Jeremy Corbyn

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

the problem with all that is, because of where people's thinking is, we will have political fragmentation after 2020. The Labour party will be fucked forever.

and what a ridiculous statement to make! love the doom and gloom lines dont you? any change to the norm and `oh my god its the end` its something I dont understand it must therefore be wrong! give me a break!

do you have anything backing up that statement what so ever? labour would have been fucked if theyd continued down the line they were going before corbyn took over.....after all they alienated enough of there core supporters during the campaign not to vote for them and they you cannot deny were heading more and more to the right as time went on....that is not an identity that works for a party where a lot of the voters and members traditionally vote for them because they `are` the alternative to such bullshit...corbyn has merely steered them back down the line they should be going, if he`ll be at the helm for 2020 or if the doom merchants will have their way is up in the air but the man has brought a way of thinking and a philosophy to the front that labour hasn't paid any attention to for a good long time before this and which many many people believe in espcially considering the current span of tory control (the world over in fact, the rise of left wing politics isnt unique to the uk, spain and the us just 2 examples where left wing thinking is being taken more and more seriously.)

No, I don't have evidence. I clearly said it's what I think, and not anything about it being a widely held belief or with evidence.

And yes, you might even be right about it going that way anyway without Corbyn getting elected, but that's a different world never to exist. We are we are we, and we look forwards from where we are now. Just because there was no better alternative to Corbyn back in May doesn't mean it's the same now. There's already plenty of new higher profile personalities.

One of the problems of the last leadership campaign is that it was run almost as a prospectus for the election just lost, when the fight is 2020, not now or yesterday. Jezza might have even dropped dead by then for all we know, he's getting on.

(/aside : I once speculated that Jezza sadly dropping dead from natural causes sometime soon would be the best possible result for Labour, cos the sympathy card works quite well as a vote generator ... it doesn't mean I hope it happens, just that it's fortuitous if it does)

Meanwhile, your high praise for the man doesn't change the fact that people are generally repelled and not attracted.

[eFestivals]

I'm worried now that my last point my have been blasphemous, cos I suggested JC isn't immortal. My bad.

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[Winslow Leach]

Just now, eFestivals said:

I'm worried now that my last point my have been blasphemous, cos I suggested JC isn't immoral. My bad.

 

Fascist pig.

[arcade fireman]

51 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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.

It's a bit much to expect Labour would have a leader that people would expect 2020 would be sewn up. But considering that even Labour under Miliband (who was thought of as a poor choice from day 1) were neck and neck with the Tories by this stage (and 8 pts ahead later on), it's not a lot to expect Burnham/Cooper wouldn't have turned Labour into the laughing stock that they are with much of the voting public. 

You really think Corbyn is pulling the Tories to the left? In what way? The tax credits issue was not won due to Corbyn, it was won due to a rare anti-Government show from the Murdoch press. Consider two scenarios in 2018. One where Labour are two points ahead in the polls. Another where the Tories are ten points ahead in the polls and headed for certain victory. Under which scenario do you think the Tories will feel they have more free reign to do whatever the hell they want in those two years before the election?

The only thing that will move the Tories further left is the idea that the public will vote for a more left wing option come the next election. And right now, all the evidence out there is that they won't. 

Why are you are talking about Oldham in such exalted tones?! Labour won a safe seat, yes they increased their share of the vote but by election results are never, ever realistic comparators of swing in a general election. The turnout is always a lot lower and there is a lot less motivation for Tory voters to go out and vote when they know they have no chance of winning - when they had already cast their vote a few months earlier. 

What is far more relevant is the polls nationally which show Corbyn's approval rating is dropping and Labour are lagging very far behind in the polls. 

Chances are Labour might not get anyone who's an absolute shoe-in for beating the Tories. The electoral map is changing and there are other issues e.g. with voter registration, party funding. Any potential leader would have a massive battle on their hands. But even losing doesn't come in only one flavour. There is every chance that given all these factors Corbyn could lose with a 100+ majority to the Tories. That sort of a loss could take two elections to come back from. 

