Jeremy Corbyn

[arcade fireman]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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

No one said Miliband couldn't lose though! Even when he was ahead in the polls there were serious doubts about his leadership. Don't you remember there was an ongoing clamour to replace him with Alan Johnson?

And this was when he was performing far better in the polls than Corbyn.

Exactly the same courtesy is being extended to Jeremy, he's being judged in the court of public opinion. 

It was only at the end when the polls overestimated Labour support that they thought a hung parliament would be probable (and even then with the Tories as the likely largest party). 

[DeanoL]

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? 

[arcade fireman]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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? 

Yes, it is that much more unlikely. Historically trends are that oppositions do better between elections. There is a new leader bounce almost always (which Corbyn hasn't enjoyed) and even Labour under a poor leader like Miliband enjoyed a lead in the polls. However crucially, the area where he usually lagged quite a bit behind Cameron was his personal ratings. They weren't as bad as Corbyn's, but they remained quite a bit behind Cameron throughout.

So actually, the facts you're giving make it even more unlikely. Historically we would expect Corbyn to be doing considerably better than he is. 

There isn't much of a trend for a leader to make such a poor first impression as Corbyn has and then pick themselves up later on. I can't think of a single example in living memory. 

Quote

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.

Ed's odds of losing the next election in 2011 weren't considered low. Labour were hopeful that Coalition unpopularity coupled with the fact it was a hung Parliament but really despite Labour's decent performance in the polls, Labour's performance wasn't anything out of the ordinary for an opposition. 

Put it this way, Corbyn's odds of winning in 2020 are far longer than the odds you would have got in 2011 for Ed losing the 2015 election. 

Quote

For those opposed to him, how will you react if he makes gains in May? Will you admit you were wrong and support him? 

Depends. If he makes big gains I will be surprised and would be more open to the idea of him getting wider support. If he makes very small gains, given this is what oppositions generally do between elections I wouldn't be overly impressed.

Either way, I personally would vote for him at a General Election. But that's besides the point. 

[pink_triangle]

10 hours ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

no mate you dont know that at all, noone knows that personally my own experience goes against that anyway, never known so much interest in politics locally to me at the moment, never known so many anti cuts/tory groups set up and running as there are at the mo, never known so much interest in politics from young people in my area......and guess who most of those people support and cite as an influence for peaking such interest? it aint cameron ill tell you that much pal!

you really need to change the record, all this woe is me we`re all doomed, corbyn is rubbish crap while jumping on every little irrelevant tidbit you can find to scrape together an argument and ignoring or slamming anything which suggests the opposite? I think you just dont like the man tbh....and you would believe anything before you would ever admit he was doing better then you claim. so its a pointless argument isnt it? with you at least. Mind you I should have figured that out from the start where you didnt even `have` an argument unless you were able to twist my words and make up shit haha

I have no doubt that Corbyn excites more people than Cameron. The PM isn't even loved by his own members but come election time they ticked the tory box.  Many voters don't need to be excited, they will choose the safest option.  Whatever peoples opinions on Corbyn, I think most would feel the more people engaged in politics and voting the better. 

However there are a couple of key points.  Firstly if there is an influx of new voters (something I have my doubts about) in a first past the post system the vast majority of those votes make no difference from an electoral perspective, out of interest is the seat you live one of those swing seats?  Also every generation of youth think theres is different and the one that will change the world and then things change very little.  I'm not ruling it out, but history makes me dubious.

[pink_triangle]

8 hours ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

ITS a good tactic by corbyn if you ask me, hes setting out to appeal to the younger generations as he knows they are the future of this country and they will ultimately decide its future....theres a reason why a lot of the new activist groups im seeing formed are set up by young people......they have been some of the hardest hit of all by the tories esp when it comes to education changes and being deemed irrelevent by plans like not giving housing benefit to anyone under 25 etc....they are the ones most likly to rise up in anger and vote the tories out and corbyn knows this.....they sure as hell arent going to vote tory thats for sure! 

Many will vote for Corbyn, some will lose interest and not vote.  Some of these people who vote labour will move to the right as they get older and vote tory.  Many of the current crop of tory mps (althought few will admit it) will have voted labour when younger.

