The Labour Thread

[.V.]

In that case we go after the big ones. Corporation tax, a proper progressive tax system, hammer tax evaders, invest in our industry ( actually make stuff). Save money by doing away with the corporate leachs that siphon money away from our public services and by extension our pockets.
As the enemy becomes ever more ridiculous in their lies and bluster so must we become more confident and straightforward in our ideas and policy.

Completely agree with that, we just need to make sure that all of that is put in a simple way that connects with voters. Such as the 'taking back control' line used in the referendum.

 

[Aber gas]

Completely agree with that, we just need to make sure that all of that is put in a simple way that connects with voters. Such as the 'taking back control' line used in the referendum.

How about this..

 

[.V.]

How about this..
View attachment 5574

:flint: Yeah, don't think that's gonna work some how.

 

[.V.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...set-lose-copeland-by-election-partys-canvass/

 

[Abertawe]

Yeah I read that but stopped when I realised it was based on "the telegraph understands". Basically code for we've just made this up but do keep reading.

 

[mowgli]

If Labour lose both seats will Corbyn still have the backing of his MP'The s? Having a large number of members will not bring votes for a party that opposes Brexit so why would Stoke that voted 67% for leave vote for a clown who hasn't a clue on what he thinks on what he believes in? He has opposed The EU for decades but now so isn't a true remoaner, the fool should tell the truth about what he thinks rather than embarrass himself that makes himself a laughing stock and makes him less electorable than the Lib Dems who only have 9 MP's.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

In the UK context the long term electoral success of political parties is based on their constituency i.e. those they represent. Realignment, which has not happened that often, is a function of voting blocks. Personality, leadership and the like can have an impact on individual elections, but long term voting trends reflect wider social, economic and political trends. So the Liberal Party went from the landslide of 1906 to near obscurity by the 1920s. This decline was probably hastened by the split between Asquith and Lloyd George that became a schism during WW1. While the split created the immediate electoral opportunity for the Labour Party, the reality is that unless the liberal party had reinvented itself as a labourist/trade union party the end was in sight. The changes to the franchise in the 1880s and then after WW1 created a new electoral interest.

The present political system has been under pressure since at least the first 1974 election. Probably the reason why the Liberals, Alliance and LIb Dems were unable to breach the dam was that ultimately they did not represent a big enough and coherent interest.

The issue for Labour, UKIP, the Liberals and to a lesser degree the Conservatives is how big is their constituency now? The psephological logic of Corbyn's position is that Labour mobilises an anti-establishment block, as in countries like Greece. My own view is that probably such a voting segment that is large enough to deliever a majority will be hard to a achieve, but we'll see.

Tim Farron's strategy is clearly one of representing a constituency, namely those that voted remain. Be interesting to see if this is a coherent voting block that can be mobilised from what is an ideal I have my doubts as it is not what has happened ever since modern political parties were created in the 1860s.

UKIP's traditional strategy was to aim for disaffected Conservatives, yet now it is trying to represent the party as representing traditonal working class Labour voters, who it claims are being ignored by Labour as they chase the anti-establishment block.

Thus, I suggest that individual policies, the abilities of different leaders, party resources etc can be significant psephological factors in determining the final outcome of individual election campaigns, but that for longer term trends look for whom a party represents.

Obviously, at present underpinning all of this is the electoral and political system.

 

[Abertawe]

.V. what's your opinion on the two candidates decided for Copeland & Stoke Central? Both anti Corbyn, the stoke guy vehemently anti Brexit. It's almost as though they've picked the worst possible option in Stoke's case. Is there an angle or is it sheer incompetence?

 

[.V.]

.V. what's your opinion on the two candidates decided for Copeland & Stoke Central? Both anti Corbyn, the stoke guy vehemently anti Brexit. It's almost as though they've picked the worst possible option in Stoke's case. Is there an angle or is it sheer incompetence?

I've not been following it much to be honest.

