Labour Leadership

[DaveR]

"I think the SNP took those Labour votes Dave, not the Tories"

Then you think wrong. If Labour hadn't lost any seats to the SNP the Tories would still have a majority. If Labour want to be in power they have to win in England.

The comparison is not between 2015 and 2010 but between both of those elections, and 1997/2001/2005. T Blair took voters from the Tories in England. Brown lost them, Ed couldn't win them back, and Jezza scares the living sh!t out of them/alternatively pisses them right off and/or makes them laugh (not in a good way).

[Jah Lush]

You're missing something here DaveR. I feel the majority of the people who recently registered with the Labour Party were the old Labour grey vote and the disenfranchised young voters who couldn't be arsed to vote at the last election because they certainly didn't like the cut of "New Labour's jib but have now been galvanised by Corbynmania and will certainly be voting at the next one to get the feckin' Tories out though whether Corbyn remains as head of the opposition by then remains to be seen.

[Loz]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You're missing something here DaveR. I feel the majority of the people who recently registered

> with the Labour Party were the old Labour grey vote and the disenfranchised young voters who

> couldn't be arsed to vote at the last election

Those 'young re-enfranchised' voters will be mostly in current urban labour seats.

[????]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You're missing something here DaveR. I feel the

> majority of the people who recently registered

> with the Labour Party were the old Labour grey

> vote and the disenfranchised young voters who

> couldn't be arsed to vote at the last election

> because they certainly didn't like the cut of "New

> Labour's jib but have now been galvanised by

> Corbynmania and will certainly be voting at the

> next one to get the feckin' Tories out though

> whether Corbyn remains as head of the opposition

> by then remains to be seen.

But I think the problem for Labour is that they need to attract ex labour voters who are swing voters including some tory swing voters.

The latter will be hard to attract when every on sociual media is calling them 'thick or C*nts'; if anyone who questions anything Corbyn puts forward is called a Blue Tory (including Polly Tonybee for feck sake) some of them may actually start top move that way.

And if we use a small sample on the EDF of ex-Labour voters (that includes the likes of me and I *think* apolgies if wrong, the likes of MickMack)...I can telly you categorically I will vote Tory for the first time in my life if the alternative is Corybn/McDonnel and their ilk. In a slighlty wider sample in Scotland in the polls tory support is is going up (ok it's the polls) which presumably reflects some scots feeling like me.

Personally i think you're howling at the moon but five years is a long time and we will see.

Labour is streets ahead on Social Media...... as it was before the election.....

[Blah Blah]

I don't disgree with you Dave regarding the swings that gave both Thatcher and Blair landslide majorities, but part of that 'landslide' was delivered by the type of electoral system we have. It's estimated that as little as 300,000 votes in traditionally English marginals actually decide workable majorities, that's out of how many eligible voters?. Hence the constant boundary changes by every government. Seats in Parliament have never been reflective of true voting share. So your words that 'millions of voters who chose Labour when it was led by Blair, but then chose the Tories led by Cameron over Ed' just isn't true. And Labour actually increased it's voting share on 2010 but lost seats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/upshot/how-labour-gained-votes-but-still-lost-seats.html?_r=0

I think to be fair ????s, you are not typical of a Labour voter. Whilst Corbyn does take the Labour party away from the centre ground, the Conservatives at present certainly aren't filling it. I think we have yet to see who steps in there and if the Lib Dems are smart about it, it could be just the stroke of luck they need to get back in the main. I'm not offended by Corbyn (I voted for him because a case does have to be made for the hardships of welfare reform and low wages, state intervention is needed in housing and some other areas where the free market does not deliver fairness). BUT the sticking point for me is McDonnel. I think he comes accross as weasly. I want a chancellor that sees capitalism as good for the economy, but finds a fairer way to make it work, rather than the extreme form we have at present. I don't think McDonnel is the one to deliver that and imo it is he, more than Corbyn, that will cost Labour.

[????]

I've voted Labour in 4 General Elections Blah so I don't know why not?

But, the point is, as Dave R and others have said, that it's not 'a typical Labour voter' that Labour needs to win the next election

[miga]

Or they could make new votes by coaxing out some of the 50% of 25-34 year olds who don't currently vote.

[????]

Which is a 'relatively' small population geographically dispersed or in terms of students largely converted already?

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whilst Corbyn does take the Labour party away from the centre ground, the

> Conservatives at present certainly aren't filling it.

I think Osborne is having a damn good try. His last budget, whilst being very Tory, still contained more traditionally centre-left elements than any I've seen in the 25 years I've been in this country. Big increase in the minimum wage (much larger than Labour proposed), surcharge on bank profits, reduced tax relief on buy-to-let, abolished permanent non-dom status, levy on firms to fund apprenticeships. No Brown/Blair budget ever went anything like that. It was an obvious play for the centre ground.

Having said that, seeing that a proper centrist-liberal party just won in Canada makes me wish there was something like that in the UK. The Lib Dems could have been, but their history made it difficult for them to define exactly where they were in the political spectrum and, anyway, they seem to have hit a rather large speedhump in terms of electability. Labour and Conservative try for the centre ground, but both have to deal with their extreme wings - be it the loony-lefties or the rabid-righties. A true centrist party would be aligning itself with where most of the voters are.

