Historically it's a safe Tory seat and since Labour's implosion following Blair being forced out, the Conservatives have held it. And considering they held it in what was supposedly a massive win for Corbyn in the last GE, I don't see the seat changing hands again any time soon. Alas, I can't predict the future, however.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Who's blaming Corbyn for Brexit? All I'm saying is he's blatantly a Lexiter and has no interest in seeing the country remain in the EU. If he did, he would have postponed his pointless jamboree in Morecambe and gone to the march today. He's every much as complicit as May because he has offered absolute zero opposition to her in the last three years.
Probably will have to if Labour are to win an election, that I can't predict under Corbyn. It's no longer a safe Tory seat however so understandable Labour would target it.
Brexit isn't Corbyn's fault? He campaigned for Brexit in his manifesto at the last general election and voted for article 50 in parliament, which is precisely why are where we are today. How is it possibly not his fault?
Some of you purposefully choose to ignore the obvious point at times. I'm sure you can figure out why the leader of the labour party isn't at a people's vote march, we've been having the electoral math debate for years now. It would be clearly damaging to the party whilst offering no benefit.
As long as he supports the vote at crunch time i don't give a shit if he's preaching to the choir (which is what you same people moaned about previously)
As long as he supports the vote at crunch time i don't give a shit if he's preaching to the choir (which is what you same people moaned about previously)
I was laughing at(In fairness I edited out as it seemed a bit mean)that you somehow know how people of Morecambe feel and it just happens to be the exact view point you hold.
Why I pointed out that district voted leave is because I somehow doubt a lot of people are bother about Corbyn being on the march in London(Still I'm just going on the voting numbers). Its hardly a remain stronghold. Also Morecambe is marginal seat.
Strong twitter game, never under any circumstance apologise.
''The greatest victory is that which requires no tweeting.''
But yeah not a great looks.
Edit - Boles tweet is pretty gross - There is something about @jessphillips that I find irresistible. I would walk over hot coals for her.
Last edited:
I wasn't quoting you, but to even suggest he is in the same field of complacency is moronic. I don't want to swallow it, but he's always offered a more palletable alternative to what May has suggested and has never even been given a platform for it to be an option.
Crunch time like the vote on the withdrawal bill you mean? We know where he stood on that one.
If that’s the case, why was Tom Watson permitted to speak at the march? The argument doesn’t hold when all the evidence points to remaining in the EU doesn’t much tickle Jeremy Corbyn’s fancy.
Yes, the Tories get most of the blame but not all of it.
I am afraid Brexit is corbyns fault... and Mays fault... and the bloody useless lot of them. He has failed to lead, failed to oppose and failed to influence. He’s been shifty and disingenuous. A plague on both Tory and labour houses.
Granted it’s anecdotal but most people I know and speak to have some level of disdain for Corbyn, I know two or three people who support him. The rest think he’s well meaning but a bit useless. Perhaps I was a bit extreme in saying most despise him but I am fairly certain most wouldn’t give two shits about his visit.
For what it’s worth I will probably end up voting Labour in the next GE in spite of him.
Because what Tom Watson does won't be held against the leadership, which you've clearly demonstrated by not attributing Watsons presence at the march to Corbyn.
If you're going to start making Corbyn permitting him being there relevant you can't then also say he's not supportive unless you think sending Watson is sabotage.
Yeah, it's a bizarre thing to tweet given the usual associations of that phrase, but it was pretty clear from their interaction that it was meant non-sexually.
Oh yeah I didn't mean to come across mean spirited(Although that always seem to be the case) and I'm sure he got plenty of feck off on the door step.
Welcome to me in 2010 & 2015.
Fair enough. And weirder for anyone other the Philips to comment on it, in all honestly( she didn't seem to have a problem with the comment).
But thats twitter I guess. While there's worse things in the world I can't image having to be on twitter for your job does get things for your mindset.
