|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Labour voters (particularly in Oldham)
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
You beasts, you utter utter beasts.
When we said that this by-election was a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we meant that you should all stay at home and make the result a disaster for Labour. That way, we could get rid of Corbyn and replace him with one of the candidates you were supposed to vote for in the first place.
Honestly, anyone would think you actually want Labour to stand for socialism instead of the neo-liberalism we’d been conditioning you to accept since 1994.
Right, next year there’s the Scottish elections, and the local elections. Can you please get it right this time?
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Quite right. And how dare some of them vote by post ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[ 04. December 2015, 14:16: Message edited by: Spike ]
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Some of the voters even have foreign-sounding names! Like Farage, Portillo, Cameron, Mensch...
Won't someone please think of the English?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought the 62% figure (for Labour) was suspicious. It smacks of North Korean intimidation, plus it's obvious that Asians were being bribed to vote Labour, by the promise of a large kebab, and a signed photo of Jezza.
Still what can you expect? There are all the brown people with funny names (who don't speak English), and then superannuated mill workers who basically just want to watch Sky TV all day.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
You beasts, you utter utter beasts.
When we said that this by-election was a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we meant that you should all stay at home and make the result a disaster for Labour. That way, we could get rid of Corbyn and replace him with one of the candidates you were supposed to vote for in the first place.
Honestly, anyone would think you actually want Labour to stand for socialism instead of the neo-liberalism we’d been conditioning you to accept since 1994.
Right, next year there’s the Scottish elections, and the local elections. Can you please get it right this time?
Depends who's asking for what really - some on the right appear to be suggesting that some Oldham Tories/LibDems, etc loaned Labour their votes to keep him in place and make sure the job of Labour's destruction is finished (believing some of the press that they were in danger of losing to UKIP and triggering a crisis for Jeremy).* The Guardian on the other hand probably did feel exactly as you write.
As ever, people will see what they want to see.
*Certainly there does seem to be a prevailing mood in the last few weeks/months amongst the Tory commentariat that Corbyn needs to be kept in post for as long as possible. This may of course blow up in their faces as the people of Britain see the light and acclaim him enthusiastically but I assume it goes without saying that they aren't putting money on that happening.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
You beasts, you utter utter beasts.
When we said that this by-election was a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we meant that you should all stay at home and make the result a disaster for Labour. That way, we could get rid of Corbyn and replace him with one of the candidates you were supposed to vote for in the first place.
Honestly, anyone would think you actually want Labour to stand for socialism instead of the neo-liberalism we’d been conditioning you to accept since 1994.
Right, next year there’s the Scottish elections, and the local elections. Can you please get it right this time?
Depends who's asking for what really - some on the right appear to be suggesting that some Oldham Tories/LibDems, etc loaned Labour their votes to keep him in place and make sure the job of Labour's destruction is finished (believing some of the press that they were in danger of losing to UKIP and triggering a crisis for Jeremy).* The Guardian on the other hand probably did feel exactly as you write.
As ever, people will see what they want to see.
*Certainly there does seem to be a prevailing mood in the last few weeks/months amongst the Tory commentariat that Corbyn needs to be kept in post for as long as possible. This may of course blow up in their faces as the people of Britain see the light and acclaim him enthusiastically but I assume it goes without saying that they aren't putting money on that happening.
I'm not entirely sure that Cameron is helping convince the great British public that Corbyn is a very bad thing indeed. His over-reaction comes over as rather hysterical and shrill.
Describing huge sections of the population as "terrorist sympathisers" may not have helped his cause much either.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Especially when being described as a sympathiser with a regime which beheads more people than ISIS and crucifies people as well might not be that good for him.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
When we said that this by-election was a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we meant that you should all stay at home and make the result a disaster for Labour.
It's one single by-election. It isn't a verdict on Corbyn: it's a verdict on the current incumbent. Possibly influenced by the Benn factor. Corbyn didn't even bother to show up in the area.
Btw how many Corbyn threads do we currently have running? I've lost count.
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Describing huge sections of the population as "terrorist sympathisers" may not have helped his cause much either.
Don't take it personally. Unless you want to, of course. I assumed that was a direct dig at McDonnell and Livingstone.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Corbyn didn't even bother to show up in the area.
Yes he did.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Btw how many Corbyn threads do we currently have running? I've lost count.
He certainly gets people talking!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He certainly gets people talking!
Yes, but he probably wishes they didn't.
[ 07. December 2015, 11:44: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
When we said that this by-election was a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we meant that you should all stay at home and make the result a disaster for Labour.
It's one single by-election. It isn't a verdict on Corbyn: it's a verdict on the current incumbent. Possibly influenced by the Benn factor. Corbyn didn't even bother to show up in the area.
On the basis of all the shit thrown at him by other parties and the press and the way that some members of the Labour party have thrown their toys out of their prams it means one hell of a lot.
