politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov Poll: Corbyn is winning but still unlikely to win
Comments
-
Awareness of violence against men is where awareness of violence against women was thirty years ago.The_Apocalypse said:
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.JEO said:
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.Sean_F said:
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.AllyPally_Rob said:What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/abuse/Pages/domestic-violence-against-men.aspx
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.0 -
Williamson lost his seat.bigjohnowls said:https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader/status/623774135001436160/photo/1
I agree with this MP
Mine cheerleading Kendall makes me puke
On the issue of austerity: it seems to me that Lab have lost this argument with the public for the time being, so what's the point of keeping going on about it. Talk about something else. Elect someone who will talk about other matters, like how you grow through science, tech and innovation.
...Oh, Chukka's not running.0 -
Dunno, they could have it both ways, couldn't they? Feel clean and pure when you answer the YouGov poll, then save worrying about who can win for the actual vote...Slackbladder said:
Winning an election doesn't matter now to them, they just want to feel clean and pure...TGOHF said:"Understand what it takes to win an election"
AB 30
YC 39
LK 63 (!)
JC 10 (!)
Only sane conclusion is that Labour DO NOT WANT TO WIN.0 -
"Kill All White Men" is a reference to the Student Union Officer at LSE, who uses it as her hashtag. She means at as a "joke" rather than literally.logical_song said:
Yeah, Sean's accusations were a teensy bit extreme.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).Sean_F said:
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.AllyPally_Rob said:What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
Saying that 'a very big base of support' within Labour 'wants to kill all White Men' should really be supported with some kind of evidence.
0 -
Umm... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11755277/Sexy-Jeremy-Corbyn-is-an-old-sea-dog-the-mums-lusting-over-Labours-leftwinger.html
There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.0 -
For a supposedly very nice man, Jeremy Corbyn doesn't shy away from ad hominem attacks:
Michael Deacon
✔ @MichaelPDeacon
Corbyn's response to Blair: "I think Tony Blair's big problem is we're still waiting for the Chilcot Report to come out"0 -
I was abroad at the time of the Gang of Four and only getting the news from week old copies of the Telegraph and the World Service (which was very much a hard news organisation in those days), and yes, in my memory the split and the formation of the SDP did come as a bolt out of the blue. The people I was with were a hard-bitten crew and greeted the news with surprising warmth - the SDP started with a lot of good will from ordinary voters. Shame it never worked out.Plato said:I'm trying to recall how much of a surprise the Gang of Four split was at the time. We had lots of gnashing of teeth - but it seemed to come out of the blue that Labourites would actually do it.
Anyone here with a better recollection of how it played out. I mainly remember watching the TV open-mouthed when the Labour manifesto came out. It didn't leave any room for doubt that they'd lost their minds.SouthamObserver said:
This is a picnic compared to the eighties. Currently, we are contemplating something that may not happen. Back then the party split, Foot was leader and Militant had its mitts everywhere. This could all still largely turn out to be a storm in a teacup.blackburn63 said:I'm neither a political expert or historian, irrespective of opinions there clearly some clever people on here and I'd like to know: has the Labour Party EVER been in such a mess?
As I see it they are split irrevocably.
Foot's 1983 manifesto, aka The Longest Suicide Note in History, I remember as being greeted with huge derision and in some quarters despair. However, at that time it didn't really matter what Labour put into its manifesto, they were always going to lose that election and lose it badly.0 -
Like the Milifans - it sounds as if they need a little more bromide in their tea, and a cold shower.Plato said:There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.0 -
Is it really an ad hominem attack to point out that Tony Blair has a vested interest in criticizing Corbyn's leadership?antifrank said:For a supposedly very nice man, Jeremy Corbyn doesn't shy away from ad hominem attacks:
Michael Deacon
✔ @MichaelPDeacon
Corbyn's response to Blair: "I think Tony Blair's big problem is we're still waiting for the Chilcot Report to come out"0 -
Austerity, whether good or not, is the defining issue of the times. If you shut up about it, what's the point of being a politician?rottenborough said:
Williamson lost his seat.bigjohnowls said:https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader/status/623774135001436160/photo/1
I agree with this MP
Mine cheerleading Kendall makes me puke
On the issue of austerity: it seems to me that Lab have lost this argument with the public for the time being, so what's the point of keeping going on about it. Talk about something else. Elect someone who will talk about other matters, like how you grow through science, tech and innovation.
...Oh, Chukka's not running.
0 -
-
@JohnRentoul: Exact words from @johnmcdonnellMP responding to Blair: "From 2005 onwards Tony lost us 5 million votes."0
-
OK, so a slight exaggeration on your part then?Sean_F said:
"Kill All White Men" is a reference to the Student Union Officer at LSE, who uses it as her hashtag. She means at as a "joke" rather than literally.logical_song said:
Yeah, Sean's accusations were a teensy bit extreme.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).Sean_F said:
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.AllyPally_Rob said:What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
Saying that 'a very big base of support' within Labour 'wants to kill all White Men' should really be supported with some kind of evidence.
