Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

[Untied]

The last time they got a thumpingly huge majority was after the last time the opposition lost seats in council elections.

Worth mentioning again that Labour probably need to win Kensington, Basingstoke and Canterbury now to get a majority.

Assuming the Lib Dems don't win back any of the seats they lost in 2015.

Keep pressing the point that Jez failing is the fault of the Labour MP's or the right wing media or perhaps we can cut to the chase and just blame all the eligible voters in the UK who keep not voting for the people you like. Or you can accept that your views and probably mine too are not going to get a PM elected so lets find the nearest that will and keep working on it. Rather than this pile of steaming shite.

I guess it all seems so obvious to you until the elections start and the reality check arrives. I hope I'm wrong but the Labour party is about to fall off a cliff in its support and unless Jez is removed it looks unavoidable to me. The London major has done everything he can to distance himself from the Labour party leader because he wanted to get elected.

What is that saying and why on earth can't you understand it?

Well it is a problem for the left that the UK electorate is dominated by over 50s with a 'got mine, feck you' mentality.

And haven't we just had elections where the predicted reality check didn't arrive? Or should we just ignore those? If Corbyn is so hopeless and couldn't possibly win, why are the right-wing media trying to force him out rather than happily supporting him for 2020?

The reality is Labour isn't going to win a majority under Corbyn but it could be the largest party in a coalition and that terrifies the establishment.

 

[Ubik]

Assuming the Lib Dems don't win back any of the seats they lost in 2015.




Well it is a problem for the left that the UK electorate is dominated by over 50s with a 'got mine, feck you' mentality.

And haven't we just had elections where the predicted reality check didn't arrive? Or should we just ignore those? If Corbyn is so hopeless and couldn't possibly win, why are the right-wing media trying to force him out rather than happily supporting him for 2020?

The reality is Labour isn't going to win a majority under Corbyn but it could be the largest party in a coalition and that terrifies the establishment.

Not sure how that makes a difference to Labour's target.

Also really not sure how this wasn't a reality check. 150 losses was the rough prediction, not a level that if beaten, Corbyn would be said to be doing an alright job. The other prediction made - that Labour's vote share would drop heavily compared to 2012 - really did happen, by 7 points in fact. There was a 3 point swing to the Tories. UKIP are making further inroads into Labour support. Scotland is lost for the forseeable. Labour in Wales also suffered a large drop in support. It's the worst performance in midterms since 1985 (before a landslide GE defeat), and the worst performance in local council mid-terms since 1982 (before a landslide GE defeat).

If replicated in the general, Tories get a majority of about 100 with the new boundaries. Everything is not hunky dory here, and Labour is not close to being on course to lead a coalition (with the SNP?).

 

[Jippy]

Not sure how that makes a difference to Labour's target.

Also really not sure how this wasn't a reality check. 150 losses was the rough prediction, not a level that if beaten, Corbyn would be said to be doing an alright job. The other prediction made - that Labour's vote share would drop heavily compared to 2012 - really did happen, by 7 points in fact. There was a 3 point swing to the Tories. UKIP are making further inroads into Labour support. Scotland is lost for the forseeable. Labour in Wales also suffered a large drop in support. It's the worst performance in midterms since 1985 (before a landslide GE defeat), and the worst performance in local councils since 1982 (before a landslide GE defeat).

If replicated in the general, Tories get a majority of about 100 with the new boundaries. Everything is not hunky dory here, and Labour is not close to being on course to lead a coalition (with the SNP?).

Happy days

 

[Ubik]

Happy days

That's assuming Corbyn stays, of course. Still hopeful that Watson's coup works

 

[Jippy]

That's assuming Corbyn stays, of course. Still hopeful that Watson's coup works

Tough one. If you get rid will people really think 'yay, a viable alternative to the Tories at last', or will Labour be viewed as an in-fighting bunch of back-stabbers? Who knows?