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by arcade fireman

[arcade fireman]

3 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

another opinion not fact here.

Remind me penguin, how many facts have you given here? 

[Winslow Leach]

2 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

another opinion not fact here.

An opinion backed up by polling. What have you actually got to back your argument up? 

[arcade fireman]

2 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

difference is im not claiming facts fireman, ive said multiple times Nobody could possibly know what could happen in 2020, im stating opinion nothing but and im not the one trying to talk as if my opinions ARE facts.

But the rest of us have given objective evidence to back up our opinions. You have consistently ignored them. 

I disagree with a lot of what Deano says but at least he accepts Corbyn is pretty unpopular at the moment.

You have however claimed if a General Election was held tomorrow Corbyn would win! Your head is in the clouds and you don't have a clue what you're on about. And it's this sort of thinking which will make sure the Tories succeed in 2020. God I'm glad I'm emigrating in a couple of years, the whole political scene is depressing at the moment. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by arcade fireman

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

immortal...? 

damn my spelling

 

[arcade fireman]

1 minute ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

my exact wording was that if a general election was held tommorow cameron and the tories wouldnt get anywhere near a majority.......nice way to twist my words though, you lot are good at that on these boards eh?.

But even that's ridiculous. 

[arcade fireman]

10 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

depends which poll you look at! which shows why polls mean fuck all

Polls mean fuck all?

Every single political scientist on the planet would disagree with you. 

Every major political party in the world that conducts internal polling would disagree with you.

Every major news organisation that publishes polls would disagree with you.

But no, they are all wrong and you are right? 

Polling gets far more right than it does wrong. Even the polling disaster of 2015 "only" got Tories and Labour wrong by 3% and got every other party more or less spot on. And whenever the polls in this country get it wrong, they overestimate Labour support.

Almost every poll going is showing bad news for Corbyn. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by arcade fireman

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

`Meanwhile, your high praise for the man doesn't change the fact that people are generally repelled and not attracted. `

another opinion not fact here.

It's borne out by the best and only decent evidence there is.

 

 

11 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

and I dont think I need to try and prove the moral high ground when youve just claimed corbyn dropping dead would be `fortuitous ` for labour.....that really is the last thing I need to hear from you on the topic and im sure many would now agree with me, like the man or not it takes a special kind of person to see his death as `fortuitous ` and not think anything wrong with that viewpoint.

John  Smith died when Labour leader in the early/mid 90s. It happens.

And in that instance it was reckoned to have gained Labour a little support, in the manner of a a sympathy vote.

But if I ignore facts like that, I'd have a higher morality. I'll remember that for next time. Thanks for the advice.

 

11 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

I like the way you put it `it doesn't mean I hope it happens, just that it's fortuitous if it does` little tip, when you have to distance yourself from the way you fear your opinion may be taken before youve even posted it chances are its clearly not `right` in any form. to me it sounds like one and the same. after all your a `30 year voting labour member` are you not? and you just happen to think his death would be...how do you put it?  `fortuitous` yet you claim not to wish such a fate upon him? sounds like one and the same to me pal and thats just a scummy thing to say.

Ill leave it at that-when you have that little respect for the man youd see his death as a good thing then its pointless trying to reason eh?

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Benjamin Franklin

 

[arcade fireman]

Just now, thatcrazypenguin said:

how so? the tories have shown their true colors, they were never `this` nasty in coalition and never did they dare promote so many unpopular policy's they had not even a mandate for, if peoples were ignorant about their true motivations before they certainly arent now.  whats ridiculous is you trying to put words into my mouth pal and then basing an argument on it

Why, when people are asked how they'll vote if there were a General Election tomorrow, do the Tories have a bigger lead now in most polls?

