UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[thumb21]

Well there hasn't been a single piece of military action (including Falklands/Kosovo) since 1945 that Jeremy has actually supported...

Probably better than supporting the war in Iraq, better to err on the side of caution rather than killing & butchering children like Blair supported !

Kosovo is understandable but I don't even blame for Corbyn for Falklands which was a total un-necessary war over islands near South Americans having a few thousand people which Thatcher & General Galtieri used to boost their own national popularity & play the patriotism card !

The Falklands are a British sovereign territory and the people living there are British and have confirmed that through democratic referendum. I agree that Britain should not be getting involved in most international wars but the Falklands are British territory and the job of the British government is to keep British people safe from attack.

[Shadows]

Well there hasn't been a single piece of military action (including Falklands/Kosovo) since 1945 that Jeremy has actually supported...

Probably better than supporting the war in Iraq, better to err on the side of caution rather than killing & butchering children like Blair supported !

Kosovo is understandable but I don't even blame for Corbyn for Falklands which was a total un-necessary war over islands near South Americans having a few thousand people which Thatcher & General Galtieri used to boost their own national popularity & play the patriotism card !

The Falklands are a British sovereign territory and the people living there are British and have confirmed that through democratic referendum. I agree that Britain should not be getting involved in most international wars but the Falklands are British territory and the job of the British government is to keep British people safe from attack.

Falklands was a Southern American island which has been colonized by the British, Spanish, Argentine people & so on. Majority of the people (who are very few btw) are probably of British descent because UK colonized it in the last 150 years. But anyways, UK has a right to protect its citizens & to fight for its territories but my point is Falkland war could have been avoided & both leaders literally jumped into the war to boost their own national popularity.

I totally understand why Corbyn is so reticent about going into war - I mean when Mossadegh tried to nationalize Iran's oil, the British oil interests (BP) & government had him killed - An innocent democratic secular leader butchered for no good reason but because more money can be obtained from Iran's oil. And he was replaced by a brutal dictator in Shah which created the Islamic Revolution & Khomeini coming to power. And then you have Iraq which has totally f**ked up the world.

Corbyn's dovish stance & aversion about going to un-necessary war & mass killings is atleast understandable - More than a million people have died in iraq-Syria alone. And you have the Tories talking about "Pre-emptive" use of nuclear weapons & more strikes & regime change with Assad !

[Blair]

There are only about 35 Blairites inside the Parliamentary Labour Party, so the idea of the Blairites leading the purge is well incorrect. If anyone is going to do it will be the Old Right under Tom Watson, and  most of the Unions. I mean at best the Purge will be bringing back the electoral college- so its not as if anyone will get expelled.

[thumb21]

Well there hasn't been a single piece of military action (including Falklands/Kosovo) since 1945 that Jeremy has actually supported...

Probably better than supporting the war in Iraq, better to err on the side of caution rather than killing & butchering children like Blair supported !

Kosovo is understandable but I don't even blame for Corbyn for Falklands which was a total un-necessary war over islands near South Americans having a few thousand people which Thatcher & General Galtieri used to boost their own national popularity & play the patriotism card !

The Falklands are a British sovereign territory and the people living there are British and have confirmed that through democratic referendum. I agree that Britain should not be getting involved in most international wars but the Falklands are British territory and the job of the British government is to keep British people safe from attack.

Falklands was a Southern American island which has been colonized by the British, Spanish, Argentine people & so on. Majority of the people (who are very few btw) are probably of British descent because UK colonized it in the last 150 years. But anyways, UK has a right to protect its citizens & to fight for its territories but my point is Falkland war could have been avoided & both leaders literally jumped into the war to boost their own national popularity.

I totally understand why Corbyn is so reticent about going into war - I mean when Mossadegh tried to nationalize Iran's oil, the British oil interests (BP) & government had him killed - An innocent democratic secular leader butchered for no good reason but because more money can be obtained from Iran's oil. And he was replaced by a brutal dictator in Shah which created the Islamic Revolution & Khomeini coming to power. And then you have Iraq which has totally f**ked up the world.