 

[berbatrick]

Tough one. If you get rid will people really think 'yay, a viable alternative to the Tories at last', or will Labour be viewed as an in-fighting bunch of back-stabbers? Who knows?

And that's assuming the new leader will not just dispel the infighting image but also automatically be popular.
The Tories do have majority support for most cuts, and Labour's reputation on the economy is still below sea level.

 

[Ubik]

Tough one. If you get rid will people really think 'yay, a viable alternative to the Tories at last', or will Labour be viewed as an in-fighting bunch of back-stabbers? Who knows?

Probably be similar to what happened with the Tories after IDS got shafted for being shit.

 

[Jippy]

Will kind of be remarkable, given all of that has passed, if this Tory government effectively gets a third term. Think that will destroy them for a while though. No party gets a fourth term these days.

 

[Kaos]

Getting rid of Corbyn would show the PLP has utter contempt for democracy considering his overwhelming mandate. It would backfire on them tremendously.

 

[Cheesy]

Getting rid of Corbyn would show the PLP has utter contempt for democracy considering his overwhelming mandate. It would backfire on them tremendously.

Pretty much. With ditching someone like IDS, the Tories had the benefit of the fact that he's widely considered to be an awful person, meaning that being unseated from the leadership was never something people were going to shed tears over. The Tories are also seen as a typically 'harsh' party in certain respects too, and more likely to do stuff like that.

For all his faults, Corbyn is still largely perceived as a decent enough person. Not to mention that whereas for IDS supporters there probably wasn't a viable alternative with any mainstream support, the Labour lefties could quite easily start to jump more and more towards the Greens if they don't see a long-term future for the party. I expect a split is bound to come at some point. It's only being held back by a lack of PR, but the more left/socialist types may gradually become more and more sick of the party, see no future for their own voices, and just abandon ship.

 

[Sweet Square]

The PLP would have a stronger argument if they had anyone who was in any shape decent. You can't complain about people voting for Jeremy Corbyn in a leadership race when the race also includes Liz Kendall or worse Andy Burham.

 

[sun_tzu]

The PLP would have a stronger argument if they had anyone who was in any shape decent. You can't complain about people voting for Jeremy Corbyn in a leadership race when the race also includes Liz Kendall or worse Andy Burham.

And the PLP only have themselves to blame for people "lending" Corbyn a vote for nomination

 

[Jippy]

Pretty much. With ditching someone like IDS, the Tories had the benefit of the fact that he's widely considered to be an awful person, meaning that being unseated from the leadership was never something people were going to shed tears over. The Tories are also seen as a typically 'harsh' party in certain respects too, and more likely to do stuff like that.

For all his faults, Corbyn is still largely perceived as a decent enough person. Not to mention that whereas for IDS supporters there probably wasn't a viable alternative with any mainstream support, the Labour lefties could quite easily start to jump more and more towards the Greens if they don't see a long-term future for the party. I expect a split is bound to come at some point. It's only being held back by a lack of PR, but the more left/socialist types may gradually become more and more sick of the party, see no future for their own voices, and just abandon ship.

Can only hope they rip themselves in two and we get 'Continuity Labour' and the 'Real Labour Party'.

 

[sun_tzu]

Can only hope they rip themselves in two and we get 'Continuity Labour' and the 'Real Labour Party'.

I don't like the names can't we have new new labour and new old labour

 

[Sweet Square]

And the PLP only have themselves to blame for people "lending" Corbyn a vote for nomination

Why yes I guess but to me that just show's what a shit state The Labour Party is in.

 

[Ubik]

Getting rid of Corbyn would show the PLP has utter contempt for democracy considering his overwhelming mandate. It would backfire on them tremendously.

Nope, because it'll only happen when it's reasonably clear the membership wouldn't vote for him again. He thinks the Labour leader should face re-election every year anyway, I'm sure he hasn't changed his mind just because he's leader now...