The 'joke' might not really have 'a very big base of support' within Labour.0 -
Among feminists, being a men's rights activist is considered equivalent to being a white supremacist. Personally, I don't understand why we need to divide ourselves up to only campaign against crimes against our particular group. If you're concerned about domestic violence, why not be concerned about all people affected by it, male or female, black or white?The_Apocalypse said:
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.JEO said:
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.Sean_F said:
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.AllyPally_Rob said:What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...0 -
@PickardJE: From our FT story on Labour today http://t.co/XjvPcSe8WK0
-
Might I suggest that debt is the defining issue of the times. The squabbles about austerity are just arguments about how best to deal with the issue.William_H said:
Austerity, whether good or not, is the defining issue of the times. If you shut up about it, what's the point of being a politician?rottenborough said:
Williamson lost his seat.bigjohnowls said:https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader/status/623774135001436160/photo/1
I agree with this MP
Mine cheerleading Kendall makes me puke
On the issue of austerity: it seems to me that Lab have lost this argument with the public for the time being, so what's the point of keeping going on about it. Talk about something else. Elect someone who will talk about other matters, like how you grow through science, tech and innovation.
...Oh, Chukka's not running.0 -
It's because men are conditioned to accept that it's not "manly" to complain. (It's also why it is so difficult for some men to go to the Doctors.)The_Apocalypse said:
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.JEO said:
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.Sean_F said:
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.AllyPally_Rob said:What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves. (They reject the anti-male extremists) It's am agenda that I readily support.
0 -
The Student Union Officer in question has joked about killing white men and supports events where whites are barred. Yet she is still in good standing in her post. Can you imagine how the university would have reacted had a male officer joked about killing black women and supported events where blacks are barred? Clearly, among segments of the left, certain types or racism and sexism are tolerated.logical_song said:
OK, so a slight exaggeration on your part then?Sean_F said:
"Kill All White Men" is a reference to the Student Union Officer at LSE, who uses it as her hashtag. She means at as a "joke" rather than literally.logical_song said:
Yeah, Sean's accusations were a teensy bit extreme.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't think gender-specific toys are a good thing, and I'm not part of the hard-left. Although I don't regard this government as more evil than Thatcher (but am very scared of it's policies), don't think Thomas the Tank Engine is Racist (LMAO) and I don't want to kill all White Men (but I doubt the vast majority on the Left, which includes quite a few White men want to do that anyway).Sean_F said:
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.AllyPally_Rob said:What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
Saying that 'a very big base of support' within Labour 'wants to kill all White Men' should really be supported with some kind of evidence.
The 'joke' might not really have 'a very big base of support' within Labour.0 -
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
0 -
Are such people actually feminists?Disraeli said:...
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves.
...0 -
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.GarethoftheVale2 said:Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k
Lab - 18.9k
UKIP - 7.8k
LD - 2.3k
Green - 1.9k
Other - 0.4k
Non-Voters - Approx 31k
Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.0 -
I am old enough to remember the celebrations in Labour circles back in February 1975 when Thatcher ousted Heath. Many thought her to be far too right-wing and shrill to ever be able to win an election. Things turned out a bit differently!0
-
@JournoStephen: Neil Kinnock has a message for the Labour Party http://t.co/FyVQkPR9EC0
-
There is actually an argument - if you are a Liz Kendall supporter - to put Jeremy Corbyn as your second preference i.e. that he proves such a disaster that the party comes to its senses and votes for Liz after JC is deposed. Burnham and Cooper, on the other hand, would mean Liz would not have a chance to become leader, at least before 2020.
In that case, JC may become leader when LK is knocked out and her votes distributed.0 -
I wouldn't be surprised if violence against men is dramatically under-reported. The gender-stereotype that men must but stoic, strong, and not cry, seen in the awfully jokey attitude to male rape, for example is still very much a part of our society. It's one of the reasons why I'm a Feminist who fights against gender stereotypes - it creates stupid expectations of what 'being a man' is, and makes many male victims of violence feel they will not be taken seriously.JosiasJessop said:
Awareness of violence against men is where awareness of violence against women was thirty years ago.
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/abuse/Pages/domestic-violence-against-men.aspx
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.
I don't think Miliband was being intentionally 'misrandic' - there is a wide-prevailing narrative in our society of seeing women and girls as vulnerable, in a way that men just aren't seen, and there isn't enough done to counter that, so people buy into it as a default view. I'm not surprised Miliband, like many others, has as well. Many of the victims of the Rotherham scandal, for example are young men. This is something I found out a short while ago. Yet the media narrative focuses on the young female victims - because the idea of the young, vulnerable female sells. It's all very sad.
On the discounting of male violence, I think looking at CIF, and Telegraph articles on any gender equality issue can partly explain why. I think there are some out there who, everytime any issue on violence against women, or rape is discussed engage in whataboutery. The most recent example I saw was on a Telegraph article on suicide being one of the biggest killers of young girls/women across the world. As I said before, among quite a few men they don't even feel women's equality groups should be involved in these issues. Reading CIF articles on this in particular, that seems to be the message, along with blaming Feminism for male suicides.0 -
Does that include churn?justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
If you give me a link to the data I'll try and work it out for myself, and report back to the thread. Ta.
