This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In years to come, which of them will be feted as "The Man Who Killed The Labour Party"?
3
10
In reply to Big Ger:
Miliband. He ran against his better brother and changed the voting system that let Corbyn in.
Miliband. He ran against his better brother and changed the voting system that let Corbyn in.
14
7
In reply to Big Ger:
Blair took the Labour party through a period of success, 10 years as prime minister, but left under a cloud, which was more a personal cloud against him and not the party. After Blair went the party was still strong enough with everything to play for - but somehow they have got it all wrong since.
Corbyn on the other hand, i see achieving nothing and has dragged the party down into total disaray, his name will be barely remembered in 20 years time, just a name of a leader that finished the party off.
I agree that Milliband was the start of the big fall, somehow the party is on a downward escalator and nobody has a clue how to get off, this election is a good thing for them. If somehow Corbyn did well, gaining loads of seats, even if he doesn't win (i don't see this happening, but strange times) he is vindicated and stays on, if they are crushed, then surely he is out and the rebuild starts several years earlier than expected.
Blair took the Labour party through a period of success, 10 years as prime minister, but left under a cloud, which was more a personal cloud against him and not the party. After Blair went the party was still strong enough with everything to play for - but somehow they have got it all wrong since.
Corbyn on the other hand, i see achieving nothing and has dragged the party down into total disaray, his name will be barely remembered in 20 years time, just a name of a leader that finished the party off.
I agree that Milliband was the start of the big fall, somehow the party is on a downward escalator and nobody has a clue how to get off, this election is a good thing for them. If somehow Corbyn did well, gaining loads of seats, even if he doesn't win (i don't see this happening, but strange times) he is vindicated and stays on, if they are crushed, then surely he is out and the rebuild starts several years earlier than expected.
13
7
In reply to summo:
Surely there is nothing wrong with running against someone, no matter who they are. It gives more room for voter choice.
Tony Blair ruined it for me, purely on account of the Iraq war.
> Miliband. He ran against his better brother and changed the voting system that let Corbyn in.
Surely there is nothing wrong with running against someone, no matter who they are. It gives more room for voter choice.
Tony Blair ruined it for me, purely on account of the Iraq war.
5
1
In reply to Moley:
Largely agree with you Moley, but Blair left a hell of a lot of distrust of the centre left in his wake kicking the door open to a harder left tendency in Labour that's never going to win a UK election.
Largely agree with you Moley, but Blair left a hell of a lot of distrust of the centre left in his wake kicking the door open to a harder left tendency in Labour that's never going to win a UK election.
3
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
I agree to an extent, but Wonder , like Moley that most of this distrust of the centre left is personal and biased by Iraq.
Purely on domestic issues how do you rate Blair? Rather well in my estimation.
I agree to an extent, but Wonder , like Moley that most of this distrust of the centre left is personal and biased by Iraq.
Purely on domestic issues how do you rate Blair? Rather well in my estimation.
Post edited at 08:34
5
1
In reply to wbo:
I really can't be objective on him . Iraq , post power money grubbing, cosying up to dictators, his stint as Middle East peace envoy, continual refusal to accept he was wrong on Iraq etc etc...
> Purely on domestic issues how do you rate Blair? Rather well in my estimation.
I really can't be objective on him . Iraq , post power money grubbing, cosying up to dictators, his stint as Middle East peace envoy, continual refusal to accept he was wrong on Iraq etc etc...
5
2
In reply to David Martin:
Unless you work for unite and you lose your job after running against Len.
> Surely there is nothing wrong with running against someone, no matter who they are. It gives more room for voter choice.
Unless you work for unite and you lose your job after running against Len.
6
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Arguably Blair's success was based on stealing Tory clothes and over time he thus hollowed out the core labour vote. This has contributed to the success of UKIP and the general prevalence of "rage" voting.
Corbyn's is merely lacking the ability to lead, so Blair gets my vote for the person who killed the Labour Party.
Arguably Blair's success was based on stealing Tory clothes and over time he thus hollowed out the core labour vote. This has contributed to the success of UKIP and the general prevalence of "rage" voting.
