Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

One by-election result (in Cameron's old seat) is hardly going to start panic in the Conservative ranks.

Let's keep an eye on this shall we - Lib Dems have a bit of a way to go...
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Well obviously. I think if you projected that swing to a GE (not that that is how real life works) the Lib Dems would gain 28 seats from the Conservatives, which is still only half the seats they held in 2010.

Interesting that Labour stayed fairly static and UKIP dropped significantly - not perhaps what you might expect.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

One by-election result (in Cameron's old seat) is hardly going to start panic in the Conservative ranks.

Let's keep an eye on this shall we - Lib Dems have a bit of a way to go...
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Well obviously. I think if you projected that swing to a GE (not that that is how real life works) the Lib Dems would gain 28 seats from the Conservatives, which is still only half the seats they held in 2010.

Interesting that Labour stayed fairly static and UKIP dropped significantly - not perhaps what you might expect.

Where did UKIP voters go? Surely not to the Libdems eh Rick?

rick_chasey

That'd be a bit odd wouldn't it?

I suspect they went to the Tories and more Tories (remainer Tories who backed Cameron) went Lib dem.

People think lib Dems are very left but on the whole there are bigger swings between Tories & Lib Dems than Labour & Lib Dems.

It's usually around the more reactionary "strong" conservatism that puts the better off, more educated Tory voters & sends them our way.

There are a few exceptions in academic/alternative towns like Cambridge & Brighton but on the whole that's what happens.

rick_chasey

Ultimately the LD problem is there is no core group who votes LD regardless.

Tories, however badly they do, will pick up at the very least 25% of the vote.

LD can't rely on anything like that, so the downturns hurt much more.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately the LD problem is there is no core group who votes LD regardless.

Tories, however badly they do, will pick up at the very least 25% of the vote.

LD can't rely on anything like that, so the downturns hurt much more.

You have to wonder why the Lib Dems haven't managed to get that sort of 'brand loyalty' that is so important to succeed. They've had long enough to do it. Maybe the issue is with their policies and attitudes?

mrfpb

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately the LD problem is there is no core group who votes LD regardless.

Tories, however badly they do, will pick up at the very least 25% of the vote.

LD can't rely on anything like that, so the downturns hurt much more.

You have to wonder why the Lib Dems haven't managed to get that sort of 'brand loyalty' that is so important to succeed. They've had long enough to do it. Maybe the issue is with their policies and attitudes?

I think they did build brand loyalty through the 90s and 00s and then squandered it for their one shot at government by abandoning their key pledge on tuition fees. They were manoeuvred by the Tories into making Vince Cable, their most respected MP, present the bill on tuition fees in the House, and from then on they were toxic to students and the middle classes that wanted their kids to get a less debt ridden education.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately the LD problem is there is no core group who votes LD regardless.

Tories, however badly they do, will pick up at the very least 25% of the vote.

LD can't rely on anything like that, so the downturns hurt much more.

You have to wonder why the Lib Dems haven't managed to get that sort of 'brand loyalty' that is so important to succeed. They've had long enough to do it. Maybe the issue is with their policies and attitudes?

FPTP is fundamentally the issue.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately the LD problem is there is no core group who votes LD regardless.

Tories, however badly they do, will pick up at the very least 25% of the vote.

LD can't rely on anything like that, so the downturns hurt much more.

You have to wonder why the Lib Dems haven't managed to get that sort of 'brand loyalty' that is so important to succeed. They've had long enough to do it. Maybe the issue is with their policies and attitudes?

FPTP is fundamentally the issue.

It would be before this decade when your support was in the high teens to early twenties



But not nearly as much now you're down at 8%.

ballysmate

TM seems to be pressing the right buttons for some people.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... erver-poll

joelsim

Ballysmate wrote:

TM seems to be pressing the right buttons for some people.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... erver-poll

Not just about that though. When the economy really tanks it could take the Cons a generation to get back any respect as the party of business.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

TM seems to be pressing the right buttons for some people.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... erver-poll

Look a chicken that didn't do anything would be more trusted with the economy than Corbyn.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately the LD problem is there is no core group who votes LD regardless.