 

[NinjaFletch]

Nope, because it'll only happen when it's reasonably clear the membership wouldn't vote for him again. He thinks the Labour leader should face re-election every year anyway, I'm sure he hasn't changed his mind just because he's leader now...

I don't think that really matters. If you get rid of Corbyn now theres an awful lot of young people on the very left of the party that would probably never vote Labour again.

 

[Ubik]

I don't think that really matters. If you get rid of Corbyn now theres an awful lot of young people on the very left of the party that would probably never vote Labour again.

I'd be interested in knowing the numbers on it. Leadership electorate was 420,000? Corbyn got 250,000 of that. Under 30s possibly 20% of that, so 50,000. Labour 2015 vote at the GE was 9.3m.

Worth a risk.

 

[Jippy]

I don't like the names can't we have new new labour and new old labour

Same old Labour.

 

[Shamwow]

I'd say Lisa Nandy would be a good bet. 3rd favourite at the bookies right now.

 

[Ubik]

I'd say Lisa Nandy would be a good bet. 3rd favourite at the bookies right now.

Yup.

 

[Cheesy]

I'd be interested in knowing the numbers on it. Leadership electorate was 420,000? Corbyn got 250,000 of that. Under 30s possibly 20% of that, so 50,000. Labour 2015 vote at the GE was 9.3m.

Worth a risk.

That's assuming it's only younger people, and ones who voted in the election. As you've said many a time yourself, those who vote Labour extend far beyond the membership...and there'll be plenty of non-members who like Corbyn and his politics that find themselves pretty disgruntled if he's ousted.

Plenty won't be too bothered, and will still vote Labour anyway, but there's surely a genuine worry that this will gradually tip people over the edge. Give people a viable alternative, and many of them may start to switch. Sounds unrealistic, but then so did the idea of them being wiped out in Scotland at one time.

 

[Kaos]

I'd be interested in knowing the numbers on it. Leadership electorate was 420,000? Corbyn got 250,000 of that. Under 30s possibly 20% of that, so 50,000. Labour 2015 vote at the GE was 9.3m.

Worth a risk.

It's not just those who voted. Like I said this would show an utter contempt for democracy and would put off non-partisan voters who may like Corbyn.

We also saw what happened to the Lib Dems after they reneged on an electoral promise. Stage a coup on Corbyn and not only will you lose the young vote, but you'll almost certainly never get Scotland back and those tactical voters who align themselves with the likes of the Greens and other progressive elements would almost certainly be deterred too.

If people want to vote Tory they'll vote Tory, not Tory lite, whereas others disillusioned by them aren't exactly going to be captured by a facade of an 'alternative'.

 

[Cheesy]

It's not just those who voted. Like I said this would show an utter contempt for democracy and would put off non-partisan voters who may like Corbyn.

We also saw what happened to the Lib Dems after they reneged on an electoral promise. Stage a coup on Corbyn and not only will you lose the young vote, but you'll almost certainly never get Scotland back and those tactical voters who align themselves with the likes of the Greens and other progressive elements would almost certainly be deterred too.

If people want to vote Tory they'll vote Tory, not Tory lite, whereas others disillusioned by them aren't exactly going to be captured by a facade of an 'alternative'.

That's already the case tbf.

 

[Ubik]

That's assuming it's only younger people, and ones who voted in the election. As you've said many a time yourself, those who vote Labour extend far beyond the membership...and there'll be plenty of non-members who like Corbyn and his politics that find themselves pretty disgruntled if he's ousted.

Plenty won't be too bothered, and will still vote Labour anyway, but there's surely a genuine worry that this will gradually tip people over the edge. Give people a viable alternative, and many of them may start to switch. Sounds unrealistic, but then so did the idea of them being wiped out in Scotland at one time.

