The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, Jareth said:

This lot are wind-up merchants (though the Keir/Keith parody of birthergate is funny) - but they have a point - 2% share in that poll, without campaigning yet, if that gets any bigger then it could well take the seat away from Labour - where will the blame be put if that happens? 

Well, now UKIP and Brexit Party are gone, it will be quite handy to have a new party to blame for Labour’s woes.

 

I would just say, that poll was 500 people. That feels like too low a number to be taken too seriously, like those adverts that declare 87% of women like shampoo and then the small print shows that they asked 15 women if they like shampoo.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

It is true that constituency polling in the UK is often shit - and therefore the actual result may be substantially different from this poll - though I think 500 people is a respectable sample size. There were only circa 40,000 votes in the constituency in 2019.

Edited April 6, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

87% of women like shampoo and then the small print shows that they asked 15 women

In before the @blandy 

[colhint]

I think you have to have just over 1000 It's a specific number something like 1016 or something. Iy you get that the result will be within 2% if you had asked 5000

[blandy]

3 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

A depressing but unsurprising poll. It says two things to me. People don't know who Starmer is, or what he or the Labour Party stand for anymore, and people support radical policies. 

On Teesside, Labour have taken their vote for granted for too long, and become increasingly out of touch. You may want to blame Corbyn for that, but as someone who is eligible to vote in a Tees Valley constituency, I'd say a larger issue is the way the local party and CLPs have been run. Labour North remained, and still does to a certain extent remain to the run by the right. Local councils were dominated and still are by local, long serving Blairites, and they have failed to get across the message that austerity and cuts were down to the Conservative governments. The local MPs and candidates have all mostly been rigtwing, or parachuted into the seats. 

What we're seeing now is years of Teessiders not being able to tell the difference, and austerity having the face of Labour. Labour didn't fight hard enough to keep their factories open, and to bring work to the region. What they saw was Labour politicians telling them keep voting for us, but nothing changing. That's why Brexit was so appealing. When you have nothing, and someone says things will change if you vote for us, that's an infinitely better message than vote for us, cus the alternative is worse. 

In my opinion Labour in the Tees Valley don't have to look far. Cast a gaze to Tyneside, and see what Jamie Driscoll is doing as the Labour Metro Mayor. Standing on a platform of transformation, and selling an alternative. Offering something different, and doing it from a left wing position. More of the same from Labour, or going back to watered down Tory Lite policies isn't going to cut it. 

I agree with a lot of that.

The two caveats are that I don't believe that a (perceived) very left wing position will ever get enough votes to get elected (nationally, though in some places it might locally). So I think that it's important to appeal not just to very left wing people, but also not to frighten the more timid horses - and I think Starmer, though he's made mistakes, is on the right lines differentiating himself from the Corbyn era to the electorate. I reckon the key is to get elected first, then to change things more radically than people thought you might - to ease the changes through almost under the radar.

In terms of a by election now, the tories are going to be boosted by the vaccine lift. It's not a "normal" situation for a by election. And Labour are also hampered by not having decided on any policies, because no conference has happened to decide them. People don't know what they're for right now, so a vote isn't on Labour v Tory, it's on whether people support the tories handling of the Pandemic (and to an extent Brexit) in the last 4 months. That's pretty much going to determine the outcome - if they think the Gov't has done OK, the tory wins, if they think the Gov't has done badly, Labour wins. It's (to me) going to be that binary.

[OutByEaster?]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think Starmer, though he's made mistakes, is on the right lines differentiating himself from the Corbyn era to the electorate. I reckon the key is to get elected first, then to change things more radically than people thought you might - to ease the changes through almost under the radar.

I think there's an awful lot of goodwill in those two sentences.

I think the real differentiation between Starmer and Corbyn was a given, an automatic; it was look like a politician, show some ability to deal with the media, with political situations, with the party, with y'know politics - the rest, the policies and stuff, believing in things, people liked and still like. I think at the moment Starmer is working too hard on differentiating himself from the policies and beliefs that people liked and perhaps not looking quite as comfortable with the politicking as people had hoped. He's differentiating himself from Corbyn on all the wrong lines imo.

I think voting for someone in the hope he's not what he says he is is a big leap of faith. I've seen this argument a couple of times now where Starmer is playing a cunning trick where he pretends to be a centre-right politician of business, but will suddenly reveal himself as a man for the people the second he takes power. it's a lovely idea lacking only for any kind of evidence or precedent.

I do hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

 

 

[Davkaus]

I have to disagree that it's a lovely idea. I don't want to vote for someone that cons the electorate even if he's doing so in a way that delivers policy I agree with.

