Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A woman leader could give LAB the polling breakthrough that it

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited January 22 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A woman leader could give LAB the polling breakthrough that it is looking for

I was on holiday last week with an old mate who is intensely proud of his northern roots. Born a scouser he made his mark on Yorkshire newspapers before his well-honed shorthand, bulging contacts book and nose for news earned him a transfer to Westminster.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,034
    Has Thornberry got over that wretched 'white van' rubbish in the Sun, though? Otherwise, she'd be great. I get the impression she makes minemeat of the Tories when she's on at Questions.

    Oh and first, due solely to being in a different time-zone.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,040
    I don’t see why Corbyn would stand down - as he said in an interview recently he feels fit and healthy. It’s funny to think that not so long ago he was being criticised on here for not wanting to be PM.

    He will go at some point though and I think Don is right that other things being equal a female successor is likely. Corbyn has a big personal following which would not necessarily transfer to someone like John McDonnell or Diane Abbott IMO.

    I see very little chance though that a candidate on the right could win on a platform of aping the Tories/cutting welfare to be serious/maintaining pay freeze etc etc.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,040

    Has Thornberry got over that wretched 'white van' rubbish in the Sun, though? Otherwise, she'd be great. I get the impression she makes minemeat of the Tories when she's on at Questions.

    Oh and first, due solely to being in a different time-zone.

    I think the white van thing is both old enough and hard enough to pithily explain that it’s not relevant. What might be relevant is that she sounds posh... might make it harder for her I’m not sure. her performances on tv ive seen have markedly improved.

    She’s also not a fully fledged Corbynista imo (although she has been loyal) which might make her more acceptable to a broader range of MPs and help her get on the ballot.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,854
    Philadelphia Eagles are in the Superbowl !!!!
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,495
    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 314
    I cant understand why women have never done well in Labour leadership votes - maybe the image of Trade Union/party bosses cutting smoke filled room deal making has a grain of truth and this environment is not conducive to female candidates.

    I am unconvinced that a female leader per se will do much more for their voting base. they already do quite well among women, young, urban voters etc.The benches are packed full of talented women (just like in 1997/2001/2005 and look what happened), harriet harman made some interesting comments about this in her time in government which the party membership would do well to ponder.

    has TM set the cause for female PMs back? I am generally trying to work that one out, but seeing her rather clumsy attempts at bonhomie with Trump, Macron etc its an interesting one.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,459
    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Where else are they going ? The Invisible Democrats under great uncle Vince ?

    As it stands, the next election is going to be between the two major parties. A revival of the centre is certainly possible, and 2022, assuming the government stumbles along for the whole term, is quite a ways off but there's no hint of it yet.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,824
    The lead misses the point that Labour's revival amongst the young owes a lot to the image of Brand Corbyn; a combination of his back story and the circumstances of his election. I don't see it being a simple matter for this to transfer to either Rayner or Thornberry, particularly the latter.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,406
    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Yes and this is why the LD's are riding so high in the latest polls - oh wait! Crap!
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,814
    edited January 22
    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Labour will probably run an identical campaign though. Corbyn hasn’t changed his views in 30 years so another 4 won’t make any difference

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,020
    alex. said:


    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Labour will probably run an identical campaign though. Corbyn hasn’t changed his views in 30 years so another 4 won’t make any difference

    If pb Tories are in charge -- and of course, they will not be -- then the Conservatives will run an identical campaign, sans dementia tax. Many seem convinced they just need to double down on all the Venezuelan reds under the bed stuff to see Boris Rees-Hammond safely into Number 10.

    It is a weakness of all politicians to see the opposition's voters as fools or knaves.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,974

    alex. said:


    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Labour will probably run an identical campaign though. Corbyn hasn’t changed his views in 30 years so another 4 won’t make any difference

    If pb Tories are in charge -- and of course, they will not be -- then the Conservatives will run an identical campaign, sans dementia tax. Many seem convinced they just need to double down on all the Venezuelan reds under the bed stuff to see Boris Rees-Hammond safely into Number 10.

    It is a weakness of all politicians to see the opposition's voters as fools or knaves.
    +1.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 312
    The important question is what party the missing Momentumers (i.e. those who back Corbyn in leadership elections but aren't getting involved in Lansman and co's attempt to permanently SWP the party) want. Do they just want Labour to remain a bit more left-wing and shut out any thought of a return to Blairism, or are they fully sold on the hard left project?

    As for Corbyn voluntarily standing down, at least this side of a defeat, it's for the birds. Even if he was personally minded to, like he allegedly was in 2016, there's no way his acolytes will let him while there's still a chance of him being replaced by even a left-winger who isn't totally sold on completing the project. Both Thornberry and Rayner would likely be Kinnockesque in keeping left-wing policies while reaching out to other wings of the party and stopping the rot by dealing with the structural capture of the party by the unreconstructed hard left. Lansman, Murphy et al aren't stupid. They know that if Labour regains a semblance of normality they could be finished as quickly as they've risen.

    The question is, if after either a defeat or a polling collapse, the members who backed Corbyn because he seemed nice and they don't like Tony Blair or anyone who can be tangentially tied to him, but equally don't quote Gramsci on Twitter, decide enough's enough.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466

    alex. said:


    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Labour will probably run an identical campaign though. Corbyn hasn’t changed his views in 30 years so another 4 won’t make any difference

    If pb Tories are in charge -- and of course, they will not be -- then the Conservatives will run an identical campaign, sans dementia tax. Many seem convinced they just need to double down on all the Venezuelan reds under the bed stuff to see Boris Rees-Hammond safely into Number 10.

    It is a weakness of all politicians to see the opposition's voters as fools or knaves.
    Good morning all.

