Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[agricola]

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn has suffered a bad press, but where's the harm?

So what if we are sabotaging Corbyn, you stupid plebs

Look at the way he dresses, he was asking for it.

 

[belboid]

Not sure I agree.

If you deselect a handful, then the rest will fall in line. You wouldn't need to do anything with most of the 172. Their careers are dependent on being in the Labour party. And sitting on the opposition benches for decades collecting an MPs salary for simply having a rose next to your name on the ballot is a pretty cushy number. Why risk that?

It's still too early to begin the reelection process. It's done on a timetable with the safest held seats done last. So there'll be no opportunity to deselect until 2019, if this parliament somehow lasts full term.

 

[belboid]

that reminds me, the party conference wasn't in the timetable posted above, which ends on Saturday 24 September — Special conference to announce result. When is it, are they going to have two?

Starts on the 25th, basically same as when JC was first elected.

 

[Crispy]

Times are running a front page story about " Corbyn's popularity among LP members soars" backed up by a series of polls showing him stuff the pair of them.

What's interesting when you look at the detailed results is that this lead is almost entirely due to the new members. 42:53 among pre-2015 members but 73:25 among new ones.

 

[newbie]

Starts on the 25th, basically same as when JC was first elected.

tvm

 

[binka]

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn has suffered a bad press, but where's the harm?

So what if we are sabotaging Corbyn, you stupid plebs

Just posted that on the guardian is shit thread didn't realise youd beaten me to it. It is quite an astonishing article but also not in the least bit surprising

 

[newbie]

What's interesting when you look at the detailed results is that this lead is almost entirely due to the new members. 42:53 among pre-2015 members but 73:25 among new ones.

the geek in me wonders if they explain why they weighted their sample as heavily as they did, and whether they weighted proportionately or selectively. Maybe they couldn't contact sufficient post 2015 members?

 

[killer b]

They've just sampled it that way so only members who can vote are included haven't they?

 

[newbie]

They've just sampled it that way so only members who can vote are included haven't they?

All were members before the start of the year, so all can vote. my reading is that they asked 613 pre 2015 and 406 post, but counted them in the ratio 489:530

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Kid_Eternity Helpful(ish) tip of the day: You can get get rid of that irritating signature thingy by trawling through Tapatalk's preferences. Can't remember where it is though.

Ah ain't nobody got time for dat!


.

 

[newbie]

the geek in me has given up doing something else and read the detail. they seem to have downgraded the views of ABC1s aged 25-64 and living in London and the north and uprated everyone else.

or, to put it another way, their sample was rubbish.

 

[teqniq]

Ah ain't nobody got time for dat!


.

Strange, it took me less time than than you might waste thinking about upgrading to the latest model.

 

[poului]

A prominent Saving Labour campaigner libsplains why Corbyn fans are wrong from my Facebook feed (no, I'm not actually friends with her and might be doing a bit of deselection soon). Plenty of patronising rhetoric and sweeping statements about Corbyn's leadership on display without any data to back it up. Essentially, "I've worked in politics so I know better than you".

I’m so sorry to bore on about politics, I promise I'll stop soon. But from today everyone has a very short opportunity to vote in a really important election. The result will not only decide the future of the Labour Party, but whether we have a functioning opposition to keep the Government in check. Labour is on the verge of collapse and if it does it will be nothing short of devastating.

To my lovely and principled friends who are considering supporting Corbyn, may I say this: I worked in Parliament for a few years and do not know of a single Labour MP who does not believe in eradicating poverty and homelessness, tackling inequality, investing in public services, solving the housing crisis and creating a fairer, more tolerant society. We all want a better world and it’s why the Labour Party exists. The real challenge is how to achieve these aims without unintended consequences, what to prioritise with limited money and how to win voters’ trust on the other stuff that matters - like managing the economy and keeping the country safe.

Jeremy Corbyn has failed to provide solutions to the problems he identifies, has failed to hold the government to account, and has failed to persuade the country he is capable of being Prime Minister. He may be popular in some social circles, but overwhelming evidence shows this not true of the country. Polls show he is the most unpopular, poorly performing leader in modern times and we lost seats and vote share in the local elections. Whatever you think of him, the Labour Party is crumbling under his leadership.

If you might feel even a tiny bit sad at the thought of the Labour Party ceasing to exist as a political force or the Conservatives winning elections unchallenged for decades PLEASE sign up and pay £25 to vote for an alternative to Corbyn. The other candidates may not set your world on fire, but if you prefer them to no Labour Party at all then you should vote. Every vote counts but you only have less than 48 hours to make a difference. Don’t regret it!

 

[squirrelp]

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn has suffered a bad press, but where's the harm?

"We're just having a bit of fun officer"

 

[J Ed]

A prominent Saving Labour campaigner libsplains why Corbyn fans are wrong from my Facebook feed (no, I'm not actually friends with her and might be doing a bit of deselection soon). Plenty of patronising rhetoric and sweeping statements about Corbyn's leadership on display without any data to back it up. Essentially, "I've worked in politics so I know better than you".

