Don't vote Tory

[Spindles]

As ever, entertaining summation of current affairs from Mr J Pie.

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, DeanoL said:

One way to have avoided that was not to make out that was utterly unelectable and in any general election would see an inevitable Tory landslide. Which you were clearly wrong about.

Woah! The vote's not happened yet. Plenty of predictions for landslides are still out there.

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

He's done far, far better than you ever thought possible.

True, but the point is to win. Anything else is failure (particularly if seats are not gained).

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

I accept it's my vote and my responsibility that Corbyn is running for election right now.

A responsibility you've not faced up to. Before last May you said you'd desert him if he failed to improve on Miliband.

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

And my vote will be to replace him if there's anything less than a hung Parliament (and still even then most likely). But if that narrative you suggest is picked up, it'll also be the responsibility of people like you, who set the bar so damn low for him that failure starts to look like victory. 

Nope, that would be YOUR narrative of looking to excuse failure. My narrative was *only* that it would be failure, because Corbyn holds too many marginal views.

This is the thing that needs addressing, and not free-passing.

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

I worry whoever replaces him will have to go through their two years of press drubbings and leadership challenges regardless of which side of the party they come from

only if 'the party' (really: the members) are happy to be losers.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yes. They're also taking the word of old people about whether they'll vote as true too. And of middle-aged people. And of gay people. And of black people. They're taking everyone at their work about how likely they are to vote.

Yep. That word proves almost-true for older people.  Historically at least, it doesn't for youngsters.

It might, perhaps, be (number plucked from the air) 20% better this time .... which would still make yougov's take hugely wrong.

15 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But it didn't used to matter because (for example) 80% of old people who said they'd vote would and 80% of young people who said they'd vote would too.

Not true.

It's more 65% of those youngsters who say they'll vote, in recent history. So about 40%-ish of the total possible turnout.

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

So if there is a fundamental difference in youth voting intentions this campaign, they'll have missed it.

I agree - which is why i've said the real result is likely to fall between the two extremes of yougov and whichever is the best for the tories.

What is just about certain is that some of what they're including in their polling won't happen, because the claims of voting will be greater than the actual voting.

[Mr.Tease]

34 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I read some comment somewhere about that MoS poll - and which said it had been mis-used to scare Mail readership into voting tory. Not sure if that's true or not, but might be.

But even the yougov one at 4% is claiming a huge range of possible outcomes (with the main one that's displayed the middle number) - which only really shows how little they trust their own constituency polling. If it was half decent they wouldn't have such a big range in possible outcomes.

The MoS pollster suddenly switched from telephone sampling to very unreliable online sampling for that 1pt poll, which always favours left wing voters. According to the percentages, if put into numbers,  19 million people watched question time according to the sample they used! 

[Babylon sister]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

in another thread on these forums, there's some indy supporters suggesting the SNP should threaten to support the tories if Corbyn doesn't give the SNP their wanted indyref.

I've pointed out that the SNP supporting the tories won't do the SNP any favours, as well as pointing out that would be Corbyn becoming PM on the basis of the SNP unmaking him PM as soon as they've won that ref .... which would be stupidity of the highest order by Corbyn to agree.

(Corbyn may or may not allow that ref, but the SNP are in no place to make threats about it without destroying themselves)

that made me chuckle  

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

The current YouGov seat projection has for the first time suggested a hung Parliament where the Tories couldn't form a working majority - they have them on 305 seats.

I don't believe it at all but it's extraordinary to see a reputable polling company invest so much into something which looks so far off. Still, we could be proven wrong...

I can't see how the seats are likely to fall with their numbers, given what they're predicting for an increased vote in metropolitan areas.

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Woah! The vote's not happened yet. Plenty of predictions for landslides are still out there.

There's landslides and landslides though. The talk pre-GE was that we'd have the biggest Tory majority ever if Corbyn was in opposition. 

Quote

 

A responsibility you've not faced up to. Before last May you said you'd desert him if he failed to improve on Miliband.

