YouGov Poll - 33 Point lead!

[HolgateCorner]

Corbyn was good but he could not persuade enough people to vote for him.

Unfortunately I also think because the right saw him as a threat that he was also good at mobilising the anti Labour vote.

Another factor never talked about was his age, he came very late as a contender for the top job and I think the U.K. likes the PM to have a bit of mileage left in them.

So he had his chance but it wasn’t to be and those hankering after him do need to move on.

This 20% lead Starmer has is very fragile and I think he needs to be very careful going forward, particularly on this immigration issue.

The Tories are very good at proposing radical and populist solutions to their own problems.

 

[Scrote]

I agree with what I can understand of this, but the acronyms are unintelligible.

GTTO = Get the Tories out
JAM = Just about managing - Teresa May used it to refer to the largely middle class families that found themselves struggling after a decade of austerity. She didn't need to care about the 'have nots' as they weren't the votes she was chasing. This is what worries me about the positions that Starmer's Labour is taking. They are chasing a more right-wing demographic which means any policy in the next parliament (assuming, as we all do, that Labour win) will have to contain enough for those voters not to go elsewhere. Hence the rhetoric on migrant boats, strikes and nationalisation in the face of compelling evidence that the policy on all of those needs radical change.

Then there's Brexit. The Tories will pivot while Labour are still trying to appeal to the Red Wall. That will send the remain/return Liberal element straight back to the Tories because they largely agree with Tory economic policy (across the past century - the last five years will be brushed under the carpet). The Red Wall will become the forgotten people again - just as they had been for the previous 40 years or so since Thatcher.

 

[Scrote]

That's an opinion, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, they don't want to carry on the same work as the tory party, therefore it is intrinsically better, even if you think it isn't enough of a leftward swing.

Rachel Reeves has repeatedly said that Labour financial policy will be more of the same.
Wes Streeting has repeatedly called for more privatisation of the NHS.
Shadow Cabinet members have gone to great lengths to distance Labour from any closer ties to the EU.

The only thing they're doing better on is the migrant boat issue but even on that they aren't being honest about the need for immigration* and the numbers required.

We either take them at their word or gamble on it all being a massive con to gain power. The former is unpalatable. The latter will see Labour in the same political wilderness as the Liberals after their catastrophic coalition.


*based on current economic models

 

[Scrote]

So he had his chance but it wasn’t to be and those hankering after him do need to move on.

I agree with the rest of your post but this is the bit I don't understand.

The only people who seem to think that the Labour Left want Corbyn back are the people that tell us he's unelectable. What wost of us actually want is a Labour party that continues with the policies that continually polled as being popular when they weren't linked directly to Corbyn.

I don't WANT Corbyn back (but I wouldn't be against it). I do WANT Labour to represent the people that need their representation.

 

[Scrote]

That's just speculation, you won't know until they've had an opportunity to govern.

It's what they've said (as in my reply above to BoroMart). If you're of the ilk that think it's all a massive ruse to gain power and then flip left I sincerely hope you aren't disappointed. However, I'll take things at face value and follow the money.

14 years is a F***ing lifetime and you want to extend that period of pain, austerity and corruption for another 5 years just so that you can't be seen to be compromising your principles. And all the while the outlook for 95% of the population, including everybody on this forum, will continue to deteriorate.

Where have I ever said I want to extend Tory rule? I keep hearing that Labour's masterplan is to win the swing votes that matter by moving right. That plan includes losing votes from the left. If it fails then it's not my fault nor the fault of anyone else that decides to vote for more left-wing options. If Labour want the left vote then they need to offer the left something. Currently they're busy purging anyone who doesn't toe the party line. It's not a good look and it doesn't fill me with any hope for the future.

Personally I'd like to see a hung parliament leading to a rainbow coalition with PR as a single issue followed by another GE under those rules. Labour will work against that and will probably end up shooting themselves in the foot. Let's hope they don't.

Just humour me and answer a few questions for the benefit of the forum would you please?

I've already answered a bunch of your questions and you haven't bothered giving us your own account. Enough people on here know who I am and I make no secret of it.

 

[El Guapo]

I guess it's better than not responding to posts that blow your beliefs out of the water.

A 20 point Labour lead is great if the only job is to GTTO. But if the alternative doesn't make any attempt to improve things then can I at least have the honour of saying "I told you so" when the Tories romp to victory in the next but one election.

Change for changes sake is pointless. There needs to be some substance to the change. Neoliberalism has failed badly. Thatcherism has failed even harder. We need a new direction. I don't see anything that suggests Starmer will make any fundamental change to the lives of the people that really need help.

It'll just be more aid to May's JAMs at the expense of anything approaching socialism. Wes Streeting as Shadow Health is the direction of travel.

