UK General Discussion Thread: mayy lmao

[MaxQue]

The inquiry into the polling cock-up was, unsurprisingly, a complete waste of time. Also worth noting that the polls were more wrong in 1992 and yet I'm pretty sure there wasn't such a massive inquiry then.

What were the findings/excuses in inquiry?

As for other great failures of the British polling industry, there's 1970 as well (interesting that they in these cases always seem to underestimate the Tory share of the vote vis-a-vis Labour).

"We polled too much Labour voters and not enough Conservative voters", in short.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Its more that people tend to remember the times the polls fyck up in that direction; February 1974 was as much of a polling fiasco as 1970.

[Blair]

Blair and Wilson, meanwhile, oversaw significant membership declines and their overall tenures arguably made the party electorally unpopular for a generation, even if they were both popular to begin with. If not for their electoral successes (which of course are considerable) they'd be viewed as disasters on the scale of IDS and Foot.

But that surely is the key as to how to judge a party leader.

Labour has inordinate trouble getting itself elected due to the enormous baggage the party saddles itself with (a reputation for tax and spend, of not being trustworthy with managing the economy, unpopular un-prime ministerial leaders, unilateral nuclear disarmament during the 80's and very likely to be adopted again under Corbyn in the near future, thuggish union leaders (to wit Len McCluskey) having undue influence over the party and regular, bitter civil wars to name but a few.

Only Attlee, Wilson and Blair have ever won an overall majority in Labour's history so their legacy is even greater than what you state above. Outside of those three leaders it's been a train wreck at general election time for the Labour Party.

Eh Len McCluskey has very little influence over the party-the fact that he failed to get UNITE to support his man (Andy Burnham) in the leadership race; along with his constant threat to either pull money out, or start his own party

[ChrisDR68]

Remembering that outside of the headline opinion poll numbers before the last general election Ed Miliband's approval ratings were awful as well as the public's view on Labour's economic competence (two measures which gave a big clue as to what the end result would turn out to be).

Jeremy Corbyn's approval ratings continue to be pretty bad:   

New YouGov research conducted prior to Corbyn's Trident claims reveals his net approval rating has fallen a further seven points to -39 since December 18, now only two points above his all-time low of -41 on December 1. David Cameron's meanwhile is at -6; below his post-election average of +3 but above his May 2010 – May 2015 average of -9.

Among the general public there is a strong tendency to believe Jeremy Corbyn has changed the Labour party for the worst since his election. 45% say he has had a negative effect on Labour compared to 21% who say he has changed it for the better. On September 28 2011, a few days after Ed Miliband became leader, few said he had changed Labour for the worst (11%) and most people (56%) said he had made no difference.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/19/corbyn-rating-fall/

By and large the party opinion polls haven't moved a great deal either way since the last election so the theory that the UK public would embrace a more left wing Labour Party seems thus far to be incorrect (which would be confirmation of what happened during the 1980's for those like me that lived through that decade and remember it well).

If Corbyn gets his way and has Labour adopt a unilateral nuclear defence policy the Tory narrative of back to the future is also likely to work well.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

tbh I'm not convinced that the public at large really care about unilateral nuclear disarmament in this day and age. It's just another issue that the political factions of Labour pointlessly bicker about (I have no idea which are worse for LAbour's potential electoral success - the delusional second-rate heirs to Blairs or the Corbynmaniacs. Probably both, ugh. Bring Eddy M, I say.)

[Oakvale]

Remembering that outside of the headline opinion poll numbers before the last general election Ed Miliband's approval ratings were awful as well as the public's view on Labour's economic competence (two measures which gave a big clue as to what the end result would turn out to be).

Jeremy Corbyn's approval ratings continue to be pretty bad:   

New YouGov research conducted prior to Corbyn's Trident claims reveals his net approval rating has fallen a further seven points to -39 since December 18, now only two points above his all-time low of -41 on December 1. David Cameron's meanwhile is at -6; below his post-election average of +3 but above his May 2010 – May 2015 average of -9.

Among the general public there is a strong tendency to believe Jeremy Corbyn has changed the Labour party for the worst since his election. 45% say he has had a negative effect on Labour compared to 21% who say he has changed it for the better. On September 28 2011, a few days after Ed Miliband became leader, few said he had changed Labour for the worst (11%) and most people (56%) said he had made no difference.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/19/corbyn-rating-fall/

By and large the party opinion polls haven't moved a great deal either way since the last election so the theory that the UK public would embrace a more left wing Labour Party seems thus far to be incorrect (which would be confirmation of what happened during the 1980's for those like me that lived through that decade and remember it well).

If Corbyn gets his way and has Labour adopt a unilateral nuclear defence policy the Tory narrative of back to the future is also likely to work well.

I think this is the most telling result -

[Filuwaúrdjan]

tbh I'm not convinced that the public at large really care about unilateral nuclear disarmament in this day and age. It's just another issue that the political factions of Labour pointlessly bicker about

Yes, its an issue that matters greatly in internal Labour politics because it has always mattered in internal Labour politics (i.e. we take the stance we do, comrades, because THOSE BASTARDS take the opposite stance) rather than for any other reason. Foreign/defence policy matters matter a great deal less to the electorate than they did in the 1980s, when they mattered a lot less than politicians tended to assume. O/c there's no way a Corbyn-lead Labour could hold Barrow, but that's just one seat.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Although the main unknown as far as 2020 is concerned is we don't know whp the Tory leader will be. Heck, their memberbase could do us in reverse and elect Dr Liam Fox on a policy of putting benefits claimants and asylum seekers in the stocks.

