politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Mr Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up non-voters might be flawed
Mr Corbyn’s plan has the major flaw that in the 100 seats with the lowest turnout in England Labour hold 94 of them, and 95 out of the 100 seats with the lowest turnout in England and Wales.
Agree entirely with the article, Labour need to take seats like Nuneaton, Bolton, Corby just keep the Tories out. To actually get a majority they need to be overturning 8000 majorities in Cheltenham and Milton Keynes. Getting a 30,000 majority in Liverpool won't make up for it!
I'm trying to recall who posted the graphs - but even if every young voter chose Labour and turned out - Labour still wouldn't win more seats than the Tories.
Except of course, there were still large numbers of non-voters in the marginals too, more than enough to win a lot of them if you got a decent percentage of them out on your side. Add a load of greens and we are talking about more than enough marginals to have a strategy, if you can make it happen. That's the hard bit.
A plan which might in theory be the thing that swings it for a campaign that is on broadly equal footing with their opponents, but they currently are not, and also as part of a larger plan might in fact make things worse if current voters are alienated at the expense of non-voters who might remain non-voters.
I'm trying to recall who posted the graphs - but even if every young voter chose Labour and turned out - Labour still wouldn't win more seats than the Tories.
I'd like to see the graphs, as I don't believe they exist, by any reasonable definition of the above.
We had council elections in Staffordshire Moorlands the same day as the 2015 GE. So we had turnout on the Council elections by ward. The Labour voting sector of our town - which elected a Labour councilor - had a local council voter turnout of just over 50% - the lowest in the town..(ranges from 50%+ a little to c 74%.).
If you can't get people to vote for council elections - and the voting station was within walking distance (200 meters) of the area - it's unlikely they can be a##ed to vote in a GE..
You need to have a look in the mirror, from an old fool your are now turning into a misogynistic shit.
I very rarely find myself on the same side of the table as Roger, but can someone tell me why his anti-Plato posts are misogynistic? I've seen a degree of unpleasantness - but not nearly as severe as that heaped on NPXMP recently - and none of what I've seen makes reference to gender.
I hope we're not at a stage where slagging off a poster is off-limits because said poster is lacking a winkie.
If I were to give TSE or Sunil or Max a verbal pasting, would that make me racist?
SLAB have just put out the most nauseating and patronising PPB I've ever seen that didn't end with a splash for the Liberals.
I cannot say I like the idea of using answering children's questions or asking children questions as part of a PPB, I cannot really see how that could not come across as patronizing.
Surprised no-one's pointed out the headline's flawed:
"The flaw in Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up non-voters and the young might be flawed"
Whereas the URL says: "Why Mr Corbyn's plan ... might be flawed."
The erroneous one makes it sound as if the flaw might be flawed, and therefore Corbyn's flawed plan might not be flawed. I think this flawed headline should be unflawed before it causes someone to reach flawed conclusions ...
Surprised no-one's pointed out the headline's flawed:
"The flaw in Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up non-voters and the young might be flawed"
Whereas the URL says: "Why Mr Corbyn's plan ... might be flawed."
The erroneous one makes it sound as if the flaw might be flawed, and therefore Corbyn's flawed plan might not be flawed. I think this flawed headline should be unflawed before it causes someone to reach flawed conclusions ...
Surprised no-one's pointed out the headline's flawed:
"The flaw in Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up non-voters and the young might be flawed"
Whereas the URL says: "Why Mr Corbyn's plan ... might be flawed."
The erroneous one makes it sound as if the flaw might be flawed, and therefore Corbyn's flawed plan might not be flawed. I think this flawed headline should be unflawed before it causes someone to reach flawed conclusions ...
It's fixed now, it's the problem with wordpress it assigns you a fixed URL at draft stage and you need to edit before publication properly or messes up the URL after publication.
"SLAB have just put out the most nauseating and patronising PPB I've ever seen that didn't end with a splash for the Liberals."
Very poor. Such a difficult way of presenting I really can't imagine that it came through an agency. Perhaps it had something to do with having no money?
SLAB have just put out the most nauseating and patronising PPB I've ever seen that didn't end with a splash for the Liberals.
I cannot say I like the idea of using answering children's questions or asking children questions as part of a PPB, I cannot really see how that could not come across as patronizing.
This is the same team that came up with Patronising BT Lady.
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
If these people were to actually change their minds and go to vote, the probability of them swinging from a Farage policy platform to a Corbyn one must be virtually non existent.
You need to have a look in the mirror, from an old fool your are now turning into a misogynistic shit.
I very rarely find myself on the same side of the table as Roger, but can someone tell me why his anti-Plato posts are misogynistic? I've seen a degree of unpleasantness - but not nearly as severe as that heaped on NPXMP recently - and none of what I've seen makes reference to gender.
I hope we're not at a stage where slagging off a poster is off-limits because said poster is lacking a winkie.
If I were to give TSE or Sunil or Max a verbal pasting, would that make me racist?
It is a daft complaint. I mean its no different from Dair posting all his anti SLAB pieces. What would be the justification of ... complaining err... about umm... that? Mmm.
From the header "Mr Corbyn’s plan has the major flaw that ". It could be anything. What's clear is that he's thought nothing through. He can't find the time or the inspiration even to write his own conference speech.
Worse still is the dishonesty. He, and Labour, know perfectly well that their plans are a complete shambles and don't add up. They could so easily make space for themselves, but they don't. Instead they come out with meaningless generalities, and make preposterous claims. I really didn't think that any party could ever come up with someone that was worse than Brown, but I'm actually starting to warm to the steaming Scottish sack in comparison with the current nonsense from Labour.
And Corbyn is clearly targeting the young. We all want to sweep away the practicalities when we're young, and we all realise sooner or later that it's not that simple. For an ancient and supposedly wise man of Corbyn's years to simply come up with views that any teenager might espouse is just risible.