Scrote I respect your opinion and am not trying to blow your beliefs out of the water in any way. I just think that right now people have to get their heads round the fact that he has gone and that his level of left isn’t an option right now so we need to vote for the level of left that is on the table. Centre to Center left is a good place to be in my opinion, I’ve always espoused capitalism with a conscience of if you prefer socialism without stifling individual ambition which to me is fairly centre ground and allows opportunities for growth without leaving anyone behind. You can make as much profit as you can but you pay back into the system (taxes) in full before you take your cut and those taxes are used for the benefit of all (nhs, education, social care, infrastructure and so on). Some may call that wishy-washy but I just believe personally that that represents fairness. FWIW, I think if (hopefully when) Labour win the next election they’ll start where they are at now and gradually slide a little further left once in power i.e. drip feed left leaning policies for the benefit of all and particularly those less fortunate. Unfortunately you aren’t winning an election in this day and age as a hard left party as that doesn’t appeal to people’s self first instincts in the same way hard right sadly does. Again FWIW, in my opinion extremes of anything aren’t good, that just leads to division.

 

[HolgateCorner]

I agree with the rest of your post but this is the bit I don't understand.

The only people who seem to think that the Labour Left want Corbyn back are the people that tell us he's unelectable. What wost of us actually want is a Labour party that continues with the policies that continually polled as being popular when they weren't linked directly to Corbyn.

I don't WANT Corbyn back (but I wouldn't be against it). I do WANT Labour to represent the people that need their representation.

Yes that is fair comment, it’s just Corbyn’s name crops up a lot.

Starmer is an opportunist politician saying what he thinks is needed to get elected and maybe that is what you have to do these days. He is playing a game of chess with the right wing propaganda machine, successfully so far.

But he is Labour and his views will lean leftwards, I think you should give him a chance, he could be very good.

 

[Boroboyyo]

View attachment 59794

Blair is most unpopular yet delivered 2 landslides and won 3 elections

Corbyn led Labour to one of its worst ever defeats . All this shows is how detached the socialist Labour membership is from the rest of the electorate

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

All this shows is how detached the socialist Labour membership is from the rest of the electorate

I posted three polls, one of them wasn't restricted to labour voters.

 

[Easterside_Red]

If you're of the ilk that think it's all a massive ruse to gain power and then flip left I sincerely hope you aren't disappointed.

I'm not, never have been so I won't be (disappointed that is).

Where have I ever said I want to extend Tory rule?

By definition you have. The policies of the current Labour Party will not move any closer to the policies you espouse this side of the next GE. After the next GE (which it will win) undoubtedly it's policies will move closer to a status you deem more acceptable than previous. However those policies are unlikely to move as quickly or as far as you would require for them to be wholly acceptable to you.

As ever the outcome of the GE is a two horse race so one less vote for the Labour Party in your constituency increases the possibility of the Conservatives holding onto the seat and therefore holding onto its majority in Parliament.

I've already answered a bunch of your questions and you haven't bothered giving us your own account. Enough people on here know who I am and I make no secret of it.

That's fair enough, your perogative. They weren't trick questions. I was just trying to establish if you've ever been content with the political landscape of the UK, even just for a short while. Apologies if the question about children was inappropriate, we're all in different situations but I think most people have one eye on the 'here and now' and one eye on the future. My children are aged 22 and 24 and I don't want them to suffer any more of this. So I can put aside any misgivings I have about Starmer and his shadow cabinet because I know the Labour Party in power cannot be any worse than the last 13 years.

If that makes me a proponent of the 'GTTO' movement then so be it, I'm happy to field the criticism. I'm in the age group that overwhelming supports and votes for the Conservative Party but I never have and I never will.

 

[Andy_W]

I think I agree with the tweet below which is arguing when you dive into the numbers Labour/Starmer hasn't really won any new voters over since he has been in charge but the Tory vote has collapsed, which has pushed Labour ahead in the polls

But Labour are still on around 32% which is where Corbyn was in 2019 and was apparently a disaster and the Tory votes have shifted to don't knows and Libs

It would be great if shifting to the "centre" Labour was winning over more voters but the story is currently about the Tory vote collapse

They're all just guesses so who knows? It's likely Labour won't have as many votes as Corbyn won in 2017

https://twitter.com/x/status/1677351154815057921

The Tories have caused themselves problems, no doubt about that, but to try and use those numbers to claim Labour hasn't gained new voters is a lie, the weighted Labour number is up 26% (Tories down 56%).

Using the weighted raw numbers, Labours vote share has gone from 37% (of Tory/ Lab/ LD numbers) to 60% (of Tory/ Lab/ LD numbers), which is a 23% increase.

The tweet is not a "dive into the numbers", it's a poor assessment, and would be a classic example for the "how to lie with statistics" book, and it would be in the section titled, "bad examples of how to lie with statistics".