Tories, however badly they do, will pick up at the very least 25% of the vote.

LD can't rely on anything like that, so the downturns hurt much more.

You have to wonder why the Lib Dems haven't managed to get that sort of 'brand loyalty' that is so important to succeed. They've had long enough to do it. Maybe the issue is with their policies and attitudes?

FPTP is fundamentally the issue.

It would be before this decade when your support was in the high teens to early twenties



But not nearly as much now you're down at 8%.

Without regular seats in parliament to reflect the voting proportion, they could never build a key following. When I've been out on the pavement, fighting against the 'wasted vote' mentality is always the challenge.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TM seems to be pressing the right buttons for some people.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... erver-poll

Look a chicken that didn't do anything would be more trusted with the economy than Corbyn.

From the same article

The poll puts the Tories on 39% of the vote, Labour on 30%, Ukip on 13%, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party both on 6% and the Greens on 4%.


Sad reading for those on the other thread who keep saying support for Brexit is on the wane.
Not too cheery for Libdems either eh?

rick_chasey

No it's not.

but in the climate, whaddya expect?

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TM seems to be pressing the right buttons for some people.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... erver-poll

Not just about that though. When the economy really tanks it could take the Cons a generation to get back any respect as the party of business.

According to you the economy is already tanking (if we believe what you post in the EU thread). And yet the conservative lead remains very large. As mentioned before, the logical conclusion to draw from this is that the electorate believe Brexit will be massively preferable to a left wing government.

People aren't so stupid after all

joelsim

It is Steve but the effects haven't yet reached Joe Public. As you'd expect. Economies are like oil tankers, I mean with all that austerity the Cons still haven't managed to stop the budget deficit from increasing yet.

But yes, I do agree with you on Corbyn.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

It is Steve but the effects haven't yet reached Joe Public. As you'd expect. Economies are like oil tankers, I mean with all that austerity the Cons still haven't managed to stop the budget deficit from increasing yet.

But yes, I do agree with you on Corbyn.

Just think how much we would owe if we had carried on spending money as we did while Labour were in :shock: Pretty sure the IMF would be involved by now if Labour was still in power (as they were in the late 70's).

ballysmate

Joelsim wrote:

It is Steve but the effects haven't yet reached Joe Public. As you'd expect. Economies are like oil tankers, I mean with all that austerity the Cons still haven't managed to stop the budget deficit from increasing yet.

But yes, I do agree with you on Corbyn.

Like this?




Or did you mean debt?

joelsim

Ballysmate wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

It is Steve but the effects haven't yet reached Joe Public. As you'd expect. Economies are like oil tankers, I mean with all that austerity the Cons still haven't managed to stop the budget deficit from increasing yet.

But yes, I do agree with you on Corbyn.

Like this?




Or did you mean debt?

I meant debt.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

It is Steve but the effects haven't yet reached Joe Public. As you'd expect. Economies are like oil tankers, I mean with all that austerity the Cons still haven't managed to stop the budget deficit from increasing yet.

But yes, I do agree with you on Corbyn.

Just think how much we would owe if we had carried on spending money as we did while Labour were in :shock: Pretty sure the IMF would be involved by now if Labour was still in power (as they were in the late 70's).

Steve, I'm not disagreeing with that. I was making the point that the economy is like an oil tanker and things take a long time.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

It is Steve but the effects haven't yet reached Joe Public. As you'd expect. Economies are like oil tankers, I mean with all that austerity the Cons still haven't managed to stop the budget deficit from increasing yet.

But yes, I do agree with you on Corbyn.

Just think how much we would owe if we had carried on spending money as we did while Labour were in :shock: Pretty sure the IMF would be involved by now if Labour was still in power (as they were in the late 70's).