 

I said in May he'd need to go if he didn't make gains in the local elections. He didn't gain any councils but awkwardly didn't lose any either and did better than Cameron. Even then I'd have been tempted to go against him in a straightforward leadership vote, but the way the PLP tried to twist the rules against him and oust him in any way other than a straight up vote wound me up the wrong way. That was an emotive decision yes. And one I kicked myself for when May called the election. And then suddenly Corbyn seemed to wake up and start doing things.

Quote

Nope, that would be YOUR narrative of looking to excuse failure. My narrative was *only* that it would be failure, because Corbyn holds too many marginal views.

I'm not excusing failure, simply pointing out that if Corbyn hangs on after this election, regardless of how I vote in any leadership election, it'll be down to those who set the bar so low for him that he's able to pass off a loss as a win. And you might not buy that, but you're not a party member or associate so your voice won't be heard.

Quote

only if 'the party' (really: the members) are happy to be losers.

They elect a Corbynite, he gets the same crap Corbyn got for a good few years. They elect someone on the right and they see membership tank, donations dry up and all that support from younger voters they had start to evaporate. Corbyn has done *something*. We don't yet know how much or what that's worth but he has bought voters to Labour. Likely not Tory voters, but new voters and traditional non-voters. That's a hard path as you literally need twice as many as stealing votes off the opposition. But if a Blairite takes over, they'll start with losing all that progress. Right in the bin. And then they can get to work on offering that Tory-lite alternative for 2022. Which could well work. But in the immediate aftermath of Corbyn you're going to have Labour doing worse in the polls than it has ever. (And likely a surge for the Greens).

Reckon there is someone that could lead the party and manage to retain the newbies while also winning Tory votes next election? I don't know. And weirdly my head says Corbyn as a figurehead for a more centrist shadow cabinet might actually be the best thing for the party - completely dispassionately from my own views.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

There's landslides and landslides though. The talk pre-GE was that we'd have the biggest Tory majority ever if Corbyn was in opposition. 

It wasn't a fantasy. It's what all of the polling said. According to you it was such a certainty of being right that May called an election because of it.

Or are polls only worth mentioning when they say what you want them to?

 

Quote

That was an emotive decision yes. And one I kicked myself for when May called the election. And then suddenly Corbyn seemed to wake up and start doing things.

Now, just think if he'd actually cared about saving us from brexit.

He claimed then that he didn't do half-hearted. We all know now that he does and that he lied and that he sold us out.

 

Quote

I'm not excusing failure, simply pointing out that if Corbyn hangs on after this election, regardless of how I vote in any leadership election, it'll be down to those who set the bar so low for him that he's able to pass off a loss as a win.

Bullshit. Even before the polls had improved 'his people' were letting it be known he wasn't going to be shifted before September in any circumstances.

 

Quote

And you might not buy that, but you're not a party member or associate so your voice won't be heard.

If I wanted to join a mono-thought-sect i'd join the SNP.

 

Quote

They elect a Corbynite, he gets the same crap Corbyn got for a good few years.

That depends by what you mean by Corbynite.

West-hating defender of despots & terrorists who offers the impossible as a platform? You'll probably be right.

 

Quote

They elect someone on the right and they see membership tank, donations dry up and all that support from younger voters they had start to evaporate.

Yep. Because to some people me-me-me is a bigger thing than social responsibility.

It's a shame to make the worst off suffer unnecessarily.

 

Quote

Corbyn has done *something*. We don't yet know how much or what that's worth but he has bought voters to Labour.

Nope. He's merely collected some voters who had to pick someone else - unless you're claiming that Corbyn destroyed UKIP in which case you're calling him a liar who sold out the country for his own personal gain.

It's that gap between labour and the tories that counts towards victory, nothing else. 

 

Quote

Likely not Tory voters, but new voters and traditional non-voters.

I've seen no evidence of that at all.

Just kippers looking for a new home. Some were always going to pick Labour.

 

Quote

But in the immediate aftermath of Corbyn you're going to have Labour doing worse in the polls than it has ever.

That can be for one reason only: that he's failed.

A personality cult is not support for social justice.

 

Quote

I don't know. And weirdly my head says Corbyn as a figurehead for a more centrist shadow cabinet might actually be the best thing for the party - completely dispassionately from my own views.

Nope. As that marginal figure the same thing will always apply: the people who are needed for victory can't support Labour.

Edited June 5, 2017 by eFestivals

[DeanoL]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's more 65% of those youngsters who say they'll vote, in recent history. So about 40%-ish of the total possible turnout.

Right, but when we're talking "recent history" we are talking two or three data points as we don't have these votes that often. So the question is does more youngsters lying about their intent to vote in 2010, 2015 and 2016 (when they didn't prior to that) represent a trend or were there unique circumstances that caused it in each case?

To which I say: I dunno.

It looks like there might be a trend but statistically three data points is very little. And one of them wasn't even a general election. And this year isn't really a normal general election. On balance I'd say YouGov are more likely to have it wrong and that there is a trend, but we're talking 70/30 maybe.

But the point is this isn't necessarily a sliding scale. YouGov are assuming no trend, they're assuming that the past couple of votes were aberrations caused by specific circumstances. If they are right, their polling could well be spot on* and everyone else could have it wrong. 

The other pollsters are assuming their is a trend, and it's just how much that trend will continue or recede that will cause variances. But there is still the option that there is no trend at all. You throw three sixes in a row on a die there's a chance it's weighted but there's a chance it was just dumb luck.

*(Of course, this assumes their being right about all their other assumptions, which while in line with the other polling companies, might also still be flawed)

[eFestivals]

Just now, DeanoL said:

Right, but when we're talking "recent history" we are talking two or three data points as we don't have these votes that often. So the question is does more youngsters lying about their intent to vote in 2010, 2015 and 2016 (when they didn't prior to that) represent a trend or were there unique circumstances that caused it in each case?

To which I say: I dunno.

It'd say it's the result of facebook. There's quite a few new trends I've noticed, even here, that's I've taken to be the result of that. My take is that people feel a greater need to go along with their bubble, just because it's their bubble - but don't then necessarily follow thru.

One factor in this election I'm wondering about is students, as a June election is unusual. Does that mean more or less will vote? One version says that most are registered at 'home' and more will be at home and so more will vote, tho i've no idea if that's really true. But if it is, it gives youngsters greater scope to tell porkies as they can tell their mates they voted but their mates won't know if they have really.

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It looks like there might be a trend but statistically three data points is very little. And one of them wasn't even a general election. And this year isn't really a normal general election. On balance I'd say YouGov are more likely to have it wrong and that there is a trend, but we're talking 70/30 maybe.

But the point is this isn't necessarily a sliding scale. YouGov are assuming no trend, they're assuming that the past couple of votes were aberrations caused by specific circumstances. If they are right, their polling could well be spot on* and everyone else could have it wrong. 

The other pollsters are assuming their is a trend, and it's just how much that trend will continue or recede that will cause variances. But there is still the option that there is no trend at all. You throw three sixes in a row on a die there's a chance it's weighted but there's a chance it was just dumb luck.

*(Of course, this assumes their being right about all their other assumptions, which while in line with the other polling companies, might also still be flawed)

My take is that yougov won't be hugely out with vote share but they will be with seats.

I reckon the vote share for Labour will be worse than whatever their final prediction is, tho - by 2% or more.

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It wasn't a fantasy. It's what all of the polling said. According to you it was such a certainty of being right that May called an election because of it.

Or are polls only worth mentioning when they say what you want them to?

They get more accurate the closer you to a vote, as a general rule! My point being the polls pre-GE predicted the sorts of results that would be a fairytale for the Tories right now? Are you really arguing that those polls might still be right and everything since the election was called is wrong?

Quote

 

Now, just think if he'd actually cared about saving us from brexit.

He claimed then that he didn't do half-hearted. We all know that he does and that he lied and that he sold us out.

 

Yeah that'd been nice. It's almost like he's not perfect.

Quote

Bullshit. Even before the polls had improved 'his people' were letting it be known he wasn't going to be shifted before September in any circumstances.

To get though the McDonnell amendment that they wanted. Not because they want him to stay on as leader. If there were any chance of another general election between June and September they probably wouldn't! As it is it's just a couple of months and won't make a big difference to the successor. 

