Jeremy Corbyn

[russycarps]

13 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

I know that was asked to Neil, but as someone who doesn't support Corbyn as leader, I'd say my ideal Labour leader out of the current bunch would be Keir Starmer. 

However clearly the most electable potential leader Labour have is Dan Jarvis. I would be less keen on having him due to his tendency to rush to military action in Syria, but apparently he isn't on the right of the party in other matters so that's something. Would be massively preferable to Corbyn as Labour leader, but there would be others in the party I'd prefer as PM. 

I have not made my mind up about jarvis yet but as unpalatable his military background is to me, there is no doubt that to the vast majority of the electorate, especially the voters he'd need to attract, this would be very appealing. I reckon (presumably tory leader) osborne would shit himself going up against a "war-hero" too. 

 

 

 

[DeanoL]

51 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

The Tory majority was only not predicted because this was the first time in a generation the polls had got it wrong. But even then they overestimated the Labour vote like they did in 1992 - and most pollsters think even the current polls are overstating Labour support because they largely haven't made the changes to their methodology. The same polls that have Labour 8-10 points behind on average.

"First time in a generation" sounds impressive until you remember that there have only been four General Elections since 1992. Again, general elections are too uncommon for predicting any sort of reliable trend from statistics.

In terms of the polls: yes, if the reason they were wrong is one specific thing, then we can assume the same errors will manifest. It's also possible that there's a fundamental flaw in the model because of how things have changed in the past ten years that is throwing everything way off (if I were to speculate, the move from a defacto two-party system to something more nuanced might factor in). The one result we actually have is Oldham West, where the polls underestimated the size of the Labour win. The complete opposite issue they apparently had at the general election.

Again - doesn't mean the polls are definitely wrong. It's just a significant number of people are unable to countenance the idea that they even could be.

[Keithy]

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

I have not made my mind up about jarvis yet but as unpalatable his military background is to me, there is no doubt that to the vast majority of the electorate, especially the voters he'd need to attract, this would be very appealing. I reckon (presumably tory leader) osborne would shit himself going up against a "war-hero" too. 

 

I'm pretty much of the same view. I think he's keeping his power dry at the moment and not get too involved in the current squabbles so he can appear as the unifying leader in 2018/19. Jarvis and, perhaps, Hillary Benn as deputy would be an interesting ticket for 2020 elections.

Of course the other great unknown is who will be leading the Tories into that election. I think Boris Johnson isn't the shoe-in everyone things and that leadership debate maybe equally as damaging to the Tories as Corbyn is to Labour 

[DeanoL]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

People are not any different.

You really think? I think they are. Though if anything, they're more selfish.

And yes, I'm aware I live in the western developed world and my entire lifestyle is predicated on the suffering of those in less developed countries. Under no illusions here.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The one result we actually have is Oldham West, where the polls underestimated the size of the Labour win. The complete opposite issue they apparently had at the general election.
 

Feel free to correct me, but I'm of the belief there was no opinion polling carried out in Oldham West for that byelection.

(I've just googled, and failed to find mention of it too) 
(and there might have been private polling, but we don't know what that said by the fact it's ... ummm ... private)

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

You really think? I think they are. Though if anything, they're more selfish.

Yeah, perhaps more selfish.

The whole Corbynistas thing is based in me-me-me selfishness just like any Thatcherite has, for example.

[Keithy]

1 hour ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

I give up, you people are on another planet you really are.......thankfully theres very few of you it seems. cameron competent? yeah thats why corbyn who apprently is so bad at his job makes him look an absolute clueless muppet every pmqs since he took over! thats why he constantly breaks pre election pledges and just hopes people dont notice, thats why hes universally panned across the political spectrum as a crap leader whose only out for himself.......this is pointless...I work on logic not apathy and not gloomy doom mongering from people who really have as much as a fucking clue as anyone else(ie fuck all) of what may happen in 4 years time....thank fuck people with your attitudes dont run the labour party eh? theyd never get anywhere....itd be like.....like well when millipede was in charge! wed all be bowing down to the tory party being scared to actually oppose them because apparently opposition is a vote loser.......lol slate me if you want but the most depressing thing about uk politics? is how many people are willing to settle for the lesser of two evils......im not and theres many like me....youll find out in 4 years time though eh?

Ok, let's say there are many like you and let's say there's enough to win an election. Great. But you then have to govern for country not just the 34-40% people who elected you. There's 60%+ who didn't vote for you. So centralist politics is always the way. If your majority is strong then you can pursue a progressive left agenda but you need to bear in mind that a good percentage of your 34-40% electorate are still centre-left themselves so you cannot go too left.