Corbyn's is merely lacking the ability to lead, so Blair gets my vote for the person who killed the Labour Party.
9
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
Had Gordon Brown gone for a snap election when he became leader (with the Brown Bounce) he would have probably won and possibly could have won in 2010 had that pesky financial thing not happened until 2 years later, so labour were electable post Blair.
They were vaguely electable under Miliband, at least in the sense that a victory was just about credible if only as the majority party. On the other hand, they aren't electable in their current shambolic state so Corbyn takes the blame.
He'll go down with Michael Foot as a leader who set back the labour cause by 10 years but I'm sure they'll get elected again at some point, if only because people will eventually get sick of the Conservatives as they did under Major.
> Largely agree with you Moley, but Blair left a hell of a lot of distrust of the centre left in his wake kicking the door open to a harder left tendency in Labour that's never going to win a UK election. >
Had Gordon Brown gone for a snap election when he became leader (with the Brown Bounce) he would have probably won and possibly could have won in 2010 had that pesky financial thing not happened until 2 years later, so labour were electable post Blair.
They were vaguely electable under Miliband, at least in the sense that a victory was just about credible if only as the majority party. On the other hand, they aren't electable in their current shambolic state so Corbyn takes the blame.
He'll go down with Michael Foot as a leader who set back the labour cause by 10 years but I'm sure they'll get elected again at some point, if only because people will eventually get sick of the Conservatives as they did under Major.
9
In reply to Big Ger:
Corbyn.
But I'd say killing the Labour party is a good thing: political parties have not kept up with changes in society and we need a major reconfiguration. Something new, hopeful and modern needs to emerge from the remains of Labour and Lib Dems and give the Tories a run for their money. The Tories are defining themselves as nationalistic preservers of the status quo and protectors of property owners. The new party needs to pro-Europe, politically modernising and supportive of new technologies and entrepreneurs and basic economic security for everyone at the expense of inherited wealth and wealth based on asset ownership.
> In years to come, which of them will be feted as "The Man Who Killed The Labour Party"?
Corbyn.
But I'd say killing the Labour party is a good thing: political parties have not kept up with changes in society and we need a major reconfiguration. Something new, hopeful and modern needs to emerge from the remains of Labour and Lib Dems and give the Tories a run for their money. The Tories are defining themselves as nationalistic preservers of the status quo and protectors of property owners. The new party needs to pro-Europe, politically modernising and supportive of new technologies and entrepreneurs and basic economic security for everyone at the expense of inherited wealth and wealth based on asset ownership.
7
7
In reply to Big Ger:
Blair was a disaster, Iraq, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, PFI, the economy, his lap-dog approach to the US, to name but a few
Blair was a disaster, Iraq, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, PFI, the economy, his lap-dog approach to the US, to name but a few
9
2
In reply to pec:
Perhaps Labour should wheel Gordon out of retirement and he can end boom & bust, again.
Perhaps Labour should wheel Gordon out of retirement and he can end boom & bust, again.
9
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Society has killed the Labour Party in its current form. The end of large scale unionised blue collar work has taken away their core. There are still large public sector unions but they don't resonate in the same way.
Labours support has fragmented; the working class core and the middle class ideologues. They may have similar aims but speak very different languages.
Blair/Mandelson should have seen this and put in place electoral reform. They used PR in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but didn't change Westminster. Milliband then compounded this by not supporting the AV referendum.
They can still recover though with a mildly charismatic leader and 4 or 5 competent looking shadow ministers, but they are a long way from that at the moment.
Society has killed the Labour Party in its current form. The end of large scale unionised blue collar work has taken away their core. There are still large public sector unions but they don't resonate in the same way.
Labours support has fragmented; the working class core and the middle class ideologues. They may have similar aims but speak very different languages.
Blair/Mandelson should have seen this and put in place electoral reform. They used PR in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but didn't change Westminster. Milliband then compounded this by not supporting the AV referendum.
They can still recover though with a mildly charismatic leader and 4 or 5 competent looking shadow ministers, but they are a long way from that at the moment.
