|
|
Polling
Sept 9, 2024 12:39:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on Sept 9, 2024 12:39:56 GMT
Mate I think we have discussed this one to death. I recognise it’s an issue you are passionate about. You think that a very large number of people interested enough in politics to join a political party had no idea in casting their vote for party leader who the leading candidate broadly was. I think that while there may be a handful of such people, such a view is simply not credible and it is far more credible that the majority were sick of losing elections and being simply a protest party and believed Starmer was the best candidate to lead them back into government (which of course he subsequently did).
I’ll leave this one here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2024 12:54:30 GMT
I believe the voting electorate was just over 400,000. LB got 135k. To bring her level with Starmer, her vote would have had to increase by 70,000 - over 50%. 70,000 politically active people who apparently didn’t know that Starmer was more of a centrist. Sorry I think you are indulging in wishful thinking. We may just have to disagree on this point. As for what would have happened if LB had won - of course we will (thank goodness) never know. My view is that the public and then the Tory party collapse in support for Johnson was conditional on having a credible alternative party to vote for. LB would have been seen as continuity Corbyn without the charisma and I think the fall off in support would have been much less pronounced. I suspect Johnson would still be PM now (and the dreadful Mercer still your MP). It seems wishful thinking to believe that LB could have won the last election. Again we may have to disagree on this point too. I don't actually think that is true. I think the collapse in Tory support was entirely due to the inherent and obvious unprecedented levels of crapness of the Tories themselves, including the ever more apparent awfulness of Johnson himself. What is more arguable is whether fewer people would have voted Labour as well and more of them voted for others or not voted at all. This would have been a distinct possibility. But how much damage this would have done to Labour we can only guess at. But had Labour been as crap as you assume it would have been, voter turnout would have been even more shockingly low. The Tories might have held on to a few more seats here and there but in my view are unlikely to have retained enough for victory. There is a lot of believing what you want to believe inherent in your arguments. You will probably say the same about me. The problem of what might have beens is that such arguments are inherently unwinnable or unloseable, the evidence wholly non-existent other than by educated guesses based upon extrapolations. And way too heavy a reliance on unknowable assumptions. We are both guilty of this because debates about such hypotheticals are meaningfully impossible without doing this. In any case, either Long Bailey would have proven a better and more effective leader than you assume. Or she would have no longer been leader by 2024. I do not believe she would have been able to remain leader were she proving to be as crap as you ideologically assume and expect her to have been. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2024 13:00:45 GMT
Mate I think we have discussed this one to death. I recognise it’s an issue you are passionate about. You think that a very large number of people interested enough in politics to join a political party had no idea in casting their vote for party leader who the leading candidate broadly was. I think that while there may be a handful of such people, such a view is simply not credible and it is far more credible that the majority were sick of losing elections and being simply a protest party and believed Starmer was the best candidate to lead them back into government (which of course he subsequently did). I’ll leave this one here. Well I think that large numbers of idealists making an ideological about turn is less credible than them being persuaded by a dishonest pitch. And unlike you, I was there on the inside and saw it happening. And your belief that large numbers of idealists who only joined the party because of Corbyn or his policy agenda, suddenly decided that winning under a completely different agenda was all that mattered is not one I find credible. If it were, Starmer would not have had to sell himself to the members as a more electable version of that agenda. But yes, we will get nowhere by continuing. And it serves no useful purpose either since it is history now. Like you I am adopting a wait and see policy regarding Starmer and his government thus far. Since his election victory I have said very little that is critical of his government and a lot that is guardedly positive. I will not condemn for the sake of it due to sour grapes I dont actually feel. I am not someone who nurtures bitterness, or remains angry for long I do think we will get a lot more information to go on, and be able to say a lot more - good or bad, for better or worse - when Rachel Reeves gives us her autumn budget. This will reveal much more about spending priorities, what cuts are being made where, what taxes may be increased, who is being hit and who is being protected, and more of a general sense of direction. I am sure there will be much more to talk about then, in regards to the present and future, rather than the past. And we will all be putting in our tuppence worth about it I am sure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2024 22:23:06 GMT
