The only thing the Tories will be taking seriously is how much champagne to order ready for May 2020. They have to appear to take JC seriously because they're going to paint him as a risk. But they won't be seriously considering him a threat to their chances.
And it's not just Tories who feel that way either. Alastair Campbell was in Burnley yesterday and he says he didn't meet one person who felt positive about the leadership. Now sure some may say "Ah well he would say that wouldn't he" but one thing I've learnt about Alastair over the years.. he hates the Tories.. and he is 100% Labour. But he's also aware of what is required to win elections. And he doesn't think Labour will win one under JC. Nor did he meet anyone else who does. That's a problem. Especially in a Labour heart land area such as Burnley.
Given the large scale immigration from non-EU nations whose nationals in five years may have become UK citizens. And the EU in out referendum that might cause lots of immigrant EU nationals residing in the UK under the EU freedom of movement treaty to become UK citizens just in case. Could that not have an effect on the composition of the electorate in 2020? In five years time immigrants who gain UK citizenship may have the option of voting for a candidate who is seen as pro Immigrants.
According to the ONS 1 in 13 people normally resident in the UK do not have British nationality, that is about 5 million people. That would mean they probably can not currently vote in UK general elections. But come 2020 many maybe able to.
Also there are about 2.7 million Muslims residing in England and Wales according to the census. They are disproportionately younger, poorer and less likely to vote than the general population. I do not know what their turnout was in 2015, it was reported to have been 47% in 2010. But in five years time they will be older, and may have a candidate who is seen as pro Muslims.
We don't know that Cameron's replacement is Electable until we understand (after the Polling Enquiry reports it's findings) the reason for the last minute swing to the Tories.
Oh No! I have done it again. I am making judgements about the possible findings of the enquiry. I probably should not do that, even though Survation have already done that.
I thought we did know the reason for the last minute swing?
I assumed it was the last minute SNP scaremongering smear, about how Labour would most likely form a coalition with the SNP and then have to give in and do anything and everything the SNP wanted, and what a monumental disaster that would be because it would return Britain to the Dark Ages.
You know, just as the Conservatives had given in and done anything and everything that the Lib Dems wanted during their coalition.
Assuming nothing really changes in terms of who votes and who doesn't vote, then I would probably agree that Corbyn wouldn't win a general election.
However, if he can engage with the millions of people who don't currently vote, it may be that they will turn out in far larger numbers at the next election and swing it - who knows.
Still, the Tories haven't wasted any time in sending out character assassination by email, portraying Corbyn as a commie terrorist sympathiser. Never mind that they have taken selective quotes out of context and completely misrepresented his views. That's just par for the course.
I think I speak for many Labour supporters when I say I'd rather lose a GE with Jeremy Corbyn than win one with David Miliband.
I know exactly what you mean. There seems a lot to admire about Corbyn, but all things being equal (which they may not be), I can't see him winning a GE.
But at least he seems to cut through the crap that has become so much of politics in recent years.
Mind you, out of Ed Miliband, David Miliband, and Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps the real shame is that David didn't win the last leadership election - it seemed pretty obvious to me that he would have been the better leader, and only lost out because if in party politics at the time.
I thought we did know the reason for the last minute swing?
I assumed it was the last minute SNP scaremongering smear, about how Labour would most likely form a coalition with the SNP and then have to give in and do anything and everything the SNP wanted, and what a monumental disaster that would be because it would return Britain to the Dark Ages.
Sounds reasonable to me.
In fact....it sounds like the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes would have reached after considering the actual chain of events.
But the Tories, and their supporters, dont like this explanation, and don't want to consider the possibility that every single poll was correct, because the idea that Cameron's pre written resignation speech suddenly turned into a small majority on the back of panic and media scaremongering is terrifying to them.
Sounds reasonable to me.
In fact....it sounds like the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes would have reached after considering the actual chain of events.
But the Tories, and their supporters, dont like this explanation, and don't want to consider the possibility that every single poll was correct, because the idea that Camerons's pre written resignation speech suddenly turned into a small majority on the back of panic and media scaremongering is terrifying to them.