I think the Stoke candidate being anti Brexit will hurt them there, given how it voted in June and UKIP previously doing well then. Is he a local chap or parachuted in?

I know even less about Copeland.

 

[.V.]

Ouch!

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/826894337594257410

 

[Alty]

Ouch!

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/826894337594257410

The Stoke by-election is the key one here. It took a much longer time than it should have done, but eventually people wised up to the fact that UKIP were eating into enough of the Labour vote, in combination with mobilising previous none-voters, for them to become a threat to Labour in the Midlands and the North.

What'll be interesting here is whether a Tory Government that is pursuing a hard Brexit - and that talks a bit more about the 'working class' - can steal a significant number of votes from both UKIP and Labour. The Tories are talking about coming second so they clearly think they're in for a decent showing.

If UKIP win (I think they'll come close but fall short) then Labour are truly in a desperate position. And it can't be blamed on solely on Corbyn. On Europe at least Corbs is closer to the general public than Tupid Siddiq or David Lammy.

 

[Abertawe]

The Tories aren't finishing second in Stoke. Snell standing for Labour only makes sense if they're purposely trying to lose the seat. Cretins.

 

[Abertawe]

Clive Lewis resigns, that's a biggy.

 

[.V.]

Clive Lewis resigns, that's a biggy.

Worried that Corbyn is on his way out after that? I did see rumours that Corbyn has given a date that he wants to leave by, but I took it with a large pinch of salt.

 

[Abertawe]

Worried that Corbyn is on his way out after that? I did see rumours that Corbyn has given a date that he wants to leave by, but I took it with a large pinch of salt.

Worried being the wrong word but if Copeland & Stoke are lost then a tactical withdrawal could be in order. It'll depend on whether Lewis fancies the gig as I don't believe Corbyn would step down if it meant giving a free ride to the right side of the party to seize back the leadership. I wouldn't be averse to Lewis over Corbyn.

I can't help think that this could be some sort of fail safe insurance policy in case the worst happens in the upcoming bye-elections. Losing isn't an option so genuine questions would have to be asked in the event. It would seem the obvious progression for Lewis to step up so if the same movement that surged Corbyn rallied round him he would surely defeat any candidate from the self proclaimed moderate element.

It's all if's at this point until we know the result of both elections. It could well be Labour defend both seats with ease and Corbyn lives on to fight another day. Should that happen Lewis can always step back into the shadow once all the fuss has died down. It's not like he's quit in a fit of rage, his hand was essentially forced but by doing so he's given the left alternative options should circumstances dictate a change-up.

 

[Veggie Legs]

Clive Lewis is great, definite leader potential but I think he's better off taking a back seat for now. Let someone else sort out the mess that Labour currently is and then come when things are calmer.

 

[Bentos]

If Corbyn walked, I'd want McDonnell. He's a proper vicious, commie bastard

 

[Abertawe]

Devil worshiper
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...-jewish-chronicle_uk_58ac096ce4b07028b70376b5

 

[Captain Scumbag]

If UKIP was even halfway competent, the bookies would have stopped taking bets on the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election about 3-4 weeks ago. Very Brexity constituency. A by-election caused by the Labour incumbent deciding he’d rather work in a London museum than serve his constituents. A Labour parliamentary candidate who is pro-EU and thoroughly dislikeable. It was the political equivalent of a two-yard tap in. Alas, their star centre forward is Paul Nuttall and it looks as though he’s wellied it into row Z.

Copeland? No idea. An upset is probably more likely there as UKIP doesn’t have much of a foothold in the consistency, meaning it’s less likely to split the conservative pro-Brexit vote.

Part of me genuinely hopes Labour holds both. The longer Corbyn stays the better, and a couple of by-election holds will relieve the pressure somewhat.

