Jeremy Corbyn

This might sound a bit wierd, but I'm beginning to think "Jeremy Corbyn. **** it, why not?" 😯

Just looking at the numbers in that poll, and they seem pretty contradictory tbh...

"Some 57 per cent of Labour voters said they would stick with the party if he becomes leader and 36 per cent of Greens would switch to him. But 26 per cent of Labour voters said they would abandon the party. And he would pick up only 8 per cent of Tory votes, 9 per cent of Ukip votes and 18 per cent of Lib Dem votes."

Miliband took 29%, so if 26% of labour voters abandon the party that still leaves 21.5%. That's even without taking into account the votes gained from other parties, which is 2,104,902 in total.

(shows working:
26% of labour voters is 2430299.04 people
36% of greens 416740.68
8% of tories 904008.72
9% UKIP 349298.91
18% Lib Dem 434855.16
Leaving aside SNP)

So... The article and the "voting intentions" part of the poll say 22%, but the vote transfer maths says about 28%. With 20% of Labour voters undecided.

TBH that's so daft that the simple explanation is that I've gone off on a wrong one, but if so I don't know where... If I'm right then the poll basically doesn't stand up to sanity checking.

Polly Toynbee (good God can't believe I've written her name) has some decent (shocker!) analysis of Corbyn and votes. She notes that to win the election he has to bring Tory voters over, the numbers just don't work otherwise.

So that's his challenge if he wins the leadership, what policies has he got that will move voters from Tory over to Labour?

So that's his challenge if he wins the leadership, what policies has he got that will move voters from Tory over to Labour?

Well a fair few conservatives like me have voted for him 🙂

Perhaps not in a general election though, all things considered.

binners - Member
The labour party (Jezza included) doesn't seem to have learnt that it has to have a policy on ALL the issues. Not just the ones that it personally wants to talk about.

If something like immigration comes up, a subject that appears to be a very touchy subject with the upper middle class liberals presently running the party, it simply refuses to engage with it....

Perhaps he'll fix that by not letting psychopaths control our "defence" policy.

Then instead of destabilising middle east countries and creating massive waves of refugees, we can have [i]happy multicultural societies living in peaceful harmony with each other[/i].

dragon - Member
Polly Toynbee (good God can't believe I've written her name) has some decent (shocker!) analysis of Corbyn and votes. She notes that to win the election he has to bring Tory voters over, the numbers just don't work otherwise.

Surely just getting the disillusioned non-voters off their bums to vote would do that.

After all, if you're one of the underclass, and the major parties have similar peasant-crushing policies, what is the point of voting?

There's millions of votes just sitting on their arses on election day.

The SNP showed they can be mobilised.

Miketually Labour could also self destruct during the EU debate if led by Corbyn as he is generally opposed to the EU (voted against Maastricht and Lisbon treaties) and his policies of re-nationalisation of key industries as I understand it would fall foul of EU rules.

dragon - Member

Miketually Labour could also self destruct during the EU debate if led by Corbyn as he is generally opposed to the EU (voted against Maastricht and Lisbon treaties) and his policies of re-nationalisation of key industries as I understand it would fall foul of EU rules.

Ya, but he will open the flood gate to world population innit! Bet his ideal is the billion people march with red flags. 😆

There's millions of votes just sitting on their arses on election day.

The SNP showed they can be mobilised.

There aren't and the SNP didn't. The SNP did see a bit of an uplift in voting, but the numbers are not enough to change an election result from Tory to Labour. England if you look at the numbers are more engaged with GE voting than Scotland, so there are less English 'non-votes' to pick up.

Northwind - Member

Just looking at the numbers in that poll, and they seem pretty contradictory tbh...

I've found the Corbyn thing to be very interesting. The rival candidates do seem to struggle with dealing with him. What is apparent to me is that he offers and alternative to the status quo and something different to the current crop of would be prime ministers. Perhaps he could be successful, not trying to win back SNP seats or taking votes from UKIP but by tackling one of the largest proportions of the electorate - those who didn't even bother to vote.

From todays Guardian some proper numbers:

Labour needs 94 more English and Welsh seats. To win those, four out of five of the requisite new Labour voters need to be stolen from the Tories. Perhaps Corbyn is a game-changer, but without Tory votes he needs to be a magician.

Even if he caused a turnout surge as strong as the SNP’s in those marginals – 7.4% – and even if all of them voted Labour, that only yields 52 seats. Even if he won every Lib Dem and Green voter, that’s not enough. If Ukip collapses, their vote divides equally between Labour and Tory, so no use. The old out-vote the young, so can he win more over-65s?

Polly Toynbee (good God can't believe I've written her name) has some decent (shocker!) analysis of Corbyn and votes. She notes that to win the election he has to bring Tory voters over, the numbers just don't work otherwise.