I'd also suggest it is the final nail in UKIP's coffin and we should at least be grateful for that.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Are you sure it's the final nail in Ukip's coffin? There is a worrying resurgence of the far-right throughout Europe generally just now so I wouldn't bet on having seen Farage off just yet.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Are you sure it's the final nail in Ukip's coffin? There is a worrying resurgence of the far-right throughout Europe generally just now so I wouldn't bet on having seen Farage off just yet.
Like Al-Qaida being replaced by ISIL, if you get rid of one nasty conservative beast, it'll only be replaced by something even worse.
Perhaps, if UKIP withers, Katie Hopkins will start her own party, with Jeremy Clarkson and Tommy Robinson in leading roles.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Tommy Robinson won't have time - he's busy starting up an English branch of Pegida in Birmingham. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
When we said that this by-election was a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we meant that you should all stay at home and make the result a disaster for Labour.
It's one single by-election. It isn't a verdict on Corbyn: it's a verdict on the current incumbent. Possibly influenced by the Benn factor. Corbyn didn't even bother to show up in the area.
On the basis of all the shit thrown at him by other parties and the press and the way that some members of the Labour party have thrown their toys out of their prams it means one hell of a lot.
I'd also suggest it is the final nail in UKIP's coffin and we should at least be grateful for that.
I've long thought that the real test for Corbyn will be the London mayoral and GLA elections next year. The capital has often been thought of as a traditionally Labour city (the fact it has a Conservative mayor an indication of Labour's unpopularity); Corbyn is a London MP and the Labour mayoral candidate, Sadiq Khan, is a likely a product of Corbynmania.
If a Corbyn-led Labour Party can't win in London next year, I think the pressure on him will become unbearable.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I understand that though Mr Khan nominated Mr Corbyn, he did not in fact vote for him.
(He was on Have I Got News For You a few weeks ago and I did not get the impression of enthusiastic support.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I think he's flip-flopped on a few things.
I think it's generally agreed (or perhaps it isn't?) that Khan's victory over Tessa Jowell came mainly because of the new influx of Labour Party members / registered supporters that Corbyn generated.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Are you sure it's the final nail in Ukip's coffin? There is a worrying resurgence of the far-right throughout Europe generally just now so I wouldn't bet on having seen Farage off just yet.
Farage's problem is that for many people, he is UKIP. That makes him as much as a liablity as a strength. Resigning and then un-resigning might not have done them any favours as it highlights the fact that they don't have anyone else they trust to let out of the cupboard.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think he's flip-flopped on a few things.
I think it's generally agreed (or perhaps it isn't?) that Khan's victory over Tessa Jowell came mainly because of the new influx of Labour Party members / registered supporters that Corbyn generated.
Khan's not particularly radical, it's just that the only left-wing candidate, Diane Abbott, is a hypocritical joke even to those of us on the left.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Are you sure it's the final nail in Ukip's coffin? There is a worrying resurgence of the far-right throughout Europe generally just now so I wouldn't bet on having seen Farage off just yet.
With the Tories lurching to the right, we are still seeing a far right resurgence in the UK without the need for the likes of UKIP and the BNP.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
When we said that this by-election was a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, we meant that you should all stay at home and make the result a disaster for Labour.
It's one single by-election. It isn't a verdict on Corbyn: it's a verdict on the current incumbent. Possibly influenced by the Benn factor. Corbyn didn't even bother to show up in the area.
On the basis of all the shit thrown at him by other parties and the press and the way that some members of the Labour party have thrown their toys out of their prams it means one hell of a lot.
I'd also suggest it is the final nail in UKIP's coffin and we should at least be grateful for that.
I've long thought that the real test for Corbyn will be the London mayoral and GLA elections next year. The capital has often been thought of as a traditionally Labour city (the fact it has a Conservative mayor an indication of Labour's unpopularity); Corbyn is a London MP and the Labour mayoral candidate, Sadiq Khan, is a likely a product of Corbynmania.
If a Corbyn-led Labour Party can't win in London next year, I think the pressure on him will become unbearable.
London's no Labour fiefdom. How do you think Boris got elected? The inner London constituencies may be but back in the days of the GLC the Tories won three of the six elections handsomely, taking some unlikely inner London seats. Some of those leafy suburbs may vote Liberal/LibDem once in a while, but in its heart of hearts Richmond, Surrey is more Tory than Richmond, Yorkshire.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If a Corbyn-led Labour Party can't win in London next year, I think the pressure on him will become unbearable.
This much is true.
Electorally, Corbyn and Labour need to win London in 2016 and have some meaningful showing in Scotland.
The analysis here gets quite interesting.
Boris only just beat Ken. Now, Boris has lots of charisma, Ken very little. Boris is broadly popular beyond his own party-faithful, Ken not at all. (Not very popular even with his party-faithful). So the real question is not why did Boris win? but how the Hell was is so close? The answer to that is that Boris is a serial incompetent, whereas Ken did a pretty good job for London.