Corbyn's dovish stance & aversion about going to un-necessary war & mass killings is atleast understandable - More than a million people have died in iraq-Syria alone. And you have the Tories talking about "Pre-emptive" use of nuclear weapons & more strikes & regime change with Assad !

How could the Falklands war be avoided? Argentina launched a surprise invasion. When your country is attacked, you have to respond. Of course, you can try and negotiate and get the Argentinians to withdraw but that wouldn't work because the Argentine Junta needed the Falklands to survive. Ultimately, the only way to repel Argentina was military force.

When it comes to the issues of Iraq, Syria, Iran that you mentioned, I agree with Corbyn on them. We shouldn't be trying to interfere in those countries' politics. However, the Falklands is an entirely different issue because it was another country invading British territories.

[Clyde1998]

According to Lord Ashcroft polls, Alex Salmond seat is too close to call.....
would be funny if he lost his seat,
but Aberdeenshire have seen a tory surge lately

Moray (Angus Robertson, SNP Westminster leader) is too close to call, as well. Don't know how well the model would predict personal votes and tactical voting.

[Blair]

He also has Tom Watson (West Bromwhich East) losing his seat, and I've heard some people in the party are sh**tting themselves over Tom losing

[Clyde1998]

I've noticed that my constituency (Newbury) is "Lean Conservative". I don't know what the thresholds for the categories are, but for the Conservatives to fall to a 10% lead in the seat it would require an 18% swing to the Lib Dems (which would be a bigger swing than the Lib Dem gain 1997 (16.9%); albeit there was a by-election in 1993).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Spoiler alert: the model is rubbish, the poll is a joke, Ashcroft is wasting his money and there's a special layer of Hell reserved exclusively for people who hawk around poll subsambles as the revealed truth.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He also has Tom Watson (West Bromwhich East) losing his seat, and I've heard some people in the party are sh**tting themselves over Tom losing

It was tight back in the 1980s but mostly I think that just tells you that when the national situation is bad a lot of people in Labour head into a sort of depressed hysteria about everything.

[joevsimp]

There are only about 35 Blairites inside the Parliamentary Labour Party, so the idea of the Blairites leading the purge is well incorrect. If anyone is going to do it will be the Old Right under Tom Watson, and  most of the Unions. I mean at best the Purge will be bringing back the electoral college- so its not as if anyone will get expelled.

How many are Brownites? or do they overlap with the Blairites and old right these days?

[Peter]

He also has Tom Watson (West Bromwhich East) losing his seat, and I've heard some people in the party are sh**tting themselves over Tom losing

It was tight back in the 1980s but mostly I think that just tells you that when the national situation is bad a lot of people in Labour head into a sort of depressed hysteria about everything.

Interestingly there is no UKIP candidate in West Bromwich East, so the Brexit vote may unify behind the Tory candidate, which makes Watson's position more vulnerable than otherwise

[IceAgeComing]

It's not as simple as "move to the right on migration and you win!!!!!!", they already have done that and it quite clearly hasn't worked.  As a party it's always going to be an issue that you'll struggle with, you have to square the circle between the people who've moved away from Labour on that kind of cultural issue and people who would be more reluctant to support Labour if they went down that route - that's probably more than some would think and both groups are needed for Labour to form a government.  Being a left-wing UKIP runs the risk of alienating more people than it brings back...

I'd argue that Labour's biggest mistake in the past was not responding to the increasing importance of migration as an issue (2005 is probably the big one; the Howard campaign used it a lot more than any mainstream campaign ever) with a positive defence of migration, but instead running around like a headless chicken trying to out-Tory the Tories on it.  That both hurt Labour's credibility generally; plus it basically conceded the whole framing of the issue to the anti-migration side.  I mean I'm broadly pro-migration (I'm looking for work outside the UK so I'd by a hypocrite if I wasn't really) so maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see it being any worse for the party...