Maybe so, but equally, he won't win without winning SNP votes back.

@kona I've posted on this a coupLe of times, the process is a shambles as anyone can vote for £3. I've no doubt I could have registered and voted, there is no way they could have excluded me (unless doing as some people have suggested which is anyone they haven't heard of who votes for Corbyn). I'm not a member of any party or ever have been etc. The Telegrapfh pointed this out a month ago.

I can't believe people are still claiming immigration isnt an issue and a very real one. The Labour Party commissioned some research post their defeat and immigration was the number 1 or 2 issue with voters who'd moved away from Labour in the key seats they have to win back to form a government. When the news is full of pictures of the disruption at Calais, you've got tear gas going off in Macedonia and the Hungarains (first Schengen state on the way Orth) is building a border fence/wall over 100 miles long people will make their own mind up about immigration. There was a major riot in Germany outside an immigration centre in the last couple of days.

We have two types of immigration in the UK, uncontrolled from within the EU and controlled from everywhere else.

@dragon, yes exactly. That's why IMO you need to appeal to the centre ground to win a UK election.

Corbyn isn't going to make Labour more credible and that was a key weakness in 2015 for the party. Labour cannot win an election with the party faithful, they need to win over / win back people who've kept the party and most of those have left from the centre and not from the left. Getting back the Green Party votes and even winning back Scotland won't make enough of a difference.

The old out-vote the

That may change...

Maybe so, but equally, he won't win without winning SNP votes back.

Depends how you define winning, Scotland is a red herring as the SNP would find it difficult not to support a left wing government in the UK so the key is to win the most seats*, but that is a lot less than 90. Once this happens it is all to play for. That said I don't think Corbyn is the one to achieve this, but that is a personal view.

* May not even need to do this, depriving the Tories of a majority is the first step.

That may change...

Corbyn isn't going to make Labour more credible and that was a key weakness in 2015 for the party.

I don't know. His anti austerity stance has been backed as a sound plan and voters appreciate someone who knows where he stands and seems to have conviction. Cameron's a bastard, but you know he's a bastard and he doesn't really attempt to play it any other way. People had no faith in Ed and didn't really know who he was or what he was about. I reckon Corbyn will do better than most think.

To win those, four out of five of the requisite new Labour voters need to be stolen from the Tories. Perhaps Corbyn is a game-changer, but without Tory votes he needs to be a magician.

Given what a low turnout we have he does not need to steal a single vote from any other party. If he can persuade non voters to turn up that alone will suffice.

I also think there was a lot of not voting for ed ; even labour party supporters were "inspired " by hi,

Not

What @mefty says, it's not Scotland Labour need to win back to form a Government.

I don't know. His anti austerity stance has been backed as a sound plan

By both Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.

Some people from Venezuela and Zimbabwe did question the policy of printing money until it had no worth, but don't worry, they have been decried as tories and enemies of the revolution.

cranberry - Member

I don't know. His anti austerity stance has been backed as a sound plan

By both Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.

Some people from Venezuela and Zimbabwe did question the policy of printing money until it had no worth, but don't worry, they have been decried as tories and enemies of the revolution.

Hugo Chavez is dead...and has been for over two years.

That's the trouble with facts. As shown yesterday, with some embarrassing posts in the IDS thread, sometimes they get in the way of some lazy trolling.

Junkyard - lazarus

IMHO some folk massively overplay and overstate the immigration card
The right wing press bang on about and it gets traction even amongst traditional labour/left wing folk like Binners

The free movement of labour is a right-wing dream come true which is why it is central to the EU's neo-liberal right-wing agenda and why European conservatives defend it so passionately.

It treats people not like living beings with needs, emotions, relationships, etc, but as nothing more than a commodity to be used and exploited in pursuit of greater profit.

A completely unrestricted open door immigration policy while clearly irrational for a country such as the UK allows however the low wages and/or high levels of unemployment in a country such as Slovakia to be fully exploited.

I allows employers whose primary object is to maximizes profit with no regard for the greater good and any social responsibility to employ, for example, a fully skilled worker from a low wage economy rather than force them, due to skilled labour shortages, to train unskilled UK school leavers.

The UK has no responsibility to solve or reduce unemployment in other countries by importing their unemployment problems. Foreign nationals, despite the lies peddled by racists and bigots, do not come to the UK to scrounge, they come to work. And that is precisely what they do.

Furthermore there is something underlying racist about the majority of those who champion the EU free movement/open door policy as they don't extend the same logic beyond the borders of Europe. If completely unrestricted immigration from other EU countries is acceptable and logical then why is it not from countries such as Bangladesh or Nigeria? If we have a social responsibility to 700,000 Poles who face lower wages and higher unemployment in their own country then why ffs don't we have a social responsibility to 700,000 Syrians fleeing war and brutality?