0 -
That a great video.Scott_P said:
@JournoStephen: Neil Kinnock has a message for the Labour Party http://t.co/FyVQkPR9EC
0 -
From the Guardian Article I linked to earlier:Barnesian said:
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.GarethoftheVale2 said:Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k
Lab - 18.9k
UKIP - 7.8k
LD - 2.3k
Green - 1.9k
Other - 0.4k
Non-Voters - Approx 31k
Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
"Reluctance to talk about what it would take to befriend that constituency [2015 Conservative voters] is a symptom of deeper delusion in the Labour party. It is the belief that there is some way of doing politics that navigates around Conservative voters instead of sailing towards them"0 -
JC will find it very hard to get half of the UKIP vote - many of the "Red Kippers" have very strident views on immigration, defence etc and are likely to be repelled by his views. If anything, it will push more traditional Labour WWC voters to UKIP.Barnesian said:
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.GarethoftheVale2 said:Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k
Lab - 18.9k
UKIP - 7.8k
LD - 2.3k
Green - 1.9k
Other - 0.4k
Non-Voters - Approx 31k
Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.0 -
I have to say, I really don't have a good opinion of MRAs.JEO said:
Among feminists, being a men's rights activist is considered equivalent to being a white supremacist. Personally, I don't understand why we need to divide ourselves up to only campaign against crimes against our particular group. If you're concerned about domestic violence, why not be concerned about all people affected by it, male or female, black or white?The_Apocalypse said:
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.JEO said:
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.Sean_F said:
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.AllyPally_Rob said:What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.0 -
Yes. I'm one. Most Feminists I've met do not believe in gender stereotypes.HurstLlama said:
Are such people actually feminists?Disraeli said:...
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves.
...0 -
Like the Milifans - it sounds as if they need a little more bromide in their tea, and a cold shower.foxinsoxuk said:Plato said:There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
In the words of Edmund Blackadder "blind, desperate, and haven't had it in months."0 -
Glad to hear you're of that opinion, DisraeliDisraeli said:
It's because men are conditioned to accept that it's not "manly" to complain. (It's also why it is so difficult for some men to go to the Doctors.)The_Apocalypse said:
No, I don't think they think that. One of things I always wondered, is on these issues why don't men organise their own organisation to campaign against violence against men? I was having a discussion online a couple of months back on male suicides, and I was told that as a 'leftie feminist I would never understand anyway'. So it seems some do not even want women's equality groups involved in issues such as male suicides, violence against men, and homelessness (which disproportionately affects men) anyway.JEO said:
Right now, the women's equality party is being covered on Sky News. They're going to campaign against violence against women. Presumably violence against men is ok.Sean_F said:
The hard left is still pretty influential in the legal and teaching professions, and dominant in university arts faculties. They regard this government as being more evil than Thatcher, think Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist, campaign against gender-specific toys, and want to Kill all White Men. So, they haven't gone away, by any means. And, the overrepresentation of professional people from London in the Labour party gives a very big base of support to Corbyn's campaign.AllyPally_Rob said:What I find fascinating/troubling is that after 13 years of Blair/Brown centre left government, the Militant tendency never really disappeared.
I thought we got this out of our system 25 years ago?
Everytime Labour loses power the far left ALWAYS claims its because the party wasn't left wing enough. They did it in '79, in 2010 and they are doing it now. Is the only way to prove them wrong to let Corbyn win?
All pretty depressing stuff from a centre left perspective at the moment...
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves. (They reject the anti-male extremists) It's am agenda that I readily support.
0 -
I know of two men - one who was repeatedly assaulted and stalked by his girlfriend. And another who committed suicide after being virtually being hen-pecked to death by emotional abuse.
That I know two tells me that it's not that rare. I'd much rather domestic abuse was simply that - nothing to do with your chromosomes.The_Apocalypse said:
I wouldn't be surprised if violence against men is dramatically under-reported. The gender-stereotype that men must but stoic, strong, and not cry, seen in the awfully jokey attitude to male rape, for example is still very much a part of our society. It's one of the reasons why I'm a Feminist who fights against gender stereotypes - it creates stupid expectations of what 'being a man' is, and makes many male victims of violence feel they will not be taken seriously.JosiasJessop said:
Awareness of violence against men is where awareness of violence against women was thirty years ago.
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/abuse/Pages/domestic-violence-against-men.aspx
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.
I don't think Miliband was being intentionally 'misrandic' - there is a wide-prevailing narrative in our society of seeing women and girls as vulnerable, in a way that men just aren't seen, and there isn't enough done to counter that, so people buy into it as a default view. I'm not surprised Miliband, like many others, has as well. Many of the victims of the Rotherham scandal, for example are young men. This is something I found out a short while ago. Yet the media narrative focuses on the young female victims - because the idea of the young, vulnerable female sells. It's all very sad.
On the discounting of male violence, I think looking at CIF, and Telegraph articles on any gender equality issue can partly explain why. I think there are some out there who, everytime any issue on violence against women, or rape is discussed engage in whataboutery. The most recent example I saw was on a Telegraph article on suicide being one of the biggest killers of young girls/women across the world. As I said before, among quite a few men they don't even feel women's equality groups should be involved in these issues. Reading CIF articles on this in particular, that seems to be the message, along with blaming Feminism for male suicides.0 -
I think it is probably a Net figure to be fair. TSE covered on a Thread here on June 29th.Disraeli said:
Does that include churn?justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
If you give me a link to the data I'll try and work it out for myself, and report back to the thread. Ta.0 -
What makes you think that anymore of the lib dems will go to labour? If anything Farron should start eating back into Labour s they move on from the defeat of the coalition and set themselves up again as a party of the left.Barnesian said:
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.GarethoftheVale2 said:Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k
Lab - 18.9k
UKIP - 7.8k
LD - 2.3k
Green - 1.9k
Other - 0.4k
Non-Voters - Approx 31k
Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
and thats assuming Corbyn wouldn't suffer any further losses from the middle to the Tory.
