there's an election

[Aber gas]

I heard a rumour once that Andy Burnham was a northern lad from the north, is that true?

King in the north is his preferred title iirc.

 

[blade1889]

Alright Blades. Christ...I'll tell my good friend Andy Burnham on you.

Me and the Burns are homies now

 

[Aber gas]

I've always liked Cornwall
http://m.cornwalllive.com/cornwall-...gest-concern/story-30330654-detail/story.html

 

[Abertawe]

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

It's not as disingenuous as producing a map and colouring in ( for example) Wales in blue. If Matty thinks that Wales is suddenly going to become a Tory stronghold he's either ridiculously credulous or he's lying. I'd presume the latter. I know we've got a tough job on, kippers going back to their natural home alongside apathy and resignation all plays into Tory hands but I remain committed and as ever optimistic.

I don't think it can be said to be disingenuous. It's not being presented as anything other than what it is: a map of government regions indicating which party is polling highest in each given region. Yes, it's a crude map which may be obscuring something more complex, but individual constituency polling is extremely rare, so this is about as good as it gets in terms of telling us who might be in pole position in those all important marginals. In that respect things are looking good for the Tories as they're performing disproportionately well in areas where there are a fair number of Lab/Con marginals. And yes, they do appear to be leading in Wales, which is remarkable, but perhaps not that outrageous given the collapse in support for UKIP. I think this is a major problem for Labour. They're not only struggling to retain their voters from 2015, but are also witnessing Cons hoover up a lot of 2015 Kippers. I do admire your optimism (genuinely - it's a refreshing change from a lot of the stuff I subject myself to) but even though it's been a more positive few days for Labour (think they've put out a good manifesto) the overall picture is still looking bleak.

Sadly the BluKip vote is pretty solid so anything below 100 majority is about as good as can be hoped for.

I've come to the conclusion that they could offer to reintroduce slavery, death penalty and the Highland clearances but still win with a comfortable majority

Yes, this pretty much mirrors my thoughts, unfortunately!

 

[Aber gas]

I don't think it can be said to be disingenuous. It's not being presented as anything other than what it is: a map of government regions indicating which party is polling highest in each given region. Yes, it's a crude map which may be obscuring something more complex, but individual constituency polling is extremely rare, so this is about as good as it gets in terms of telling us who might be in pole position in those all important marginals. In that respect things are looking good for the Tories as they're performing disproportionately well in areas where there are a fair number of Lab/Con marginals. And yes, they do appear to be leading in Wales, which is remarkable, but perhaps not that outrageous given the collapse in support for UKIP. I think this is a major problem for Labour. They're not only struggling to retain their voters from 2015, but are also witnessing Cons hoover up a lot of 2015 Kippers. I do admire your optimism (genuinely - it's a refreshing change from a lot of the stuff I subject myself to) but even though it's been a more positive few days for Labour (think they've put out a good manifesto) the overall picture is still looking bleak.



Yes, this pretty much mirrors my thoughts, unfortunately!

Tories won't be the dominant party in Wales or the north west or Yorkshire so colouring in parts of the country blue based on various polls with samples ranging between 756 and 2023 is deliberately misleading and is presented for a purpose. The polls offer no information on demographics used or any nuance whatsoever. Here's another poll ( yeah I know) with a sample of 9000 odd. http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/ne...es__Labour_and_Ukip_down/?ref=twtrec#gallery2
Might start making some maps.

 

[Stevencc]

Theresa May is being held in isolation today after unfortunate contact with an angry human being on the campaign trail yesterday.

The exposure occurred during a walkabout in Abingdon in which the Prime Minister expected to be meeting ‘members of the public’ who had naturally been pre-checked and vetted before speaking to her, but was instead confronted by a genuinely angry voter who wouldn’t stop going on about cuts to her benefits.

Conservative party spokesman Simon Williamsby-Toffer addressed press this morning, telling reporters, “I can confirm that Theresa May did suffer some exposure to a member of the public yesterday.

“Despite this woman being clearly unhinged and verbally aggressive, the Prime Minister was able to escape relatively unharmed thanks to her strong and stable approach to running away from public confrontations.”

He went on, “As a precaution, we are keeping Mrs May in isolation until we can be sure that she hasn’t caught anything nasty or common from this member of the public, or ‘pleb’, as we like to call them.”

It is understood that Theresa May was left slightly shaken by the encounter, as she found herself facing questions that did not relate to her shoes or who puts the bins out at Number Ten.

http://newsthump.com/2017/05/16/the...-hq-after-contact-with-real-member-of-public/

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Did he win the staring contest, at least? Any history of success is vital at this point.