Spoiler alert: the model is rubbish, the poll is a joke, Ashcroft is wasting his money and there's a special layer of Hell reserved exclusively for people who hawk around poll subsambles as the revealed truth.

Yeah, it has the Tories leading in London and the North East (!!!); that ought to affect how you look at it.

[jaichind]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/exclusive-telegraph-orb-poll-conservatives-lead-across-social/

Telegraph/ORB  poll

CON 46 (nc)
LAB  32 (+1)
LIB    8 (-1)
UKIP  7 (-1)

[Former President tack50]

Lord Ashcroft Mega poll (40K)

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/05/election-2017-ashcroft-model/#more-15204



UK sample of (40,000):
Cons 40%
Lab 23%
Lib 10%
UKIP 5%
others 6%
Won't vote or Won't say 15%

CONSTITUENCY-BY-CONSTITUENCY



https://dashboards.lordashcroftpolls.com/Storyboard/RHViewStoryBoard.aspx?RId=%C2%B2%C2%B7&RLId=%C2%B2%C2%B3&PId=%C2%B1%C2%B4%C2%BA%C2%B5%C2%B4&UId=%C2%B4%C2%B9%C2%B9%C2%B9%C2%BC&RpId=26

If 2017 is bigger landslide then 1997 , would that convince Labour to move in a more centrist direction.

I think the Blairites would use it as an opportunity to take back control of Labour and most Labour members would probably fall for it to be entirely honest. However, going centrist is just as disastrous.

What is holding back Labour is not their left-wing policies, the polls are very clear that the British people support most of them. The problem is messaging. Corbyn especially and the Labour party as a whole is bad at messaging and Corbyn as an individual is holding Labour quite far back.

What Labour needs is not to become the Red Tory, but to have fresh leadership with better messaging that is straight to the point. They should probably move to the right on issues like immigration to appeal to English voters as well as coming out in favour of English devolved parliament. An important factor that will cost Labour this election is the fact that they have failed to pick up much of the collapsing UKIP vote.

If Blairites get back control of Labour, any chance of a far left split, leading to a small party to the left of Labour? (like say, Linke in Germany). I guess they could get an amount of votes similar to the Greens, and maybe be slightly more competitive than them (I guess they could get 1 or 2 seats with the adecuate candidates and enough effort)

[parochial boy]

I think the Blairites would use it as an opportunity to take back control of Labour and most Labour members would probably fall for it to be entirely honest. However, going centrist is just as disastrous.

What is holding back Labour is not their left-wing policies, the polls are very clear that the British people support most of them. The problem is messaging. Corbyn especially and the Labour party as a whole is bad at messaging and Corbyn as an individual is holding Labour quite far back.

What Labour needs is not to become the Red Tory, but to have fresh leadership with better messaging that is straight to the point. They should probably move to the right on issues like immigration to appeal to English voters as well as coming out in favour of English devolved parliament. An important factor that will cost Labour this election is the fact that they have failed to pick up much of the collapsing UKIP vote.

If Blairites get back control of Labour, any chance of a far left split, leading to a small party to the left of Labour? (like say, Linke in Germany). I guess they could get an amount of votes similar to the Greens, and maybe be slightly more competitive than them (I guess they could get 1 or 2 seats with the adecuate candidates and enough effort)

Please can people stop using the term "Blairites". They are a complete non-factor these days, not everyone who isn't a Corbynista is a Blairite.

[PoliticalShelter]

I think the Blairites would use it as an opportunity to take back control of Labour and most Labour members would probably fall for it to be entirely honest. However, going centrist is just as disastrous.

What is holding back Labour is not their left-wing policies, the polls are very clear that the British people support most of them. The problem is messaging. Corbyn especially and the Labour party as a whole is bad at messaging and Corbyn as an individual is holding Labour quite far back.