There is a % shown in the top table, but they're not percentages (need to figure those out yourself), it's raw data and the weighted sample is not weighted to create percentages in that snippet. Full table is here https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/oht4c3czaa/TheTimes_VI_230706_W.pdf

Assuming LAB/LD/ CON is representative of the nations likelihood to vote, what it does show is 1348/2062 (65%) voted in 2019 and current intention to vote is 1043/2062 (51%). Even though overall voter numbers are down 14%, Labour are still up 26%.

But, the key thing, and what the survey didn't ask or show, is what has likely happened.
Effectively the left voters (lots of examples are vocal on here) have gone into greens or saying they won't vote (they're not don't knows who could vote LD or Tory), these people will not vote in a way to damage Labours chances, as much as they may not agree with Labour currently. Sure, the loss of the voters might help enable the Tories, but any seats which are winnable it won't matter as they will be replaced by don't knows between ex Tory/ Labour or those who jumped ship in 2019.

Howe many of "the left" are we saying that labour have lost? 10-20%? So they've gone, yet the Labour number is still up 26% in actual numbers. So who are the extra 36-46%? They're new voters, or those who didn't vote Labour last time.

Then, so now we've cleared up that Labour have gained and retained better, a lot of that reason is because they see the leader as a much more credible alternative, and know that losses to Tories make things far worse, and it can always get worse for the most worse off, as the Tories prove, every time they "win".

 

[BoroMart]

But Labour are still on around 32% which is where Corbyn was in 2019 and was apparently a disaster and the Tory votes have shifted to don't knows and Libs

I'm not sure comparisons to the 'get brexit done' GE of 2019 is the right thing to do. As an election it was a complete outlier, with normality binned. It's pointless, the tories stole votes through deception and manipulation of 'brexit benefits'. Those lies have now been exposed, so lets compare to other more relevant GEs if we must compare

 

[BoroMart]

Corbyn was good but he could not persuade enough people to vote for him.

Unfortunately I also think because the right saw him as a threat that he was also good at mobilising the anti Labour vote.

exactly that. He was chalk and cheese politically, lots of people voted Tory simply to stop Corbyn. Mobilised by some lie that Johnson was a patriot and Corbyn was in league with russians, and that Johnson loved Brexit and Corbyn hated it. The reality was probably the opposite on both points.

Anyway Starmer, isn't hated as much as Corbyn from the middle and that means he won't mobilise people to vote Tory. Despite Tory attempts to demonise with lies about curries, savile, or taking us back into europe.

 

[BoroMart]

Rachel Reeves has repeatedly said that Labour financial policy will be more of the same.
Wes Streeting has repeatedly called for more privatisation of the NHS.
Shadow Cabinet members have gone to great lengths to distance Labour from any closer ties to the EU.

context is important, in certain things they will continue, purely because so much is broken that we can't afford to fix everything in one go. Stop misquoting.

 

[Scrote]

Nobody is clamouring for Corbyn back, but young people, renters, people who want to get on the property ladder, people concerned about climate change, people on low paid work, people who want good transport and waterways will want politicians with solutions to their problems

This. And the bit in bold is the bit that Labour aren't currently offering.

Scrote I respect your opinion and am not trying to blow your beliefs out of the water in any way. I just think that right now people have to get their heads round the fact that he has gone and that his level of left isn’t an option right now so we need to vote for the level of left that is on the table. Centre to Center left is a good place to be in my opinion, I’ve always espoused capitalism with a conscience of if you prefer socialism without stifling individual ambition which to me is fairly centre ground and allows opportunities for growth without leaving anyone behind. You can make as much profit as you can but you pay back into the system (taxes) in full before you take your cut and those taxes are used for the benefit of all (nhs, education, social care, infrastructure and so on). Some may call that wishy-washy but I just believe personally that that represents fairness. FWIW, I think if (hopefully when) Labour win the next election they’ll start where they are at now and gradually slide a little further left once in power i.e. drip feed left leaning policies for the benefit of all and particularly those less fortunate. Unfortunately you aren’t winning an election in this day and age as a hard left party as that doesn’t appeal to people’s self first instincts in the same way hard right sadly does. Again FWIW, in my opinion extremes of anything aren’t good, that just leads to division.

A hard-left party has never won in the UK and I wouldn't expect one to in my lifetime (unless the doodoo really hits the spinny thing). However, Corbynism wasn't hard-left. All of the things you say you want from the centre/centre-left are the things you're saying were too far left under Corbyn.

Which of Corbyns policies did you actually disagree with (or maybe not disagree with but thought were too radical to be implemented)?

What evidence is there to give you hope that Starmer will pivot left (even slightly)?

Stop misquoting.

I didn't quote anything directly. Which of the examples given is wrong (in any context)?

Wes Streeting is strongly in favour of more NHS privatisation and uses the same reasoning as the Tories.

