More lies from the Sun?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I did note that, in that post you quoted. I'd agree it's still a fluid figure with plenty of provisos and will more than likely change over the course of the parliament, but it's a terrible starting point. And it fits in with every other piece of evidence I've seen, saying that he will more likely than not win less votes than Miliband, which will be a disaster.
37% comes from this chart:
That chart says 20% for Labour voters.
There is a criticism not just of the point at which the poll was made but also the wording of it.
Bottom left chart, 63% of Labour voters saying more likely to vote Labour. Whether the overall figure includes don't knows I'm not sure.
So 37% did not say they are more likely to vote Labour but that doesn't mean that they are less likely to. From what I can tell (seeing as we don't have access to the original questions or data) it looks like the question was this:
"Are you more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn as Leader?"
Choices are:
Strongly Agree, Agree, Something Else, Something Else
Now let's assume that there was no "indifferent" option (which would further strengthen my argument) and that the other options were "Disagree, Strongly Disagree".
Just because someone puts "disagree" to that question, doesn't mean they are less likely to vote Labour now. It just means that they aren't more likely to.
With the information that I currently have, it looks to me like a poll that was already worded badly was furthermore interpreted wrongly by the Independent.
Well I'm one of the 20%
Voted labour since 97
Won't vote for them with Corbyn as the leader
Perhaps they can counteract me and other more centrist minded folk not voting for them by taking a chunk of green, SNP, UKIP and people who did not vote before... But I doubt it... I think they will be decimated if they go into 2020 with Corbyn (though i suspect he won't last till then)
2 questions for you:
1) What made you vote for Labour so far?
2) Who do you think you will be voting for in 2020?
I'd say it's fairly tacit in the question. When combined with every other data point from the poll (not prime ministerial, more unelectable) and every other poll of late, I'd certainly say you're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to paint that in anything other than a negative light for Corbyn. But I agree, it may not be as apocalyptic as that suggests.
I found the data, it's as I thought: http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/datatables.pdf
Tacit in the question?
So what you are saying is that there is a dichotomy where people can either be more or less likely to vote for Labour with no other option. No one can feel that they are exactly as likely to vote for Labour as before?
Without the full dataset its always hard to trust the headlines. However I'd point out there have been two other polls by Survation and YouGov this week that both come up with the same conclusions. (They may have been posted already, Ive been away this week)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n.../0f34cl5n9e/TimesResults_150916_Corbyn_W2.pdf
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Corbyn-Full-Data-Tables.pdf
In most categories the people happy with the appointment of Corbyn, and/or more likely to vote for Labour because of Corbyn, is outweighed by those put off by him.
The worrying thing is that in the YouGov poll, the "strongly disagree" type question almost always polled strongest. So those "dismayed" by his appointment outweighed any other response, including those merely "disappointed". Those who think he will do "very badly" outweighed any other response, and so on.
Edit: Ill have a shufty at that data now youve posted it, cheers.
Last edited:
1) they became electable for me when they became more centrist...
I supported a minimum wage
I liked that they presented a more business friendly face
I liked that they were not in favour of renationalising services that had gone down the toilet under successive governments
I liked that they were pro European
2) probably libs (depending on policy's) Though I'd tactically vote for any party to keep corbyn out.
I'm curious as to how you would interpret a Conservative saying they are "dismayed" as Corbyn's appointment. The last election made me more skeptical of polls.
Thing is I've not doubt this has been a shit week for Corbyn. And it's given me doubts about him. e.g. I didn't like how he responded to the question about bowing to the Queen in the BBC interview - he needs to cut that sort of thing out.
The question is how much he can turn it round and get the public to appreciate the strengths that Labour members appreciated.