I'm skeptical that a great deal of people bothered enough to stop voting for the party wouldn't have signed up to vote for him in the first place. Polling on this generally shows that the Labour vote at large is a fair way closer to the national average in ideology than the membership, and in particular those who voted Corbyn. If we're doing this as a pure cost-benefit between keeping and pushing, I'm far more concerned about the numbers he alienates than those who'll go elsewhere on his leaving. Particularly in marginals.

It's not just those who voted. Like I said this would show an utter contempt for democracy and would put off non-partisan voters who may like Corbyn.

We also saw what happened to the Lib Dems after they reneged on an electoral promise. Stage a coup on Corbyn and not only will you lose the young vote, but you'll almost certainly never get Scotland back and those tactical voters who align themselves with the likes of the Greens and other progressive elements would almost certainly be deterred too.

If people want to vote Tory they'll vote Tory, not Tory lite, whereas others disillusioned by them aren't exactly going to be captured by a facade of an 'alternative'.

So it would show contempt for democracy by... having another democratic vote? It doesn't cease to be democratic just because Corbyn loses the support of the selectorate. If a Government loses a no confidence motion in the Commons and another GE gets called, is that "contempt for democracy" too?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Getting rid of Corbyn would show the PLP has utter contempt for democracy considering his overwhelming mandate. It would backfire on them tremendously.

But if the Labour MP's majority is already fairly small, Corbyn's leadership could see them out of a job anyway. Understandably, they might calculate that it is better to roll the dice.

If people want to vote Tory they'll vote Tory, not Tory lite, whereas others disillusioned by them aren't exactly going to be captured by a facade of an 'alternative'.

People are also more likely to do so if the only alternative is a PM they do not feel to be fit for the role. Labour must decide who is of greater important, 100,000s of party members, or millions among the electorate who look to their influence on the British political landscape.

The PLP would have a stronger argument if they had anyone who was in any shape decent.

This is a fair criticism IMO: for with the notable exception of Hilary Benn's stand on Syria, we have seen little evidence of a ready successor. If Jarvis wishes to be considered as a contender he'll have to raise his profile.

 

[sun_tzu]

This is a fair criticism IMO: for with the notable exception of Hilary Benn's stand on Syria, we have seen little evidence of a ready successor. If Jarvis wishes to be considered as a contender he'll have to raise his profile.

why risk momentum running a smear / de-selection campaign... just wait for trident - Corbyn is either going to have to back down (at which point his principal led politics is in question and many who voted for him will feel let down) or he is going to cause an outright civil war and plenty of people will ultimatley swing behind a unity candidate (possibly Jarvis if he keeps his head down now)
Of course he could bluster and ponce about for a while before allowing a free vote - because that played so well for him over syria?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

why risk momentum running a smear / de-selection campaign... just wait for trident - Corbyn is either going to have to back down (at which point his principal led politics is in question and many who voted for him will feel let down) or he is going to cause an outright civil war and plenty of people will ultimatley swing behind a unity candidate (possibly Jarvis if he keeps his head down now)
Of course he could bluster and ponce about for a while before allowing a free vote - because that played so well for him over syria?

He needn't confront Corbyn directly to improve his recognition with the electorate. There must be some issues of a perfectly unexceptional nature that he could be seen tobe talking about.



But at least Corbyn has a some company with his woes:

'Scruffy' and 'old-fashioned' Corbyn not a hit with swing voters

Pollsters get damning verdict on Labour leader in key parliamentary seat as ‘slimy’, ‘weaselly’ George Osborne fares little better

Heather Stewart
Monday 9 May 2016

Swing voters in the key parliamentary seat of Nuneaton told pollsters Jeremy Corbyn was “old-fashioned” and “scruffy” when they went to assess the party’s prospects of seizing it back in 2020.

The Warwickshire town fell to the Conservatives in 2010, and they held on to it at last year’s general election, in one of the key indications that Ed Miliband’s party was heading for defeat.

Labour was cheered on Friday by news that it had held on to the local council in Thursday’s local elections; but there was an 11% swing to the Conservatives compared with the last time the seats were contested.

