You’re missing the point of what I said tjagain.

Nope – I just disagree with yo and think you are 180degrees out in your opinion on this

You are right about it being a few tens of thousands of voters who decide elections but yo are wrong on the effects of this sort of thing. showing some passion galvanizes the boots on the ground and that will have a far greater positive effect than the small negative effect and it will also make “can’t be bothereds” more likely to vote

Basis being that a relatively small proportion of the electorate tend to decide the result.

This is frequently trotted out, but appears a rather dubious, overly simplistic view of the way voting works.

It’s not an opinion, it’s just what the detail in the results shows.

If only I had a swing-O-meter I’d be famous

An awful lot of the ‘can’t be bothereds’ never really vote because they just don’t care, sadly.

No – its an opinion about the effect of this. Thats all it is. Your opinion

It is 100% true tho that its a small proportion of the electorate decide elections. Its the swing voters in marginal constituencies. some tens or maybe hundreds of thousands. Most seats are safe, most folk do not change their allegiance

Is ‘scum’ better or worse than ‘pleb’?

An opinion based on c16 years of data analysis.

How about yours?

It’s ok to say you don’t actually know and are basing it on gut.

Most seats are safe, most folk do not change their allegiance

If that’s the case then can you explain all those ‘Red wall’ seats that have been Labour since Jesus was a kid now all having Tory MP’s?

I’m with Dodds on this.

You have 16 years of data analysis that shows that labour mps calling tories scum reduces the vote?

You may have data to indicate this but how about the galvanising effect ofn the boots on the ground? How about all the other secondary effects?

aye right

Believe it or not, quite a few variables are taken into consideration – this isn’t exactly new and you’re not listing new ideas.

You’d do a micro review of what she said – what words, where was she, said to who, covered in what way on which media, time of day she said it, days out from polling (ie is there time for someone else to cock up or are we about to go into election silence).

If there is time and the severity permits you’d then panel with various groups: party members/past voters/non-voters/those who voted elsewhere, to tailor approach.

Eta: your ‘boots on the ground’ point. They HATE having to door knock and explain her type of behaviour, we saw this with Corbyn’s messaging on the whole brexit / anti semitic points

Believe it or not, quite a few variables are taken into consideration – this isn’t exactly new and you’re not listing new ideas.

You’d do a micro review of what she said – what words, where was she, said to who, covered in what way on which media, time of day she said it, days out from polling (ie is there time for someone else to cock up or are we about to go into election silence).

If there is time and the severity permits you’d then panel with various groups: party members/past voters/non-voters/those who voted elsewhere, to tailor approach.

Eta: your ‘boots on the ground’ point. They HATE having to door knock and explain her type of behaviour, we saw this with Corbyn’s messaging on the whole brexit / anti semitic points

Yes, Labour MUST be polite and play by he rules. Tories, on the other hand, can lie, be openly corrupt, sneak insults out of the sides of their mouths, break ministerial codes and coin it in for their mates.

Eleven years of this turgid shit we’ve had now, and I’m long since over being polite about it.

And your reaction is the reason the tories will stay in power.

Do you not get it? Labour have to be the sensible party, the safe pair of hands. They need to establish that reputation and then sooner or later the Tories will implode as they do every few decades. They’re about due.

Also – don’t tell me to **** off Pondo, grow up. eta: can see you’ve since deleted.

Less shouty, more thinky.

See you later.

See you later.

Never seen you post on here before. Makes you think…

Blindly following your bland nonsense has led us to a labour party that no one can say what they stand for

Its turned from a party of leaders to a party of followers. Its collapsed the core vote. Its ended the party as a political force in Scotland

Echo chambers and group think do not work – its emperors new clothes

Blair did not get elected by these methods and as soon as he adopted them the vote collapsed

the party needs to show some fire and to inspire people – not to follow

Learn the lesson from Scotland

Never seen you post on here before.

I’ve noticed them posting plenty of times before, just not in any politics threads. I wish I were so wise.

Considering the level of dishonesty, corruption and moral failure of the tory government I think Rayner was highly restrained in her language. As has been pointed out, Bevan considered the tories to be lower than vermin, which again is an accurate description of the whole of that party.

Scum is nowhere near powerful enough a response to cover the harm they are doing to the nation and in saying what she did she has gone up in my esteem.

And again, as has been mentioned, the tories are not slow or restrained in their verbal attacks on those who they dissagree with.

Meh.