Why is public approval for Cameron so, so much higher than Corbyn?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

Polls this far in advance of an election DO mean fuck all especially when they contradict one another! show me a poll that reflects badly on corbyn ill show you one that reflects well on him! thats the point! we are talking 4 years in the future, how many variables could have changed in that time? a huge number! I dont need `political scientists` to tell me that simple logic tells me that!

how about needing a bigger swing of support than Blair got in 1997, but unlike Blair (majority: 179) it would just be a majority of a few seats.

That's an absolute fact in the world of changed constituency boundaries that will be the 2020 election.

You should have memory enough of 97 to know there's waaaay less appetite for change.

[arcade fireman]

1 minute ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

Polls this far in advance of an election DO mean fuck all especially when they contradict one another! show me a poll that reflects badly on corbyn ill show you one that reflects well on him! thats the point! we are talking 4 years in the future, how many variables could have changed in that time? a huge number! I dont need `political scientists` to tell me that simple logic tells me that!

They don't contradict each other. I could show you about 50 polls which reflect badly on Corbyn. You might be able to show me two or three that don't. There are always outliers. 

Variables can always change, but he is performing worse than any other leader at this stage. 

And considering your assertion was that were a General Election be held tomorrow the Tories would have nowhere near a majority - those polls don't contradict each other at all. They all point to a Tory majority, most of them point to an increased majority and all of them show you don't have a clue what you're talking about. 

[arcade fireman]

1 minute ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

again it depends which polls you read depends in many cases how `public approval` is reported even.....keep on digging it wont work. Unless your a fucking fortune teller then you dont know what may change in this nation in the next 4 years.....that is not speculation that is simple logic...and your trying to argue with it.....words fail me.

But currently the public views the Labour leader as worse than any other opposition leader in living memory. 

Even if things change massively and the Tories fuck things up, do you think those same people will suddenly change their views on Corbyn?

Don't you think it might have been a better idea for Labour to elect a leader who the public might have liked a bit more from the off? 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

death is certain doesnt mean you have to be talking of someone as if their particular  death would be a good thing....that's just simple disrespect and just makes you look an utter knob.....for instance the man has a family like any other even if you dont like his politics. Hell I don't like many politicians doesn't mean id think of their deaths as a `good thing` that is going beyond any politics argument as already mentiioned. so keep back peddling on that one, youve a fair bit to do I feel.

There's a difference between wanting someone dead and thinking of what effects their death might have.

I hope you've written a stern letter to the BBC, at your disgust at them having obits of Bowie ready-recorded before his death. Perhaps let us all see a copy?

 

[arcade fireman]

4 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

`there's waaaay less appetite for change. `

again another opinion, ive never seen so many angry people demanding enough is enough and wanting change in my lifetime that is what I go by not your opinion.

"I've never seen so many angry people..."

How many people do you interact with on a daily basis? How many of them voted Tory in the last 2 elections? What percentage do they comprise of the total electorate in this country?

How can you possibly think your limited interactions with the people you see on a day-to-day basis is a better indication than the cross sectional, statistically analysed polls which get published several times a week?

Edited February 3, 2016 by arcade fireman

[DeanoL]

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.

[Keithy]

12 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

my exact wording was that if a general election was held tommorow cameron and the tories wouldnt get anywhere near a majority.......nice way to twist my words though, you lot are good at that on these boards eh?.

I think you'd be surprised. I think their majority would increase. Every election since '97, they've increased their share of the vote. Last year was their biggest share since 1992. The trend has been consistently upwards and that has held up against Labour leaders who have held higher poll ratings in the general public than the current Labour leader. It flies in the face of all trend analysis to suggest that trend would now fall and they would lose that majority.

And then if you want to consider a Labour victory.... well we're talking a swing on the scale of 97  and the circumstances then was a Tory party falling apart, mired in sleaze up against the most popular Labour leader (amongst the public) in decades.