With Corbyn and the stance you appear to have, it's quite a radical departure from the 'norm'. OK, so do you think you'd get the numbers for that? For a radical change? Arguably the most 'radical' main party of recent times was Lib Dems in 2010; and you could argue they could only be so 'radical' in their manifesto as they didn't expect to get into power. But they still only got 23% of the vote. There is absolutely no precedent what so ever for anything other than centre left/right party getting elected in the western world unless you are going to count Greece. And that ended well.

 

[arcade fireman]

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

"First time in a generation" sounds impressive until you remember that there have only been four General Elections since 1992. Again, general elections are too uncommon for predicting any sort of reliable trend from statistics.

In terms of the polls: yes, if the reason they were wrong is one specific thing, then we can assume the same errors will manifest. It's also possible that there's a fundamental flaw in the model because of how things have changed in the past ten years that is throwing everything way off (if I were to speculate, the move from a defacto two-party system to something more nuanced might factor in). The one result we actually have is Oldham West, where the polls underestimated the size of the Labour win. The complete opposite issue they apparently had at the general election.

Again - doesn't mean the polls are definitely wrong. It's just a significant number of people are unable to countenance the idea that they even could be.

There may have only been four general elections, but there were hundreds of polls carried out for each election. Not to mention that polling is generally relied upon in other major democracies - some e.g. France have a moratorium on polls a month before the vote but most countries use them in a similar way to us. They get things right far, far more often than they get things wrong. 

As Neil said, polls weren't properly done in Oldham West which explains why there was such a discrepancy. All the detailed polling enquiries have found that polling reaches too many people who would vote Labour and polling companies admitted that they haven't adjusted their methods sufficiently yet. 

I think the evidence shows it is highly unlikely the polls are significantly underestimating the Labour support. The detailed scientific statistical analysis carried out by several parties state there is a fair chance they are still overestimating the Labour support. They show an average Tory lead of around 8%. It's not even like they are showing neck and neck, if they were and there was is a tiny chance for the first time in memory they're actually underestimating Labour strength it could translate into a Labour lead. That's not the case here. 

Corbyn at the moment is very unpopular with the exact people he needs to win over. If a general election were held tomorrow there would be a considerably bigger Tory majority, despite everything they've done since May. That is something we can be 100% certain of, and until Corbyn supporters accept that fact they are in cloud cuckoo land, and the movement has absolutely zero chance of succeeding, as opposed to the small chance it otherwise might have. 

Were they to say "yes, he's very unpopular now but there's a chance he could turn it round", I would still disagree but at least it would show an acceptance of the current reality. 

[alframsey]

20 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Any update on this? This isn't me being an idiot, but your the first person I have heard who thinks Corbyn can win and I'm intrigued how.

Okay, genuinely I think a Corbyn led Labpur Party could win in 2020. I'll give you some of the reasons why.

1. There is evidence pointing towards a major global economic slowdown and quite possibly even another crash, to make it clear I hope this doesn't happen but if it does then Osbourne's economic policy will be left in tatters.

2. Once we have sorted out our internal party politics, by the end of the year I hope, we can then start to speak to the rest of the country and offer a more consistent alternative to the Torys. At the minute the reason Corbyn looks so poor is because the PLP will not, in any way, allow him to lead the party.

3. If Osbourne is leader of the Conservative Party come 202 it will be a gift to us, the destroyer of communities and nastiness personified would IMO be a disaster for the Torys. 

4. Much of the reason we did so badly last April was a failure to get the labour vote out, Corbyn IMO will undoubtedly do that.

Now I admit these aren't reasons based on anything more than a gut feeling, and maybe I am blinded by bias, but I really do think a Corbyn led party could do very well.

For the record, I do not think Corbyn will be leader come the 2020 general election and I don't think he wants to be. I think his aim is to restructure the policy making machine in favour of the members and by extension in favour of the left, once he has move the party machine backs wards the left and democratised te party I think he will step down and allow someone like Clive Lewis to take over the role as leader. I would definitely be even more optimistic should that be the case, either Lewis or the Women and Equalities Shadow Minister. I can't remember her name.

Ps. This are ply isn't as full as I would like because I have had to use my phone, I really hate typing up longer replies on my phone.

Edited February 1, 2016 by alframsey

[DeanoL]

42 minutes ago, Keithy said:

 Arguably the most 'radical' main party of recent times was Lib Dems in 2010; and you could argue they could only be so 'radical' in their manifesto as they didn't expect to get into power.

