|
||||||||
Len McCluskey - Awful polling could derail Corbyn |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,224
|
We'll have local elections in May which will be very interesting. Labour did much better than expected last year, not well I grant you, but better which was why the PLP had to manufacture something around Brexit to try and oust him and they'd have looked silly after the May Elections.
I do think if he does exceptionally poorly in may (and everything is pointing to that) then surely he'll have to go? Very nice guy, some great ideas, but not the right package to present them imo and the press are just non-responsive. It's difficult to see who could step forward though, there's very little talent in Labour atm. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
The Fabian society has also expressed doubts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343 Are they part of the right wing media conspiracy as well? |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
|
Quote:
The Fabian society has also expressed doubts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343 Are they part of the right wing media conspiracy as well? http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content...ysis-paper.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
|
Quote:
It makes a very interesting read
http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content...ysis-paper.pdf It said Labour's 2015 "wipe-out" in Scotland - where it now has just one MP - meant it would win fewer than 200 seats based on current opinion polls. And the total could be as low as 140 MPs because it traditionally does worse than its mid-term polling suggests, it added. But even in this scenario, Labour would remain by far the largest opposition party, the report said, adding: "The party does not face oblivion and will be able to rebuild." |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
He listed the source "YouGov" I'm sure people are capable of checking the results themselves? Polls obviously won't be a fully accurate conclusion of current voting intention (especially in recent times) but its pretty wishful thinking to think that a 15% tory lead in the polls will be badly enough wrong to give Labour any chance whatsoever of winning a majority government under a Corbyn leadership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
|
Quote:
Well under the Tories constitutional boundary reform plans, Labour would need a 20% lead just to form the slimmest majority. Labour's 2001 landslide would be a hung parliament in 2020.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: My DJ Studio
Posts: 27,072
|
But can we really believe that is the question?
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Leafy London
Posts: 20,370
|
Quote:
The Fabian society has also expressed doubts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38490343 Are they part of the right wing media conspiracy as well? It would take the Corbyn supporters to re-join planet earth and realise how futile their position before any real threat to the Tories will arise. |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
|
Quote:
Well under the Tories constitutional boundary reform plans, Labour would need a 20% lead just to form the slimmest majority. Labour's 2001 landslide would be a hung parliament in 2020.
Quote:
proposed boundary changes are a distraction, given Labour’s other problems
The Labour Party has expended a huge amount of energy opposing the proposed boundary changes, and there is still a chance they will not be implemented because they are being resisted by Tory backbenchers too. However, compared to the party’s other electoral challenges, the proposed changes are a sideshow. The new boundaries are mainly unpopular with politicians because they reduce the overall number of MPs from 650 to 600. This is significant for Labour, as it could potentially deprive the party of strong parliamentarians upon whom it will depend in future to rebuild. But the reforms will not significantly weaken Labour’s voting strength in the shrunken House of Commons – certainly when compared to all the other threats the party faces. This becomes clear when you examine the differences between the current and proposed constituencies in three contexts: (a) ‘Replaying’ the 2015 election: Electoral analysts have estimated how the parties would have performed if the 2015 election had been contested on the proposed new boundaries. Three estimates put Labour on between 200 and 205 out of 600 seats. This is bad news for Labour as its actual result (232 out of 650 seats) is equivalent to 214 MPs in a house of 600. But the loss of around 10-15 MPs as a result of the boundary changes is nothing compared to the potential election losses the party faces on the existing boundaries, even if it sinks no lower than its current polling. (b) Winning a majority: The winning line is not really further away from Labour with the proposed new constituencies. At present the party need to gain 94 seats out of 650 to win a majority of one; under the proposed boundaries it will need to gain 98 out of 600 (using the projections of www.ukpollingreport.co.uk). But by a quirk of the re-districting process the electoral swing required for Labour to win a majority would be lower under the new boundaries than the old: Current boundaries: Labour’s 94th target seat (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) requires an 8.7 per cent swing to overturn a majority of almost 10,000. Proposed boundaries: Labour’s 98th target (the proposed seat of Shipley) requires an 8.3 per cent swing to overturn a notional majority of around 9,250 (c) Scenarios for the next election: Electoral models also indicate that the proposed boundary changes would have limited impact on the outcome of an election taking place today (either if the vote share replicated current polling; or if Labour did considerably worse than that). For example, the model used by www.electoralcalculus.co.uk produces the following results: Votes cast reflect current polling: Labour suffers a 4 seat penalty as a result of the boundary changes (winning 29.8 per cent of MPs with current boundaries; 29.2 per cent with proposed boundaries) Labour meltdown/Tory surge: Labour suffers a 5 seat penalty as a result of boundary changes (21.5 per cent of MPs with current boundaries; 20.7 per cent with proposed boundaries) Labour can be considered to have escaped relatively unscathed from the current boundary proposals (which will be revised following consultation). In a tight election the fairly small overall effects of the proposed changes would harm Labour at the margin; but as things stand the party is likely to lose many more seats for other reasons. If there is any prospect of Labour’s support growing in coming years, the party would be wrong to favour an early election on the old boundaries over a later election on new ones. The boundary review should only be a minor consideration when thinking about Labour’s preferred timing for the next election. |
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,839
|
Anyone remember how before 2015 that we had research article after article telling us how Labour have a natural advantage in the electoral system, that the Tories weren't polling high enough in the marginals and that it was basically impossible for them to win a majority?
I'm not saying that we ignore these studies, but bear in mind that things change quickly in politics and that getting too worried about an election in 3.5 years is not a productive use of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,696
|
Quote:
I'm not saying that we ignore these studies, but bear in mind that things change quickly in politics and that getting too worried about an election in 3.5 years is not a productive use of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Echo Beach
Posts: 529
|
Sounds like McCluskey has finally woken up and smelt the coffee! its too late though. Labour will never win now in 2020 who ever is in charge. They could have won if anyone but Corbyn had been elected in 2015 but not now.
2025 is what they will have to aim for but goodness knows what state the country will be in by then. |
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
They are not the Tories' plans. The Boundary Commission acts independently on a regular basis irrespective of who is in power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
|
Quote:
The reduction of MPs to 600 was a Tory plan—it was a manifesto policy, and it was a plan opposed by the boundaries commission.
In February 2016, we announced a new review of Parliamentary constituencies in England – called the 2018 Review because we must report with our recommendations in September 2018. A Parliamentary boundary review examines the existing constituencies and makes recommendations for any changes that might be needed to make sure constituencies comply with legal requirements. Those legal requirements are intended to keep the number of electors in each constituency broadly equal, whilst also taking into account factors such as local community ties. That was their decision and their plan. Boundaries would have changed regardless. http://boundarycommissionforengland....k/2018-review/ In addition to the Boundary Commission's decision to hold a review the government asked for the reduction in the number of seats. |
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
In addition to the Boundary Commission's decision to hold a review the government asked for the reduction in the number of seats. |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,156
|
What made me laugh.. 2019 they will look at the situation then.
1.how big of them 2. the arrogance in thinking a new leader so soon to an election would even work? Isnt the fact of the matter without the MP's plotting to overthrow him this should be Corby's time to shine ? He's got nothing to offer, this entire parliament is going to be about brexit and because he agrees with it. There is nothing he can say or do |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22.



