Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[killer b]

it isn't as far as I'm aware, and it is holocaust denial.

I'm predicting a large charitable contribution and requests for his effusive apology to be retweeted in Javid's near future.

 

[agricola]

I don't think the antisemitism row is that electorally significant (although it may be significant internally) - but Corbyn does have plenty of baggage which is significant - and I think that perhaps the antisemitism stuff does complement these: the Tory attacks of the past few years serve as a helpful guide: The IRA, Hamas, Trident, etc etc. While these things haven't been enough to totally torpedo the party, they are fairly significant IMO in keeping them from getting much above 40%.

The thing is that all of that is eminently, and in the case of Trident easily, manageable. That they haven't done so is profoundly annoying.

 

[killer b]

I don't think it is.

 

[treelover]

What about the original tweet, shouldn't he be reproached, challenged?

 

[killer b]

What about the original tweet, shouldn't he be reproached, challenged?

go for your life.

 

[agricola]

I don't think it is.

Trident is - he could deal with the "well he would never push the button" by pointing out that our system doesn't require the PM to push the button at all.

 

[killer b]

Trident is - he could deal with the "well he would never push the button" by pointing out that our system doesn't require the PM to push the button at all.

I don't think these attacks are really permeable to logic.

 

[agricola]

I don't think these attacks are really permeable to logic.

That one is - its based on people not knowing anything about it. In fact even if he just told people what our deterrent was and how it worked then it would be a public service in and of itself.

 

[killer b]

you're cute.

 

[agricola]

you're cute.

There are people who actually think we could carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea though, and the fact that Corbyn wouldn't do this is a reason to not vote for him.

 

[killer b]

Yep. Do you think your careful and detailed explanation of what the deterrent was and how it works would talk them round?

 

[agricola]

Yes.

 

[killer b]

bless.

 

[Mr Moose]

tbf, they weren't. ITs just that corbyn's got such mental levels of flak it seems that way

Mail dug up his dad and pissed on the bloke iirc. Metaphorically speaking. Then there was the whole nudge wink 'north london cosmopolitan' shit

No, what I meant was they appeared insignificant to many people on here. The idea that Miliband should be dropped was considered a Blairite plot, which in part it was. But he was also pretty useless.

 

[Mr Moose]

The attacks on Corbyn have already been tested in a general election though, last summer. It would have collapsed then, if it was going to.

Elections always used to mostly be the same - now they are all different. Corbyn had a very fair wind last time, an astonishingly inept PM and the collapse of UKIP. Next one will be different again.

I'm not saying that it needs urgent change with an election in the distance, but Labour and Corbyn himself would be fools not to be alive to the possibility.

 

[killer b]

erm... you're listing the collapse of ukip as a plus for Corbyn?

 

[Mr Moose]

erm... you're listing the collapse of ukip as a plus for Corbyn?

Undoubtedly Labour got some votes back, yes. It was also one less thorn when campaigning.

 

[killer b]

Wow

 

[redsquirrel]

Undoubtedly Labour got some votes back, yes. It was also one less thorn when campaigning.

A fraction, and massively outnumbered by the UKIP vote that went to the Tories (by about 3-1). Even by your standards this is nonsense.

 

[Mr Moose]

A fraction, and massively outnumbered by the UKIP vote that went to the Tories (by about 3-1). Even by your standards this is nonsense.

I’m not denying the Tories got more. They reaped a nationalist bonanza from your precious Brexit.

I am simply saying that Labour got more than it did before. Even you may be able to see that. It’s not difficult to grasp.

The point is, don’t make fatuous assumptions that Jezza will carry on with the same popularity. Today, he would do well, but he is pretty fatally flawed and someday that will play out. That’s not an attempt to undermine or plot a move to the centre. It’s just obvious.

 

[Sue]

Him tweeting all day is preferable to him actually working

The canals of South Georgia await!