The Lib Dems also demonstrate the problem with the left-right idea though. In 2015 the Lib Dems occupied the exact ground on that scape that people think Labour should now: right of Milliband but left of Cameron. Their support crashed even more than was expected/polled. They were never going to do brilliantly because of the coalition and tuition fees, but they lost the argument even among those that were still sympathetic. Using the same logic used elsewhere on this thread, that means that Labour going even more centrist will lose them votes. Because that's what happened to Clegg.

[Winslow Leach]

46 minutes ago, alframsey said:

Okay, genuinely I think a Corbyn led Labpur Party could win in 2020. I'll give you some of the reasons why.

1. There is evidence pointing towards a major global economic slowdown and quite possibly even another crash, to make it clear I hope this doesn't happen but if it does then Osbourne's economic policy will be left in tatters.

And if Labour keep failing to challenge the narrative that the last cash happened on their watch and is therefore largely their fault, and fail to embed any counter narrative, then they still won't be seen as capable hands to leave an economy in. It's one of the fundamental errors they've kept making over the last few years.

46 minutes ago, alframsey said:

2. Once we have sorted out our internal party politics, by the end of the year I hope, we can then start to speak to the rest of the country and offer a more consistent alternative to the Torys. At the minute the reason Corbyn looks so poor is because the PLP will not, in any way, allow him to lead the party.

And you really think that Corbyn and his camp are blameless victims of the party squabbling? He's equally unwilling to allow the PLP to act as a party and as the official opposition, rather than as his, McDonnell and Milne's private pressure group. (By the way I'm not sure if you saw before, but I asked you for your opinion of Milne being the Director of Strategy and Comms? Genuinely intrigued to know)

46 minutes ago, alframsey said:

3. If Osbourne is leader of the Conservative Party come 202 it will be a gift to us, the destroyer of communities and nastiness personified would IMO be a disaster for the Torys. 

Osborne is looking increasingly unlikely to be the next Tory leader. He may well be, but it's no sure thing and it's foolish to base Labour's chances of success on both Osborne being leader and the entire country turning against him.

46 minutes ago, alframsey said:

4. Much of the reason we did so badly last April was a failure to get the labour vote out, Corbyn IMO will undoubtedly do that.

There's the rub. There's nothing concrete to back up your hunch and that's a huge gamble to take.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Winslow Leach

[arcade fireman]

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The Lib Dems also demonstrate the problem with the left-right idea though. In 2015 the Lib Dems occupied the exact ground on that scape that people think Labour should now: right of Milliband but left of Cameron. Their support crashed even more than was expected/polled. They were never going to do brilliantly because of the coalition and tuition fees, but they lost the argument even among those that were still sympathetic. Using the same logic used elsewhere on this thread, that means that Labour going even more centrist will lose them votes. Because that's what happened to Clegg.

You can't compare what happened to the Lib Dems with anything that might happen to Labour. It's two very different parties and two very different situations. One can also point to what happened to the actual Labour Party in 1997 when they went more centrist.  That comparison is far more relevant, but even then to be honest its not that valuable a comparison.

But also you're missing the point a little that a lot of it isn't about political positions. It is easier to win from a centrist position, but it is possible to win from a more left wing position too. A lot of it is about Corbyn as a personality and as a competent leader. It's there where he fails the most. There is far, far more to being a party leader than having principled policies. 

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, alframsey said:

Okay, genuinely I think a Corbyn led Labpur Party could win in 2020. I'll give you some of the reasons why.

1. There is evidence pointing towards a major global economic slowdown and quite possibly even another crash, to make it clear I hope this doesn't happen but if it does then Osbourne's economic policy will be left in tatters.

Unfortunately, the tories will still be more-trusted on the economy in that circumstance than Labour.

 

36 minutes ago, alframsey said:

2. Once we have sorted out our internal party politics, by the end of the year I hope, we can then start to speak to the rest of the country and offer a more consistent alternative to the Torys. At the minute the reason Corbyn looks so poor is because the PLP will not, in any way, allow him to lead the party.

While I couldn't disagree there's an element of that, Corbyn is equally responsible from where he's trying to lead it.

He's not working to Labour's strengths or even his policy strengths, he's working to his prejudices.

How else could he have made Trident into such a big issue he felt the need to carry out the fastest reshuffle in political history, and for a policy where he knows he just cannot win?