    Quite. The '£176bn' figure quoted is a mere 10% of the existing national debt. I'm not being sarcastic; the Tories have failed to address the deficit, and it makes it hard to argue about tax 'n' spend when HMG is still living beyond its means ten years after the crash.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840

    alex. said:


    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Labour will probably run an identical campaign though. Corbyn hasn’t changed his views in 30 years so another 4 won’t make any difference

    If pb Tories are in charge -- and of course, they will not be -- then the Conservatives will run an identical campaign, sans dementia tax. Many seem convinced they just need to double down on all the Venezuelan reds under the bed stuff to see Boris Rees-Hammond safely into Number 10.

    It is a weakness of all politicians to see the opposition's voters as fools or knaves.
    True. Though as it happens I am both.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,041
    Of course if the election happens in 2022 Corbyn will be nearly 73 years old. He would be, I think, the oldest person to become PM for the first time since the office is considered to have come about. Incidentally, that’s still quite a bit older than Trump when he become president at 70 for a four year term. That doesn’t mean that it can’t happen, of course, but one feels that it would be unlikely that he would stay long in the office even if he makes it there. The labour succession is going to be a hot issue in the next few years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,835
    edited January 22
    For Corbyn to declare he wants his successor to be a woman might be disastrous.

    Labour have often, like the Democrats in the US, given the unfortunate impression that they care about token representation rather than merit. Abbott would be the most egregious example - on the list with the nominations of her leadership rivals to ensure there would be a black woman in the field. Corbyn himself is scarcely better, on the slate to ensure the long-forgotten views of socialism would be represented despite his distinctly underwhelming previous career.

    What they need instead is to embrace full meritocracy, and be seen to be voting for someone not because she is a woman but because she's the best candidate. That's how both Tory female leaders did it and it is worth remembering that no female Tory leader has ever lost a general election.

    It is not to Labour's credit that last time around they turned down Cooper - who whatever her shortcomings clearly was by a distance the best candidate for PM - in favour of both Burnham and Corbyn, and it does suggest a problem with sexism - women are OK as a downtrodden minority to be represented but shouldn't expect to be at the top. All-women shortlists frankly give the same impression (I know all parties use them).

    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846
    Don's desperation to say goodbye to Corbyn is such that he will even consider a woman replacement. Given the past record how likely is it that a majority of the Labour party feel likewise?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,918
    Labour's current front bench doesn't appear to be embracing all the talents available to Corbyn. He has struggled to find enough MPs willing to take up Shadow Posts. Look at those on the back benches is Labour's next leader sitting there?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,631
    edited January 22
    Thornberry might be seen as some as a good Commons performer but so was William.Hague. Doesn't mean either are/were the next potential PM. Thornberry can be weak when put under pressure by a strong interviewer. For all her legal background, she does struggle to elucidate difficult policy positions. She is not as gaffe prone as Diane Abbott but she can come over as patronising.

    Rayner has youth on her side but she has yet to prove herself as a political thinker. Her recent comments about Labour's (lack of a coherent) economic policy indicates that she might be able to see a problem but is not yet fighting for her own vision of how to make things better. She is not always good at handling difficult interviews. The main thing people currently know about her is the fact that she was a teenage mother. Personally I don't think that a back story is sufficient to wanting to lead the country.

    The issue of misogyny in the Labour movement has hampered the careers of many talented women and, indeed, put off many from even wanting to try. The fact that these two names are being touted as the future is a sign of weakness not strength.

    Promotions to the Shadow Cabinet over the past two years have not been because of great talent but more from the fact that there are many on the opposition benches won't serve under Corbyn. This has allowed MPs to reach offices that would never have been offered them under a different leader.

    Yes, Corbyn had a good campaign. And that has reduced the amount of internal criticism that reaches the public but it hasn't reunited the parliamentary party.

    None of our political parties are enjoying a golden era of talent. But to claim that Thornberry and Rayner are the future only serves to highlight how mediocrity might be all anyone can hope for.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
    Corbyn isn’t going to resign without a resounding election defeat, even if that means waiting until 2022.

    The idea that his replacement should be a woman is, as others have said, the worst form of tokenism rather than seeking to appoint the best person for the job. There’s also no indication that the more general Labour membership and the Unions would be interested in backing a woman - they certainly haven’t so far. It must really annoy the Harman types that the Conservatives have produced two female prime ministers.

    Finally the issue with Angela Rayner isn’t the way she speaks, it the content of what comes out of her mouth.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846
    It starts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,918
    Thornberry's remarks on Iranian protests, sounded like unconvincing equivocation at best, and unprincipled amorality at worst. Being reminded about her praise for Carillion was a amusing dig at this week's PMQs.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846
    edited January 22
    dr_spyn said:

    Thornberry's remarks on Iranian protests, sounded like unconvincing equivocation at best, and unprincipled amorality at worst. Being reminded about her praise for Carillion was a amusing dig at this week's PMQs.

    In fairness I think her equivocation came from her awareness that her boss was vulnerable to charges of being friends with and supporter of the savages currently setting the rules in Iran. It is also true, as we found in Iraq, that not everyone who opposes a tyrannical regime proves to be a Westminster style democrat.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688
    edited January 22
    DavidL said:

    It starts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.

    Project fear was the emperors new clothes. The rubbish that was spouted earlier about not joining the euro ensured that the British people perhaps had an inkling this might be the case...
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,652
    DavidL said:

    It starts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.

    We'll never be able to peek into the parallel universe where Remain won, of course. O'Neill's comments there suggest that whatever happens to the economy for at least the next couple of decades Remain supporters will claim that if we'd stayed in the EU things would be even better/less bad, and for that matter we Leavers will no doubt claim the reverse. We'll never really know.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846
    Essexit said:

    DavidL said:

    It starts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.

    We'll never be able to peek into the parallel universe where Remain won, of course. O'Neill's comments there suggest that whatever happens to the economy for at least the next couple of decades Remain supporters will claim that if we'd stayed in the EU things would be even better/less bad, and for that matter we Leavers will no doubt claim the reverse. We'll never really know.
    That's my view. Some will point to trends so if we grow less than the EZ then Brexit will have been bad and if we grow more it will have been good. But there are endless unrelated factors that will have bigger effects on these trends than Brexit itself so the comparisons are meaningless. FWIW I think we will outgrow the EZ over the next few years. Ironically, our high immigration has given us a demographic advantage that is more likely to prove significant and we seem to have increasing strength in internet related businesses that are likely to be a major source of growth.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,365

    Has Thornberry got over that wretched 'white van' rubbish in the Sun, though? Otherwise, she'd be great. I get the impression she makes minemeat of the Tories when she's on at Questions.

