Who will be the next Labour leader?

[fakeplasticgirl]

No they weren't - at least not in Westminster polling - at no point were Labour consistently polling behind the LDs nor were they consistently polling below 20%.
Nobody has claimed that Labour were able to, or even needed to, "'out-Brexit' the Tories" what was raised (correctly as it turned out) that while Labour leaver voters were a relatively small portion of Labour voters they were a key demographic based on their distribution in marginal seats.

This is yougov from 9-10 july

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/28gnxojyae/TheTimes_190710_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

fakeplasticgirl 's word emphasised for accuracy

(Not that I agree with her general point or anything, but! )

My bad phrasing sorry

 

[Pickman's model]

They're (Labour members) going to have to make trade-offs and accept imperfections. I don't think the pool of candidates is that bad on that basis. I'd go for Nandy if I was a member simply because I think she will take care of the basics and IMO has more chance of not being shook off course by a rabid Tory press.

Any party which has selected the likes of Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock and Jeremy Corbyn as leaders has shown they are willing to accept imperfections

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Here are 4 quick points to muse on:

1. Labour came within a few thousand votes of being in government in 2017 on a manifesto that promised to honour the result of the referendum. I’d argue that’s a better metric to begin from than polling around a Euro election. The experience of the last 20 years is that claims that ‘the era of two party politics are over’ are always overblown.

2. Nobody is suggesting Labour should ‘out-Brexit’ the Tories. A Labour policy of respecting the result, to enact it and to promote a social democratic future for ordinary people would have been a sensible approach.

3. There is overwhelming evidence that Labour’s policy on Brexit - along with Corbyn - was the main reason given by Labour voters for switching to the Tories. Labour had its worst election result since 1935. Given these facts what does it say about Waitrose Kier that the conclusion he draws from it all is that the policy was the right one?

4. Part of the problem that Corbyn had was that every time he thought a policy on Brexit had been agreed and that it was one his own side would get behind he faced anonymous briefings and demands to go further away from the 2017 position and closer to the PV position. When this point was reached even this wasn’t enough and who then continued the briefing and led the charge for full remain. Yup, it’s Waitrose Kier (his Brexit Secretary) Watson and Lady Nugee

The context had completely changed between 17 and 2019. A second ref was a fringe position in ‘17. Peoples vote campaign wasn’t even set up til April ‘18. Whereas in ‘19 remainers (who made up 70% of Labour’s ‘17 vote) had seen the chaos and impending threat of no deal and overwhelmingly backed a second referendum.

There were also other huge differences between 17 and ‘19. Much stronger Tory leader, no dementia tax, Labour manifesto that promised more outlandish spending in addition to the much bigger threat from the Lib Dems.

Thought this thread was interesting:

Also the stats show that the main reason for people turning from Labour to the Tories was Corbyn, not Labour’s Brexit policy.



Finally, Keir Starmer is currently polling 15 points ahead of RLB amongst LEAVE voters.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Not 20% behind the Lib dems- 20% in the polls, which was behind the Lib Dems

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Fair enough, sorry I misunderstood

My bad - I was typing fast and missed out a comma

Were you recently a member of the lib dems by any chance?

No

 

[kabbes]

As written, the sentence did mean Labour were 20 points behind. It should have had a comma, thus:

“Labour were polling at 20%, behind the Lib Dems”

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

As written, the sentence did mean Labour were 20 points behind. It should have had a comma, thus:

“Labour were polling at 20%, behind the Lib Dems”

I just said that.

 

[kabbes]

I just said that.

Whilst I was typing, indeed.

 

[killer b]

My bad - I was typing fast and missed out a comma

No

It looked like youd taken one of their bar charts at face value

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

It looked like youd taken one of their bar charts at face value

Hahahahah

 

[Mr Moose]

The context had completely changed between 17 and 2019. A second ref was a fringe position in ‘17. Peoples vote campaign wasn’t even set up til April ‘18. Whereas in ‘19 remainers (who made up 70% of Labour’s ‘17 vote) had seen the chaos and impending threat of no deal and overwhelmingly backed a second referendum.

There were also other huge differences between 17 and ‘19. Much stronger Tory leader, no dementia tax, Labour manifesto that promised more outlandish spending in addition to the much bigger threat from the Lib Dems.

Thought this thread was interesting:

Also the stats show that the main reason for people turning from Labour to the Tories was Corbyn, not Labour’s Brexit policy.

View attachment 199049

Finally, Keir Starmer is currently polling 15 points ahead of RLB amongst LEAVE voters.

Where is the Starmer ahead with Leave voters stat from?

