Jeremy Corbyn

So how the hell did this happen ?

Latest YouGov poll : CON 38%, LAB 31%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%.

Weeks of unrestrained attacks by the New Labour clique against the Labour leader, massive support from their friends in the media, Blairite MPs going on strike and refusing to oppose the Tories in Parliament, the Tories have a new popular leader, apparently, and the Tory lead over Labour is only 7% ? WTF ? Seriously, WTF ?

And the LibDems, the allegedly "centre party", haven't benefited at all. WTF is going on ? Even when the Labour Party were united behind Gordon Brown the Tories managed to get poll leads of over 20%.

OK this could be just a rogue poll, and it probably is, but out of all the pollsters YouGov have the best track record (TNS still give the Toties a double digit lead) and even if you allow for a huge margin of error it still suggests that there has already been some sort of slight recovery in Labour support - and the leadership issue hasn't even been sorted ! Although obviously no one thinks Owen Smith will actually win.

The next general election is still probably 4 years away and although I won't predict election results, I don't possess a crystal ball, I had previously said that the Tories would [i]probably[/i] win it.

However after the monumental acts of sabotage carried out by the New Labour clique over many weeks it seemed pretty certain to me that the Tories would easily win the next GE, I just didn't think that huge damage could be healed in even 4 years - it would take the next intake of Labour MPs to do that imo. But now I genuinely don't know.

It will be interesting to see if there are anymore 'rogue polls' where a double digit Tory lead disappears in a matter of just a couple of weeks, specially after Conference and the leadership contest.

When Harold Wilson famously said that a week was a long time in politics he certainly wasn't overstating the point imo.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

So how the hell did this happen ?

Latest YouGov poll : CON 38%, LAB 31%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%.

Calculator says that with predicted boundary change that would give a Conservative majority of 52

Go Jezza! 😀

The rail unions are doing their best to remind normal people what they would be voting for if they were to vote for Corbyn, or either of the candidates really.

Go Unions !!!

Calculator says that with predicted boundary change that would give a Conservative majority of 52

What the Croydon Communist fails to comment on is the persistence of UKIP Farage has gone, they have a acrimonious leadership election, their primary reason for existence has come and gone yet they are still the third party. If Red UKIP emerges from this a Corbyn led labour party is going even more problems

Ernie isn't really paying attention to this pointless, stupid thread, by the way. No point trying to engage him on it, as he's not paying it any attention at all. Oh no.

(Awaits supercilious comment about me only making glib, lightweight comments. Sits ready with "Meh" as a response.)

dragon - Member

Just a thought on labour being irrelevant in Scotland, they shouldn't be right now. Scotland had been in recession for nearly a year, Corbyn and his mates should be up here all the time hammering home the message that SNP are failing and that they can change it for the better. Instead virtually nothing

Dugdale pretty much slammed the door in his face when he was elected, is the issue there. For Corbyn's part, he inexplicably seems to respect her decision making and leadership and has left her to get on with... whatever it is that she does. Miliband was the same with Murphy.

(there's a weird irony here; when scottish labour had decent leaders, westminster labour treated them like a branch office. Now that scottish labour is led by clowns, westminster labour says "well you know what's best for Scotland" and lets them get on with it)

Double post

Binners you a Website developer- serious question

No, he runs a hedge fund, based in Berkeley Square. Unless he's in his Monaco office, that is.

Shame I need some graphical development skills... but hedge funds need attention

Those Cohibas don't smoke themselves, comrade!

No, he runs a hedge fund, based in Berkeley Square. Unless he's in his Monaco office, that is.

You forgot that he is also the secretive billionaire owner of Gregg's

Greggsanista

Might be having his tea, it's tea time in Yorkshire, just had my tea..

I believe he's on [i]The Other Side[/i].

Not just of the Pennines, but also he's an evil traitorous Red Tory, donchankow.

, but also he's an evil traitorous Red Tory, donchankow.

David Nuttall is his godparent, and he has a relation that was a close friend of William the Conqueror

I think he went to Eton, too. After all, you can't have an opinion if you're posh.

What Manchester.. that changes things

Good job you lot told me the truth and exposed Binners... thanks lads.

exposed Binners

Do you want to see [i]those[/i] photos as well?