He's coming from the starting point of being an outsider - which appeals to many but also puts many in doubt. Over the next 5 years he will become less and less of an outsider. He's had to deal with an unprecedented level of smear and lies from the press. He's the type of politician that will be easy for them to snipe at because he lacks the polish but what we might see is a lot of people are being turned off the papers' narrative by the sniping. And many people seem to be scared of the radical Corbyn who will force all of his 'crazy' ideas on the country, when what I've seen so far is a Corbyn willing to compromise and work with those on the other side of the party - let's see what policies come out of all of this and how crazy they really are.
Thing is, he needs the PLP to be seen as publicly behind him for this, not the bullshit that's currently happening.
I don't think even his most idealistic supporters (ie, me) expected Labour to take the lead in the polls as soon as he was voted leader or anything like that. It was always gonna a case of trying to win the public over, so there polls aren't anything surprising to anyone at this stage. If the polls are still the same in 18 months or so that's a whole other matter, but a lot can change in that time and if it does I much prefer the idea of Corbyn being there to take advantage of that than some Tory-lite/careerist politician/establishment shill/empty suit/yes man/soundbite spouter/identikit clone/whatever other overused and yet accurate description one can apply to the likes of Yvette Cooper.
From the little I know about Corbyn, I actually quite like him. Seems to stand up to his moral which I respect. That said, some of the policies I've heard I think are pretty crazy, alongside some which I agree with. I hope he can stay true to his morals but also adapt to the views of many others within the Labour party. I've always said to myself that I never want to be attached to a political party and even though 2020 is a long way away, I can very easily see myself not voting for Labour this time around.
I knew the tabloids and the Daily Mail are bad but reading some of the headlines, it looks like the Telegraph is right in the gutter with them. The headline about the anthem was from the Senator McCarthy school.
@Nick 0208 Ldn You would hope trivialities don't bother voters, but the Sun (IIRC) put the image of Miliband struggling with a sandwich, 2 years after it happened, on their election-day front page. Poll after poll said Labour lost because "Miliband didn't look prime ministerial." In India we have every party trying to build a coalition of caste groups, with tokenism the order of the day, which is fecking awful, but the excuse is that caste is an ingrained thing in India for millenia.
On the other hand, the west (in general) seems to be moving away from public debates about important issues (climate change being the prime example) led by politicians to media-managed correct-looking politicians reading from the script laid out for them, and they don't have our excuse of ingrained caste!
@Nick 0208 Ldn You would hope trivialities don't bother voters, but the Sun (IIRC) put the image of Miliband struggling with a sandwich, 2 years after it happened, on their election-day front page. Poll after poll said Labour lost because "Miliband didn't look prime ministerial." In India we have every party trying to build a coalition of caste groups, with tokenism the order of the day, which is fecking awful, but the excuse is that caste is an ingrained thing in India for millenia.
On the other hand, the west (in general) seems to be moving away from public debates about important issues (climate change being the prime example) led by politicians to media-managed correct-looking politicians reading from the script laid out for them, and they don't have our excuse of ingrained caste!
Brits judge people all the time and put them in categories. It's not as overt as the caste system, of course, but it happens constantly. At the moment, the fact that Corbyn wears socks and shorts, has a scruffy beard and doesn't look at ease in any sort of smart clothes puts him in the "eccentric leftie academic" category. People in general don't see those folk as being capable of leading a party and running a country, even if that's an unfair assessment. Older voters will be very familiar with the 1970s and Militant Tendency, which was something that most moderates feared - the members were Trots, after all.
Corbyn wants to change things democratically, of course. So on the way to that, as a party leader he has to force himself to conform to the current status quo, even if he doesn't like it. It doesn't mean he's compromising his principles, it just means he's respecting what most people think is right and proper right now. Unfortunately, Joe Public won't appreciate that Corbyn's actually trying not to be a hypocrite - they'll just see it as him being an extremist. The National Anthem, poppies - not the most important battles for him to fight, even if his way of fighting is passive, not armed struggle.