The UK doesn't actually have an 'open door policy', it has 'one door wide open and the other door shut' policy. It is a racist immigration policy which does an excellent job of avoiding appearing racist - foreign EU nationals can be black/arab/asian/etc don't you know.

Hang on a minute, I fully support free movement in EU and I'm a complete lefty.

Mind you, I'm very much in favour of opening up the borders further than the EU, too. Not all at once but gradually.

Rachel

This leadership election has shown up a lot of Tories as dishonest chancers. And then to brag about it- beggars belief!

Hang on a minute, I fully support free movement in EU and I'm a complete lefty

can you agree with free market fundamentalism [i]and[/i] be a complete lefty ?

This leadership election has shown up a lot of Tories as dishonest chancers. And then to brag about it- beggars belief!

If the Labour Party are stupid enough to give anyone in the country a £3 vote then the consequences are on their own head. £3 well spent IMO.

Actually I'd have qualified for a vote through my union membership anyway but the £3 vote was simpler. Go Jeremy!

This leadership election has shown up a lot of Tories as dishonest chancers. And then to brag about it- beggars belief!

If the Labour Party are stupid enough to give anyone in the country a £3 vote then the consequences are on their own head. £3 well spent IMO

Looks like you're spot on with your assessment, ctk 😉

Furthermore there is something underlying racist about the majority of those who champion the EU free movement/open door policy as they don't extend the same logic beyond the borders of Europe. If completely unrestricted immigration from other EU countries is acceptable and logical then why is it not from countries such as Bangladesh or Nigeria?

Because the free movement was set up when the EU was a collection of broadly similar economies. You can either have a welfare state or fully open borders. Not both.

But what about Jeremy? Off to start a new thread

Because the free movement was set up when the EU was a collection of broadly similar economies.

The similarity ends when you have 700,000 Poles living in the UK and nowhere near that number of Brits living in Poland. That doesn't suggest "broadly similar economies".

Assuming of course that it's not the weather and the food which attracts the Poles to the UK.

Foreign nationals, despite the lies peddled by racists and bigots, do not come to the UK to scrounge, they come to work. And that is precisely what they do.

But do they not sometimes then go home again taking money and skills with them?

Foreign nationals, despite the lies peddled by racists and bigots, do not come to the UK to scrounge, they come to work. And that is precisely what they do.

That's precisely what people don't want to see. i.e. come to work.

It's all about competition and not much to do with the skin colour. People do not welcome competition unless they can stand a definite chance of gaining the upper hand and even if they can gain the upper hand now, the question remains as to whether their future generations can maintain that.

😯

The free movement of labour is a right-wing dream come true which is why it is central to the EU's neo-liberal right-wing agenda and why European conservatives defend it so passionately

Must be why the [uk]conservatives love it so much

One can also see why its advantageous to individuals to live where they choose anywhere in the EU [ or world for that matter]

Whilst Poles may come here we go to other countries and the figure is a fairly even balance 2.3 m v 2.2 million. IIRC before the eastern states joined we had more UK national abroad than immigrants.

Again we never hear of that in the news do we.

there is something underlying racist

* does any country have no restriction on immigration? Israel does but only for Jews IIRC anywhere else?

@kona I've posted on this a coupLe of times, the process is a shambles as anyone can vote for £3.

Aside from the immigration tangent (which I think is a red herring BTW)....

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/with-up-to-100000-now-barred-labour-has-become-less-a-broad-church-and-more-a-secret-society-10471163.html ]100,000 rejected voters is an alarming number[/url] (if true).

Seems to me this could be the labour partiy's 'no tuition fees' moment where they incompetently betray their new support base in a misguided attempt at looking all 'mature' and 'credible' when really all people want is for them to stand up for their principles and draw a line in the sand. They'll go the same way as the liberal democrats too if they pass up this opportunity.

Must be why the [uk]conservatives love it so much

Yes the Tories are committed to the free movement of Labour, as they are of course to the EU. A few comments and token gestures to appease Daily Mail reading bigots and racists doesn't take that away.

* does any country have no restriction on immigration?

Yes, I know for a fact that as long as you don't have a criminal record anyone can choose to live in Argentina. Argentina is the 8th largest country in the world with a population considerably smaller than the UK, they actively encourage immigration to it as it is an under exploited territory which they wish to further develop.

Its neither helpful nor accurate to claim this anymore that it would be fair for me to say your attitude of british jobs for british workers is racist.

It is perfectly accurate to point out that some people who are happy with white immigration from Europe but not with black immigration from Africa and Asia are racist. And I don't think there's any thing fair about claiming that a commitment to the UK population suggests that I am a racist. That commitment extends to a young black unqualified school leaver who stands less chances of employment in the UK than a skilled Pole does, an appalling and intolerable state of affair imo.