Boris isn't standing again and Labour has a good case to make about effective governing. So I would tip Khan to win. Although I think the fight will get nasty and its not a sure thing.
Scotland is more of a problem, given how dominant the SNP is. You can look at the political tsunami of the SNP landslide in May and come to one of two conclusions: 1) This is a massive paradigm shift and the SNP will be strong for a long time or 2) Things change fast, nothing is certain.
For me, I don't know which of these is real. Probably 1) but whilst the SNP are extremely effective at campaigning and building an enthusiastic following, I do think they are predominantly snake-oil salesmen. And the record of SNP-governance for the past 8 years is not great.
Either way, I don't have a clue how this will pan out. And after May, I may never trust an opinion poll again...
In the meantime, we are seeing the gradual dismantling of all the things I love about this country...
I am a Labour party member who didn't vote for Corbyn but I desperately want him to win. For the sake of my nation.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If a Corbyn-led Labour Party can't win in London next year, I think the pressure on him will become unbearable.
This much is true.
Electorally, Corbyn and Labour need to win London in 2016 and have some meaningful showing in Scotland.
The analysis here gets quite interesting.
Boris only just beat Ken. Now, Boris has lots of charisma, Ken very little. Boris is broadly popular beyond his own party-faithful, Ken not at all. (Not very popular even with his party-faithful). So the real question is not why did Boris win? but how the Hell was is so close? The answer to that is that Boris is a serial incompetent, whereas Ken did a pretty good job for London.
Boris isn't standing again and Labour has a good case to make about effective governing. So I would tip Khan to win. Although I think the fight will get nasty and its not a sure thing.
Scotland is more of a problem, given how dominant the SNP is. You can look at the political tsunami of the SNP landslide in May and come to one of two conclusions: 1) This is a massive paradigm shift and the SNP will be strong for a long time or 2) Things change fast, nothing is certain.
For me, I don't know which of these is real. Probably 1) but whilst the SNP are extremely effective at campaigning and building an enthusiastic following, I do think they are predominantly snake-oil salesmen. And the record of SNP-governance for the past 8 years is not great.
Either way, I don't have a clue how this will pan out. And after May, I may never trust an opinion poll again...
In the meantime, we are seeing the gradual dismantling of all the things I love about this country...
I am a Labour party member who didn't vote for Corbyn but I desperately want him to win. For the sake of my nation.
AFZ
I think the London Mayoral race will be close. The Tories have got an extremely good candidate in Zac Goldsmith. He’s sufficiently un-Tory to appeal to a wider base of voters than some of the other candidates they could have chosen. Mayoral races tend to be about big personalities as well as policies. And people like Boris in a way they don’t like Ken.
I can't comment on Scotland in depth, but unless they've changed leaders up there as well a good showing seems unlikely. My friend's mum stayed up to watch the election result to make sure he got defeated and then went to bed very happy. They need to find someone that Scottish people actually like / trust.
It might help the debate slightly if each and every thing wasn’t seen as a verdict on Corbyn. If Oldham was a verdict on the Tories and UKIP, both Dave and Nigel would be looking for another job. The Tories came nowhere and UKIP’s glorious victory wasn’t.
The verdict on Corbyn has already been given by the Labour Party. He was elected with a bigger mandate / majority than Tony ever got. Some of the Labour MPs need to stop whining and focus on the job they were elected for. Representing their constituents. Many of whom voted for Corbyn. A small inconvenient fact that some of them need to start focusing on. And also, if they’re too busy focusing on Corbyn, who knows what the Tories will attempt to sneak past them. FFS.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The verdict on Corbyn has already been given by the Labour Party. He was elected with a bigger mandate / majority than Tony ever got.
Corbyn won 59.5% of the vote in his leadership election, to Blair's 57% in his. Not that significantly different?
quote:
Some of the Labour MPs need to stop whining and focus on the job they were elected for. Representing their constituents. Many of whom voted for Corbyn. A small inconvenient fact that some of them need to start focusing on.
I think some shouldn't fall into the trap of confusing or conflating people who are entitled to vote in Labour leadership elections (many of whom did indeed vote for Corbyn) with Labour voters generally or the voting public. They're very different groups.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The verdict on Corbyn has already been given by the Labour Party. He was elected with a bigger mandate / majority than Tony ever got.
Corbyn won 59.5% of the vote in his leadership election, to Blair's 57% in his. Not that significantly different?
On the contrary, substantially different. In 1994 after the tragically premature death of John Smith, Tony Blair's strongest de facto opponent was Gordon Brown, who agreed to withdraw after that infamous dinner date at the Granita restaurant. Many of the Brownies then swung behind Blair as the alternatives were John Prescott and Margaret Beckett.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Representing their constituents. Many of whom voted for Corbyn. A small inconvenient fact that some of them need to start focusing on. And also, if they’re too busy focusing on Corbyn, who knows what the Tories will attempt to sneak past them. FFS.
