Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[typerkid]

Is Corbyn the man to win back the crucial centre ground back from the Tories in the next election?

That's the only question that needs answering.

As whether he's popular with rank and file Labour voters and the Unions isn't the issue, it's whether he's viewed as being electable by the swing voters that Labour will need to win back in order to form a Govt.

No he ain't...Labour will be wiped out in the next few years the way it's going.
At the next scheduled election in 2020 there will be 4 choices...
Tories,UKIP,Corby and his gang,and a sackful of squabbling rats....guess who is going to win...

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Is Corbyn the man to win back the crucial centre ground back from the Tories in the next election?

While the in-fighting amongst the tories won't go away for the rest of the term; added to the election expense rigging, and then the renegotiations from brexit and the headaches that'll bring, more & more people will be put off by them.

They'll want an alternative, and a tory-lite labour party won't give them that.

In essence, it's just gone back to to May 7th 2015...

 

[Tubey]

While the in-fighting amongst the tories won't go away for the rest of the term; added to the election expense rigging, and then the renegotiations from brexit and the headaches that'll bring, more & more people will be put off by them.

They'll want an alternative, and a tory-lite labour party won't give them that.

In essence, it's just gone back to to May 7th 2015...

It doesn't matter how much of an alternative Corbyn is, as long as he advocates stupid things like getting rid of Trident, there's hundreds of thousands - potentially millions - of people who will just flat out refuse to vote for him, as it's a red line.

I'm one of them. It's student union debate club politics, not serious politics, and that's why he was doomed from the start.

 

[Tubey]

The context of the discussion on Corbyn should be seen through a very particular prism. From moment 1 the top of the Labour Party has hated him and everything he represents (ie mass popularity amongst ordinary people). The media too have also taken a dislike to him and have presented information on him in a particularly distorted and bordering on unethical way.

When you independently look at the evidence the narrative that is being presented just doesn't stack. The argument that essentially working class people are racist, working class people hate Corbyn and Labour are fading into obscurity needs to be challenged.

There is a poll today showing Labour have for the first time since Corbyn took over moved into a lead over the Tories. There vote is such that they would be the largest party in a hung Parliament. It is 1 Poll, but all polls have shown an increasing closing the gap since he took over in September. They trailed the tories by 7 points at the election and that gap had grown as wide as 10+ point by the time he took office. The closing of the gap to zero has been a remarkable achievement full stop but it is even more startling when you consider the majority of his MP's have not supported him.

Some people will not like polling data. That's fair enough. Lets look at the elections data. He has had 2 separate Parliamentary elections (1 which UKIP boasted they would win much in the same way they are boasting now they will win seats in the North). Suffice to say UKIP got trounced and Labour substantially increased it's majority in a seat North of Manchester. Likewise in tooting, Ukip's vote was halved the tories vote shrunk and Labour's vote increased. This pattern is being borne out across local council elections which is seeing a decline in UKIP votes and more people voting Labour.

In spite of what the media tell you, Labour won last months council elections with a 6-7 point swing. They also received their highest vote share in the Mayoral election.

There are many conclusions to be drawn from these. I don't blame UKIP talking a good game and they will be buoyant after the referenda, however it is the job of the media and especially Labour MP's to reflect information in a fair and objective manner. Labour has problems, particularly in it's heartlands where years of being ignored by the Blairite project has led to a feeling of marginalisation. ON jobs, wages, access to the NHS and yes immigrants (a factor but by no means the central or only factor as it's made out to be by the media) are a reflection of this. All of these issues predate Corbyn and to try and make out Corbyn has caused them seems laughable to me.

What should also be said is Labour has seen in every mechanism we have available (polling, local council results mayoral elections, national elections and Parliamentary elections) a remarkable turnaround since September 2015 when he took charge. The fact his position is even being considered is astonishing.

However it comes back to my original point, this has nothing to do with his performance and everything to do with Labour MP's teaching it's membership a lesson. If we put it into context, we have a membership of 400,000 ordinary people who have made a decision having that decision undermined by 100 or so millionaires who exist in the top 1% of society. Is this really going to help them reconnect to ordinary people? It is undemocratic and it is elitist. Don't believe any other media outlet (funnily enough owned by the same 1% who mingle with MP's) tell you otherwise.

