One got 31%, one got 48%. Which one's supposed to be the unpopular viewpoint again?

 

Firstly, disingenuousness aside, I'm pretty sure you see the difference between getting 48% out of just TWO options (and coming second), and getting 33% and coming first out of over ONE HUNDRED options? By your logic, Mitt Romney was more popular than Tony Blair since he got a higher % in his election, if you ignore the context of how many opponents there were in the different elections.

 

Secondly, we were talking specifically about Labour heartland seats, in most of which Corbyn's Labour did better than Remain in absolute terms as well as in relative terms (e.g. Labour averaged more than 50% in Sunderland in May, compared to Remain getting 40% there).

Edited August 11, 20168 yr by Danny

Firstly, disingenuousness aside, I'm pretty sure you see the difference between getting 48% out of just TWO options (and coming second), and getting 33% and coming first out of over ONE HUNDRED options? By your logic, Mitt Romney was more popular than Tony Blair since he got a higher % in his election, if you ignore the context of how many opponents there were in the different elections.

 

Secondly, we were talking specifically about Labour heartland seats, in most of which Corbyn's Labour did better than Remain in absolute terms as well as in relative terms (e.g. Labour averaged more than 50% in Sunderland in May, compared to Remain getting 40% there).

Again, turnout.

Again, turnout.

 

I'm really struggling to understand what your point has been in your last few posts. Are you genuinely trying to argue that a passionately pro-EU stance WOULDN'T have damaged Labour in their Leave-voting heartland seats?

I'm really struggling to understand what your point has been in your last few posts. Are you genuinely trying to argue that a passionately pro-EU stance WOULDN'T have damaged Labour in their Leave-voting heartland seats?

No, you're trying to turn the argument again back to something which no one has actually said.

 

You denied that people in Labour heartlands resented Corbyn anywhere near as much as they resented the EU, and pointed to the fact that in May we were the largest party in many of our heartlands, which would then go on to vote Leave in higher numbers than many other places. I don't think there's much evidence for that, partly because of evidence from knocking on doors in the run up to the locals where Corbyn was just as much a negative as Europe, but mainly because the local elections saw a far lower turnout where many of the "Labour" people who went on to vote Leave a month later simply stayed at home.

No, you're trying to turn the argument again back to something which no one has actually said.

 

You denied that people in Labour heartlands resented Corbyn anywhere near as much as they resented the EU, and pointed to the fact that in May we were the largest party in many of our heartlands, which would then go on to vote Leave in higher numbers than many other places. I don't think there's much evidence for that, partly because of evidence from knocking on doors in the run up to the locals where Corbyn was just as much a negative as Europe, but mainly because the local elections saw a far lower turnout where many of the "Labour" people who went on to vote Leave a month later simply stayed at home.

 

The local elections turnout were average for local elections though? Turnout for locals is lower than in general elections/referendums across the board, across parties and across demographic groups. It's an incredibly spurious line of argument to start saying a lower turnout means the elections are a less reliable guide -- look at the recent Scottish elections -- despite turnout fluctuating wildly (85% for the referendum, 70% for the 2015 general election, 56% for this year's Scottish parliament), the YES/SNP % is eerily constant in most areas throughout, because, like with all contests, there's an equal drop in turnout with SNP/independence supporters as there is with everyone else. And it's exactly the same with local elections - they have generally been shown to be a representative mood-check despite ALWAYS having much lower turnout, because turnout is down pretty much equally among all groups (except usually a little more down with supporters of the government of the day).

 

The bottom line is, Corbyn's Labour won the Sunderlands of the world handsomely in May, before the Leave campaign swept them in landslides a month later. I can't for the life of me understand how that comparison of the elections/referendum, JUST A MONTH APART, could possibly not prove that it's not blatantly obvious that Labour had a lot of room for damage in those places (well beyond any damage Corbyn may or may not have done) if they'd aggressively campaigned for Remain, and essentially suggested supporting Leave was incompatible with supporting Labour (like they suggested supporting Yes in Scotland was incompatible with supporting the party).

 

(Plus, if you're going to raise the anecdote of people on doorsteps, then I'll give you the anecdote of people at my work, where people have barely ever mentioned Corbyn but were filled with fury and contempt at the EU, the Remain Campaign, and rich Londoners thinking they're better than everyone else and trying to tell people what to do - and that includes people who voted Remain in the end.)

Edited August 12, 20168 yr by Danny

Supporting Tory is entirely compatible with voting Leave or Remain. people voted for a million different personal grudges or reasons, and gnerally being fed up with all politicians. UKIP anyone, hardly Labour policy in any shape or form! More right-wing than Tories....