This is basically identical to the right-wing arg that goes along the lines of 'just because I believe private sector partners should ground up poor children into hamburgers to feed the privately education doesn't mean I hate the poor, it just means I have different ideas from you about how we can work to eliminate poverty'.

 

[DotCommunist]

and liberals seem genuinly bewildered when you use the term with contempt

 

[brogdale]

This is basically identical to the right-wing arg that goes along the lines of 'just because I believe private sector partners should ground up poor children into hamburgers to feed the privately education doesn't mean I hate the poor, it just means I have different ideas from you about how we can work to eliminate poverty'.

He may be popular in some social circles....

Dinner parties?

 

[maomao]

A prominent Saving Labour campaigner libsplains why Corbyn fans are wrong from my Facebook feed (no, I'm not actually friends with her and might be doing a bit of deselection soon). Plenty of patronising rhetoric and sweeping statements about Corbyn's leadership on display without any data to back it up. Essentially, "I've worked in politics so I know better than you".

'Functioning opposition to keep the government in check' lol. By not opposing them on benefits or Trident for instance?

 

[The Octagon]

The other candidates may not set your world on fire, but if you prefer them to no Labour Party at all then you should vote

Lol

 

[DotCommunist]

absolutrly and totally convinced that thier 'moderate', windbaggy notion of what politics is and should be are are correct. So fucking certain that they have a stake and the vote is so important and we must instruct the plebs because they vote wrongly. Cross them and get the threats. Useless idiots

 

[Bernie Gunther]

the geek in me has given up doing something else and read the detail. they seem to have downgraded the views of ABC1s aged 25-64 and living in London and the north and uprated everyone else.

or, to put it another way, their sample was rubbish.

Deliberately slanted to erode support via "doesn't need me to make an effort cos its in the bag" you think?

 

[Enviro]

Has anyone mentioned that advert in the Independent about 'Save Labour' which says something along the lines of "Labour is fucked with Corbyn, the current leadership isn't building on the values of the Labour Party (wtf?! You mean it doesn't accord with the Blairites' twisted views of the world?!) and please pay £25 to vote against Corbyn, because it's a price worth paying ..."?

 

[newbie]

Deliberately slanted to erode support via "doesn't need me to make an effort cos its in the bag" you think?

I generally tend to the cockup theory tbh. Seems likely their online methodology favours some demographics and they work with what they've got, but when they have to significantly massage that into what they'd ideally want, and considering that their client is Murdoch, I can see why you might raise the question.

 

[killer b]

No sampling method is perfect, it always needs weighting. That's where the hard work is tbh.

 

[agricola]

Has anyone mentioned that advert in the Independent about 'Save Labour' which says something along the lines of "Labour is fucked with Corbyn, the current leadership isn't building on the values of the Labour Party (wtf?! You mean it doesn't accord with the Blairites' twisted views of the world?!) and please pay £25 to vote against Corbyn, because it's a price worth paying ..."?

Their website is worse; its basically a device for you to give them your personal data so that they can send a whiny letter to your MP.

 

[Sprocket.]

McCabe's just blocked me for quoting his Tweet.

You are now, the enemy without!

 

[newbie]

No sampling method is perfect, it always needs weighting. That's where the hard work is tbh.

thats why my inner geek says the scale of weighting is too great because their sample is rubbish and not that they're deliberately manufacturing the result.

We know from the ref that London is out of step with elsewhere. They had 228 respondents in London but weighted them so only 148 counted as such, showing them 48% pro Corbyn. The others were grouped with contributions from the north & a couple from Scotland so that the 216 respondents they found in the Midlands/Wales swelled to 339 in the counting. So about 1/4 of responses that should* have come from people in the Midlands/Wales were actually filled in by Londoners. The result shows the weighted 339 voted 57% pro Corbyn but not the votes of the 216 who actually live in the Midlands and Wales. It's plausible that without the Londoners that would have been higher. Their sampling is too unrepresentative to know.



* if their unexplained 148:339 London:M/W split has any legitimacy.

 

[ska invita]

Has anyone mentioned that advert in the Independent about 'Save Labour' which says something along the lines of "Labour is fucked with Corbyn, the current leadership isn't building on the values of the Labour Party (wtf?! You mean it doesn't accord with the Blairites' twisted views of the world?!) and please pay £25 to vote against Corbyn, because it's a price worth paying ..."?

Would be interesting to know who is bank rolling the SL campaign

 

[Ole]

the geek in me wonders if they explain why they weighted their sample as heavily as they did, and whether they weighted proportionately or selectively. Maybe they couldn't contact sufficient post 2015 members?

If that's heavy weighting what would you expect 'non-heavy' weighting to look like in this scenario, and why? Could you also explain what you mean by weighting proportionately or selectively?

 

[YouSir]

Would be interesting to know who is bank rolling the SL campaign

It's a Progress effort isn't it? So Sainsbury probably.