That photo, taken in 2017, will definitely be the end of Corbyn. Resignation within the hour, I reckon.
Which photo?
I posted a photo of Corbyn next to the Eric Morecambe statue assuming it was taken today, when actually it was from 2017.
feck me both the two main UK parties are shite.
I'd vote SNP if I could.feck me both the two main UK parties are shite.
I might have missed that math. Why would it be damaging to the party when 2/3s of labour voters are pro remain?
The Tories are primarily to blame for Brexit, though everyone in Parliament is somewhat culpable. But ultimately I don’t expect the Tories to care about people like me or represent my views. Labour I do, and that’s why it’s so depressing that Labour have ended up with a pro-Brexit policy and bothers me more than what the Tories do.
If this was an anti-austerity march, or an anti-war march or a march in support of a General Strike, he would have been there. Electoral calculus wouldn’t have crossed his mind.
The Tories are largely to blame for Brexit but Cornyn has revealed himself as a useless chocolate teapot of a politician when we need visionary leaders to step up.
Because those 2/3rds will carry on voting Labour but the 1/3rd who feel betrayed won't. Not that it works like that anyway but the early analysis dictated they'd lose a lot of key constituencies.
Arguably Corbyn should have taken that loss and hoped that the lost constituencies came back with his successor(s) but since they're all heavily remain I'm not sure this generation of Labour would be forgiven.
However I'm fairly confident taking a pure remain position wouldn't have made one bit of difference in parliament.
That doesn’t make much sense to me. Why would leavers be put off remain backing labour leadership but remainers be ok with one that is leave backing in all but name? In larger numbers too, since remainers are the majority. And if it’s to attract new/swing leave voters with no strong party affiliation, why wouldn’t they vote Tory or UKIP if Brexit means so much to them?
Voters might be dumb but not that dumb. Let’s not forget that firstly, it’s the party line that to break the impasse a 2nd referendum is required. Secondly, taking a “neutral” position, while the Tory party is effectively controlled by ERG and the de facto legal state is no-deal Brexit, means he’s backing no deal Brexit in all but name by not throwing everything behind the only viable alternative.
I don’t know what the math is based on, but the math I’ve seen places Corbyn bottom of the approval ratings with one of the lowest scores of all time among even historical leaders, mostly because of his handling of Brexit. And I don’t think a party leader has ever won a GE with such ratings. May is in the same doldrums but the Tories would never let her lead them to another election.
I dunno. It sounds more like made up math to validate Jezza’s world view to me.
I'd vote SNP if I could.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why? Because Leavers are dogmatic simpletons, we know they follow a unique outlook.
I don't see many Labour remainers voting for the Tories any time soon.
Tbh, who really gives a shit? He wants brexit so there's not point of him being disingenuous about it.. There'll be a leadership election at some point in the future and we can start putting things tight.
Worth remembering in this discussion that, in safe Labour seats there was a swing to the Tories in 2017 precisely because they were seen as being more 'Brexit-y' than Labour. Votes that Labour lost to UKIP in 2015 in the North East went to the Tories in 2017. On that basis it's fair to assume that if Labour had gone full Remain before the snap election they'd had lost seats like Bishop Auckland and possibly Darlington and seen unprecedented challenges in places that used to be safe-seats. If, post-referendum, Corbyn had done what most people on here are trashing him for not doing, we'd currently have a massive Tory majority in Parliament and May could have gotten whatever old shit through the house.
Which isn't to say I'm not frustrated with how he's dealt with things since 2017, but ultimately he's banking on another election and he's assumed that the Tory strategy in that eventuality will be to chip away at the Leave-leaning section of Labour's base in the hopes that it loses them enough votes to swing a few seats blue. Given that I've been getting Tory targeted Facebook ads for months criticising Labour, my sitting MP and Corbyn for 'betraying Brexit', I'd say he's correct in that assumption. May being ousted would also increase the likelihood of a general election. I can understand therefore why he's not come out swinging for the peoples' vote, although if it came down to the wire and he didn't vote for it I'd be as critical as anyone.