Corbyn wants to change things democratically, of course. So on the way to that, as a party leader he has to force himself to conform to the current status quo, even if he doesn't like it. It doesn't mean he's compromising his principles, it just means he's respecting what most people think is right and proper right now. Unfortunately, Joe Public won't appreciate that Corbyn's actually trying not to be a hypocrite - they'll just see it as him being an extremist. The National Anthem, poppies - not the most important battles for him to fight, even if his way of fighting is passive, not armed struggle.
Having had a look, its one of those polls where you cant look at a question in isolation, they have to be considered in sets. You're right that disagreeing with the statement "I am more likely to vote Labour" doesn't mean you're less likely (much as "not unhappy" may or may not mean happy). However if you also ask for a response to "I am more likely to vote Tory" then you can understand the response by comparing them.
So that point by Sky about Tory votes switching due to Corbyn is very misleading. Yes 8% of Tory voters are more likely to vote Labour, but 80% are even more likely to vote Tory. Same with Lib Dems and UKIP. Bear in mind that Labour has to win votes from people currently voting for other parties, so the fact that people voting Tory are even more likely to vote Tory matters.
Harder judgements, like calculating actual millions of votes that these results correlate to, doesn't stand up. However its a fair conclusion to say that more people appear to be put off by Corbyn than attracted to him.
I suspect "Aghast" would be a more apt choice of word for most people. Intuitively I'd say its a mix of voters who left Labour for the Tories in the last four elections who see Corbyn as the exact opposite of what they want in a Labour leader, and the Daily Mail types that see Corbyn as a caricature marxist revolutionary here to burn our flags and swap the bible for das kapital. But that's just my guess.
He really hasn't. He's had nothing compared to what Kinnock had, because they thought Kinnock was going to win the election. Corbyn's just getting the usual treatment every leader gets. Labour leaders have had it rough from the press right since the days of Hardie.
Many people in Labour only know the Blair era and later, and they hate Alastair Campbell because he represents spin. However when he was in post it was the first time in history that we dominated the right wing press and not vice versa. As a result there's this sense that this is something new post-Brown. In truth its something that's been going on forever and just stopped temporarily when we had Campbell around to handle the press.
Last edited:
Well I think it's hard to be exactly as likely as before if you have an opinion on it, I'm less likely than I was before certainly even though I'm still fairly sure I will be. Plus you've got a base comparative figure in that we also know 20% are more likely to go Tory, and there'll be a sizeable number that wouldn't go that far but would be willing to back the Lib Dems (it's a shame they didn't ask that question too to be more certain), so it doesn't seem much of a stretch, and certainly merits a discounting of the statement in the original Sky article. Additionally, from the crosstabs (nice job on finding them) you've also got 36% of Labour voters saying the party is now less electable, which is again comparable. Then you've got almost half the Labour voters polled saying Corbyn doesn't look Prime Ministerial. Either way, we're basically just arguing the degree to which these figures are terrible.
And to clarify, I'm not saying those 37% of Labour voters now have a decent chance of not voting for them. If that happened, it would be the worst result for Labour in a century, and I'm well aware that won't happen. But it really doesn't take that large a percentage of Labour voters to switch to the Tories and they gain another 50 seat cushion (I think it's a 3% net swing). There is literally no route back for Labour that doesn't involve winning Conservative votes, and ceding any further ground is disastrous even when looking beyond 2020.
I don't think thats necessarily true. It depends why people who aren't voting for Labour aren't voting for Labour.
I think its clear from the Corbyn victory that the electorate is actually much further left than most assumed and has shifted that way fairly recently. I also think its abundantly clear that Corbyn is 'refreshing' and does particularly well amongst young voters, a group that traditionally are unlikely to vote.
If Corbyn can effectively get people who aren't interested in politics interested in politics, which is exactly what he's done so far, and draw from the leftist votes (such as the Green Party) who have thought that Labour have been too right wing then I think they'll be fine even if they do lose voters from Middle England.
That would actually be quite a good news day for him.
