Last thing to look for in 'voting intentions' ..is logic!
E.G. "At every GE I vote against 'the Government'..... but they keep getting in"
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
E.G. "At every GE I vote against 'the Government'..... but they keep getting in"
Yep. Scared the shit out of billionaires who just happen to run the media and shape public opinion.
Yeah, he did but it wasn't the kind of flint eyed revolutionary scariness you are thinking of / fantasising about.
It was his uselessness and poor judgement that scared the crap out of people, such that he made Boris Johnson, the dodgy TV light entertainer and part time politician, look an attractive bet.
Last edited:
Maybe in the alternative, Daily Mail fueled reality that you live in.
Well you see that's why I cited some actual research into what the voting public thought, rather than put another stitch in the silly comfort blanket you've woven for yourselves.
But do you really believe that those billionaires actually thought that Labour led by Corbyn were going to win the election. Hardly likely.
No, I doubt that they would have. However, any potential for any kind of meaningful left wing movement must be crushed and they got a scare in 2017.
Agreed.
However, many of the business community have been very badly affected by the Brexit shambles and the mismanagement of the pandemic.
And the forthcoming big increases in Corporation Tax is going to have a further adverse effect.
I used 'logic' in the sense of an explanation or reason, including emotional reasons. I am really struggling to understand what exactly is keeping the Tories popular, even if I accept I always would have a blind spot when it comes to seeing Tory appeal.
Johnson called a snap election because he was enjoying the usual new leader popularity bounce and could wage the entire election campaign around a single issue on which the entire Labour party and its target electorate were split.
There was no way for Corbyn to win that election. His best chance would have been to support Brexit completely but this would still have seen him lose as the southern Labour members were overwhelmingly anti-Brexit.
You're also naive if you think Corbyn's rise didn't scare the billionaire class. He came very close to winning the 2017 election despite the articles about his "support" for terrorists and his own party attempting to sabotage him at every step. He outperformed every Labour leader since Blair in 1997 in terms of vote share. And you don't waste your time trying to ridicule someone who doesn't, on some level, threaten you. And that's what every single paper and media outlet in the UK did for a sustained five year period.
The extent to which Corbyn scared that class into action can be seen by the Tories having no choice but to usurp a large section of Corbyn's policies as an appeasement measure.
Last edited:
Yes of course, my response was a bit flippant, sorry.
I agree that people do have specific reasons; a 'tactical vote to prevent a candidate/party being successful, where their own (preferred) candidate has little chance; a vote for a specific candidate because they are considered a 'good egg'/known locally and the party position doesn't matter, again if its not your party of choice; the 'look' of the candidate, their racial/religious/or some other specific point about a candidate, but the main reason still has to be for the party that best represents your views, or you think will be more capable of running the country.
All the above could in someway, be argued to represent a logical approach, if as you suggest you are looking for reasons why?
Applied to today's situation, there is of course no effective opposition, partly this is due to the Labour party itself still going through its 'blood-letting' after a humiliating defeat; I never believed I would ever again in my lifetime see any party with an emphatic 80+ seat majority!
The other situation is the Pandemic it feels as though we are 'at war' with the Covid virus and many pundits and politicians continually stress this in the media; hence like in war time many people rally around the Government of the day, they know the situation is 'fluid', that despite all the so called pandemic planning, like all such plans they don't survive the first contact with the enemy. There is a certain amount of sympathy, for Boris, because he is 'johnny on the spot', despite his 'bumbling' and clearly sometimes dishonest behaviour, he is seen to be 'doing his best' by a large majority of people.
Of course if we cannot get out of the pandemic 'mess' he will also reap the anger and frustration down the line, that which is now being shown by his natural enemies, but attracting little support in the country. The Tory hierarchy will also be watching with interest to see if he can keep Brexit of the front pages, except of course when the EU is supposedly getting a 'good kicking' from Lord Frost, and most importantly for the Tory party can he do anything at all about 'leveling up' which will allow them to carry a majority (not 80+) in the next GE?
If you are not a Boris fan (can't think there are too many on the Caf) the thing you can look forward too is that his political career, like all PM's will end in failure if either he is 'turfed out' by his own side, or goes on to lose a GE; one or the other is bound to happen!
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Friendship ended with SavantaComRes, YouGov is my new best friend
Naive? Let's see. The Independent below had to this say about 'coming very close', and they wrote it a month before the 2019 election.
