Cid
Proper break this time
It has a General Committee structure apparently... vote isn't until 13th.
Jeremy Corbyn's time is up
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
It has a General Committee structure apparently... vote isn't until 13th.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Incidentally, any of you Labour types having any luck defying the 'thou shalt not meet about anything other than the Leadership election till conference' edict? Heard a couple of people talking about informal pub meetings. What's next, meeting round a Sycamore tree in Dorset?
gosub
~#
Yeah but no. If they can both get through without actually splitting.... Looking very like needing opposition MP's to get the actual split from EU through the Commons (tory divisions ain't settled yet)
andysays
Love and solidarity
There's a map of CLP declarations doing the rounds, veracity unknown, in which Owen Smith is currently being beaten by abstentions
I've seen CLP declarations mentioned (here or elsewhere) before.
Do they have any significance beyond being indicative? I thought it was now just down to the individual votes of party members/members of affiliates like unions etc/ recently signed and paid up supporters.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
fairly sure it comes down to one member one vote but some people will be influenced by local clp or union declaring support for candidate x
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Going to a Red Labour meeting on Saturday, organised by and held at the local Unite/T&G offices, I think. Plenty of things like that, none of which go against the rules. It's just formal CLP meetings, organised by the CLP, in order to conduct CLP business, that are banned. CLP members organising to meet amongst themselves to discuss matters regarding the party but without attempting to conduct any CLP business are fine and dandy. The party can't stop people meeting -- they can only stop official 'in our name' business.
Some Wallasey trade union held a public meeting the other night. (Prob been talked about already, soz haven't been keeping up with the thread.) Essentially it was the CLP but under a different name, and with some supporters from outside the area. It aimed to discuss why meetings were suspended and the allegations of abuse made by Eagle about them.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Those maps with CLP nominations -- there's a twitter account set up to track them as they happen. They have the map, and they also break it down each time a CLP nominates, stating who they nominated last time. Lots of Burnham and Cooper CLPs choosing Corbyn this time around, as well as a few 'did not nomintate' ones too.
It's not in any way binding. It's just a show of support. It can sway some people's minds, but people's minds will largely already be made up. It's a way of registering what you support, in a more public way than just marking your x in the box.
What's interesting is looking at the breakdown of how many in each CLP voted for Corbyn or Smith. From what I've seen, there are very few close calls. They're almost all a massive landslide for Corbyn. So that's not just 'entryists' who joined during and after the last race (and obv not anyone from the last 6 months as we're not allowed to nominate), but dyed in the wool, long term, seasoned-at-door-knocking members as well.
It's not in any way binding. It's just a show of support. It can sway some people's minds, but people's minds will largely already be made up. It's a way of registering what you support, in a more public way than just marking your x in the box.
What's interesting is looking at the breakdown of how many in each CLP voted for Corbyn or Smith. From what I've seen, there are very few close calls. They're almost all a massive landslide for Corbyn. So that's not just 'entryists' who joined during and after the last race (and obv not anyone from the last 6 months as we're not allowed to nominate), but dyed in the wool, long term, seasoned-at-door-knocking members as well.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Whats the account?
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Labour could 'bust apart and disappear', Smith warns Corbyn
Reported here in the Guardian as 'the difficulty the left would face in the event of a split' with no reference to the other side at all.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Correspondence societies.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I was hoping for blood curdling oaths at the very least.
gosub
~#
But you don't give a shit about elections or rather how any public interface with future development -technocrats know better. Two way sword.
Last edited:
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Word salad.
Data is my life.
I know what I see. You religious zealots can entertain yourselves until May 2020.
Tick
tock.
gosub
~#
No was a response to saying anyone made unemployed should have a word with Leave voters.... Well thats an anti you upped, and one that your perscribed path would have left us out of synch on the the economy(not in EUro), immigration (not in Schengen) under a system of QMV with erosion of democracy by technocrats and unelected judges. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN DEMOCRACY BEFORE BANGING ON.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Just because you have the data don't mean you're interpreting it right.
watch it or he'll do some science on you
free spirit
more tea vicar?
the trend was there from the last 3 ipso mori polls, so not a single poll.