12
In reply to Big Ger:
Most definitely Miliband and his team in my book, but they were left a duff ticket post Brown era.
With little money in the coffers, Cameron/Clegg et all, went all out for austerity, and rammed it home with 'we have no choice - its this or bust' At a time when Labour needed to offer a real alternative they seems to argue against then say that there was little they would change once it was done.
It left many trying to work out the difference between the parties. Especially when Ed was given to talking like a blair/cameron clone.
So it was hardly surprising that Labour grass roots opted for someone who at least offered a recognisably different alternative.
At least now you can see a difference. Whether thats an electable Labour, we shall all find out soon enough. I fear it won't be good news for Momentum.
Most definitely Miliband and his team in my book, but they were left a duff ticket post Brown era.
With little money in the coffers, Cameron/Clegg et all, went all out for austerity, and rammed it home with 'we have no choice - its this or bust' At a time when Labour needed to offer a real alternative they seems to argue against then say that there was little they would change once it was done.
It left many trying to work out the difference between the parties. Especially when Ed was given to talking like a blair/cameron clone.
So it was hardly surprising that Labour grass roots opted for someone who at least offered a recognisably different alternative.
At least now you can see a difference. Whether thats an electable Labour, we shall all find out soon enough. I fear it won't be good news for Momentum.
1
In reply to krikoman:
Blair was the Labour party longest ever serving prime minister, a disaster?
I think Labour voters would happily accept another of those disasters over the current disaster.
> Blair was a disaster, Iraq, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, PFI, the economy, his lap-dog approach to the US, to name but a few
Blair was the Labour party longest ever serving prime minister, a disaster?
I think Labour voters would happily accept another of those disasters over the current disaster.
13
4
In reply to Moley:
And more importantly, swing voters. I voted for Blair every election and only changed afterwards.
Until the ardent left learn you have to occupy the middle ground, then Labour has sweet fat chance of being reelected.
Iraq to most of us swing voters is a minor issue, too much self absorption on the part of the inward looking left.
And more importantly, swing voters. I voted for Blair every election and only changed afterwards.
Until the ardent left learn you have to occupy the middle ground, then Labour has sweet fat chance of being reelected.
Iraq to most of us swing voters is a minor issue, too much self absorption on the part of the inward looking left.
9
1
In reply to Moley:
Blundering into war after war, the rise of Islamist fundamentalism in their wake, government by lawyers for lawyers, feathering his own nest all the time?
> Blair was the Labour party longest ever serving prime minister, a disaster?I think Labour voters would happily accept another of those disasters over the current disaster.
Blundering into war after war, the rise of Islamist fundamentalism in their wake, government by lawyers for lawyers, feathering his own nest all the time?
3
2
In reply to stevieb:
Well said! I couldn't agree more. Electoral reform, such as bringing in a fair PR (or even French-style second ballot) could have the potential of keeping the pox-ridden Tories out for generations!
M
Well said! I couldn't agree more. Electoral reform, such as bringing in a fair PR (or even French-style second ballot) could have the potential of keeping the pox-ridden Tories out for generations!
M
1
5
In reply to Mark Bannan:
But also give UKIP more seats than the SNP, greens and lib dems added together? Be careful what you wish for.
> Well said! I couldn't agree more. Electoral reform, such as bringing in a fair PR (or even French-style second ballot) could have the potential of keeping the pox-ridden Tories out for generations!M
But also give UKIP more seats than the SNP, greens and lib dems added together? Be careful what you wish for.
5
1
In reply to neilh:
>Iraq to most of us swing voters is a minor issue, too much self absorption on the part of the inward looking left.
Sending British service personnel to war on the strength of a politically manipulated intelligence dossier didn't feel like a side issue to me at the time, nor anyone else who was in uniform or on the active reserve list I would think.
>Iraq to most of us swing voters is a minor issue, too much self absorption on the part of the inward looking left.
Sending British service personnel to war on the strength of a politically manipulated intelligence dossier didn't feel like a side issue to me at the time, nor anyone else who was in uniform or on the active reserve list I would think.