"[In 2017] Labour’s share of the vote rose by 9.8 per cent and the party was able to claim that this put it just short of what it achieved in the 2001 election. But in 2001, Labour won a majority of 167 seats, whereas in 2017 they had no majority at all; indeed, they were 64 seats short of any majority. ... It is explained by the simple fact that is always missing from the mythology of 2017: the Conservative vote also increased substantially. You would be forgiven for not recalling two records that Theresa May achieved in 2017. Firstly, she came within one percentage point of matching the share of the vote Margaret Thatcher achieved in her crushing 1983 election victory. Secondly, May secured the second biggest increase in the Conservative vote from one election to another since 1931.... If we subtract the Conservative increased share of vote in 2017 from Labour’s increased share, we arrive at a 2 per cent swing to Labour – a rather pedestrian performance in postwar general election history.... All of this has been swept under the carpet since 2017 as we have been encouraged to marvel at Labour’s mythological “victory in defeat”. But it just won’t do: Labour’s electoral performance since 2017, in European elections, Westminster by-elections, council by-elections and council elections, has been truly lamentable for an opposition party facing an inept government in disarray. Unless Labour understands why it was defeated in 2017 and acts accordingly, it is doomed to repeat the experience": Source.
Course you do. People ridicule fantasists and losers All. The. Time. Again, quoting: "The Ipsos MORI series registering satisfaction and dissatisfaction with party leaders has been running since the 1970s. Jeremy Corbyn is the only Opposition leader in that series never to have registered (so far) a positive net rating. Source. He wasn't a threat.
Corbyn got the usual monstering. He's not the first.
But I know you'd rather cling to these myths, than confront the truth that Corbyn was unelectable, because you have a lot of emotional investment in your "alternative facts". The predictable totality of it all was it gifted the Tories a landslide. Labour was crushed, maybe to the point of extinction. That reason alone should be enough for you to want to run a mile from any association with him or his legacy, if you were truly serious about wanting power.
Last edited:
Yes. Let's perform one operation which has minimal impact upon the other for no apparent reason. Look at the actual vote. 13 million cast for Corbyn's Labour beats every other Labour leader except Blair in 1997.
People who invest time in ridiculing political opponents are either morons or threatened by said opponent. In the first instance, you have to be stupid to spend your life criticising something which has no impact upon you as the effort/reward ratio cannot be justified. So, for instance, you would either be a moron in this instance or in some weird way threatened by the prospect of a Labour leader who no longer leads Labour.
Personal satisfaction with a party's leader is important but not as important as Ipsos MORI contrive to make out. It obviously became highly salient in 2019 as people, aside from the momentum base and the centrist saboteurs who occupied the other pole, turned against Corbyn.
There was nothing usual about it. Miliband was ridiculed in the usual way, such as the way he ate a sandwich. Corbyn was subject to a sustained attack in which papers and broadcast media implanted a false perception of anti-Semitism which was never grounded in actuality. You'd have to be very disingenuous to pretend Corbyn's treatment was parallel to Miliband's.
I was not going to bother having read this part. Corbyn was unelected, not unelectable. It has little to do with emotion and more to do with reason, but then the point of this part of your post is to provoke. In other words you are being very emotional and belligerent in such a way that you would ascribe to others - seek help.
You're missing the point - 2017 was the maximum of what labour could ever achieve under Corbyn, not the springboard.
Yes. Let's perform one operation which has minimal impact upon the other for no apparent reason. Look at the actual vote. 13 million cast for Corbyn's Labour beats every other Labour leader except Blair in 1997.
Yes, Corbyn did a good job at rallying his base (aided by a terrible Tory campaign if you can recall), but in the end so did the Tories - and this was in an environment where support for the 'other' parties had collapsed remember, so there were votes to be had. Unfortunately - and this is the point - he did an even better job of rallying the Tory base than he did the Labour base: 14% of the people who voted Tory in 2017 did so because they couldn't stand him. Source.
The real conclusion of all that, is 2017 was the peak of what Corbynism could ever achieve, and indeed this was proven beyond doubt in 2019 when he doubled down and was crushed.
You had the manifesto and the leader you wanted. Own it.
Did you miss the EHCR investigation and report? Or was your head buried in the sand when it was released?
"The Labour party broke equalities law including harassment and discrimination over antisemitism in the party, an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has found. In a long-awaited report, the EHRC said there were “serious failings in the Labour party leadership in addressing antisemitism and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints”. It said Labour under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act, connected to harassment, political interference in antisemitism complaints and inadequate training for those handling the complaints... The EHRC had faced significant obstruction under the previous leadership. etc etc: Source.