 

[butchersapron]

The context had completely changed between 17 and 2019. A second ref was a fringe position in ‘17. Peoples vote campaign wasn’t even set up til April ‘18. Whereas in ‘19 remainers (who made up 70% of Labour’s ‘17 vote) had seen the chaos and impending threat of no deal and overwhelmingly backed a second referendum.

There were also other huge differences between 17 and ‘19. Much stronger Tory leader, no dementia tax, Labour manifesto that promised more outlandish spending in addition to the much bigger threat from the Lib Dems.

Thought this thread was interesting:

Also the stats show that the main reason for people turning from Labour to the Tories was Corbyn, not Labour’s Brexit policy.

View attachment 199049

Finally, Keir Starmer is currently polling 15 points ahead of RLB amongst LEAVE voters.

That thread is nuts - 90% of the seats labour lost were leave seats. To claim that they were lost because labour wasn't remain enough is head/sand nonsense. And labour can count those seats gone for a long long time if they continue down that path. I mean the basic mis-understanding of what votes count and where rather than national cumulative totals is bad enough, but the political relationship it reveals is horrendous.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Where is the Starmer ahead with Leave voters stat from?

Ipso mori
Here’s the article: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...1/ipsos_mori_political_pulse_january_2020.pdf
And here’s a summary for ease:

butchersapron

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

That thread is nuts - 90% of the seats labour lost were leave seats. To claim that they were lost because labour wasn't remain enough is head/sand nonsense. And labour can count those seats gone for a long long time if they continue down that path. I mean the basic mis-understanding of what votes count and where rather than national cumulative totals is bad enough, but the political relationship it reveals is horrendous.

I didn’t say they were lost because Labour were not remain enough - I said the narrative that Labour lost the election because it supported a second referendum isn’t supported by the evidence.

 

[SpookyFrank]

'Leave seats' again. Because in any given town people people either all voted leave or all voted remain. And that vote is now both an immutable part of their character and the sole cause of all their future actions.

It's not just the right that has conspired to make everything about brexit, the left with this level of 'analysis' has matched them at every turn. I can't believe it's now me saying this, but have we all forgotten about class as the underlying dynamic here?

 

[butchersapron]

I didn’t say they were lost because Labour were not remain enough - I said the narrative that Labour lost the election because it supported a second referendum is wrong.

I was talking about that thread that you recommended as used as support which says:

So the fall in support was primarily being driven by Labour not being Remain enough, and not because Leavers thought it was too supportive of Remain

It then fails utterly to dis-aggregate this support/loss of support or where/how much electoral weight each group held beyond saying that those 90% of seat that labour lost in leave voting areas were areas in which leave wasn't really politically important and had little or nothing to do with the vote. Only remain voters in electorally insignificant seats labour could never win have the privilege of being recognised as voting for what they believed in. Those clever clever people.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Fair enough re that criticism.

Most 2017 Labour voters in leave seats were Remainers. And Labour still hung onto 2/3rds of their leave vote. Had Labour betrayed their large majority remain support the consequences might have been much worse.

All I’m saying is I don’t believe that the second referendum policy / Keir Starmer cost Labour the election. Labour were fucked! Starmer has much higher ratings amongst leave voters than RLB does for example - if he’s seen as the architect of remain why is that?

anyway, suppose I should do some work today and stop the Keir- shilling.

 

[butchersapron]

Fair enough re that criticism.

Most 2017 Labour voters in leave seats were Remainers. And Labour still hung onto 2/3rds of their leave vote. Had Labour betrayed their large majority remain support the consequences might have been much worse.

All I’m saying is I don’t believe that the second referendum policy / Keir Starmer cost Labour the election. Labour were fucked! Starmer has much higher ratings amongst leave voters than RLB does for example - if he’s seen as the architect of remain why is that?

anyway, suppose I should do some work today and stop the Keir- shilling.

You're extrapolating from national labour remain support to those 90% of seats lost that voted leave there aren't you? Unless you have seen data that shows the majority of labour voters in labour-held seats that they lost in 2019 were remain voters - which would be remarkable if true.

It did cost those seats and those seats cost the election.

Have you a link to this Sir Starmer more popular amongst leave voters than RLB?

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

You're extrapolating from national labour remain support to those 90% of seats lost that voted leave there aren't you? Unless you have seen data that shows the majority of labour voters in labour-held seats that they lost in 2019 were remain voters - which would be remarkable if true.

It did cost those seats and those seats cost the election.

Have you a link to this Sir Starmer more popular amongst leave voters than RLB?