Strange times.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Lab hold Stoke but the Tories have taken Copeland

Fair to say that Labour's electoral prospects with Coryn at the helm look pretty damn bleak.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

FFS! Hang in there, Secret Agent Corbyn. Brexit needs you.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Interesting that in Stoke, UKIP and Tories got 5k each, Labour benefiting from that split of the vote there.

Must be a lot of pressure on Jezza now. I can't see anyone in Labour (at this point) so soon after the last leadership vote, putting their head above the parapet and openly standing against him. So it comes down to whether Corbyn would resign.

 

[.V.]

I'm glad Labour stopped UKIP from winning Stoke, but from what I can tell the UKIP campaign has been pretty dire. Had they been competent I think the result would have been very close.

But losing Copeland is terrible given how long Labour have held it and the cuts to NHS services there.

This will only embolden the Conservatives to go for a harder Brexit and more austerity. More than ever we need a competent opposition to the government. If Corbyn didn't need to go before he does now.

 

[.V.]

Fucks sake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39075061

 

[sl1k]

You've the support, Jeremy. For now. But you need to pull up dem socks and get real about the situation. It is YOUR duty as leader to unite the party. It is YOUR duty to create common ground. It is YOUR duty to change the party's course.

Which looks absolutely hopeless for the foreseeable future.

...

I don't think he's going to read this; I should probably write a letter.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Rarely are by-elections significant in their own right. Orpington in 1962 was as it led to the recognition of Orpington man, what the Liberals' support looked like, and kickstarted a slow process that came to a head in Feb 1974. Glasgow Hillhead in 1982 looked like it gave credibility to the SDP, but where are they now?

So I would not read too much into these two by-elections, however, there are a few trends we can identify. I don't have access to any polling data, so my thoughts are based on what is publicly available.

1. The reason for the by-elections is interesting - that both incumbents took the Chiltern Hundreds reflects probably their despair with Labour. I doubt they will be the last to become Crown Stewards.
2. The real short to medium impact of by-elections is often on the morale of party faithful. The Tories will be cook-a-hoop. Labour miserable. UKIP in shock.
3. UKIP clearly do not have an effective election fighting team. This normally requires a few, or even just one, guru who knows what they are doing and lots of support on the ground and online. All parties looking to make a break through, Liberals of various hews, Plaid, SNP and Greens have to varying levels a passable by-election team. UKIP may have had an open goal, or as close to one as they will get for while, and scuffed it.
4. Anyone who says that one factor determined the loss or saving of the seat in either constituency does not understand the nuances of psephology. I think we can almost certainly say that Labour's vote did not turn out, rather than necessarily seeing any major switches. So saying Corbyn lost it, Nuttall was unelectable, it supports Brexit etc etc, all have some truth, but you cannot say there is one factor/lesson/message. Voting behaviour for an individual can be that simple, based on critical incidents, but you cannot extrapolate this easily across a constituency, as there will be several factors influencing thousands of electors - we do not all decide in the same way.
5. I think there are some shoots of encouragement (though from a very low base) for the Lib Dems. Forget their small increases last night, more significant is the series of local council by-election victories they have been recording, two last night where their vote went up 47 and 50%. After 2015, and with the referendum campaign, UKIP took the mantle of protest vote. I do wonder whether it is slowly, and I mean slowly, moving back to them based around the remain vote?

 

[Red]

Rarely are by-elections significant in their own right. Orpington in 1962 was as it led to the recognition of Orpington man, what the Liberals' support looked like, and kickstarted a slow process that came to a head in Feb 1974. Glasgow Hillhead in 1982 looked like it gave credibility to the SDP, but where are they now?

So I would not read too much into these two by-elections, however, there are a few trends we can identify. I don't have access to any polling data, so my thoughts are based on what is publicly available.