There's a whole lot of hoops to jump and basically saying they'll mop up everything possible to the left (including UKIP support, whilst being pro-immigration and pro multicultual) without losing anything at all in the centre...0 -
Of course they are, why wouldn't they be?HurstLlama said:
Are such people actually feminists?Disraeli said:...
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves.
...0 -
Mumsnet is like CiF for left-wing mothers. I'm surprised they don't view Corbyn as a sellout.Plato said:There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.0 -
The way that manifests itself the most is in the very high rates of male suicides. Often in violent ("manly") ways, like throwing yourself off a building or in front of a train rather than drugs OD.The_Apocalypse said:
I wouldn't be surprised if violence against men is dramatically under-reported. The gender-stereotype that men must but stoic, strong, and not cry, seen in the awfully jokey attitude to male rape, for example is still very much a part of our society. It's one of the reasons why I'm a Feminist who fights against gender stereotypes - it creates stupid expectations of what 'being a man' is, and makes many male victims of violence feel they will not be taken seriously.JosiasJessop said:
Awareness of violence against men is where awareness of violence against women was thirty years ago.
I've been rather loud on here about the stupid misandry of Miliband appointing a "Shadow Minister for Preventing Violence Against Women and Girls", which explicitly excludes the massive problem of violence against men.
And it is a much bigger problem than people realise: a quarter of all domestic incidents in 2010 were against men, and others feel that it is dramatically under-reported.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/abuse/Pages/domestic-violence-against-men.aspx
Wise feminists appreciate this and include it in their thinking. Stupid, misandric ones - almost all of the ones who regularly appear in the media - discount it for a variety of reasons.
I don't think Miliband was being intentionally 'misrandic' - there is a wide-prevailing narrative in our society of seeing women and girls as vulnerable, in a way that men just aren't seen, and there isn't enough done to counter that, so people buy into it as a default view. I'm not surprised Miliband, like many others, has as well. Many of the victims of the Rotherham scandal, for example are young men. This is something I found out a short while ago. Yet the media narrative focuses on the young female victims - because the idea of the young, vulnerable female sells. It's all very sad.
On the discounting of male violence, I think looking at CIF, and Telegraph articles on any gender equality issue can partly explain why. I think there are some out there who, everytime any issue on violence against women, or rape is discussed engage in whataboutery. The most recent example I saw was on a Telegraph article on suicide being one of the biggest killers of young girls/women across the world. As I said before, among quite a few men they don't even feel women's equality groups should be involved in these issues. Reading CIF articles on this in particular, that seems to be the message, along with blaming Feminism for male suicides.0 -
I wouldn't be so sure - knifing Corbyn without giving him a chance to fight an election could provoke a split that loses half the base. But Ed Miliband's result will have left a lot of Labour supporters thinking it would have been good to have a policy of ditching unconvincingly left-wing, vaguely populist leaders who are generally turning out to be a bit shit, and Andy Burnham seems to be auditioning for that role.MrEd said:There is actually an argument - if you are a Liz Kendall supporter - to put Jeremy Corbyn as your second preference i.e. that he proves such a disaster that the party comes to its senses and votes for Liz after JC is deposed. Burnham and Cooper, on the other hand, would mean Liz would not have a chance to become leader, at least before 2020.
In that case, JC may become leader when LK is knocked out and her votes distributed.0 -
On that basis I am a feminist too. Somewhere I think I am missing something?The_Apocalypse said:
Yes. I'm one. Most Feminists I've met do not believe in gender stereotypes.HurstLlama said:
Are such people actually feminists?Disraeli said:...
I've heard many feminists who point out that they aim to stop all conditioning and stereotyping of men and women and free all people to just be themselves.
...0 -
Yeah, and if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.Barnesian said:
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.GarethoftheVale2 said:Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k
Lab - 18.9k
UKIP - 7.8k
LD - 2.3k
Green - 1.9k
Other - 0.4k
Non-Voters - Approx 31k
Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
That does rather strike me as starting from the conclusion you'd like to see, and then making some assumptions about how that could happen to convince yourself it's feasible.
We saw similar things about the Red Liberals in the 2010-2015 parliament.
The Liberal Democrats were decimated, and the Tories won a majority.0 -
That's because people are often attacked by the centre-left consensus for campaigning on men's rights, so most of the ones willing to actively identify themselves as such are the aggressive ones that don't care. I have certainly had some very nasty verbal attacks from online feminists for pointing out that men also suffer from rape and domestic violence, or for mentioning that young men have unfairly had their lives wrecked by lack of due process in US universities, or that men face discrimination in both criminal and family courts. To explicitly describe myself as a "men's right activist" on top of that would not go down well. I thus just call myself an egalitarian, supporting equal rights for both men and women.The_Apocalypse said:I have to say, I really don't have a good opinion of MRAs.
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.0 -
@Casino_Royale Yes, it's said that when men attempt suicide they generally mean it, as opposed to female-attempted suicides which are a cry for help.