It's not meaningless at all, the meaning is clear - Corbyn is appealing to those who've not been voting recently / say they're less likely to vote and are therefore excluded from the official weighted figures.
This is important IMO because it is the clear alternative route to him winning the election - winning back those voters who felt excluded by labour's swing to the right who'd stopped voting entirely, rather than chasing tory votes. Turnout in 92 was 77.7%, last election it was 66.1%, so there's a potential 11% of extra votes available to a party that can convince those lost voters that they're worth voting for again, which should* easily enough to give Labour a clear majority over the tories.
*depending how it works in FPTP constituency terms.
The meaning isn't clear at all. You simply don't have enough information for it to be clear- you're just using a single, partially weighted poll to support your own wildly optimistic reading of the situation.
I'm not unsympathetic to the labour left, and nor am I predicting electoral destruction: but at the same time any plan for what they need to do next has to come from a realistic assessment of where they are now. Which is 12 points or so behind in the polls, and struggling to get the working class labour Base on board.
On a separate point, this analysis is interesting
Labour’s Crisis
I'm not unsympathetic to the labour left, and nor am I predicting electoral destruction: but at the same time any plan for what they need to do next has to come from a realistic assessment of where they are now. Which is 12 points or so behind in the polls, and struggling to get the working class labour Base on board.
On a separate point, this analysis is interesting
Labour’s Crisis
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
do you think those electors who died between 1992 and 2015 might be persuaded to return to the labour fold?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
but they weren't 12 points behind before this crap.
The stats aren't conclusive, but they do pretty clearly indicate what I'm saying - among those who're excluded from the final polling figures the tories had the support of 53 people, Labour had the support of 90 people. The May figures indicate something similar as well, though not quite to the same extent - June's figures aren't available in the same format
Those are people who're currently viewed as being less likely to vote, and that's the only reason they're excluded from the headline figures.
A grassroots get out the vote campaign via the half million membership could easily turn those supporters who're considered unlikely to vote into voters and win the election for Labour in much the same way as the SNP did in Scotland where turnout increased by 7.3% from 2010-2015.
These figures (and the SNP experience) demonstrate that this is a viable alternative route to election victory for labour rather than the failed new labour model of chasing tory votes while disenfranchising and losing the votes of a significant proportion of previous Labour voters.
It's more than a viable alternative route, it's the only route. Labour are not going to win an election by persuading people that they can do Tory politics better than the Tories. If I want Tory principles, I'll vote Tory.
Victory can only come by appealing to the VAST section of the population that don't vote at all. Why don't they vote? In most cases because they don't see anybody who represents them. So represent them and see what happens.
Victory can only come by appealing to the VAST section of the population that don't vote at all. Why don't they vote? In most cases because they don't see anybody who represents them. So represent them and see what happens.
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Conservative to Labour switchers have twice the electoral value of DNV to Labour switchers.
Only if you can get them. How are you going to get them? More to the point, how are you going to get them without losing twice as many existing Labour voters out of the system entirely?
They just don't clearly indicate that. They aren't 'people viewed less likely to vote' by the polling company, the metric is the respondent's own rating of how likely they are to vote (which could be low for any number of reasons - tribal labour voters unconvinced by Corbyn's leadership for example).
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
That's been the logic since '94 yes. The problem is one of long-term trends. By consistently reinforcing a rightist view and pandering to "the centre" while ignoring the socialists you shift politics as a whole to the right, pushing the "centre" further away from your main support base. Which is why Blair made initial headway in '97, and also why his strategy lost 4 million votes, along with the whole of Scotland and most of the party's activist core, over time.
And now Labour's being called unelectable on even a vaguely left-wing ticket, with the same people who backed Blair's "shift right a bit" style unable to even push back against say, welfare cuts, for the sake of courting these switchers by "pretending" (at what point does it cease to be pretense, I wonder) to be identical to the Tories, just rhetorically nicer.
Last edited:
Similar threads
