callan
Striker
No.I was referring to:- Revolt on the Right by Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin.
Though tbf the Fabian analysis was probably mentioned in that.I really can't remember.
The conclusions were / are pretty much the same.
No.I was referring to:- Revolt on the Right by Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin.
Though tbf the Fabian analysis was probably mentioned in that.I really can't remember.
The conclusions were / are pretty much the same.
You'll have to explain why losing half the number of votes to UKIP than the Tories did "was more damaging " to Labour.I don't seem to remember that from Ford and Goodwin's account.
Not really.It's not a Presidential election in the UK (yet).People usually put their party preference ahead of who the leader is.
Personally, I see it as damage being done by both UKIP and the SNP, one in terms of seats and the other votes.
I don't think that Labour necessarily need to move to the right as to do so would probably alienate as much support as it would gain.
What they cannot afford to do is to further distance themselves from the working classes outside of the larger metropolitan areas...whist this may appear to be a big ask...it certainly isn't impossible.
Probably not true. Given the tendency of things (in this case voters in the whole population) to fall into a normal distribution curve, any move to the centre will gain more votes than it loses.
I'm not so sure, if centre politics were the basis for attracting votes then the Lib dems should clean up every election.
From Labours perspective, how far towards the right do you want them to go?
One element was to do with switch voters, the other was to do with where Labour voters were defecting to UKIP (disproportionate in Labours case) , which in places like Yorkshire cost Labour seats despite the fact that UKIP didn't win them....the flip side is of course that UKIP did lose a seat to the conservatives.
Lib Dems are an irrelevance. I don't really care where Labour goes: I won't vote for them whilst they pander to anti-semites.
Not anymore. The last GE is proof of that.
sounds like we have reached agreement - Brown, Blair, Cameron and May have armed the murderous Saudis but Corbyn wouldn't
Just going to slip this one in here:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/voting-intention-labour-voting-intention-lowest-le/
Little out of date, but not ancient
Not really.It's not a Presidential election in the UK (yet).People usually put their party preference ahead of who the leader is.
I don't think there's any question that he would have to resign (I'd imagine he'd want to anyway) if labour lose the next G/E.
The Tories have a tiny majority and Labour lost the GE largely due to the rise of the SNP
actually leadership ratings are a large determinate of overall outcome. Miliband was miles behind Cameron and that was reflected in the outcome of the general election. Which is fair enough. Each party puts forward an individual that the buck stops with, that they think/pretend has the character and temperament to lead a country. If that person is a nutter, Corbyn for example, then that indicates that the whole party membership is warped in its view of the world. Which is fair enough looking at Labour
interestingly, he and his supporters seem to have started to notice that winning actually matters in politics. 12 months ago they weren't interested in winning, now they are. I can only hope there is enough of a party left after Corbyn has finished with it to try to recover.
Corbyn is not a nutter.Just an old fashioned leftie.
if only that was true eh? even if we had won every single seat in Scotland we'd still be what, 50 odd seats behind the Tories?
It's a nice way of blaming everyone else for our failings, but actually voters all across the UK didn't trust us, and I can't say I blamed them. Ed Miliband, really? As Prime Minister. Ed Miliband. Think about that. Whatever your own political beliefs, and I voted for Ed Miliband for the leadership (I was young and naive), he objectively wasn't up to it and lots of people realised that
he's both, and clearly a poor politician and unsuited to being Prime Minister of this country.
That's your opinion.A lot of people (including me) respect his integrity.
Personally, I'd also agree with Len McCluskey that JC is a "genuine, decent man fighting for a fairer Britain"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38487571