    Oh and first, due solely to being in a different time-zone.

    She seems highly variable. I've seen her do very well, and other times she's been crap.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,650
    The Don Brind bus sets out regularly and reaches the same destination every time.

    After a quick stop at "Better than Expected Election Results", the bus travels over some bumpy roads and gets to its terminus.

    It's no surprise. Sometimes Don Brind travels a different route. But, we always arrive at the same destination.

    It's "Jazza Must Go".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,365
    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    I wouldnt be so sure, Dr Foxy is a LD Corbyn fan as I recall. And if other parties are failing to break through no one needs to make the case, the public will just do it.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    edited January 22
    Mortimer said:

    DavidL said:

    It starts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.

    Project fear was the emperors new clothes. The rubbish that was spouted earlier about not joining the euro ensured that the British people perhaps had an inkling this might be the case...
    One of the issues with these broad aggregate figures (Khan's study estimated growth would be 1-3% lower in 2030, i.e. 24% or so vs 25-27%) is that the negative impacts of Brexit are likely to be sectoral. I expect automotive to suffer relatively badly. Depending on the subsidy regime, agriculture might also take a hit.

    For me, the most interesting metric post-Brexit will be FDI.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,335
    As someone closer to Corbyn than most here, I think the starting point is always that he sees himself and any putative successor as a representative of the socialist movement. He won't stand down because of age or pressure: I'm not sure he especially enjoys the job, but he sees it as a duty, and duty to the cause trumps any discomfort. If he became terribly unpopular, he might think he should quit, but it's hard to see what new arguments would turn people against him: the media have already thrown everything including the kitchen sink at him. Similarly, he won't endorse a woman per se - he'll indicate that he wants someone who will carry in the same spirit, but will not tell the members who it should be.

    The membership is almost 50% female and I don't think is opposed to a woman leader in any way, but there again they'll choose the most sympathetic politically, with some but not overwhelmig consideration of electability (partly because it's hard to tell in advance who will really do well). The field is pretty open IMO because McDonnell doesn't want it and a lot of the front bench is quite new. Rayner and Thornbery are obviously possibilities, more than Pidcock at this point, but 4+ years from now, who knows? Not a market to tie your money up in.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,335
    Fairly unamazing poll on Tory attitudes to the NHS:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/22/nhs-crisis-is-main-worry-for-conservative-voters-poll-suggests

    I suspect that most people actually have barely heard of Jeremy Hunt - we understimate how little people know about non-leaders. So although only 34% of Tories like him, I wonder if most of the 66% aren't just "don't know".
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,171
    kle4 said:

    Has Thornberry got over that wretched 'white van' rubbish in the Sun, though? Otherwise, she'd be great. I get the impression she makes minemeat of the Tories when she's on at Questions.

    Oh and first, due solely to being in a different time-zone.

    She seems highly variable. I've seen her do very well, and other times she's been crap.
    What other times ?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,650
    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789
    Pie in the sky. Corbyn is going nowhere before the next election. He would regard that as a betrayal of those who backed him in 2016, when he was under genuine threat and when his membership support saw him through, despite Don's best efforts.

    I note that Don doesn't say why a female leader would be Labour's panacea and instead indulges in a diversion about regional accents.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,607

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Any signs that Vince Cable wants to give up The Precious?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,135
    edited January 22
    kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    I wouldnt be so sure, Dr Foxy is a LD Corbyn fan as I recall. And if other parties are failing to break through no one needs to make the case, the public will just do it.
    Corbyn's opposition to the government on Brexit has been half-hearted at best, but that may not dim the enthusiasm of his supporters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493
    I fail to see why Corbyn standing down in favour of Angela Rather or Emily Thornberry would suddenly see a Labour poll surge? Leftwingers would inevitably be less enthused about them than they are about Corbyn and few if any current Conservative voters are suddenly going to switch to Labour because they have replaced Corbyn with a leader who is Corbynlitw.

    The main reason Major got a bounce in 1990 was a policy issue ie he dumped the poll tax and Thatcher had simply gone on too long after 15 years as Tory leader, Corbyn has only been there for 3
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,365
    edited January 22
    Yorkcity said:

    kle4 said:

    Has Thornberry got over that wretched 'white van' rubbish in the Sun, though? Otherwise, she'd be great. I get the impression she makes minemeat of the Tories when she's on at Questions.

    Oh and first, due solely to being in a different time-zone.

    She seems highly variable. I've seen her do very well, and other times she's been crap.
    What other times ?
    You'll forgive me if I don't catelogue every instance good and bad of a politician. Off the top of my head I cannot recall the good either and it doesn't mean she haant done well. So please don't be so foolish as to suggest someone cannot have a general opinion on a person without instant ability to recall firm evidence.

    But you wouldn't do something so silly like that would you? (No need to answer, I can guess).

    But in point of fact while I do recall saying she didn't deserve a sacking, she was quite lame in making excuses over the whole England flag business.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,171
    edited January 22

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Elected May is pushing it a bit , did any conservative member get a leadership vote ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493

    Fairly unamazing poll on Tory attitudes to the NHS:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/22/nhs-crisis-is-main-worry-for-conservative-voters-poll-suggests

    I suspect that most people actually have barely heard of Jeremy Hunt - we understimate how little people know about non-leaders. So although only 34% of Tories like him, I wonder if most of the 66% aren't just "don't know".

    34% of Tories like Hunt in that poll, 30% of Tories say he should be sacked and 36% are undecided
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493

    alex. said:


    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Labour will probably run an identical campaign though. Corbyn hasn’t changed his views in 30 years so another 4 won’t make any difference

    If pb Tories are in charge -- and of course, they will not be -- then the Conservatives will run an identical campaign, sans dementia tax. Many seem convinced they just need to double down on all the Venezuelan reds under the bed stuff to see Boris Rees-Hammond safely into Number 10.