In research carried out for the firm Election Data, by Miliband’s former pollster James Morris, two focus groups of former Labour voters who had switched to the Conservatives in 2010 or 2015 were asked to discuss their opinions about the government and the Labour party.

Participants were unenthusiastic about the Conservatives – and about George Osborne, the potential future leader, who was described by one participant as “slimy”, and by another as “a bit round and weaselly”.

Voters were keen to give Labour a chance, Morris and Election Data’s Ian Warren found – but many also had a negative view of Corbyn.

“You want a charismatic leader and to me he’s more like Worzel Gummidge,” one participant said. Another described him as “scruffy, very scruffy and flaky-looking”. Asked to write down the first words that sprang to mind when they thought about Corbyn, others said “beige”, and “old-fashioned”.

The findings are likely to reignite the debate within Labour about how best to chart a course towards victory at the next general election. Corbyn and his team reject the “focus group politics” that they believe led to the political triangulation of the Blair and Brown governments, and spawned a generation of “plastic politicians”.

But Morris and Warren say the public’s inability to see Miliband as a potential prime minister was key to Labour’s loss of last year’s general election – and they warn that voters who are not firm Labour supporters appear to be even more wary of Corbyn.
Advertisement

Morris said: “These focus groups are much more negative about Jeremy than the ones I conducted for Ed Miliband at a similar point in his leadership. Corbyn is failing to do any of the work needed to bring these voters back to Labour. They don’t respect him, and what they know of his agenda they don’t like. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and his is irredeemably negative.”

Voters have also noticed the internal dissent within the Labour party, a fact repeatedly highlighted by Corbyn’s close allies in the runup to last week’s votes. One participant said: “It’s just a shambles, so how can you vote for someone to run the country when they can’t even sit in the room together.”

Corbyn’s allies hope that Labour’s better-than-expected performance in the local elections will draw a line under the constant dissent in the parliamentary party, with shadow chancellor John McDonnell urging sceptics about his leadership to “put up or shut up”.

Morris and Warren also found there was little recognition among voters of any of the potential challengers for the Labour leadership, with a list of names met with “blank looks and almost complete silence”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/09/jeremy-corbyn-scruffy-old-fashioned-swing-voters

 

[NinjaFletch]

I'd be interested in knowing the numbers on it. Leadership electorate was 420,000? Corbyn got 250,000 of that. Under 30s possibly 20% of that, so 50,000. Labour 2015 vote at the GE was 9.3m.

Worth a risk.

I think thats probably underestimating the damage it will do, not everyone that supports Corbyn would have voted for him and, even if you don't like him, people are incredibly sensitive to shady, slimy, political manoeuvring at the minute and are rallying towards figures that represent something different. Moreover, it pretty much evidences a (final?) rejection of Labour's left. At best you could argue that people will be pissed off and complain, but ultimately still vote labour because they have no other choice (democracy yay), but at worst I think you run the very real risk of splitting the labour party completely down the middle. Its left most fringe either not voting for it, or worse the most left wing MPs and members forming a new party (a little bit how the centralists formed the SDP which merged to become the Lib Dems because they thought the party was going too far to the left) and splitting the 'left' completely in two.

Not that it really matters what I think, until they fix our electoral system I'm essentially disenfranchised, but the main reason Labour are doing badly under Corbyn is less to do with Corbyn himself than it is constant infighting. As much as Corbyn's camp will criticise right wing papers for portraying Corbyn as unelectable (and it doesn't help that even the Guardian is spinning against him), I can't remember a single Labour leader in my life time that was not being actively undermined by his own party. If Labour MPs are going to shout about how shit their leader is to anyone that will listen its no surprise that people tend to think he's shit. Regardless of if thats Corbyn, Miliband, Brown or Blair. Its always seemed to me a far better policy would have been to get beyond whoever was chosen and actually given them a fair chance, recognising the popular mandate Corbyn received, but Labour seem content to try and close Pandora's box and I really can't see how thats going to be possible.