Tubbs
I'm not sure anyone's published figures on votes for Corbyn by constituency.
If it was uniform, and only people who live in Labour constituencies voted for Corbyn then you're looking at 251,000/232 or 1081.9 per constituency.
If it was uniform and across every constituency then 251,000/650 or 386.2 per constituency.
In reality, of course, there will be some constituencies where many voted for Jeremy, and some where none did.
Parliament.uk reckons the average numbers of voters in a UK constituency are:
England 72,400
Wales 56,800
NI 66,800
Scotland 69,000
Some Labour MPs will be very aware because of demographics that they are in "high Corbyn sympathy seats"
Most will however be able to assume from a combination of opinion polls and constituency demographics that Corbyn supporters are a) thin on the ground, and b) probably less numerous than say National Trust members.
Which is another reason really (for all parties) why open primaries ought to be the way forward for MP selection. The people who actually get to exercise power of selection/deselection, etc, (not to mention voting for the leader) are a tiny minority of the public and in some cases hilariously unrepresentative of the wider constituency.
A small inconvenient fact that some of them need to start focusing on.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The verdict on Corbyn has already been given by the Labour Party. He was elected with a bigger mandate / majority than Tony ever got.
Corbyn won 59.5% of the vote in his leadership election, to Blair's 57% in his. Not that significantly different?
It's a bigger mandate / majority.
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Scotland is more of a problem, given how dominant the SNP is. You can look at the political tsunami of the SNP landslide in May and come to one of two conclusions: 1) This is a massive paradigm shift and the SNP will be strong for a long time or 2) Things change fast, nothing is certain.
For me, I don't know which of these is real. Probably 1) but whilst the SNP are extremely effective at campaigning and building an enthusiastic following, I do think they are predominantly snake-oil salesmen. And the record of SNP-governance for the past 8 years is not great.
OTOH it's not been that bad either. You cannot sell snake oil for 8 years and not get caught. Unless the Scots are unusually gullible. In any event it's not exactly as if the British press and media were doing the SNP's work for them.
Alternatively, it might also be a verdict on the dismal state of Scottish Labour which from the Scots' point of view is barely distinguishable from the Tories (I.e. Red Tories), and has not been able to hold a consistent policy line on anything (Trident, tax credits, you name it). Nicola Sturgeon, while being perhaps slightly right of Corbyn, is way ahead of him in terms of charisma, and has been comparably consistent and dependable in terms of her convictions and policies, like them or not.
On this basis, Corbyn will probably barely matter in Scotland's elections next year. What will matter is whether Kezia Dugdale and her merry band can remotely begin to look like a political party which is (*ahem*, yes) more credible than Trump.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Representing their constituents. Many of whom voted for Corbyn. A small inconvenient fact that some of them need to start focusing on. And also, if they’re too busy focusing on Corbyn, who knows what the Tories will attempt to sneak past them. FFS.
Tubbs
I'm not sure anyone's published figures on votes for Corbyn by constituency.
If it was uniform, and only people who live in Labour constituencies voted for Corbyn then you're looking at 251,000/232 or 1081.9 per constituency.
If it was uniform and across every constituency then 251,000/650 or 386.2 per constituency.
In reality, of course, there will be some constituencies where many voted for Jeremy, and some where none did.
Parliament.uk reckons the average numbers of voters in a UK constituency are:
England 72,400
Wales 56,800
NI 66,800
Scotland 69,000
Some Labour MPs will be very aware because of demographics that they are in "high Corbyn sympathy seats"
Most will however be able to assume from a combination of opinion polls and constituency demographics that Corbyn supporters are a) thin on the ground, and b) probably less numerous than say National Trust members.
Which is another reason really (for all parties) why open primaries ought to be the way forward for MP selection. The people who actually get to exercise power of selection/deselection, etc, (not to mention voting for the leader) are a tiny minority of the public and in some cases hilariously unrepresentative of the wider constituency.
A small inconvenient fact that some of them need to start focusing on.
True, but Labour has got more new members since Corybn arrived.
It’s still worrying that in the Commons debate on Syria some Labour MPs were more focussed on who gave the better speech – Corbyn or Benn – than the issue in hand and were texting journalists to say so. If the Opposition is more interesting in their own internal squabbles, then they’re not capable of doing their job properly. If they’re not doing their job properly then the Tories will run rings around them. Which isn't good for anyone. Government works best when there's a decent opposition to keep them in check.
When some of the Labour MPs voted for things like the welfare cap because they didn’t want to the party that opposes everything, they kind of missed the point. Things like the welfare cap and tax credits are exactly the sort of things the people that voted for them want them to oppose. The clue is in the title. Opposition.