I think UKIP and the Conservatives are scared of Corbyn. Scared of facing a leader who connects with numbers of people they could only dream of. They are definitely heightening this to get rid of him so they can have another lame duck technocrat to face. The tragedy is the 100 or so MP's will do their bidding for them. In all honesty I think they would rather the Tories won than allow someone like Corbyn to win.

There have been many disgraceful episodes from politicians over the years. However the attempt by MP's to engineer a coup against Corbyn ranks as one of the very worst bits of treachery I remember. They are basically telling people like most of us on this board we have no right to decide what sort of leader we like and if we choose someone they disagree with they will veto it.

You are missing a key fact about those polls. They are asking people who they prefer theoretically, and the answer right now will be to kick the Tories because they're infinitely more relevant.

In an actual election, people would not vote for Corbyn, because there's a thousand reasons not to.

 

[Mrk]

You are missing a key fact about those polls. They are asking people who they prefer theoretically, and the answer right now will be to kick the Tories because they're infinitely more relevant.

In an actual election, people would not vote for Corbyn, because there's a thousand reasons not to.

Exactly. Mid-term polls (as we saw during Ed Miliband's leadership and his 15% lead) mean nothing.

 

[orchard]

Exactly. Mid-term polls (as we saw during Ed Miliband's leadership and his 15% lead) mean nothing.

Obviously, they mean something. Just because Miliband failed to capitalise on that advantage may have been caused by several factors.

 

[catcherintherye]

Is Corbyn the man to win back the crucial centre ground back from the Tories in the next election?

That's the only question that needs answering.

As whether he's popular with rank and file Labour voters and the Unions isn't the issue, it's whether he's viewed as being electable by the swing voters that Labour will need to win back in order to form a Govt.

The answer to the question is likely to be no. However the fact that this is the key question posed shows how out of touch the Blairite wing of the party are (or in essence the privileged MP's).

The reality is Labour has lost it's base in Scotland and it's roots are withered across the North of England. It has actually done ok in the south compared to where it once was. This withering has been caused by ignoring the concerns of those people and continuing to search for the mythical "centre ground". A continuation of this policy will only continue to isolate them from their heartlands.

As a final aside the "winning the centre ground" politics was based around a two party model and heavily influenced by American politics (even more two party than our own system). The concept of a "centre ground" between two parties no longer exists. There was a ling period where only 3 parties had seats in mainland Britain. That is now up to 7 parties. In an election where you have UKIP, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP & Plaid alongside Labour and Tories the idea Labour should frame a leadership contender purely on who can win the centre ground from the Conservatives is inherently flawed.

Frankly outside of a handful of seats every seat is now a "swing seat". There is absolutely no evidence to date whatsoever that supports the notion that Labour would win more swing seats by replacing him. I accept 400,000 is not the electorate but it is a lot more representative than 100 MP's! We should also give that figure some context it is not just "rank and file Labour voters" but an electorate size that is bigger than every other political party put together and probably 4 times the size of the Tories.

 

[catcherintherye]

Exactly. Mid-term polls (as we saw during Ed Miliband's leadership and his 15% lead) mean nothing.

The reality is Miliband never had a 15% lead in the polls, his lead generally got up to 12%. It is also noted that polling companies exaggerated his lead by 6-7% with polling errors they have something rectified, so Corbyns 1% lead would look something like a 7-8% for Miliband (or Milibands real lead was probably as high as around 5% at peak).

We could view that there is an inevitability to a mid term lead puncturing. I am not so sure though. There are a lot of qualitative factors. The government Corbyn faces is far more unstable than the one Miliband faced. Miliband also go an easy ride of the press to begin with and when they turned on him he never recovered. Corbyn has faced a similar assault from the press yet his polling scores keep rising. He seems more resilient than Miliband was to press attack.

 

[catcherintherye]

You are missing a key fact about those polls. They are asking people who they prefer theoretically, and the answer right now will be to kick the Tories because they're infinitely more relevant.

In an actual election, people would not vote for Corbyn, because there's a thousand reasons not to.

I have to say I have no got any of that information from the polls whatsoever. They ask who people would vote for. I have yet to see a single question that asks why they will vote that way, never mind the answer from any number of people that the relevance of the Tories is a central factor in any number of people's decision to vote Labour.

That may be your opinion but it is not shown out on any polling information. You are entitled to your opinion however I would prefer to stick to the facts of the case.

