Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[ceptimus]

I think they would do better under Corbyn than Eagle, even now.

If the MPs hadn't thrown this public petulant hissy fit over the last five days they'd have done better yet.

But I still don't see them winning a general election any time soon, whatever they do.

 

[GlennB]

Chris Bryant (former Labour front bencher) has suggested that Corbyn may have voted Leave.. This could be fun.

He also said this: "if he (Corbyn) were to lead us into a general election, the latest poll shows we would lose 150 seats, we would be a rump of 75 Members of Parliament."

I must have missed that poll. The latest two I can see show 36:32 and 32:32, Con v. Lab. Do those translate to losing 150 seats? If so then the boundary changes must have had a pretty dramatic effect.

 

[MikeG]

I must have missed that poll. The latest two I can see show 36:32 and 32:32, Con v. Lab. Do those translate to losing 150 seats? If so then the boundary changes must have had a pretty dramatic effect.

I've no idea what he was referring to. Parties have their own private polling of course, and there was apparently a poll the other day which suggested a drop in the Labour vote of 30% if Corbyn remained in charge. Again, this may or may not have been a private poll, but was referred to by a number of politicians.

 

[Ashorn]

I think it referred to "permamently" losing former supporters who voted out to UKIP in future election ( in NE or NW for example) but I can't find a Quote

 

[GlennB]

I've no idea what he was referring to. Parties have their own private polling of course, and there was apparently a poll the other day which suggested a drop in the Labour vote of 30% if Corbyn remained in charge. Again, this may or may not have been a private poll, but was referred to by a number of politicians.

Well, then his saying "the latest poll" without clarification was a bit naughty. Gosh, it's almost as if he might have been trying to shock people! (eta: It's also slightly naughty of you to quote him with, clearly, no idea of what he was referring to.)

My calc-fu is sorely lacking at this time of night (actually I blame MS Paint for refusing to resize the nice chart I produced to anything bigger than a speck), but the whole of the official 2016 polls quite clearly show a move away from Con towards Lab over the course of the year. Post-referendum is no different, but a small sample.

Screw it, here's the chart anyway. Get a magnifying glass Most recent polls are to the left.

 

[ceptimus]

You have to remember that the MPs never wanted Corbyn in the first place.

He only just scraped on to the ballot last time (I think he needed 38 or so backers then, from memory) and he only got on at all because some MPs who didn't actually support him thought that they ought to propose a token unelectable left winger to give the appearance of balance.

Of course he then won with a huge majority backing of the members and several MPs are on the record saying back then, "I never would have supported him being on the ballot if I thought he had any chance of winning - what have I done?"

And ever since then they've been predicting bad results for the Labour party because of Corbyn, but the party has actually continued to do quite well by any normal measure.

The disloyal MPs now think they've run out of time to get rid of Corbyn by normal means before the next General Election, so they've engaged in this complete betrayal of their own party's democratic procedure to undermine him. They should be roundly punished by voters for their disloyalty - and I expect that they will be.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Probably yes. I rather badly wish her politics were more aligned with mine on more issues and she led a UK wide party.

Although that is wishing for rather a lot that's not the case.

But I think the point is that her leadership competence makes a massive difference to whether voters support her policies. That is not supposed to be anything but a positive comment.

She's competent but she's not Jesus. She's just a competent politician going about her business. Put her in charge of the current Labour lot and she'll be looking like a clown in a few days. Ok ,maybe months.

One thing the SNP have been pretty good at though is that they don't tend to be blown about like an empty crisp packet by public opinion. Sure like all politicians they tinker around the edges but their basic principles are fairly clear.

Politics should, for me anyway, be about staking out your principles and values and arguing for people to support them. Not finding out what the people say they want and then trying to pander to them to get elected.

If politics becomes that then we don't really need two parties. We don't really need any. We just need a good research organisation and some admin people to make it happen.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Of course he then won with a huge majority backing of the members and several MPs are on the record saying back then, "I never would have supported him being on the ballot if I thought he had any chance of winning - what have I done?"

Corbyngret?

Corgret?

Cregret?

Jegret?

Making a **** of it?

 

[angrysoba]

Chris Bryant (former Labour front bencher) has suggested that Corbyn may have voted Leave.. This could be fun.

He also said this:

I wonder how Chris Bryant knows this. I would think he needs something a bit more substantial than the mere logical possibility of it. I mean, Chris Bryant may have cheered for Iceland during Euro 2016. He may have.

Maybe there was some sophisticated parlour game played in the Labour offices. "Raise your hand if one of these is true of you: I voted Leave; I have been in the ladies toilets. Now raise your hand if one of these is true of you: I have been in the ladies toilets; I love steak and chips." Maybe Jezza raised his hand on the first, but not on the second.

Hey, this may have happened.

 

[Darat]

She's competent but she's not Jesus. She's just a competent politician going about her business. Put her in charge of the current Labour lot and she'll be looking like a clown in a few days. Ok ,maybe months.

One thing the SNP have been pretty good at though is that they don't tend to be blown about like an empty crisp packet by public opinion. Sure like all politicians they tinker around the edges but their basic principles are fairly clear.

Politics should, for me anyway, be about staking out your principles and values and arguing for people to support them. Not finding out what the people say they want and then trying to pander to them to get elected.

If politics becomes that then we don't really need two parties. We don't really need any. We just need a good research organisation and some admin people to make it happen.