    It is a weakness of all politicians to see the opposition's voters as fools or knaves.
    Well most Corbynistas seem to think they can run an identical campaign to last time and get a Labour landslide
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,650
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    I wouldnt be so sure, Dr Foxy is a LD Corbyn fan as I recall. And if other parties are failing to break through no one needs to make the case, the public will just do it.
    Corbyn's opposition to the government on Brexit has been half-hearted at best, but that may not dim the enthusiasm of his supporters.
    It is curious.

    The real reason why the Referendum lost was because Labour (or rather more specifically, Jeremy) did not pull their weight.

    But, David Cameron has gotten all the blame for that.

    Despite ample evidence to the contrary, there are Remainers who seem to believe firmly that Jeremy wanted to Remain.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,171
    kle4 said:

    Yorkcity said:

    kle4 said:

    Has Thornberry got over that wretched 'white van' rubbish in the Sun, though? Otherwise, she'd be great. I get the impression she makes minemeat of the Tories when she's on at Questions.

    Oh and first, due solely to being in a different time-zone.

    She seems highly variable. I've seen her do very well, and other times she's been crap.
    What other times ?
    You'll forgive me if I don't catelogue every instance good and bad of a politician. Off the top of my head I cannot recall the good either and it doesn't mean she haant done well. So please don't be so foolish as to suggest someone cannot have a general opinion on a person without instant ability to recall firm evidence.

    But you wouldn't do something so silly like that would you? (No need to answer, I can guess).

    But in point of fact while I do recall saying she didn't deserve a sacking, she was quite lame in making excuses over the whole England flag business.
    You said crap , I thought that was quite strong so must have left a bad impression on you.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,650
    edited January 22
    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Elected May is pushing it a bit , did any conservative member get a leadership vote ?
    You seem in a hair-splitting mood today!

    The parties can be divided into two sets. Those that have had female leaders and those that have not.

    Labour are in the latter set.

    It looks likely that when Vince steps down, the LibDems will get a female leader. Probably if she had stood last time, Jo Swinson would have won it.

    So, we may soon be in a situation in which only Labour have not had a female leader -- I suspect that will make many women in the Labour Party very uncomfortable.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,462
    Good morning, everyone.

    Perhaps. But the two main parties are regularly on 40-42%. I'm not sure there's a lot further either can go right now.

    Also, a Not-Corbyn candidate might well be doing a lot better right now. But whoever they get, it seems the far left has successfully occupied its host, not unlike a Goa'uld (although, personally, I'd vote for Lord Yu over Corbyn's Labour).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,486
    Morning all,

    Very good thread header.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789
    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Elected May is pushing it a bit , did any conservative member get a leadership vote ?
    Does it matter? In any case, a May vote Leadsom contest would have produced a female leader.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,738
    "The Tories are dangerously close to losing public confidence over crime"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/tories-dangerously-close-losing-public-confidence-crime/
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,083
    edited January 22
    John_M said:

    Mortimer said:

    DavidL said:

    It starts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.

    Project fear was the emperors new clothes. The rubbish that was spouted earlier about not joining the euro ensured that the British people perhaps had an inkling this might be the case...
    One of the issues with these broad aggregate figures (Khan's study estimated growth would be 1-3% lower in 2030, i.e. 24% or so vs 25-27%) is that the negative impacts of Brexit are likely to be sectoral. I expect automotive to suffer relatively badly. Depending on the subsidy regime, agriculture might also take a hit.

    For me, the most interesting metric post-Brexit will be FDI.

    The worship of FDI has been one of the most unhealthy aspects of the political consensus since Blair. Developing countries need FDI to exploit their resources. Wealthy countries should in general be capital exporters. Why aren’t we aspiring to do that?

    I don’t think we should be happy that more and more of our housing stock is ending up in the hands of overseas investors. Of course FDI a la Nissan is a boon for the economy, but plenty of FDI does not result in additional employment, innovation or exports for the U.K. economy, and results in a permanent transfer of rents and wealth outside the country. If UK investors could buy housing stock in Singapore or China that would be more reasonable, but we can’t.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,486

    As someone closer to Corbyn than most here, I think the starting point is always that he sees himself and any putative successor as a representative of the socialist movement. He won't stand down because of age or pressure: I'm not sure he especially enjoys the job, but he sees it as a duty, and duty to the cause trumps any discomfort. If he became terribly unpopular, he might think he should quit, but it's hard to see what new arguments would turn people against him: the media have already thrown everything including the kitchen sink at him. Similarly, he won't endorse a woman per se - he'll indicate that he wants someone who will carry in the same spirit, but will not tell the members who it should be.

    The membership is almost 50% female and I don't think is opposed to a woman leader in any way, but there again they'll choose the most sympathetic politically, with some but not overwhelmig consideration of electability (partly because it's hard to tell in advance who will really do well). The field is pretty open IMO because McDonnell doesn't want it and a lot of the front bench is quite new. Rayner and Thornbery are obviously possibilities, more than Pidcock at this point, but 4+ years from now, who knows? Not a market to tie your money up in.

    "McDonnell doesn't want it"

    Are we sure?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,486
    Boris pushing for £100m a week for NHS:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/theresa-may-faces-cabinet-demands-pledge-100m-extra-per-week/

    Another week in which he is attempting to demonstrate that he is May's replacement and it is only a matter of timing.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840
    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:


    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Labour will probably run an identical campaign though. Corbyn hasn’t changed his views in 30 years so another 4 won’t make any difference

    If pb Tories are in charge -- and of course, they will not be -- then the Conservatives will run an identical campaign, sans dementia tax. Many seem convinced they just need to double down on all the Venezuelan reds under the bed stuff to see Boris Rees-Hammond safely into Number 10.