Slight thread hijack. Serious question apart from the Independance debate and all that guff. How does the average Scot view the ability of the SNP to actually govern and run the Country with regard to employment, housing, education and healthcare? It's been 15 yrs since my better Scottish half left Scotland to move to England and just curious if people think the SNP are delivering on the everyday mundane stuff?

Slight thread hijack. Serious question apart from the Independance debate and all that guff. How does the average Scot view the ability of the SNP to actually govern and run the Country with regard to employment, housing, education and healthcare? It's been 15 yrs since my better Scottish half left Scotland to move to England and just curious if people think the SNP are delivering on the everyday mundane stuff?

The non average Scot I chat to think the bubble will burst

Ask yourself why so many kids around Edinburgh are privately educated

last time i ate a gregg's sausage roll i got the trots.
not so much an entryist as an exitist.

Right so Labours approach to Scotland is just to ignore it? Northwind I think your reply is the only one who gives a reasoned answer to my query.

'How are SNP seen by typical Scot', well like every party some are for and some against. But i do think they are more marmite than most political parties for obvious reasons. I think the bubble will probably burst but it will be more a slow puncture than a bang.

[quote=oldmanmtb ]Binners you a Website developer- serious question

Expert crayonist on the computer

http://www.adamrowlinson.co.uk/

dragon - Member

Right so Labours approach to Scotland is just to ignore it?

I wouldn't say so. Certainly ignore isn't the right word. I think they're aware that they've mishandled Scotland badly in the recent past and they're now wary of making the same mistake again- with a decent Scottish leader, it could well have been the right move. It's just that unfortunately the last leader seemed to be genuinely mentally ill, and you wouldn't leave the new one in charge of your plants if you went on holiday. But at the same time, even with Corbyn's initial popularity up here it'd still have been potentially disastrous for him to overrule Dugdale.

Also, to be fair to them it is a conundrum; Scottish Labour and Westminster Labour want/need to do different things. We don't really [i]want[/i] to vote Labour as they have been lately, or Lib Dem for that matter, and we no longer do so out of a sense of civic responsibility to keep the Tories out. And "unionists" have turned Scotland into a stick to beat them with in England.

But it doesn't feel like they've really grappled with this at all. There's a comfortable myth that Labour love- "We got a kicking in Scotland for siding with the Tories in the indyref". It's obvious bullshit; their decline and the SNP rise pre-date the indyref. "Red Tories" is nothing to do with aligning with the Tories, it dates back to Blair. But it's a comfort blanket that seems to allow them to not engage with the reality; we fell out of love with them, then we stayed together out of habit and duty, but finally we met someone new and dumped them.

There's a comfortable myth that Labour love- "We got a kicking in Scotland for siding with the Tories in the indyref". It's obvious bullshit; their decline and the SNP rise pre-date the indyref.

Labour Scottish vote share, General elections (with SNP in brackets by way of comparison)

'79 - 41.5% (13.1%)
'83 - 35.1% (11.8%)
'87 - 42.4% (14.1%)
'92 - 39.0% (21.5%)
'97 - [b]45.6[/b]% (22.1%)
'02 - 43.3% (20.1%)
'05 - 39.5% (17.7%)
'10 - 42.0% (19.9%)
'15 - 24.3% ([b]50.0[/b]%)

So much for the collapse in Labour support due to Iraq/Blair/Centrism

[b]Edit[/b], Interestingly, Ive just replicated those figures for whole UK Labour vote share:

'79 - 36.9%
'83 - 27.6%
'87 - 30.8%
'92 - 34.4%
'97 - 43.2%
'02 - 40.7%
'05 - 35.2%
'10 - 29.0%
'15 - 30.4%

Despite the 'collapse' in support for Blair/Labour post Iraq, they still did far better than any election but 79 (and look what happens every time they move left...)

Bastard right wingers, winning elections.

I do think I agree with Northwinds analysis however i except those numbers paint a slighly different picture. My explanation would be that it takes a while for non-swing voters to start considering leaving a party that they've always supported, but once they do then the network effect means it happens in large numbers quickly.