 

36 minutes ago, alframsey said:

3. If Osbourne is leader of the Conservative Party come 202 it will be a gift to us, the destroyer of communities and nastiness personified would IMO be a disaster for the Torys. 

Osborne might have a problem if the economy has gone tits up, but if the economy has gone tits up then he probably won't be leader anyway.

If the economy is fairly reasonable, the fact that he can be a slimeball won't count for too much. People will push that away in favour of his history on the economy, and the trust that brings him.

(and don't make the mistake of thinking the failure to deliver his promised surplus [if that happens] will count for much. People are smart enough to know any deficit would have been bigger under Labour).

 

36 minutes ago, alframsey said:

4. Much of the reason we did so badly last April was a failure to get the labour vote out, Corbyn IMO will undoubtedly do that.

Why?

If people feel less of a connection to what he says than they did Miliband (which is what evidence suggest is the case), then why would they be more willing to go out and vote for him?

 

36 minutes ago, alframsey said:

Now I admit these aren't reasons based on anything more than a gut feeling, and maybe I am blinded by bias, but I really do think a Corbyn led party could do very well.

I think a Corbyn led party could do very well.... if we lived in another reality. The sort where there was a fair media, a thinking public, etc.

But we don't. The obstacles are what they are, and that's what Corbyn has to overcome. There's nothing to suggest he might, and plenty to suggest he won't.

 

36 minutes ago, alframsey said:

For the record, I do not think Corbyn will be leader come the 2020 general election and I don't think he wants to be. I think his aim is to restructure the policy making machine in favour of the members and by extension in favour of the left, once he has move the party machine backs wards the left and democratised te party I think he will step down and allow someone like Clive Lewis to take over the role as leader. I would definitely be even more optimistic should that be the case, either Lewis or the Women and Equalities Shadow Minister. I can't remember her name.

Ps. This are ply isn't as full as I would like because I have had to use my phone, I really hate typing up longer replies on my phone.

If that were true he wouldn't be both3ering with Trident. He certainly wouldn't make it as important as he is.

My worst worry is the fragmentation Corbyn will cause, where there risks never again being a united opposition to bring down the tories. In a FPTP system that would be dreadful, the very worst thing of all.

[arcade fireman]

2 minutes ago, Winslow Leach said:

Osborne is looking increasingly unlikely to be the next Tory leader. He may well be, but it's no sure thing and it's foolish to base Labour's chances of success on both Osborne being leader and the entire country turning against him.

Add to this that although Osborne is unpopular, he's still more a fair bit more popular than Corbyn when voters are asked to consider him as a potential PM. Granted, that doesn't take into account what would happen if he got the job and actually went head to head, but considering a lot of people would have made up their mind on him since he's always in the news, it gives us a fair idea. 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The Lib Dems also demonstrate the problem with the left-right idea though. In 2015 the Lib Dems occupied the exact ground on that scape that people think Labour should now: right of Milliband but left of Cameron. Their support crashed even more than was expected/polled. They were never going to do brilliantly because of the coalition and tuition fees, but they lost the argument even among those that were still sympathetic. Using the same logic used elsewhere on this thread, that means that Labour going even more centrist will lose them votes. Because that's what happened to Clegg.

there's all sorts of other factors you've not considered in there.

The most laughably funny one is that those LibDem voters often voted tory to punish the LibDems for joining in coalition with the tories. There's all sorts of angles you can take on that.

But one thing is clear, and that's that the country dislikes the idea of coalitions, and prefers a 'strong govt' even if it's not the colour of their liking.

Which makes things all the harder for Corbyn, now that one part of these isles had wrapped itself in the flag.

[DeanoL]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I think a Corbyn led party could do very well.... if we lived in another reality. The sort where there was a fair media, a thinking public, etc.

And we're slightly closer to that now than we were before. Which I think has value in and of itself. When I talk to my parents and they actually ask about Trident because they're aware there's an actual debate and they've actually thought a bit about it... I like that. Can we move far enough in that direction in 4 years for Corbyn to win an election off it. Probably not. But I'm happy to see what happens in the meantime.

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's all sorts of other factors you've not considered in there.

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".

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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".

Some things are very common, outside of party policy.

The main one is leadership skills, and how you might be thought of when running the country.

Corbyn is showing very shit leadership skills. Yes, some of his MPs are being a pain in the arse, but it's his job to placate all of those he wants to lead, not just the few who might agree with him. And anyway, they'll always be a number who will disagree about any policy; Corbyn has previously made a career of it.