Winning and losing doesn’t matter, comrade. That you have made that your sole point of interest merely betrays the full pathetic extent of your false consciousness, how thoroughly and uncritically you have accepted the basic precepts of neoliberal global capitalism.

Man’s emancipation – nay, the next step in his evolutionary development – requires us to cast off the heavy shackles of this cruel and divisive worldview, this hideous and deceiving ideology that encourages us to judge every interaction with respect to who won and who lost.

It matters not who won. What matters is the Labour Party’s pursuit of fairness, equality and justice for all – men, women, children, dachshunds. What matters is our common purpose. What matters is solidarity. What matters is the movement.

If you can't see that – if you can't move past your facile preoccupation with bourgeois concepts like 'winning' and 'losing' – then you, comrade, are part of the problem. Frankly, you might as well fuck off and vote Tory.

(The dog won).

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I don't think it can be said to be disingenuous. It's not being presented as anything other than what it is: a map of government regions indicating which party is polling highest in each given region. Yes, it's a crude map which may be obscuring something more complex, but individual constituency polling is extremely rare, so this is about as good as it gets in terms of telling us who might be in pole position in those all important marginals. In that respect things are looking good for the Tories as they're performing disproportionately well in areas where there are a fair number of Lab/Con marginals. And yes, they do appear to be leading in Wales, which is remarkable, but perhaps not that outrageous given the collapse in support for UKIP. I think this is a major problem for Labour. They're not only struggling to retain their voters from 2015, but are also witnessing Cons hoover up a lot of 2015 Kippers. I do admire your optimism (genuinely - it's a refreshing change from a lot of the stuff I subject myself to) but even though it's been a more positive few days for Labour (think they've put out a good manifesto) the overall picture is still looking bleak.

Labour are polling more-or-less where they were in 2015 and 2010. They could well increase their share of the vote. The problem for them is that Theresa May's right-wing populism has largely consolidated the UKIP crowd within her party, relegating UKIP from significant players to pseudo-fascist also-rans.

This is going to present an interesting dilemma for the right-wing of labour. Not only are they facing a decimation of their allies in the PLP, but if Labour increase their vote share by 3-4% (feasible, imo), Corbyn may be able to present the general election as a qualified endorsement of a platform that has radical components (in comparison with what was on offer in 2010 and 2015).

I don't know where that gives the right of labour to go, really. Probably to say labour's platform was popular but Corbyn wasn't - or deny any radical elements of labour's manifesto? But that concedes an awful lot of ideological ground and given how they've been outmanouvered so far, it's hard to see how they can get rid of him on their terms that allow them to install one of their own post-election.

The post-crash labour right must surely be one of the least effectual political tendencies in history. If it wasn't so funny it would be almost sad how their inability to strategise their way out of a paper bag leads to a long string of self-owns (stretching back to 2010). For people who view pragmatism as their most important political quality, that's pretty funny.

 

[smat]

it's hard to see how they can get rid of him on their terms that allow them to install one of their own post-election.

Do you reckon he would win another leadership contest after a defeat (particularly a big one)?

 

[Abertawe]

LOL

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Do you reckon he would win another leadership contest after a defeat (particularly a big one)?

I don't know. I don't think his opponents know either. What is clear is Corbyn is very popular in the Labour party still. What's also clear is Corbyn's opponents have painted themselves into a corner - they need him to crash and burn to be able to claim the electorate have decisively rejected him.

If Corbyn can point out that his supposedly toxic ideas are more popular to the electorate than e.g. Miliband's in 2015 - despite half his MPs publicly opposing him - then he can claim (with some basis) that his defeat owed much to the Labour Right sabotaging the movement and that it is necessary to re-elect him to introduce reforms to allow deselections, more democratic selection processes in CLPs and a reform to Labour's arcane internal structure (a.k.a "salting the slugs").

The Labour Right have made something like this largely inevitable. If they'd been publicly supportive of Corbyn, respected his mandate, served in his cabinet etc (or at least not overtly and publicly undermined him at every opportunity) - they could be in a position to explain to the membership that they wanted Corbyn to do well, they really did, but this is the real world and it's time for a sensible moderate to triangulate on immigration all the way to number 10. But it'd be ludicrous for Corbyn/labour left people to hand back control of the party to people who'd rather be ruled by Tories than by the left of their party.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Tories won't be the dominant party in Wales or the north west or Yorkshire so colouring in parts of the country blue based on various polls with samples ranging between 756 and 2023 is deliberately misleading and is presented for a purpose. The polls offer no information on demographics used or any nuance whatsoever. Here's another poll ( yeah I know) with a sample of 9000 odd. http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/ne...es__Labour_and_Ukip_down/?ref=twtrec#gallery2
Might start making some maps.