 

[Cheesy]

I think thats probably underestimating the damage it will do, not everyone that supports Corbyn would have voted for him and, even if you don't like him, people are incredibly sensitive to shady, slimy, political manoeuvring at the minute and are rallying towards figures that represent something different. Moreover, it pretty much evidences a (final?) rejection of Labour's left. At best you could argue that people will be pissed off and complain, but ultimately still vote labour because they have no other choice (democracy yay), but at worst I think you run the very real risk of splitting the labour party completely down the middle. Its left most fringe either not voting for it, or worse the most left wing MPs and members forming a new party (a little bit how the centralists formed the SDP which merged to become the Lib Dems because they thought the party was going too far to the left) and splitting the 'left' completely in two.

Not that it really matters what I think, until they fix our electoral system I'm essentially disenfranchised, but the main reason Labour are doing badly under Corbyn is less to do with Corbyn himself than it is constant infighting. As much as Corbyn's camp will criticise right wing papers for portraying Corbyn as unelectable (and it doesn't help that even the Guardian is spinning against him), I can't remember a single Labour leader in my life time that was not being actively undermined by his own party. If Labour MPs are going to shout about how shit their leader is to anyone that will listen its no surprise that people tend to think he's shit. Regardless of if thats Corbyn, Miliband, Brown or Blair. Its always seemed to me a far better policy would have been to get beyond whoever was chosen and actually given them a fair chance, recognising the popular mandate Corbyn received, but Labour seem content to try and close Pandora's box and I really can't see how thats going to be possible.

Pretty much. It's going to be difficult to talk about the 'nastiness' of a Tory party if Labour head into the next election having had a major dispute over Corbyn's position, and eventual ousting. Think of how the media will spin it: Labour will be savaged for it, and the next Tory leader will bring it up at every opportunity. Think of the slogans. "How can you trust a man who can't be trusted by his own leader?" and the like.

I also think the possible split is worth mentioning. It might seem unlikely, but if increasing numbers become more and more disillusioned with the party then they'll go elsewhere. The Greens picked up nearly 1 million voters between 2010 and 2015. That wasn't an accident; it seems like a likely symptom of disillusioned Labour/Lib Dem voters switching to a party they perceive as being more left-wing, and if Labour aren't careful then they'll lose a lot more. Especially when some people seem quite happy to discard them.

 

[711]

A split in the Labour party can't come soon enough for me, we're all just wasting time meanwhile.
Let the left activists and their popular mandate be one party, the centre-left another, and the voters decide.

 

[NinjaFletch]

A split in the Labour party can't come soon enough for me, we're all just wasting time meanwhile.
Let the left activists and their popular mandate be one party, the centre-left another, and the voters decide.

It would pretty much ensure that as long as the Conservatives retained a semblance of unity they'd win every election ever, but sure, whats not to love about that?

 

[711]

It would pretty much ensure that as long as the Conservatives retained a semblance of unity they'd win every election ever, but sure, whats not to love about that?

A centre-left party shorn of it's Corbyn wing could be more attractive to the electorate, not less.
Predicting 'every election ever' is a bit unimaginative for me, and just doesn't work as a threat.

 

[NinjaFletch]

A centre-left party shorn of it's Corbyn wing could be more attractive to the electorate, not less.
Predicting 'every election ever' is a bit unimaginative for me, and just doesn't work as a threat.

Labour are already in crisis as an electoral threat due to the complete loss of Scotland. Unless you think a shift to the centre would make them a more viable electoral force there (when in reality it would probably have the opposite effect) its hard to see them competing against the Conservatives at the minute anyway. Either way, if it gets to the stage where there is actually two large, left leaning parties splitting votes between them up against a unified right wing bloc encompassing a range of the right wing spectrum its hard to imagine the left standing a chance, even if you're correct in thinking that the more moderate party would be the greater electoral force.