I think it is also because the SNP really has a single guiding principle as its beating heart I.e. an independent Scotland. So on all matters they can judge any decision and policy in terms of will it get them independence, it means they don't have to do all the soul searching other parties have to do in regards to policies and so on.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think it is also because the SNP really has a single guiding principle as its beating heart I.e. an independent Scotland. So on all matters they can judge any decision and policy in terms of will it get them independence, it means they don't have to do all the soul searching other parties have to do in regards to policies and so on.

I'm not so sure. For a while actually getting independence seemed a long way off but they still had to make decisions. Now they are a government mist of what they do is not about independence but about day to day.

I think since we've had Holyrood the main idea had been do a good job running the country and we might convince them to let us do it for real. Most of their decisions seem pragmatic.

I'm also quite impressed that they seem to be sticking to their guns on named person despite everyone complaining about it. They believe it's right and they will stick to it.

 

[Francesca R]

You have to remember that the MPs never wanted Corbyn in the first place.

I should think neither did a few million centre and left voters. The joke at the time was that more Tory voters than Labour voters wanted Corbyn in.

Of course he then won with a huge majority backing of the members

Do you see why folks think there is something broken about this? Perhaps it leads to things that within a year get called schisms. Or existential crises.

The disloyal MPs [ . . . ]

Your mileage may vary. I believe they think they are being loyal to those they represent. Which is what they are paid for.

[ . . . ] They should be roundly punished by voters for their disloyalty - and I expect that they will be.

They should be thanked. Sadly Thornberry (my MP) is not among them. (The constituency abuts Corbyn's)

 

[MikeG]

I wonder how Chris Bryant knows this. I would think he needs something a bit more substantial than the mere logical possibility of it. I mean, Chris Bryant may have cheered for Iceland during Euro 2016. He may have......

Hey, this may have happened.

Oh, absolutely. My point, poorly made, was that it was interesting that a Labour MP should raise the issue, and without any evidence. I wasn't meaning to imply that there was any reason to suspect Corbyn voted Leave.

 

[The Don]

Oh, absolutely. My point, poorly made, was that it was interesting that a Labour MP should raise the issue, and without any evidence. I wasn't meaning to imply that there was any reason to suspect Corbyn voted Leave.

True, the issue is that enough Labour MPs, and maybe enough of the public at large, can believe it that it may be damaging.

If (and it is a big one) there are significant numbers of traditional Labour voters who have switched to UKIP over immigration then Corbyn voting (or being suspected of voting) Leave won't bring them back because he made, for them, the right decision but for the wrong reason (AFAIK he is not interested in curtailing immigration). OTOH he dos risk alienating the 65% of Labour voters who voted Remain.

It is something of a double-whammy IMO.

 

[Darat]

Seriously on what information is this idea that Corbyn is a disaster based on? After checking on the byelection results last night I had a look and in all the actual elections since he became leader there doesn't seem to be any sign of this disaster?

 

[Darat]

True, the issue is that enough Labour MPs, and maybe enough of the public at large, can believe it that it may be damaging.

If (and it is a big one) there are significant numbers of traditional Labour voters who have switched to UKIP over immigration then Corbyn voting (or being suspected of voting) Leave won't bring them back because he made, for them, the right decision but for the wrong reason (AFAIK he is not interested in curtailing immigration). OTOH he dos risk alienating the 65% of Labour voters who voted Remain.

It is something of a double-whammy IMO.

If it is on the matter of immigration that Corbyn has a problem then every other potential leader for the party will have the same problem. Certainly a move back to the Labour party of Blair's time will not regain those (suspected) lost Labour voters.

 

[Darat]

I'm not so sure. For a while actually getting independence seemed a long way off but they still had to make decisions. Now they are a government mist of what they do is not about independence but about day to day.

I think since we've had Holyrood the main idea had been do a good job running the country and we might convince them to let us do it for real. Most of their decisions seem pragmatic.
I'm also quite impressed that they seem to be sticking to their guns on named person despite everyone complaining about it. They believe it's right and they will stick to it.

Pragmatic when based on the goal of "will this get us nearer to independence". For example it was clear in the independence referendum that the SNP was not concerned if if Scotland would be economically worse off if it became independent. (From me that shouldn't necessarily be viewed as a criticism, I do not subscribe to the view that everything should be judged on whether it is "better" for the economy or not, I don't think everything can be valued purely on financial grounds.)

 

[MikeG]

You have to remember that the MPs never wanted Corbyn in the first place.........

If Labour, instead of asking its own members and supporters to choose their leader, had asked the Conservative Party to do it for them, they would have ended up with the same result: Corbyn. On the sports field, you try to do whatever your opponents don't want you to do. How wise was it then that Labour did the exact thing that the Conservatives wanted them to do by electing Corbyn in the first place?

 

[Garrison]

Seriously on what information is this idea that Corbyn is a disaster based on? After checking on the byelection results last night I had a look and in all the actual elections since he became leader there doesn't seem to be any sign of this disaster?

By-elections offer little in the way of guidance. Local issues, protest votes, popularity of the previous incumbent(especially if they died), can wildly affect the results. One reason people think he will be a disaster is that he reminds them of Michael Foot, ideologically sound but a traffic accident when it came to conducting an election campaign.

 

[catsmate]

But in an actual election Labour is doing better than it did under Milliband:

Tooting June 16

Labour 17,894 55.9 +8.7
Conservative 11,537 36.1 -5.8
Green 830 2.6 -1.5
LibDem 820 2.6 -1.4
UKIP 507 1.6 -1.3

And I think there was a by-election in May(?) in which they also saw an upswing in their percentage? ETA: By-election in Sheffield up by 6%.

Meh, bye-elections are a terrible predictor of general election results, especially against an unpopular government.