What do you think the purpose is? I fail to see how a graphical representation of their findings can be considered misleading. Pollsters don't claim to have a crystal ball and I doubt many would make definitive predictions about what the outcome will be in Wales, the North West or Yorkshire. All they are is a snapshot, a useful guide to public opinion and voting intention but, taken together with other polls, patterns and trends can be analysed and a clearer picture begins to emerge. I'm afraid the picture that's emerging for Labour is not very favourable.

Polls aren't any more accurate for involving more people. Samples between 756 and 2023 are fine so long as you have a representative and properly weighted sample. As an experienced pollster it's inconceivable that YouGov wouldn't have done this. A sample size of 9000 is completely useless if the data isn't representative of the make up of Britain. There's very little information about the "poll" in that Argus article but if, as it suggests, it's simply people clicking on a party name on a newspaper website, that's going to be entirely meaningless and should just be completely disregarded.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Labour are polling more-or-less where they were in 2015 and 2010. They could well increase their share of the vote. The problem for them is that Theresa May's right-wing populism has largely consolidated the UKIP crowd within her party, relegating UKIP from significant players to pseudo-fascist also-rans.

This is going to present an interesting dilemma for the right-wing of labour. Not only are they facing a decimation of their allies in the PLP, but if Labour increase their vote share by 3-4% (feasible, imo), Corbyn may be able to present the general election as a qualified endorsement of a platform that has radical components (in comparison with what was on offer in 2010 and 2015).

I don't know where that gives the right of labour to go, really. Probably to say labour's platform was popular but Corbyn wasn't - or deny any radical elements of labour's manifesto? But that concedes an awful lot of ideological ground and given how they've been outmanouvered so far, it's hard to see how they can get rid of him on their terms that allow them to install one of their own post-election.

The post-crash labour right must surely be one of the least effectual political tendencies in history. If it wasn't so funny it would be almost sad how their inability to strategise their way out of a paper bag leads to a long string of self-owns (stretching back to 2010). For people who view pragmatism as their most important political quality, that's pretty funny.

I agree with an awful lot of what you've written. The trouble is that if this election plays out as we expect it to then I think Corbyn's position is untenable. If the Conservatives return a majority of a hundred or so, despite the Labour vote share holding up, it'll be a impossible to sell such a result as a victory. It can only really be regarded as a failure - those of us with lefty convictions will have to watch on while society becomes more unequal and the most vulnerable suffer five years of unfettered Tory rule. It's a discomfiting prospect and one which will not just bother the Labour right, but also the moderates that the party needs if it is to survive and prosper. They'll rightly be alarmed at Labour's performance (opposition parties should really be making gains, not treading water, certainly not losing seats) and will know that Corbyn's personal ratings are dire. Really not sure how it'll all play out but if I were a figure on the left of the party I'd be looking within Labour ranks for a successor, someone who can do the strategic and presentational stuff rather better than Corbyn.

 

[Aber gas]

What do you think the purpose is? I fail to see how a graphical representation of their findings can be considered misleading. Pollsters don't claim to have a crystal ball and I doubt many would make definitive predictions about what the outcome will be in Wales, the North West or Yorkshire. All they are is a snapshot, a useful guide to public opinion and voting intention but, taken together with other polls, patterns and trends can be analysed and a clearer picture begins to emerge. I'm afraid the picture that's emerging for Labour is not very favourable.

Polls aren't any more accurate for involving more people. Samples between 756 and 2023 are fine so long as you have a representative and properly weighted sample. As an experienced pollster it's inconceivable that YouGov wouldn't have done this. A sample size of 9000 is completely useless if the data isn't representative of the make up of Britain. There's very little information about the "poll" in that Argus article but if, as it suggests, it's simply people clicking on a party name on a newspaper website, that's going to be entirely meaningless and should just be completely disregarded.

The purpose is to demoralise and encourage apathy. We're never going to agree here but it's my contention that by presenting nuanced data in such a simplified and frankly disingenuous way YouGov are deliberately influencing the election. I'll point again to YouGov's owners/backers and more pertinently Matt's unashamed affiliations. ( even as I'm writing this I'm aware a few of you are having me measured for a tin foil hat )

 

[Aber gas]

Tories after yer nan's house and kid's lunches now.
Fuck me, they do think they've already won.

