Labour leadership

[Libertad]

"I have an email here from a Mrs.Trellis in North Wales."

 

[kabbes]

This is an interesting one because it shows how close the Tories actually are to a minority government.

No non-voter engagement at all, just a winning back of 15% of UKIP and Greens:

 

[kabbes]

kabbes presumably your numbers are assuming that everyone who previously voted labour votes labour again?

ie. that no-one who voted for a Milliband Labour is put off by the Corbyn version.

Oh yes indeed. I'm not denying reality is considerably more complicated than the simple uniform swings I am presenting here.

It certainly gives a general feel for the size and shape of the task though: keep existing supporters, engage a modicum of the currently disengaged, win back a small number of Greens and UKIP. Certainly doesn't seem impossible even without attracting any Tories whatsoever (let alone them being 80% of the new Labour votes!)

 

[Santino]

Oh yes indeed. I'm not denying reality is considerably more complicated than the simple uniform swings I am presenting here.

It certainly gives a general feel for the size and shape of the task though: keep existing supporters, engage a modicum of the currently disengaged, win back a small number of Greens and UKIP. Certainly doesn't seem impossible even without attracting any Tories whatsoever (let alone them being 80% of the new Labour votes!)

The non-voters probably include a significant number of 'Labour' voters who simply couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour last time, but didn't go to the Greens, UKIP or LibDem.

 

[brogdale]

kabbes presumably your numbers are assuming that everyone who previously voted labour votes labour again?

ie. that no-one who voted for a Milliband Labour is put off by the Corbyn version.

Yes. his assumptions are increase in Lab vote from NV pool Ceteris paribus.

 

[treelover]

Nigel Dodds... who seems to forget that his party leader was a member of a Loyalist paramilitary group. He's a fine one to mount his moral high horse.

Corbyns rebuttal team could use that one.

 

[killer b]

Did anyone submit a question to Corbyn for PMQs? I'd be interested to hear what the follow-up is - the more I think about it, the better an Idea this looks like to me - if he plays it right.

 

[DotCommunist]

Did anyone submit a question to Corbyn for PMQs? I'd be interested to hear what the follow-up is - the more I think about it, the better an Idea this looks like to me - if he plays it right.

the simplest way it is effective only just occured to me- cameron doesn't get to mug the question off without looking like he's mugging off joe/jane ordinary

 

[teuchter]

Did anyone submit a question to Corbyn for PMQs? I'd be interested to hear what the follow-up is - the more I think about it, the better an Idea this looks like to me - if he plays it right.

it's a bit of a charade really - if you receive 40,000 questions and choose 6 of them, it doesn't seem much different from making up 6 questions yourself.

 

[skyscraper101]

You can bet there'll already be Tory party staffers submitting pro govt policy emails. I don't see this lasting TBH. Remember 'web cameron' when he was trying to be all hip and down with da youth?

 

[DotCommunist]

it's a bit of a charade really

was pmq's ever much else?

 

[maomao]

it's a bit of a charade really - if you receive 40,000 questions and choose 6 of them, it doesn't seem much different from making up 6 questions yourself.

They're hardly likely to be 40,000 different questions though are they. You get 40,000 emails, 10,000 are about housing, 8,000 are about benefit cuts so you lead with housing and benefits while adding a public personalisation which forces Hameron to make the answers polite.

 

[kabbes]

I've refined the analysis to include swings in seats held by Lib Dems and UKIP. It obviously doesn't affect Tory held seats, but some of the scenarios discussed actually see Labour win in Lib Dem seats too (e.g. knocking them down to a mighty 5 seat total on the 20%/33%/15% scenario. Not so octocunt any more.)

It's not letting me post the pictures any more though, saying they are too big. Not sure why -- it's saying it even for small ones. Any ideas?

Excitingly, the 10%/33%/15% scenario has Sheffield Hallam falling to Labour...

 

[killer b]

it's a bit of a charade really - if you receive 40,000 questions and choose 6 of them, it doesn't seem much different from making up 6 questions yourself.

absolutely, but you've engaged with 40,000 people. It looks like he's splitting the questions into themes (10,000 on whatever, 8,000 on something else) - which means he can send a relevant response to the whole of each group (I'm assuming that's what the plan is).

This time perhaps it's mostly Labour supporters & members, but over time that'll spread out. Really canny move, and not particularly difficult to manage either.

 

[killer b]

They're hardly likely to be 40,000 different questions though are they. You get 40,000 emails, 10,000 are about housing, 8,000 are about benefit cuts so you lead with housing and benefits while adding a public personalisation which forces Hameron to make the answers polite.

Absolutely. And it gives him an idea of the issues that are most important to the public each week too.

 

[brogdale]

You can bet there'll already be Tory party staffers submitting pro govt policy emails. I don't see this lasting TBH. Remember 'web cameron' when he was trying to be all hip and down with da youth?

True, but at least he's got them thinking about this now. They'll be trying to second guess the tactic he'll employ next week; will it be similar or will he go for all 'named' questions on one topic, or maybe abandon that line altogether? Perhaps JC ought to have the correspondents on 'face-time' so that he could ask them live if they were happy with ham-head's reply.