 

[Kaka Tim]

but he is pretty fatally flawed and someday that will play out. That’s not an attempt to undermine or plot a move to the centre. It’s just obvious.

it was obvious right up to the last election as well. then what happened?

labour with corbyn could definitely win the next election - and not even by increasing their vote share - just by the tories losing votes to ukip and others.

 

[redsquirrel]

I am simply saying that Labour got more than it did before. Even you may be able to see that. It’s not difficult to grasp.

No but it's a very silly argument because the absolute number of votes members get is irrelevant, it's the % that counts so UKIP taking votes from Tories and Labour in a 3-to-1 ratio typically benefits Labour.

You really don't have a scooby about electoral politics.

 

[Pickman's model]

What about the original tweet, shouldn't he be reproached, challenged?

I note you're not up for the reproaching or challenging

 

[Mr Moose]

it was obvious right up to the last election as well. then what happened?

labour with corbyn could definitely win the next election - and not even by increasing their vote share - just by the tories losing votes to ukip and others.

Let’s hope so.

 

[Mr Moose]

No but it's a very silly argument because the absolute number of votes members get is irrelevant, it's the % that counts so UKIP taking votes from Tories and Labour in a 3-to-1 ratio typically benefits Labour.

You really don't have a scooby about electoral politics.

It’s quite not as simple as that. When UKIP was at its peak, Labour did badly.

Labour started the last election campaign on a very low ebb, but through Tory ineptitude and good campaigning took the debate from matters nationalist to social issues. A noisy UKIP shifts the debate to the right and into remain, nasty liberal elite, Thornberry flag territory.

 

[redsquirrel]

It’s quite not as simple as that. When UKIP was at its peak, Labour did badly.

Coincidence not causation. The crashing of the UKIP vote has enormously helped the Tories (overall - there are a few locations where it probably has benefitted Labour more than Con but they are the rarities) if you don't understand this basic fact then you really don't have the first idea what you are talking about.

 

[killer b]

TBF it isn't a coincidence - UKIP did take a lot of votes off Labour over the years running up to the 2016 referendum - the assumption was in the run up to 2017 that these ex-Labour voters would now vote Tory - and a lot of them did, hence the loss of Mansfield and a lot of other Tory insurgency in the Labour heartlands. This realignment was also reflected in the recent local elections (I think there's one more round of locals before this effect is played out, assuming it carries on).

It's bizarre to imagine this as any kind of bonus for Labour though.

 

[redsquirrel]

TBF it isn't a coincidence - UKIP did take a lot of votes off Labour over the years running up to the 2016 referendum - the assumption was in the run up to 2017 that these ex-Labour voters would now vote Tory - and a lot of them did, hence the loss of Mansfield and a lot of other Tory insurgency in the Labour heartlands.

Yes I'd largely agree with the first part of this. I'm less certain of the second, IMO while there is evidence of supposed Lab->UKIP->Tory movement, it's not rock solid.
In a number of NE constituencies the Tory+UKIP vote in 2017 and 2015 was pretty constant, e.g. Sunderland Central and Houghton and Sunderland South. Of course you could have people becoming non-voters or non-voters becoming voters so from analysis of the results alone it's difficult to be sure exactly what's happening but I think a hypothesis of churn within the UKIP+Tory vote (or more generally anti-Labour vote) has as much evidence as the Lab to Con via UKIP hypothesis.

Most probably you've got a combination of both, in different degrees in different constituencies.

 

[redsquirrel]

Another example is Hartlepool, for ease I've just made anti-Labour = UKIP + Tory + LD + Referendum party

Year. UKIP+Tory Anti-Labour
2017 19120 19866
2015 19308 22262
2010 13440 19973
2005 5314 16087
2004 6237 16956
2001 7935 13652
1997 11207 17455
1992 18034 24894
1987 17007 24054

There's a consistent anti-labour vote of ~14,000-24,000 but it moves around quite a lot, supporting the party that seems best placed to depose Labour. Tory in 2017, UKIP in 2015, LD in 2010