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
If these people were to actually change their minds and go to vote, the probability of them swinging from a Farage policy platform to a Corbyn one must be virtually non existent.
They are polar opposites.
If you down weighted 2010 non voters a lot you, you got accurate VI for UKIP in those seats.
It's why the raw numbers looked so good for UKIP (and Labour too)
CORBYNS days are already numbered.. just a couple of PMQs and he is out..Labour has to grow some gonads or die....
So that's Cameron walking the tightrope then. Just how bad will he judge he can afford to be on order to keep Corbyn in place. Tremendously tricky for the Tories. I hope their heads do not explode. This problem would not exist if only Labour had elected Burnham. Sigh...
Well it's consistent. I've often said that Labour don't like the electorate it's been presented with, so they'd rather talk to a different one.
That's fine, except that they've immediately teleported onto Planet Stupid by talking to a bunch of serial non-voters. Knock yourselves out Labourites.
Anecdote alert - my test lifelong non-voting relative (though certainly is anti-Tory) declared just now that even if they did note at some point, it would definitely not be for Labour anymore, as they are currently a joke, led by a dick (I was surprised at this, as Corbyn seems personable enough) and that he could only fill a Cabinet with idiots as no one else would do the job.
Now, I've certainly mentioned a few things about Corbyn, but I have been very surprised at the level of knowledge of him and Labour my relative has picked up, as I've not gone into anything like that kind of detail, so kudos to Corbyn and Labour for attracting the attention of some non-voters at least.
Granted, it will mean nothing in this seat, as I doubt they will choose to vote to stop Labour either, and in any case it is a safe Tory seat, but I declare this anecdote absolute proof of the gods that a 'target non-voters' strategy won't always result in Labour support picking up.
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
If these people were to actually change their minds and go to vote, the probability of them swinging from a Farage policy platform to a Corbyn one must be virtually non existent.
They are polar opposites.
If you down weighted 2010 non voters a lot you, you got accurate VI for UKIP in those seats.
It's why the raw numbers looked so good for UKIP (and Labour too)
Did the data which down weighted the 2010 non voters show UKIP winning any of the seats which were polled?
A woman in Germany is being evicted from her home of 23 years to make way for asylum-seekers, in the second such case to emerge. Gabrielle Keller has been given until the end of the year to leave her flat in the small southern town of Eschbach, near the border with France.
The flat belongs to the local municipality, which says it is needed to house refugees.
You need to have a look in the mirror, from an old fool your are now turning into a misogynistic shit.
I very rarely find myself on the same side of the table as Roger, but can someone tell me why his anti-Plato posts are misogynistic? I've seen a degree of unpleasantness - but not nearly as severe as that heaped on NPXMP recently - and none of what I've seen makes reference to gender.
I hope we're not at a stage where slagging off a poster is off-limits because said poster is lacking a winkie.
If I were to give TSE or Sunil or Max a verbal pasting, would that make me racist?
Nick Palmer deserved everything thrown at him IMO. He embarrassed himself massively during the election with what I believe were lies, although someone more charitable might just say he was deluded. Tick tock!
As for Plato: she gets attacked fairly mercilessly by certain posters, and it is hard to see a real reason aside from the fact she is a woman who dares to speak her mind and have an opinion. This is particularly true for Roger, who has a noted misogynistic past on here.
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
If these people were to actually change their minds and go to vote, the probability of them swinging from a Farage policy platform to a Corbyn one must be virtually non existent.
They are polar opposites.
If you down weighted 2010 non voters a lot you, you got accurate VI for UKIP in those seats.
It's why the raw numbers looked so good for UKIP (and Labour too)
Did the data which down weighted the 2010 non voters show UKIP winning any of the seats which were polled?
I need to check later (am on mobile), but I think Thurrock might be the only one but that was because it was effectively a three way.
For some reason people didn't bother to poll Clacton but I think downweighting non voters would have still shown Carswell winning.
A woman in Germany is being evicted from her home of 23 years to make way for asylum-seekers, in the second such case to emerge. Gabrielle Keller has been given until the end of the year to leave her flat in the small southern town of Eschbach, near the border with France.
The flat belongs to the local municipality, which says it is needed to house refugees.
This is only the tip of a coming volcano. I read a few days ago that that tenants from over 220 flats in Hamburg are due to be evicted in order to place immigrants. I lost the link, however, so one must take my word for it.
A woman in Germany is being evicted from her home of 23 years to make way for asylum-seekers, in the second such case to emerge. Gabrielle Keller has been given until the end of the year to leave her flat in the small southern town of Eschbach, near the border with France.
The flat belongs to the local municipality, which says it is needed to house refugees.
This is only the tip of a coming volcano. I read a few days ago that that tenants from over 220 flats in Hamburg are due to be evicted in order to place immigrants. I lost the link, however, so one must take my word for it.
Rise of DIP ?
Next time you hear how awful our striving to own a home culture is ...
A woman in Germany is being evicted from her home of 23 years to make way for asylum-seekers, in the second such case to emerge. Gabrielle Keller has been given until the end of the year to leave her flat in the small southern town of Eschbach, near the border with France.
The flat belongs to the local municipality, which says it is needed to house refugees.
Has Germany signed up to the UK Leave campaign?
Seriously, if this sort of thing continues for much longer, there's going to be some very interesting election results in Europe in the next couple of years. The current crop of politicians seem to believe that the views of the electorate can be ignored with impunity.
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
If these people were to actually change their minds and go to vote, the probability of them swinging from a Farage policy platform to a Corbyn one must be virtually non existent.
They are polar opposites.
If you down weighted 2010 non voters a lot you, you got accurate VI for UKIP in those seats.
