Probably because the corbynhipsters / momentum run around calling voters stupid stupid bastards for not agreeing with them rather than actually understanding that not all people are massivley politically engaged but they still get a vote and you have to appeal to them if you want to win power
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- 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.
Don't ascribe a belief or political persuasion to me, if you don't mind.
I agree with some of what Corbyn says but not all.
Do you disagree with my sentiment. If not, presumably you agree that Corbyn should be discounted purely on presentation, regardless of whether his politics would be of benefit to those dismissing him?
Why wouldn't you describe him as such? Fascinated to hear your reasons.
Ah, undoubtedly an empire that will last for a thousand years.
I can see that, unfortunately.
To be fair, having read both transcripts, these sort of voters really shouldn't worry Labour much at the minute. They all come across as the sort of voters who would vote for a cat if it put on a suit and had a slick media team behind it. These people will vote for whoever has the best six months in the build up to the election. But there's actually a fair amount of encouragement for Labour in there, if they go about it the right way. They contradict themselves a lot, but if you can assume that they actually want what they're asking for, then effectively what they want is Jeremy Corbyn, or at least a more polished version of Jeremy Corbyn, but Labour are struggling to get any sort of message across.
I'm currently reading the women's transcript and there is a sizeable anti-immigration sentiment. The kind of stuff that I firmly believe is the product of unspoken racism. You shouldn't appeal to that.
Maybe. But these people are idiots:
On Hilary Benn:
And Feminists look away. On a female Labour leader:
And I don't know what they have against Japan…
I mean we're not even disagreeing really. I totally agree that you need these people's votes if you are going to win an election. But it is a problem for democracy that the average voter is so uninformed and yes, to put it bluntly, so stupid.
Honestly, if it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious. I'm not even sure its not parody, would have made a great 'The Thick of It' episode.
I sort of agree. It is worrying that the 'negative' points (anti-monarchy, anti-nuclear weapons, scruffy, old) have broken through but no positive points have. It is also concerning how immigration continues to cast a sinister shadow over our politics.
But as you say, from a Labour perspective it if far from doom and gloom. These are clearly weather vane votes. They haven't lost them forever, and if anything the lack of political awareness is a positive: Anyone worried that the Corbyn experiment will tar the Labour party forever can sleep easily — it's not going to happen because most voters simply don't may that much attention.
A new, dynamic leader espousing Corbyn policies could probably win an election. For those on the Momentum/Green end of the spectrum, that is heartening. Although all of us on the left need to find a way to mitigate concerns about immigration. I wish I had some good ideas. @Ubik ?
I'd say thats probably indicative of where they get their news from though. I think almost all of them said one of the The Express, The Mirror, the Sun, or the Daily Mail - I think one person said the Times and another one said Sky News. Is it that unsurprising that people who get their news stories from papers like those remember the issues those papers made the biggest issue out of?
I do think that quite how negative those papers have been is, in part, the fault of Labour's own infighting, but it certainly can't help that people who are ideologically opposed to Labour almost completely control the news cycle.
Regardless of opinions on Corbyn it highlights issues that I don't think Labour have had any idea how to tackle since Blair.
Firstly surely you should absolutely acknowledge that people have an immigration concern. (now you may not believe its justified but all reality is subjective and you have to address peoples concerns not imagine your subjective viewpoint in in-fact objective and that these people are inherently wrong to feel as they do... then you should put forward a credible counter argument that addresses their concerns in a broader context... rather than just say reading between the lines I think they are all racist... and the first thing you need to do to put over an argument is have somebody people will listen to - no point talking all the sense in the world if nobody listens to you.
Secondly if you think the "average voter" and please tell me more about who that is... can be defined as stupid then lets be honest your basically saying over 50% of the population are too stupid to vote for corbyn... surely as somebody who seems to think of them-self in the upper 50% you accept you either have to engage with these people (probably not by calling them stupid) or put somebody up that has enough charisma that they might actually listen to them and engage in the process?
Or is there a third way (perhaps a fourth way as Blair already showed there was a pretty successful third way that I dont imagine you subscribe to) whereby classifying the electorate as uninformed and stupid and persisting with a candidate they have steadfastly refused to engage with wins you an election?
This was my favourite line, on Gordon Brown:
Basically, if we can draft Barack Obama, we're sorted. Though interestingly a lot of what they said in that section was basically describing Andy Burnham, and they were anti-soldier as leader. They liked the ship guy but I'm pretty sure that was Prescott? Can't think of another that that would describe. They have concerning views on Japan.
