Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Find me one person in the country who genuinely believes that if voting was restricted to only people aged 18-24 that the result would be anything other than annihilation for the Conservative party. And then try and square that reality with the apparent poll that Johnson is more popular with that age group than Corbyn. I'll have a look for it but I remember reading a study based on the 2017 election that said if voting was only down to people in that age bracket or similar, the Conservatives would not have won a single seat.
It isn't 2017.
I'm not saying Labour wouldn't win, if it was a choice between the current Tories and a Corbyn led Labour I'd have to vote Labour too, and I think Corbyn is the worst Labour leader, and possibly the most incompetent party leader, in my lifetime.
It doesn't matter what your opinion is. I'm asking you to marry the two claims that (a) an election where only people aged 18-24 can vote would result in an overwhelming Labour victory with (b) that Johnson is deemed to be a better PM than Corbyn by that very same group.
The poll asked who would make a better Prime Minister... Not who you would vote for. The two are very different.
Well the poll itself also shows that Labour would win among that age group, so there isn't any particular mystery to it.
People don't necessarily vote for MPs based on who the leader of the party is. If they did then Labour would be faring worse in the polling than they are. It's perfectly possible to think the leader of a party you detest is as (or slightly more) competent personally than the leader of a party you are inclined to support. Though obviously carrying a leader with rock-bottom popularity hamstrings what you can hope to achieve in an election.
A quick look at the poll would tell you that 29% of those asked said they were "unsure" as to who would be the better PM of the two. That 29% is where the gap between Corbyn and Labour's popularity comes from, as voters in that age bracket would clearly swing heavily against the Tories when it comes to casting their vote. Unfortunately for Labour, the size of that cohort who are likely to vote anti-Tory regardless of what they think of the Labour leader diminishes rapidly once you move up the age brackets. Which, again, is where Corbyn's rock-bottom popularity is an issue.
So yes, in an election solely based on 18-24 year olds Labour would certainly win. The only question is how much of their majority would be cannibalized by the Lib Dems, who perform most strongly in this age bracket, presumably because of their approach to Brexit. None of that means that Corbyn himself is popular with that cohort of voters though, or that his lack of popularity among them can't be held up as an indictment of his performance generally.
Also, it's not like Corbyn's declining popularity among younger voters hasn't been flagged before now. His performance in this exact metric has been declining steadily across multiple polls for quite a while, from 65% in 2017 to 35% in October 2018. It isn't a shock, nor is it particularly odd given his stance on Brexit (by far the most important issue to these voters) has been so far apart from what they actually want.
Well that's another point I was going to make. The way the question is framed ensures that answers are going to favour the incumbent. Which is only one further problem with the poll. Regardless, my point remains that we have to question the validity/worth of a poll that suggests Johnson is deemed to be a better PM than Corbyn among people aged 18-24 yet in an election among that same age group would likely not win a single seat. Are we to believe most people aged 18-24 would vote Labour in spite of Corbyn and/or deem a man whose politics and history must be so anathema to them (seen as they are Labour voters) would nevertheless be a better PM? I mean it's such a laughable notion it cannot be taken seriously.
Yes people would absolutely vote Labour in spite of Corbyn. If Satan himself were standing on a manifesto giving wads of free cash to young people, they would vote for him irrespective of character or ability to do the job.
How do you square your cynicism for people with your faith in business?
My point is that nobody has really been out campaigning for Remain. Labour hasn't. The most visible opposition has been legal and procedural-led rather than activist-driven. The Lib Dems were politically dead until very recently and are reverting to their usual role as vehicle for protest votes. Swinson isn't the face of remain in the same way Farage is the face of Brexit. We've had some People's Vote stuff but who's really the face of that? So I'd still argue that nobody has been out making a positive remain case designed to swing the polls.
That aside, I'm not surprised about the ComRes poll. I am a remainer, but I understand the need to respect the referendum result. But Brexiters aren't interested in winning people like me around with a version of Brexit that we might swallow.
Last edited:
Thats not just true for the poll though, its also true for the actual voting.
