Categories
Options
This R&W polling looks promising for Starmer – politicalbetting.com
This R&W polling looks promising for Starmer – politicalbetting.com
How would British voters feel if the Labour Party were to win the next General Election? (13 August)Satisfied: 48%Unsatisfied: 24% Neither: 22% pic.twitter.com/O5f7sSFINf
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This is an important point: Starmer isn't as unpopular among the general public as he seems to be among PBers. And they've had enough of the current government
And as I keep saying, possibly to @MikeSmithson's irritation, we should be taking the starting benchmark as the General Election of June 2017 not the 'Get Brexit Done' referendum of December 2019.
The last proper General Election in the United Kingdom resulted in a hung parliament.
Labour are going to win an outright majority. It's just a question of how big.
Starmer has substance. Just lacks the same charisma.
I know which I prefer, especially after that schmuck Boris Johnson.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1692159452441448652?t=EttpZKJ-u-7xIN1qcEzRVw&s=19
35 Sat
40 Unsat
21 Neutral
I see the same question was put to those polled re the Tories .
35% satisfied which is higher than the combined Tory and Reform . Deeply troubling !
Perhaps the explanation is that a bunch of people merely feel that a clear election result would be good so we can move on, and therefore say "satisfied" to both?
Lab: Unsatisfied: 24%, Satisfied: 48%, Neither: 22%, Source[2]
[1] https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1692159452441448652
[2] https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1692161902598578530
Indeed, that's why Labour retained a majority in 2005.
Many voters are voting LD for example who would have voted for Blair and New Labour in the 1990s and Blair also won white working class areas like Harlow, Basildon, Dartford and Walsall and Dudley the Tories held in May. Starmer will probably win but not with
great enthusiasm for him just a desire to get rid of the
Tories, in 1997 by contrast
there was real enthusiasm for
the charismatic Blair too which lasted largely until the Iraq War
In other words, the question could be read both ways.
For 3 years after Brexit the Union is still together
Why do you think Norn Iron Unionists lost their shit over it?
The people of Scotland voted for a referendum in 2011, David Cameron delivered on their will.
Eg what about all the voters not voting Tory/Lab. How did they reply? It could be any one of 3 choices.
The people of Britain voted for a referendum in 2015, David Cameron delivered on their will.
Remain lost because they didn't have a referendum earlier. Too much of "we'll just keep the Head Count away from this one"
Ergo I consider that a win for a lawyer, end of debate.
https://www.ft.com/content/7fedd6ec-4b6c-49a5-88f2-569249f31954
The demographic collapse proceeds space here as elsewhere.
Start the boats!
1. Yes. Indeed, it's pretty much entirely imperialism, both practically and psychologically. Indeed, worse, it's ethnic nationalism aimed at Russifying Ukraine and eliminating Ukraine as a nation. (This is probably an unachievable objective for Russia now but that was the aim).
2. Russia had little reason to complain. Indeed, in retrospect, NATO should have expanded further and faster. The war would not be taking place now if it had. The failure to incorporate Ukraine was tacit agreement that Ukraine fell within Russia's legitimate sphere of interest and, as such, if push came to shove, it could intervene there because the West would only offer token opposition. The false-equality drawn here should not be drawn. NATO expansion has happened at the request of the states joining; it is wholly different from the Russian imperialist power projection.
3. True. However, in an existential crisis, you take the allies you can find - as Churchill said of Stalin and the devil.
4/5. The areas captured by Russia have been subject to extensive ethnic cleansing / importation. They may have had Russian sympathies pre-2022 but that is of no consequence now. Both as a matter of justice and of consequence, Russia should not be allowed to gain from the war, irrespective of opinions beforehand, never mind of Russians who have occupied displaced or murdered Ukrainians. As and when the lost territories are regained, Russian settlers or collaborators need expelling. The precedent is there from Poland / Czechoslovakia post-WW2.
To go back to [1], this is (or was) aimed at being a genocidal war, with the elimination of Ukraine as a nation. That is not something that any fair person should compromise with, both on its own account and because perceived weakness will only lead to a further round later, when there is a less firm approach from the White House.