7 hours ago, thatcrazypenguin said:

I simply go by what I see in my own area and what I see happening over the country as a whole, as I said particularly when it comes to young people.....I cant give you `evidence` of that and you know that because no physical evidence exists, however likewise you cannot give me evidence that corbyn is tanking the labour party and they will have no chance of election under his lead in 2020.simple logic as well......you want to tell me all these young people suddenly engaged in politics are in it for the tory party? you think the tories offer anything for these generations? who do you think these people being absolutely shat on by the current government are going to vote for when they are given a chance? do you honestly think they will forget all of that and turn into young tories? because thats what it would take for them to achieve power once again.

Some youth will feel like they are getting shit on, some will look at policies like right to buy as a positive thing.  In terms of evidence it exists in terms of polls, but you discount them because they don't support your viewpoint. If they did you would use them as evidence for his popularity.  While there are mechanisms to change leaders mid term there must be ways of assessing performance.  Nobody can guarantee a result, but that doesn't mean you should never change course

7 hours ago, DeanoL said:

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.

Of course your not the only person, some will vote labour happier, while some who were on the fence and voted labour will switch their vote to an alternative. Corbyn both attracts and repels voters.

[pink_triangle]

5 hours ago, tonyblair said:

but this is madness. There are people like yourself, who say they like him, but they don't think he's a credible leader. It's an insane situation, being driven by the media, and other Labour members and MPs.... It's like no-one will actually vote for who they honestly agree with, because of some undisclosed consequences!?!

 

I think a lot of people who criticize him will vote for labour when push comes to shove.  I think many of our fears come from an awareness of how others think.  If I could make a candidate who reflect my views completely I wouldnt think they were the best for the job because I don't think my views win an election.  I would rather someone who could delvier some of the things I want, as opposed to nothing at all.

[pink_triangle]

3 hours ago, DeanoL said:

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.

We need to forget about this majority of 5, its going up as the boundaries change.  A candidate with 100% chance of beating the tors doesn't exist, if you can find one with 33% you would probably take it at present.  I also think looking at things as win/lose is oversimplistic.  There are different degrees of losses and a big loss can cost you not just that election, but the one after.  When torys swapped iDS for Howard, I don't believe many thought the latter was going to be the next PM.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours 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!

I haven't seen a single poll that suggests Corbyn is going to win the next election, maybe Momentum have published something that said he is heading for a landslide.  There are no guarantees what will happen in 4 years time, but polling is the best indication we have.  If you take the attitude of ignoring every poll because they may be wrong how will you ever know if/when is the right time to change

[pink_triangle]

2 hours 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.

I don't see how you can compare the polling of a governing party to one of the opposition. As previously said you would expect a new leader bounce.

2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

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

To say people said Milliband couldn't rule is a bit of rewriting of history.  Most of the polls approaching election day suggested Conservatives would get the most votes (although not a majority) and the bookmakers felt it was most likely Cameron would remain PM

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

 

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? 

To say the odds are the same makes little sense to me. Even if he was equally as popular as Milliband, the next election is being fought on boundaries more favourable to the conservatives which makes it more difficult to win, regardless of the strengths/weaknesses of the candidiae.

[Keithy]

The odds on a 2020 Labour election victory look very slim at the moment but Labour need someone who can seize the middle ground back (ie the populist vote) as there are 3 possible scenarios that might occur in the next 4 years and Labour need to be in a position to capitalise:

1. The Tories tear themselves apart over the EU (as they did in the early noughties)

2. The Tories are split on the next leader between Boris and Gideon (or Cameron back tracks on standing down). There is still a large section of the Tory press who hate Cameron and want Boris

3. Events, my dear boy, events.

Sadly I don't see Corbyn in any position to capitalise. I base that on the fact he's had so many 'open goals' in the last few months to really nail Cameron and he's missed them. 

[DeanoL]

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

We need to forget about this majority of 5, its going up as the boundaries change.

Sure. Under the proposed new boundaries it would be 22. Still one of the smallest majorities ever.

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

However there are a couple of key points.  Firstly if there is an influx of new voters (something I have my doubts about) in a first past the post system the vast majority of those votes make no difference from an electoral perspective, out of interest is the seat you live one of those swing seats?  Also every generation of youth think theres is different and the one that will change the world and then things change very little.  I'm not ruling it out, but history makes me dubious.

I don't live in one. I'm in a safe Labour seat. So all I can do is moan on internet forums

The youth thing is interesting though. I'm 32. I took an interest in politics when I was in my mid-20s but most of my generation really didn't give a crap. I'm looking down and being impressed by the level of engagement of the generation below me.