 

Supporting Labour should be no different in principle. Hoping the Tories mess up to win back lost Labour voters is not a great policy. If the Leave voters get what they want, they will credit the Tories/UKIP and not vote Labour. If they don't get what they want (which is largely immigration) they will vote UKIP unless Labour adopts a looky-likey policy. Is that seriously likely? labour an anti-immigrant party? Cos that, talking to most working class people, is still the main issue, t'other being fed up being told what to do by the EU. 5 years of being told what to do by the Tories might alter that viewpoint. Labour would need to become UKIP to win them back.

 

The local elections turnout were average for local elections though? Turnout for locals is lower than in general elections/referendums across the board, across parties and across demographic groups. It's an incredibly spurious line of argument to start saying a lower turnout means the elections are a less reliable guide -- look at the recent Scottish elections -- despite turnout fluctuating wildly (85% for the referendum, 70% for the 2015 general election, 56% for this year's Scottish parliament), the YES/SNP % is eerily constant in most areas throughout, because, like with all contests, there's an equal drop in turnout with SNP/independence supporters as there is with everyone else. And it's exactly the same with local elections - they have generally been shown to be a representative mood-check despite ALWAYS having much lower turnout, because turnout is down pretty much equally among all groups (except usually a little more down with supporters of the government of the day).

 

The bottom line is, Corbyn's Labour won the Sunderlands of the world handsomely in May, before the Leave campaign swept them in landslides a month later. I can't for the life of me understand how that comparison of the elections/referendum, JUST A MONTH APART, could possibly not prove that it's not blatantly obvious that Labour had a lot of room for damage in those places (well beyond any damage Corbyn may or may not have done) if they'd aggressively campaigned for Remain, and essentially suggested supporting Leave was incompatible with supporting Labour (like they suggested supporting Yes in Scotland was incompatible with supporting the party).

 

(Plus, if you're going to raise the anecdote of people on doorsteps, then I'll give you the anecdote of people at my work, where people have barely ever mentioned Corbyn but were filled with fury and contempt at the EU, the Remain Campaign, and rich Londoners thinking they're better than everyone else and trying to tell people what to do - and that includes people who voted Remain in the end.)

You're behaving as if the campaign that Corbyn ran was clear and balanced on how complex the issue of the EU is for Labour, how there were many good Labour people on either side and that both campaigns had their merits and their flaws. It would be one thing if he'd have done that, and that would have indeed been a better way of approaching it than this bizarro version of a strong Remain campaign you think we're advocating where it would be suggested that voting Leave was incompatible with supporting Labour.

 

The only problem is - that's unequivocally not the campaign that took place. Instead, he squandered his unique position as the party leader by showing all the complete lack of understanding of how the media works that his leadership in general has been defined by, with an extra sprinkling of refusing to make appearances which he thought beneath him and allowing/telling his staff to delete pro-EU sections of his speeches. It was the worst of both worlds.

You're behaving as if the campaign that Corbyn ran was clear and balanced on how complex the issue of the EU is for Labour, how there were many good Labour people on either side and that both campaigns had their merits and their flaws. It would be one thing if he'd have done that, and that would have indeed been a better way of approaching it than this bizarro version of a strong Remain campaign you think we're advocating where it would be suggested that voting Leave was incompatible with supporting Labour.

 

The only problem is - that's unequivocally not the campaign that took place. Instead, he squandered his unique position as the party leader by showing all the complete lack of understanding of how the media works that his leadership in general has been defined by, with an extra sprinkling of refusing to make appearances which he thought beneath him and allowing/telling his staff to delete pro-EU sections of his speeches. It was the worst of both worlds.

 

As far as I see it, the message Corbyn tried to send out was "I'm for Remain, but I don't care about it that much and it doesn't bother me if you have a different opinion". That was by FAR the stance that was in Labour's best interests as a party, when so many of their voters were going for Leave - and frankly, I honestly think Tony Blair would've taken a similar stance if the referendum had happened while he'd been leader (or atleast, it would've been Blair's stance before he became a deranged ideologue himself in his later years).

 

Also you can call it "bizarro" when I say the Labour EU-obsessives wanted to suggest voting Leave was incompatible with voting Labour, but that would've been strongly implied by the sort of campaign they'd have been running. If Labour had been going on and on and for a year about how desperately they wanted to stay in the EU, making clear it was their top priority above anything else, and suggesting they found it incomprehensible that anyone could have a different opinion on the matter, then quite obviously people who were voting Leave would've been majorly put off the party, and possibly felt quite insulted by them. As it is, as May's local election results showed, Corbyn actually showed some uncharacteristic political savviness on the issue which meant Leave voters still feel comfortable with Labour, since the leadership didn't give the impression the EU was a "make or break" issue for them - which is a damnsight better than the situation would be if one of the hapless "moderate" MPs was in charge and they'd been running a "passionate" and "unequivocal" campaign on the EU.

