When elections come around, the main parties are ultimately judged on competence. That's not necessarily synonymous with unity, particularly if you're the Tories.

The Conservatives have (mostly) united behind their leader however, without any ridiculous votes of no confidence or mass resignations designed to undermine the leadership.

In what sense is it ridiculous to declare a vote of no confidence in a leader registering the worst approval ratings of any leader of the opposition? You can argue the toss over the timing and organisation, but it wasn't exactly an illogical course of action.

Yes it was as CLEAARLY he has the will of the people.

 

In what sense is it ridiculous to declare a vote of no confidence in a leader registering the worst approval ratings of any leader of the opposition? You can argue the toss over the timing and organisation, but it wasn't exactly an illogical course of action.

 

It's really helped hasn't it?

 

I don't particularly like Corbyn but it WAS ridiculous - the poll ratings collapsed because of the coup not the other way around.

seem to recall divided Labour being obliterated in the 80's, and divided Tories in the 90's....

 

Corbyn has learnt one, and only one, lesson from the 1983 election: keep the party together at all costs. How that will translate into Momentum people behaving themselves is dubious (a good mate joined them the other week for "saint" Jeremy and intending to deselect the 170 traitors - normally a very fair and thoughtful, kind person - so I'm kind of suspecting there's a sort of group mass hysteria going on which has utterly wiped out the capacity for rational thought among the (not very experienced and hot-headed) membership and which has spread to those who do have experience). We had our first ever slightly heated discussion: "do you not see that attacking 170 MP's as liars and traitors is electoral suicide?"

 

Sigh.

 

I don't trust people who can't accept views not shared by them. I don't believe in herd mentality.

In what sense is it ridiculous to declare a vote of no confidence in a leader registering the worst approval ratings of any leader of the opposition? You can argue the toss over the timing and organisation, but it wasn't exactly an illogical course of action.

 

How about because it was disrespectful to the members who they're supposed to represent? Whether or not him staying as leader is best for the party, the fact is that it's not the MPs' call to make. They breached the unwritten rules of any modern (democratic) political party by trying to overrule their members' choice of leader.

Edited September 25, 20168 yr by Danny

It's really helped hasn't it?

 

I don't particularly like Corbyn but it WAS ridiculous - the poll ratings collapsed because of the coup not the other way around.

That's highly debatable, and even before the referendum we were behind in the polls - six years into a Tory government and 10% behind Miliband at the same stage. And Corbyn's personal ratings were still the worst on record.

That's highly debatable, and even before the referendum we were behind in the polls - six years into a Tory government and 10% behind Miliband at the same stage. And Corbyn's personal ratings were still the worst on record.

 

But in the only set of proper elections we've had so far, Corbyn did better than Miliband's first round of elections (and if the last few years should've taught anything, it's that real elections are much more reliable than polls).

I'm at least 98% certain that I've read at least 1,000 times in this here forum that the first round of elections under Corbyn are not in anyway comparable to the first set under Ed and thus the comparison is a crock of shite. If I, as someone who has spent decades looking at Scottish Labour and thinking that slitting my own wrists would be a better decision, can take than in then surely you as a labour voter and someone who seems to care a lot about the party and it's future would have grasped this by now.

I'm at least 98% certain that I've read at least 1,000 times in this here forum that the first round of elections under Corbyn are not in anyway comparable to the first set under Ed and thus the comparison is a crock of shite. If I, as someone who has spent decades looking at Scottish Labour and thinking that slitting my own wrists would be a better decision, can take than in then surely you as a labour voter and someone who seems to care a lot about the party and it's future would have grasped this by now.

 

But they are, though. It was the first set of local elections that both leaders fought, both a year on from a general election, which is what makes them comparable. And Rallings & Thrasher (the people whose whole job for the past 40 YEARS is to work this stuff out) calculated that, extrapolating the results out over the whole of the UK, Corbyn narrowly beat the Tories, whereas Miliband narrowly lost to the Tories in his first elections.

 

Admittedly they were significantly worse this year in Scotland than in 2011, but elsewhere it was an improvement.

Edited September 26, 20168 yr by Danny

I know it's convenient to completely ignore opinion polls, but the basic question remains - if the polls before 2015 were overestimating us and their methodology hasn't significantly changed, how on earth are we going to do when we're actually behind in the polls?

This is the fault of Oligarchs controlling the media, the Establishment's neoliberal status quo and of course the status quo MPs who decided REET QFTER THE EU VOTE!! would be a good time for naval gazing.

It's really helped hasn't it?

 

I don't particularly like Corbyn but it WAS ridiculous - the poll ratings collapsed because of the coup not the other way around.

He had some of the worst ratings of any opposition leader before the coup as well. They have become worse since.

How about because it was disrespectful to the members who they're supposed to represent? Whether or not him staying as leader is best for the party, the fact is that it's not the MPs' call to make. They breached the unwritten rules of any modern (democratic) political party by trying to overrule their members' choice of leader.

Like the Tories breached it in 2003 with Iain Duncan Smith?

 

And it's not really an unwritten rule. At least, no more so than the other unwritten rule that any leader who doesn't carry the confidence of the vast majority of their colleagues recognises the situation is untenable and steps down.

I know it's convenient to completely ignore opinion polls, but the basic question remains - if the polls before 2015 were overestimating us and their methodology hasn't significantly changed, how on earth are we going to do when we're actually behind in the polls?

 

The methodology of most opinion polls has been changed significantly since the last general election. They now weight their results according to the exact turnout of each demographic group in 2015 - which is probably a mistake, because, as the EU Referendum showed, you can't be sure that groups that didn't turn out previously, won't turn out in future if there's more of an appeal made to them. And indeed, on the basis of this year's local election results, it does seem that young people are more enthused by Corbyn than they were by Miliband (based on Labour doing especially well in places with high numbers of "millennials", including in southern marginals like Milton Keynes and Reading), and so are now turning out in higher proportions than they did - which means the new poll methodology might be understating Labour by assuming young people will still be at the piss-poor turnout they were in 2015.

 

For what it's worth, some pollsters still publish their "un-adjusted" polling figures (i.e. pre-2015 methodology), which always show better Labour results. That's before even getting into that current polls are taking in Theresa May's honeymoon effect (which literally EVERY new mid-term PM - Callaghan, Brown, Major - has benefitted from, before it fades away).

Edited September 26, 20168 yr by Danny

Like the Tories breached it in 2003 with Iain Duncan Smith?

 

And it's not really an unwritten rule. At least, no more so than the other unwritten rule that any leader who doesn't carry the confidence of the vast majority of their colleagues recognises the situation is untenable and steps down.

 

But he hasn't lost the confidence of his colleagues (i.e. everyone in the party), as Saturday's result showed. As much as they have an overinflated sense of their importance, 232 MPs don't outweigh 600k members.

But he hasn't lost the confidence of his colleagues (i.e. everyone in the party)

This is...a creative redefinition of the meaning of the word 'colleagues'.

 

And it takes something to go from '232 MPs don't outweigh 600,000 members' (they don't, but 600,000 members don't support Corbyn - 300,000 do) to 'the overwhelming opposition of the vast majority of his colleagues should count for absolutely nothing'.

After a lot of thought on it, I've left the Labour Party. And it wasn't Corbyn that made me go.

Welcome back to the political hinterland. Are you looking into joining another party, or are you given the whole politics thing a break for the time being?