politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s English challenge
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s English challenge
Looking at the chart above we can see that in England Labour did best where it didn’t need to and the Tories did best where they did need to do well. In England overall there was a swing of 1.1% from the Tories to Labour but in the crucial battle ground of the fifty most marginal Tory held seats there was a swing of 0.9% FROM Labour to the Tories.
Comments
-
First!
0 -
I made a plot on this showing change in share for Labour, as a function of 2010 share:
http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png
The ones highlighted in red are Scottish seats, demonstrating how poorly they did.0 -
Oh, and are the "top 100 safest" and "50 most marginal" are based on 2010 results, or 2015?0
-
Thread Leader - "Corbyn's English Challenge"
Indeed.
Jezza speaks a minority language - an 80's dialect most voters have tuned out of.
0 -
Of those 16,000 conversations, how many started "when are you going to do something about immigration?" "You're leader is an unelectable idiot" or "Where is your economic policy?".....?
And why will the next 16,000 be any different?0 -
I can't see how messages of support from Hamas, Christine Kirchner, Martin McGuinness, or Gerry Adams can be anything other than harmful to Labour.JackW said:Thread Leader - "Corbyn's English Challenge"
Indeed.
Jezza speaks a minority language - an 80's dialect most voters have tuned out of.
0 -
I'm in Westminster North, a hyper-marginal Labour held. Neither they nor the Tories fought a "ground war". Maybe neither of them had the troops.
I think TSE attaches too much importance to campaigning. I'd like to see a similar chart for ethnicity. I suspect Labour did worse the whiter the seat was.
0 -
Quite so Sean.Sean_F said:
I can't see how messages of support from Hamas, Christine Kirchner, Martin McGuinness, or Gerry Adams can be anything other than harmful to Labour.JackW said:Thread Leader - "Corbyn's English Challenge"
Indeed.
Jezza speaks a minority language - an 80's dialect most voters have tuned out of.
A political car crash of spectacular proportions is unfolding before our eyes. What will be left of the wreckage is more difficult to assess but at some point another leader will have to visit the breakers yard and put together the remaining spare parts.
0 -
Morning all. Did yesterday actually happen? All I know is I have a hangover.0
-
"Across England there are other examples like this from Stockton South to Nuneaton to Waveney."
Don't forget Broxtowe !0 -
I'm not sure it's that simple - I do believe the strong Muslim Labour vote may sway other non-white and white ethnic groups [ such as Hindus, Sikhs and Jews away from Labour and towards the Tories. Sadiq Khan's ethnic quotas in London may also have a negative effect. I do think campaigning techniques and strategy are important in marginal seats. Westminster North has remained stubbornly Labour for many years - I'm not sure Corbyn's leadership will keep it that way. Also the Tooting by-election if and when it occurs would be quite an interesting one. Khan's majority barely changed in May. Under the boundary changes it would go nominally blue anyway.Innocent_Abroad said:I'm in Westminster North, a hyper-marginal Labour held. Neither they nor the Tories fought a "ground war". Maybe neither of them had the troops.
I think TSE attaches too much importance to campaigning. I'd like to see a similar chart for ethnicity. I suspect Labour did worse the whiter the seat was.0 -
The 75 seats with the highest proportion of ethnic minority voters saw the Labour vote share rise by 8%, and the Tory vote share remain unchanged.Innocent_Abroad said:I'm in Westminster North, a hyper-marginal Labour held. Neither they nor the Tories fought a "ground war". Maybe neither of them had the troops.
I think TSE attaches too much importance to campaigning. I'd like to see a similar chart for ethnicity. I suspect Labour did worse the whiter the seat was.
*But* such seats are all very urban, and tend to contain lots of students, public sector workers, and often, universities; all of which help to boost the Labour vote.
Overall, it looks as though both Labour and Conservatives pushed up support among BME voters.
0 -
I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.
Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.
They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.0 -
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.
Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.
They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Interesting stats. Cheers Mr. Eagles and Mr. Disraeli.0 -
I think pretty much any Conservative MP is closer to the centre ground than Corbyn is.DavidL said:I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.
Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.
They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.0 -
The Tory increase in the vote last May was at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, not Labour. Broxtowe is an excellent example. Presumably this was as true of BME as of white votes.Sean_F said:
The 75 seats with the highest proportion of ethnic minority voters saw the Labour vote share rise by 8%, and the Tory vote share remain unchanged.Innocent_Abroad said:I'm in Westminster North, a hyper-marginal Labour held. Neither they nor the Tories fought a "ground war". Maybe neither of them had the troops.
I think TSE attaches too much importance to campaigning. I'd like to see a similar chart for ethnicity. I suspect Labour did worse the whiter the seat was.
*But* such seats are all very urban, and tend to contain lots of students, public sector workers, and often, universities; all of which help to boost the Labour vote.
Overall, it looks as though both Labour and Conservatives pushed up support among BME voters.
0 -
Polly has started alreadyDavidL said:. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"0 -
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.
Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.
They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.0 -
Would Polly rather have a Conservative government, with UKIP providing supply and confidence, which is what PR would give us?TGOHF said:
Polly has started alreadyDavidL said:. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"
There is such a thing as being careful what you wish for.0 -
On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.0 -
The likes of Polly and her ilk will be first in the Tumbril..commercials directors in the second one..0
-
There are still some ideologues seeking intellectual purity on the right that are nearly as daft as Corbyn. But Cameron has moved the centre of the party back to where it needed to be.Sean_F said:
I think pretty much any Conservative MP is closer to the centre ground than Corbyn is.DavidL said:I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.
Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.
They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.0 -
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.JosiasJessop said:On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.0 -
Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.
Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.
They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
0 -
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.
Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.
They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.0 -
Are there any governments in Europe..the EU..that were elected under AV or PR....0
-
2010RobD said:Oh, and are the "top 100 safest" and "50 most marginal" are based on 2010 results, or 2015?
0 -
Polly, wait until that iron fist is rammed up Labour's jacksy in 2020. THAT will be eye-watering.TGOHF said:
Polly has started alreadyDavidL said:. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"0 -
When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.0
-
How outrageous! Needing to obtain the support of people who previously voted for your political opponents. What a travesty of democracy!TGOHF said:
Polly has started alreadyDavidL said:. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"0 -
I wonder what she thought of this wicked electoral system back in 2005..?TGOHF said:
Polly has started alreadyDavidL said:. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"
Is it finally dawning on some of the more excitable of the commentariat, that Jeremy Corbyn is completely unelectable?0 -
Mr. Dodd, I believe Germany uses a variety of PR (again, that's partly a legacy of war guilt - they don't want any one party to have a predominant position).
Could be wrong, it's a while since I covered it.0 -
FPT for Chestnut ...... I am not in and have never been in the SNP so would not make any difference.0
-
I am in London next week grading a couple of hours of TV Drama for the BBC..any PB gatherings during the week0
-
Polly quote is from here
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-victory-guardian-panellists-verdict0 -
I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.0 -
JC seemed to back track on R5 yesterday - sounded like he was more thinking of asking questions given to him by others or giving up some of his 6.richardDodd said:When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
0 -
MD..So those election systems don't seem too popular with our European brethren..why is it pushed so hard in the UK..0
-
Good morning everyone.
Dannis MacShane doesn't seem to impressed with Jezza
http://www.theglobalist.com/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-british-politics/0 -
Mr. Dodd, some people seem to genuinely like it, others want to gerrymander the system so we perpetually have weak government and/or to advantage their particular party.0
-
We are coming together. The consequence is that England is a Tory country, just as Northern Irish politics are dominated by religion with class a poor second.DavidL said:
I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
I am still hoping for a list of the seats that Liz Kendall would have won that JC won't
0 -
MD Not surprised at that..0
-
The Speaker may have already done so.richardDodd said:When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
Unless legitimately absent the six PMQ questions for LotO are not available for Jezza to depute. He uses them or loses them. If Jezza declines the Speaker will simply move to the next question.
0 -
Quite.MarqueeMark said:
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.JosiasJessop said:On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.
Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!0 -
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.0 -
One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.richardDodd said:When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.
0 -
Labour need to atract voters from other parties! Incisive stuff.TGOHF said:
Polly has started alreadyDavidL said:. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.
"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"0 -
JackW..Seems sensible..bit of a skutch in Corbyns wheels then..0
-
England is a centralist country that does not like those who would scare the horses. We don't really want exciting, radical, scary politicians. We want to be left alone but have decent public services.Innocent_Abroad said:
We are coming together. The consequence is that England is a Tory country, just as Northern Irish politics are dominated by religion with class a poor second.DavidL said:
I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
I am still hoping for a list of the seats that Liz Kendall would have won that JC won't
That sort of government doesn't have to be Tory. For most of the last 30 years it wasn't.0 -
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
0 -
LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.Sandpit said:
Quite.MarqueeMark said:
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.JosiasJessop said:On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.
Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!0 -
Mr. Abroad, well, quite. But if I were Labour I'd be trying to change the 'losing' part of that proposition not the 'compromising ideological purity' bit.
But then, I'd want to form the government and make changes instead of go on protest marches and snuggle up to the likes of the Argentine president.0 -
There's also a more elite element to the hard left, in the universities, the legal profession, the arts, media, fashion, and design, but still concentrated in major cities.DavidL said:
I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
0 -
Andy Burnham, what a chump.0
-
Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.0 -
For all of Bercow's (small) foibles he is an extremely strong defender of the HoC. He is neither the governments man nor the opposition but the Commons man.0
-
Yes, that is true as well.Sean_F said:
There's also a more elite element to the hard left, in the universities, the legal profession, the arts, media, fashion, and design, but still concentrated in major cities.DavidL said:
I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.0 -
Mr G maybe you're right, but she would have been a lot more concerning for the PM and Govt than the 1970s terrorist-appeasing trot that Labour just elected. Think seats like Broxtowe, Nuneaton, Corby - where the election is actually decided - rather than Islington and Liverpool.malcolmg said:
LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.Sandpit said:
Quite.MarqueeMark said:
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.JosiasJessop said:On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.
Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!0 -
Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?
Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.0 -
As a PBTory, I'll say the following to the idiots ideological travellers who are supporting Corbyn:MarqueeMark said:
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.JosiasJessop said:On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
A few years back, I stated Miliband's biggest problem: he was good at spotting problems, but he was terrible at choosing solutions to those problems. This was compounded by the fact that by the time of the general election, those solutions formed a hideous mish-mash rather than a coherent platform.
That cannot even be said about Corbyn. He is spotting the problems of forty or more years ago and fighting old battles. He wants green targets but also to reopen coal mines. He wants to accept refugees but also give everyone who wants to live in London a home.
He is worse than Miliband in all ways save one: ideological purity. And that is never a vote winner amongst the GBP.0 -
F1: application to put Lotus into administration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/342327840 -
Well yes, it is hard to believe after one of the worst campaigns in history he could make himself look more ridiculous but he is a trier.Alanbrooke said:Andy Burnham, what a chump.
I just wondered if he thought that Corbyn would be so desperate to have someone people had actually heard of in his shadow cabinet that he might be offered Shadow Chancellor if he played hard to get. But keeping to a consistent strategy for a whole day is not really his strong suit.0 -
Yes in Scotland you also have the choice of the SNP Mafia style cronyism ...malcolmg said:
Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.0 -
Their hatred will turn against Corbyn in time. That's because it isn't a hatred based on fact, but on stupidity. It's unthinking hatred, and therefore it can turn against anyone, very quickly.Innocent_Abroad said:
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
Even the MessiahCorbyn.0 -
What's he done now?DavidL said:
Well yes, it is hard to believe after one of the worst campaigns in history he could make himself look more ridiculous but he is a trier.Alanbrooke said:Andy Burnham, what a chump.
I just wondered if he thought that Corbyn would be so desperate to have someone people had actually heard of in his shadow cabinet that he might be offered Shadow Chancellor if he played hard to get. But keeping to a consistent strategy for a whole day is not really his strong suit.