But they don't need to vote Tories; they could vote Lib Dems or not vote at all. Labour are the opposition, not the government, they need to motivate their supporters to the polls in the case of an election and swing any neutrals to their favour. By playing neutral, you achieve none of those things. The popularity ratings don't lie.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...next-prime-minster-odds-bookies-a8834791.html
Corbyn bookmakers' favourite to become next prime minister as Theresa May's Brexit crisis deepens.
You know how bookmakers work, right? They balance the books by adjusting the odds based on the bets they receive. If I go and put £5m down on Corbyn winning the election, I can change the bookies odds while in no way or shape increasing the probability of Corbyn actually winning the elections.
This misunderstanding of odds has been explained several times, but here we go again:
The odds you have quoted are for several leaders, Corbyn is favourite because being a settled leader he is the only Labour choice, whereas there are several Tory choices due to a likely change of leadership. If you look at the odds for a party winning, as below, the Tories are odds-on favourites. It is extremely unusual for an opposition to be so far behind at this stage of the electoral cycle, and the most likely explanations are that the government is regarded as being much better than usual, or the opposition much worse. Take your pick.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats
To be fair to yourself the Independent headline is totally misleading, but then again if you're going to post it then you should really look into it a bit more
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-prime-minister
He's 4th favourite by the looks of it
Gove 4/1
Liddington 4/1
Johnson 8/1
Corbyn 10/1
Perhaps more telling are the following two set of odds for the next general election
Most seats
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats
Conservative ahead of labour
And overall majority odds
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/overall-majority
No overall majority (hung parliament)11/10
Conservatives 15/8
Labour 4/1
I can't agree with that assumption. In 2017 essentially both two major parties were endorsing Brexit and obviously Tories with Bojo, Davies, JRM and the like were more Brexit-y. Therefore staunch Brexiteers and swing voters went for them instead. So how does the strategy of being pro-Brexit or neutral work then? The Tories swallowed the whole UKIP vote in 2017 anyway and won the election.
As an aside it's worth mentioning that, ironically, if the Tories had a achieved a clear majority they wouldn't have gone to bed with the DUP. So their MP base would likely have been more moderate and the influence of ERG likely diminished. With whatever implications that would have about May's red lines and ability to get her deal passed through parliament instead of us heading off a cliff.
Now you're also ignoring the fact that there also swing voters who are remainers and would have coalesced around Labour had their stance been pro-Remain. Labour could have carved up a piece of the Lib Dem or SNP vote if they had offered a pro-remain alternative. For example, I generally vote Lib Dem but I'm also aware they are far from winning an election. And if in 2017 Labour had became the pro-Remain alternative to the Tories I would have gladly backed them because that issue is significant enough that it warrants casting a vote where it matters most. But they didn't, so I persisted with Lib Dems who were the only ones staunchly pro-Remain.
This is anecdotal, obviously, but so is the assumption that backing Remain would have been even worse for Labour.
Last edited:
The report is also old, since the leaks emerged last night that May could soon be gone three Tory MP's have moved ahead of Corbyn (Gove, Lidington and Johnson) which obviously makes sense because that would take place before any general election. The link you've given is the more relevant one, who would win the most seats, and the polls do suggest that the Tories are a reasonable way ahead at the moment which I find inexplicable and depressing, despite not being a particularly big fan of Corbyn's, given how much of a shambles the Tories are at the moment and how damaging their government has been over the last 9 years.
Given Corbyn's awful position on Brexit has allegedly been a way of boosting the electoral math in his favour, that's a pretty grim portent. Especially given the government he's opposing is literally inept.