No worries, Corbyn got more votes than Starmer but all's well that ends well eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 7:38:06 GMT
No worries, Corbyn got more votes than Starmer but all's well that ends well eh? Labour got more votes in both 2017 and 2019 than it did in 2024. It was the collapse in the Tory vote plus the damage that Reform did to the Tory vote that gifted it to Labour. this time But centrists will always see what they want to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 10, 2024 8:47:38 GMT
No worries, Corbyn got more votes than Starmer but all's well that ends well eh? Labour got more votes in both 2017 and 2019 than it did in 2024. It was the collapse in the Tory vote plus the damage that Reform did to the Tory vote that gifted it to Labour. this time But centrists will always see what they want to see. Do you think Labour would have won in 2024 with Corbyn as leader? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 11:36:46 GMT
Labour got more votes in both 2017 and 2019 than it did in 2024. It was the collapse in the Tory vote plus the damage that Reform did to the Tory vote that gifted it to Labour. this time But centrists will always see what they want to see. Do you think Labour would have won in 2024 with Corbyn as leader? I never said that. You inferred that. I think the successful weaponization of antisemitism against him had gone too far to be undone. He had become a definite electoral liability which is exactly what was meant to happen. So what I think would have happened in 2024 were he still leader is that the Tories would still have polled very badly, maybe just slightly less badly because of the support of those such as yourself, but the Labour vote would have been much lower too. With probably even fewer people voting at all and more of those who did voting for other parties. Most likely the Tories would have held a handful more seats, the Greens, Lib Dems, SNP and Reform would likely have done better and Labour gained few if any additional seats. But we cannot know. I still think the Tory vote would have collapsed in large measure but also think Labour would have benefitted rather less from tactical voting. What I feel fairly sure about is that if all those who voted Labour in 2019 did so again in 2024, Labour would have won even under Corbyn. It is far from certain that all of those people would have done so though and probably rather unlikely. But Jeremy Corbyn as leader in 2024 is a rather different hypothetical to Long Bailey as leader, in spite of their similar politics because of a larger array of potentially unknowable variables with the latter. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 15:30:35 GMT
Actual statistics do tell their own story. Starmer got far fewer votes than Corbyn did in 2019 or 2017. In fact in 2017 Corbyn got more than any other Labour leader since 1997....and even in 2019 got more than Labour did in any other election since 2001. What crucified Labour so badly in 2019 was the Brexit issue and the populist right standing down against the Tories. The result in 2024 was a massive rejection of the Tories rather than an endorsement of Labour though that does not really matter now because Labour has the chance to prove itself.
There are massive warnings for Labour in the statistical details though. Apart from getting many fewer votes than Corbyn and winning on an extraordinarily low percentage of those voters, they were assisted by massive levels of tactical voting. But this tends to be less favourable to governing parties, which Labour likely will have been for 4 or 5 years come the next election. And whilst there were massive swings towards Labour in quite a few places, there were a fair few where the Labour majority was slashed and a few where Labour lost seats. This was particularly marked in constituencies with a high density of younger people - Thangam Debonaire losing to a Green in Bristol for example. And also in constituencies with a high density of Muslims. So Labour support is vulnerable in these two demographics. And the right wing vote was split far more heavily than it has ever been which seriously weakened the already wounded Tories. And the SNP in Scotland was at a low point. The weakness of the SNP cannot be taken for granted to be permanent and is unlikely to be.
So Labour's majority, though massive, is built on very shaky and in many ways temporary foundations and could collapse as readily as it was built. Labour must shore up and even increase it's vote next time to be certain of victory.