There's another thing too. The "youth" vote. Who are the "youth". Teens? Early 20s? Late 20s? Here's the thing see: the young tend not to vote, so they're an obvious candidate for politicians to shaft. But that measure of who "youth" are has been creeping up and up and up. People are "younger" for longer. It's in the obvious places: the living wage only kicking in once you're 25. And the not so obvious places: it's increasingly common to see people living with their parents into their late 20s and even 30s. Even with a professional career, it's the only way they can ever afford to save for a deposit on a house. And no-one gives a crap about rent controls or anything that might practically help the generation that in staring down the idea of renting for life. Especially in London. That's why I think there's something to be said for the power of the 'youth vote'. Because it's everyone from 17-29 these days.

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I haven't seen a single poll that suggests Corbyn is going to win the next election, maybe Momentum have published something that said he is heading for a landslide.  There are no guarantees what will happen in 4 years time, but polling is the best indication we have.  If you take the attitude of ignoring every poll because they may be wrong how will you ever know if/when is the right time to change

Or wait until an election, where more than a tiny sample of people are spoken to? Who the hell responds to these polls anyway? Certainly no-one I know or any of my friends. We don't have the bloody time to waste. The best indication we have so far is the Oldham by-election. In May it'll be the local elections and mayoral elections. There are other indicators.

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I don't see how you can compare the polling of a governing party to one of the opposition. As previously said you would expect a new leader bounce.

To say people said Milliband couldn't rule is a bit of rewriting of history.  Most of the polls approaching election day suggested Conservatives would get the most votes (although not a majority) and the bookmakers felt it was most likely Cameron would remain PM

"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.

Edited February 4, 2016 by DeanoL

[DeanoL]

(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.)

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, DeanoL said:

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

the only people I saw saying "Miliband couldn't lose" were the same sorts of people who were saying "everyone detests the tories" shortly before the tories stormed to victory.

There might be a bit of wisdom there for this thread.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Or wait until an election, where more than a tiny sample of people are spoken to? Who the hell responds to these polls anyway? Certainly no-one I know or any of my friends. We don't have the bloody time to waste. The best indication we have so far is the Oldham by-election.

Hmmmm ....

You're dismissing the polls, which are carried out with scientific precision (as much as possible), and sample people of all demographics all around the UK. You dismiss this as "a tiny sample".

(just for reference, it's usually around 2,000 people in the sample, which science tells us is about the right number to get an accurate reading. The accuracy barely increases if a sample of a hundred times greater is used, btw. There's an awful lot of good science in opinion polling methods [where they go wrong is with modelling the country's demographic with their sample, where they've tended to over-credit 'labour supporters' as being 'labour voters', cos Labour supporters are less likely to vote]).

And then go on to say "the best indication we have so far is the Oldham by-election" - which is a sample from just one very tiny part of the country, who we already knew to strongly support Labour, where the candidate was well-known locally, where the candidate was well-liked locally, where the candidate was (on the basis of their policy wants) 'against' Corbyn, and where the Labour vote fell to below what UKIP got back in May.

On that last point I'll also happily say that Labour also increased its share of the vote. But I'll point out there was a byelection in the constituency next door at the same point in the electoral cycle 5 years previously (with Miliband newly installed as leader). where the demographic is very similar - and Miliband got a bigger increase (about double) in the share of the vote.

The only thing Oldham can be used to demonstrate is what people think in Oldham, because the sample is only from Oldham.

Your thinking about this is severely flawed. I recommend that you do a bit of reading about how scientifically-statistical samples work, because you'll be wiser for it. Polls might not be perfect, but they're a very decent indicator all the same.

 

Quote

"You would expect a new leader bounce" - would you? Why?

Because every other major leader in UK political history has had one, and that bounce also loosely relates to their chances of victory in a future election.

 

Quote

Again, it's assuming everything is working the same way it used to work.

For which there's a stronger basis to have belief in than that everything is suddenly going to work differently.

That past history suggests next time will be the same, while there's also nothing to indicate that things have somehow changed.

 

Quote

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.

He's a very similar Party leader to Michael Foot in many ways - certainly with his policy positions.

But unlike Foot he's not someone who commanded respect from all directions. Foot was hugely respected for his intellect even by those who vehemently disagreed with his politics. He had a hugely successful career as a journalist before politics. He was a fantastic orator, one of the best. He was a superb parliamentary performer, that any opposition politician feared.