It's why the raw numbers looked so good for UKIP (and Labour too)
Did the data which down weighted the 2010 non voters show UKIP winning any of the seats which were polled?
I need to check later (am on mobile), but I think Thurrock might be the only one but that was because it was effectively a three way.
For some reason people didn't bother to poll Clacton but I think downweighting non voters would have still shown Carswell winning.
Cheers. That is really interesting as I always assumed it was the Labour/SNP threat which lost them voters.
If I remember correctly winning South Thanet was massively dependent on non-voters turning out. I think Louise Mensch was banging on about it at the time.
Plato ..just a few days ago my local friends were discussing the probability of hearing the marching feet of pissed off Germans on those old cobbled streets.. .
Plato ..just a few days ago my local friends were discussing the probability of hearing the marching feet of pissed off Germans on those old cobbled streets.. .
A woman in Germany is being evicted from her home of 23 years to make way for asylum-seekers, in the second such case to emerge. Gabrielle Keller has been given until the end of the year to leave her flat in the small southern town of Eschbach, near the border with France.
The flat belongs to the local municipality, which says it is needed to house refugees.
Very unfortunate certainly. How outrageous is it though?
(What follows is entirely general and hypothetical - I'd not throw the woman out of her home for a moment)
She assumes that she has some sort of right to be housed by the state at the state's expense. Surely 'we got bored of you, figured you'd never amount to much, and decided that your home would be better used by these nice new shiny people' is an argument that could be made.
It seems to me that state hand-outs have to have some sort of limitation somewhere. Something that takes a 23-year supportee of the state and turns them into someone that benefits from their investment in the country. Equally a Syrian refugee needs to be going great guns to repay the state if and when they can.
Corbyn does the decent thing and shuffles off his mortal coil in 2018 leaving the scene set for a voter-friendly LOTO. Cue lots of sympathetic articles for Labour. There's no other way he won't lead Labour into 2020.
At least he can't go doolally - he's already there.
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
If these people were to actually change their minds and go to vote, the probability of them swinging from a Farage policy platform to a Corbyn one must be virtually non existent.
They are polar opposites.
If you down weighted 2010 non voters a lot you, you got accurate VI for UKIP in those seats.
It's why the raw numbers looked so good for UKIP (and Labour too)
Did the data which down weighted the 2010 non voters show UKIP winning any of the seats which were polled?
I need to check later (am on mobile), but I think Thurrock might be the only one but that was because it was effectively a three way.
For some reason people didn't bother to poll Clacton but I think downweighting non voters would have still shown Carswell winning.
Cheers. That is really interesting as I always assumed it was the Labour/SNP threat which lost them voters.
If I remember correctly winning South Thanet was massively dependent on non-voters turning out. I think Louise Mensch was banging on about it at the time.
Mike and I banged on about it as well.
I think what happened (and this is based on my own campaigning experience as well what I've heard from other people)
When it came to election day people would always come back to the Tories. See the Lord Ashcroft poll that had Mark Reckless winning the by election in November 2014 but losing the seat at the general election.
I think they were always going to lose voters back to the Tories, but the SNP angle amplified it in the English marginals.
The two things very few of us saw was Lab to UKIP swing and the Lib Dem to Con swing.
Everyone assumed UKIP would damage the Tories and they didn't.
I didn't think it was possible for UKIP to poll 13% and for there to be a Tory majority.
On topic, signing up non-voters is only of any use if you can enthuse them to go out and back you. I'm far from sure that Corbyn has re-energised any meaningful number of non-voters so far. He may well have brought some back from the Greens, TUSC and the like but engaging with motivated protesters and engaging with the disaffected are two different things.
And as TSE has pointed out, there are fewer non-voters in marginal (unsurprisingly, as their vote matters more there and is sought after more).
MIKE K You have been told before that I a thread is not about Muslims or immigrants. Its about Corbyn, so just leave it out please , everyone knows what you think, you had every chance on the last thread. We don't want to hear your constant load of borderline racist comments
The SNP have shown that it is possible to attract a tranche of non-voters to your cause. A fundamental part of JC's plan is to get natural Labour supporters onto the electoral roll in the first place. Then the chance of them voting becomes infinitely higher.
If memory serves, didn't most of the polls last year show that the primary repository of "can't be bothereds" was UKIP?
Anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro defence etc etc.
I've finally completed the analysis of the Ashcroft marginal polling (and the other marginal polling by the likes of Survation and ComRes)
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
The main flaw with constituency polling was that and more people said they would vote than actually did.
People always say they're more likely to vote than the reality. Even the Scottish referendum, with its 85% turnout was below the 91% that was implied by the 'likelihood to vote' figures (and the difference can't be accounted for sufficiently by double-registering of students and the like, or of deceased former voters still on the register).
It's starting to look increasingly like Corbyn has played a blinder and will achiever everything he wants by fundamentally changing the Labour Party.
It requires an assumption. That is that Jeremy Corbyn has absolutely no interest in becoming PM of the United Kingdom.
Once you accept that it is pretty clear that everything which is going on is a smokescreen, the chaos, the bizarre cabinet appointments who are more of an opposition to him than the Tories, the concilliatory but contradictory statements he is making.
It's all a cover to get the PLPs eye off the ball while hee floods the NEC with his supporters. As I understand it, the NEC is *everything* in Labour and the way it currently works was specifically designed by Kinnock and enhanced by Blair to put complete complete control of the party into the few hands on the NEC.
The NEC controls the policy, the agenda and the candidates. And Jezza is now in complete control of that. He can now use the next few years to transform Labour into a "proper" Socialist party, with a socialist platform and socialist PPCs for 2020.
He loses in 2020 but at that point he has replaced the bulk of Blairites and Brownits with the loony left, he can stand aside and let one of the younger generation (probably someone he's placed on the NEC and not in the Shadow Cabinet) take over.