Edited August 13, 20168 yr by Danny

When people were being bombarded with messages saying that the referendum was the most important decision voters had been given for decades (a reasonably fair assessment for once), how was going around saying "not really bothered" a good idea?

When people were being bombarded with messages saying that the referendum was the most important decision voters had been given for decades (a reasonably fair assessment for once), how was going around saying "not really bothered" a good idea?

Quite.

 

Also find it quite funny that you're convinced Blair would have been fairly ambiguous about staying in the EU.

When people were being bombarded with messages saying that the referendum was the most important decision voters had been given for decades (a reasonably fair assessment for once), how was going around saying "not really bothered" a good idea?

 

Because it saved Labour from being annihilated, as the comparison between Labour's results in the local elections in May, and Remain's disastrous results in those same places a month later, shows.

 

 

Also find it quite funny that you're convinced Blair would have been fairly ambiguous about staying in the EU.

 

Why? He used to be a pragmatist, and he would've foreseen how disastrous it would be for Labour to sound like being pro-EU was an article of faith for the party.

 

In fact, that isn't completely hypothetical -- we actually did see Blair act in a similar way to Corbyn on the Euro question. Blair privately thought it was essential to join the Euro (and remember, the same kind of economists and big business people who were going into hysterics at the prospect of leaving the EU, were acting in the exact same way about the prospect of Britain being left out of the Euro not so long ago), but even so he kept kicking it into the long grass and was always more than happy to give in to Brown whenever he started kicking up a fuss about it, because he knew how hard a sell it would be to the public, and he didn't want to ruin his own reputation and Labour's success for the sake of it.

Absolutely nobody was acting like the UK not being in the Euro was equivalent to the UK leaving the EU, apart from maybe a couple of deranged Lib Dems.

dunno about the deranged libdems (as if there could be such a thing :P ) but yes nobody was too bothered about staying out of the euro, it was one of those "wouldn't mind" or "not in a million years" issues. The man in the street was hardly ranting about it - he didn't even talk about it much.

dunno about the deranged libdems (as if there could be such a thing :P ) but yes nobody was too bothered about staying out of the euro, it was one of those "wouldn't mind" or "not in a million years" issues. The man in the street was hardly ranting about it - he didn't even talk about it much.

 

 

Indeed, just as the man on the street wasn't ranting this time about how important staying in the EU was and how it would be a complete disaster if we left (or atleast, the man on non-London streets hasn't been ranting about that anyway).

 

In the case of both Brexit and the Euro, though, there was a big difference between the "man on the street", and a certain section of the liberal commentariat and big businesses, who in both cases were going into meltdown about how "Little England" would be left behind if they didn't "sit at the top table", and about how all businesses were supposedly going to flee the country if it wasn't done.

Edited August 15, 20168 yr by Danny

You may have noticed that we don't know the terms on which we'll be leaving yet. I wouldn't count your chickens on the outcome not meaning anything.

 

(And again, no, no big business ever said it would leave the UK if we didn't join the Euro.)

Indeed, just as the man on the street wasn't ranting this time about how important staying in the EU was and how it would be a complete disaster if we left (or atleast, the man on non-London streets hasn't been ranting about that anyway).

 

In the case of both Brexit and the Euro, though, there was a big difference between the "man on the street", and a certain section of the liberal commentariat and big businesses, who in both cases were going into meltdown about how "Little England" would be left behind if they didn't "sit at the top table", and about how all businesses were supposedly going to flee the country if it wasn't done.

 

Well, speaking as a man in the street, I and plenty of others were livid about having all of our EU rights taken away from us, it's caused massive family, work and friend arguments and splits. Just as the country was split. There has been nothing remotely as divisive amongst the general population during my lifetime - not even close.

 

Now some geographical areas are more leaning one way than the other, but both sides are pretty convinced the other side is nuts, still. We just agree to disagree to avoid further argument.

I voted for Owen Smith, but at this point I'm almost past caring who wins. Burn it to the ground, salt the earth and start again.

If Corbyn wins, are you going to leave Labour, or are you too institutionalized at this point?

Kezia Dugdale has publicly backed Owen Smith, although at this point does anyone really give a shite what the Edinburgh branch office thinks? Scotland certainly doesn't.

If Corbyn wins, are you going to leave Labour, or are you too institutionalized at this point?

Ever bought a fake painting? The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it. Silly, but there we are.