[DeanoL]

12 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

But currently the public views the Labour leader as worse than any other opposition leader in living memory. 

Even if things change massively and the Tories fuck things up, do you think those same people will suddenly change their views on Corbyn?

Don't you think it might have been a better idea for Labour to elect a leader who the public might have liked a bit more from the off? 

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?

[arcade fireman]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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.

No one said "no chance for the Tories" in 2011. 

What usually happens between elections is that the opposition party makes ground. They often lead the polls - Labour under Miliband led the polls by up to 8 points between elections. No one in the Tory party panicked that much as it's a known phenomenon that polls converge as elections approach. 

There is almost always a new leader bounce. In fact almost every major party leader has enjoyed one. Cameron had one. Gordon Brown had one. Miliband had one. Corbyn hasn't had one. He was the first leader since polls began to begin with a negative approval rating (-3) and is now -47. 

Labour are actually an average of 7-8 points behind when all polling companies are considered. 

So when we say Labour are an average of 7-8 points behind in the polls, it's very worrying. Not because it means they will definitely lose the election in 2020 by 8 points as it's too far out to make those predictions, but because if we look at previous trends we would expect both Corbyn's approval rating to be doing much better and Labour's performance with the public.

Of course there is a small percentage chance that all these historical trends can be bucked. Otherwise I would be going to the bookies tomorrow and putting all my savings on the Tories getting an overall majority next time round. But it's not looking good. 

[arcade fireman]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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?

Both Trump and Corbyn leading their countries are highly unlikely. I think most commentators in the States think Trump would never win an election. And after the Iowa result, Rubio is favourite to take the Republican nomination (with Hilary odds-on to be President in any event). 

The right wing press are hitting him hard because that's their prerogative. There really isn't something going on that you're not seeing. And spinning his extremely negative ratings is madness. I don't think he's hated by the public - he's just considered a bit of a laughing stock in the same way Foot was. 

[Keithy]

21 minutes ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

listen fuck this, its like preaching to the choir, one guy trying to tell me I should respect his `differing opinion` when hes just told me he sees corbyns potential death as a good thing and one guy who not only thinks he can predict the future but who cant find an argument without making one up in his own mind based on something I never actually said....AGAIN!

thankfuck you 2 dont make up the majority of the country eh? or politics WOULD be truly how did you put it `depressing`

 

I think the frustrating thing is, you just seem blind to the wider public opinion, based on lots of polling and instead focus on your view. Which is fine but you surely must accept that your view is not shared by the wider general public (based on general public polls and not labour membership polls) and the chances of Corbyn winning are very remote.

Perhaps this article might change your mind - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/01/how-jeremy-corbyns-labour-faring-elections-so-far

Admittedly it's 4 weeks old (though I'm not aware of any seismic political changes that might out date it) but it's the best summary I have seen to date that draws on all sorts of polling. It even covers your beloved Oldham result and places it in historical context (spoiler - it's not good news)

" Corbyn’s own numbers are absolutely appalling, rivalled only by Michael Foot at his nadir. Some of the numbers are so bad they are a little hard to grasp."

"What is worse, these numbers have been getting steadily worse: Corbyn’s high initial (and strong) favourability among his large following of left-leaning enthusiasts has not prevented less committed ‘don’t knows’ moving largely against him. "

"Everything we know – every last scrap of data – says that the Labour Party as we have known it is in very profound trouble indeed."

Still, your entitled to your opinion. Equally, people are allowed to say your opinion is absurd and doesn't match the general 'mood of the nation'.

[arcade fireman]

2 minutes ago, Keithy said:

Perhaps this article might change your mind - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/01/how-jeremy-corbyns-labour-faring-elections-so-far

 

This is a cracking article.

And it isn't in the right wing media, it's in the Statesman! Or are they scared of a Corbyn victory too? (not addressed to you obviously)

[DeanoL]

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

Edited February 3, 2016 by DeanoL