To me this seems to be a worthwhile goal for someone with Corbyn's mindset. If that is his goal, he has already succeeded.
Sorry, I didn't realise what he was referring to. I am, of course, 12 inches in length. Although I'm rather worried why Roger would want to know. I hope his name isn't a clue ...
It's starting to look increasingly like Corbyn has played a blinder and will achiever everything he wants by fundamentally changing the Labour Party.
It requires an assumption. That is that Jeremy Corbyn has absolutely no interest in becoming PM of the United Kingdom.
Once you accept that it is pretty clear that everything which is going on is a smokescreen, the chaos, the bizarre cabinet appointments who are more of an opposition to him than the Tories, the concilliatory but contradictory statements he is making.
It's all a cover to get the PLPs eye off the ball while hee floods the NEC with his supporters. As I understand it, the NEC is *everything* in Labour and the way it currently works was specifically designed by Kinnock and enhanced by Blair to put complete complete control of the party into the few hands on the NEC.
The NEC controls the policy, the agenda and the candidates. And Jezza is now in complete control of that. He can now use the next few years to transform Labour into a "proper" Socialist party, with a socialist platform and socialist PPCs for 2020.
He loses in 2020 but at that point he has replaced the bulk of Blairites and Brownits with the loony left, he can stand aside and let one of the younger generation (probably someone he's placed on the NEC and not in the Shadow Cabinet) take over.
To me this seems to be a worthwhile goal for someone with Corbyn's mindset. If that is his goal, he has already succeeded.
Sorry, I didn't realise what he was referring to. I am, of course, 12 inches in length. Although I'm rather worried why Roger would want to know. I hope his name isn't a clue ...
From the website "Stop the Islamization of America"
Why a racist like you is allowed to post on a website like this amazes me. But it seems you're among friends.
If you think Islam is a race, you want your head tested. I'm sure you will be one of the first to welcome shia to G. Britain. Of course you do know that socialists like you will be first to be shot!
It's starting to look increasingly like Corbyn has played a blinder and will achiever everything he wants by fundamentally changing the Labour Party.
It requires an assumption. That is that Jeremy Corbyn has absolutely no interest in becoming PM of the United Kingdom.
Once you accept that it is pretty clear that everything which is going on is a smokescreen, the chaos, the bizarre cabinet appointments who are more of an opposition to him than the Tories, the concilliatory but contradictory statements he is making.
It's all a cover to get the PLPs eye off the ball while hee floods the NEC with his supporters. As I understand it, the NEC is *everything* in Labour and the way it currently works was specifically designed by Kinnock and enhanced by Blair to put complete complete control of the party into the few hands on the NEC.
The NEC controls the policy, the agenda and the candidates. And Jezza is now in complete control of that. He can now use the next few years to transform Labour into a "proper" Socialist party, with a socialist platform and socialist PPCs for 2020.
He loses in 2020 but at that point he has replaced the bulk of Blairites and Brownits with the loony left, he can stand aside and let one of the younger generation (probably someone he's placed on the NEC and not in the Shadow Cabinet) take over.
To me this seems to be a worthwhile goal for someone with Corbyn's mindset. If that is his goal, he has already succeeded.
I fear you might be right about that.
Agree, but don't forget the "Evil Tory Gerrymandering" boundary review that will provide cover for the mandatory reselections. By the next election there will be nothing recognisable left of the party of Blair and Brown.
The main reason people who might vote don't vote in our electoral system is because there votes won't make a difference. Not because the parties are "all the same" but because they are in a safe seat where there is only one winner. They are not wrong. The flaw in Corbyn's strategy is he thinks they are.
From the website "Stop the Islamization of America"
Why a racist like you is allowed to post on a website like this amazes me. But it seems you're among friends.
If you think Islam is a race, you want your head tested. I'm sure you will be one of the first to welcome shia to G. Britain. Of course you do know that socialists like you will be first to be shot!
The SNP have shown that it is possible to attract a tranche of non-voters to your cause. A fundamental part of JC's plan is to get natural Labour supporters onto the electoral roll in the first place. Then the chance of them voting becomes infinitely higher.
Of course the Corbyn strategy relies on the assumption that existing voters will continue to vote. I'm not sure this can be taken for granted. If I'm a traditional Labour voter but don't like what I see then I may simply give it a miss this time (especially if I think they'll get a pasting - generally people don't like backing a loser). The Corbyn strategy might just swap one set of non-voters for another.
Agree, but don't forget the "Evil Tory Gerrymandering" boundary review that will provide cover for the mandatory reselections. By the next election there will be nothing recognisable left of the party of Blair and Brown.
Something happened in Labour after Blair stepped aside. They forgot the fundamental ethos of their party, the "hidden clause four" which Kinnock put in place : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
That was fundamental to everything that happened in Labour (for good and bad after 1987. The NEC became everything, all powerful and all controlling. Because : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
This is the core of the lunacy when Ed Miliband decided to replace the College with OMOV for Leader. As soon as the decision was made to go to OMOV the party suddenly put all the power into the hands of the party members so that, if they chose the "right" leader the NEC would reform in that new leaders image. It was utter stupidity. Because : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
This is probably one of the most important aspects of the 2015 GE, yet it seems to have had little coverage. The closeness of the election seemed to point to a higher turnout. Yet when it came to it, turnout barely changed. And for Corbyn to be planning on winning by getting non voters to vote is hilarious.
From the video it looks like Russia is using anti personnel bomblets as well as missiles and heavier bombs.
Go, Vladimir, GO.
Kill them all, you weirdly brilliant bare-chested Slavic homo-tyrant.
I quite admire Putin. It's quite something to have such utter control over the politics, media and civil life of your country. He's an operator.