Indeed though even if labour get smashed it will apparently be the media's fault that jezbollah has to answer questions regarding Antisemitism and having to take a stance on brexit... And lets not forget the quagmire that the Irish boarder / history with the IRA will become when he is questioned on that
I can't see the Unions standing behind him if he fails at the next GE. They could pass the last as an improvement on their previous record, but there won't be any excuses this time. The sad thing is that if Labour do lose it, it could be 20 years of consecutive Tory governments (since 2007) before we see the next elections. During which they applied post-crisis austerity and pressed on with the most divisive action in our lifetimes in Brexit. That'd be a damning indictment on Labour.
Generally, my main gripe with the way Labour functions in general, is that effectively the Unions tend to chose the leaders and in the last 10 years at least they seem to go off by who is more well-meaning (to them) or left-leaning instead of going by who's more likely to win an election. Both Red Ed and Jezza aren't PM material. Say whatever you want about the failings of New Labour (and there were quite a few) but becoming more palatable to the centrist, swing voter was not one of them.
The last time other than under blair the labour party won a majority and served the full term in government was 1966...
So yeah something about the definition of madness when it comes to labour and unions / moving too far left
Re: your first paragraph, 33% of those who voted Labour in 2015 voted to Leave the EU in 2016 so your assertion that staunch Leavers were already lost to Labour before 2017 doesn't stand up. 650,000 more Leavers voted for Labour in 2017 than did in 2015; it's unlikely that this would have happened had they campaigned for a second referendum.
It's also unlikely that all, or even most, of the 3.7m Leavers who voted Labour in 2017 would still have done so if Labour had rejected the referendum result. To take the constituencies in my previous post as an example, had 252 disgruntled Labour Leave voters switched to the Tories in Bishop Auckland, County Durham would have seen it's first Tory MP in 30 years. Darlington would have taken 1600 defections to flip. Considering that an average of about 38,000 people voted Leave in each constituency across the county (higher in the ones I'm talking about here, balanced out by much lower numbers in Durham City constituency), Bishop and Darlo would likely be Tory seats now and Sedgefield and North West Durham would have gone from safe-seats to marginals in the drop of a hat.
The nature of our electoral system means that keeping Leave voters onside was key to Labour's performance in 2017 and remains key to their chances going forward. An unwelcome by-product of FPTP is that huge proportion of Labour's Remain vote effectively counts for nothing when it comes to a General Election as it's concentrated in a relatively small number of constituencies creating a handful of huge majorities. The Labour Leave vote on the other hand is distributed more evenly and basically accounts for Labour's continued hold on it's traditional heartlands outside the big metropolitan cities. The way the two sets of voters are distributed accounts for the odd stat that, whilst only 29% of Labour's voters voted leave, 60% of Labour seats did. Labour's leave vote is disproportionately important to the party's electoral success, which is why they're very reticent to alienate Leave when there could be an election on the way.
Your argument appears to be that, had Labour gone full-Remain, the loss of the Leavers would have been compensated by attracting more Remainers, but even as it was Labour attracted 2.8 million additional Remainers between 2015 and 2017 and 57% of the Remain vote overall. I have no doubt that single-issue Remainers exist who would have voted for Labour if they'd been openly pro-Remain but the numbers suggest they don't exist in sufficient numbers in the right places to swing seats (and, as above, the way they're concentrated makes them less 'useful' in a general election anyway). There were 35 marginals (less than 5% in it) in which Labour came second to the Tories in 2017; looking at vote shares it's clear that even if everyone who voted Lib Dem/Green (the 100% Remain parties) voted Labour they'd still not have won all the marginals, never mind the deeper Tory seats Labour have to win to be looking at a majority. In a fantasy-land 2017 GE scenario where Remain voters had come out of the woodwork to back a pro-Remain Labour and win the marginals, the Lib Dems stuck together elsewhere to win their seats,and Labour didn't lose a single Leave voter, the Tories would still be the largest party by 30 odd seats and a Labour-SNP-Lib Dem coalition would have a majority of 5.
Last edited: