So he is not a runaway leader with the public as far as that poll goes.
And more details of that poll here:
A new popular poll by market research company Research Now suggests that, if they were able to vote in the Labour leadership elections, the majority of the general population would vote for Andy Burnham as the next Labour party leader, regardless of their political affiliation. This indicates that Andy Burnham may be the best candidate for the Labour Party in future general elections.
In a nationally representative sample, of those interested in the Labour leadership election 30% would vote for Andy Burnham, a clear favourite. 24% of the public would vote for Jeremy Corbyn, level with Yvette Cooper (24%) and Liz Kendall (21%) bringing up the rear.
Among people who voted Labour in the last election, (but who are not necessarily registered to vote in the Labour leadership election) Andy Burnham is still the clear favourite with 36% favouring the candidate, with Jeremy Corbyn at 28% while Yvette Cooper (20%) and Liz Kendall (16%) trail significantly. However, among Liberal Democrat voters, the female candidates are favourites with Yvette Cooper in the lead.
OK, I do see where you're coming from here. You don't believe any of them can win, so you may as well plump for the one you are closest to politically.
There's logic there, and you could find yourself surprised come 2020, but I'd suggest that there's little chance of that unless the Tories really do, or are perceived to, make a cataclysmic cock-up.
What frustrates me is that I do see people in the Labour ranks who I could 100% see winning a 2020 election even from the current starting point, people like Chukka, like Tristram Hunt, but they're not even on the leadership ballot.
Regards,
Cypher
To be honest I do not see Labour winning unless there is another screw-up with the economy.
The last two regime changes were 1997 and 2010 and that was more the case of incumbents being thrown out by the public than the other party winning.
The Tories won this year because our economy has been improving and people weren't prepared to take a risk on Miliband. If the economy is still strong then they will plump for the Tories again no matter who in charge of Labour.
Are these the same pollsters who continually predicted a hung Parliament?
I do not believe a word they tell us.
Presumably "the same pollsters" who are predicting a Corbyn lead by a mile.
Still, dismiss that which is unpalatable if people wish, but maybe there isn't a groundswell of support for Corbyn amongst the people who really matter - the voters.
Presumably "the same pollsters" who are predicting a Corbyn lead by a mile.
Still, dismiss that which is unpalatable if people wish, but maybe there isn't a groundswell of support for Corbyn amongst the people who really matter - the voters.
The Unions are for him and so are many constituencies but that is not proof that all individual Labour voters and affiliated members will vote for him. I think that Burnham might edge it. I don't think that any of the four candidates is up to much as leader.
OK, I do see where you're coming from here. You don't believe any of them can win, so you may as well plump for the one you are closest to politically.
There's logic there, and you could find yourself surprised come 2020, but I'd suggest that there's little chance of that unless the Tories really do, or are perceived to, make a cataclysmic cock-up.
What frustrates me is that I do see people in the Labour ranks who I could 100% see winning a 2020 election even from the current starting point, people like Chukka, like Tristram Hunt, but they're not even on the leadership ballot.
Regards,
Cypher
Maybe they should just join the Tory Party and have done with it.
Polls showing he is already 3 times more popular than Miliband ever was really should be setting alarm bells off for the Tories but they remain oblivious to it!
The fact that Corbyn is more left wing than Ed Milly is one thing against him, but strongly in his favour is his presence. Milliband was always seen as a snivelling robot of a schoolboy. Corbyn has none of Milliband's painfully obvious personality failings, and well out-scores Osborne in the Real Person stakes. Whether or not he could use this to offset his wackier ideas in the eyes of the public remains to be seen.
I would agree people are hungry for change and over half the population didn't vote because they weren't motivated by what was on offer. Its crucial to remember this. If those people are motivated and move towards Corbyn it could prove very interesting. As that user said, a full mainstream Left wing party hasn't been tested in England since the 80s. By the 90s (and before Blair) Labour were moving more and more to the centre. If England follow Scotland's lead then everyone saying Corbyn is a joke might be in for a huge shock. Strugeon is more Left than Corbyn and she was polling higher approval ratings in England during the election than Cameron was... what does that tell us?
Tories need to remember they only got that 12 seat majority (with a decrease in Tory votes no less) because the Lib Dem vote collapsed in Tory marginals. Mainly because the Lib Dems took the blame for five years of government at the expense of the Tories so who do the Tories have to shield them next time?
The non voting prolitarian hordes fantasy, I am afraid, is just another outbreak of the , failed, we were right, but the people didn't vote for us because they were misguided, or wanted more from us theory. Its the cry of the silly students on the barricades in Les Miserables - as they wait for Paris to rise and support them . Its followed by them being mowned down by overwhelming reality - in cannon form - as the people of Paris stay in bed, and listen to the cannon fire.