    It is a weakness of all politicians to see the opposition's voters as fools or knaves.
    Well most Corbynistas seem to think they can run an identical campaign to last time and get a Labour landslide
    Do they? You usually have some data behind what you say. What do you base that on? And if they were planning something very different, what would be the incentive to let anyone know about?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    RoyalBlue said:

    John_M said:

    Mortimer said:

    DavidL said:

    It starts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.

    Project fear was the emperors new clothes. The rubbish that was spouted earlier about not joining the euro ensured that the British people perhaps had an inkling this might be the case...
    One of the issues with these broad aggregate figures (Khan's study estimated growth would be 1-3% lower in 2030, i.e. 24% or so vs 25-27%) is that the negative impacts of Brexit are likely to be sectoral. I expect automotive to suffer relatively badly. Depending on the subsidy regime, agriculture might also take a hit.

    For me, the most interesting metric post-Brexit will be FDI.

    The worship of FDI has been one of the most unhealthy aspects of the political consensus since Blair. Developing countries need FDI to exploit their resources. Wealthy countries should in general be capital exporters. Why aren’t we aspiring to do that?

    I don’t think we should be happy that more and more of our housing stock is ending up in the hands of overseas investors. Of course FDI a la Nissan is a boon for the economy, but plenty of FDI does not result in additional employment, innovation or exports for the U.K. economy, and results in a permanent transfer of rents and wealth outside the country. If UK investors could buy housing stock in Singapore or China that would be more reasonable, but we can’t.
    I do agree that there is 'good' FDI and 'bad'. However, in the first instance, I'm interested in whether the UK's preeminence as an investment destination is correlated with EU membership. I appreciate this is a tad theological for most.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,513

    As someone closer to Corbyn than most here, I think the starting point is always that he sees himself and any putative successor as a representative of the socialist movement. He won't stand down because of age or pressure: I'm not sure he especially enjoys the job, but he sees it as a duty, and duty to the cause trumps any discomfort. If he became terribly unpopular, he might think he should quit, but it's hard to see what new arguments would turn people against him: the media have already thrown everything including the kitchen sink at him. Similarly, he won't endorse a woman per se - he'll indicate that he wants someone who will carry in the same spirit, but will not tell the members who it should be.

    The membership is almost 50% female and I don't think is opposed to a woman leader in any way, but there again they'll choose the most sympathetic politically, with some but not overwhelmig consideration of electability (partly because it's hard to tell in advance who will really do well). The field is pretty open IMO because McDonnell doesn't want it and a lot of the front bench is quite new. Rayner and Thornbery are obviously possibilities, more than Pidcock at this point, but 4+ years from now, who knows? Not a market to tie your money up in.

    "McDonnell doesn't want it"

    Are we sure?
    I'm sure it's a case of: we'd rather people didn't think he wants it.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,575
    RoyalBlue said:

    John_M said:

    Mortimer said:

    DavidL said:

    It starts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.

    Project fear was the emperors new clothes. The rubbish that was spouted earlier about not joining the euro ensured that the British people perhaps had an inkling this might be the case...
    One of the issues with these broad aggregate figures (Khan's study estimated growth would be 1-3% lower in 2030, i.e. 24% or so vs 25-27%) is that the negative impacts of Brexit are likely to be sectoral. I expect automotive to suffer relatively badly. Depending on the subsidy regime, agriculture might also take a hit.

    For me, the most interesting metric post-Brexit will be FDI.

    The worship of FDI has been one of the most unhealthy aspects of the political consensus since Blair. Developing countries need FDI to exploit their resources. Wealthy countries should in general be capital exporters. Why aren’t we aspiring to do that?

    I don’t think we should be happy that more and more of our housing stock is ending up in the hands of overseas investors. Of course FDI a la Nissan is a boon for the economy, but plenty of FDI does not result in additional employment, innovation or exports for the U.K. economy, and results in a permanent transfer of rents and wealth outside the country. If UK investors could buy housing stock in Singapore or China that would be more reasonable, but we can’t.
    To be a capital exporter the UK would have to live within its means and and create more wealth than it consumes.

    Now if it had to do that there would need to be a much greater emphasis on productivity increases, on having an education system which equiped future workers, on having affordable housing and on infrastructure investment which led to higher growth rather than funding political vanity projects.

    Instead the UK chose to shake the magic money tree.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,171

    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Elected May is pushing it a bit , did any conservative member get a leadership vote ?
    Does it matter? In any case, a May vote Leadsom contest would have produced a female leader.
    No not in that sense , but a proper leadership contest is a good thing in itself.As it lets people see them set their policies out for the future .I do not think it helped Brown or May having a walkover.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,020
    edited January 22
    HYUFD said:

    alex. said:


    PClipp said:

    From all the above, I would pick out the words: "but we can be sure the next election, whenever it comes, will not be a straight re-run".

    Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.

    Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.

    Labour will probably run an identical campaign though. Corbyn hasn’t changed his views in 30 years so another 4 won’t make any difference

    If pb Tories are in charge -- and of course, they will not be -- then the Conservatives will run an identical campaign, sans dementia tax. Many seem convinced they just need to double down on all the Venezuelan reds under the bed stuff to see Boris Rees-Hammond safely into Number 10.

    It is a weakness of all politicians to see the opposition's voters as fools or knaves.
    Well most Corbynistas seem to think they can run an identical campaign to last time and get a Labour landslide
    That is basically the comment (@alex) that I was responding to.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789
    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Elected May is pushing it a bit , did any conservative member get a leadership vote ?
    Does it matter? In any case, a May vote Leadsom contest would have produced a female leader.
    No not in that sense , but a proper leadership contest is a good thing in itself.As it lets people see them set their policies out for the future .I do not think it helped Brown or May having a walkover.
    No, that's true. Though in a 'contest' against Leadsom, whose own campaign was long past any form of viability, May would probably have just maintained her previous campaign strategy of saying little beyond platitudes.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789

    As someone closer to Corbyn than most here, I think the starting point is always that he sees himself and any putative successor as a representative of the socialist movement. He won't stand down because of age or pressure: I'm not sure he especially enjoys the job, but he sees it as a duty, and duty to the cause trumps any discomfort. If he became terribly unpopular, he might think he should quit, but it's hard to see what new arguments would turn people against him: the media have already thrown everything including the kitchen sink at him. Similarly, he won't endorse a woman per se - he'll indicate that he wants someone who will carry in the same spirit, but will not tell the members who it should be.