@Untied Immigration definitely the hardest thing to unknot from a left viewpoint, which is an odd reversal of the norm in that you've got economics firmly on your side and it's the social aspect that's the main barrier. What was clear from the voters though was that they weren't abandoning Labour because of immigration policy, and it was more the usual concern over services and housing that drove the antipathy. If you win the argument on the economy and service delivery, you win overall. That's particularly emphasised by the women all voting for Remain.
It's also interesting how the different ways each of us think about the current situation influenced our reading of the transcript, I was reading it thinking "man do they love Blair"
Basically, if we can draft Barack Obama, we're sorted. Though interestingly a lot of what they said in that section was basically describing Andy Burnham, and they were anti-soldier as leader. They liked the ship guy but I'm pretty sure that was Prescott? Can't think of another that that would describe. They have concerning views on Japan.
@Untied Immigration definitely the hardest thing to unknot from a left viewpoint, which is an odd reversal of the norm in that you've got economics firmly on your side and it's the social aspect that's the main barrier. What was clear from the voters though was that they weren't abandoning Labour because of immigration policy, and it was more the usual concern over services and housing that drove the antipathy. If you win the argument on the economy and service delivery, you win overall. That's particularly emphasised by the women all voting for Remain.
It's also interesting how the different ways each of us think about the current situation influenced our reading of the transcript, I was reading it thinking "man do they love Blair"
How is my 'contempt' in any way 'comparable to attitudes of two main parties'?
At their most successful, they've capitalised on exactly the attitudes I was showing 'contempt' for, so this comparison seems rather inaccurate.
Some of those are hilarious, but
Is the key one for me. The Corbyn team's use of the media, and ability to show opposition to the government/ get their opposing message heard and known, has been absolutely awful. It's one thing portraying yourself as an outsider, or to be representing a new type of politics, but using the media is a necessity to making your party popular and winning elections. They've shown zero ability at this, while lurching from one PR disaster to the next.
Hopefully Khan/ Rees/ Burnham in Manchester(?) can work away from Corbyn to help on this front, at the very least.
Shown below as well -
I don't agree there. On your issue of immigration, for example, Labour have been tarred as the 'pro-immigration' party due to the expansion of EU immigrants in the Blair/ Brown years, and that's not something that's going to be forgotten any time soon. Immigration hasn't gone down under the Tories, but their rhetoric in the build up to elections has been enough for them to be seen as far more likely to 'defend' Britain from 'unwanted' refugees/ immigrants in coming years.
I think we have to 'win' the rest of the arguments before there's a chance of regaining trust with the wider population on immigration. Trying to be Tory-lite here would be* laughable:
*Was.
I find it suspicious that opposition to immigration is highest in the areas where it is least prevalent. But re-education/re-framing is addressing the concerns. A large number of people are opposed to the foreign aid budget, but Labour shouldn't try to appeal to those people by advocating scrapping it. It should point out that we have a moral duty to help those in need across the planet, and that it constitutes a fraction of our public spending.
Or on immigration you could combat concerns about wage-suppression by campaigning for a genuine living wage.
Zac Goldsmith gave a great example of where appealing to the concerns of voters can lead (despite losing comprehensively, they must have had private polling/focus groups that suggested an anti-Muslim sentiment was worth pursuing. I can't believe the Conservatives plucked that campaign from nowhere).
Well I'm assuming the focus groups from a bellwether seat are going to give a reasonable approximation of an average voter. That might be an unfair assumption, and obviously its a small sample size but it coheres with the electoral success of UKIP and the discussion of politics I have experienced first-hand and witnessed on Facebook.
I didn't say anything about being too stupid to vote for Corbyn. I said it was a problem for democracy as a whole that the average voter is so uninformed, and yes, stupid. Governments need to be held to account by the populace. These focus groups reveal a concerning (although not surprising) level of ignorance of politics. And to be fair to me, I'm not calling them stupid to their face nor suggesting that we should
. Plus I have previously admitted to being a shameless left-wing elitist And it's all very well saying we need to engage with voters, we need to explain things to them. But the excuses for being quite so ill-informed are wearing thin now everyone has a smartphone, everyone has access to internet. Education and social circumstances play a big part, but these focus groups do not consist of un-educated people.