[Lurker]

The inquiry into the polling cock-up was, unsurprisingly, a complete waste of time. Also worth noting that the polls were more wrong in 1992 and yet I'm pretty sure there wasn't such a massive inquiry then.

What were the findings/excuses in inquiry?

As for other great failures of the British polling industry, there's 1970 as well (interesting that they in these cases always seem to underestimate the Tory share of the vote vis-a-vis Labour).

"We polled too much Labour voters and not enough Conservative voters", in short.

lol, the British polling industry is such a joke. In 2020, we might as well use the astrology pages to predict the result.

[MaxQue]

The inquiry into the polling cock-up was, unsurprisingly, a complete waste of time. Also worth noting that the polls were more wrong in 1992 and yet I'm pretty sure there wasn't such a massive inquiry then.

What were the findings/excuses in inquiry?

As for other great failures of the British polling industry, there's 1970 as well (interesting that they in these cases always seem to underestimate the Tory share of the vote vis-a-vis Labour).

"We polled too much Labour voters and not enough Conservative voters", in short.

lol, the British polling industry is such a joke. In 2020, we might as well use the astrology pages to predict the result.

The MP for Bosworth will be delighted.

[ChrisDR68]

Although the main unknown as far as 2020 is concerned is we don't know whp the Tory leader will be. Heck, their memberbase could do us in reverse and elect Dr Liam Fox on a policy of putting benefits claimants and asylum seekers in the stocks.

From what I've read about public attitudes those policies would be immensely popular.   

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Much like the public's supposed MASSIVE SUPPORT for nationalising railways; I doubt any popular support for such measures. would survive implementation.

[Slow Learner]

Although the main unknown as far as 2020 is concerned is we don't know whp the Tory leader will be. Heck, their memberbase could do us in reverse and elect Dr Liam Fox on a policy of putting benefits claimants and asylum seekers in the stocks.

[ChrisDR68]

tbh I'm not convinced that the public at large really care about unilateral nuclear disarmament in this day and age. It's just another issue that the political factions of Labour pointlessly bicker about

Yes, its an issue that matters greatly in internal Labour politics because it has always mattered in internal Labour politics (i.e. we take the stance we do, comrades, because THOSE BASTARDS take the opposite stance) rather than for any other reason. Foreign/defence policy matters matter a great deal less to the electorate than they did in the 1980s, when they mattered a lot less than politicians tended to assume. O/c there's no way a Corbyn-lead Labour could hold Barrow, but that's just one seat.

Jeremy Corbyn's pacifism is hardly likely to gain the Labour Party net votes (remembering that the party starts off under his leadership 2 million votes behind the Conservatives) or his long standing love affair for terrorist organisations. It's all very well and nice to have principles but when those principles fly in the face of public opinion (who on the whole are not pacifists and rightly view terrorists as murderers) you're asking for trouble.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, but I won't disagree that having to put into 'context' Comrade Corbyn's naive views on certain matters while on the doorstep would be time better used more constructively...

[Phony Moderate]

If the average British voter were represented by a member of Parliament then the said MP would be fairly Ukippy on immigration, pretty much in line with Cameron on the EU and the deficit, in line with the Socialist Campaign Group on public ownership and the NHS, pro-small business but vaguely untrusting of big business and the banks and liberal in a 'who on earth cares?' way on gay rights and abortion. In other words, a total eccentric. Austin Mitchell?

[Silent Hunter]

Ah, but I won't disagree that having to put into 'context' Comrade Corbyn's naive views on certain matters while on the doorstep would be time better used more constructively...

Yes and the same applies to the media.

[ChrisDR68]

"If you look at every election since the '70s, what you see is that the party that has the leader with the best ratings is the party that wins. There's no exception to that," she added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319

[Slow Learner]

"If you look at every election since the '70s, what you see is that the party that has the leader with the best ratings is the party that wins. There's no exception to that," she added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If we're hiring people with as superficial an understanding of elections as that no wonder we can't win elections right now.

[Phony Moderate]

If we're hiring people with as superficial an understanding of elections as that no wonder we can't win elections right now.

Yeah, it's like someone in the world of 2007 saying that you have to be white to win a major party presidential nomination in America.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Even if it were true "elections since the 70's" would be such a small reference pool then it's effectively useless as an observation (let alone a hard rule).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, there is a funny habit of confusing tendencies with rules isn't there? On this note never forget Heseltine insisting that the Tories were going to win in 1997 because no government had ever been defeated where economic growth had been above whatever it was for however many years.

[ChrisDR68]

Even if it were true "elections since the 70's" would be such a small reference pool then it's effectively useless as an observation (let alone a hard rule).

No-one said it was a rule but since the 1979 general election there have been 8 general elections so it's not that small a reference pool.

[Lurker]

8 elections is a very small reference pool to make any kind of rules out of. With a subset that small, you can always find numerous "patterns" that ultimately prove meaningless. I would link to the XKCD comic about US presidential elections, but as everyone here has probably seen it a million times...

(That's not a comment on this idea in itself though, obviously)