0 -
Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?
Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.
I was simply reflecting on the whole campaign.
The one thing that does come through is that Burnham should never be let near a position of responsibility.
0 -
You speak of choice yet vote for a one party state.malcolmg said:
Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
Have a turnip !0 -
Mr. Brooke, indeed, he's almost Milibandesque.
Mr. Jessop, I'm not so sure. The evil media, the uncaring public and, of course, the baby-eating Tories provide plenty of targets.0 -
Good morning all. Wow, it wasn't all just a fevered dream, Labour really did defenestrate themselves.DavidL said:
England is a centralist country that does not like those who would scare the horses. We don't really want exciting, radical, scary politicians. We want to be left alone but have decent public services.
That sort of government doesn't have to be Tory. For most of the last 30 years it wasn't.
I agree with you. I don't think I'm alone in taking a managerial view of politics. I'm not an ideologue (I'd hope I never was) or partisan. We need a government that's thinking ahead, whether that's how to deal with health, demographics, energy, defence, borders, sovereignty and so forth.
Unfortunately, that's ultimately quite dull and uninspiring for many activists - quiet analysis, working groups and committee work. So much easier to just emote "48 hours to save the NHS!".0 -
Titter ....Alanbrooke said:
You speak of choice yet vote for a one party state.malcolmg said:
Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
Have a turnip !
0 -
The Sun went with "In the Corbyn", the rest none too complimentary eitherMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?
Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/642805850499887106
0 -
Polly on Marr now ....
Titters a little more ....0 -
Hope not.Morris_Dancer said:F1: application to put Lotus into administration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34232784
I despise Briatore and didn't like the team when he was in charge, but they've got some really good people working for them. Within enough finance, they could be winners again.0 -
"The Tories are terrified" was one comment.Sandpit said:
The Sun went with "In the Corbyn", the rest none too complimentary eitherMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?
Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/642805850499887106
In a way, Yes. You're terrified when you see someone standing on a window ledge, saying they're going to jump. You're terrified for them, not terrified for yourself.0 -
Mr. Jessop, I agree. Hope Renault buy them promptly.0
-
Meanwhile .... Sturgeon to put another "once in a generation" independence referendum proposal in the SNP 2016 election manifesto.
Chortle ....0 -
LOL, Polly blaming the media for the bad headlines, then questioning why Corbyn didn't turn up himself to talk to Marr.0
-
The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.Innocent_Abroad said:
You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
It is going to be a horror show....0 -
I see from the Survation poll that 36% think Labour will lose the next TWO general elections, 22% don't.
I filled in a YouGov yesterday all about relative right vs left, who I'd vote for as PM from quite a long list. Hope this will be published as it sounded rather interesting.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, the capitalist media barons will have their lying tongues stilled by Chairman Corbyn!
Mr. Mark, 'This is what socialism looks like'?0 -
Polly ranting against Labour rent-a-mouths.
Chortle.0 -
They're going to be bought by Renault. Going into administration is just so that they get them cheap. Same trick pulled by Football clubs all the time.JosiasJessop said:
Hope not.Morris_Dancer said:F1: application to put Lotus into administration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34232784
I despise Briatore and didn't like the team when he was in charge, but they've got some really good people working for them. Within enough finance, they could be winners again.0 -
Marr indicating via Tom Watson upcoming interview that the Corbyn PMQ vacancy option may still be a runner.
IMO Bercow and HoC procedure will say not.0 -
And Marr making some ridiculous excuse for him. It's hardly likely he booked himself in thinking he was going to appear after defeat! Maybe he just can't plan ahead more than a few days?Sandpit said:LOL, Polly blaming the media for the bad headlines, then questioning why Corbyn didn't turn up himself to talk to Marr.