@HurstLlama, Well it's up to you, if you see yourself as a Feminist or not. I can't make that decision 0 -
Mumsnet is like CiF for left-wing mothers. I'm surprised they don't view Corbyn as a sellout.Casino_Royale said:Plato said:There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
There are some quite vociferous hard left voices on MN, but it's not CiF. The AIBU threads can be very funny, and the regular Friday Night Bum-Sex threads certainly raise a few eyebrows...0 -
Corbyn looks unstoppable, remarkable.0
-
The trouble is, is that Men's Rights, actively implies Men do not have rights. Where I think men face issues and problems, is in social attitudes and behaviours towards them (such male violence, gender stereotypes) not that they literally have no rights. I think there are extremists on both sides - I've been the recipient of attacks from MRAs, especially during the Elliot Rogers saga.JEO said:
That's because people are often attacked by the centre-left consensus for campaigning on men's rights, so most of the ones willing to actively identify themselves as such are the aggressive ones that don't care. I have certainly had some very nasty verbal attacks from online feminists for pointing out that men also suffer from rape and domestic violence, or for mentioning that young men have unfairly had their lives wrecked by lack of due process in US universities, or that men face discrimination in both criminal and family courts. To explicitly describe myself as a "men's right activist" on top of that would not go down well. I thus just call myself an egalitarian, supporting equal rights for both men and women.The_Apocalypse said:I have to say, I really don't have a good opinion of MRAs.
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.
It's like women/Feminism in the West - women today have rights, and although there some important structural inequalities they face, a large part of the battle for equality is down to social attitudes towards women, and rape/violence etc. Where women do not have rights, is in countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia.0 -
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k)
North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)0 -
There's no chance that half of UKIP voters would switch to Labour under Corbyn.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, and if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.Barnesian said:
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.GarethoftheVale2 said:Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k
Lab - 18.9k
UKIP - 7.8k
LD - 2.3k
Green - 1.9k
Other - 0.4k
Non-Voters - Approx 31k
Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
That does rather strike me as starting from the conclusion you'd like to see, and then making some assumptions about how that could happen to convince yourself it's feasible.
We saw similar things about the Red Liberals in the 2010-2015 parliament.
The Liberal Democrats were decimated, and the Tories won a majority.0 -
Corbyn's Gang of Five? What must they be thinking today?
Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy0 -
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.GarethoftheVale2 said:
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k)
North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)0 -
I don't think it means that men have no rights. It just means that they are fighting for men's rights to be protected and upheld.The_Apocalypse said:
The trouble is, is that Men's Rights, actively implies Men do not have rights. Where I think men face issues and problems, is in social attitudes and behaviours towards them (such male violence, gender stereotypes) not that they literally have no rights. I think there are extremists on both sides - I've been the recipient of attacks from MRAs, especially during the Elliot Rogers saga.JEO said:
That's because people are often attacked by the centre-left consensus for campaigning on men's rights, so most of the ones willing to actively identify themselves as such are the aggressive ones that don't care. I have certainly had some very nasty verbal attacks from online feminists for pointing out that men also suffer from rape and domestic violence, or for mentioning that young men have unfairly had their lives wrecked by lack of due process in US universities, or that men face discrimination in both criminal and family courts. To explicitly describe myself as a "men's right activist" on top of that would not go down well. I thus just call myself an egalitarian, supporting equal rights for both men and women.The_Apocalypse said:I have to say, I really don't have a good opinion of MRAs.
I guess people have evolved to 'divide themselves up into groups' because of the disadvantages women, ethnic minorities etc have historically faced.
It's like women/Feminism in the West - women today have rights, and although there some important structural inequalities they face, a large part of the battle for equality is down to social attitudes towards women, and rape/violence etc. Where women do not have rights, is in countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia.
As I said though, I don't like when people only are interested in the rights of a particular demographic. It feels divisive.0 -
Like the captain of this vessel.Plato said:Corbyn's Gang of Five? What must they be thinking today?
Margaret Beckett, Jon Cruddas, Frank Field, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kAjQdeyiHc0 -
The Labour party's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn today is reminiscent of the Leonard Cohen line: "you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win".0
-
We are at cross purposes. I have been talking about the 2010 election not 2015. My point was there is a large chunk of the electorate who switched from Blair in 2005 to Cameron in 2010. Labour should be targetting these people, rather than DNV (unlikely to again) or the Greens and LDs (I can't see the remaining LDs switching if they didn't in 2015)justin124 said:
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.GarethoftheVale2 said:
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k)
North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)0 -
You're making a mistake. You're looking at all seats.justin124 said:
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.GarethoftheVale2 said:
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k)
North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
You need to look at the seats that matter, such as the marginals.
For example the Tories increased their share of the vote by around 3% in the marginals.
Helps explain why in marginals like Warwickshire North and Stockton South the Tory majority increased substantially.
Labour increasing their share of the vote by lots in places like Manchester Gorton skews the national picture.0 -
I'll try the idea out on Herself when she gets home this evening (off on a day's walk with her friend and that despite the work that needs doing on the allotment and God knows when she last cleaned behind the fridge). "Dearest", I shall say, "A lady on PB.com suggests that I might be a feminist, what do you think?" The howls of derisive laughter will probably be heard in the next village.The_Apocalypse said:
@HurstLlama, Well it's up to you, if you see yourself as a Feminist or not. I can't make that decision
0 -
I've managed to segue in lyrics from Hallelujah into this weekend's thread about Corbyn/AVantifrank said:The Labour party's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn today is reminiscent of the Leonard Cohen line: "you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win".
