DeanoL

Members
  • Content count

    1,235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

156 Excellent

About DeanoL

  • Rank
    Festival Freak

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Recent Profile Visitors

1,517 profile views
  1. Jeremy Corbyn

    (And yes, approaching election day it didn't look as rosy for Milliband, but even up to three months or so before, people were still confident he'd be PM. Not in a Labour majority, but in some sort of coalition. Hell, even in the weeks before, it seemed the biggest worry Labour were having was how they could form a coalition, and the worst-case scenario was Tories as the single largest party with a fear that they'd try and validity of a Milliband-led coalition.) (Immediately post-2010 was even worse. Labour MPs were running away from a rainbow coalition on election night before the numbers even shook out to the point of making it infeasible. They were convinced that with the economic recession and the cuts both parties were proposing that whoever won this election was basically fucked for a generation, as they'd be presiding over some of the harshest cuts we'd ever seen.)
  2. Jeremy Corbyn

    "You would expect a new leader bounce" - would you? Why? Again, it's assuming everything is working the same way it used to work. Corbyn is a very different sort of leader to any major party leader that's been elected since I was born. Maybe his approval graph looks different? Maybe those metrics don't work? They sure didn't work in predicting the Labour leadership race. There's a certain cognitive dissonance issue with Corbyn's detractors. He's ridiculous, he looks like a grumpy geography teacher, he's nothing like what we think a Prime Minister should look like, he doesn't understand how to play the political game, he's got no chance. And you could well be right: I have all those concerns myself. But then, you spend all this time explaining why he's so different and weird and wrong. And then pull out polling data that is designed around a methodology of slick, modern politics. And I'm not convinced it applies. Corbyn is out place in modern politics. And that's a huge concern. Possibly means he's unelectable. But it also means these polls and the predictions that come from them may not apply.
  3. Headliners 2016

    Two Glastonbury house bands and the guys that had to drop out last year, and somehow that's totally unrealistic for some people?
  4. Jeremy Corbyn

    It wasn't so much Milliband as after the whole coalition thing Labour didn't think anyone they put up could lose. Yes, later on they started to realise, but at this point, not so much. All I'm saying is that if Ed could do so well in the polls immediately following the leadership race, yet still lose, is it really that much more unlikely that Corbyn does so badly, yet still wins? His odds of winning at the moment? Low. Same as Ed's odds of losing in 2011. That doesn't mean history will repeat itself. It probably won't. Corbyn will probably lose,if he even gets the chance. Because his odds of winning: low. As I said. Theyre just not so low as to dismiss him out of hand.  For those opposed to him, how will you react if he makes gains in May? Will you admit you were wrong and support him? 
  5. Jeremy Corbyn

    They said Milliband couldn't lose but he surprised us all. Just asking for great same courtesy to "Jezza"
  6. Jeremy Corbyn

    A bit more. Not enough to win an election though. That Corbyn is the most hated opposition leader in living memory says he has... Something. That the right wing press are hitting him so hard seems odd if he's such a joke (surely the last thing they want would be someone else replacing him?). It's all just a bit too weird for me too not think that something is going on that we are not seeing. I mean do we seriously live in a world where people think Donald Trump has a (small) chance of becoming predident of the US but Corbyn as PM is pure fantasy?
  7. Jeremy Corbyn

    Right, at the risk of introducing facts to a debate, voter intention poll results for the past six years http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm As of this month, the Tories are five points ahead. But notably, in January 2011, the same place as the last electoral cycle, Labour were four points ahead. They still lost. That's essentially my point: the same data that says 'no chance for Labour' that people are quoting now said "no chance for Tories" in 2011. Things can and do change by that much.  Not saying the situations are identical- the overall trend was indeed stronger for the Tories back in 2011. I'm just saying at this point the polls don't indicate much about the result of an election in 2020.
  8. Jeremy Corbyn

    No harm waiting until May then is there? If Corbyn loses ground then I'll concede he has to go. What worries me is that if he makes gains, we will get the same excuses as for Oldham and the knives will still be out. 
  9. Jeremy Corbyn