I still disagree with him, though. Such power rarely leads to anything other than evil.
Putin isn't evil. He's a fairly thuggish autocrat, with a ruthless streak - but by the standards of Russian hard men - Ivan the Terrible to Stalin - he's positively benign, if not metrosexual, the Nick Clegg of historic Russian politics.
I carefully didn't say he was evil; I said the power he yields rarely leads to anything other than evil. Even with good intentions, such power leads, directly or indirectly, to awful outcomes.
Look at Blair, who in 1997 had nearly unparalleled power in British politics.
The main reason people who might vote don't vote in our electoral system is because there votes won't make a difference. Not because the parties are "all the same" but because they are in a safe seat where there is only one winner. They are not wrong. The flaw in Corbyn's strategy is he thinks they are.
Have you got evidence for those statements? Some safe seats have low turnouts, but to some extent that’s because activisits are all shifted to woinnable or needing defending seats.
Agree, but don't forget the "Evil Tory Gerrymandering" boundary review that will provide cover for the mandatory reselections. By the next election there will be nothing recognisable left of the party of Blair and Brown.
Something happened in Labour after Blair stepped aside. They forgot the fundamental ethos of their party, the "hidden clause four" which Kinnock put in place : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
That was fundamental to everything that happened in Labour (for good and bad after 1987. The NEC became everything, all powerful and all controlling. Because : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
This is the core of the lunacy when Ed Miliband decided to replace the College with OMOV for Leader. As soon as the decision was made to go to OMOV the party suddenly put all the power into the hands of the party members so that, if they chose the "right" leader the NEC would reform in that new leaders image. It was utter stupidity. Because : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
That is very true, and of course the Miliband reforms came about because of Falkirk and Tom Watson - I wonder what happened to him after he resigned?
Kinnock must be going bonkers that the various idiots he spent a decade kicking out of the party are now back with a vengeance.
Re Corbyn's speech and the lukewarm response, even from lefties.
I'll be honest, I reckon I could write a barnstormer of a speech for an anti-establishment, anti-Murdoch politician like Corbyn. It wouldn't be difficult to put together a real tub-thumper to have them banging the walls. It needn't be economically coherent or aimed at the middle ground either, it could be pitched merely as an anti-establishment spectacular. One to make them go nuts.
Why didn't Corbyn do this? His effort, for want of a better word, was just boring.
From the website "Stop the Islamization of America"
Why a racist like you is allowed to post on a website like this amazes me. But it seems you're among friends.
If you think Islam is a race, you want your head tested. I'm sure you will be one of the first to welcome shia to G. Britain. Of course you do know that socialists like you will be first to be shot!
Ha, ha, barking.
Typical lefty response - scream and shout at someone who points out fundamental flaws in their argument or blinkered beliefs. Applies to everyone from Corbyn downwards.
Haaretz.com @haaretzcom 14m14 minutes ago Corbyn declines to say 'Israel' while addressing Labour Friends of Israel http://htz.li/3vQ
Archbishop Cranmer @His_Grace 11m11 minutes ago Archbishop Cranmer Retweeted Haaretz.com Considering how freely he speaks of Palestine and Gaza, it's almost as though to utter "Israel" would corrupt him.
From the website "Stop the Islamization of America"
Why a racist like you is allowed to post on a website like this amazes me. But it seems you're among friends.
If you think Islam is a race, you want your head tested. I'm sure you will be one of the first to welcome shia to G. Britain. Of course you do know that socialists like you will be first to be shot!
Ha, ha, barking.
Typical lefty response - scream and shout at someone who points out fundamental flaws in their argument or blinkered beliefs. Applies to everyone from Corbyn downwards.
From the video it looks like Russia is using anti personnel bomblets as well as missiles and heavier bombs.
Go, Vladimir, GO.
Kill them all, you weirdly brilliant bare-chested Slavic homo-tyrant.
I quite admire Putin. It's quite something to have such utter control over the politics, media and civil life of your country. He's an operator.
I still disagree with him, though. Such power rarely leads to anything other than evil.
Putin isn't evil. He's a fairly thuggish autocrat, with a ruthless streak - but by the standards of Russian hard men - Ivan the Terrible to Stalin - he's positively benign, if not metrosexual, the Nick Clegg of historic Russian politics.
I carefully didn't say he was evil; I said the power he yields rarely leads to anything other than evil. Even with good intentions, such power leads, directly or indirectly, to awful outcomes.
Look at Blair, who in 1997 had nearly unparalleled power in British politics.
Fair enough. Accepted. However I also don't think Putin's actions have led to anything especially "evil". He's killed a few people in Crimea and Ukraine. Sure. The economy is wobbly. Yes (though he also presided over significant growth in the past). Has he done anything dramatically worse than Shock-and-Awe Bush or Drone-Them-Now Obama?
He is the leader of a great power acting as such leaders act, through history.
Does that mean we should befriend him? Certainly not. Just keep a wary distance, act in concert with him when it is in our interests. Realpolitik. Oh for a long long period of realpolitik. Enough Angela Merkels and their catastrophic moments of vaunted compassion.
In fact, when you look at the increase in Russian oil production over the last 15 years, as Western technology was applied to Russian oilfields, it looks pretty awful.
Worth remembering that Russia's total exports in 2014 were the same size as Belgium's. And Belgium doesn't have any oil or gas. (In 2015, Russia's exports will, of course, be less than Belgium's.)
From the video it looks like Russia is using anti personnel bomblets as well as missiles and heavier bombs.
Go, Vladimir, GO.
Kill them all, you weirdly brilliant bare-chested Slavic homo-tyrant.
I quite admire Putin. It's quite something to have such utter control over the politics, media and civil life of your country. He's an operator.