    The membership is almost 50% female and I don't think is opposed to a woman leader in any way, but there again they'll choose the most sympathetic politically, with some but not overwhelmig consideration of electability (partly because it's hard to tell in advance who will really do well). The field is pretty open IMO because McDonnell doesn't want it and a lot of the front bench is quite new. Rayner and Thornbery are obviously possibilities, more than Pidcock at this point, but 4+ years from now, who knows? Not a market to tie your money up in.

    "McDonnell doesn't want it"

    Are we sure?
    Yes. If he did, he'd have offered to take over from Corbyn when the latter was considering throwing in the towel in 2016.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,962
    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Elected May is pushing it a bit , did any conservative member get a leadership vote ?
    May and Thatcher were both elected by the MPs. May won the MP vote by a very significant margin and would almost certainly have won the membership vote had her opponent not withdrawn.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,607
    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Elected May is pushing it a bit , did any conservative member get a leadership vote ?
    About 300. (Who were MPs....)

    There are some here would have you think that comprises most of the Tory Party membership these days... ;-)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,607
    Labour don't need a female leader. They need a Bloke. Someone who looks like they could man a barbeque - and then eat the resulting product wthout fat dripping all down their chin and over their shoes. Labour got the same % of vote of women voters as the Tories in June - 43:43. Labour's problem is convincing Blokes, who they lost 45:39. That stat right there is why Labour lost a close election.

    * Source: YouGov https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
  • So Diane Abbott as next Labour leader nailed on?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,180
    First Remainers told us the economic crash/mass unemployment/rate spike etc would happen immediately after a Leave vote.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when Article 50 was deployed.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when we actually left the EU.

    Now they are finally admitting the supposed crash won't even be visible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    But it's definitely there, honest. And we should believe that because they have been so accurate so far.

    To be honest, I think Jim O'Neill missed the memo. They were meant to have a phase saying it wouldn't happen until the transition period was over. Could have kept the wheeze up for another couple years.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,037
    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 124
    A bit early for anyone to dismiss Rayner as a `Mediocrity.`
    From nowhere she has established herself as Labours 2nd most popular individual with the Labour base (after Corbyn) whilst doing an interview with `The Spectator` that would have got her respect with her Tory opponents.Her main handicap is the snobbery of the professional middle class who will look down on her for her accent and leaving school at 16.
    Emily Thornberry comes across as typifing that condescending professional middle class voice
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,171

    Yorkcity said:

    ydoethur said:



    So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.

    Of course, it is getting a bit embarrassing.

    Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.

    But, they've all elected females as leaders.

    The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
    Elected May is pushing it a bit , did any conservative member get a leadership vote ?
    May and Thatcher were both elected by the MPs. May won the MP vote by a very significant margin and would almost certainly have won the membership vote had her opponent not withdrawn.
    Agreed , The conservative rules for Leadership especially whilst in government is less fraught and easier to handle .
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,738
    At least 2.8 million people have watched what is IMO the most interesting interview so far this year:

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,962
    Elliot said:

    First Remainers told us the economic crash/mass unemployment/rate spike etc would happen immediately after a Leave vote.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when Article 50 was deployed.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when we actually left the EU.

    Now they are finally admitting the supposed crash won't even be visible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    But it's definitely there, honest. And we should believe that because they have been so accurate so far.

    To be honest, I think Jim O'Neill missed the memo. They were meant to have a phase saying it wouldn't happen until the transition period was over. Could have kept the wheeze up for another couple years.

    De ja vu all over again.

    It was going to happen if we left the ERM.

    Then it was delayed, but was going to happen when the Euro was launched.

    Then it was delayed, but was going to happen when the Euro cash was launched.

    Then it was delayed, but was going to happen if we ruled out future Euro membership.

    Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me eight times ... ???
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,434
    Is there any precedent for a Labour leader anointing his own successor (and being listened to)? If he stood down without the excuse of poor health I would expect a response of: if you're not up to the job yourself. don't try to dictate to us who is.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 470

    So Diane Abbott as next Labour leader nailed on?

    Please don't joke about that outcome. Remember when the Tory three quidders thought the prospect of Corbyn leading Labour was hilarious? Not so funny even with the vaguest of prospects he becomes PM!
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,631
    Metatron said:

    A bit early for anyone to dismiss Rayner as a `Mediocrity.`
    From nowhere she has established herself as Labours 2nd most popular individual with the Labour base (after Corbyn) whilst doing an interview with `The Spectator` that would have got her respect with her Tory opponents.Her main handicap is the snobbery of the professional middle class who will look down on her for her accent and leaving school at 16.
    Emily Thornberry comes across as typifing that condescending professional middle class voice

    If it is too early to dismiss her as a mediocrity, it is also too early to consider her a suitable PM. She has yet to set out anything that gives anyone a clue as to how she views politics and how she would change things.

    She is blank canvas onto which it is very easy to project your own hopes. But that isn't enough to demonstrate her leadership potential.

    10-15 years time - that may be very different. But I have not yet seen much potential there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493
    edited January 22
    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Major won as he got almost exactly the same voteshare in 1992 as Thatcher did in 1987, 41% as opposed to 42%, Kinnock's seat gains came largely by squeezing the 1987 SDP/Alliance vote with the LDs about 5% down on what they got in 1992. Corbyn has little further room to squeeze the LDs
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,135

    Elliot said:

    First Remainers told us the economic crash/mass unemployment/rate spike etc would happen immediately after a Leave vote.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when Article 50 was deployed.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when we actually left the EU.

    Now they are finally admitting the supposed crash won't even be visible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    But it's definitely there, honest. And we should believe that because they have been so accurate so far.