Post edited at 17:51
8
3
In reply to summo:
Or wheel out this man ....
youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw&
> Perhaps Labour should wheel Gordon out of retirement and he can end boom & bust, again.
Or wheel out this man ....
youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw&
1
In reply to neilh:
No Labour politician got my vote after gentleman Jim Callaghan until Blair arrived. And none since.
No Labour politician got my vote after gentleman Jim Callaghan until Blair arrived. And none since.
3
1
In reply to Ridge:
I should clarify that personally I couldn't stand Blair, I always looked upon him as a slimy little toad, but he was successful for the labour party (labour voters put him in power 3 times), so he was a success. The most successful labour leader.
In retrospect he is disliked by many, hated by many more; in some ways similar to Maggie - saviour of their party or devil incarnate?
I guess that's politics, winning is everything.
> Blundering into war after war, the rise of Islamist fundamentalism in their wake, government by lawyers for lawyers, feathering his own nest all the time?
I should clarify that personally I couldn't stand Blair, I always looked upon him as a slimy little toad, but he was successful for the labour party (labour voters put him in power 3 times), so he was a success. The most successful labour leader.
In retrospect he is disliked by many, hated by many more; in some ways similar to Maggie - saviour of their party or devil incarnate?
I guess that's politics, winning is everything.
1
In reply to Ridge:
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait led to OBL declaring war on the US, (before Blair was elected), which led to 9/11 which led to Afghanistan, blaming Blair for this is utter nonsense.
> Blundering into war after war, the rise of Islamist fundamentalism in their wake, government by lawyers for lawyers, feathering his own nest all the time?
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait led to OBL declaring war on the US, (before Blair was elected), which led to 9/11 which led to Afghanistan, blaming Blair for this is utter nonsense.
2
6
In reply to winhill:
You missed out Iraq. Many people hold Blair in such contempt for engineering the invasion of Iraq on spurious grounds.
> Saddam's invasion of Kuwait led to OBL declaring war on the US, (before Blair was elected), which led to 9/11 which led to Afghanistan, blaming Blair for this is utter nonsense.
You missed out Iraq. Many people hold Blair in such contempt for engineering the invasion of Iraq on spurious grounds.
5
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
Exactly. Despite it being a waste of blood and treasure, (in my opinion), Afghanistan was arguably self-defence under Article 51. The subsequent ISAF deployment to stabilise the country was under a UN Security Council Resolution.
Iraq was perpetrated under false pretences to give Blair his moment of glory, (IIRC the hand of God was in there somewhere). An utterly pointless intervention at the cost of thousands of lives.
> You missed out Iraq. Many people hold Blair in such contempt for engineering the invasion of Iraq on spurious grounds.
Exactly. Despite it being a waste of blood and treasure, (in my opinion), Afghanistan was arguably self-defence under Article 51. The subsequent ISAF deployment to stabilise the country was under a UN Security Council Resolution.
Iraq was perpetrated under false pretences to give Blair his moment of glory, (IIRC the hand of God was in there somewhere). An utterly pointless intervention at the cost of thousands of lives.
6
1
In reply to Ridge:
Rubbish.
Action against Saddam hadn't ceased since he invaded Kuwait and Bush's mouth wrote cheques he hoped wouldn't be cashed.
UN Sanctions had killed 500,000 or more and were hurting civilians much more than the war did and helped Saddam tighten his grip.
Blair was a very minor character in a conflict that was none of his making and it was clearly an action that sat uncomfortably for him.
> Iraq was perpetrated under false pretences to give Blair his moment of glory,
Rubbish.
Action against Saddam hadn't ceased since he invaded Kuwait and Bush's mouth wrote cheques he hoped wouldn't be cashed.
UN Sanctions had killed 500,000 or more and were hurting civilians much more than the war did and helped Saddam tighten his grip.
Blair was a very minor character in a conflict that was none of his making and it was clearly an action that sat uncomfortably for him.
6
10
In reply to Big Ger:
Labour isn't dead: it's pining for the demurreds:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/25/vote-labour-jeremy-co...
Labour isn't dead: it's pining for the demurreds:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/25/vote-labour-jeremy-co...