 

[blade1889]

Tories after yer nan's house and kid's lunches now.
Fuck me, they do think they've already won.

It's basically a "let's have the most Tory manifesto ever cos all people want is a hard Brexit and definitely not a Jeremy Corbyn PM". Might as well introduce killing your first born or euthanising anyone who isnt a millionaire and they'd still get in.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Tories after yer nan's house and kid's lunches now.
Fuck me, they do think they've already won.

It's the perfect Tory policy though. Fund social care by asset stripping pensioners and use that to sell financial products.

And it's the culmination of the privatisation of housing that was started under right-to-buy. Sell social housing cheap to social tenants. House price increases become tolerable because everyone suddenly has an inheritance. But then, when people get old and need care, the state asset strips them.

Sit back and embrace the warm glow of the free market - from universal housing to slums in just over a generation.

 

[Aber gas]

It's the perfect Tory policy though. Fund social care by asset stripping pensioners and use that to sell financial products.

And it's the culmination of the privatisation of housing that was started under right-to-buy. Sell social housing cheap to social tenants. House price increases become tolerable because everyone suddenly has an inheritance. But then, when people get old and need care, the state asset strips them.

Sit back and embrace the warm glow of the free market - from universal housing to slums in just over a generation.

What the fuck have we done? surely this is the line that people won't cross.

 

[Aber gas]

I don't care if some of you reckon Corbyn is a hippy wanker, hold your nose and vote Labour. This Tory manifesto is an all out attack on working people, poor people, children, the elderly, the NHS and even you. Yes, you who thinks they're doing alright. If you're generally a bit selfish, earning a few quid and don't like paying tax then still vote Labour because these bastards are coming for you and those closest to you.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

The trouble is that if this election plays out as we expect it to then I think Corbyn's position is untenable. If the Conservatives return a majority of a hundred or so, despite the Labour vote share holding up, it'll be a impossible to sell such a result as a victory.

Using conventional political logic, you’re 100% correct. However, this often doesn’t apply to Corbyn.

One reason why I rather like JC – why I tend to post pictures of him posing with marrows and dogs instead of denouncing him as some kind of lunatic threat to the nation – is that he’s radically altered the balance of power in the Labour Party, shifting it in a way that democratically empowers the membership at the expense of the parliamentary caucus. The democrat in me thinks that is rather wonderful. Genuinely.

According to conventional political logic, the attempted coup last summer should have worked. Labour is infamously bad at political assassination (a reputation well-earned IMO), but last summer’s effort would have offed almost any other politician. Corbyn survived it because of that aforementioned shift, because the rank and file members (mostly loyal to him as they only joined following his election) are now more powerful than any faction within the PLP.

This shift could also help him to remain in position after this election. To my knowledge there is no procedural obligation for him to stand down after a General Election. Post-defeat resignation is an entirely conventional practice – the ‘done thing’ following rejection by the electorate. He’s ignored convention before. Why not again? And if power within the party is with the rank and file members rather than the PLP, he would stand a very good chance of winning again.

Ian is right. The majority of party members are loyal to Corbyn and probably wouldn’t blame him for defeat. To some extent this can be attributed to factionalism and idolatry, but it would be lazy to only explain it that way. If people like me don’t think Corbyn has had a fair shake of the stick (extremely hostile press; repeated sabotage by malcontents in the PLP; having to fight a General Election less than two years into the job), what is the likely reaction of people who’d vote for him? Why not give him a new mandate and let him try again? In lieu of an obvious successor (e.g. someone with the same politics but 20-30 years younger), why get rid of him?

 

[AFCB_Mark]

The bloke who IMO would be the best bet to replace Jezza - Andy Burnham, has tied himself into the Manchester Mayor job for the next 4-5 years at least anyway. I've absolutely no idea who else within Labour would be a decent replacement, nobody springs to mind. Most of the PLP are utterly forgetful drab and faceless, and JC's closest allies Abbott and McDonnell would be even worse in the top job than JC himself.

 

[Aber gas]

The bloke who IMO would be the best bet to replace Jezza - Andy Burnham, has tied himself into the Manchester Mayor job for the next 4-5 years at least anyway. I've absolutely no idea who else within Labour would be a decent replacement, nobody springs to mind. Most of the PLP are utterly forgetful drab and faceless, and JC's closest allies Abbott and McDonnell would be even worse in the top job than JC himself.

Rayner, Lewis, Gardiner are all options when Jezza has had enough. The party will never again accept a Blairite slug though and nor should we.