    To be honest, I think Jim O'Neill missed the memo. They were meant to have a phase saying it wouldn't happen until the transition period was over. Could have kept the wheeze up for another couple years.

    De ja vu all over again.

    It was going to happen if we left the ERM.

    Then it was delayed, but was going to happen when the Euro was launched.

    Then it was delayed, but was going to happen when the Euro cash was launched.

    Then it was delayed, but was going to happen if we ruled out future Euro membership.

    Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me eight times ... ???
    IMHO, for a few years, growth will be slightly lower outside the EU than it would have been inside it. In part, that will be because we no longer act as the EU's consumer of last resort, and their employer of last resort.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,544
    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Yes, the Conservatives are going to find it very hard to increase on seats over 2017, and will probably be in a worse position in 2022 than they were in 1992 (although events may intervene there as well). But if Labour are already at a high point and unlikely to gain a few percent, the question is where the Conservative voters would go (or whether they would stay at home).

    A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.

    The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.

    Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,434

    So Diane Abbott as next Labour leader nailed on?

    Please don't joke about that outcome. Remember when the Tory three quidders thought the prospect of Corbyn leading Labour was hilarious? Not so funny even with the vaguest of prospects he becomes PM!
    I never approved of three quidding, but I think it's fair to say that, not having perfect knowledge of counterfactual outcomes, we can't say for sure that it did not succeed exactly as intended.
  • So Diane Abbott as next Labour leader nailed on?

    Please don't joke about that outcome. Remember when the Tory three quidders thought the prospect of Corbyn leading Labour was hilarious? Not so funny even with the vaguest of prospects he becomes PM!
    Somebody on PB tipped her at 100/1 last year.

    Serious wonga to be made if she succeeds Jeremy Corbyn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493
    edited January 22

    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Yes, the Conservatives are going to find it very hard to increase on seats over 2017, and will probably be in a worse position in 2022 than they were in 1992 (although events may intervene there as well). But if Labour are already at a high point and unlikely to gain a few percent, the question is where the Conservative voters would go (or whether they would stay at home).

    A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.

    The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.

    Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
    In 1992 the Tory voteshare was down just 0.3% on 1987, Tory voters who did not vote for Kinnock in 1987 did not do so in 1992 either. The same may be true with current Tory voters and Corbyn. It took Blair to see large-scale switching from Tory to Labour in 1997
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688

    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Yes, the Conservatives are going to find it very hard to increase on seats over 2017, and will probably be in a worse position in 2022 than they were in 1992 (although events may intervene there as well). But if Labour are already at a high point and unlikely to gain a few percent, the question is where the Conservative voters would go (or whether they would stay at home).

    A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.

    The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.

    Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
    IOS, your time has come.

    More seriously, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them. Keeping the broad spectrum of 2017 supporters and ensuring those who sat on their hands vote Tory in the right places is going to be key...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,575
    Elliot said:

    First Remainers told us the economic crash/mass unemployment/rate spike etc would happen immediately after a Leave vote.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when Article 50 was deployed.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when we actually left the EU.

    Now they are finally admitting the supposed crash won't even be visible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    But it's definitely there, honest. And we should believe that because they have been so accurate so far.

    To be honest, I think Jim O'Neill missed the memo. They were meant to have a phase saying it wouldn't happen until the transition period was over. Could have kept the wheeze up for another couple years.

    Some thoughts from the Economists, FT and New York Times in the week after the Referendum:

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/06/markets-after-referendum



    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/opinion/this-is-just-the-start-of-the-brexits-economic-disaster.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    The inevitable predictions of imminent recession, City redundancies, stock and house price falls.

    I wonder if any of these 'experts' had the honesty to subsequently admit they were wrong.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789
    Metatron said:

    A bit early for anyone to dismiss Rayner as a `Mediocrity.`
    From nowhere she has established herself as Labours 2nd most popular individual with the Labour base (after Corbyn) whilst doing an interview with `The Spectator` that would have got her respect with her Tory opponents.Her main handicap is the snobbery of the professional middle class who will look down on her for her accent and leaving school at 16.
    Emily Thornberry comes across as typifing that condescending professional middle class voice

    As Labour's membership seems to be made up in no small part by "condescending professional middle class voices", that shouldn't be a problem for her.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,081
    This army resourcing story is weird. Feels like Tory party politics. Can anyone decode?

    Clearly the British army has rarely been a match for the Russian/Red army. So what's going on?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493
    Mortimer said:

    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Yes, the Conservatives are going to find it very hard to increase on seats over 2017, and will probably be in a worse position in 2022 than they were in 1992 (although events may intervene there as well). But if Labour are already at a high point and unlikely to gain a few percent, the question is where the Conservative voters would go (or whether they would stay at home).

    A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.

    The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.

    Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
    IOS, your time has come.

    More seriously, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them. Keeping the broad spectrum of 2017 supporters and ensuring those who sat on their hands vote Tory in the right places is going to be key...
    Indeed and if Corbyn does become PM it is likely to be with SNP support rather than a working majority
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,474
    Mortimer said:

    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Yes, the Conservatives are going to find it very hard to increase on seats over 2017, and will probably be in a worse position in 2022 than they were in 1992 (although events may intervene there as well). But if Labour are already at a high point and unlikely to gain a few percent, the question is where the Conservative voters would go (or whether they would stay at home).

    A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.

    The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.

    Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
    IOS, your time has come.

    More seriously, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them. Keeping the broad spectrum of 2017 supporters and ensuring those who sat on their hands vote Tory in the right places is going to be key...
    So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 470
    Ishmael_Z said:

    So Diane Abbott as next Labour leader nailed on?