1
In reply to Moley:
Yes, but due, in part, to his ruining of the party they won't get it.
> Blair was the Labour party longest ever serving prime minister, a disaster?I think Labour voters would happily accept another of those disasters over the current disaster.
Yes, but due, in part, to his ruining of the party they won't get it.
1
2
1
In reply to summo:
As much as I hate UKIP, don't you think this would change when people realised their vote actually counted for something?
Also if 2.5 million people vote ( I might have made this figure up) for someone, don't you think they deserve to be represented?
Edit just looked it up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
3.8 million 12.6% of the vote, are you saying these people don't deserve a voice?
> But also give UKIP more seats than the SNP, greens and lib dems added together? Be careful what you wish for.
As much as I hate UKIP, don't you think this would change when people realised their vote actually counted for something?
Also if 2.5 million people vote ( I might have made this figure up) for someone, don't you think they deserve to be represented?
Edit just looked it up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
3.8 million 12.6% of the vote, are you saying these people don't deserve a voice?
Post edited at 09:22
5
In reply to Moley:
I don't think so, which is the reason so many people hate JC, because he isn't Tony Blair and because he is a Socialist, like Labour is supposed to be.
There are schools paying £2000 for a sink, because of PFI, £8000 for a window blind. Stuck in contracts they cant get out of, while paying off teachers because they have no funds!!!
How can this be right?
Tony Blair is pious and has lost any semblance of integrity, he should go away and count his money.
Or if he really wanted to redeem himself go back to the ME and make peace in the region, like he said he was going to.
> I think Labour voters would happily accept another of those disasters over the current disaster.
I don't think so, which is the reason so many people hate JC, because he isn't Tony Blair and because he is a Socialist, like Labour is supposed to be.
There are schools paying £2000 for a sink, because of PFI, £8000 for a window blind. Stuck in contracts they cant get out of, while paying off teachers because they have no funds!!!
How can this be right?
Tony Blair is pious and has lost any semblance of integrity, he should go away and count his money.
Or if he really wanted to redeem himself go back to the ME and make peace in the region, like he said he was going to.
5
2
In reply to Big Ger:
The Labour party has only ever won 5 working majorities and Blair won three of those. He was never defeated in an election - don't forget he won again in 2005 after Iraq. Blair showed Labour how to win. Since then they've slipped back to the bad old ways that have delivered Tory government after Tory government.
Corbyn is leading Labour to it's worst result since the 1930s and is apparently not going to resign after the landslide defeat. He's facing an unpopular Tory government and still can't deliver an appealing government in waiting. He's leading Labour to oblivion and irrelevance. They will have no MPs in Scotland, they will fall behind the Tories in Wales on recent polling, they're no longer a national party.
Corbyn is killing the Labour party. It might already be too late. It's killing me.
The Labour party has only ever won 5 working majorities and Blair won three of those. He was never defeated in an election - don't forget he won again in 2005 after Iraq. Blair showed Labour how to win. Since then they've slipped back to the bad old ways that have delivered Tory government after Tory government.
Corbyn is leading Labour to it's worst result since the 1930s and is apparently not going to resign after the landslide defeat. He's facing an unpopular Tory government and still can't deliver an appealing government in waiting. He's leading Labour to oblivion and irrelevance. They will have no MPs in Scotland, they will fall behind the Tories in Wales on recent polling, they're no longer a national party.
Corbyn is killing the Labour party. It might already be too late. It's killing me.
4
In reply to krikoman:
Tony Blair lost it a long time ago. Shame really as he could have done better if he hadn't viewed himself as so important and righteous.
Back in the day there was a good article about how the Labour team that swept to power needed to become more tory lite (my words) to attract middle England votes.
I've said before that it still needs to be that way, but we do live in different times from the nineties, and I wonder if the Labour party had a much stronger figure at the helm, whether the policies been presented now, would gain more traction. My problem is that JC can garner praise from his supporters but not from people like me who don't see a leader of the country in him. Would he put his allotment in a blind trust to concentrate on running things!