I still disagree with him, though. Such power rarely leads to anything other than evil.
Putin isn't evil. He's a fairly thuggish autocrat, with a ruthless streak - but by the standards of Russian hard men - Ivan the Terrible to Stalin - he's positively benign, if not metrosexual, the Nick Clegg of historic Russian politics.
I carefully didn't say he was evil; I said the power he yields rarely leads to anything other than evil. Even with good intentions, such power leads, directly or indirectly, to awful outcomes.
Look at Blair, who in 1997 had nearly unparalleled power in British politics.
Fair enough. Accepted. However I also don't think Putin's actions have led to anything especially "evil". He's killed a few people in Crimea and Ukraine. Sure. The economy is wobbly. Yes (though he also presided over significant growth in the past). Has he done anything dramatically worse than Shock-and-Awe Bush or Drone-Them-Now Obama?
He is the leader of a great power acting as such leaders act, through history.
Does that mean we should befriend him? Certainly not. Just keep a wary distance, act in concert with him when it is in our interests. Realpolitik. Oh for a long long period of realpolitik. Enough Angela Merkels and their catastrophic spasms of compassion.
I can see your view, and agree with it on face value. But without wanting to Godwin myself, I don't agree with your comments on Ukraine and Crimea. Hitler used similar arguments to Putin about the Sudetenland, and that did not end well.
Territorial grabs for the sake of bolstering regimes are not good. And, as much as people may not like them, Blair and Brown did not make territorial grabs in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Re Corbyn's speech and the lukewarm response, even from lefties.
I'll be honest, I reckon I could write a barnstormer of a speech for an anti-establishment, anti-Murdoch politician like Corbyn. It wouldn't be difficult to put together a real tub-thumper to have them banging the walls. It needn't be economically coherent or aimed at the middle ground either, it could be pitched merely as an anti-establishment spectacular. One to make them go nuts.
Why didn't Corbyn do this? His effort, for want of a better word, was just boring.
I've been travelling across a Greek island so I missed the speech, but I caught up with the most important snippets yesterday.
OMGod. Perhaps the vids I saw were unrepresentative, but he was unbelievably bad - inarticulate, confused, meandering, silly. And entirely lacking in any oratorical or actorly skills whatsoever.
I confess myself, like you, bewildered. I thought the whole point of Jihadi Jez was that, if nothing else, he'd be a rabblerousing red, able to fire up the comrades with a Slay The Tories take on the Gettysburg Address.
Re Corbyn's speech and the lukewarm response, even from lefties.
I'll be honest, I reckon I could write a barnstormer of a speech for an anti-establishment, anti-Murdoch politician like Corbyn. It wouldn't be difficult to put together a real tub-thumper to have them banging the walls. It needn't be economically coherent or aimed at the middle ground either, it could be pitched merely as an anti-establishment spectacular. One to make them go nuts.
Why didn't Corbyn do this? His effort, for want of a better word, was just boring.
I've been travelling across a Greek island so I missed the speech, but I caught up with the most important snippets yesterday.
OMGod. Perhaps the vids I saw were unrepresentative, but he was unbelievably bad - inarticulate, confused, meandering, silly. And entirely lacking in any oratorical or actorly skills whatsoever.
I confess myself, like you, bewildered. I thought the whole point of Jihadi Jez was that, if nothing else, he'd be a rabblerousing red, able to fire up the comrades with a Slay The Tories take on the Gettysburg Address.
Instead, meh.
Weird.
I had you in my mind as the speechwriter. He should get in touch with you.
With a lefty audience, a whole raft of new Swampy-hugging followers and targets including Murdoch, America, The Mail, The Tories, posh people, public schoolboys, anyone with money, bankers, energy companies, pro footballers, Thatcher, Katie Hopkins, Clarkson, The Express and the cast of Made in Chelsea I'm sure you'd have them creaming in the aisles.
Not really. The Trident thing shows that Corbyn isn't remotely interested in debate or carrying a message to the voters, or even to the party. Less still is he interested in accommodating his views or compromise.
The idea is you just agree with him. Or you get replaced by someone who does.
Re Corbyn's speech and the lukewarm response, even from lefties.
I'll be honest, I reckon I could write a barnstormer of a speech for an anti-establishment, anti-Murdoch politician like Corbyn. It wouldn't be difficult to put together a real tub-thumper to have them banging the walls. It needn't be economically coherent or aimed at the middle ground either, it could be pitched merely as an anti-establishment spectacular. One to make them go nuts.
Why didn't Corbyn do this? His effort, for want of a better word, was just boring.
I've been travelling across a Greek island so I missed the speech, but I caught up with the most important snippets yesterday.
OMGod. Perhaps the vids I saw were unrepresentative, but he was unbelievably bad - inarticulate, confused, meandering, silly. And entirely lacking in any oratorical or actorly skills whatsoever.
I confess myself, like you, bewildered. I thought the whole point of Jihadi Jez was that, if nothing else, he'd be a rabblerousing red, able to fire up the comrades with a Slay The Tories take on the Gettysburg Address.
Instead, meh.
Weird.
His main attraction to many is his uncompromising views. He's had those views since the 1970s, and he's stuck to them through thick and thin. The people who voted for him knew exactly what they were voting for.
He should just put up two fingers at his MPs and say: "The members and others voted for me. They knew very well what I stood for, and that should be our platform."
Instead, he is compromising, and that is the thing that will kill his leadership. Not only does it make him seem fake to his supporters, but it makes him seem weak to his detractors. Unless it is a ploy that will only be kept up until the takeover of the party is complete.
It's starting to look increasingly like Corbyn has played a blinder and will achiever everything he wants by fundamentally changing the Labour Party.
It requires an assumption. That is that Jeremy Corbyn has absolutely no interest in becoming PM of the United Kingdom.