Well possibly. I do find it astonishing that Labour hasn't managed to find a charismatic leader since Blair. As @Ubik said one of the big takeaways was how popular Blair remains despite "that war stuff". I voted for Corbyn because I broadly agree with him on policy, certainly more than the other leadership candidates, who were not only uninspiring leaders but weren't advocating platforms I believe in.
But I would happily replace Corbyn with a dynamic, exciting, fiery leader advocating similar policies but without the historic baggage.
It seems to me that another lesson that can be drawn from this focus group is that voters are preoccupied with appearance rather than substance. Labour should bear this in mind when choosing its next leader after three consecutive flops in this regard.
Also revealing: How dominant Facebook is as a media source
Labour should throw its money and attention in that direction. You can't overcome the editorial bias of the newspapers, Sky and even the BBC. You can dominate the narrative on Facebook if you are clever, creative and spend wisely.
Labour should throw its money and attention in that direction. You can't overcome the editorial bias of the newspapers, Sky and even the BBC. You can dominate the narrative on Facebook if you are clever, creative and spend wisely.
Seumas Milne is apparently raking in a six figure salary for it, too. Slagging the media off doesn't help.
Just been reading the male group, it makes far more depressing reading. Benefits are another very though thing for Labour at the moment - a lot of people saying they used to be the party of the working class (which was a good thing), but that now they're just looking out for those on benefits. This is harder for Labour to get to grips with than immigration, policy- and rhetoric-wise.
Should note, they also liked Blair
They also all seem to think that it was Gordon Brown that punched the random bloke, rather than Prescott Unless I'm forgetting something awesome.This this this. Tories outspent Labour massively on Facebook ads at the election, Labour focused on Twitter which is basically a leftwing echo chamber (and I say that as someone who devours Twitter and doesn't have a Facebook account).
Yeah that was a shocking. I have a similar respective usage of Twitter and Facebook, but Facebook is where the people you need to reach are spending their time.
Last edited:
For so long as Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party, immigration is going to be a damn tough nut to crack. He is closer to a policy of no borders than genuinely recognising the concerns of voters. If asked he would in all likelihood refute any suggestion that previous policy was flawed; moreover, he is one of few British politicians to endorse Merksl's approach to the migration crisis. Corbyn also supports Turkish membership of the EU (much like Cameron did until recently), in spite of its deteriorating record on human rights.
So as has been proposed, i would focus on the economy. Although even there you encounter problems, as costly renationalisations don't quite strike the note of a vibrant 21st Century marketplace. Put the emphasis on flexible hours/teleworking, new tech, and 'green jobs' where they can be part of a broader strategy. I'd hole off on further increases in the LW until we've seen how the existing rises are implemented by businesses.
Earlier, @Nuts asked me why i don't see him as trustworthy; this situation with Turkey is a perfect example. The man professes to care about human rights, yet all too often he find himself in these ideological knots that show such to be false. His towing the establishment line on the EU is another instance. Corbyn's word might be marginally more believable than Cameron's, but as for trusting his judgement as Prime Minister...not a chance.
My respects to those of you who've red the transcripts from Nuneaton btw. When my iPad said that it was 100+ pages long, i swerved clear.
So as has been proposed, i would focus on the economy. Although even there you encounter problems, as costly renationalisations don't quite strike the note of a vibrant 21st Century marketplace. Put the emphasis on flexible hours/teleworking, new tech, and 'green jobs' where they can be part of a broader strategy. I'd hole off on further increases in the LW until we've seen how the existing rises are implemented by businesses.
Earlier, @Nuts asked me why i don't see him as trustworthy; this situation with Turkey is a perfect example. The man professes to care about human rights, yet all too often he find himself in these ideological knots that show such to be false. His towing the establishment line on the EU is another instance. Corbyn's word might be marginally more believable than Cameron's, but as for trusting his judgement as Prime Minister...not a chance.
My respects to those of you who've red the transcripts from Nuneaton btw. When my iPad said that it was 100+ pages long, i swerved clear.
In this case though it is Corbyn the populist with unrealistic policies playing to extremists of the left and who cannot gain any support within the mainstream of his party.
There's probably less than 200 words a page. They're a pretty quick read.
Christ we aren't communists (Although I do look rather fetching in a beret).
Also one of the biggest problems facing Labour with the economy and voters is this line of thinking
Last edited:
To be fair the new shadow chancellor likes quoting Chairman Mao.