Labour didn’t get in because no one liked the idea of them being Tory lite. What they wanted was an actual party with a proper identify, some decent polices and a bit of conviction. Other countries manage to have vibrant, vote winning socialist parties. How come we can’t?!
Tubbs
[ 09. December 2015, 15:01: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of Labour voters, perhaps even a small majority, were in favour of the welfare cap.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm all in favour of a welfare cap. There are thousands of wealthy landlords, landowners, bankers, and bosses who are subsidised to a ridiculous extent out of the public purse. Let's put a stop to it at once!
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Labour didn’t get in because no one liked the idea of them being Tory lite. What they wanted was an actual party with a proper identify, some decent polices and a bit of conviction. Other countries manage to have vibrant, vote winning socialist parties. How come we can’t?!
Tubbs
To the first bit isn't that a bit like saying "the swing voters thought Labour weren't left wing enough so voted right wing"?
I think it's possible, but I wouldn't stake an electoral strategy on it because I've simply never met (and in my past I've done an awful lot of door knocking) someone with that mindset - favouring any party.
Opposition to FPTP is all well and good, but it's the system we've got and it's the swing voters who need to be swung. Piling up Labour votes in Labour constituencies isn't going to cut it.
Burton, for example, is a constituency which is usually held by the governing party. Is the current Labour leadership going to turn it red from blue?* Some blue seats are going to have to go red, and whether it's a good thing or not, I'm genuinely struggling to see it happening in sufficient numbers.**
*fast forward to 2020 where, in the bright dawn of a Corbyn victory, someone can dredge this post up and simply say, Yes.
**not that it affects me anyway - my local (blue) MP has a majority of over 18,000 so I can vote for whoever the hell I want secure in the knowledge that it won't make a blind bit of difference.
I don't live in a marginal, so frankly my views don't matter.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Labour didn’t get in because no one liked the idea of them being Tory lite. What they wanted was an actual party with a proper identify, some decent polices and a bit of conviction. Other countries manage to have vibrant, vote winning socialist parties. How come we can’t?!
Tubbs
To the first bit isn't that a bit like saying "the swing voters thought Labour weren't left wing enough so voted right wing"?
I think it's possible, but I wouldn't stake an electoral strategy on it because I've simply never met (and in my past I've done an awful lot of door knocking) someone with that mindset - favouring any party.
Opposition to FPTP is all well and good, but it's the system we've got and it's the swing voters who need to be swung. Piling up Labour votes in Labour constituencies isn't going to cut it.
Burton, for example, is a constituency which is usually held by the governing party. Is the current Labour leadership going to turn it red from blue?* Some blue seats are going to have to go red, and whether it's a good thing or not, I'm genuinely struggling to see it happening in sufficient numbers.**
*fast forward to 2020 where, in the bright dawn of a Corbyn victory, someone can dredge this post up and simply say, Yes.
**not that it affects me anyway - my local (blue) MP has a majority of over 18,000 so I can vote for whoever the hell I want secure in the knowledge that it won't make a blind bit of difference.
I don't live in a marginal, so frankly my views don't matter.
I should also clarify, FWIW, that across my idealistic youth my doorknocking was in fact done for more than one party (clearly at different elections).
Wouldn't catch me doing it now.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Labour didn’t get in because no one liked the idea of them being Tory lite. What they wanted was an actual party with a proper identify, some decent polices and a bit of conviction. Other countries manage to have vibrant, vote winning socialist parties. How come we can’t?!
Tubbs
To the first bit isn't that a bit like saying "the swing voters thought Labour weren't left wing enough so voted right wing"?
I think it's possible, but I wouldn't stake an electoral strategy on it because I've simply never met (and in my past I've done an awful lot of door knocking) someone with that mindset - favouring any party.
There are several groups of potential Labour voters, and in a marginal Labour probably need to get all of them. There are the lefties who may not vote Labour if they're too far to the right - switching to the Greens or (as they did in Scotland in droves) the SNP.
There are others who are in the centre or right who would look at a right wing Labour and compare them to the Tories. Now, I think it's possible for the Labour Party to adopt a centre or centre-right position with distinctive and well thought through policies, though they'd have to ditch their heritage as the party of the workers to do so. However, if they sit in that position looking like they're doing nothing much more than copying the Tories but without any apparent conviction that these policies are good then they look Tory-lite. And, if you're generally right wing, why vote Tory-lite when you can have the real thing?
But, most swing voters sit in the middle. They find parts of socialist policies attractive, parts of more right wing policies attractive. Blair changed Labour to sit in that middle ground presenting a mix of right and left wing policies. Milliband tried to take the party further right, ditching the left of the party as he went, but didn't seem to be able to create a coherent distinctive policy. He became Tory-lite and paid the price at the polls.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's possible for the Labour Party to adopt a centre or centre-right position with distinctive and well thought through policies, though they'd have to ditch their heritage as the party of the workers to do so.