And another worrying statistic is the extent to which the combined Reform and Tory vote share was comfortably ahead of Labour in so many areas, including my own where Labour won but where the combined Tory and Reform vote was comfortably larger. This bodes ill for Labour should the right unite or work together in some way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 10, 2024 15:57:04 GMT
Do you think Labour would have won in 2024 with Corbyn as leader? I never said that. You inferred that. I think the successful weaponization of antisemitism against him had gone too far to be undone. He had become a definite electoral liability which is exactly what was meant to happen. So what I think would have happened in 2024 were he still leader is that the Tories would still have polled very badly, maybe just slightly less badly because of the support of those such as yourself, but the Labour vote would have been much lower too. With probably even fewer people voting at all and more of those who did voting for other parties. Most likely the Tories would have held a handful more seats, the Greens, Lib Dems, SNP and Reform would likely have done better and Labour gained few if any additional seats. But we cannot know. I still think the Tory vote would have collapsed in large measure but also think Labour would have benefitted rather less from tactical voting. What I feel fairly sure about is that if all those who voted Labour in 2019 did so again in 2024, Labour would have won even under Corbyn. It is far from certain that all of those people would have done so though and probably rather unlikely. But Jeremy Corbyn as leader in 2024 is a rather different hypothetical to Long Bailey as leader, in spite of their similar politics because of a larger array of potentially unknowable variables with the latter. I didn't infer it, I asked you it. My point being that all the stuff about Corbyn getting more votes than Starmer is misleading, because we both agree that Corbyn would never have got Labour into power. For me antisemitism had nothing to do with my voting, I would never vote for Corbyn because he's too far left for me, just as I would never vote for Jacob Rees Mogg as he's too right wing. I don't know enough about Rebecca to vote for her as leader, had she have been so, I would have educated myself. For me the party leader very much indicates the direction of the party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 16:02:48 GMT
Bro, you voted for Boris Johnson in 2019 - who's politics are in line with Rees-Mogg's, did he not pick him for a high profile position IIRC?
Too right wing for you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 16:06:24 GMT
By the way, if you're on holiday my advice would be not to post on this site or even look at it
Don't let it distract you from what's important on holiday
Just saying, if I looked at all this rubbish whilst on our recent vacation it wouldn't have gone well
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 10, 2024 16:13:30 GMT
Bro, you voted for Boris Johnson in 2019 - who's politics are in line with Rees-Mogg's, did he not pick him for a high profile position IIRC? Too right wing for you? Bro I was fooled by Boris and greatly regret it. Also Bro the fear was getting Corbyn instead, even worse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 16:14:49 GMT
Corbyn is going to steal England's last remaining lump of coal and sell it to the Soviet Russkiys...
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 10, 2024 16:15:18 GMT
By the way, if you're on holiday my advice would be not to post on this site or even look at it Don't let it distract you from what's important on holiday Just saying, if I looked at all this rubbish whilst on our recent vacation it wouldn't have gone well I'm away with friends and some days have a lot of itinerary in them, but are weather dependent. So when back at base I post a bit here, I get bored very quickly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2024 16:52:17 GMT
Bro, you voted for Boris Johnson in 2019 - who's politics are in line with Rees-Mogg's, did he not pick him for a high profile position IIRC? Too right wing for you? Bro I was fooled by Boris and greatly regret it. Also Bro the fear was getting Corbyn instead, even worse. I don't think Corbyn would have been even worse that Boris. I think his government would have sought to help a lot more of the ordinary people. And the 2017 manifesto was hardly an extreme document. But yes Corbyn had many flaws and would likely have been a poor leader in many ways, and God only knows how he would have reacted to Covid. I struggle to believe however that it would have been any worse that what we ended up with, all the more so because I am convinced that in spite of his many faults Corbyn genuinely cared about the weak and downtrodden. And it is this more than anything else that resonated with me as far as he is concerned. I genuinely believed - and still do - that his heart was in the right place. Though I also acknowledge that that alone is just not enough. As for his supposed antisemitism, I dont actually believe he is an antisemite at all. After all he was always on good terms with the Jews in his own constituency and always respected holocaust memorial events and days. What he definitell very much is though is a staunch anti-Zionist, at least in the way the extreme right in Israel uses it to justify oppression of people already there who just happen to be in the way. Jewishness is a racial ethnicity and to be anti it is to be a racist antisemite. But Zionism is an ideology. Opposing an ideology is not inherently racist. To equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism is as false a conflation as identifying anti-monarchism with hatred of the British. It is this deliberate conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism which forms the entire basis of labelling the left as antisemites, as well as being the main means of shutting down legitimate criticism of the conduct of Israel and some of it's people and armed forces. Incidentally, had I said that last paragraph in a party forum whilst still a member, I would have been suspended and expelled from the party for antisemitism. Yet I am no more an antisemite than I am any other kind of racist. What I am is an opponent of oppression, regardless of whom the oppressors are. And like many on the left I feel particularly strongly about it when it is either us doing it or one of our allies, as Israel is. |
|