But they love panic and scaremongering - they have already sent out an email to party supporters, where they have taken comments made by Corbyn completely out of context in order to misrepresent his actual views, and make him sound like a scary Communist terrorist sympathiser.
People consistently talk about the present government as though they'd had a Blair-style landslide. They only have to lose 6 seats at the next GE to lose their overall majority. That's nothing. They are unlikely to have a leader as good at PR as Cameron, especially as their choice seems to be between the smug one, the sinister one and the buffoon.
Even at this early stage, I'm predicting another hung parliament and I reckon the smaller parties will be more willing to do a deal with Labour than with the Tories.
I agree, negative campaigning maybe the norm on here and in the media, but it has the opposite effect. I look forward to how the 'shy one' manages his new role.
I think I speak for many Labour supporters when I say I'd rather lose a GE with Jeremy Corbyn than win one with David Miliband.
So you'd rather be out of power than in power? Aren't Labour representing people? Surely the best way to represent people is by winning elections and having the power to make changes?
The only thing the Tories will be taking seriously is how much champagne to order ready for May 2020. They have to appear to take JC seriously because they're going to paint him as a risk. But they won't be seriously considering him a threat to their chances.
Only a fool under estimates their opponent. Expect a concerted breakdown of the policies that Corbyn has articulated. How printing money will stoke inflation and hit the pockets of ordinary people savings and pensions of ordinary people.
Only a fool under estimates their opponent. Expect a concerted breakdown of the policies that Corbyn has articulated. How printing money will stoke inflation and hit the pockets of ordinary people savings and pensions of ordinary people.
My favourite is he is against Fraccing but pro underground mining. If only the Unions would get on board with Fraccing, we would have a labour leader wanting it too.
So you'd rather be out of power than in power? Aren't Labour representing people? Surely the best way to represent people is by winning elections and having the power to make changes?
UKIP, Greens, Lib Dems all represent people. Their supporters support them in the full knowledge they'll never win an election. Are those people misguided?
Your argument forgets the principles on which we vote for any single political party.
Sounds reasonable to me.
In fact....it sounds like the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes would have reached after considering the actual chain of events. But the Tories, and their supporters, dont like this explanation, and don't want to consider the possibility that every single poll was correct, because the idea that Cameron's pre written resignation speech suddenly turned into a small majority on the back of panic and media scaremongering is terrifying to them.
Probably because it's wrong - Labours own internal polling months before the election showed they were going to lose. ;-)
Lets see what happens in 2020. We still have to go through the worst of the cuts to services.
If we vote to leave the eu. Those cuts could end up being significantly offset. Less people means less demand. Plus our fee for membership would be a huge cut in public spending.
That's interesting.
And what did hundreds of seperate and independent polls say from January to April?
So a long history of underestimating the Tory vote by polling companies is simply ignored as we have to believe that, in your words, 'that every single poll was correct'
So a long history of underestimating the Tory vote by polling companies is simply ignored as we have to believe that, in your words, 'that every single poll was correct'
No. I said that you don't want to consider that possibility.
Specsavers?
One Polling company have decided not to wait for the 2016 results of the main enquiry by the Polling companies and have issued their own report. They say that the most important factor in the outcome of the 2015 GE - by a long way - was late swing.
So that's what Survation say,
What was your name again?
Comments
And it's not just Tories who feel that way either. Alastair Campbell was in Burnley yesterday and he says he didn't meet one person who felt positive about the leadership. Now sure some may say "Ah well he would say that wouldn't he" but one thing I've learnt about Alastair over the years.. he hates the Tories.. and he is 100% Labour. But he's also aware of what is required to win elections. And he doesn't think Labour will win one under JC. Nor did he meet anyone else who does. That's a problem. Especially in a Labour heart land area such as Burnley.
According to the ONS 1 in 13 people normally resident in the UK do not have British nationality, that is about 5 million people. That would mean they probably can not currently vote in UK general elections. But come 2020 many maybe able to.