That is the problem they face. People might like the policies... but have less faith that the leader can run the show to implement them.
... and he needs all the PLP on side : /
Tony Blair lost it a long time ago. Shame really as he could have done better if he hadn't viewed himself as so important and righteous.
Back in the day there was a good article about how the Labour team that swept to power needed to become more tory lite (my words) to attract middle England votes.
I've said before that it still needs to be that way, but we do live in different times from the nineties, and I wonder if the Labour party had a much stronger figure at the helm, whether the policies been presented now, would gain more traction. My problem is that JC can garner praise from his supporters but not from people like me who don't see a leader of the country in him. Would he put his allotment in a blind trust to concentrate on running things!
That is the problem they face. People might like the policies... but have less faith that the leader can run the show to implement them.
... and he needs all the PLP on side : /
1
In reply to krikoman:
No, but do you really want UKIP having more say over UK policy? I think the UK should have pr and redraw the boundaries a little, to even out the population size of constituencies.
> 3.8 million 12.6% of the vote, are you saying these people don't deserve a voice?
No, but do you really want UKIP having more say over UK policy? I think the UK should have pr and redraw the boundaries a little, to even out the population size of constituencies.
In reply to summo:
Then I'm at a loss to what you are saying as PR would give UKIP a louder voice. The SNP get 56 seats with less than 5% of the vote, how can this system possibly represent the population as a whole, no matter who ended up with more power, shouldn't the people have a voice, in proportion to the votes cast
Don't forget that if we had PR UKIP might not get the same number of votes because, there's no reason for tactical voting with PR. With PR you vote counts for something.
> No, but do you really want UKIP having more say over UK policy? I think the UK should have pr and redraw the boundaries a little, to even out the population size of constituencies.
Then I'm at a loss to what you are saying as PR would give UKIP a louder voice. The SNP get 56 seats with less than 5% of the vote, how can this system possibly represent the population as a whole, no matter who ended up with more power, shouldn't the people have a voice, in proportion to the votes cast
Don't forget that if we had PR UKIP might not get the same number of votes because, there's no reason for tactical voting with PR. With PR you vote counts for something.
2
In reply to krikoman:
I'm saying not everything about PR might be great. The good guys and bad guys both get a voice. At the moment people like UKIP, bnp, edl... have no representation in parliament.
SNP have proportionally more mps for geographically reasons too, if their catchment was the same number of people as some English mps their area would be logistically huge, especially on the isles etc.. So it's as much for practical reasons as anything else.
I'm saying not everything about PR might be great. The good guys and bad guys both get a voice. At the moment people like UKIP, bnp, edl... have no representation in parliament.
SNP have proportionally more mps for geographically reasons too, if their catchment was the same number of people as some English mps their area would be logistically huge, especially on the isles etc.. So it's as much for practical reasons as anything else.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Bliar's chipping in again..
Tony Blair has said that he expects Theresa May to be the next prime minister, arguing that the best argument to vote for Labour is to provide a strong opposition.
The former prime minister, who has been a vocal critic of Jeremy Corbyn, refused again to say that the Labour leader would be the best prime minister. He said that the real issue in the campaign was not who was going to be prime minister but making sure the government was held to account over Brexit.
Asked if he was saying “hand on heart” that Corbyn would be the best prime minister, Blair told Sky News: “If the polls are right, we know who’s going to be prime minister on 9 June. That’s not the issue. It’ll be Theresa May if the polls are right...
Bliar's chipping in again..
Tony Blair has said that he expects Theresa May to be the next prime minister, arguing that the best argument to vote for Labour is to provide a strong opposition.
The former prime minister, who has been a vocal critic of Jeremy Corbyn, refused again to say that the Labour leader would be the best prime minister. He said that the real issue in the campaign was not who was going to be prime minister but making sure the government was held to account over Brexit.
Asked if he was saying “hand on heart” that Corbyn would be the best prime minister, Blair told Sky News: “If the polls are right, we know who’s going to be prime minister on 9 June. That’s not the issue. It’ll be Theresa May if the polls are right...