In a pr system possibly... But first past the post I can't see it
Remember Scotland might not even be in the UK if the SNP get their way (and if not I suspect given the option of a socialist agenda plus independence most snp voters would go for that over a more socialist labour)
And labour need to win seats in middle England to win as the conservatives have a majority which I just can't see unless they appeal to the centrist voters.
Time will tell but I can see the libs winning more seats (well they can hardly win many less)
I can see post referendum UKIP loosing a lot of momentum and votes (and predominantly to the Conservatives)
It's going to be tough (I think impossible) to win from the left
Last edited:
It's a sad indictment of British tabloid papers that I'm not sure whether that's a joke or an actual headline.
Well thats part of the uncertainty isn't it?
The Lib Dem vote was obliterated and the Tories unquestionably gained from that more than Labour. So if we see a Lib Dem resurgence putting a squeeze on the centre Labour stand to gain despite going further left.
As for your points on the SNP and Scotland, thats a huge problem for Labour in general but Corbyn is by far the best choice when it comes to taking votes off the SNP. That might actually be a bad thing for Labour though, by splitting the left wing vote the potential is always there that the Tories could come in through the back door.
I just googled the Sunday Sport... at least it's not really pretending to be an actual publication worthy of serious thought.
Bloody hell, who's going to be next?Actual headline, I would think.
Not terribly original, though.
Indeed. It's a softcore porn mag, with a few made up stories.
It's The Sun then? 
Meanwhile...
Meanwhile...
If you were wondering if his second week would begin without controversy, think again. lol
Labour leader forced to quit Stop the War Coalition after attack on Royal family
Labour leader forced to quit Stop the War Coalition after attack on Royal family
Both the Fabian Society (1, 2) & Blue Labour have decent articles showing why targeting non-voters and green voters alone isn't nearly enough. Labour would be helped by getting a better response from those groups of course, but it doesnt change the fact that most of the voters we need to win a majority voted Tory at the last election (particularly as many of them were Labour voters in the election before)
I'd also point out that a TUC study of union members (hardly a right wing group) shows no big differences between the perception of Labour amongst voters and non-voters. They dislike the party for similar reasons.
As for the point about the general electorate being more left wing than we thought; we can't really conclude much from an election featuring less than 1% of the total electorate. Particularly when we had a general election less than 6 months ago where votes for the Tories + UKIP outnumbered those for Labour + Lib Dem + SNP + Green + Plaid Cymru. The country may indeed be going more left wing but we can't see that judging from our recent elections.
Is Blue Labour what it sounds like (I googled, it seemed intentionally vague)?
Not really, they chose the name a while ago and it was probably an unlucky choice given what we've had recently. In a nutshell they think that Labour's history owes more to methodism than marxism, and generally they're more about thought provoking ideas than churning out hard policies. Frank Fields' brilliant essay on the loss of the working class vote since the 1970s is well worth the price of the book alone though.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blue-Labour-Forging-New-Politics/dp/1784532029
The Telegraph will manufacture a controversy out of anything. I'm not really sure what he has done wrong there?
As a republican (which I know is a minority position) I find it dissappointing how strongly Corbyn's anti-monarchy positions have been used against him. He's not advocating republicanism as a policy. It's his personal belief. It might not be shared with the majority of the electorate but come on. I find it offensive that one child is considered worthier than another due to their parentage but if I were the leader of the Labour Party that would make me a traitor, offending those who died for our country.
Honestly you Corbynites crack me up. You do live in this country, right?
Who are the 'Corbynites'? Do you mean people bored to death of the constant sniping and gutter reporting from the British press?
People confuse patriotism with loving your country as it is. It is actually more patriotic to want to change your country for the better.
The British Royal Family are very popular in the UK, you can't sell a republican Prime Minister. Along with another hundred reasons why Corbyn is dead in the water as a prospective PM.
You and I must move in DRASTICALLY different circles if you think that.