I think looking at people themselves is a misnomer. You have to look to their inherent greed and make this greed beneficial to society. To make the world a better place you have to leglislate on the assumption that everyone is a sociopath. Irrespective of the intention of a government policy or regulation, if it can be corrupted by someone who you'd see as morally bankrupt, then it will be corrupted as such.
So for example let's take rent controls. Someone might believe they're a great idea as they make housing cheaper for the poor. In reality if a landlord can't increase the rent on his property to the level that he wants, the only way to sustain or increase his profitability is to reduce his costs. The greater the rent controls the more squalid the conditions of his housing will become, as his profit will have to come from cutting corners in terms of keeping the residence in a good and habitable condition.
Or let's look at Schooling. You force wealthy parents to send their children to state school and those parents will band together and influence admissions to such an extent that certain schools in certain areas will be de facto private schools in terms of class sizes, funding and pupil background (they'd donate to these schools). You'd have a situation where poor and middle class people were direct funding sending rich children to a school that middle and poor earners couldn't attend.
Or let's look at Hospitals. Someone who's running a Hospital would obviously believe patients are the bane of their existence. If there were 30% less patients their life would be infinitely easier. Therefore the only incentive is to get rid of patients. This could be done by turfing them back home despite them being too sick. It could be turfing them to care homes where they're someone elses problem; or it could be liberally employing the "Liverpool Pathway" to ensure people passed away far quicker than they naturally would.
Or let's look at Trade Unions. It would be easy to believe these are socially progressive organisations who enrich the poor at the expense of the ultra wealthy. However union leaders aren't poor, they're upper middle earners who want to enrich themselves. What is the best way to do this in a low skilled job that anyone could do? Create a cartel to prevent poor people from doing the job at a lower salary of course! The result being that these unionised jobs end up being a closed shop for middle class workers that the poor don't have access too. If you're a poor person living in London who wants to be a train driver and would be happy to earn £30k being one... You aren't able to get a job. They're hugely oversubscribed due to the artificially inflated salaries and therefore often jobs are given to friends and family members of existing union members. The result for the public? More expensive tickets. A lose-lose for poor people and for the customers.
This isn't to say that the intentions aren't pure, or that in an angelic society they wouldn't be good ideas. However we live in a society that is inherently imperfect, so every policy has to be incorruptible. The only way to do that is make the enrichment of the people in control perfectly align with the customers they serve... Funnily enough that's capitalism.
Hilarious.
Some very valid points. For clarity, I should add I am not arguing that Corbyn is especially popular among that particular demographic. I am arguing only that the idea that more people within that age group would prefer Johnson as PM (or deem him to be a better PM, however you want to frame it) is simply false. Yet the narrative courtesy of that poll is that Corbyn 'trails' Johnson within that demographic. If a direct preference had to be expressed for a PM among people aged 18-24, does anyone believe Johnson would prevail over Corbyn? In fact, that it would be anything other than a fairly comfortable victory for Corbyn?
Do you agree with the civil rights act of 1964 ?
Who's joking?
I agree with all steps taken to ensure people aren't forced to do anything they do not want to do.
I also believe in the case of the Civil Rights Act that it was government legislation trying to solve an issue that was mostly created by government. Bizarrely this is the case with a lot of good government policy; it's required due to previous governmental incompetence. Better for them to try to solve a created problem than not solving it of course.
Yeah thats not an answer.
If a white restaurant owner refuses to serve a black couple because they are black should this be illegal or not ?
Last edited:
I already understood your comtempt for people in general. Maybe you judge by your own standards?
The last sentence is how you square the double standard? Blimey. It's hilarious.
Because every Tory voting 18-24 year old thinks Johnson is the best current PM they could have but not every Labour voting one thinks Corbyn is, i.e. they think Starmer, Long-Bailey or even Khan would be far better, but they're stuck with Corbyn so there's nothing they can do but put up with it.
yes - I believe pretty much anybody would prevail over Corbyn - hes toxic
Essentially... Who do you think is the better manager klopp or ole...