Once you accept that it is pretty clear that everything which is going on is a smokescreen, the chaos, the bizarre cabinet appointments who are more of an opposition to him than the Tories, the concilliatory but contradictory statements he is making.
It's all a cover to get the PLPs eye off the ball while hee floods the NEC with his supporters. As I understand it, the NEC is *everything* in Labour and the way it currently works was specifically designed by Kinnock and enhanced by Blair to put complete complete control of the party into the few hands on the NEC.
The NEC controls the policy, the agenda and the candidates. And Jezza is now in complete control of that. He can now use the next few years to transform Labour into a "proper" Socialist party, with a socialist platform and socialist PPCs for 2020.
He loses in 2020 but at that point he has replaced the bulk of Blairites and Brownits with the loony left, he can stand aside and let one of the younger generation (probably someone he's placed on the NEC and not in the Shadow Cabinet) take over.
To me this seems to be a worthwhile goal for someone with Corbyn's mindset. If that is his goal, he has already succeeded.
I think that is right, and furthermore it's the best strategy available to Corbyn with his flaws as a PM candidate to focus on internal reformation and hope for future success.
Comments
Agree entirely with the article, Labour need to take seats like Nuneaton, Bolton, Corby just keep the Tories out. To actually get a majority they need to be overturning 8000 majorities in Cheltenham and Milton Keynes. Getting a 30,000 majority in Liverpool won't make up for it!
Anne Summers trying to crack the nun market. Actually....
Truly stomach churning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tChvX-kDCV0&feature=youtu.be
Worst bit - when she tells some 8yo girl that she'll earn less than a 8yo boy when she grows up when the facts are, she'll earn more.
If you can't get people to vote for council elections - and the voting station was within walking distance (200 meters) of the area - it's unlikely they can be a##ed to vote in a GE..
Anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro defence etc etc.
Corbyn is offering the Green Party's 2015 manifesto as a prospectus.
I hope we're not at a stage where slagging off a poster is off-limits because said poster is lacking a winkie.
If I were to give TSE or Sunil or Max a verbal pasting, would that make me racist?
Of the polling showing UKIP winning a particular seat, nearly all of them had UKIP being the biggest recipient of non voters from 2010.
In short, non voters didn't turn out for them.
The main flaw with constituency polling was that and more people said they would vote than actually did.
"The flaw in Corbyn’s plan to win the next election by signing up non-voters and the young might be flawed"
Whereas the URL says: "Why Mr Corbyn's plan ... might be flawed."
The erroneous one makes it sound as if the flaw might be flawed, and therefore Corbyn's flawed plan might not be flawed. I think this flawed headline should be unflawed before it causes someone to reach flawed conclusions ...
"SLAB have just put out the most nauseating and patronising PPB I've ever seen that didn't end with a splash for the Liberals."
Very poor. Such a difficult way of presenting I really can't imagine that it came through an agency. Perhaps it had something to do with having no money?
They are polar opposites.
Mmm.
Worse still is the dishonesty. He, and Labour, know perfectly well that their plans are a complete shambles and don't add up. They could so easily make space for themselves, but they don't. Instead they come out with meaningless generalities, and make preposterous claims. I really didn't think that any party could ever come up with someone that was worse than Brown, but I'm actually starting to warm to the steaming Scottish sack in comparison with the current nonsense from Labour.
And Corbyn is clearly targeting the young. We all want to sweep away the practicalities when we're young, and we all realise sooner or later that it's not that simple. For an ancient and supposedly wise man of Corbyn's years to simply come up with views that any teenager might espouse is just risible.
It's why the raw numbers looked so good for UKIP (and Labour too)
This problem would not exist if only Labour had elected Burnham. Sigh...
That's fine, except that they've immediately teleported onto Planet Stupid by talking to a bunch of serial non-voters. Knock yourselves out Labourites.
Now, I've certainly mentioned a few things about Corbyn, but I have been very surprised at the level of knowledge of him and Labour my relative has picked up, as I've not gone into anything like that kind of detail, so kudos to Corbyn and Labour for attracting the attention of some non-voters at least.
Granted, it will mean nothing in this seat, as I doubt they will choose to vote to stop Labour either, and in any case it is a safe Tory seat, but I declare this anecdote absolute proof of the gods that a 'target non-voters' strategy won't always result in Labour support picking up.
As for Plato: she gets attacked fairly mercilessly by certain posters, and it is hard to see a real reason aside from the fact she is a woman who dares to speak her mind and have an opinion. This is particularly true for Roger, who has a noted misogynistic past on here.
The following seems to sum up Roger's views on women who dare to have opinions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
For some reason people didn't bother to poll Clacton but I think downweighting non voters would have still shown Carswell winning.
I thought you was leaving us for a few months? Did Mike make you an offer you couldn't refuse?
Rise of DIP ?
Next time you hear how awful our striving to own a home culture is ...
I'll still make the occasional contribution below the line.
But that'll be your lot from me for a while.
Seriously, if this sort of thing continues for much longer, there's going to be some very interesting election results in Europe in the next couple of years. The current crop of politicians seem to believe that the views of the electorate can be ignored with impunity.
If I remember correctly winning South Thanet was massively dependent on non-voters turning out. I think Louise Mensch was banging on about it at the time.
Are you 12?
http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/muslim-migrants-sexual-assault-spree-in-holland.html/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
(What follows is entirely general and hypothetical - I'd not throw the woman out of her home for a moment)
She assumes that she has some sort of right to be housed by the state at the state's expense. Surely 'we got bored of you, figured you'd never amount to much, and decided that your home would be better used by these nice new shiny people' is an argument that could be made.