0 -
Mr. Alex, hope you're right. The engine news from Red Bull and Manor indicate you may well be.0
-
Sandpit , I cannot agree , crazy or not at least Corbyn has a personal opinion , she is just a cardboard cutout who would flip flop with focus group opinions. Love him or hate him Corbyn at least gave opinions during the marathon event , Kendall showed she had no opinions, was useless and should never be allowed to run anything.Sandpit said:
Mr G maybe you're right, but she would have been a lot more concerning for the PM and Govt than the 1970s terrorist-appeasing trot that Labour just elected. Think seats like Broxtowe, Nuneaton, Corby - where the election is actually decided - rather than Islington and Liverpool.malcolmg said:
LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.Sandpit said:
Quite.MarqueeMark said:
If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.JosiasJessop said:On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.
After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.
Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.
They were wrong then; they are wrong now.
I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.
Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!0 -
The ideological battle for 2020 comes during ~ 2018 when the next Tory leader is chosen0
-
Who's this commie on Marr ?0
-
OMG! A post elected Corbyn thread. Fancy that!
This below is more important FTM:
Love Europe, No2EU @UKMarkTyrrell 3m3 minutes ago
Merkel 'expects Cameron to back EU army' in exchange for renegotiation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11861247/Merkel-expects-Cameron-to-back-EU-army-in-exchange-for-renegotiation.html …0 -
Your point is, I thought David was talking about England. How do you conflate that to Scotland. Do you ever debate the topic rather than just spout your hatred.TGOHF said:
Yes in Scotland you also have the choice of the SNP Mafia style cronyism ...malcolmg said:
Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.0 -
The editor of the Morning Star is as delusional in his wishful thinking as might be expected and has been revealed by our resident Marxist in recent threads. I particularly enjoyed the gloriously unselfaware irony of a Communist complaining about 'an attack on democracy.'0
-
That's a bad stunt to pull, and as you say it looks like Renault are trying to get rid of the debts and buy the team on the cheap. It should be that a team entering bankruptcy loses its championship entry, which is the real asset that a purchaser requires to race in F1. The problem is Bernie and his scheming and secrecy, I wouldn't put anything past him.alex. said:
They're going to be bought by Renault. Going into administration is just so that they get them cheap. Same trick pulled by Football clubs all the time.JosiasJessop said:
Hope not.Morris_Dancer said:F1: application to put Lotus into administration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34232784
I despise Briatore and didn't like the team when he was in charge, but they've got some really good people working for them. Within enough finance, they could be winners again.0 -
Bercow should just patiently explain that the rules of the HOC are largely based on convention and that if Corbyn refuses to follow convention that he can't do much to stop him. However he should also explain that he is under no obligation to give his replacement 6 questions since that is also basically a convention.JackW said:Marr indicating via Tom Watson upcoming interview that the Corbyn PMQ vacancy option may still be a runner.
IMO Bercow and HoC procedure will say not.
BTW even if he did find a way to do this, the idea that he would put in a replacement FOR HIS FIRST PLANNED APPEARANCE would make him a total laughing stock. You at least have to establish that you can do it and aren't scared of it, before sharing it around to others!0 -
Morning Alan, I was merely pointing out to David that his fabled choice in England did not in fact exist other than Tory , Tory fruitcakes , liars or labour. Hardly a choice if you are not right wing.Alanbrooke said:
You speak of choice yet vote for a one party state.malcolmg said:
Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.DavidL said:
The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.Sean_F said:
Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.DavidL said:
I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.Innocent_Abroad said:
That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.DavidL said:
Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.
Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.
Have a turnip !0 -
Oh almost forgot; I wish all Jewish PBers a Happy New Year (Rosh Hashana).0
-
We had all this Tories Are Worried/Scared nonsense from those who pretended EdM was some political colossus. Some even said on here that Tories were heaping criticisms on EdM because they feared him. Nope, we know a dud when we see one.
I've seen it many times from Corbynites on Twitter - what total delusional rubbish. Tories4Corbyn weren't convertsSean_F said:
"The Tories are terrified" was one comment.Sandpit said:
The Sun went with "In the Corbyn", the rest none too complimentary eitherMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?
Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/642805850499887106
In a way, Yes. You're terrified when you see someone standing on a window ledge, saying they're going to jump. You're terrified for them, not terrified for yourself.0 -
Marr: "great privilege to have a guest from the Morning Star" 0