Rachel Reeves has consistently said that Labour won't fund anthing the Tories have left to rot. So far neither she, nor the party, have offered any practical solutions to the problems we face. At some point Labour have to either explain how they'll make differences or Labour voters will have to accept that they mean it when they say they won't change anything.

You're implying that the only context is "don't say anything to upset the people we're trying to get votes from".

 

[El Guapo]

CORBYN was portrayed to be hard left, in bed with the Russians and terrorists etc, and as such his policies were pushed as being somewhat extreme by those on the right, that was enough to make him unelectable in the eyes of the populace. I had nothing against him and voted for his party but I knew they (he) wouldn’t win. Therefore, I can’t say I hated his policies. With regard to Starmer and current Labour I think (hope) they are playing a little bit of a clever game to ensure they garner as many votes as possible to win the election so that they can get into power with enough of a majority. To start righting the wrongs of the last 13 years and slowly sliding leftwards as they do so. As Easter side and boromart said, they can’t fix anything without getting into office and once there they can’t fix it all in one term, some policies will have to roll a little longer along the lines of what is happening now but given time they can be rolled back towards the left and towards an equilibrium that benefits the whole country and which will hopefully lead to a changing of the moral compass of the country into all wanting a fairer society. I hope they can rebuild our reputation in the wider world also. It’s a very big ask but it has to start somewhere and offering radical differences now would be spun as CORBYN was and allow the Tories to sneak in again I think. That would be disastrous. Center to centre left is where I hope this country eventually settles with moral fairness the bedrock underpinning.

Edit. No idea why CORBYN keeps coming up in capitals.

Edit 2: as good as this forum is it is not the best place to have in depth discussions as things can be misconstrued and points not be fully made / explained as you might think you have explained them. Such discussions are always far better face to face I think which is why I rarely get involved to heavily. FWIW, we probably are not a million miles apart in our overall views Scrote

Edit 3: boromart not exiled. Apologies.

 

[Andy_W]

Don't make me post it again

Andy, I've never lied about anything and usually state when I'm giving an opinion

What I don't get is if Corbyn was so bad offering slighty left wing solutions to neoliberalism, then it should be a blessing the left have been purged from Labour and they're moving to the greens. Something they didn't choose but took the hint

Apologies, I wasn't saying you were lying, I was saying the tweet was, with what it was referring to.

But if you want to use your new chart to divert from that, then that's fine.

Added some important info onto the chart, which for some reason excluded the last time Labour won power from the Tories.



Increasing voter number is pointless if your opposition are increasing voter numbers also, half of the job of the leader of your side is to get people to not vote for the other side, or you need to gain more than they do. Showing the results of one side in a popularity contest is pointless, you have to show the other side also, to get a better picture of how popular you actually are.

Then there's also the key thing about seats. Everyone knows it's about seats, who and where they're voting is more important in the system we have (which is far from ideal), and everyone is well aware of the system we have.

Some of Corbyn's gain in 2017 was possibly hopeful remainers coming out in bigger numbers, as it was the only chance they had of getting a better outcome (was one of my main reasons for voting Labour, it was the only choice). This was clutching at straws a bit (which I was aware of), as it was the red wall where brexit was largely lost, and by 2019 this was further proven when the leavers got scared their precious hard brexit would get taken away. Tories bumped numbers in this time too, fuelled by leavers of course.

 

[Easterside_Red]

Apologies, I wasn't saying you were lying, I was saying the tweet was, with what it was referring to.

But if you want to use your new chart to divert from that, then that's fine.

Added some important info onto the chart, which for some reason excluded the last time Labour won power from the Tories.

View attachment 59848

Increasing voter number is pointless if your opposition are increasing voter numbers also, half of the job of the leader of your side is to get people to not vote for the other side, or you need to gain more than they do.

Then there's also the key thing about seats. Everyone knows it's about seats, who and where they're voting is more important in the system we have (which is far from ideal), and everyone is well aware of the system we have.

It's like competing in a football league. The amount of points achieved is almost irrelevant, it's your finishing position relative to your competitors which is the metric that matters most.

 

[Andy_W]

It's like competing in a football league. The amount of points achieved is almost irrelevant, it's your finishing position relative to your competitors is the metric which matters most.

On the popular vote thing, it's like getting beat 6-3, and your striker celebrating, trying to grab the match ball after his hat trick, ignoring that you got beat, and a bloke on the other side scored 5 and his hugging his teammates.

Even worse is that it pays no consideration to the seats thing, which is the real battle.

A lot of problems for Labour, during Corbyn's time stemmed from Labours' supposed red wall voting to leave, they should have convinced them it was not going to be good for them. The vote to leave was the first loss Labour had under Corbyn, yet most seem to ignore it.

 

[TeessideCleveland]

the seats thing, which is the real battle.

Exactly. Need seats to get into power to carry out your policies