Quote

I've seen no evidence of that at all.

The voter registrations stats.

Quote

Nope. As that marginal figure the same thing will always apply: the people who are needed for victory can't support Labour.

Perhaps. But having done well in this election campaign I'd suggest that maybe Corbyn is less marginal than most of the options for replacing him. Anyone that's going to accomplish anything worthwhile will get demonised in the press the same way Corbyn was.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

One factor in this election I'm wondering about is students, as a June election is unusual. Does that mean more or less will vote? One version says that most are registered at 'home' and more will be at home and so more will vote, tho i've no idea if that's really true. But if it is, it gives youngsters greater scope to tell porkies as they can tell their mates they voted but their mates won't know if they have really.

The other interesting thing of course is that most universities are in big cities which tend to lean more towards Labour. Having those votes instead spread across the whole country could be more or less effective. I don't even know how accurate the "registered to vote at home" thing is - I never was, I voted in my uni town, but that was ten years ago. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, DeanoL said:

They get more accurate the closer you to a vote, as a general rule! My point being the polls pre-GE predicted the sorts of results that would be a fairytale for the Tories right now? Are you really arguing that those polls might still be right and everything since the election was called is wrong?

Those starting polls tho, they were so good for the tories that few thought the tories would win by as much.

May will be happy enough with a 40+ seat majority, as there's only about 30 headbangers. The point of the election is for her to marginalise those headbangers (she tried to blame Labour as the unreasonable opposition to brexit, but how could they be when she had a majority?).

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

To get though the McDonnell amendment that they wanted. Not because they want him to stay on as leader. If there were any chance of another general election between June and September they probably wouldn't! As it is it's just a couple of months and won't make a big difference to the successor. 

Yes. It's about personal positions of power, and not what is good for the party. It's about them believing they have a right to power forever because they won the leadership this time. It's about entrenching everything that caused labour to lose (if they do).

Things that are only able to happen by giving Jezza and co a free pass, as so many are. Hold him to account somewhen, FFS.

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The voter registrations stats.

they only tells you that people who were not registered for this vote have registered, not what their voting history is.

With the new reg system the tories rolled out the number of new reg's for each vote is likely to increase for several decades (until it hits the averages for across lifetimes), via a combination of different factors (including how some places are working the new system in a different way to others).

13 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Perhaps. But having done well in this election campaign I'd suggest that maybe Corbyn is less marginal than most of the options for replacing him. Anyone that's going to accomplish anything worthwhile will get demonised in the press the same way Corbyn was.

he's been less affected by those things than older heads expected, just because stuff like the IRA means little to youngsters, and he's probably on the right side of history with his view about nukes too.

There's an awful lot of free passing gone on, and lots of things like false versions of his IRA involvement going around too.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The other interesting thing of course is that most universities are in big cities which tend to lean more towards Labour. Having those votes instead spread across the whole country could be more or less effective. I don't even know how accurate the "registered to vote at home" thing is - I never was, I voted in my uni town, but that was ten years ago. 

not sure where my kid is registered, but he's home this week and the wrong choice might have cost him his opportunity to vote - so it's on my mind that there'll be plenty in a similar position.

[DeanoL]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yes. It's about personal positions of power, and not what is good for the party. It's about them believing they have a right to power forever because they won the leadership this time. It's about entrenching everything that caused labour to lose (if they do).

Things that are only able to happen by giving Jezza and co a free pass, as so many are. Hold him to account somewhen, FFS.

Sure. But the McDonnell amendment aside, Corbyn going in June or September makes little difference to the party. Leaving earlier might be marginally better but a couple of months won't make a break the new guy.

So it really does come down to the McDonnell amendment, but like it or not, that was going to be passed until this election happened. May calling an election, Corbyn losing and then resigning seems as arbitrary as anything else. 

Whether it's good for the party or not is something I imagine we disagree on but "you have to hold Corbyn to account for the loss (which just so happens means we get our way on the amendment) is just as arbitrary as him staying to get it passed.

[Trout Mask Replica]

Huge crowds in Gateshead for Jeremy Corbyn tonight, I've been a labour supporter for years and even accepting this is a firm Labour seat, I've never seen the like. 

