. This one really wouldn't be.
Re the peerages -
"Yuck. Labour are completely out of order giving figures from the top of the party unelected peerages, whoever they are. Demand the abolition of the House of Lords and leave it at that."
What's so bad about that?
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1219624017650507776?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1219624009584824320?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1219633238966259716?s=20
I mean, really??
They may, I'm not saying its wrong, I just haven't seen any evedance, e.g. a link to a statement by the party, or similar.
I have seen quotes of X constituency has had almost 100 new members, and the extrapolation that if that's typical that would be 60,000, which was followed a few days later by 60,000 to 90,000 new members and now 100,000.
there properly are a reasonable number of people who are rejoining, and I've got nothing to base that estimation on. It may come down to Symantec's, if a person left during the finical year then rejoined, is that a new member, or an existing member with a brack in membership?
But I look at the number of 'Resisted Supporters' that this time are paying £25 not the £20 or £3 of the last two leadership elections. only 14,700 joined this time compared to over 10 times that last time. I perceive, maybe incorrectly that as labour seems further from power, people have less interest or enthusiasm about who will lead, at least compared to the last two elections.
p.s. Full credit to you for rejoining and Corbyn is gone, best of luck with getting a better replacement.
Sort of thing you do - and quite rightly.
He might have ended up with ever fewer seats than Hague did in 2001.
Good call from the young journo.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
So perhaps we should look for other measures in order for this debate to be meaningful.
I would be surprised if more than half that vote in the leadership elections, maybe just a third.
But what do I know, we will find out in a couple of months time.
Yes, Twitter. He's meant to be scaling back on all that. Let's see.
Had he remained leader Blair would have made mincemeat of him during the 2005 campaign whilst he pursued a naive targeting strategy. The weaknesses that MPs saw would have been plain for all voters to see.
Sure, Howard wasn’t loved. But he was competent and put in place a professional campaign that steadied the ship, gained 30+ seats and brought in the next generation of talent.
No it's, it's - nope nothing is occurring atm. And I do not want to say something silly that I might come to bitterly regret, so more thought required.
The 100,000 has been repeated in a number of papers but I think the original source was the Huff Post who put it out there well before the deadline.
In one sense they're opposites. She presents herself as the voice of reason while saying fairly wacky things, whereas he comes across as radical even when saying middle-of-the-road things. But that's characteristic of the right and left, respectively.
I have no idea what the new members think, but they are nearly all new names to me, rather than people rejoining.
Those are different things. Hague and Callaghan are/were quite likable characters in my view, but neither won an election. You can also see why an anti-EU Tory would like IDS, and why a socialist (as opposed to social democrat) Labour supporter would like Corbyn, even though they were unsuccessful leaders. Likewise, the politics of Blair and Major are very much out of fashion in their respective parties, even though one has a flawless electoral record and the other at least won one election he wasn't expected to win.
The ones I find perhaps a little surprising on that measure are Miliband (neither successful nor socialist) and MacMillan (probably wouldn't be keen on the modern Tory Party were he alive today). However, both have a certain comforting likeability.
https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/academics/research-at-suffolk/suprc/polls/new-hampshire/2020/1_21_2020_marginals_pdftxt.pdf?la=en&hash=6CFFC77EA85499A852DCC54631E81976DA939EA5
I do think it might be less this time, because although Corbyn was just as hot a favourite in 2016, as Keir is now, I don't think people are as furiously passionate this time.
Not because it doesn't matter, but in 2016 both sides were very angry, and it appeared that Corbyn's supporters were keen for the win to be as big as possible, while the rest were keen to register their unhappiness with him.
I think this is Huff post artical you where referring to:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-members-surge-leadership-contest_uk_5e2479d6c5b674e44b99b863?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAU-galHXDZLhBGI5br7eGfcsAdJQ9tQO4Jbz6cDJoJSobb-g2f2_AF-dpisLDAFvoKHX_EG-wKbQcIcWHPFEWILgPx5Iro06xA3aeUvhu9H7h9Xf5QTOfx_sER9aN_AToM1XCj6-v8hh1biKP_vFmStp2dD4wlIN2BFISNdU2LL
but again it quotes an unnamed 'senior party insider' which may or may not be accurat. but gose on to say:
'Local constituency Labour parties (CLPs) are said to have been reporting rises in membership of up to 20% with the deadline to sign up as a member to vote in the leadership contest looming'
20% increase on the 500,000 would be 100,000.
Some CLPs may have seen increases of 20% but that's not the same as all CLPs or the average of CLP. and that 500,000 finger may be unhelpful if a significant number of the new members are re-joiners who have left in the last year.
I don't know why I care, we will see how many vote soon enough. I think I'm just get annoyed when somebody gets hold of a statistic or 'fact' that reinforces there postilion of being right, good, or popular. and rater than check it validity or use appropriate caviats its, repeats it as FACT!
My guess, ready to be shown as totally wrong, less than 350,000 members vote in this election.