Labour need to capitalise on the large number of people that already think Boris and chums are really **** ing this up, and show the people who haven’t yet realised that he is (because of his funny hair and hilarious bumbling persona) that he’s as incompetent as the rest of us know he is.

For some reason, Starmer’s calm, rational demeanour just isn’t cutting through on either of the above – they need somebody who can land some punches, not write essays.

Personally – I don’t like “scum”. I appreciate that it has history as a political insult – but the current shower of bastards in government are so appalling, that I think she could have done much better.

I think painting them as utterly incompetent is the way forward (maybe as corrupt too) and would resonate with the most people. They need to ring that bell every time there’s a ball’s-up or somebody buys some expensive wallpaper….. I don’t think that well is going to run dry anytime soon.

Given Nye Bevan described Tories as lower than vermin I don’t think there’s any need to get het up about describing lying murdering knobends as scum. Tories are scum. Or vermin. Take your pick.

Edit, here’s the quote:
“That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin”

I don’t want people calling me scum, so, I go around not being scum and therefore don’t get called it. A strange world, where calling the scum what they are is worse than being the scum.

I’m waiting for the day that Raynor properly loses her cool and goes on an all out attack, listing everything the BoJo government has done to inflict harm on the UK and the majority of the people in the name of their beloved “thriving economy”. Their recent mantra for instance of wages being up. For who? Certainly not low paid care staff, bottom of the ladder retail staff, nurses, hospital porters, bar staff…. the people at the bottom are being trampled. Raynor, at some point, will break and be the voice of millions in calling Boris and his cabinet (and by extension every Tory that backs them in parliamentary votes) a lot worse and a lot more than scum. They are creeping their way to becoming slave Lords ensuring that GDP continues to rise with just a select few benefitting to the cost of everyone else.

An opinion based on c16 years of data analysis.

@dereknova

What data? You’ve not provided any, so far it’s just an opinion as far as I can tell. And until you provide the referred to data, which you’ve had ample opportunity to do, I’ll just park those “stats” under “dubious to bullshit” and no I’ll not take you’re word for it. Your making the claim, you prove it.

Spent enough time here reading wildly bias political viewpoints to not make the mistake of believing unproven claims.

Is ‘scum’ better or worse than ‘pleb’?

Much the same thing depending on who is saying it. Shows us just how long this pathetic and dismal class/us and them conflict has existed really and that it’s not a symptom of modern capitalism but more a deeper human fault.

I think painting them as utterly incompetent is the way forward (maybe as corrupt too) and would resonate with the most people. They need to ring that bell every time there’s a ball’s-up or somebody buys some expensive wallpaper….. I don’t think that well is going to run dry anytime soon.

Needs to be Starmers consistent line, day after day, week after week.

Raynor, at some point, will break and be the voice of millions in calling Boris and his cabinet (and by extension every Tory that backs them in parliamentary votes) a lot worse and a lot more than scum.

Backed up by this. Someone has to show those being shat on by this government that there’s a party who will stand up for them, and they won get that message across being polite about it.

An awful lot of the ‘can’t be bothereds’ never really vote because they just don’t care, sadly.

Most people don’t care about something or other. I don’t care about football whereas to others it is their lives. For some people it is politics which just seems like a lot of nonsense, liars and so on with no relevance to them. Getting them to be interested is a lost cause and one party calling another party scum is not going to make any difference to that cause.

As someone who has hated the tories since I was 11 years old and become interested in politics I think it is great she called them scummy but I really don’t think it is going to help them overall.

Scum is C17H35COONa if I recall correctly from O level chemistry (it was nearly 35 years ago mind).

Raynor, at some point, will break and be the voice of millions in calling Boris and his cabinet (and by extension every Tory that backs them in parliamentary votes) a lot worse and a lot more than scum.

The problem is those millions took one look at the Labour party and chose to vote Conservative at the last election. They’ll probably do the same at the next one. Until Labour prioritse being electable over being ‘right’ or rather left, nothing will change.

Raynor has played an absolutely blinder… she is “attacking” the government, not playing internal party politics (yeah right), yet also getting many of her rivals to be the next leader to condemn her remarks, and in doing so lose the support of many party members who love her “taking it to the Tories” with “plain speaking”.

The Tories can carry on doing what they do (Poverty, Covid-deaths, Inequality etc) and we are concerned about the word ‘Scum’?

Go for it I say – we have to see some passion and fight.

When I read it I thought at last someone with some passion. Starmer is like a wet lettuce.
The tories are **** scum, tell it like it is.