Also there are about 2.7 million Muslims residing in England and Wales according to the census. They are disproportionately younger, poorer and less likely to vote than the general population. I do not know what their turnout was in 2015, it was reported to have been 47% in 2010. But in five years time they will be older, and may have a candidate who is seen as pro Muslims.
I thought we did know the reason for the last minute swing?
I assumed it was the last minute SNP scaremongering smear, about how Labour would most likely form a coalition with the SNP and then have to give in and do anything and everything the SNP wanted, and what a monumental disaster that would be because it would return Britain to the Dark Ages.
You know, just as the Conservatives had given in and done anything and everything that the Lib Dems wanted during their coalition.
Assuming nothing really changes in terms of who votes and who doesn't vote, then I would probably agree that Corbyn wouldn't win a general election.
However, if he can engage with the millions of people who don't currently vote, it may be that they will turn out in far larger numbers at the next election and swing it - who knows.
Still, the Tories haven't wasted any time in sending out character assassination by email, portraying Corbyn as a commie terrorist sympathiser. Never mind that they have taken selective quotes out of context and completely misrepresented his views. That's just par for the course.
Well you may get your wish pity the Labour party is now the party of losers always wanted to be a winner myself.
Still if you have low expectations you won't be disappointed.
I know exactly what you mean. There seems a lot to admire about Corbyn, but all things being equal (which they may not be), I can't see him winning a GE.
But at least he seems to cut through the crap that has become so much of politics in recent years.
Mind you, out of Ed Miliband, David Miliband, and Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps the real shame is that David didn't win the last leadership election - it seemed pretty obvious to me that he would have been the better leader, and only lost out because if in party politics at the time.
Sounds reasonable to me.
In fact....it sounds like the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes would have reached after considering the actual chain of events.
But the Tories, and their supporters, dont like this explanation, and don't want to consider the possibility that every single poll was correct, because the idea that Cameron's pre written resignation speech suddenly turned into a small majority on the back of panic and media scaremongering is terrifying to them.
But they love panic and scaremongering - they have already sent out an email to party supporters, where they have taken comments made by Corbyn completely out of context in order to misrepresent his actual views, and make him sound like a scary Communist terrorist sympathiser.
Panic and scaremongering.
I agree, negative campaigning maybe the norm on here and in the media, but it has the opposite effect. I look forward to how the 'shy one' manages his new role.
So you'd rather be out of power than in power? Aren't Labour representing people? Surely the best way to represent people is by winning elections and having the power to make changes?
Only a fool under estimates their opponent. Expect a concerted breakdown of the policies that Corbyn has articulated. How printing money will stoke inflation and hit the pockets of ordinary people savings and pensions of ordinary people.
My favourite is he is against Fraccing but pro underground mining. If only the Unions would get on board with Fraccing, we would have a labour leader wanting it too.
UKIP, Greens, Lib Dems all represent people. Their supporters support them in the full knowledge they'll never win an election. Are those people misguided?
Your argument forgets the principles on which we vote for any single political party.
Probably because it's wrong - Labours own internal polling months before the election showed they were going to lose. ;-)
That's interesting.
And what did hundreds of seperate and independent polls say from January to April?
He's got no chance. His own party will have the knives out for him.
Only within his own party. If he's still leader come polling day, the Labour party will have another painful collision with reality.
If we vote to leave the eu. Those cuts could end up being significantly offset. Less people means less demand. Plus our fee for membership would be a huge cut in public spending.
So a long history of underestimating the Tory vote by polling companies is simply ignored as we have to believe that, in your words, 'that every single poll was correct'
Nah..
Guess what - the electorates are different.
William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard were all elected by their party but were unelectable by the country.
No. I said that you don't want to consider that possibility.
Specsavers?
One Polling company have decided not to wait for the 2016 results of the main enquiry by the Polling companies and have issued their own report. They say that the most important factor in the outcome of the 2015 GE - by a long way - was late swing.
So that's what Survation say,
What was your name again?