Key thing bribing it back to Corbyn is what does he or any other leader, do about it? I'd probably sack Dugdale as she is useless for someone charismatic to lead and then build a decent strategy (the tricky part). Going to be hard while the Tories attempt to mop up the Unionist vote.

ninfan - Member

Despite the 'collapse' in support for Blair/Labour post Iraq, they still did far better than any election but 79

The Iraq War was in 2003. In 2005 with Blair still leader Labour according to your figures did even worse than they had done in 1979.

And you think this proves that Blair and the Iraq War had no effect on the Labour vote ?

How did you come to this interesting conclusion ?

The Iraq War was in 2003. In 2005 with Blair still leader Labour according to your figures did even worse than they had done in 1979.

But better than they did in 83, 87, 92, 10 or 15

Wow, The Iraq invasion made them [b]so[/b] unpopular.

Yes, Labour seem to have become unpopular after the Iraq War. As you figures show in 2005, 2 years after the Iraq War started, the Labour vote was lower than it was in 1979 - when they lost the general election.

And in 2010 and 2015, which was obviously also after the start of the Iraq War, the Labour vote fell even further.

So in [i][b]every general election since the start of the Iraq War[/b][/i] the Labour vote has been lower than it was in 1979, when they lost the general election.

Now I don't know if this loss of support for Labour post 2003 can all be attributed to the start of the Iraq War. Personally I think it's extremely unlikely, to say the least. I imagine that many other factors also contributed.

But you seem to bizarrely think that this drop in support for Labour after 2003 proves that the Iraq War had nothing to do with Labour's falling popularity.

To say that your conclusion is very strange would be an understatement.

But it shows that even despite the calamitous effect of the Iraq war, Blairs 'hardcore right of centre neo-liberal free market politics were still electable.

And that every time the LP move left (and let us remember very clearly that both GB and EM were very clearly portrayed as moves back to the left and 'old Labour values' at the time) they move further away from electoral success.

Which is nice 😀

William Hague and Michael Howard big factors in those elections.

And for that matter Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband. Neither Gordon Brown or Ed Milliabnd moved to the left. Yes Dave called him red Ed but thats about it! Did he actually have any policies? Freeze energy prices um ...

Dude; did you forget there's a Scottish parliament? 😆 By ignoring Holyrood you ignore 2 absolute watershed moments- 2007, first SNP administration. 2011, first majority in Holyrood. Here's some lines showing what you missed

[img] [/img]

Makes a mockery of any claim that Labour's decline in Scottish happened recently, or post-2014, or because of the indy ref. There [i]was[/i] no indy ref, for any of these data points.

As for Westminster, there's no way to remove the impact of FPTP and tactical voting, and I don't think I need to explain how critical that is, especially up here. The gamechanger in 2015 was that every seat was in contention- until then, across much of Scotland a vote for the SNP was a wasted vote at best, and often it was seen as opening the door to the Tories.

Expenses from 2010-2015 exclusive of office costs:

Jeremy Corbyn £5,618
Angela Eagle £57,943
Owen Smith £150,681

and let us remember very clearly that both GB and EM were very clearly portrayed as moves back to the left and 'old Labour values' at the time

Really ? I have always associated 3 principle characters behind the "New Labour" project.

In no particular order Peter Mandelson - the marketing guru behind the project, he coined the term New Labour, Tony Blair - the front man, and Gordon Brown - the actual brains behind the whole project.

I think I'm right is saying that it was Gordon Brown who dreamt up the slogan [i]"Labour is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime"[/i] for Tony Blair to use when he was an ambitious young Shadow Home Secretary under John Smith.

It was Gordon Brown that Tony Blair let deal with all the boring difficult to understand stuff at the Treasury. And the Chancellorship is central to a political regime's policies.

The Blair–Brown deal, or Granita Pact, went to the very heart of the New Labour project, without it there would have been no New Labour.

.

Anyway, back on topic. I found this article interesting :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/11/jeremy-corbyn-earns-geordie-acclaim-at-debate-against-owen-smith ]Jeremy Corbyn earns geordie acclaim at debate against Owen Smith[/url]

I particularly liked this :

[i][b]Speaking after the debate, Nick Gilks, a retired police officer, said the evening’s event had not changed his mind and he would be voting for Corbyn. “I didn’t know who he was when I first went to the hustings last year,” he said. “I know him now and there was nothing I saw in there tonight that is going to change my mind and I’m not a Trot.”[/i][/b]

Although I also found this quite interesting :

[i][b]One woman, who asked not to be named, said: “I find the Corbyn hysteria quite irritating, regardless of what you think [of the candidates]. [The audience is] just not listening. I went in there with an open mind but the hysteria really was making me switch off.”[/i][/b]

I have to say that when I went to one of Corbyn's local rallies during the leadership campaign last year I found the over-the-top sycophantic rhetoric expressed by [i]some[/i] people rather nauseating.