Those aspects of Foot carried him a long long way, even tho his policy positions were out of step with much of the country (as the '83 election got to show). They carried him so very far that there's still a view today that's often said that he was on course to win until the Falkland's war kicked off - tho that ignores the internal Labour divisions that led to the creation of the SDP, who won 25% of the vote in 83 and who later merged with the Liberal Party to form the LibDems.

So actually, Corbyn isn't that different - apart from being in a far weaker position. We've been here before, and I can't see anything about today's society that suggests a warmer embrace for those further-left policies.

 

Quote

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.

We have 'slick modern politics'  for a reason. Because it's what's been proven to work.

Whatever the politics is, no matter how slick or not-slick, the polls are measuring *exactly* the same thing in all circumstances - how warmly a person feels towards what's on offer compared to the alternatives on offer.

Jezza doing the bumbling grumpy geography teacher thing does change a jot of what can be measured of what people feel towards him.

Edited February 4, 2016 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

10 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Sure. Under the proposed new boundaries it would be 22. Still one of the smallest majorities ever.

I don't live in one. I'm in a safe Labour seat. So all I can do is moan on internet forums

 

There Is the problem, I also live in a  safe seat, however a safe tory one.  If 10,000 (which is quite a stretch) young Corbynites flock to the polling station in either of our consistencies, it will make no difference to the election result compared to 2015.  You have to turn blue voters red, to understand that you have to understand what those swing voters wont.  We both would like something a bit more left wing, but they think they are moving left when they vote someone like Blair

10 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Sure. Under the proposed new boundaries it would be 22. Still one of the smallest majorities ever.

I don't live in one. I'm in a safe Labour seat. So all I can do is moan on internet forums

The youth thing is interesting though. I'm 32. I took an interest in politics when I was in my mid-20s but most of my generation really didn't give a crap. I'm looking down and being impressed by the level of engagement of the generation below me.

There's another thing too. The "youth" vote. Who are the "youth". Teens? Early 20s? Late 20s? Here's the thing see: the young tend not to vote, so they're an obvious candidate for politicians to shaft. But that measure of who "youth" are has been creeping up and up and up. People are "younger" for longer. It's in the obvious places: the living wage only kicking in once you're 25. And the not so obvious places: it's increasingly common to see people living with their parents into their late 20s and even 30s. Even with a professional career, it's the only way they can ever afford to save for a deposit on a house. And no-one gives a crap about rent controls or anything that might practically help the generation that in staring down the idea of renting for life. Especially in London. That's why I think there's something to be said for the power of the 'youth vote'. Because it's everyone from 17-29 these days.

 

I think its great that more young people are getting involved in politics, unfortunately they wont be as reliable voters as the old.  Unfortunately due to modern medicine those pesky elderly people are living to a much older age and most are voting tory!

10 hours ago, DeanoL said:

 

Or wait until an election, where more than a tiny sample of people are spoken to? Who the hell responds to these polls anyway? Certainly no-one I know or any of my friends. We don't have the bloody time to waste. The best indication we have so far is the Oldham by-election. In May it'll be the local elections and mayoral elections. There are other indicators.

I think theres very little chance of anything happening before elections.  For those who oppose Corbyn its a big tactical decision to pick the correct moment.  If they attempted now they could be left with him for the election.

I haven't voted in any of these polls either.  In terms of who votes in them, its probably middle class people with too much time on their hands who will be the people who decide the next election! I'm certainly not ignoring the Oldham by-election, it reinforces my view that moderate candidates are in the best position to maximize support, that's why I want a moderate leader.

10 hours ago, DeanoL said:

 

"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.

 

In fairness the polls didn't take too long to realize that Corbyn was going to win the labour leadership there was certainly no doubt in the weeks before.  There is also no doubt that he is great at appealing to the converted, unfortunately in an election we need a converter.  You should never focus on one poll, but when you have many polls and historical trends to ignore them would be naïve and we all know if the polls suggested huge support for Corbyn his fans would not ignore them.  I have two young children and fear Corbyn entering the next election as labour leader could add another 5 years on to how long they have to wait to kick out a tory government.  Polls and trends may not be perfect but when the stakes are so high I'm more willing to stick with what I know than assume a a magic change is coming.