[miga]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which is a 'relatively' small population

> geographically dispersed or in terms of students

> largely converted already?

There's very roughly about the same number of 20-35 as >60, about 20% of population overall. Sure, they're geographically dispersed, but in the close seats it could make a difference if the lot that doesn't vote turns out.

This was apropos of the "winning on social media" comment, and you're right, that's meaningless if the chatterers don't vote.

[DaveR]

It's obviously possible that Corbyn could generate millions of 'extra' votes from previously demotivated young non-voters, and that the distribution of those votes could be such as to deliver a general election victory. As an electoral strategy for the main party of opposition it strikes me as somewhat risky. As the sole strategy (which is what it has to be if your core message is 'Tories are scum') it verges on the reckless.

[Loz]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Which is a 'relatively' small population geographically dispersed or in terms of students

> > largely converted already?

>

> There's very roughly about the same number of 20-35 as >60, about 20% of population overall.

> Sure, they're geographically dispersed, but in the close seats it could make a difference if the lot

> that doesn't vote turns out.

Are they really geographically dispersed? Or are Corbyn supporting ones mostly residing in the very seats Labour has already won - i.e. urban central?

[dogcatdog]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ..and the madness continues. It's the complete

> amatuerishnes let alone the outdated ideology.

>

> http://www.cityam.com/226587/labour-to-city-were-j

> ust-not-that-into-you

>

> God help us all, including the poorest, if these

> clowns ever get near to power

Quoting City AM to make a point.

That's pretty good, I have to admit.

[????]

dogcatdog Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ..and the madness continues. It's the complete

> > amatuerishnes let alone the outdated ideology.

> >

> >

> http://www.cityam.com/226587/labour-to-city-were-j

>

> > ust-not-that-into-you

> >

> > God help us all, including the poorest, if

> these

> > clowns ever get near to power

>

> Quoting City AM to make a point.

>

> That's pretty good, I have to admit.

Hi Snorks - still got a bullet for me you alcoholic Stalinist?

[????]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> miga Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ???? Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Which is a 'relatively' small population

> geographically dispersed or in terms of students

> > > largely converted already?

> >

> > There's very roughly about the same number of

> 20-35 as >60, about 20% of population overall.

> > Sure, they're geographically dispersed, but in

> the close seats it could make a difference if the

> lot

> > that doesn't vote turns out.

>

> Are they really geographically dispersed? Or are

> Corbyn supporting ones mostly residing in the very

> seats Labour has already won - i.e. urban central?

Hence the 'or' loz. The easy part are already converted.

[miga]

It's just guesswork. I'm assuming most seats in the UK have similar age structures, with a few outliers. The other assumption is that young people are more likely to have their views align with Corbyn than older people. I have no data to back this up, but if you do to prove the opposite, I'm all ears.

[Blah Blah]

I would think rural areas have lost younger generations who have moved to find jobs, homes they can afford etc. The new registration rules will make things interesting too. We might see some differences in University towns in some elections.

Who knows what the Corbyn effect will be - it's all guesswork at the moment. Next years local elections might be an indicator.

[DaveR]

This map shows differences between parliamentary constituencies for a number of variables:

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc174/index.html

I'm not sure it will answer any question relating to Corbyn's electability

[miga]

Good map(s) DaveR.

[????]

Amis nails it in the Times* today

Milne's another joke appointment - a privately educated, stalinist who hates this country and the West and is an apologist for Putin as the whole left now seems to be

*yes I know, corporate global, murdoch media, etc etc and whatever other tedious meme's the useful idiots of social media would come up

A new kind of politics = my arse , old school leftism mixed with puerile, juvenile social media activism

[Blah Blah]

That's a bit unfair ????s. The Labour party is not and never will be as far left as it was in the distant past. One appointment does not a party make. And the media have behaved pretty appallingly in fueling the kind of hysteria you have just demonstrated ;)

My impression, from listening carefully to what Corbyn and McDonnell are saying, is that they want the Labour party to move towards arguing for a fairer form of capitalism where it's understood that the state has to be repsonsible for providing some things. There's nothing new or scary about that. The debate is simply about what should be state supported and what should not. What doesn't work however is the privatisation of everything and leaving the free market to take care of it all.

[uncleglen]

The Labour party lost the election to Mrs T when its Militant tendency mob were exposed, so the true lefties will never stick their heads above the parapet again when we are close to an election. The State does try very hard to be responsible for providing things i.e. safety nets, but unfortunately there is a hard core of the population hell-bent on exploiting the system and perpetuating the black market

[Blah Blah]

Er so the Winter of Discontent had nothing to do with it then?

Every economic system has black markets. There's no getting away from that. Even the worst police states have them.

As for exploiting the system, that too runs through every level of society from the billionaires at the top to the penniless pauper at the bottom.

[miga]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Every economic system has black markets. There's

> no getting away from that. Even the worst police

> states have them.

I would even say, especially the worst police states have them. When you tell people that blue jeans aren't ideologically suitable, blue jeans become very valuable. I bet there's someone making a pretty penny selling Levis in Pyongyang right now. The trick is to make enough people believe they can have lovely things, and to legitimise the process of acquiring them. Sure, you can have a massive telly, at 50% interest. Everyone's happy.

[Otta]

"an apologist for Putin as the whole left now seems to be"

Have a word.