0 -
Got a new market up at Ladbrokes:
http://t.co/S5z7iShQKu
Top two candidates at final voting stage
8/13 Corbyn/Burnham
5/2 Corbyn/Cooper
4/1 Burnham/Cooper
20/1 Corbyn/Kendall
33/1 Burnham/Kendall
66/1 Cooper/Kendall
0 -
Fair enough. Sorry if I misread your post!GarethoftheVale2 said:
We are at cross purposes. I have been talking about the 2010 election not 2015. My point was there is a large chunk of the electorate who switched from Blair in 2005 to Cameron in 2010. Labour should be targetting these people, rather than DNV (unlikely to again) or the Greens and LDs (I can't see the remaining LDs switching if they didn't in 2015)justin124 said:
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.GarethoftheVale2 said:
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k)
North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)0 -
The conservatives also gained circa a million votes (0.63 rounded up)TheScreamingEagles said:
You're making a mistake. You're looking at all seats.justin124 said:
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.GarethoftheVale2 said:
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k)
North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
You need to look at the seats that matter, such as the marginals.
For example the Tories increased their share of the vote by around 3% in the marginals.
Helps explain why in marginals like Warwickshire North and Stockton South the Tory majority increased substantially.
Labour increasing their share of the vote by lots in places like Manchester Gorton skews the national picture.
AH BUT YOU'VE ROUNDED IT UP, I hear
Labour gained 0.74 million votes.
It's really, hardly worth crowing about.0 -
I am aware of all of that - and I am indeed looking at the overall GB changes!TheScreamingEagles said:
You're making a mistake. You're looking at all seats.justin124 said:
That is not correct. Labour gained circa a million votes compared with 2010 - rather more than the Tories. This is confirmed by the changes in % vote share - Tories went from 37.0 in 2010 to 37.8 in 2015 - Labour rose from 29.7% to 31.2%. These are GB figures.GarethoftheVale2 said:
That seems highly implausible to me. The Conservatives gained 1.9 million new votes in 2010 compared with 2005. Lab lost 946,000 votes. The Lib Dems gained 851,000 votes, UKIP gained 314,000 votes.justin124 said:
Apparently Labour lost only 2% of its 2010 voters to the Tories - circa 200000 votesGarethoftheVale2 said:Apacolaypse - As I mentioned previously, a lot of the Greens, young people and non-voters will live in constituencies which Labour already hold. By my calculation, there were around 1 million direct switchers from Lab to Con in 2010 - Labour needs to concentrate its efforts in winning this group back.
Now clearly this is all muddied somewhat by the fact the electorate grew from 2005-2010, but with UKIP and LDs also gaining votes, it seems clear to me that there must have been substantial direct gains of votes by the Cons from Lab.
This is borne out by looking at individual constituencies e.g.
South Dorset Lab -11.4%, Con +7.1%, LD +3.2%, UKIP +0.8% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 5k, Con gained 4.5k)
North Warwickshire Lab -8%, Con +8%, LD -2%, UKIP+0.1% (in terms of vote numbers Lab lost 3.5k, Con gained 4k)
You need to look at the seats that matter, such as the marginals.
For example the Tories increased their share of the vote by around 3% in the marginals.
Helps explain why in marginals like Warwickshire North and Stockton South the Tory majority increased substantially.
Labour increasing their share of the vote by lots in places like Manchester Gorton skews the national picture.0 -
I have to say that personally, no matter what his politics, I could not support Corbyn given the choice he made to separate from his wife over a matter of ideology - or political expediency. To break up your family because you disagree where your son should go to school for ideological reasons seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.0
-
Off topic: US Presidentials/Democratic Nominations: This poll from Quinnipiac is very bad news for Hillaryland:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/its_time_to_draft_al_gore_if_democrats_want_to_win_its_clear_neither_hillary_nor_sanders_is_the_way/
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.0 -
Reading the comments section in Labour list is an enlightening experience. Absolutely bonkers and yet they are absolutely convinced people will vote for a) higher taxes and b) more borrowing.
On another note, I've been blocked by Diane Abbott for calling one of her comments 'patronising. If this is corbyns gang then I really see no hope for Labour.0 -
Party before Family.Richard_Tyndall said:I have to say that personally, no matter what his politics, I could not support Corbyn given the choice he made to separate from his wife over a matter of ideology - or political expediency. To break up your family because you disagree where your son should go to school for ideological reasons seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.
0 -
@SamCoatesTimes: Margaret Beckett: I was moron to nominate Jeremy Corbyn -I'm told to expect more "morons" to come out in coming days http://t.co/UG7goCDQ7D0
-
Attention all Bettors.
Yougov is WRONG, they used the WRONG demographic weightings on their Labour leadership poll.
Normally the Labour members skew about 70/30 towards Men, but Yougov weighted it 50/50, if corrected that alone reduces Corbyn's total by 2% and makes the 2nd place too close to call, also they haven't used any turnout filters.
All those corrections will have to be done now manually.