    Please don't joke about that outcome. Remember when the Tory three quidders thought the prospect of Corbyn leading Labour was hilarious? Not so funny even with the vaguest of prospects he becomes PM!
    I never approved of three quidding, but I think it's fair to say that, not having perfect knowledge of counterfactual outcomes, we can't say for sure that it did not succeed exactly as intended.
    Yes, to the point where he repels enough voters, once that rubicon is crossed we all go to hell in a handcart.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,180

    Mortimer said:

    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Yes, the Conservatives are going to find it very hard to increase on seats over 2017, and will probably be in a worse position in 2022 than they were in 1992 (although events may intervene there as well). But if Labour are already at a high point and unlikely to gain a few percent, the question is where the Conservative voters would go (or whether they would stay at home).

    A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.

    The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.

    Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
    IOS, your time has come.

    More seriously, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them. Keeping the broad spectrum of 2017 supporters and ensuring those who sat on their hands vote Tory in the right places is going to be key...
    So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?
    They lost their majority, they didn't lose the election. They came first and formed a government.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    edited January 22
    Jonathan said:

    This army resourcing story is weird. Feels like Tory party politics. Can anyone decode?

    Clearly the British army has rarely been a match for the Russian/Red army. So what's going on?

    My best guess: this is the opening salvo in the PR wars prior to the next spending round.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,459
    Jonathan said:

    This army resourcing story is weird. Feels like Tory party politics. Can anyone decode?

    Clearly the British army has rarely been a match for the Russian/Red army. So what's going on?

    Gavin Williamson trying to make a name for himself, primarily, I expect.

    Having said that, I think people tend to underestimate that value of the NATO alliance, and the stability which it has given Europe for the last half century and more. It's not that a Russian invasion of Europe is likely any time soon, but Russian influence on, and indeed interference in the politics of Europe would be an order of magnitude greater without continued US commitment to NATO.

    The world is shifting, and as we are seeing with Trump, we can't take our security - and more particularly the guarantee of US backing - completely for granted. A credible level of defense funding is essential both in its own terms, and as a means of retaining US support.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,180

    Elliot said:

    First Remainers told us the economic crash/mass unemployment/rate spike etc would happen immediately after a Leave vote.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when Article 50 was deployed.

    Then it was delayed, but going to happen when we actually left the EU.

    Now they are finally admitting the supposed crash won't even be visible.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

    But it's definitely there, honest. And we should believe that because they have been so accurate so far.

    To be honest, I think Jim O'Neill missed the memo. They were meant to have a phase saying it wouldn't happen until the transition period was over. Could have kept the wheeze up for another couple years.

    Some thoughts from the Economists, FT and New York Times in the week after the Referendum:

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/06/markets-after-referendum



    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/opinion/this-is-just-the-start-of-the-brexits-economic-disaster.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    The inevitable predictions of imminent recession, City redundancies, stock and house price falls.

    I wonder if any of these 'experts' had the honesty to subsequently admit they were wrong.
    Of course, despite all this shown to be a sham, they will still claim economic reasons are important enough to overrule democracy.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,962

    Mortimer said:

    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Yes, the Conservatives are going to find it very hard to increase on seats over 2017, and will probably be in a worse position in 2022 than they were in 1992 (although events may intervene there as well). But if Labour are already at a high point and unlikely to gain a few percent, the question is where the Conservative voters would go (or whether they would stay at home).

    A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.

    The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.

    Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
    IOS, your time has come.

    More seriously, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them. Keeping the broad spectrum of 2017 supporters and ensuring those who sat on their hands vote Tory in the right places is going to be key...
    So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?
    They lost their majority but won the election.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,443
    edited January 22
    For those PBers who think that Richard Leonard seems to be doing a decent job as SLab leader, he's having difficulty in keeping even staunchly Labour papers onside (also nsf anyone who reveres the memory of the blessed Thatch).

    'Comparing Nicola Sturgeon to Margret Thatcher is just not credible'

    https://tinyurl.com/ydd5b58g

    Edit: just noticed the shocking typo in the headline!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,516
    Jeremy Corbyn's age is going to be a subject that doesn't go away.

    I don't buy Don Brind's idea that the next leadership race should be dominated by questions of gender. The best candidate should be chosen.

    As it happens, most of the most interesting potential candidates are women. Angela Rayner in particular would be a breath of fresh air. She looks like everyday Britain.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688
    edited January 22

    Mortimer said:

    JWisemann said:

    Christ. How many times do we have to point out that Labour are very unlikely to improve dramatically on already historically high polling.

    ... historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.

    Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.

    Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.

    Yes, the Conservatives are going to find it very hard to increase on seats over 2017, and will probably be in a worse position in 2022 than they were in 1992 (although events may intervene there as well). But if Labour are already at a high point and unlikely to gain a few percent, the question is where the Conservative voters would go (or whether they would stay at home).

    A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.

    The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.

    Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
    IOS, your time has come.

    More seriously, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them. Keeping the broad spectrum of 2017 supporters and ensuring those who sat on their hands vote Tory in the right places is going to be key...
    So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?
    To reiterate, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them

    It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,479
    Mortimer said:

    So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?

    To reiterate, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them

    It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
    Theresa May can't even lose an election competently... :)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,962

    Mortimer said:

    So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?

    To reiterate, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them

    It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
    Theresa May can't even lose an election competently... :)
    Well considering she hasn't lost an election ...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,081
    Mortimer said:



    So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?

    To reiterate, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them

    It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
    Not that old chestnut. Everyone* lost the 2017 election.

    You lost, because you lost your hard-won majority. Corbyn lost because he stayed in opposition. The Lib Dems lost, because they lost two leaders and didn't make any progress.

    Above all, we lost.


    * Apart from maybe the DUP who hit a million dollar jackpot.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688
    edited January 22
    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:



    So how come the Tories lost their majority in June when 43.5% backed them?

    To reiterate, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them

    It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
    Not that old chestnut. Everyone* lost the 2017 election.

    You lost, because you lost your hard-won majority. Corbyn lost because he stayed in opposition. The Lib Dems lost, because they lost two leaders and didn't make any progress.

    Above all, we lost.


    * Apart from maybe the DUP who hit a million dollar jackpot.
    Its not an old chestnut. We're in government. And likely to remain so if we can secure 40%+ of the vote.
This discussion has been closed.