It is a fact that those who are descendants of immigrants are among the most disadvantaged in finding employment in the UK, how is that even vaguely acceptable ffs?

The similarity ends when you have 700,000 Poles living in the UK and nowhere near that number of Brits living in Poland. That doesn't suggest "broadly similar economies".

Poland were not members when the open borders began.

[quote=mefty ]Depends how you define winning, Scotland is a red herring as the SNP would find it difficult not to support a left wing government in the UK

So is he going to go into the election having agreed that he will happily rely on the support of the SNP to form a government, or will he recognise that as being a potential vote loser? Are we ignoring the supposed effect of people not voting Labour in England because they didn't want the SNP in power, or has that been debunked as a myth (TBH I don't know, but such theories seemed to have a lot of credibility at the time).

aracer - Member

Are we ignoring the supposed effect of people not voting Labour in England because they didn't want the SNP in power, or has that been debunked as a myth

It's not been debunked; but nobody attempted to present a counterargument last time so we don't know how that could have played.

It was one of the moments that most defined Ed's uselessness tbh- the Tories set the tone (which bordered on the deranged- Sturgeon the most dangerous woman in britain, "we cannot let these people (Scots) have a voice in our (also their) parliament", coalitions are dominated by their minority partner even though we're in a coalition right now and that's clearly not the case, all that... Flipflopped around for a while to maximise the damage, demonstrating himself to be weak and indecisive. Then eventually ruled out a coalition. It couldn't have been handled worse.

I'm not saying here that you can definitely counter the anti-scottish argument, xenophobia often plays well in politics. But we don't know, because nobody even tried.

[quote=aracer ]Are we ignoring the supposed effect of people not voting Labour in England because they didn't want the SNP in power, or has that been debunked as a myth (TBH I don't know, but such theories seemed to have a lot of credibility at the time).
a University of Manchester study into the causes of the 2015 general election result. BBC Parliament, 25 May 2015

Ed handled it poorly but at my local hustings it was a question asked and it was asked in we must avoid this/it will be risky type manner

How the tories sold the small parties bully large parties whilst in coalition is one of a masterclass in spin /shows the power of having the media on your side/ the electorate is stupid

IMHO it was an issue in England and probably scared/worried/affected the mythical floating voter to be scared.

Aye, Cruddas's report found 60% of english voters agreed with the statement that they would be "very concerned if the SNP were in government". Though, that was skewed to tory voters unsurprisingly (85%), and came at the end of the unchallenged anti-Scottish campaign. TBH I think the pitch gets harder with the increase of familiarity with the SNP, as with all "other = scary" campaigns, they fail once you meet the other and discover they're not scary after all. They're OUT TO EAT YOUR BABIES! But, there's been 60 of 'em in the house of commons for 5 years and they've not eaten my babies yet...

And the other point of the campaign, ie the attack on Miliband, wouldn't have worked with a competent leader.

But key point, Cruddas found the major reasons were a lack of economic confidence, and a lack of understanding of what Labour stood for. His main conclusion is "We can seek to change the views of the public, but it’s best not to ignore them."

Curtice's report is good reading too

"What Labour has to ask itself is not only why it failed to attract the support of voters who were concerned about the deficit, but also why it often struggled to secure the support of those who were doubtful about the way in which the deficit and the economy were being handled in the first place. Many of the latter were working-class voters among whom Labour suffered a sharp loss of support in 2010 which they failed to reverse in 2015. Labour needs to convince the electorate not only that it can run the economy well, but that it is capable of creating a more attractive economy. Then, perhaps, voters not just in England and Wales but in Scotland too would be willing to look at the party afresh once more."

How the tories sold the small parties bully large parties whilst in coalition is one of a masterclass in spin /shows the power of having the media on your side/ the electorate is stupid

If the electorate were "stupid" for believing Ed Miliband when he in effect agreed with the Tories with regards to the SNP, what does that make Ed Miliband?

.

Cruddas found the major reasons were a lack of economic confidence

Hardly surprising when the Labour leadership kept pretty much schtum and looked embarrassed and guilty every time the Tories and their sidekicks the LibDems accused them of screwing up the economy. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls all but apologized for causing the last global recession.

It's rather a tall order to expect the electorate to have confidence in people who don't have confidence in themselves.

ernie_lynch - Member

It's rather a tall order to expect the electorate to have confidence in people who don't have confidence in themselves.

Exactly. And ties perfectly into the other main reason Cruddas identifies, IIRC 31% of voters (not the public at large, those who voted) said they don't know what Labour stood for. That's as fundamental as you can possibly go- who'd ever vote for a party that they can't say "I know what you stand for"?

(I've not seen any further breakdown but I'm going to assume here that this 31% are going to be disproportionately floating voters/potential Labour- because the hardcore of opponents that will never vote for Labour, probably know or think they know exactly what they stand for)