Sturgeon is not more left than Corbyn - she's a nationalist who knows she has to keep her natural Tory and Liberal voters, and keep the economy running, as well as wave some socilaist rhetoric at the more gullible ex Labour ones. She also knows she won't have to run the UK, and can say what she wants- with no prospect of having to do it, and she doesn't want to run an independent Scotland- till she can get the figures to add up. Corbyn is pure 1970s marxist dogmatist - with added layers of naivety and unreality.
The reality is that the non voting figures have been about the same for 50 years, and include as many, if not more, people who would vote UKIP or Conservative, if they were rounded up and made to vote. Adding 40% to the turn out in Labour's remaining seats has absolutely no effect at all. Part of the problem is that Labour activists live in a world of closed dark satanic mills, with a foodbank on every corner, and dream how successful the Winter of Discontent might have been, or think Russell Brand is the new Marx. . Here, with 2 marginals - that Blair took - and another university town seat , things are thriving, there's far more horseboxes on the roads than homeless in he streets, the Conservatives took all three seats, and Labour lost voters to UKIP - because it was too leftwing, or untrusted, on defence, spending, benefits and immigration. Thats the reality nationwide - where most people on zero hours contracts say they like them, more students turn up regardless of fees, unilateralism is a minority belief, and the polls show there's 80% support for both the benefits cap, and the restriction of child credits to two children. The majority, in those cases, actually agrees with Cameron - its not sitting there fulminating at the budget, and waiting for Keir Hardy to return and allow people to carry on claiming.
The fact that Corbyn is more left wing than Ed Milly is one thing against him, but strongly in his favour is his presence. Milliband was always seen as a snivelling robot of a schoolboy. Corbyn has none of Milliband's painfully obvious personality failings, and well out-scores Osborne in the Real Person stakes. Whether or not he could use this to offset his wackier ideas in the eyes of the public remains to be seen.
Really hope that corbyn becomes leader. Then the real debate will begin on which direction this country goes. If you want a divided society then vote conservatives. If you better services . More investment in education health and infrastructure then labour under corbyn is the party to vote for
The non voting prolitarian hordes fantasy, I am afraid, is just another outbreak of the , failed, we were right, but the people didn't vote for us because they were misguided, or wanted more from us theory. Its the cry of the silly students on the barricades in Les Miserables - as they wait for Paris to rise and support them . Its followed by them being mowned down by overwhelming reality - in cannon form - as the people of Paris stay in bed, and listen to the cannon fire.
Sturgeon is not more left than Corbyn - she's a nationalist who knows she has to keep her natural Tory and Liberal voters, and keep the economy running, as well as wave some socilaist rhetoric at the more gullible ex Labour ones. She also knows she won't have to run the UK, and can say what she wants- with no prospect of having to do it, and she doesn't want to run an independent Scotland- till she can get the figures to add up. Corbyn is pure 1970s marxist dogmatist - with added layers of naivety and unreality.
The reality is that the non voting figures have been about the same for 50 years, and include as many, if not more, people who would vote UKIP or Conservative, if they were rounded up and made to vote. Adding 40% to the turn out in Labour's remaining seats has absolutely no effect at all. Part of the problem is that Labour activists live in a world of closed dark satanic mills, with a foodbank on every corner, and dream how successful the Winter of Discontent might have been, or think Russell Brand is the new Marx. . Here, with 2 marginals - that Blair took - and another university town seat , things are thriving, there's far more horseboxes on the roads than homeless in he streets, the Conservatives took all three seats, and Labour lost voters to UKIP - because it was too leftwing, or untrusted, on defence, spending, benefits and immigration. Thats the reality nationwide - where most people on zero hours contracts say they like them, more students turn up regardless of fees, unilateralism is a minority belief, and the polls show there's 80% support for both the benefits cap, and the restriction of child credits to two children. The majority, in those cases, actually agrees with Cameron - its not sitting there fulminating at the budget, and waiting for Keir Hardy to return and allow people to carry on claiming.
You've outdone yourself old chap! Pure comedy gold!
Love the "non voting prolitarian (sic) hordes" bit in particular! Are you one of them?