In reply to Big Ger:
And the polls said JC wouldn't be the Labour leader, twice!. They also said we'd still be in the EU in two year time.
I doubt even JC can defeat the onslaught of the press and media telling everyone he can't win, but there are people who would like to see him as PM, so time will tell.
Honesty and integrity over lies and u-turns for me.
> It’ll be Theresa May if the polls are right...
And the polls said JC wouldn't be the Labour leader, twice!. They also said we'd still be in the EU in two year time.
I doubt even JC can defeat the onslaught of the press and media telling everyone he can't win, but there are people who would like to see him as PM, so time will tell.
Honesty and integrity over lies and u-turns for me.
2
3
In reply to krikoman:
Good points but your view on polls has since been clarfied. First of all the polls were to close to call on the EU vote. The second is quite simple. There was no data for the pollsters based on past referendums ( they are hardly a feature of Uk politics).That is a reasonble view.
There is far more data available on elections to back the polls then in the referundums.
Good points but your view on polls has since been clarfied. First of all the polls were to close to call on the EU vote. The second is quite simple. There was no data for the pollsters based on past referendums ( they are hardly a feature of Uk politics).That is a reasonble view.
There is far more data available on elections to back the polls then in the referundums.
In reply to neilh:
Didn't the polls suggest the Tories would lose the last election?
> Good points but your view on polls has since been clarfied. First of all the polls were to close to call on the EU vote. The second is quite simple. There was no data for the pollsters based on past referendums ( they are hardly a feature of Uk politics).That is a reasonble view.There is far more data available on elections to back the polls then in the referundums.
Didn't the polls suggest the Tories would lose the last election?
In reply to krikoman:
Did they? I know the first set did, but that was based on old info, and there'd been a huge increase in voting members which the pollsters had no information on. I got the impression that the second vote was pretty much always going to be a Corbyn win.
> And the polls said JC wouldn't be the Labour leader, twice!
Did they? I know the first set did, but that was based on old info, and there'd been a huge increase in voting members which the pollsters had no information on. I got the impression that the second vote was pretty much always going to be a Corbyn win.
1
In reply to krikoman:
I think you may be pinning unrealistic expectations by making judgements on historic polls where the margins were pretty close to be of questionabale value.
When you talk or more importantly listen to people outside your close knit group of friends who probably hold simialr views to your own what do you hear?
From what I hear from just listening around TM is going to have a stunning victory, and I will be not be voting for her ( cannot stand the grammar school policy, even though I agree that to get a good Brexit deal its better she has a good majority to isolate the hardline nutters)
I think you may be pinning unrealistic expectations by making judgements on historic polls where the margins were pretty close to be of questionabale value.
When you talk or more importantly listen to people outside your close knit group of friends who probably hold simialr views to your own what do you hear?
From what I hear from just listening around TM is going to have a stunning victory, and I will be not be voting for her ( cannot stand the grammar school policy, even though I agree that to get a good Brexit deal its better she has a good majority to isolate the hardline nutters)
Post edited at 10:13
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
But the polls have always under-estimated tory support due to the shy tory effect. In 2015 Labour was 1 point ahead or on the same as the tories and the tories won an overall majority, so now the tories are 10 to 25 points ahead its looking likely that the tories will win easily (look at Copeland)
But the polls have always under-estimated tory support due to the shy tory effect. In 2015 Labour was 1 point ahead or on the same as the tories and the tories won an overall majority, so now the tories are 10 to 25 points ahead its looking likely that the tories will win easily (look at Copeland)
1
In reply to neilh:
And even though Angela has said May's Brexit plan is shite?
> I think you may be pinning unrealistic expectations by making judgements on historic polls where the margins were pretty close to be of questionabale value.When you talk or more importantly listen to people outside your close knit group of friends who probably hold simialr views to your own what do you hear? From what I hear from just listening around TM is going to have a stunning victory, and I will be not be voting for her ( cannot stand the grammar school policy, even though I agree that to get a good Brexit deal its better she has a good majority to isolate the hardline nutters)
And even though Angela has said May's Brexit plan is shite?
2
In reply to krikoman:
Shite for the UK or shite for Angela and EU?