Steve, I'm not disagreeing with that. I was making the point that the economy is like an oil tanker and things take a long time.

To some extent that is the case. But it does not sit squarely with your 'falling off a cliff edge' analogy in the EU thread.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

It is Steve but the effects haven't yet reached Joe Public. As you'd expect. Economies are like oil tankers, I mean with all that austerity the Cons still haven't managed to stop the budget deficit from increasing yet.

But yes, I do agree with you on Corbyn.

Just think how much we would owe if we had carried on spending money as we did while Labour were in :shock: Pretty sure the IMF would be involved by now if Labour was still in power (as they were in the late 70's).

Steve, I'm not disagreeing with that. I was making the point that the economy is like an oil tanker and things take a long time.

To some extent that is the case. But it does not sit squarely with your 'falling off a cliff edge' analogy in the EU thread.

Cliff edge was a quote from the head puppeteer this week.

Stevo_666

Not sure who you are referring to but in any event its still a bad analogy.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not sure who you are referring to but in any event its still a bad analogy.

Here you go. For someone so vocal on the EU topic you seem to be missing quite a lot of what's actually going on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 71376.html

Stevo_666

- As mentioned before I'm a busy boy. Be easier if you just named them.

bobmcstuff

mrfpb wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately the LD problem is there is no core group who votes LD regardless.

Tories, however badly they do, will pick up at the very least 25% of the vote.

LD can't rely on anything like that, so the downturns hurt much more.

You have to wonder why the Lib Dems haven't managed to get that sort of 'brand loyalty' that is so important to succeed. They've had long enough to do it. Maybe the issue is with their policies and attitudes?

I think they did build brand loyalty through the 90s and 00s and then squandered it for their one shot at government by abandoning their key pledge on tuition fees. They were manoeuvred by the Tories into making Vince Cable, their most respected MP, present the bill on tuition fees in the House, and from then on they were toxic to students and the middle classes that wanted their kids to get a less debt ridden education.

I naturally identify with the Lib Dems (although I've only voted them once IIRC) and I'm pragmatic enough to understand why they were forced to back down on the tuition fee issue but I think that did destroy them. Shame really.

Alain Quay

"As mentioned before I'm a busy boy" Posts: 21461

Stevo_666

Alain Quay wrote:

"As mentioned before I'm a busy boy" Posts: 21461

I am when it suits me Tax doesn't just save itself you know...

ballysmate

As the US presidency is topical at the moment, and probably for some time, this little gem from Clinton (Bill) describing Jezza as the maddest person in the room.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 04641.html


Probably explains why Jezza is keen to keep Diane Abbott close.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

As the US presidency is topical at the moment, and probably for some time, this little gem from Clinton (Bill) describing Jezza as the maddest person in the room.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 04641.html


Probably explains why Jezza is keen to keep Diane Abbott close.

Very perceptive stuff from Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton branded Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn the "maddest person in the room" in a speech he gave explaining the resurgence of left-wing politics in Europe and America.

Documents released by Wikileaks show the former President joked that when Mr Corbyn won his leadership contest, it appeared Labour had just "got a guy off the street" to run the party.

He compared Mr Corbyn’s rise to the success of Alexis Tsipras in Greece and Bernie Sanders in US primaries.

In one section of the speech, Mr Clinton said Labour had disposed of one potentially successful leader, David Miliband, because they were "mad at him for being part of Tony Blair’s government in the Iraq War".

He went on: "They moved to the left and put his brother in as leader because the British labor movement wanted it.

"When David Cameron thumped him in the election, they reached the interesting conclusion that they lost because they hadn’t moved far left enough, and so they went out and practically got a guy off the street to be the leader of the British Labor Party [sic]."

Mr Clinton added: "But what that is reflective of – the same thing happened in the Greek election – when people feel they’ve been shafted and they don’t expect anything to happen anyway, they just want the maddest person in the room to represent them."

Labour declined to comment on the speech.