 

[killer b]

You can bet there'll already be Tory party staffers submitting pro govt policy emails.

which will be binned.

 

[Diamond]

it's a bit of a charade really - if you receive 40,000 questions and choose 6 of them, it doesn't seem much different from making up 6 questions yourself.

Yep - it's an easy system to attack.

40,000 questions and you choose the 6 from the same political movement?

It's very hard to see how it is not a case of using a "Joe Bloggs" as a shield for the questions that you wanted to put anyway...

 

[agricola]

absolutely, but you've engaged with 40,000 people. It looks like he's splitting the questions into themes (10,000 on whatever, 8,000 on something else) - which means he can send a relevant response to the whole of each group (I'm assuming that's what the plan is).

This time perhaps it's mostly Labour supporters & members, but over time that'll spread out. Really canny move, and not particularly difficult to manage either.

I agree, but there is quite a lot of scope for hacks / other politicians to interfere with the process by raising false or trap questions; I just hope they have someone going through the ones they pick to make sure they are genuine.

 

[belboid]

Excitingly, the 10%/33%/15% scenario has Sheffield Hallam falling to Labour...

which could actually happen, as all those tories who lent Clegg their vote to save him will return. That'd be really fucking hilarious

 

[billy_bob]

It depends what you're using it for. Politics-theatre fans are all partisan, everyone else is bored rigid with it. He's using it to engage voters rather than score points.

And not bollocksing it up is a good place to start. There'll be oh-so-many opportunities to display some well-placed righteous fury - best not to shoot your load at the very first opportunity.

 

[killer b]

I agree, but there is quite a lot of scope for hacks / other politicians to interfere with the process by raising false or trap questions; I just hope they have someone going through the ones they pick to make sure they are genuine.

Why would it matter?

Most questions will be on a few broad themes (housing, immigration, whatever), He's just going to be choosing whichever question is the most useful for interrogating that particular subject that week. He's hardly going to choose the obvious tory plants or trolls. And if he does one time, why does it matter as long as the question is good?

 

[billy_bob]

Yep - it's an easy system to attack.

40,000 questions and you choose the 6 from the same political movement?

It's very hard to see how it is not a case of using a "Joe Bloggs" as a shield for the questions that you wanted to put anyway...

The reality is probably a combination of picking 6 which are representative of what's been asked most frequently, and picking ones which supported what he wanted to ask anyway. That doesn't seem particularly Machiavellian to me - only a total tool would pick ones which didn't bear any relation to their own views and questions, just to prove some point about inclusivity/involvement.

 

[DotCommunist]

And not bollocksing it up is a good place to start. There'll be oh-so-many opportunities to display some well-placed righteous fury - best not to shoot your load at the very first opportunity.

papers would have been giving it 'raving marxist rants at the pulpit' if c-byn had gone bang at it

 

[chandlerp]

Using questions form members of the public is a good idea as Cameron can't take the piss out of them without being seen to be taking the piss out of members of the public.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Yep - it's an easy system to attack.

40,000 questions and you choose the 6 from the same political movement?

It's very hard to see how it is not a case of using a "Joe Bloggs" as a shield for the questions that you wanted to put anyway...

What a strikingly stupid thing to say.

If Cameron was doing this, would you expect him to pick questions that were decidedly left wing in nature?

And how is it that asking about mental health provision, how your family can afford to eat without using a foodbank, and whether you're going to lose your job or be able to afford a house indicative of a specific political movement? They're issues people across the political spectrum have to deal with. Unless you're a right wing cockwomble who sees dignity and survival for the poor as something radical and to be mocked.

Twat.

 

[The Octagon]

Measured, low key, apart from the terrorist dig there was nothing for Cameron to latch onto.

Will make any possible spiky confrontations more impactful down the line, no need to go in hard first thing.

Decent, if unspectacular, which I imagine is what they were going for tbh.

 

[agricola]

Why would it matter?

Most questions will be on a few broad themes (housing, immigration, whatever), He's just going to be choosing whichever question is the most useful for interrogating that particular subject that week. He's hardly going to choose the obvious tory plants or trolls. And if he does one time, why does it matter as long as the question is good?

Because the media will get yet another stick to beat him with, and because the broader (or more in-line with the theme of the week) the less valuable the exercise is.

 

[agricola]

And how is it that asking about mental health provision, how your family can afford to eat without using a foodbank, and whether you're going to lose your job or be able to afford a house indicative of a specific political movement? They're issues people across the political spectrum have to deal with.

Well exactly, and on 99% of the times that thpse issues, or peoples individual experiences, are raised in Parliament it is to an almost empty chamber. At least the national news and quite a few people watch PMQs.

 

[Diamond]

What a strikingly stupid thing to say.

If Cameron was doing this, would you expect him to pick questions that were decidedly left wing in nature?

And how is it that asking about mental health provision, how your family can afford to eat without using a foodbank, and whether you're going to lose your job or be able to afford a house indicative of a specific political movement? They're issues people across the political spectrum have to deal with. Unless you're a right wing cockwomble who sees dignity and survival for the poor as something radical and to be mocked.

Twat.

It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.