Unelectable. The evidence was there for years. People like you refused to see it because your ideology wouldn't allow it, and now here we all are with a disastrous government, 130,000 people dead, a splintering country in endless disputes with its neighbours, empty shelves, an unravelling NHS... yeah, I'm emotional.
A third of British people were found by the ECHR to have a perception that anti-Semitism had risen. The findings were that the increase was in fact 0.3%. That's an enormous discrepancy.
I don't even disagree with this. Some of your points are correct but you make them in a hostile way which makes me question the point of engaging. 2017 was the maximum though when you define electability you have to take into account the actual landscape within which left wing candidates and policies must function. Had Corbyn received positive or even neutral media coverage then who knows. As the entire media of the state and private enterprise was stacked against him from the start, then yeah, I'd tend to agree. But that has almost nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personal attacks, smear campaigns, and Brexit. In other words, a Corbyn-like manifesto is entirely plausible even if it means that Corbyn himself can have no hand in it. Not only plausible but in many respects the basis for the Tories' economic propaganda in 2019.
But didn't you vote Tory? Or have I misread it? They've been in power for over a decade and all of this is on them, with Brexit itself being a backbench Tory schism and the UK's health facilities and so on being essentialy fecked from ten years of cuts to every conceivable part of the public sector.
Without getting bogged down into the minutia of Corbynism, the basic point is this. Labour is a left-wing party which exists to further workers' interests. If it doesn't seek to do that then it has no point in existing. Corbyn had a lot of faults but his core set of policies and ideological concerns weren't wrong. Starmer moving to the centre will not work.
Your ideology has prevented you from seeing that the list of horrors you note has little to do with Corbyn.
Now that we have Starmer, Labour may very well have more chance of getting elected (although there's little evidence if this so far). If they do get elected, it'll be largely due to appeasing the establishment who'll eviscerate him if he shows the slightest sign of any left wing policies and because he apes the language and, no doubt, the policies of the Tories.
Because that's what'll make him electable in England. Being a cnut.
Many valid points.
Yes. Let's perform one operation which has minimal impact upon the other for no apparent reason. Look at the actual vote. 13 million cast for Corbyn's Labour beats every other Labour leader except Blair in 1997.
People who invest time in ridiculing political opponents are either morons or threatened by said opponent. In the first instance, you have to be stupid to spend your life criticising something which has no impact upon you as the effort/reward ratio cannot be justified. So, for instance, you would either be a moron in this instance or in some weird way threatened by the prospect of a Labour leader who no longer leads Labour.
Personal satisfaction with a party's leader is important but not as important as Ipsos MORI contrive to make out. It obviously became highly salient in 2019 as people, aside from the momentum base and the centrist saboteurs who occupied the other pole, turned against Corbyn.
There was nothing usual about it. Miliband was ridiculed in the usual way, such as the way he ate a sandwich. Corbyn was subject to a sustained attack in which papers and broadcast media implanted a false perception of anti-Semitism which was never grounded in actuality. You'd have to be very disingenuous to pretend Corbyn's treatment was parallel to Miliband's.
I was not going to bother having read this part. Corbyn was unelected, not unelectable. It has little to do with emotion and more to do with reason, but then the point of this part of your post is to provoke. In other words you are being very emotional and belligerent in such a way that you would ascribe to others - seek help.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ars-as-chief-of-staff-after-byelection-losses
This guy. What an imposter.
This guy. What an imposter.
For all the talk of the previous leader being unelectable, Keir quite possibly typifies everything that people hate about politicians and politics.
Spineless moron. Taken 4 days to tell everyone he's firmly on the fence.
To be fair he’s right.
Thats the rules of the house, you have to assume that everyone is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge. If you didn’t have that rule, all you would have is endless shouting of “liar!” and nobody would get anywhere.
Dawn Butler knew those rules and she used them to her advantage, she called him a liar, took her punishment and in doing so raised awareness of Johnson’s lies in the house to the nation.
So without that rule, what Butler did would not have carried any weight. So he’s right to support both the rule and her actions. The important thing is that he supported her actions.
I wouldn't vote for a leader that supported strike action by the NHS.
whether he says yes or no, it will be used against him come election time. even if he changes his mind, then he labelled a flip flopper etc. Whereas we have conservatives spinning around in u turns on major issues to do with the NHS, and its seen as normal.
its not stamers fault, nor corbyns, nor millibands, its the effin press (tv / radio and print). they control the narrative.
its not stamers fault, nor corbyns, nor millibands, its the effin press (tv / radio and print). they control the narrative.
Why?
Because the action would harm the weakest and least able to help themselves. Rich people would pay to get round it, it would be the poor that suffer.