Even most of Corbyn's supporters must be disappointed with him. After all, while they might agree with what JC says on Trident (and perhaps everything else), they're unlikely to agree with Trident having been the major debate so far. There's much better things to lead with.

As for imagining Corbyn as PM, he scores far worse than Miliband ever did - and that was one of the more-major parts of Ed's downfall, too.

 

[arcade fireman]

41 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And we're slightly closer to that now than we were before. Which I think has value in and of itself. When I talk to my parents and they actually ask about Trident because they're aware there's an actual debate and they've actually thought a bit about it... I like that. Can we move far enough in that direction in 4 years for Corbyn to win an election off it. Probably not. But I'm happy to see what happens in the meantime.

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".

Where has anyone in this thread said "it's obvious look at 1992"?

[pink_triangle]

8 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

I know that was asked to Neil, but as someone who doesn't support Corbyn as leader, I'd say my ideal Labour leader out of the current bunch would be Keir Starmer. 

However clearly the most electable potential leader Labour have is Dan Jarvis. I would be less keen on having him due to his tendency to rush to military action in Syria, but apparently he isn't on the right of the party in other matters so that's something. Would be massively preferable to Corbyn as Labour leader, but there would be others in the party I'd prefer as PM. 

I know there was talk about Jarvis standing last time, but think he decided against this because his childrens mum had died in recent years.  He ticks the right boxes to win a general election. However I have doubts that the left of the party would vote for anyone with a military background.

8 hours ago, Keithy said:

I'm sorry but that is an absurd statement. At the risk of being an apologist for the failings of the New Labour government, the fixation the left has with the Iraq war completely blinds them to the successes of that government.

Equal pay and conditions for all part-time workers

Signed the Social Chapter giving British employees the rights denied to them by the
Tories

Legal protection for workers taking strike action

Minimum Wage

Freedom Of Information Act

Equalising the Age of Consent

European Convention on Human Rights adopted in UK law.

Removing all hereditary peers from law-making

Maternity leave increased to 6 months

Record NHS spending

Massive investments in Education

I could go on.

Some on the left, and I speak as a Labour member myself, seem to want to deny the successes of 97-2010 and disown it despite it being the most liberal, left wing government in decades. It might not have been 'left and liberal enough' for some but it's a darn more left than anything else we've had from 1980 onwards. 3 term Labour government. That is something we should be proud of. Acknowledge the failings and mistakes but be proud of the success. Unless Labour reconnect with that era and why it was successful, there will not be a Labour government for a very long time.

 

 

For those on the left to judge the Blair/Brown years as pure good or bad is pretty lazy analysis.  Labour need to learn from both achievements and mistakes

8 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

 

Corbyn at the moment is very unpopular with the exact people he needs to win over. If a general election were held tomorrow there would be a considerably bigger Tory majority, despite everything they've done since May. That is something we can be 100% certain of, and until Corbyn supporters accept that fact they are in cloud cuckoo land, and the movement has absolutely zero chance of succeeding, as opposed to the small chance it otherwise might have. 

 

What worries me is that Corbyn supporters follow him so blindly they may never accept his weaknesses until it is toll late and then they still would blame the right wing press and Hillary Benn. Every unfavourable poll will be brushed off with "the general election was wrong" excuse and labour will lose. If only conservatives had been so naïve about IDS.

[pink_triangle]

8 hours ago, alframsey said:

Okay, genuinely I think a Corbyn led Labpur Party could win in 2020. I'll give you some of the reasons why.

1. There is evidence pointing towards a major global economic slowdown and quite possibly even another crash, to make it clear I hope this doesn't happen but if it does then Osbourne's economic policy will be left in tatters.

 

Thanks for responding, I disagree with most of what you say.  However I think its important that those on the left understand each others viewpoints if we are ever going to unite to get a labour politician in ten downing street.  I think if there is an economic crash then a candidate from the right of Osborne will come in to take advantage.  The British public aren't generally risk takers and I think would take more austerity rather than gamble on something different

8 hours ago, alframsey said:

 

2. Once we have sorted out our internal party politics, by the end of the year I hope, we can then start to speak to the rest of the country and offer a more consistent alternative to the Torys. At the minute the reason Corbyn looks so poor is because the PLP

You are giving him a free ride and putting all the blame on others, something Corbyn fans are very quick to do.  Some of Corbyns views (on Bin Laden)  and actions (to bow or not to bow) may be justified, but go down like a lead balloon with the votes Corbyn needs to win to become PM.  These are completely self inflicted, if Corbyn says something dumb and the right wing media report it, you cant just blame the right wing media.

8 hours ago, alframsey said:

3. If Osbourne is leader of the Conservative Party come 202 it will be a gift to us, the destroyer of communities and nastiness personified would IMO be a disaster for the Torys. 

The conservative leadership election is a big unknown. Osborne is guaranteed a spot in the final 2, but it will be interesting to see if he has the votes to pick his opponent and who that would be.  A labour candidate who could come across as a leader could cause him problems, however under new boundaries, a reduced tory majority wouldn't be a bad result. 

8 hours ago, alframsey said:

4. Much of the reason we did so badly last April was a failure to get the labour vote out, Corbyn IMO will undoubtedly do that.

 

That would be great under a PR system, but the fact is in first past the post not all votes count as equal.  Corbyn could attract thousands more votes in theory, but the vast majority will have no influence on the result in that seat.  It would also be naïve to think Corbyn will attract and not repel, I suspect there will be a combination of both.  As always it will depend on swing voters in swing seats and you have to understand how those people think to have a chance of winning them over.

[pink_triangle]

8 hours ago, alframsey said:

 

For the record, I do not think Corbyn will be leader come the 2020 general election and I don't think he wants to be. I think his aim is to restructure the policy making machine in favour of the members and by extension in favour of the left, once he has move the party machine backs wards the left and democratised te party I think he will step down and allow someone like Clive Lewis to take over the role as leader. I would definitely be even more optimistic should that be the case, either Lewis or the Women and Equalities Shadow Minister. I can't remember her name.

I'm not sure Corbyn will have the privilege of handpicking his successor.  He may not have the same position of strength on his exit as he did when getting the job.  Its also possible that pragmatism will take over from idealism as fear of another defeat to the torys gets closer.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, tonyblair said:

Half of the letters in the letters page in the Evening Standard tonight were all about Trident

just sayin' like

 

 

[p.pete]

It's warming that 49% are against a nuclear option - only 2% more needed!

He's doing an awful job, but has some pretty big hills to climb.  Incidentally on the yougov poll 28 out of 101 people answered 'don't know' to ' Some people say that Labour has moved to the Left by electing Jeremy Corbyn as its leader. Do you think this is likely / unlikely'.  When people are just seeing the banner headlines without reading the article, or hearing the soundbites the tv/radio decides to pick out, then it's kind of worrying.

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, p.pete said:

It's warming that 49% are against a nuclear option - only 2% more needed!

Unfortunately, you're misunderstanding that.

They're as much against the nuclear option as they are against a no Trident option ... and if that middle option was removed so they had to plump for an option one way or the other, plenty of those would choose the nuke option.

And it's also worth understanding that Trident-without-nukes option is one for dummies. If you launch an ICBM without a nuke warhead, the recipient *HAS* *TO* assume it's got a nuke on board.

And those Trident subs with different missiles would be utterly shit. The non-nuke missles have just 1/8th of the range, and can't be fired from ICBM tubes. Those subs are also no good to use in the standard submarine 'hunter killer' role.

So what we end up with from that option is all the expense with none of the defence.

And everyone knows it's the moron option only to keep the unions happy, too .... which very few people would vote for. The stupidity of it is made clear by the fact that it's only about keeping the unions happy.

As is the case with so much Corbyn says, it's an off-0the-cuff not-thought-thru remark that Corbyn believes is good enough to push a bit further just because he happened to think it up on the fly.

PS: that polling graph also omits the 5% of don't knows, who may decide on the nuke option if forced to make a choice.

 

Quote

He's doing an awful job, but has some pretty big hills to climb.  Incidentally on the yougov poll 28 out of 101 people answered 'don't know' to ' Some people say that Labour has moved to the Left by electing Jeremy Corbyn as its leader. Do you think this is likely / unlikely'.  When people are just seeing the banner headlines without reading the article, or hearing the soundbites the tv/radio decides to pick out, then it's kind of worrying.

A large part of the population has always been led by the headlines without bothering with the detail behind it - but it's something that effects people on all sides of the political spectrum, not just those who don't vote Labour. Labour has its equal share of the moron-voters.

For example, just last night I read a long Corbynista rant that claimed to know what he was talking about, and he finished his rant with "...and that's why Kinnock lost the 1983 election".

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by eFestivals

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And it's also worth understanding that Trident-without-nukes option is one for dummies. If you launch an ICBM without a nuke warhead, the recipient *HAS* *TO* assume it's got a nuke on board.

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).