1. The reason for the by-elections is interesting - that both incumbents took the Chiltern Hundreds reflects probably their despair with Labour. I doubt they will be the last to become Crown Stewards.
2. The real short to medium impact of by-elections is often on the morale of party faithful. The Tories will be cook-a-hoop. Labour miserable. UKIP in shock.
3. UKIP clearly do not have an effective election fighting team. This normally requires a few, or even just one, guru who knows what they are doing and lots of support on the ground and online. All parties looking to make a break through, Liberals of various hews, Plaid, SNP and Greens have to varying levels a passable by-election team. UKIP may have had an open goal, or as close to one as they will get for while, and scuffed it.
4. Anyone who says that one factor determined the loss or saving of the seat in either constituency does not understand the nuances of psephology. I think we can almost certainly say that Labour's vote did not turn out, rather than necessarily seeing any major switches. So saying Corbyn lost it, Nuttall was unelectable, it supports Brexit etc etc, all have some truth, but you cannot say there is one factor/lesson/message. Voting behaviour for an individual can be that simple, based on critical incidents, but you cannot extrapolate this easily across a constituency, as there will be several factors influencing thousands of electors - we do not all decide in the same way.
5. I think there are some shoots of encouragement (though from a very low base) for the Lib Dems. Forget their small increases last night, more significant is the series of local council by-election victories they have been recording, two last night where their vote went up 47 and 50%. After 2015, and with the referendum campaign, UKIP took the mantle of protest vote. I do wonder whether it is slowly, and I mean slowly, moving back to them based around the remain vote?

Good analysis

 

[.V.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/jeremy-corbyn-labour-copeland-stoke-leader

Jeremy Corbyn is running out of excuses. Losing a seat that has been held by Labour in every election since 1935 certainly signifies a break from the old politics, but not the one that was advertised to Labour members.

The explicit promise of Corbyn’s leadership campaigns was reconnection with the party’s founding spirit and values, leading to a recovery of votes in places that had drifted away from Labour under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband. But Miliband’s Labour party held Copeland.

Byelections are unreliable guides to future general election outcomes but effective for capturing moments of electoral volatility. Traditionally they give voters an opportunity to lash out at an incumbent government to the benefit of the opposition. It is rare for that dynamic to be reversed. Under the conventional rules of politics, Labour would be shovelling votes on to an increased majority in a seat like Copeland.


The threat of closure hanging over a local hospital maternity unit furnished just the kind of local issue to propel a lively mid-term swing against a government. When Labour can’t even mobilise its core supporters – or rather, those voters who once constituted its core – in defence of the NHS (and that was the focus of the party’s campaign on the ground) something has gone very wrong.

Or someone. Campaigners for all parties report that Corbyn’s name was coming up on the doorstep. His well-known aversion to nuclear energy did not go down well in a seat where Sellafield employs 10,000 people. The Tories were not shy of reminding people that the Labour leader was ideologically hostile to the engine of their local economy. But MPs who canvassed the constituency report a deeper frustration with Corbyn – a sense that he simply isn’t up to the job; that he has been miscast in a role to which he isn’t suited; that the party is insulting its longest-serving supporters by telling them that this man should be their prime minister when they can see that he wouldn’t be able to do the job and might not even really want it.

The same message was communicated by voters in Stoke-on-Trent Central, although Labour held off a Ukip challenge there. No one who canvassed that seat believes the result contains an endorsement of Corbyn. It would have been inconceivable for a Stoke Central contest to be even marginal until recently. The corrosion of support for Labour in this notional “heartland” area cannot be attributed to the party’s current leadership. It is the expression of a social, economic and cultural dislocation that has been building for many years. But Corbyn’s leadership was meant to repair that damage. It was sold as the tonic to restore faith in socialism where New Labour had whittled that faith away.

The decisive factors in Stoke appear to have been residual, tribal Labour loyalty – in spite of the current leadership – plus an electoral machine that is a bit rusty but still good for identifying and turning out the most loyal voters.