My first impression now is that Corby is ahead by far less than thought, and Burnham and Cooper are tied for second place.0 -
I think it's brilliant. Go Corbyn's barmy army I say. It won't last though.0
-
Oh we like sheep...TheScreamingEagles said:
I've managed to segue in lyrics from Hallelujah into this weekend's thread about Corbyn/AVantifrank said:The Labour party's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn today is reminiscent of the Leonard Cohen line: "you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win".
0 -
Those numbers seem out of line with the rest of the polling:MTimT said:Off topic: US Presidentials/Democratic Nominations: This poll from Quinnipiac is very bad news for Hillaryland:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/its_time_to_draft_al_gore_if_democrats_want_to_win_its_clear_neither_hillary_nor_sanders_is_the_way/
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_20160 -
More than that, he chose his personal purity over the well being of his family.dr_spyn said:
Party before Family.Richard_Tyndall said:I have to say that personally, no matter what his politics, I could not support Corbyn given the choice he made to separate from his wife over a matter of ideology - or political expediency. To break up your family because you disagree where your son should go to school for ideological reasons seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.
0 -
Mumsnet is like CiF for left-wing mothers. I'm surprised they don't view Corbyn as a sellout.Casino_Royale said:Plato said:There’s just something about Jeremy Corbyn, according to some users on the popular parenting site Mumsnet.
The 66 year old was labelled as “very sexy” by some mothers, particularly "if you half fancied Dumbledore."
It comes as he emerged as the frontrunner in the Labour leadership contest as a new YouGov poll put him 17 points ahead of his nearest rival Andy Burnham.
The left-winger’s “passion” was said to be a major draw, while his biking and pub visits were also cited as two of his key selling points.
Left-wing mothers...is there a missing word?0 -
It isn't a prediction. In fact I think it is highly unlikely. I'm just showing that it not entirely out of the question.Casino_Royale said:
Yeah, and if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.Barnesian said:
Possibly not in Milton Keynes.GarethoftheVale2 said:Barnesian - The problem with going after DNV (apart from the fact they tend not to vote) is that the biggest concentrations of DNV tend to be found in safe Labour constituencies. Racking up another 20,000 votes in Liverpool won't make a blind bit of difference to Lab's chances as they already have all the seats there. You mention getting more young people to turn out - again Lab already hold most of the seats with large numbers of students.
Let's look at the sort of seat that Lab need to win - Milton Keynes S
Con - 27.6k
Lab - 18.9k
UKIP - 7.8k
LD - 2.3k
Green - 1.9k
Other - 0.4k
Non-Voters - Approx 31k
Majority - 8672
So in theory there is a large pool of non-voters but in practice you would need to get 28% of them to vote which is a huge number. Bear in mind if they were all hard lefties disappointed with Labour then they could have voted Green. Some of the non-voters will be due to register inaccuracies (moved house or died), some will be people who were ill or those who were out of the country and didn't get a postal vote.
It is worth noting that the Con majority is higher than Green & LD put together. Realistically to win this seat Lab either needs to be taking a large chunk of the UKIP vote or they need direct Lab-Con switchers. Is Corbyn going to help with either of those?
But if you assume that Labour in England under Corbyn can get half of the Green, UKIP and LibDem vote, they would be on 44.6% against Tory 41.0% without gaining any Tory votes.
In Scotland, if Labour can get half of the Labour and LibDems who defected to the SNP, Labour would be on 38.8% against SNP on 35.5%.
And that is without any DNVs.
Labour has lost a lot of its right wing Blairite supporters to the Tories already so perhaps not a lot to lose.
That does rather strike me as starting from the conclusion you'd like to see, and then making some assumptions about how that could happen to convince yourself it's feasible.
We saw similar things about the Red Liberals in the 2010-2015 parliament.
The Liberal Democrats were decimated, and the Tories won a majority.
0 -
Corbyn laden with poll support ?TheScreamingEagles said:
I've managed to segue in lyrics from Hallelujah into this weekend's thread about Corbyn/AVantifrank said:The Labour party's attitude to Jeremy Corbyn today is reminiscent of the Leonard Cohen line: "you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win".
0 -
No slump for Trump so far, my instincts on this are proved correct once more (so far):JEO said:
Those numbers seem out of line with the rest of the polling:MTimT said:Off topic: US Presidentials/Democratic Nominations: This poll from Quinnipiac is very bad news for Hillaryland:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/its_time_to_draft_al_gore_if_democrats_want_to_win_its_clear_neither_hillary_nor_sanders_is_the_way/
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/trump-leads-gop-field-no-slump-after-attacks-on-mccain/0 -
I believe so.Plato said: It's the actor Paul Darrow. Everyone I knew in those days used to love Blake's Seven, but I never had time for TV. I was working like a dog at the time. 0 -
This "couldn't even win his own state" business is a pile of pants, the state in question is Tennessee, which Obama lost 60/40 to Romney. US politics has a home-state advantage, especially for small states, but it's not that big.MTimT said:Off topic: US Presidentials/Democratic Nominations: This poll from Quinnipiac is very bad news for Hillaryland:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/its_time_to_draft_al_gore_if_democrats_want_to_win_its_clear_neither_hillary_nor_sanders_is_the_way/
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.0 -
PPP and Suffolk all have Clinton up against various GOP opponents at the moment, to be honest its all noise at this stage really.MTimT said:Off topic: US Presidentials/Democratic Nominations: This poll from Quinnipiac is very bad news for Hillaryland:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/its_time_to_draft_al_gore_if_democrats_want_to_win_its_clear_neither_hillary_nor_sanders_is_the_way/
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.