This is getting purgatorial but I agree with most of your post. This bit however I think is interesting and potentially 21st century Labour's achilles heel.
How far is it possible, these days, to talk about "the party of the workers" and not mean "anyone with a job"?
Now, I agree Labour was historically for the low paid, mass labour (organised or not) - my great great grandfather spent a considerable time in prison in the 1860s for illegal union organising in the Durham coalfield and I know what he meant by the "party of the workers" because I've got his letters. However, the L/labour movement also could set itself up in opposition to a then much larger (and indeed significant entrenched leisure class, rentiers, etc. This was largely swept aside by the Great War.
To what extent is that different now when even the stockbrokers are putting in punishing hours and the number of people sitting back and letting the money just roll in is probably far smaller than it has ever been? Even those on huge salaries are by and large working for someone and dancing to a boss's tune - granted the level of reward has a hugely significant variance.
The Tories, on the other hand, have always been able to sell themselves as the party of aspiration. You can agree with their pitch or not, but everyone is welcome to vote for them. There is a long history of the working class Tory phenomenon, and there are union members who vote Conservative. There is also a long history of the Tories presenting as the party of the workers (on their own terms) which runs all the way back to Randolph Churchill's "Tory democracy" and Joe Chamberlain's "civic democracy."
Whereas Labour's version of "we're the party of the workers" is probably these days quite an unhelpfully exclusionary position to take if by "workers" you still mean specifically the low paid and the bottom of the pile. It limits the voting pool to those in that category and those who want to address that problem above all others.
Unfortunately in those 2 categories there aren't enough people to win an election. Which is why Labour wins elections when it can hold those aims in tension with an appeal to the pockets and aspirations of the middle.* That latter is what I can't see under Corbyn at the moment.
Unless Labour can be about more than "we exist to help the most disadvantaged in society" and talk confidently about what's in it for the haves *as well* beyond a simple moral benefit to wider society, it's always going to struggle. At the moment it looks like it's choosing purity over electability, and I still think as far as that goes Labour members are having their IDS period.**
*the obvious exception to this is Attlee, but his circumstances were rather special and I'm assuming no one's advocating a world war as the spur to a national mood of "let's rebuild the country as a new Jerusalem"?
**I could well be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. Admittedly IDS didn't encourage loads of people to join the Tory party but there again we've not had a proper test of whether Labour's new members will win them an election yet either.
As a proportion of the electorate, talking about this new influx of energised Labour members is still, even when compared to the membership of the Conservatives, rather like the description of the UK and Argentina arguing about the Falklands as "two bald men fighting over a comb." The numbers are still tiny and we haven't got a decent read yet on how much the man in the street cares about this great new movement either way.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Miliband tried to take the party further right, ditching the left of the party as he went, but didn't seem to be able to create a coherent distinctive policy. He became Tory-lite and paid the price at the polls.
Charisma and spin count for a great deal in this age of television and social media. Miliband lost because he didn't have any charisma. Cameron got in because he does. If Cameron is replaced by Osborne the party will probably either lose or come very close to losing the election. Tim Farron (who?) is another vote loser. Farage has charisma, but sufficient wavering voters have been put off by the other people in his party to ensure he'll never become PM. He will, however, retain a following, unless he steps down (which given how quickly he reinstated himself the last time he did that is unlikely) in which case half his following will probably melt away.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
It really has become very purgatorial.
I think Milliband's problem was predominantly one of being defined by his opponents.
If you look at the Labour manifesto, it was actually radically different to the Tory one, not least in terms of economic policy. (Not radical enough for my tastes but that's beside the point). It was also quite close in many areas to the SNP. Unequivocally closer to their stated aims than that of the tories.'
But here's the catch: in England Labour was characterized and believed to be economically irresponsible and unsafe when it was really quite timid in this sense. Conversely, in Scotland they were perceived as just being the same as the Conservatives when if that's true, the SNP really weren't offering anything remotely interesting.
So Labour was totally caught between these two and suffered as a consequence.
Sadly in our democracy at least, perception is all.
I think that winning in Scotland is important for Labour in terms of self-confidence and momentum and support for Corbyn - it will translate indirectly into effectiveness in the marginals. A Labour party that starts winning will be much more united and effective. Part of the reason for the nonsense we are seeing in the PLP is that they believe they can't win.
In terms of winning marginals, two things:
Firstly there are enough non-voters to turn most of these seats red if Corbyn inspired a mass increase in turn out. However, I would not build an election strategy on that basis - this seems to be the holy grail of election fighting. Secondly as noted above Labour only wins by forming a coalition between the lowest in society and the middle. The thing is though, this is a very natural coalition as policies (in terms of economics and health and education to name just three) that are good for both are easy to forge. In fact the kind of economic policy we should be following in the current situation fits the bill completely. If you doubt me, then consider this; why the hell have the Tories spend the last 5 years so desperately trying to divide society 'Workers' vs 'shirkers' etc.