 

[Nuts]

A centre-left party shorn of it's Corbyn wing could be more attractive to the electorate, not less.
Predicting 'every election ever' is a bit unimaginative for me, and just doesn't work as a threat.

For that new, centre left party to work it needs a bit more time with Corbyn though, imo.

No one wants the Blairites back either - results would probably get worse.

Give Corbyn time till someone better comes along. Tristram Hunt and Chuka aren't any more electable than Corbyn.

Trouble is everyone wants results immediately nowadays. The Labour Party post-Blair are like United post SAF - you need to to rebalance in that immediate power vacuum.

 

[Ubik]

'Scruffy' and 'old-fashioned' Corbyn not a hit with swing voters

Some more responses. The 11% swing against Labour there is pretty serious given it's a bellwether marginal.

Also a reminder as to why Cameron goes with the cheap jibes on attire.

 

[Nuts]

Some more responses. The 11% swing against Labour there is pretty serious given it's a bellwether marginal.

Also a reminder as to why Cameron goes with the cheap jibes on attire.

FFS. Stupid, stupid bastards.

How does the pig fecking, tax avoiding cnut get away with it all and the one trustworthy, decent politician we have get lumbered with this?

Nothing frustrates me more than the working class Tory - our very own version of Trump supporter.

 

[Untied]

Some more responses. The 11% swing against Labour there is pretty serious given it's a bellwether marginal.

Also a reminder as to why Cameron goes with the cheap jibes on attire.

Those responses should make anyone despair at the state of democracy really. A completely uninformed electorate on both left and right. I mean it sums up how nutty the UK is that opposing something as ridiculous as the monarchy actually alienates a good percentage of the electorate, and actually is one of the few of Corbyn's opinions that they remember, despite him making clear that it isn't a priority.



But this sums up the problem the "centre" of the party has. Calling for change when their candidate got ~5% in the leadership election, without any clear message about what that change involves. James Morris is certain that Corbyn is going wrong, but he advised Brown and Miliband. Where were his good ideas then?

 

[NinjaFletch]

I've just had a quick skim through the womens transcript:

https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/32lt66twbvopo7wc7kupbeqs8xn3jxxy

The mens one is here:

https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/ptci5txo9ofgsy83ih5b6w6wqwmtdv54

For a start, it needs to be said that they're all a bunch of absolute morons (sadly thats probably reflective of the electorate, but it needs to be said that they come across as exceptionally stupid, they're asked to design a new labour leader and one responds 'Young, Fresh, and David Beckham' to a chorus of yeahs), but the spin between what they said and (as usual with Corbyn) whats being reported is remarkable:

For a start all of the women, except one, state that they're more likely to vote Labour now than they were before, the main reason any of them have for disliking the current Labour party is disunity, and 6/8 blame MPs for it.

But the greater worry for Labour isn't what they say about Corbyn its that clearly they're not reaching people. They can name about 2 current Labour MPs between them, they get Nicola Sturgeon confused with a Labour MP (and get her name wrong) they can't name a Labour policy, they can't remember what Labour stood on during the election.

Honestly the women's transcript is a fascinating read, the subconscious internalised sexism is incredible, and they contradict themselves so muchbut by the end I pretty much wanted to kill myself.

I've just skimmed the mens one as well. From what they say I have a hard time believing any of them were ever Labour voters.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

FFS. Stupid, stupid bastards.

How does the pig fecking, tax avoiding cnut get away with it all and the one trustworthy, decent politician we have get lumbered with this?

Nothing frustrates me more than the working class Tory - our very own version of Trump supporter.

Yes, Corbyn has a calm and better mannered disposition than some of his colleagues, but i wouldn't describe him as either trustworthy or necessarily decent.

The contempt you are expressing toward sections of the population is comparable to the attitudes of the two main parties, a mindset which has fuelled the rise of the SNP, UKIP and the Greens.