It seems to me that state hand-outs have to have some sort of limitation somewhere. Something that takes a 23-year supportee of the state and turns them into someone that benefits from their investment in the country. Equally a Syrian refugee needs to be going great guns to repay the state if and when they can.
Corbyn does the decent thing and shuffles off his mortal coil in 2018 leaving the scene set for a voter-friendly LOTO. Cue lots of sympathetic articles for Labour. There's no other way he won't lead Labour into 2020.
At least he can't go doolally - he's already there.
I think what happened (and this is based on my own campaigning experience as well what I've heard from other people)
When it came to election day people would always come back to the Tories. See the Lord Ashcroft poll that had Mark Reckless winning the by election in November 2014 but losing the seat at the general election.
I think they were always going to lose voters back to the Tories, but the SNP angle amplified it in the English marginals.
The two things very few of us saw was Lab to UKIP swing and the Lib Dem to Con swing.
Everyone assumed UKIP would damage the Tories and they didn't.
I didn't think it was possible for UKIP to poll 13% and for there to be a Tory majority.
But that's what we got.
And as TSE has pointed out, there are fewer non-voters in marginal (unsurprisingly, as their vote matters more there and is sought after more).
I jest, of course.
From the video it looks like Russia is using anti personnel bomblets as well as missiles and heavier bombs.
"In Holland new arrivals go on a rape spree:"
From the website "Stop the Islamization of America"
Why a racist like you is allowed to post on a website like this amazes me. But it seems you're among friends.
It requires an assumption. That is that Jeremy Corbyn has absolutely no interest in becoming PM of the United Kingdom.
Once you accept that it is pretty clear that everything which is going on is a smokescreen, the chaos, the bizarre cabinet appointments who are more of an opposition to him than the Tories, the concilliatory but contradictory statements he is making.
It's all a cover to get the PLPs eye off the ball while hee floods the NEC with his supporters. As I understand it, the NEC is *everything* in Labour and the way it currently works was specifically designed by Kinnock and enhanced by Blair to put complete complete control of the party into the few hands on the NEC.
The NEC controls the policy, the agenda and the candidates. And Jezza is now in complete control of that. He can now use the next few years to transform Labour into a "proper" Socialist party, with a socialist platform and socialist PPCs for 2020.
He loses in 2020 but at that point he has replaced the bulk of Blairites and Brownits with the loony left, he can stand aside and let one of the younger generation (probably someone he's placed on the NEC and not in the Shadow Cabinet) take over.
To me this seems to be a worthwhile goal for someone with Corbyn's mindset. If that is his goal, he has already succeeded.
You might have spotted Jezza's cunning plan.
I assume the best way to second guess Jezza is to consider ... what would Napoleon do?
Napoleon the pig in Animal Farm, of course.
I still disagree with him, though. Such power rarely leads to anything other than evil.
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
That was fundamental to everything that happened in Labour (for good and bad after 1987. The NEC became everything, all powerful and all controlling. Because : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
This is the core of the lunacy when Ed Miliband decided to replace the College with OMOV for Leader. As soon as the decision was made to go to OMOV the party suddenly put all the power into the hands of the party members so that, if they chose the "right" leader the NEC would reform in that new leaders image. It was utter stupidity. Because : -
You cannot trust the membership of the Labour Party.
Look at Blair, who in 1997 had nearly unparalleled power in British politics.
Now, if we had PR. .......
No, NOT AV!
Kinnock must be going bonkers that the various idiots he spent a decade kicking out of the party are now back with a vengeance.
I'll be honest, I reckon I could write a barnstormer of a speech for an anti-establishment, anti-Murdoch politician like Corbyn. It wouldn't be difficult to put together a real tub-thumper to have them banging the walls. It needn't be economically coherent or aimed at the middle ground either, it could be pitched merely as an anti-establishment spectacular. One to make them go nuts.
Why didn't Corbyn do this? His effort, for want of a better word, was just boring.
"Barrister who dodged rail fares into London for two years avoids prison.”
And it was his second offence!
There was an argument as to whether he owed the railway company £20k or £6k.
If that had been benefit fraud he’d be in the Scrubs tonight!
Corbyn declines to say 'Israel' while addressing Labour Friends of Israel http://htz.li/3vQ
Archbishop Cranmer @His_Grace 11m11 minutes ago
Archbishop Cranmer Retweeted Haaretz.com
Considering how freely he speaks of Palestine and Gaza, it's almost as though to utter "Israel" would corrupt him.
In fact, when you look at the increase in Russian oil production over the last 15 years, as Western technology was applied to Russian oilfields, it looks pretty awful.
Worth remembering that Russia's total exports in 2014 were the same size as Belgium's. And Belgium doesn't have any oil or gas. (In 2015, Russia's exports will, of course, be less than Belgium's.)
Territorial grabs for the sake of bolstering regimes are not good. And, as much as people may not like them, Blair and Brown did not make territorial grabs in Afghanistan or Iraq.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/a2958691.html
With a lefty audience, a whole raft of new Swampy-hugging followers and targets including Murdoch, America, The Mail, The Tories, posh people, public schoolboys, anyone with money, bankers, energy companies, pro footballers, Thatcher, Katie Hopkins, Clarkson, The Express and the cast of Made in Chelsea I'm sure you'd have them creaming in the aisles.
Not really. The Trident thing shows that Corbyn isn't remotely interested in debate or carrying a message to the voters, or even to the party. Less still is he interested in accommodating his views or compromise.
The idea is you just agree with him. Or you get replaced by someone who does.
He should just put up two fingers at his MPs and say: "The members and others voted for me. They knew very well what I stood for, and that should be our platform."
Instead, he is compromising, and that is the thing that will kill his leadership. Not only does it make him seem fake to his supporters, but it makes him seem weak to his detractors. Unless it is a ploy that will only be kept up until the takeover of the party is complete.