Two final thoughts: Labour has the right approach for the country, it's time to suit up and get the argument out there. And then win the argument. We will have very interesting times ahead: the EU referendum and an inevitable stormy economic course. If - and it's a big 'if' - Labour are effective in opposition in these times then we shall see the landscape changing dramatically.
I am off work this week and I watched PMQs with Osborne standing in. Eagle was effective but the arrogance and complacency of Osborne was notable. They already believe they've won in 2020.
Fuck that, I say. Come on Britain, you are far better than this. It's time to see through these charlatans.
There we go, that's a bit more Hell-ish. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
betjemaniac wrote:
quote:
As a proportion of the electorate, talking about this new influx of energised Labour members is still, even when compared to the membership of the Conservatives, rather like the description of the UK and Argentina arguing about the Falklands as "two bald men fighting over a comb." The numbers are still tiny and we haven't got a decent read yet on how much the man in the street cares about this great new movement either way.
I think there is still a shock going through Labour at the Corbyn election. One result of this shock is the conflict between the new members and the MPs, especially the Blairite ones, who are probably horrified, and trying to unseat Corbyn.
But I think we live in very volatile times. People like Le Pen and Trump are not accidental figures - and perhaps represent a drift to fascism. I haven't a clue how things are going to pan out - does anyone?
But some kind of polarization seems to be going on in the West.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I am a Labour party member who didn't vote for Corbyn but I desperately want him to win. For the sake of my nation.
That's precisely why I want him to lose. Under Corbyn, the country will be bankrupt within a week, security will be pretty much shelved and the place turned into a totalitarian state where nobody will dare to say anything that isn't utterly politically correct. The militant left will take over, anyone moderate in the cabinet will be dropped like a hot potato and the unions will attempt to run the country. Taxes will rocket up, we'll plunge back into recession, jobs will be lost, any high earners will be taxed out of existence and/or leave the country, and there'll be a sharp increase in the number of homeless people.
Possibly a slight exaggeration but I can't see his getting in as anything other than a disaster for the country.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I am a Labour party member who didn't vote for Corbyn but I desperately want him to win. For the sake of my nation.
That's precisely why I want him to lose. Under Corbyn, the country will be bankrupt within a week, security will be pretty much shelved and the place turned into a totalitarian state where nobody will dare to say anything that isn't utterly politically correct. The militant left will take over, anyone moderate in the cabinet will be dropped like a hot potato and the unions will attempt to run the country. Taxes will rocket up, we'll plunge back into recession, jobs will be lost, any high earners will be taxed out of existence and/or leave the country, and there'll be a sharp increase in the number of homeless people.
Possibly a slight exaggeration but I can't see his getting in as anything other than a disaster for the country.
Don't worry. Most of that will happen long before the next election.
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
That's precisely why I want him to lose. Under Corbyn, the country will be bankrupt within a week, security will be pretty much shelved and the place turned into a totalitarian state where nobody will dare to say anything that isn't utterly politically correct. The militant left will take over, anyone moderate in the cabinet will be dropped like a hot potato and the unions will attempt to run the country. Taxes will rocket up, we'll plunge back into recession, jobs will be lost, any high earners will be taxed out of existence and/or leave the country, and there'll be a sharp increase in the number of homeless people.
Possibly a slight exaggeration but I can't see his getting in as anything other than a disaster for the country.
It comes to something when you make my views on the Conservative party seem mild by comparison. You probably want to lay off huffing the newsprint on the Torygraph for a bit...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
No, cheers, I'm fine with that. It's a while since I last looked in on the Daily Mail, but prompted by this thread, I'll see if they have any interesting and profound opinions we can all benefit from and get back to you. Have a nice evening.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The militant left will take over, anyone moderate in the cabinet will be dropped like a hot potato and the unions will attempt to run the country. Taxes will rocket up, we'll plunge back into recession, jobs will be lost, any high earners will be taxed out of existence and/or leave the country, and there'll be a sharp increase in the number of homeless people.
Possibly a slight exaggeration but I can't see his getting in as anything other than a disaster for the country.
I think perhaps you've weather-sealed your home a trifle too well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm all in favour of a welfare cap. There are thousands of wealthy landlords, landowners, bankers, and bosses who are subsidised to a ridiculous extent out of the public purse. Let's put a stop to it at once!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Miliband tried to take the party further right, ditching the left of the party as he went, but didn't seem to be able to create a coherent distinctive policy. He became Tory-lite and paid the price at the polls.
Charisma and spin count for a great deal in this age of television and social media. Miliband lost because he didn't have any charisma. Cameron got in because he does.
I don’t think it’s just charisma. I think Cameron manages to look competent. He looks like he knows what he’s doing. (Note I am making no comment on whether he actually is competent or not, just that he manages to project that impression.)