As for not voting for Corbyn in elections, well ever election we have had so far has seen Labour's vote share rise sharply since him taking over as leader. There is not a single shred of evidence to say that at elections (local, Parliamentary or Mayoral) that people won't vote for Corbyn. Quite the opposite, polling has shown his support is underestimated if anything.

People don't like Corbyn and that's fair enough. What I can't be doing is the quasi science that's being thrown around to justify it and make out that the statistical evidence doesn't exist. We are seeing a tiny number of millionaires overthrowing a leader elected by hundreds of thousands of ordinary people because they can't hack it that ordinary people may have different views to their own. If people want to get on board with that then that's fine, but lets not try to distort what this is all about.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

It doesn't matter how much of an alternative Corbyn is, as long as he advocates stupid things like getting rid of Trident, there's hundreds of thousands - potentially millions - of people who will just flat out refuse to vote for him, as it's a red line.

I'm one of them. It's student union debate club politics, not serious politics, and that's why he was doomed from the start.

I don't disagree.

There's no anti-austerity alternative coming from anyone other than Corbyn, though. The tory-lite faction (And now the SNP, I'd predict) will blame brexit for keeping it.

 

[Tubey]

I have to say I have no got any of that information from the polls whatsoever. They ask who people would vote for. I have yet to see a single question that asks why they will vote that way, never mind the answer from any number of people that the relevance of the Tories is a central factor in any number of people's decision to vote Labour.

That may be your opinion but it is not shown out on any polling information. You are entitled to your opinion however I would prefer to stick to the facts of the case.

As for not voting for Corbyn in elections, well ever election we have had so far has seen Labour's vote share rise sharply since him taking over as leader. There is not a single shred of evidence to say that at elections (local, Parliamentary or Mayoral) that people won't vote for Corbyn. Quite the opposite, polling has shown his support is underestimated if anything.

People don't like Corbyn and that's fair enough. What I can't be doing is the quasi science that's being thrown around to justify it and make out that the statistical evidence doesn't exist. We are seeing a tiny number of millionaires overthrowing a leader elected by hundreds of thousands of ordinary people because they can't hack it that ordinary people may have different views to their own. If people want to get on board with that then that's fine, but lets not try to distort what this is all about.

Except it is. Here's a Survation poll from the other day.

Should Jeremy Corbyn be leader of the Labour Party?

Labour Party voters in 2015: Yes (37%), No (53%), Undecided (11%)
All Voters: Yes (26%), No (55%), Undecided (18%)

So in short, the numbers you referred to are people voting for Labour at the expense of the Tories, not Corbyn.

 

[catcherintherye]

Except it is. Here's a Survation poll from the other day.

Should Jeremy Corbyn be leader of the Labour Party?

Labour Party voters in 2015: Yes (37%), No (53%), Undecided (11%)
All Voters: Yes (26%), No (55%), Undecided (18%)

So in short, the numbers you referred to are people voting for Labour at the expense of the Tories, not Corbyn.

That's an interesting poll. A 53 V 37 poll is quite telling. I would love to see what it stands at for other leaders of other parties. That is some evidence I grant you, but probably a sample size of maybe 1k. I think I will trust the sample size of 350,000 that was conducted less than a year ago that actually voted in an election didn't just give an answer to someone on a phone.

 

[Mrk]

Obviously, they mean something. Just because Miliband failed to capitalise on that advantage may have been caused by several factors.

There's some (extremely nerdy) but well researched analysis of polls which pretty much suggests that mid-term polls are not worth the paper they're written on because people, (even those ideologically close to a government), will side with the opposition in polls, just to make a point.

Ed Miliband never had a 15% lead in the country, he was just the beneficiary of dissatisfaction with the government - if a GE was called immediately after that poll, you can bet everything you have on the result being markedly different.

 

[orchard]

Okay. However it's simply sociological speculation beyond the given data.

There's some (extremely nerdy) but well researched analysis of polls which pretty much suggests that mid-term polls are not worth the paper they're written on because people, (even those ideologically close to a government), will side with the opposition in polls, just to make a point.

Ed Miliband never had a 15% lead in the country, he was just the beneficiary of dissatisfaction with the government - if a GE was called immediately after that poll, you can bet everything you have on the result being markedly different.

 

[neil999]

anglea eagle gone, potential new leader? been good when standing in for pmqs