What also struck me was how many young people were there alongside old lefties like me. These people weren't there in 2010 or 2015. Something has definitely changed and if I'm honest I'm a bit bemused but entirely heartened by it. I thought the crowd on the hill at the Sage tonight was big but then I saw it had spilled into the adjoining car parks. John Prescott tweeting it wasn't even like this in 1997. These people waited hours in the pouring rain for the so called 'unelectable' man to speak. My Mrs who always votes but tends to leave me to my Labour Party and TU events wanted to be there.

Another shock came yesterday when we had the Mother in Law round for lunch. She's in her 70s, reads the Daily Mail and always votes Tory because that's what you do isn't it. I normally avoid talking politics with her, she's so set in her ways, and then randomly over lunch she announces she is voting Labour because she thinks the Tories will treat the old people badly and as a retired nurse she doesn't trust them with the NHS. I nearly spat out my roast potatoes I was so surprised. 

Here is a short video I took which shows about a third of the crowd there this evening. 

Lets take a moment here to consider that something might just be happening and it could even be good. Let's get behind it, it won't be worse than the alternative. 

[august1]

Vote Greg Knight  

 

[babyblade41]

Can someone who supports Labour without question  tell me how the hell Diane Abbott is allowed out without supervision let alone be an MP??

I thought she was banned from media interviews ? 

 

If JC has any sense she should go straight away and not wait on the election going his way .

 

Sorry off now but could not ask the fully fledged what her qualities are 

[Trout Mask Replica]

5 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

Can someone who supports Labour without question  tell me how the hell Diane Abbott is allowed out without supervision let alone be an MP??

I thought she was banned from media interviews ? 

 

If JC has any sense she should go straight away and not wait on the election going his way .

 

Sorry off now but could not ask the fully fledged what her qualities are 

Because for all her flaws, which to Daily Mail readers seem to be that she is black, overweight and a socialist, she has a strong sense of social justice and is an advocate for equality. 

She doesn't answer to corporate paymasters and unlike the Tories doesn't view Britain as just an asset to be liquidated to shore up a quarterly return. 

[Scott129]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

not sure where my kid is registered, but he's home this week and the wrong choice might have cost him his opportunity to vote - so it's on my mind that there'll be plenty in a similar position.

You can register at both your home and university address if you're a student, but only vote at one

Edited June 6, 2017 by Scott129

[Mr.Tease]

10 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

Can someone who supports Labour without question  tell me how the hell Diane Abbott is allowed out without supervision let alone be an MP??

I thought she was banned from media interviews ? 

 

If JC has any sense she should go straight away and not wait on the election going his way .

 

Sorry off now but could not ask the fully fledged what her qualities are 

Why pick her out? Do you think Boris Johnson is much better? (genuine question)

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

You can register at both your home and university address if you're a student, but only vote at one

whether people did is another thing.

And if they have, it means the number of last-minute registrations might be over-stating the number of votes attached to those.

[babyblade41]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

Why pick her out? Do you think Boris Johnson is much better? (genuine question)

Boris Johnson is an idiot but it wasn't what I asked, even labour must see if you have to keep her on she is doing nothing to help the cause doing media interviews . I thought she was persuaded not to do anymore ?

[babyblade41]

4 minutes ago, Trout Mask Replica said:

Because for all her flaws, which to Daily Mail readers seem to be that she is black, overweight and a socialist, she has a strong sense of social justice and is an advocate for equality. 

She doesn't answer to corporate paymasters and unlike the Tories doesn't view Britain as just an asset to be liquidated to shore up a quarterly return. 

Looks like she can't answer anyone... if she was in the tory party labour would be ripping her to shreds .. That's not me picking on her just because but her interviews have been disastrous... at least anyone can see that surely ?

[Scott129]

Just now, eFestivals said:

whether people did is another thing.

And if they have, it means the number of last-minute registrations might be over-stating the number of votes attached to those.

Yeah thats a fair point. I would imagine that the proportion of students voting is higher than the proportion of young people voting as a whole (although I have no stats to back that up)