Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[gosub]

Odd they think it's about attractive policy at this stage... If a policy looks good with four years to go before an election.. The government will nick it

 

[Buckaroo]

Odd they think it's about attractive policy at this stage... If a policy looks good with four years to go before an election.. The government will nick it

They always do

 

[two sheds]

renationalizing the railways and NHS it is then

 

[killer b]

Why would that be a bad thing? I'd much rather a Tory government nicked policies from a socialist (ish) Labour party than came up with them themselves.

 

[gosub]

renationalizing the railways and NHS it is then

Never understood why railways a higher priority than water utilities

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Never understood why railways a higher priority than water utilities

Only reason I can think of is people actually get their water supplied 99.99% of the time without issue. They may pay through the nose for it but they get it. They pay ever increasingly through the nose for train travel but get delays, unpredictable prices (I can get a train from London to Bristol for a quid if I book in advance but it's 60 on the fay) cramped trains and so on. It's more of an obvious problem that needs dealing with than water, both need nationalising though.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Smith making flippant reference to Theresa May as 'first lady' in a debate about the promotion of women.

His persistent running over time and patronising repeat use of Corbyn's forename are really annoying me.

I watched a bit of it which left me thinking...How the hell has Owen The Unknown suddenly become the all seeing, all knowing eye of the Labour Party?

Listening to him today I got a parallel vision of him looking at himself in the mirror calling himself The Messiah. It was a really cringe worthy listen tbh. He came across as a know it all pretender with a seriously sly streak.

 

[free spirit]

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).

Labour got 30.5% of the vote at the last election, the IPSO Mori polling had them on 38% of all respondants, so whichever way you want to cut it there's an extra 7.5% in the all respondents data that can't come from the previous vote.

The figures are mostly there if you really want to dig into the details.

33 out of those 90 labour supporters who're in the less certain to vote category voted labour at the last election, 57 didn't.

but also 38 of those from the more certain to vote category either didn't vote at the last election, or voted for a party other than Tory, Lib, Lab, UKIP.

In total 94 out of 316 of all respondants saying they'd vote Labour didn't vote for any of Tory, Lab, Ukip, Lib Dems. Some will have come from the greens, SNP, Plaid, or others (TUSC etc) but most must be from non-voters as Green, Plaid and SNP figures are roughly equal to the last election.

So, it is clear from this data that there's a significant level of support coming from those who didn't vote last time around, which isn't being reflected in the headline figures. Labour can win if it focusses on solidifying that vote and getting it to the polling stations rather than chasing tory voters, and the best way of doing that is via a massively enlarged and enthused membership base.

Basically IMO this data gives the lie to Owen Smith and co's assertions about Corbyn's potential for winning the next election.

 

[free spirit]

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.

exactly, and that data seems to show that it was starting to work.

 

[killer b]

I'm sure those details are there if you dig, but they weren't the details you were talking about. You were talking about the likelihood to vote adjustment, which you hadn't understood. You can't just switch what you're arguing about halfway through and hope no-one will notice.

 

[killer b]

And btw, that data doesn't show what you want it to show: not by itself anyway. You need to compare it with previous polls, and if you can show an increase over time of respondents who previously didn't vote saying they plan to vote labour, then you might have the start of an argument. I doubt it'll be there though.

 

[Orang Utan]

this is a bit iffy:
Corbyn's offer of peerage to Shami Chakrabarti causes Labour tensions

 

[killer b]

Yeah, I don't really understand why that's happened. It's like they're trying to look corrupt and completely discredit the anti-semitism report them got her to do all at the same time. Bizarre.

 

[Orang Utan]

And it's a reminder that Corbyn isn't really a socialist

 

[timeforanother]

I like that Corbyn isn't trying to make things all about him, and he is doing a good job about showing neoliberism isn't the only path.

I'm impressed by the new people who have been allowed to be on telly; I think the team around him are doing a great job without scaring all the horses.

I think that is part of the appeal.

Contrarily, hero worship doesn't last. I hope he has done more than that, and if some of the suport is because they see as the messiah, shucks.

I don't believe in all of his ideas, but that isn't the point. Which side are you on?

 

[squirrelp]

The only thing I really see standing in the way of a Corbyn general election victory is the constant undermining of him that has come from within the party so far. That is it.

 

[two sheds]

That and It's the Sun wot wins it.

And of course there are always huge potentials for balls-ups.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Had a look at the summary video of the JC/OS debate on the bbc website: one and a half minutes of OS, followed by 20 seconds of JC.