Despite my natural lefty sympathies, my main problem with Corbyn is this: I imagine him sitting across a table from Vladimir Putin and he is getting eaten for breakfast. This is what gives me major doubts about his Prime Ministerial abilities.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Miliband tried to take the party further right, ditching the left of the party as he went, but didn't seem to be able to create a coherent distinctive policy. He became Tory-lite and paid the price at the polls.
Charisma and spin count for a great deal in this age of television and social media. Miliband lost because he didn't have any charisma. Cameron got in because he does.
I don’t think it’s just charisma. I think Cameron manages to look competent. He looks like he knows what he’s doing. (Note I am making no comment on whether he actually is competent or not, just that he manages to project that impression.)
Despite my natural lefty sympathies, my main problem with Corbyn is this: I imagine him sitting across a table from Vladimir Putin and he is getting eaten for breakfast. This is what gives me major doubts about his Prime Ministerial abilities.
I wonder that too, but I have no doubt that the same happens to our current government. Do you remember how Cameron and Osborne stood tall and strong when they met the leaders of Saudi Arabia and China?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Miliband tried to take the party further right, ditching the left of the party as he went, but didn't seem to be able to create a coherent distinctive policy. He became Tory-lite and paid the price at the polls.
Charisma and spin count for a great deal in this age of television and social media. Miliband lost because he didn't have any charisma. Cameron got in because he does.
I don’t think it’s just charisma. I think Cameron manages to look competent. He looks like he knows what he’s doing. (Note I am making no comment on whether he actually is competent or not, just that he manages to project that impression.)
Despite my natural lefty sympathies, my main problem with Corbyn is this: I imagine him sitting across a table from Vladimir Putin and he is getting eaten for breakfast. This is what gives me major doubts about his Prime Ministerial abilities.
I doubt that, my worry about Putin vs Corbyn would be Corbyn compromising too little. Conversely, I think Cameron would be more likely to compromise too much.
The problem for the west is that Putin is happy to engage in reconnaissance by combat, banking on NATO being too wary of the risk of WWIII to stop him. At some point someone is going to have to make a decision about where the line is. That said, I suspect Russia won't overfly Turkey again for a while yet.
[ 10. December 2015, 12:19: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
My apologies for self-congratulating and thread-resurrection. I did go looking for this post but...
I think I called this one right:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If a Corbyn-led Labour Party can't win in London next year, I think the pressure on him will become unbearable.
This much is true.
Electorally, Corbyn and Labour need to win London in 2016 and have some meaningful showing in Scotland.
The analysis here gets quite interesting.
Boris only just beat Ken. Now, Boris has lots of charisma, Ken very little. Boris is broadly popular beyond his own party-faithful, Ken not at all. (Not very popular even with his party-faithful). So the real question is not why did Boris win? but how the Hell was is so close? The answer to that is that Boris is a serial incompetent, whereas Ken did a pretty good job for London.
Boris isn't standing again and Labour has a good case to make about effective governing. So I would tip Khan to win. Although I think the fight will get nasty and its not a sure thing.
Scotland is more of a problem, given how dominant the SNP is. You can look at the political tsunami of the SNP landslide in May and come to one of two conclusions: 1) This is a massive paradigm shift and the SNP will be strong for a long time or 2) Things change fast, nothing is certain.
For me, I don't know which of these is real. Probably 1) but whilst the SNP are extremely effective at campaigning and building an enthusiastic following, I do think they are predominantly snake-oil salesmen. And the record of SNP-governance for the past 8 years is not great.
Either way, I don't have a clue how this will pan out. And after May, I may never trust an opinion poll again...
In the meantime, we are seeing the gradual dismantling of all the things I love about this country...
I am a Labour party member who didn't vote for Corbyn but I desperately want him to win. For the sake of my nation.
AFZ
Any thoughts?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Politics seems to be a game of individuals at the moment. Someone - perhaps an unlikely someone - becomes the focus of the desire for things to be otherwise. People seem not to be looking for a mainstream politician, with appropriate experience and proven competencies, but for the maverick, the dissident, the Different.
Which works for both good and ill of course.
On the Scottish front, the Tories have, I must admit, the sonsier lesbian. Ruth Davidson is sparky and interesting (and gives the impression of keeping her distance from the English party - Scottish first, Conservative second). Kezia I have to confess come over as earnest but dull.
Nicola Sturgeon still has the radical outsider vibe going - but of course the SNP are now The Establishment. The recrudescence of not only the Tories but the Greens shows there is a dissidence looking for an outlet. Labour and the Lib Dems have yet to benefit from this: they are too recently the Old Guard.
Meanwhile the political SAS which is Edinburgh Southern CLP got our man Daniel in. Personally I see him as the next First Minister but three (to adapt Belloc).
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Second place in Scotland and Jeremy Corbyn lives to fight another day. A good result for the Conservatives, I think. Shame about London.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