OK, I thought, he might be a breath of fresh air compared to most other politicians, but let's not get carried away - at the end of the day he's just some bloke.

And ironically that sort of stuff goes completely against what Corbyn is all about. A point which some people had obviously missed.

Although it has to be said that I'm now more supportive of Corbyn than I was then. But I still only see him as some geezer saying mostly the right things.

I'd probably sack Dugdale as she is useless for someone charismatic to lead and then build a decent strategy (the tricky part). Going to be hard while the Tories attempt to mop up the Unionist vote.

Its not just "up here", ducks.

Time for some honesty - Corbyn, Smith (who?),[s] Eagle[/s] None of them are PMs in the making. They are not even party leaders. That is blindingly obvious. Corbyn only got bought in to widen the debate, but then the law of unintended consequences set in again. He wants the job as much as he wanted to stay in Europe.

But parties go through these phases - remember Tories with IDS and Howard. "The quiet man" was not for anything other than weak opposition!!! It seems to be part of a necessary internal cleansing process although this time you have the complication of the cuckoos taking over the nest.

Lets not forget that Labour are held back first and fromost by the perception that they cannot be trusted on the economy. None of this current charade nor the calls of the [s]Croydonistas[/s] Corbynistas for a inglorious bygone age is going to change that. They simply make it worse.

So it will be Panto time for quite some period.

people up here having become more "interested" in what the parties "do"

If there is a lesson from Scotland, it's that this is simply not true. The gap between what the SNP say and what they do is massive. But as epic conceded earlier, they are forgiven because the ends justify the means. They continue to benefit form the light touch scrutiny that typified the City of London's approach to documentation in the run up to the GFC. We shall see if the results are the same,,,,

So how the hell did this happen ?

OK this could be just a rogue poll, and it probably is,

😀

as u sed many times mr hurtmore
all post truth politics
labour don't need principles or policies
just a slogan on a bus
where will it end?
hard to be optimistic
for labour or country

Expenses from 2010-2015 exclusive of office costs:

Jeremy Corbyn £5,618
Angela Eagle £57,943
Owen Smith £150,681

outofbreath - Member

😀

And the next word had you not your ever so slightly edited the post was the word "but".

I wonder if this perhaps signifies a deeper meaning ?

teamhurtmore - Member

None of this current charade nor the calls of the Croydonistas Corbynistas for a inglorious bygone age is going to change that. They simply make it worse.

And yet it is New Labour/the Blairites who are living in the past under the mistaken belief that we are still in the 1980s or 90s.

They are either incapable of understanding, or deluding themselves, or far more likely too terrified of change, to accept that the world has changed. And changed in a way that they really don't like.

And they won't simply ignore those changes which are reflected in the massive growth of the Labour Party under a new and very different leader, they will also ignore the SNP's now political hegemony in Scotland, the growth of UKIP in England and Wales, and the universal and now well-established collapse of the LibDem vote, as they try to kid themselves and everyone else that the political solutions of 20 or 30 years ago are still applicable.

What an ignominious ending for the New Labour dinosaurs.

EDIT : This living the the past and being unable to understand that the world has changed isn't confined to the PLP, it goes right across the political establishment.

There only one reason that David Cameron agreed to hold a referendum on the EU and that reason is that he felt absolutely certain that the British electorate would vote to stay in.

20 or 30 years that would have been an absolute certainty, in fact the Labour Party's opposition to the EEC in 1983 was probably the greatest contributing factor to their electoral defeat.

Cameron was incapable of understanding that the world has changed, so has politics.

theauthorities - Member

as u sed many times mr hurtmore
all post truth politics
labour don't need principles or policies
just a slogan on a bus
where will it end?
hard to be optimistic
for labour or country

It's a shame that doesn't rhyme tbh, as it's otherwise perfect.