Withdraw from EU
Scrap Trident
Withdraw from NATO
United Ireland (presumably he supports Welsh and Scottish independence so he just wants to be PM of England)
Massive tax rises
Renationalisation of energy companies
Rent controls
Abolition of the Monarchy (though he's gone quiet on this)
Really hope that corbyn becomes leader. Then the real debate will begin on which direction this country goes. If you want a divided society then vote conservatives. If you better services . More investment in education health and infrastructure then labour under corbyn is the party to vote for
Really hope that corbyn becomes leader. Then the real debate will begin on which direction this country goes. If you want a divided society then vote conservatives. If you better services . More investment in education health and infrastructure then labour under corbyn is the party to vote for
Where is the money coming from the pay for this "investment"? He has said that he wants to run a budget surplus.
Withdraw from EU
Scrap Trident
Withdraw from NATO
United Ireland (presumably he supports Welsh and Scottish independence so he just wants to be PM of England)
Massive tax rises
Renationalisation of energy companies
Rent controls
Abolition of the Monarchy (though he's gone quiet on this)
Rent controls are so wacky that countries like the US and Germany - those communist hellholes - have them in place.
Who are these polls actually asking? Do they have access to Labour Party membership lists?
If they are asking the general public then I'm sure 90% of the country have never heard of him and don't have a vote in the leadership election.
From the link that I posted, I will repeat this section
In a nationally representative sample, of those interested in the Labour leadership election 30% would vote for Andy Burnham, a clear favourite. 24% of the public would vote for Jeremy Corbyn, level with Yvette Cooper (24%) and Liz Kendall (21%) bringing up the rear.
Rent controls are so wacky that countries like the US and Germany - those communist hellholes - have them in place.
Rent Controls in the US aren't as widespread as many people think and areas which do still have it are scrapping the rules as it discourages investment, distorts the market and restricts choice
Fair enough - but as a political anorak, I have an interest in the election but I don't have a vote and I'm certainly not representative of party members.
The reality is that the non voting figures have been about the same for 50 years.
Those not voting have gone from 23% of the electorate in 1964 to 33.9% in 2015. The difference between today's 33.9% not voting and 1964's 23% not voting is 10.9%. 10.9% of the electorate is approximately 4,647,051 voters enough to massively swing a general election.
The non voting prolitarian hordes fantasy, I am afraid, is just another outbreak of the , failed, we were right, but the people didn't vote for us because they were misguided, or wanted more from us theory. Its the cry of the silly students on the barricades in Les Miserables - as they wait for Paris to rise and support them . Its followed by them being mowned down by overwhelming reality - in cannon form - as the people of Paris stay in bed, and listen to the cannon fire.
Sturgeon is not more left than Corbyn - she's a nationalist who knows she has to keep her natural Tory and Liberal voters, and keep the economy running, as well as wave some socilaist rhetoric at the more gullible ex Labour ones. She also knows she won't have to run the UK, and can say what she wants- with no prospect of having to do it, and she doesn't want to run an independent Scotland- till she can get the figures to add up. Corbyn is pure 1970s marxist dogmatist - with added layers of naivety and unreality.
The reality is that the non voting figures have been about the same for 50 years, and include as many, if not more, people who would vote UKIP or Conservative, if they were rounded up and made to vote. Adding 40% to the turn out in Labour's remaining seats has absolutely no effect at all. Part of the problem is that Labour activists live in a world of closed dark satanic mills, with a foodbank on every corner, and dream how successful the Winter of Discontent might have been, or think Russell Brand is the new Marx. . Here, with 2 marginals - that Blair took - and another university town seat , things are thriving, there's far more horseboxes on the roads than homeless in he streets, the Conservatives took all three seats, and Labour lost voters to UKIP - because it was too leftwing, or untrusted, on defence, spending, benefits and immigration. Thats the reality nationwide - where most people on zero hours contracts say they like them, more students turn up regardless of fees, unilateralism is a minority belief, and the polls show there's 80% support for both the benefits cap, and the restriction of child credits to two children. The majority, in those cases, actually agrees with Cameron - its not sitting there fulminating at the budget, and waiting for Keir Hardy to return and allow people to carry on claiming.
Apathy in the UK? A look at the attitudes of non-voters
Voter apathy and low election turnout are well reported as being serious problems in British politics. These issues are not only important for the health of our democracy, but are also a key consideration in which electoral strategies political parties should adopt. Should they focus on mobilising their core vote and risk alienating undecideds and non-voters, or should they try and win over new supporters, even if this is at the expense of neglecting their base? Whichever strategy they adopt, political parties would do well to try and better understand the large segment of the British population who do not vote and are not engaged with the political process.
Recent research by Survation on behalf of Lodestone Communications took a detailed look at the attitudes of non-voters on a wide range of issues (non-voters are defined as those who did not vote in the 2010 election; this figure includes those who were too young or otherwise ineligible to vote in 2010). The findings provide valuable insights into the demographic profile of this group, their outlook on life, the issues they care about and their perspectives on power and politics. Moreover, the survey contains much that will be of interest for anyone trying to understand why people don’t vote, how to persuade them to vote, and the implications for future elections.