She's in trouble if they nominate Rubio IMHO. She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).0 -
Promising to rip up deals is generally good politics, you can pretend you'd have negotiated a better deal that keeps all the good bits and makes the other side give more concessions.AllyPally_Rob said:She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).
0 -
I actually prefer it to the usual hypocrisy we get from the political class.Richard_Tyndall said:I have to say that personally, no matter what his politics, I could not support Corbyn given the choice he made to separate from his wife over a matter of ideology - or political expediency. To break up your family because you disagree where your son should go to school for ideological reasons seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.
Corbyn is anti-war, anti Heathrow and more Eurosceptic than most in Labour. Of course his opinions on the economy and immigration are daft, but then so is every Labour politician's, it's just he doesn't pretend to have contrary opinions.0 -
Good politics for the base at this stage. More difficult when you're trying to project a image of competence at a presidential debate.edmundintokyo said:
Promising to rip up deals is generally good politics, you can pretend you'd have negotiated a better deal that keeps all the good bits and makes the other side give more concessions.AllyPally_Rob said:She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).
He's also just signed an abortion ban beyond 20 weeks in Wisconsin. This has already been deemed unconstitutional in a couple of states. So he's basically saying 'Screw the Constitution, I'm going to waste loads of tax payers money on layers to boost my conservative credentials'.0 -
New thread.
0 -
Hilary opposes the Iran deal too, also she was the nut who has been the driving force behind Libya and the Ukraine. An extreme R2P interventionist.AllyPally_Rob said:
PPP and Suffolk all have Clinton up against various GOP opponents at the moment, to be honest its all noise at this stage really.MTimT said:Off topic: US Presidentials/Democratic Nominations: This poll from Quinnipiac is very bad news for Hillaryland:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Each of the GOP's most likely candidates, Bush, Rubio and Walker, lead Hillary in each of Virginia, Iowa and Colorado. In Iowa and Colorado, it is by margins significantly bigger than the MoE. In VA it is by 2-3%. It is hard to see either side winning the presidency while losing all three of these states.
Of course, this is just one poll. But Quiinnipiac is a reputable firm with a lot of state-level polling experience. If there are a bunch of polls of swing states that start to confirm this as a pattern, expect a lot of introspection within the Dem camp and more calls to draft alternative big names to Hillary.
This is already beginning. As I said yesterday, the draft Biden camp is starting to make noise. And today, FFS, we even have the first shoots of a draft Gore campaign! Ugh!
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/its_time_to_draft_al_gore_if_democrats_want_to_win_its_clear_neither_hillary_nor_sanders_is_the_way/
Not quite sure of the logic of Hillary's flailing, let's draft a loser who couldn't even win his own state or Clinton's.
She's in trouble if they nominate Rubio IMHO. She'd easily walk it against Walker, he's incredibly conservative (said he'd rip up the Iran deal on day 1).
Hilary really struggling against Walker who I rate and I expect to win, if and its a big if, the well ahead Trump fades.
0 -
If you want to undersand just how completely out with the fairies Jeremy Corbyn is simply on economic matters, consider his speech today:
Another option would be to strip out some of the huge tax reliefs and subsidies on offer to the corporate sector. These amount to £93 billion a year - money which would be better used in direct public investment, which in turn would give a stimulus to private sector supply chains.
£93bn of tax reliefs and subsidies 'which would be better used in direct public investment"? What is this money?
The answer can be found in his source, a Guardian article of quite spectacular financial, arithmetic and logical ineptitude even by Guardian standards:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake
Included in the figure are regional development funds (does he really want to cancel these?), payments for government procurement, subsidies to train operators (I admire his über-right wing credentials if he wants full market rates for railways), alleged 'subsidies' to airlines by not charging duty on aircraft fuel (good luck with that one, Jeremy - you do realise they can fill up in other countries, I suppose?), capital allowances (you can be quite certain that he doesn't understand these at all), and the costs of dismantling the public-sector built nuclear power stations.
It is dismal that the once-great Guardian newspaper would publish such utter tosh, but that a prospective leader of the Labour Party actually takes it seriously is even more astonishing.0 -
LOL, typical. YouGov haven't learned anything from May 2015.Speedy said:Attention all Bettors.
Yougov is WRONG, they used the WRONG demographic weightings on their Labour leadership poll.
Normally the Labour members skew about 70/30 towards Men, but Yougov weighted it 50/50, if corrected that alone reduces Corbyn's total by 2% and makes the 2nd place too close to call, also they haven't used any turnout filters.
All those corrections will have to be done now manually.
My first impression now is that Corby is ahead by far less than thought, and Burnham and Cooper are tied for second place.0 -
Surely it has to be factored in that Corbyn's position should significantly improve from where it is today.
The reason is that UNITE is still signing up people to vote. And this poll is going to give them a heck of a lot of encouragement to sign up as many more as they can. And these new sign-ups are going to be disproportionately for Corbyn.
In contrast Burnham and Cooper are not going to be able to get late sign-ups to anything like the same degree.
0 -
I have now joined the Labour Party as well0