 

[blade1889]

Rayner, Lewis, Gardiner are all options when Jezza has had enough. The party will never again accept a Blairite slug though and nor should we.

Lay off the Burnmeister! He's from the North, don't know if you knew.

 

[Veggie Legs]

The Tories have got some electoral reform policies in the manifesto too: requiring photo ID to vote and more FPTP (for mayoral and PCC elections)

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

The purpose is to demoralise and encourage apathy. We're never going to agree here but it's my contention that by presenting nuanced data in such a simplified and frankly disingenuous way YouGov are deliberately influencing the election. I'll point again to YouGov's owners/backers and more pertinently Matt's unashamed affiliations. ( even as I'm writing this I'm aware a few of you are having me measured for a tin foil hat )

Yes, I'm afraid I think this is nonsense. They have/have had Tories within their ranks but have also had Labour folk (eg Peter Kellner). Getting stuff wrong is simply not good business sense for a polling organisation and it should be noted that wherever pollsters have got stuff wrong before it's when they've underestimated Tory numbers! This theory just doesn't add up.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Using conventional political logic, you’re 100% correct. However, this often doesn’t apply to Corbyn.

It does.

One reason why I rather like JC – why I tend to post pictures of him posing with marrows and dogs instead of denouncing him as some kind of lunatic threat to the nation – is that he’s radically altered the balance of power in the Labour Party, shifting it in a way that democratically empowers the membership at the expense of the parliamentary caucus. The democrat in me thinks that is rather wonderful. Genuinely.

I agree.

According to conventional political logic, the attempted coup last summer should have worked. Labour is infamously bad at political assassination (a reputation well-earned IMO), but last summer’s effort would have offed almost any other politician. Corbyn survived it because of that aforementioned shift, because the rank and file members (mostly loyal to him as they only joined following his election) are now more powerful than any faction within the PLP.

Should it? Would it? It was a hilarious bad attempt at dislodging a leader. Their motives were all too transparent, there was no viable alternative, they moved far too soon and ineffectually and the whole thing was a complete sham.

This shift could also help him to remain in position after this election. To my knowledge there is no procedural obligation for him to stand down after a General Election. Post-defeat resignation is an entirely conventional practice – the ‘done thing’ following rejection by the electorate. He’s ignored convention before. Why not again? And if power within the party is with the rank and file members rather than the PLP, he would stand a very good chance of winning again.

Because, if we want to avoid perpetual Tory rule, the Labour Party has to remain a viable entity in British politics .

Ian is right. The majority of party members are loyal to Corbyn and probably wouldn’t blame him for defeat. To some extent this can be attributed to factionalism and idolatry, but it would be lazy to only explain it that way. If people like me don’t think Corbyn has had a fair shake of the stick (extremely hostile press; repeated sabotage by malcontents in the PLP; having to fight a General Election less than two years into the job), what is the likely reaction of people who’d vote for him? Why not give him a new mandate and let him try again? In lieu of an obvious successor (e.g. someone with the same politics but 20-30 years younger), why get rid of him?

Are the majority of party members loyal to Corbyn? This seems a bold claim to me. I know long-time Labour members (neither Blairites nor secret Tories, who feel completely disillusioned as a result of his leadership). Besides, an election is a game changer. Those currently loyal may not be (I suspect will not be) come June 9th.

He undoubtedly hasn't had a fair shake of the stick. I would not remotely argue with that. The way that elements within the party have lined up against him and sought to undermine him is appalling. The way the press has vilified him is awful. The set of circumstances he is facing is unique. But, because of a combination of these factors and perhaps his own personal failings, the public has an extremely negative perception of him. This much is inescapable. If he fails to deliver, if the Tories return a large majority, then I very much imagine that a very many people will no longer be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. The only thing that will save him come June 9th is a dearth of alternative options.

 

[Aber gas]

Yes, I'm afraid I think this is nonsense. They have/have had Tories within their ranks but have also had Labour folk (eg Peter Kellner). Getting stuff wrong is simply not good business sense for a polling organisation and it should be noted that wherever pollsters have got stuff wrong before it's when they've underestimated Tory numbers! This theory just doesn't add up.

So when Wales fails to go Blue, when Yorkshire fails to go Blue I'll see a retraction?
Talking to some Labour buddies tonight we're seriously talking about places like Worcester going red once again. Cornwall, Devon. ( we've been fucked in Cornwall for years) this is not lost.

 

[Aber gas]

Talking about a imaginary Labour Party leadership contest in a general election campaign. Fml

 

[Aber gas]

Rayner absolutely smashing it tonight. Getting cheered in Norwich of all places.