> And even though Angela has said May's Brexit plan is shite?
Shite for the UK or shite for Angela and EU?
1
In reply to Moley:
Shite for what she's expecting to get. She seems to think she can either bully them or just demand things and have them given to her.
> Shite for the UK or shite for Angela and EU?
Shite for what she's expecting to get. She seems to think she can either bully them or just demand things and have them given to her.
1
In reply to krikoman:
Maybe she should just give them what they want. After all what's unreasonable in asking for the UK to keep being a net contributor for several more years and also paying a sum of £50 billion as well?
We're lucky that the EU is such a magnanimous organisation.
Maybe she should just give them what they want. After all what's unreasonable in asking for the UK to keep being a net contributor for several more years and also paying a sum of £50 billion as well?
We're lucky that the EU is such a magnanimous organisation.
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
Who are you talking about Merkel or May?
Not sure who you are saying is doing the bullying you could read it either way.
Some people say its Merkel some say its May.All depends.
Its just negotiating.
Besides if Lepen is elected then it will be a right can of worms for all 3.
Have a good weekend.
Who are you talking about Merkel or May?
Not sure who you are saying is doing the bullying you could read it either way.
Some people say its Merkel some say its May.All depends.
Its just negotiating.
Besides if Lepen is elected then it will be a right can of worms for all 3.
Have a good weekend.
1
In reply to baron:
Maybe just tell the lot to away and shite ,and if they really want to weigh up historic European debt , then perhaps they should start by looking over the massed ranks of crosses in commonwealth war cemeteries dotted across the continent.
> Maybe she should just give them what they want. After all what's unreasonable in asking for the UK to keep being a net contributor for several more years and also paying a sum of £50 billion as well?We're lucky that the EU is such a magnanimous organisation.
Maybe just tell the lot to away and shite ,and if they really want to weigh up historic European debt , then perhaps they should start by looking over the massed ranks of crosses in commonwealth war cemeteries dotted across the continent.
4
1
1
In reply to krikoman:
"EU ueber alles" and all that.
> And even though Angela has said May's Brexit plan is shite?
"EU ueber alles" and all that.
In reply to Big Ger:
Dare I suggest that the Labour Party has been terminally ill for many years due to changes in our society.
Blair brought about a short period of remission and it would be in all of our interests of a good leader could effect a long term cure.
> In years to come, which of them will be feted as "The Man Who Killed The Labour Party"?
Dare I suggest that the Labour Party has been terminally ill for many years due to changes in our society.
Blair brought about a short period of remission and it would be in all of our interests of a good leader could effect a long term cure.
1
In reply to timjones:
Dare I suggest that the Blair was really conservative? Hence their success and the classic Labour (socialist/communist/unionist) ideals haven't really been needed for the previous 30years, as legislation has replaced most of what they strived to achieve.
They do indeed need in reinvent themselves with some new and modern thinking leadership. It's not the early 1900s when Labour was formed, neither is it 50s and birth of the nhs, or the 70s unionisation ... time for Labour to meet the world in 2017.
> Dare I suggest that the Labour Party has been terminally ill for many years due to changes in our society.Blair brought about a short period of remission and it would be in all of our interests of a good leader could effect a long term cure.
Dare I suggest that the Blair was really conservative? Hence their success and the classic Labour (socialist/communist/unionist) ideals haven't really been needed for the previous 30years, as legislation has replaced most of what they strived to achieve.
They do indeed need in reinvent themselves with some new and modern thinking leadership. It's not the early 1900s when Labour was formed, neither is it 50s and birth of the nhs, or the 70s unionisation ... time for Labour to meet the world in 2017.
2
In reply to summo: maybe, but I would argue you fight one battle, a new one appears - zero hour contracts as an example. Times change , and the definition of a working class changes, but it hasn't disappeared
In reply to timjones:
No disagreement from me on that.
> Dare I suggest that the Labour Party has been terminally ill for many years due to changes in our society.Blair brought about a short period of remission and it would be in all of our interests of a good leader could effect a long term cure.
No disagreement from me on that.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...