Build more fucking houses.
https://www.politico.eu/article/nicolas-sarkozy-emmanuel-macron-europe-russia-ukraine-we-need-the-russians-and-they-need-us/
mean we already even have some houses spare.
Anyway 100 years ago most rented and we had a much higher birthrate than now
There is territory that is legally and indisputably Ukraine's, that has been illegally and aggressively seized by Russia.
So yes, getting every square centimetre of that back to Ukraine absolutely should be a priority.
Otherwise we are endorsing a view that you can change the borders in Europe by warfare and invasion, along side ethnic cleansing. Which will lead to more bloodshed, not less.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/political-monitor-satisfaction-ratings-1997-present
1) Kick out the Russian soldiers or not?
2) Kick out the settlers the Russians have brought in?
3) Bring back the Ukrainians the Russians have deported?
Or are we talking "Facts on the Ground" as the the advocates of Stop The War Now in the Balkans used to say. i.e. accept whatever ethnic cleansing has happened?
EDIT: If we are going to go with Facts On The Ground, are we applying this in Israel/Palestine, as well?
If the tories think it represents anything other than a local protest against the method of Sadiq Khan's London ulez roll-out then they are chasing a chimera.
The tories cannot win.
I hate to break this to you, but you're quite principled compared with some of your fellow travellers.
Anyway, we're discussing absurd but highly unlikely events - which by definition encompasses any scenario where the Tories retain enough seats to have some role in government.
If Japan is a straw in the wind then perhaps the former, which is sad if true.
It's like Liberal Democrats. They are pro-European. But I'm pretty sure most of them would be pretty horrified if there was a German invasion of South East England.
The Tories only really care about pensioners and don’t give a fig about anyone else.
You could have a referendum on something we generally think there's a consensus against like abolishing the monarchy or legalizing all the drugs or banning twiglets or whatever and it would never be more than 90% certain to go that way.
Rick Wilson
@TheRickWilson
·
3h
1/ Great coverage on
@Morning_Joe of the tidal wave of terrible polls showing
@realdonaldtrump is political poison.
As Joe pointed out, it has always been thus; losses or vast underperformance since 2017, on years and off.
For the base, though...
https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1692136036476821908
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/17/a-level-grades-pre-pandemic-grades-gillian-keegan/
If the Israeli strategy of 'facts on the ground' is applied it's going to be very hard to deny them the West Bank.
But if you then include Gaza, the old Mandate probably already has a Muslim majority.
Which is why Sharon withdrew from it.
This bias towards positive sentiments is evident in the fact that on average 5pp more people are ready to express a positive sentiment about a party winning than a negative sentiment about the same party winning. The main points of divergence for Labour is in terms of satisfied vs unsatisfied, where 17pp more are safisfied than unsatisfied (a 12pp difference), and for the Tories it is in terms of very satisfied vs very unsatisfied, where 13pp more would be very unsatisfied (ie an 18pp difference).
The overall message seems to be that on net people want Labour to win, and really don't want the Tories to win, which I guess is in line with all the other polling. This suggests that if the election is framed around the question of whether the electorate want a Labour government then Labour's lead could be around 10pp. With a fair wind the Tories could deny Labour a majority. If it is framed round whether people want another Conservative government then the lead is closer to 20pp, and we are in landslide territory. So while the public is skewed towards positive sentiment, the campaign will be relentlessly negative on both sides.
(* given the existence of other parties I guess this is surprising, in the sense that for any party there are more who vote for other parties than who vote for that party so you'd think that negative sentiment would outweigh positive sentiment towards any party).
If they were bad it would be embarrassing that she's in charge of education.
If they were any good it would be depressing to think A-levels are worthless.
(The latter point applies with particular force to Spielman, whom I believe has a large number of A-levels with good grades.)
If you run it to extremes you have 99% of the population dictating their wishes on the 1% - the young. Don't know what to make of these ideas.