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think there's an awful lot of goodwill in those two sentences.

I think the real differentiation between Starmer and Corbyn was a given, an automatic; it was look like a politician, show some ability to deal with the media, with political situations, with the party, with y'know politics - the rest, the policies and stuff, believing in things, people liked and still like. I think at the moment Starmer is working too hard on differentiating himself from the policies and beliefs that people liked and perhaps not looking quite as comfortable with the politicking as people had hoped. He's differentiating himself from Corbyn on all the wrong lines imo.

I think voting for someone in the hope he's not what he says he is is a big leap of faith. I've seen this argument a couple of times now where Starmer is playing a cunning trick where he pretends to be a centre-right politician of business, but will suddenly reveal himself as a man for the people the second he takes power. it's a lovely idea lacking only for any kind of evidence or precedent.

I do hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

 

 

I was a huge fan of Starmer. He retweeted me so I was pretty much fan#1. At the time I couldn't see anyone else who could have become leader after Corbyn and I actively campaigned for him.

In the lead up to the 2019 election, when it was clear that Corbyn's popularity ratings were hurting Labour I hoped that there could be something that happened for Corbyn to be forced to stand down just before the election and for an emergency leadership election to quickly get Starmer in. All of the policies which were still very popular but the result of the character assassination taken away.

During the actual leadership election people kept telling me Starmer would drop the left and go over to the right. To me, those claims just weren't plausible because of Starmer's pledges. It seemed we had someone savvy enough to recognise he needed the excitable left for the ground war even if he wasn't traditionally one of them.

I've been over the reasons why I now can't stand him on here before so I won't again. But I think to the electorate he brings all of the things I hoped wouldn't come through and none of the good things I hoped would. I hoped his analytical style would help him nail the detail. Instead he sounds like a drone. I hoped he would be clever enough to play the politics. Instead he looks shifty. Outside of all the things he's done which I think are pretty despicable but the general public wouldn't know about, I just don't think he's a very skilful politician. Not anywhere near the level of someone like John McDonnell or even Theresa May.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

In terms of a by election now, the tories are going to be boosted by the vaccine lift.

It feels notable to me that in Israel, the country with the most successful vaccine rollout in the world*, which is the midst of repeated series of elections, the government have not improved their vote on the back of the vaccine rollout at all. Now, we can try to explain that away, by pointing out these are different countries with different political systems, and that Netanyahu has other things maybe dragging his popularity down like a corruption trial (though of course worth noting too it's not as if the Tories have not been repeatedly accused of corruption this year either), and there may be other factors that are not related to Labour in this country too, like nearly all of the political media being in the tank for the Tories, but . . .

. . . it does show that a 'vaccine bounce' is not some kind of Iron Law of Politics. It is perhaps not sufficient on its own to explain away a potential loss in this seat.

*Obviously it has been anything but successful if you have the misfortune to live in Palestine.

Edited April 6, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

33 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Netanyahu has other things maybe dragging his popularity down like a corruption trial (though of course worth noting too it's not as if the Tories have not been repeatedly accused of corruption this year either), and there may be other factors that are not related to Labour in this country too, like nearly all of the political media being in the tank for the Tories, but . .

Well exactly. Plus he's not a new PM like Johnson is.

In the UK, last year when Demonic Cummins was arsing around in his car, when the Lockdowns were a mess etc - Starmer got a big lift and Johnson took a big hit. Now the Vaccine is here, and comparing well with other nations efforts, the opposite has happened. It's more than correlation does not equal causation, because it's reflected in "who would make the best PM" type polls - personal ratings, not just party ratings.

[HanoiVillan]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well exactly. Plus he's not a new PM like Johnson is.

In the UK, last year when Demonic Cummins was arsing around in his car, when the Lockdowns were a mess etc - Starmer got a big lift and Johnson took a big hit. Now the Vaccine is here, and comparing well with other nations efforts, the opposite has happened. It's more than correlation does not equal causation, because it's reflected in "who would make the best PM" type polls - personal ratings, not just party ratings.

But that's evidence that's not just the vaccine rollout though, isn't it? If the vaccine rollout was the crucial thing, it would make sense for Johnson's ratings to improve, but not necessarily for Starmer's to decline. It's not just in 'who would make the best PM' polls; Starmer's favourability rating has declined even when separated from direct contrast with Johnson.

[HanoiVillan]

Not sure how long this will last before deletion, but this long-term danger on LGBT rights has decided to weigh in just to be a prick:

(He's the Labour MP for East Ham, if you're not famiiar with him).

[Davkaus]

It's a very interesting event. Starmer visited that place and praised them for the work they'd done, running food banks, and opening their doors to be a vaccination centre. But we're meant to be horrified that a Christian church adheres to traditional Christian doctrine?