Very much this. Rayner is A Good Thing. She’s got more balls than the rest of the ‘opposition’ put together.

I think it’s a particularly apt description in a “scum rising to top” way. I really can’t see anything against it other than to kick off a war of words with the Tories that Labour will find it difficult to win with the balance of the daily press against them.

For Labour (or, for balance, any other party than the Tories) to win will take a perfect storm of the Conservatives imploding and the others offering something that can be seen as attractive enough to the many for the press barons to think it worth their while to support it. If that happens, then Labour et al have a chance to get their message across and make it embarrassing to vote Tory and a positive to vote other. Rainer calling them out for what they are and backing it up MIGHT be the catalyst but as DerekNova points out, it’s very sensitive psychology and may backfire.

Having said that the old adage of do what you always do and you’ll get what you always get rings true in many ways so it’s worth a try to hold a candle to them and see what happens. They will need stamina though as we’re a long way from an election and it’s going to be a long fight.

After a good think.

“Scum” isn’t a nice word is it? It’s also vague, it’s a meaningless insult really, it doesn’t suggest any particular poor trait or action in the other person.

Also, “Tories are scum” is a tired old cry of the Left, it’s lazy, small minded and only speaks to fundamental Labour voters and supporters. It paints Labour as the ‘anti-Tories’ not as protentional leaders.

Where as “racist, homophobic misogynist” is arguably accurate, probably factual. It’s breaks down the ‘Tim, nice but dim’ loveable idiot imagine of Boris Johnson to show the Man’s true image.

Covid was a poison chalice for Labour, in emergences, most people want leaders to put aside their differences and portray a united front, yeah they can highlight where they would have acted differently, but if they showed any real resistance towards the Government they’re pretty much guaranteed to turn big groups of people against them, but now Covid is becoming less of the headline Labour should be nailing the Tories, Tax rises, shortages, panic buying all caused, at least in a great part, but Boris’s Brexit that’s breaking apart at the seams, they won’t be able to claim it’s a ‘Covid thing’ much or a global problem credibly much longer.

The pledge to remove business rates to try to fix the ‘high street’ will be a popular one, if they can offer a pledge to bring my FOM with the EU in any other name, they could be onto a winner.

Also, “Tories are scum” is a tired old cry of the Left, it’s lazy, small minded and only speaks to fundamental Labour voters and supporters. It paints Labour as the ‘anti-Tories’ not as protentional leaders.

+1

I’m sure it plays great with the die hard faithful, but will it actually win an election?

Labour had their ‘perfect’ leader at the last election and all that did was convince life long Labour votors to switch to the Tories. They don’t seem to have learnt anything from that. 100 seat majority for the Tories at the next election – if they kick Starmer out I’d wager it would be over 100….

but will it actually win an election?

It’ll win a leadership election.

Basis being that a relatively small proportion of the electorate tend to decide the result.

The vast majority of people who hear her words and feel all warm and fuzzy don’t actually matter for electioneering as they would have voted labour anyway.

You need to consider her words with a view of voting intention impact for previous non-labour voters.

I’m not sure you are deeply into the mindset of these critical swing voters. If they are so put off by yoo-bah politics, cheap headlines and poorly worded insults why on earth have they been voting tory? The reality is they vote for personality, and Boris seemed to have one (albeit not one any sane person would want in charge) and oppositions of all colours have lost theirs.

Learn the lesson from Scotland

And I suspect there might even be a few votes won North of the border with the Scum rhetoric (if allowed to continue) as potential labour voters start to realise the “enemy” are not the SNP…

A strange world, where calling the scum what they are is worse than being the scum.

This ^^

I’ve never understood why people get so bothered about bad language, when there are far more important ills* going unchecked.

Nepotism, racism, classism, etc etc.

For what it’s worth, I’m glad she’s made a point of fiercely rebuking Tory **** ups. At the very least, it’s made everyone take notice.

I think it’s worked out quite well for Labour during conference week. The media have spent a lot of time discussing whether the Tories are scum and some of that is bound to stick in the minds of the electorate. It’s the same technique the right used to tar Corbyn as a mad communist. Have some back scumbags!

It’ll win a leadership election.

I meant one that actually makes any difference to the real world!

I thought this article was spot on: Tom Harris in the Telegraph.