Corbyn is on the left wing of the Labour Party, I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Which of his policies or ideas do you think are extremist? I'm guessing foreign policy will be the big one, but what else? Personally, I'm not sure that extreme is the right word.
Those transcripts make me want to weep for humanity
Feck knows how you reach these people, it certainly isn't PMQ. There just isn't room for reasoned conversation, you're just going to have to shout positions loudly in simple terms and find someone presentable like Jarvis who is young but not 'proffesional politician' like Burnham. Let Corbyn actually oppose the conservative's now and provide them with an xfactor candidate a year before the election.
They do both go against Khan's cries for a big tent approach though. These people want a simple working class message with pro-public services. They don't want a tory/labour mash-up
The politics of ideology and not fact. You slate aspirational Conservative voters, but presumably admire Labour voters for continuing to back the party, despite their endless crushed dreams. The uneducated and unemployed in the regional ex-industrial towns keeping on voting red even though their lot never improves, as promised.
You also seemingly spread your socialist message of equality through hate-filled vective.
Their longing for a Tony Blair clone doesn't quite match up with this. And it was clear it wasn't just in image, either, they specifically mention thinking life at the time was good. Other people they specifically cite as liking when they hear them - Alan Johnson and Chuka Umunna.Those transcripts make me want to weep for humanity
Feck knows how you reach these people, it certainly isn't PMQ. There just isn't room for reasoned conversation, you're just going to have to shout positions loudly in simple terms and find someone presentable like Jarvis who is young but not 'proffesional politician' like Burnham. Let Corbyn actually oppose the conservative's now and provide them with an xfactor candidate a year before the election.
They do both go against Khan's cries for a big tent approach though. These people want a simple working class message with pro-public services. They don't want a tory/labour mash-up
I'd imagine part of that probably comes from him being there pre-recession, to be fair. I doubt they'd have been saying the same about him had he stayed on when Brown was in power.
^ I can see why they might like the image which Umunna presents, but Alan Johnson,m he's just an arrogant little toad.
And looking back, those probably did feel like good times. The Government was flush with money in the early years of the Labour's reign, and the economy more generally was in a boom period.
And looking back, those probably did feel like good times. The Government was flush with money in the early years of the Labour's reign, and the economy more generally was in a boom period.
What image does Umuna present?
Sure, that impacts heavily on Brown's (and Labour's) reputation and the responses show how good a job the Tories did in branding that as a pure Labour failure. Point being though, they liked what Blair's government did, which goes against the argument they want a solid leftist one. They also specifically mention that the next leader should own up to having been profligate when in power, which also has the implication that they expect a certain degree of restraint in spending plans. Of course, they also want solid public services. So what they basically want is someone that says they'll be prudent with the budget but reinvest in public services after Tory neglect. Where have I heard that before... Something to do with Brian Cox.
Guessing this is EU campaign related, Nick?
Ffs, you talk of my 'idealology' but then 'presume' to know what I think?
You're not really changing my opinion that your 'idealology' is based on nothing more than your bitterness and jealousy. Hopefully your man Corbyn will see the bursting of the pustulous outer edges of the left, which are arguably worse than their more extreme and far-flung counterparts on the right.
Did you ever vote Labour, Jip?
Yes. It was the first time I ever voted and I was 18- it was an MEP election thing back when I was still living with my folks in East Yorks.
Eloquent, media savvy, more of a smooth operator...that sort of thing.
Guessing this is EU campaign related, Nick?
It hasn't helped, no.
He was also a supporter of Labour's attempts to introduce ID Cards as i recall. Blimey, that was a shambolic piece of policy. Maybe there is something in the air at the Home Office?You don't have to be a 'leaver' to think Alan Johnson's an arrogant little toad, to be fair (with apologies to toads).Guessing this is EU campaign related, Nick?
Back in the dark days when I covered pensions around 2008, he was actually the most likable and credible guy in that field at the time. I find it hard to strongly dislike him. He seems far more decent than the wider morass in parliament.
Well, yeah...they liked what Blair's government did...at the time. But times change. I'm not naive enough to believe we're going to see a Labour majority under a leftist approach like Corbyn's (unless there's a shock), but I don't think the approach of Blairism is going to cut it either. Blair's era was a very different time, and one in which Labour could probably get away with much higher spending before a lot of the economic problems came. They need a new approach now, I think. Going back to what worked before isn't going to work, in the same way a Thatcherite Tory party wasn't what got the Tories back into power in 2010.