My turn, why aren't people speaking out more for other workers who are being treated much more unfairly, the care home staff and homecare workers? Often given part-time hours only, to save paying national insurance for them, no sick pay, zero hours with no job security, having to cobble together a few hours wherever they can, with unpaid travel in between. They got it worse than anyone through covid, no PPE at all for months, a far higher death rate that NHS staff, and no one gives a toss. I'm sure now I mention it people will agree, but where are all the posts supporting them?
Hmm. Far too easy to blame the press. Because they have always wanted to print what people want to read and hear.
As a country, the UK has traditionally been more right wing leaning and hence the press reflect that.
Now. Is it chicken or egg? Not really sure about that.
But modern progressive political parties understand how to use the press/media to their advantage by making the narrative about them.
New Labour were very clever in how they used the media. Unfortunately, Starmer doesn't seem to understand how to work with the media. But Boris on the other hand does.
I don't see what is wrong with that. He supports what she said was true but he also respects the rules of the HOC which meant she had to go.
Yes, and with Corbyn supporters it's actually worse than that. Look at the number of posts on here that say the press are to blame for Corbyn's failure, but they're not just saying that, they're effectively saying that the press are to blame for Corbyn's failure and all their readers are too stupid to realise it. People should have learned from the disastrous Remain campaign in the referendum and afterwards, calling people stupid does not work, it has the opposite effect to that desired. So I agree, learning to use the press is a much cleverer way forward.
learning to 'use' the press or learning to do what a handful of media barons / industrialists want you to do?
on corbyn, i think its pretty undeniable that the caricature of him and his policies that the press pushed forward and the reality were very different.
as for the readership, only have to look at the selective outrage this weekend at what someone at the BBC is being paid (taxpayers money being thrown away on diversity etc), whereas hardly any anger at the hundreds of millions more that have been leeched by friends of the government in dodgy PPE contracts.
Not 'use', use.
And what do you think is the best way to deal with that? The current solution seems to be to rage continually at the injustice and imply that everyone that doesn't agree is stupid, I'm merely saying that is one approach that will not work.
Ah right, so they, clearly some of the most important people in all the land, should just shut up and take shitty wages and working conditions. Cool.
Where did I say that or even anything remotely like that?
Meanwhile, I answered your question about a prime minister's position on strikes, you have yet to answer mine on care workers, who are also important but have far far shittier wages and working conditions, much worse, where are all the posts about them?
So what should they do if they're unhappy with their wages and working conditions? Given that you wouldn't allow them strike.Where did I say that or even anything remotely like that?
Meanwhile, I answered your question about a prime minister's position on strikes, you have yet to answer mine on care workers, who are also important but have far far shittier wages and working conditions, much worse, where are all the posts about them?
I'm in favour of their wages and working conditions improving as well, but that's not what the conversation was about. What you've done there is whatabout me.
Well the obvious point is that most care homes are private and the government doesn't control their wages. Personally I'd be all in favour of it but I don't know what the mechanism to improve their pay would be (presumably voting for a party that gives the slightest shit about workers' rights would help).Where did I say that or even anything remotely like that?
Meanwhile, I answered your question about a prime minister's position on strikes, you have yet to answer mine on care workers, who are also important but have far far shittier wages and working conditions, much worse, where are all the posts about them?
labour shortages as a consequence of brexit should be a wake up call. with cheap labour no longer being imported in such quantities, wages have started to rise for certain professions. HGV drivers are set to take some form of industrial action for improved pay / working conditions, as their crucial role in the economy takes centre stage. Ironically the govt proposals wouldve meant longer hours and less barriers to entry. tradesmen are starting to charge decent rates for their labour, reports of brickies charging 600 quid a day plus... now when directors of housebuilders take home Hundreds of Millions per year in pay, bonuses and options, then why not.
Unfortunately, as has always been the case in the UK, strikes will just give an opportunity for the ruling class to encourage those in the working classes to turn on each other. i saw a massively upvoted comment the other day in the daily mail making the point nurses should be glad for their job security / nhs pension etc compared to those in the private sector. Someone replied with the great observation that if nursing was such a cushy number, then why dont those complaining apply for it, there's certainly a shortage.
Unfortunately, as has always been the case in the UK, strikes will just give an opportunity for the ruling class to encourage those in the working classes to turn on each other. i saw a massively upvoted comment the other day in the daily mail making the point nurses should be glad for their job security / nhs pension etc compared to those in the private sector. Someone replied with the great observation that if nursing was such a cushy number, then why dont those complaining apply for it, there's certainly a shortage.