    If Labour can avoid fucking it up though, and transition to a new leader without kicking seven shades out of each other, you then have a Labour party that has fired up younger voters (to some extent), and increased membership hugely - if they can keep those people onside and engaged, long term maybe it's a good thing. But no, I don't think Corbyn is likely to win a general election. But the fact that the Tories had a majority of five and Labour couldn't find a single person to put up and for everyone to go "right, that's it, we have 2020 sewn up then" is a bloody travesty. I mean, that was the response to even Milliband. And herein is the rub for me: if we are looking at a Tory victory in 2020, I want an opposition leader who challenges the very fundamentals of Tory policy. I do think Corbyn is pulling the debate to the left, and as such he's pulling the Tories to the left. The problem with electing a leader who moves to the right is you force the Tories even further right. Which is okay as long as you win. But if you don't it's a disaster. It's bad enough at the moment that it's easy to forget that Cameron is a moderate. So yeah, give me someone who is a shoe-in for beating the Tories and I'm with them 100%. But give me a bunch of people that we're not sure can overturn that majority of five and yes, I'm also thinking about preparing to lose. But that all said... I also don't think a Corbyn win is impossible. I think something is happening. I don't think the polling issues was a glitch, I don't think Oldham was a one-off, I think something is fundamentally changing in politics, both here and elsewhere. We've had 'shock' results in quite a few places the last few years. Not necessarily in favour of the Left. But things that people are not seeing coming. I think we're in a state of flux enough that I'm not sure how the next election will shake out. I would not be surprised to see Corbyn crash and burn in May. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see him make huge gains. I just don't know. And I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to know, especially when those people thought Ed Milliband was going to win. Yeah, maybe I'm delusional. Maybe it is just business as usual and I want to think it isn't. All I know is I consider myself fairly politically engaged, and the past I've felt I had a good grip on what people thought. And I don't. I didn't see the SNP white-wash, I didn't see the Milliband defeat, I didn't see the strong NO in Scotland, and I didn't see Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour party. Neither did most other people. I'm just willing to admit I know sod-all anymore and wait and see what happens until May at least before declaring Corbyn unelectable.
  10. Jeremy Corbyn

    We had a leadership election six months ago. None of them ran. It's not a false dichotomy - it was a choice between four people, that was the exact choice presented to the Labour party. I don't disagree that there are better people, but they didn't run. Stephen Fry could probably lead Labour to the biggest electoral victory ever but in common with Jarvis, Starmer and Umuna, he's not interested in doing that. As much as Corbyn's views reflect my own, I wouldn't have backed him had a credible candidate been standing against him.
  11. Jeremy Corbyn

    But when you present all that... to me that strengthens the case for someone like Corbyn. If 2020 was to be just like 2015, then yes, all that's really needed is someone marginally better than Ed, to tip things over the other way. I think that's a reasonable proposition. But if the argument goes that Labour are actually far, far further behind than the Tory majority of 5 suggests, then you do in fact need someone to shake up the entire party. Because they're not going to win a fight on the same grounds as five years ago -there needs to be fundamental changes in one direction or the other.
  12. Jeremy Corbyn

    Less likely than what? Than in 2015? Because just repeating 2015 with the exact same odds isn't an option. And Milliband staying on would also be a different set of circumstances.
  13. Jeremy Corbyn

    I was on the fence about voting Labour last election. I hadn't intended to but literally changed my mind at the polling station. I'd have no such doubts with Corbyn. But I guess I'm the only person like that and other people like that don't exist.
  14. Jeremy Corbyn

    It's silly, but it's an interesting example of how Corbyn has reframed the debate. The Trident-without-nukes is now that much wanted centre ground, the pro-Trident option now looks like the actual right-wing Tory policy that it is, and the anti view, while not having a huge amount of support, is at least being considered. That's the impact that Corbyn is having. Whether you think that worthwhile or not is a different question. And yes, it's likely not an election winning strategy (though if Corbyn is replaced by a more centrist candidate, they'll benefit from having the Overton window moved over a bit).
  15. Jeremy Corbyn

    Yup. That was the point. There are always other factors. Elections are too uncommon and the environment in which they run changes far too much every five years that attempting to discern patterns is futile. Corbyn certainly does have an uphill battle, but that's not because "it's obvious, look at 1992".