An old acquaintance of mine once told me casually that, finding herself outside the gates of Downing Street one evening in the first half of the last decade, shouted, at the top of her voice, her true feelings for the then prime minister, David Cameron. Her chosen descriptive was in the same biological league (and in the same geographical area) as “cervix” and began with the same letter.

This was a woman in her forties, a senior and respected NHS staff member and the mother of three children. In public.

Another former friend from my student days, and who is of a similar age to me, has, as her Facebook profile, a banner stating “F*** the Tories”, but without the asterisks.

I spent 34 years campaigning for the Labour Party, 14 of them as an MP. And I find myself dazed and confused when I see people who are old enough to know better using such ugly, childish terms to describe parties and politicians with whom they happen to disagree.

Something unpleasant has happened culturally, when language in which we indulged as young people and students (who, frankly, didn’t know any better) continues to be used by adults. Perhaps it’s all the internet’s fault: however bad your behaviour, you will always find someone somewhere willing to applaud it and to commend your foul language and one dimensional approach to complex political issues.

Who knows what might lie at the heart of Angela Rayner’s ugly outburst on Saturday night at Labour conference, in which she derided her political opponents as “a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute pile… of banana republic… Etonian… piece of scum…”

The diatribe falls some way short of Churchillian demagoguery and it sounded like a confused attempt at a complicated and rather niche word search puzzle, but you can see where the deputy Labour leader is going with it.

Naturally there have been various calls for Rayner to apologise, if not for her class-based vitriol then for the broader crime of lowering political discourse to a level where it might be refused entry to any respectable gutter. Keir Starmer, Rayner’s (nominal) boss, raged that he would “speak to her” about her remarks, a prospect which no doubt had Rayner shaking in her shoes.

But all the outrage – and the inevitable full-throated support from the likes of my two former friends described above – misses a more important point, more important than the loss of civility and courtesy from our public debate. And it is this: what Angela Rayner revealed, and what her supporters and apologists have unintentionally conceded, is that they have no idea why ordinary people vote Conservative.

This is vital. If you genuinely believe that your opponents are “scum” – in other words, undeserving of being described in human terms but only as something ugly to be disposed of – then it is surely fair to say that you cannot understand the mindset of a voter who would place a cross in a box next to the very party which has earned such contempt. It goes without saying that if Rayner genuinely believes what she said about Boris Johnson and his colleagues (and she is nothing if not genuine), then she is incapable of understanding what motivates, not just long term Conservative voters, but the many former Labour voters who supported Johnson in 2019.

And if you cannot get your head round the reasons why you lost the last election, how can you possibly hope to win any future one?

The key to political victory is to understand your opponents and, more importantly, to understand the reasons why ordinary people voted for them. Without that you’re flailing around in the dark shouting at no one and everyone.

Which is where Rayner and her supporters are right now. No empathy, no sympathy, no walking in other people’s shoes. Their own perception and their own experiences are all they need to form their opinions. Maybe they reckon it’s up to those voters in the Red Wall to try to understand where Rayner’s coming from.

That’s not how politics works, Ange.

At the root of all the “Tories are scum – Never kissed a Tory – Tories are lower than vermin” sloganising that passes for analysis in certain parts of the Labour Party lies a profound but endlessly comforting misconception: Labour people are morally superior to Conservative people. It matters not that there is not a microscopic particle of evidence to justify this conclusion; it is an article of faith among activists that is rarely, if ever, questioned. This moral superiority has hampered the movement for decades, because it allows adherents to skip the part where they need to justify their own moral motivations.

You have to admire the chutzpah of any political party that can be found to have failed to prevent anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and yet can still, with no appearance of self doubt, lambast others for racism from their pious high ground.

Labour is just a political party like all the others. It has some good policies and some bad policies, some good MPs and some bad ones, some fantastic activists and some who, frankly, shouldn’t be allowed outside without an adult accompanying them. From a moral perspective, Labour is no better – and in many cases far worse – than its opponents.

But so what? Political parties aren’t supposed to be like evangelical churches. Unless you’re the Liberal Democrats there’s little need to preach.

Rayner and her fellow Labour teenagers need to get a grip, come out of their room and apologise to their parents for slamming the door. More urgently, she and her party need to understand why ordinary decent people would rather vote for “scum” than for Labour.

That’s not how politics works, Ange.

Nice bit of condescending language. She’s pretty used to shrugging that off. Harris might have missed that politics is already in the gutter. The winners revel in pretending to live in it. Their opponents labelled “traitors”, the enemy, dangerous, accused of not loving or valuing their own country.