I'll admit I haven't read in to their background a huge amount and there might be more of a nasty undertone to it, but my understanding from some cursory research is that they opposed same sex marriage? I don't agree with that, but it's their faith. I think I prefer that to the hypocrisy of "modern" Christians who pretend to adhere to the faith but ignore all the bits that are unpalatable in the 21st century.

Presumably Starmer will be avoiding any catholic or muslims places of worship in future because they're not sufficiently woke. 

I think religion is daft, personally, and I have little time for respecting people's intolerances because of some ancient scripture, but if you're going to pay lipservice to respecting religion, I don't think you can get too upset about religious people not being socially progressive.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Davkaus

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's a very interesting event. Starmer visited that place and praised them for the work they'd done, running food banks, and opening their doors to be a vaccination centre. But we're meant to be horrified that a Christian church adheres to traditional Christian doctrine?

I'll admit I haven't read in to their background a huge amount and there might be more of a nasty undertone to it, but my understanding from some cursory research is that they opposed same sex marriage? I don't agree with that, but it's their faith. I think I prefer that to the hypocrisy of "modern" Christians who pretend to adhere to the faith but ignore all the bits that are unpalatable in the 21st century.

Presumably Starmer will be avoiding any catholic or muslims places of worship in future because they're not sufficiently woke. 

I think religion is daft, personally, and I have little time for respecting people's intolerances because of some ancient scripture, but if you're going to pay lipservice to respecting religion, I don't think you can get too upset about religious people not being socially progressive.

It's not so much about their traditional christian doctrine and more about the "conversion therapy" they use to attempt to make gay people straight again

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

It's not so much about their traditional christian doctrine and more about the "conversion therapy" they use to attempt to make gay people straight again

Ah. Fair does, that bit hadn't jumped out at me when I was checking out who they are.

[Rodders]

45 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Not sure how long this will last before deletion, but this long-term danger on LGBT rights has decided to weigh in just to be a prick:

(He's the Labour MP for East Ham, if you're not famiiar with him).

 

nice reply in the comments though - spoilered as image contains a swear

Spoiler

 

[Wainy316]

15 hours ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

Pretty damning poll for Labour.

Also, super weird that there's loads of support for policies proposed under Corbyn, maybe more flag waving isn't the answer?

Labour are actually up in this poll it's the collapse of Brexit Party's vote share that have won this for the Tories.

This is not a defence of Starmer but it's clear that this is due to the right vote being concentrated in one place.  

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

If the vaccine rollout was the crucial thing, it would make sense for Johnson's ratings to improve, but not necessarily for Starmer's to decline. It's not just in 'who would make the best PM' polls; Starmer's favourability rating has declined even when separated from direct contrast with Johnson.

When one goes up, the other goes down. Do you prefer A or B - you can't have both? Virus appears - national "Rally round" and Johnson Up, Starmer down. Then Johnson makes a load of rickets - Starmer Up Johnson down, then Vaccination goes well, Johnson back up, Starmer back down again. It'll be like that till it's over. If the virus were to take hold again, Starmer will go back up and Johnson back down.

Bingle it and look at the timeline - link to search results, not articles 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Not sure how long this will last before deletion, but this long-term danger on LGBT rights has decided to weigh in just to be a prick:

(He's the Labour MP for East Ham, if you're not famiiar with him).

Why, why do it.

It has to be 100% intentional and pointed.

Which then leads back to why.

[HanoiVillan]

29 minutes ago, blandy said:

When one goes up, the other goes down. Do you prefer A or B - you can't have both? Virus appears - national "Rally round" and Johnson Up, Starmer down. Then Johnson makes a load of rickets - Starmer Up Johnson down, then Vaccination goes well, Johnson back up, Starmer back down again. It'll be like that till it's over. If the virus were to take hold again, Starmer will go back up and Johnson back down.

Bingle it and look at the timeline - link to search results, not articles 

There's two types of polls that are common with party leaders. One, the type you are highlighting here, is the 'who would make the best PM' poll, and you are right, these have a necessary one-goes-up-the-other-comes-down dynamic because you can only choose one. However, there are also another type of poll, which is the 'do you have a favourable opinion of' poll, and this type of poll does not necessarily have a 1:1 reaction, as some voters will have a favourable opinion of both or neither, or may not have any opinion of one at all. Starmer has begun to perform worse on this second type of poll as well, but this type of poll should logically be much more weakly connected to the success or otherwise of the vaccination program (because there is no strong logical reason why a successful government program should make a voter feel less favourable to Starmer).