What would you say were your main reasons for not voting in the last election?
OTHER, 27%
Don't believe my vote will make any difference 27%
Of course that will include some who believe they are in a 'safe seat' although it's never once stopped me from voting.
Parties/candidates are all the same, 25%
I can fully understand that sentiment as it's one I have a great deal of sympathy with.
OF COURSE no one is saying, as far as I've seen, that all or even most of these people would vote for a left of centre party, I think that giving them an actual real choice so that they might not feel that "they are all the same" is something which could only be good for democracy.
Not interested in politics, 19%
again these are almost the same category as the "makes no difference" and the "they are all the same" group, perhaps if politics became more interesting?
I won't list all of the results as the ones l have listed are the ones most often talked about.
What happened in Scotland showed that given a clear and obvious choice between parties no matter what the issues be, clearly DOES get the public more motivated and interested in politics,
I honestly don't care if Corbyn causes non voting right wingers to come out in their droves, "swarms"? to vote against a Labour party with him as it's leader, or he causes the lefties who have felt marginalised with only the Tories or Tory lite to chose from for decades,
As long as it gives people a clear and real choice and causes them to engage with the democratic process then I am all for it, and as a supporter of democracy if it means the Tories win the next election then that's democracy,
I have never voted for a political party in my entire life where "can they win the election" was ever a deciding, or even a major factor in my choice, it has always been "do I like the sound of what these guys say, more than what any of the others say?"
The thing is, when George W Bush was campaigning to be the republican presidential candidate in 2000, I wanted him to win because he was regarded as a joke and I thought it would ensure a win for the democrats. I was wrong.
I see a lot of similar sentiments from some Tory supporters on here and it makes me smile a little.
To be fair, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, it was the stupid voting system the US use for Presidential elections that cost America from getting who could of been one of America's greatest Presidents for arguably America's worst President!
But I do agree with your point. Corbyn may be currently controversial in his views but I don't think he's going to give the Tories a landslide win as many on here predict, I actually think he as leader will win Labour more seats than Burnham would.
Fair enough - but as a political anorak, I have an interest in the election but I don't have a vote and I'm certainly not representative of party members.
The survey (and my subsequent post) was not aimed at, or about party members/supporters who have a vote. It was about the general public (and what they thought). A useful indicator as to how a Corbyn-led labour Party might be seen where it matters - in the country rather than within an increasingly inward-looking Labour Party.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33745731
So he is not a runaway leader with the public as far as that poll goes.
And more details of that poll here:
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/new-research-now-poll-suggests-the-uk-would-vote-for-andy-burnham-in-the-labour-leadership-elections-520289081.html
So even amongst Labour voters he is not the favoured candidate.
To be honest I do not see Labour winning unless there is another screw-up with the economy.
The last two regime changes were 1997 and 2010 and that was more the case of incumbents being thrown out by the public than the other party winning.
The Tories won this year because our economy has been improving and people weren't prepared to take a risk on Miliband. If the economy is still strong then they will plump for the Tories again no matter who in charge of Labour.
Are these the same pollsters who continually predicted a hung Parliament?
I do not believe a word they tell us.
Still, dismiss that which is unpalatable if people wish, but maybe there isn't a groundswell of support for Corbyn amongst the people who really matter - the voters.
The Unions are for him and so are many constituencies but that is not proof that all individual Labour voters and affiliated members will vote for him. I think that Burnham might edge it. I don't think that any of the four candidates is up to much as leader.
Maybe they should just join the Tory Party and have done with it.
The fact that Corbyn is more left wing than Ed Milly is one thing against him, but strongly in his favour is his presence. Milliband was always seen as a snivelling robot of a schoolboy. Corbyn has none of Milliband's painfully obvious personality failings, and well out-scores Osborne in the Real Person stakes. Whether or not he could use this to offset his wackier ideas in the eyes of the public remains to be seen.
The non voting prolitarian hordes fantasy, I am afraid, is just another outbreak of the , failed, we were right, but the people didn't vote for us because they were misguided, or wanted more from us theory. Its the cry of the silly students on the barricades in Les Miserables - as they wait for Paris to rise and support them . Its followed by them being mowned down by overwhelming reality - in cannon form - as the people of Paris stay in bed, and listen to the cannon fire.