[Martin Ashford]

I've seen the man speak this afternoon to a packed sports hall of very respectable looking people. He had a huge welcome and went down an absolute storm on every issue he touched upon. He is completely and utterly without self- aggrandisement which is very weird in a man leading a political party but it works. It is no wonder they are so frightened of him.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, Martin Ashford said:

I've seen the man speak this afternoon to a packed sports hall of very respectable looking people. He had a huge welcome and went down an absolute storm on every issue he touched upon. He is completely and utterly without self- aggrandisement which is very weird in a man leading a political party but it works. It is no wonder they are so frightened of him.

400 people, wasn't it?

What's frightening about Jezza is how he cares so little for what matters to those who might vote for him. How much of his talking was about Trident, Martin?

 

[Winslow Leach]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

400 people, wasn't it?

What's frightening about Jezza is how he cares so little for what matters to those who might vote for him. How much of his talking was about Trident, Martin?

 

I imagine he avoided Europe so that he didn't have to pretend he wants Britain to stay in.

 

17 hours ago, Martin Ashford said:

I've seen the man speak this afternoon to a packed sports hall of very respectable looking people. He had a huge welcome and went down an absolute storm on every issue he touched upon. He is completely and utterly without self- aggrandisement which is very weird in a man leading a political party but it works. It is no wonder they are so frightened of him.

Oh good, at least the riff raff were stopped at the door.

[arcade fireman]

21 hours ago, Martin Ashford said:

I've seen the man speak this afternoon to a packed sports hall of very respectable looking people. He had a huge welcome and went down an absolute storm on every issue he touched upon. He is completely and utterly without self- aggrandisement which is very weird in a man leading a political party but it works. It is no wonder they are so frightened of him.

I guarantee you the right wingers aren't frightened of him. They see him as a gift to the Tories. 

I'm frightened of Corbyn on the other hand. Not because of his ideas, many of which are quite sensible. But because him and his merry band of delusionals are going to ensure the Tories get an even bigger majority next time round. 

You cannot judge electability by how a man preaches to the converted. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by arcade fireman

[russycarps]

Jezza is absolutely ace at preaching to the converted.

unfortunately those on the fence on issues seem to think he's a bit of a tit

[Martin Ashford]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

400 people, wasn't it?

What's frightening about Jezza is how he cares so little for what matters to those who might vote for him. How much of his talking was about Trident, Martin?

 

He didn't mention Trident once. Very little on defence. He did talk about Europe in a positive way and mainly about building links with other socialist parties. It was meant to be a celebration of the life of Keir Hardie so most of it was about defending the rights of working people and it was, in effect, a potted  history of the Labour Party with plenty of references to the modern day

[Martin Ashford]

7 hours ago, Winslow Leach said:

I imagine he avoided Europe so that he didn't have to pretend he wants Britain to stay in.

 

Oh good, at least the riff raff were stopped at the door.

I mentioned this because it was hardly a group of anarchic militant activists as his supporters are constantly portrayed in the media. Corbyn will appeal to a massive cross section of people if the media gave him a better profile. I'm fairly sure it was an invitation only event by the way.

[arcade fireman]

38 minutes ago, Martin Ashford said:

I mentioned this because it was hardly a group of anarchic militant activists as his supporters are constantly portrayed in the media. Corbyn will appeal to a massive cross section of people if the media gave him a better profile. I'm fairly sure it was an invitation only event by the way.

But the media will never give him a better profile. Even with a better profile a lot of the damage has been done - first impressions count for a lot in any walk of life. And while I personally couldn't give a toss what sort of suit he wears and how he wears his tie, that stuff matters because there are a hell of a lot of people who that does matter to. Look at what people wear to any professional job interview. 

The problem with Corbyn is that he's the latest in a long line of leaders from both major parties who the public would never elect as they're seen as odd and untrustworthy. Other examples include Foot, Hague, Howard, Ed Miliband, Brown etc. The fact he was talking to this group of people about Keir Hardie says it all - I know who Keir Hardie was, I think he's a man to be admired and respected. The thing is, most of the electorate don't really know or care who Keir Hardie was, not least the floating voters who any prospective PM needs to attract. 

That's not to say Corbyn shouldn't be speaking at such events - its entirely reasonable to do so. But just that you cannot possibly draw any conclusions whatsoever about electability when he's giving a speech about Keir Hardie to a bunch of people who care and are listening. That is in no way a remotely representative group of people. 

[Waapster]

According to Polly Toynbee in the Guardian:

"Scotland has gone and 2018 boundary changes will abolish a host of Labour seats. In the 94 English seats Labour must win, four out of five new votes need to come from Tory voters."

Well good luck with that...