Most important was the good fortune to have, in Paul Nuttall, a Ukip challenger who radiated dishonesty and opportunism. Labour canvassers working the constituency yesterday were heartened to discover a firewall of anti-Ukip feeling aiding their cause. Nuttall plainly thought he could turn up from the outside, march around the Potteries blowing his Brexit trumpet like some tweed-clad Eurosceptic Joshua and see the walls of a Labour Jericho crumble.

He was wrong. Ukip were lucky to beat the Tories in this contest which has proved, yet again, that the party is not good at winning Westminster seats. It lacks a slick machine for bringing dedicated activists to do the unglamorous work of pavement-pounding politics, and is generally struggling to find a purpose now that its founding purpose – quitting the EU – has been adopted wholesale by the Conservative party. And even then, Ukip’s vote share went up and Labour’s fell.

That is hardly a great consolation for the leader. As one MP who was knocking on doors in Stoke reports: “Corbyn is a massive issue. Every single activist has a horror story to tell about what they’ve heard people say about him … It’s not sustainable.”


There is a rebuttal to that testimony. If Corbyn’s supporters dig really deep into their faith, they can say that Labour MPs have a jaundiced view, that they are unreliable witnesses because many of them tried to oust their leader last year, and that in fact it was their treachery that destabilised the whole project. Opinion polls might show the Tories with double-digit leads over Labour, but maybe perfidious parliamentarians should take the blame for that. And the media, of course. There is always the option of blaming a partisan press for the non-contagion of Corbyn’s message.

It is true that a divided party whose MPs have bellowed out loud their lack of confidence in the leader will struggle to make electoral headway. It is also true that some British newspapers write about politicians of the left with vindictive aggression. There is ample responsibility for Labour’s problems to go around – it needn’t all collect in a puddle at Corbyn’s feet. And Theresa May can take some credit for her own relative popularity, too. She must be doing some things right for Copeland to swing into Tory arms.

The demoralisation of core Labour voters in Cumbria and Staffordshire predate the current leadership. But the current leader was chosen as the antidote to decline, not its amplifier. And when canvassers meet ex-Labour voters who now abstain or have switched to the Tories, it is not turbulent MPs’ names that come up as the reason. The parliamentary rebellion was crushed last summer. There is little internal impediment to the communication of the leader’s message now.

If he is in possession of an inspiring vision and an evangelical gift that can stir a mass movement to sweep Labour back to power, there really isn’t that much stopping him from deploying those gifts. The airwaves are available; so is the vast expanse of social media and any number of venues willing to host another rally. That was the plan when Corbyn sought ownership of the party. And now he owns it. So must he also own last night’s failure.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

If he is in possession of an inspiring vision and an evangelical gift that can stir a mass movement to sweep Labour back to power, there really isn’t that much stopping him from deploying those gifts. The airwaves are available; so is the vast expanse of social media and any number of venues willing to host another rally. That was the plan when Corbyn sought ownership of the party. And now he owns it. So must he also own last night’s failure.

Key is not whether the case can be presented better, what really matters is whether there is an audience who wants to hear that message? I would argue that the constituency that might want to hear and respond positively to that message is not large enough, nor homogenous enough, to be electorally significant. It almost does not matter what Corbyn does he is very unlikely to be successful, because there is not a big enough vote to be had. That said I think Corbyn has consistently been playing his hand badly; communication to the interested neutral/waiverer is not his strength. .

 

[.V.]

Key is not whether the case can be presented better, what really matters is whether there is an audience who wants to hear that message? I would argue that the constituency that might want to hear and respond positively to that message is not large enough, nor homogenous enough, to be electorally significant. It almost does not matter what Corbyn does he is very unlikely to be successful, because there is not a big enough vote to be had. That said I think Corbyn has consistently been playing his hand badly; communication to the interested neutral/waiverer is not his strength. .

I get the impression that Corbyn is trying to target the poor and disenfranchised which isn't working, if this recent poll is to be believed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...kip-latest-yougov-poll-stoke-by-a7578641.html

Labour has many problems at the moment, and Corbyn is not helping them get better.