Sturgeon is not more left than Corbyn - she's a nationalist who knows she has to keep her natural Tory and Liberal voters, and keep the economy running, as well as wave some socilaist rhetoric at the more gullible ex Labour ones. She also knows she won't have to run the UK, and can say what she wants- with no prospect of having to do it, and she doesn't want to run an independent Scotland- till she can get the figures to add up. Corbyn is pure 1970s marxist dogmatist - with added layers of naivety and unreality.
The reality is that the non voting figures have been about the same for 50 years, and include as many, if not more, people who would vote UKIP or Conservative, if they were rounded up and made to vote. Adding 40% to the turn out in Labour's remaining seats has absolutely no effect at all. Part of the problem is that Labour activists live in a world of closed dark satanic mills, with a foodbank on every corner, and dream how successful the Winter of Discontent might have been, or think Russell Brand is the new Marx. . Here, with 2 marginals - that Blair took - and another university town seat , things are thriving, there's far more horseboxes on the roads than homeless in he streets, the Conservatives took all three seats, and Labour lost voters to UKIP - because it was too leftwing, or untrusted, on defence, spending, benefits and immigration. Thats the reality nationwide - where most people on zero hours contracts say they like them, more students turn up regardless of fees, unilateralism is a minority belief, and the polls show there's 80% support for both the benefits cap, and the restriction of child credits to two children. The majority, in those cases, actually agrees with Cameron - its not sitting there fulminating at the budget, and waiting for Keir Hardy to return and allow people to carry on claiming.
Who are these polls actually asking? Do they have access to Labour Party membership lists?
If they are asking the general public then I'm sure 90% of the country have never heard of him and don't have a vote in the leadership election.
What wacky ideas are these?
You've outdone yourself old chap! Pure comedy gold!
Love the "non voting prolitarian (sic) hordes" bit in particular! Are you one of them?
Withdraw from EU
Scrap Trident
Withdraw from NATO
United Ireland (presumably he supports Welsh and Scottish independence so he just wants to be PM of England)
Massive tax rises
Renationalisation of energy companies
Rent controls
Abolition of the Monarchy (though he's gone quiet on this)
I want what we can afford.
Where is the money coming from the pay for this "investment"? He has said that he wants to run a budget surplus.
I'll go with LostFool's list, sans EU.
Dropping the nuclear deterrent is obviously idiotic. What are we supposed to so, ask nicely?
Rent controls are so wacky that countries like the US and Germany - those communist hellholes - have them in place.
From the link that I posted, I will repeat this section
So presumably they would have heard of Corbyn..
Rent Controls in the US aren't as widespread as many people think and areas which do still have it are scrapping the rules as it discourages investment, distorts the market and restricts choice
And they dont work that well there either. Never mind perhaps it will be different here.
Fair enough - but as a political anorak, I have an interest in the election but I don't have a vote and I'm certainly not representative of party members.
Some cracking stereotypes in there.
meanwhile,
http://survation.com/apathy-in-the-uk-understanding-the-attitudes-of-non-voters/
Of course that will include some who believe they are in a 'safe seat' although it's never once stopped me from voting. I can fully understand that sentiment as it's one I have a great deal of sympathy with.
OF COURSE no one is saying, as far as I've seen, that all or even most of these people would vote for a left of centre party, I think that giving them an actual real choice so that they might not feel that "they are all the same" is something which could only be good for democracy. again these are almost the same category as the "makes no difference" and the "they are all the same" group, perhaps if politics became more interesting?
I won't list all of the results as the ones l have listed are the ones most often talked about.
What happened in Scotland showed that given a clear and obvious choice between parties no matter what the issues be, clearly DOES get the public more motivated and interested in politics,
I honestly don't care if Corbyn causes non voting right wingers to come out in their droves, "swarms"? to vote against a Labour party with him as it's leader, or he causes the lefties who have felt marginalised with only the Tories or Tory lite to chose from for decades,
As long as it gives people a clear and real choice and causes them to engage with the democratic process then I am all for it, and as a supporter of democracy if it means the Tories win the next election then that's democracy,
I have never voted for a political party in my entire life where "can they win the election" was ever a deciding, or even a major factor in my choice, it has always been "do I like the sound of what these guys say, more than what any of the others say?"
To be fair, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, it was the stupid voting system the US use for Presidential elections that cost America from getting who could of been one of America's greatest Presidents for arguably America's worst President!
But I do agree with your point. Corbyn may be currently controversial in his views but I don't think he's going to give the Tories a landslide win as many on here predict, I actually think he as leader will win Labour more seats than Burnham would.
The survey (and my subsequent post) was not aimed at, or about party members/supporters who have a vote. It was about the general public (and what they thought). A useful indicator as to how a Corbyn-led labour Party might be seen where it matters - in the country rather than within an increasingly inward-looking Labour Party.