Who do you want to win at the weekend
We've had this discussion before. That business wouldn't exist (certainly not for any length of time) as I wouldn't buy from them and I'm assuming you wouldn't and 99% of the public wouldn't either. I'd advocate for no-one else to buy from them and also advocate for the right of anyone to protest at their existence. Likewise I'd bring the restaurant to the attention of the press who would provide wholesale negative coverage.
Therefore it's clearly a fatuous question as the illegality of it has no bearing on its existence. I think the best way to punish ignorant idiots is for them to lose a portion of their wealth by remaining true to their own stupid ideology. Others might feel a slap on the wrist from big brother is the correct way but in my opinion with my method they learn the stupidity of their actions, by your method they resent the law and double down on their idiotic beliefs.
Do you think that climate change should be illegal?
Last edited:
These business did exist
So why did the civil rights act of 1964 include outlawing discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce ?
Well then you don't agree with the civil rights act. I don't want to come across rude(Although I always fail at this)but can you at least see now why people think your type of politics is just astrology for white guys.
What ?
Last edited:
Always the big flaw with libertarianism. It never actually stands up to history in any way. It’s just some fantasy ideology about how great things would be if people could do whatever they wanted (and also not actually act like people at the same time).
"White gas stations would not allow black people to use their rest rooms or drink from the water fountain."
good grief.
The stupidity of these people arguing against what the Civil Rights Act tried to rectify.
good grief.
The stupidity of these people arguing against what the Civil Rights Act tried to rectify.
I guess its nice people are into something, maybe ? But yeah its a complete fantasy.
True. Thatcher said there is no such thing as society. Except there is, it's how the world is organised, people rely on others in countless ways to get the things done that they depend on. Even if they don't know it.
Wait... I get it now... Are you the geriatric evil CEO from a 1980s life-swap comedy?
Last edited:
John McDonnell, in his infinite wisdom, said on BBC Breakfast this morning that the backstop wasn't even a big issue for Labour. 
He’s not lying. Labour wanted closer integration and had no issues with the backstop. Their main sticking points were Health & Environmental alignment and Workers Rights. Although one suspects it’s mostly because it was a Tory dealJohn McDonnell, in his infinite wisdom, said on BBC Breakfast this morning that the backstop wasn't even a big issue for Labour.
This
indeed whenever they say :
we have to stop a damaging tory brexit,
it always sounds like the emphasis is on:
we have to stop a damaging TORY brexit
suspect they will install a 3 line whip to vote against the boris deal - some will ignore anyway (perhaps 5 or 6?) I think and then labour will be on around 238mps... rapidly approaching ed miliband teritiory
Nail on head sentence.
Like I said, there's been some People's Vote stuff, which you helpfully listed.
That is kind of the point she was making. The full quote: "If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."
She was describing society but as a network of mutual relationships based on personal responsibility, rather than society being an arm of government (I think). Personally, I think it was a bit one-eyed but I don't think her view was quite as nihilistic as has been made out.
Thanks. Was she not basically saying it's up to people to be charitable then? Leaving an awful lot of holes and cracks for the unfortunate, as she puts it, to fall in to, often through no fault of their own? Not such a beautiful tapestry for them then. It does go to the heart of whether you lean to left or right though, I suppose.
In terms of libertarian economies the two most libertarian which were pre-China Hong Kong and Singapore both were/are very successful, especially given their regions. It's like any political ideology though, there's a spectrum. The most extreme form of libertarianism (anarchism) for example is similar to communism in that it would and could never work.
I think historically the correct political term for laissez faire economics combined with maximum civil liberties, with government big enough to protect its citizens but small enough for citizens not to be coerced by government in every facet of their lives; would be liberalism rather than libertarianism. However most people that define themselves as liberals (as I do) are (mis)interpreted as supporting Liberal Democrat policy, which is not the case. So I suppose I'm agreeing with you in the sense that the purest and most extreme form of libertarianism (anarchism), just like and other political view (e.g. socialism), is a fantasy ideology.
I thought this was the Brexit thread, got confused
Some MPs have already come out saying they want to vote for the deal but senior Labour figures are pressuring them to abstain.