I’m not extrapolating:

Labour’s electoral dilemma - The British Election Study

www.britishelectionstudy.com

The ipsomori poll which has starmer 15 points higher than RLB is posted above

 

[butchersapron]

I’m not extrapolating:

Labour’s electoral dilemma - The British Election Study

www.britishelectionstudy.com

Ok that's for labour's share of the 400 odd seats that voted leave that they won - that's 61% of labour 262 seats in 2017. So it's across all 130 seats, not that 52 of the 60 that they lost who voted leave - and they likely lost them because that figure of 60% of labour voters in leave seats voting remain is topped up by seats where the electoral arithmetic didn't mean that a reasonable sized swing/high support for leave as a voting motivation meant losing the seat. It's again doing that national cumulative total rather than specific important seats/voters.

 

[butchersapron]

Ipso mori
Here’s the article: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...1/ipsos_mori_political_pulse_january_2020.pdf
And here’s a summary for ease:

butchersapron

That says that he is a) more favourable to remain voters across all areas - not labour voters or labour party members or those who can vote in the election. b) He is disliked - as they all are - across all leave voters. Not labour voters or labour party members or those who can vote in the election.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

That says that he is a) more favourable to remain voters across all areas - not labour voters or labour party members or those who can vote in the election. b) He is disliked - as they all are - across all leave voters. Not labour voters or labour party members or those who can vote in the election.

I only said he was 15 (actually 16) points ahead of Rlb amongst leave voters. I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that that was amongst labour leave voters.
KS is -15 and RLB is - 31

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Ok that's for labour's share of the 400 odd seats that voted leave that they won - that's 61% of labour 262 seats in 2017. So it's across all 130 seats, not that 52 of the 60 that they lost who voted leave - and they likely lost them because that figure of 60% of labour voters in leave seats voting remain is topped up by seats where the electoral arithmetic didn't mean that a reasonable sized swing/high support for leave as a voting motivation meant losing the seat. It's again doing that national cumulative total rather than specific important seats/voters.

yes Labour backing a second referendum would’ve alienated some of the significant Leave minority in these seats.
But Labour not backing a second referendum would’ve alienated a section of Remainers in these Leave seats, and the national picture of Labour losing vote % to the Lib Dems would’ve been seen in these Leave seats too, albeit not quite as dramatically.
And since there were still more Labour Remainers than Leavers even in these strong Leave seats, this would’ve made things at least as bad here and - crucially - it would’ve lost more seats down south and in London.

 

[Steel Icarus]

'Leave seats' again. Because in any given town people people either all voted leave or all voted remain. And that vote is now both an immutable part of their character and the sole cause of all their future actions.

It's not just the right that has conspired to make everything about brexit, the left with this level of 'analysis' has matched them at every turn. I can't believe it's now me saying this, but have we all forgotten about class as the underlying dynamic here?

Yeah but airport queues
Austerity and racism began in 2016
To everything Breturn, turn, turn

 

[butchersapron]

yes Labour backing a second referendum would’ve alienated some of the significant Leave minority in these seats.
But Labour not backing a second referendum would’ve alienated a section of Remainers in these Leave seats, and the national picture of Labour losing vote % to the Lib Dems would’ve been seen in these Leave seats too, albeit not quite as dramatically.
And since there were still more Labour Remainers than Leavers even in these strong Leave seats, this would’ve made things at least as bad here and - crucially - it would’ve lost more seats down south and in London.

We do not know that labour Leave voters were minorities in these 90% (52 seats) of seats that labour lost that voted leave. We have only the average across the 130 seats (60% remain) - and given that there is one thing common across nearly every single single one of those lost seats i'm pretty sure that figures there were higher than those they didn't lose.

What seats would the labour party have lost to the lib-dems if they hadnb't backtracked on brexit? Do they add up to at least 60? And if they were to lose them by keeping the same brexit platform that they won them on in 2017 why would they lose them in 2019?

 

[butchersapron]

I only said he was 15 points ahead of Rlb amongst leave voters. I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that that was amongst labour leave voters.
KS is -15 and RLB is - 31
View attachment 199064

For those who may not have looked at the pdf, the sections across the top are unfav, neither, DK, fav.

 

[two sheds]

Not 20% behind the Lib dems- 20% in the polls, which was behind the Lib Dems

Just needed a comma: "Labour were polling at 20%, behind the Lib Dems"

Eta: came late to the party

 

[Mr Moose]

For those who may not have looked at the pdf, the sections across the top are unfav, neither, DK, fav.

It’s not masses to go on for sure. Possibly there are two different messages about Labour’s defeat that are played out here. That the cohort Labour lost appear to want less economic liberalism, but also (very broadly) more cultural conservatism. The latter could now be a greater issue for Labour immediately following Corbyn’s annihilation, making man who looks like a proper politician in a drama seem like the standout proper politician. But after five years of the Tories flooding the country with the whole world’s capital and life unchanged in those towns, what sort of Labour alternative will make sense then?

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Just needed a comma: "Labour were polling at 20%, behind the Lib Dems"

Eta: came late to the party

So embarrassed by this