 

[Pickman's model]

There's this too from @britainelects

In the May local elections they were 3% behind in the polls but equalled the 2012 results when Miliband was 10% ahead in the polls.

it's interesting to see who's taking votes from who in this chart

 

[teuchter]

They pay ever increasingly through the nose for train travel but get delays, unpredictable prices (I can get a train from London to Bristol for a quid if I book in advance but it's 60 on the fay) cramped trains and so on.

These problems won't be magically solved by nationalisation though, and they could be solved by better regulation, more investment, and changes to transport policy, without nationalisation. I'm not necessarily against renationalising the railways but it's not the main thing that needs to change. An easy concept for people to attach their dissatisfaction to though, a bit like Brexit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He fancies himself as a demagogue and rabble rouser but is just a windbag.

Just as long as he doesn't start yelling "alright!!!!" a la Kinnock!

 

[brogdale]

Just as long as he doesn't start yelling "alright!!!!" a la Kinnock!

"We're alrite! We're Alrite!! WE'RE ALRITE!!!"

 

[DotCommunist]

pride before a fall has never been so amply demonstrated. Except for that literaal fall into the sea by one...niel kinnock

 

[bendeus]

"We're alrite! We're Alrite!! WE'RE ALRITE!!!"

Jesus! I had until this moment managed to successfully block that from my memory. No longer

 

[happie chappie]

Only reason I can think of is people actually get their water supplied 99.99% of the time without issue. They may pay through the nose for it but they get it. They pay ever increasingly through the nose for train travel but get delays, unpredictable prices (I can get a train from London to Bristol for a quid if I book in advance but it's 60 on the fay) cramped trains and so on. It's more of an obvious problem that needs dealing with than water, both need nationalising though.

It’s more about ease and cost rather than priorities.

Trains were privatised under a franchise system so as each franchise period comes to an end (or the train operating company voluntary gives up the franchise) the Government can simply take it over, in effect nationalising it piecemeal.

Over time, all of the train operating companies would be taken out of private hands without having to pay any compensation to the operating company’s shareholders making it a relatively cheap, but drawn out, option.

To nationalise the utilities (not just water) would cost an absolute fortune, assuming you’d do it with compensation that is.

 

[brogdale]

To nationalise the utilities (not just water) would cost an absolute fortune, assuming you’d do it with compensation that is.

Private ownership of socialised assets is illegitimate, so the appropriate level of compensation is zero...and the thieves should count themselves lucky not to be strung up.
If, on the other hand, for some reason the state chose to compensate the illegitimate owners, then precedents like yesterday's BoE conjuring-up of £70bn out of thin air should be recognised.

 

[bi0boy]

Private ownership of socialised assets is illegitimate, so the appropriate level of compensation is zero...and the thieves should count themselves lucky not to be strung up.
If, on the other hand, for some reason the state chose to compensate the illegitimate owners, then precedents like yesterday's BoE conjuring-up of £70bn out of thin air should be recognised.

That sort of thing has worked so well in Venezuela

 

[brogdale]

That sort of thing has worked so well in Venezuela

QE?

 

[poului]

Christ. Libsplaining overload.

We all had things we disagreed with. For me it was an approach to public services that put too much faith in marketisation. For many it was Iraq – but we should remember that was born of idealistic hubris, not malignancy, a belief that we could overthrow fascist dictatorships and install humane liberal democracies in the world’s trouble spots.

You can keep your big rallies with mediocre speakers; you can keep your Twitter storms and social media abuse; you can keep your 16% Tory poll leads and spitting at CLP AGMs; you can keep your blind-eye to antisemitism and your fetishising of dodgy Latin American regimes and Middle Eastern terror groups; you can keep your snappy slogans and absence of policy, you can keep your mass recruitment of passive clicktivists to stack internal elections; you can keep your elevation of a faction above a 116-year old party that founded the NHS.

Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer retro Labour from 20 years ago as my model of what a “social movement” or a political party should look like. I won’t be taking any lectures about socialism from people who are busy destroying, demeaning, diminishing, eroding the only social movement that can ever, and has ever, delivered it in this country: the Labour party.

I personally wouldn't call him old-fashioned. Would call him something else, though.

New Labour showed the party can be a social movement and an electoral force | Luke Akehurst

 

[Pickman's model]

Christ. Libsplaining overload.



I personally wouldn't call him old-fashioned. Would call him something else, though.

New Labour showed the party can be a social movement and an electoral force | Luke Akehurst

wanker will do for a start. should be strung up by his knackers from a hackney lamp-post