What Labour needs is not to become the Red Tory, but to have fresh leadership with better messaging that is straight to the point. They should probably move to the right on issues like immigration to appeal to English voters as well as coming out in favour of English devolved parliament. An important factor that will cost Labour this election is the fact that they have failed to pick up much of the collapsing UKIP vote.

If Blairites get back control of Labour, any chance of a far left split, leading to a small party to the left of Labour? (like say, Linke in Germany). I guess they could get an amount of votes similar to the Greens, and maybe be slightly more competitive than them (I guess they could get 1 or 2 seats with the adecuate candidates and enough effort)

Please can people stop using the term "Blairites". They are a complete non-factor these days, not everyone who isn't a Corbynista is a Blairite.

Yeah the blarites were always more of a "court" faction of the party that have no real support amongst the grassroots and thanks to recent rule changes in the Labour Party means that they are completely powerless.

[Blair]

I think the Blairites would use it as an opportunity to take back control of Labour and most Labour members would probably fall for it to be entirely honest. However, going centrist is just as disastrous.

What is holding back Labour is not their left-wing policies, the polls are very clear that the British people support most of them. The problem is messaging. Corbyn especially and the Labour party as a whole is bad at messaging and Corbyn as an individual is holding Labour quite far back.

What Labour needs is not to become the Red Tory, but to have fresh leadership with better messaging that is straight to the point. They should probably move to the right on issues like immigration to appeal to English voters as well as coming out in favour of English devolved parliament. An important factor that will cost Labour this election is the fact that they have failed to pick up much of the collapsing UKIP vote.

If Blairites get back control of Labour, any chance of a far left split, leading to a small party to the left of Labour? (like say, Linke in Germany). I guess they could get an amount of votes similar to the Greens, and maybe be slightly more competitive than them (I guess they could get 1 or 2 seats with the adecuate candidates and enough effort)

Please can people stop using the term "Blairites". They are a complete non-factor these days, not everyone who isn't a Corbynista is a Blairite.

Yeah the blarites were always more of a "court" faction of the party that have no real support amongst the grassroots and thanks to recent rule changes in the Labour Party means that they are completely powerless.

David Miliband won the majority of members votes in 2010... so yes they did have a large amount of grassroots support in the party

[PoliticalShelter]

I think the Blairites would use it as an opportunity to take back control of Labour and most Labour members would probably fall for it to be entirely honest. However, going centrist is just as disastrous.

What is holding back Labour is not their left-wing policies, the polls are very clear that the British people support most of them. The problem is messaging. Corbyn especially and the Labour party as a whole is bad at messaging and Corbyn as an individual is holding Labour quite far back.

What Labour needs is not to become the Red Tory, but to have fresh leadership with better messaging that is straight to the point. They should probably move to the right on issues like immigration to appeal to English voters as well as coming out in favour of English devolved parliament. An important factor that will cost Labour this election is the fact that they have failed to pick up much of the collapsing UKIP vote.

If Blairites get back control of Labour, any chance of a far left split, leading to a small party to the left of Labour? (like say, Linke in Germany). I guess they could get an amount of votes similar to the Greens, and maybe be slightly more competitive than them (I guess they could get 1 or 2 seats with the adecuate candidates and enough effort)

Please can people stop using the term "Blairites". They are a complete non-factor these days, not everyone who isn't a Corbynista is a Blairite.

Yeah the blarites were always more of a "court" faction of the party that have no real support amongst the grassroots and thanks to recent rule changes in the Labour Party means that they are completely powerless.

David Miliband won the majority of members votes in 2010... so yes they did have a large amount of grassroots support in the party

The only reason David miliband came close in 2010 was the rules that gave a ridiculous amount of power to the moderate PLP, which has been scraped in favour of one member one vote. So yes the blairties are irrelevant and lack grassroots support. I mean ok he did win Labour Party members but he lost affiliated members which make up a much larger number than Labour Party members and im pretty sure they count as the grassroot.

[Barnes]

You'll find that the Prodigal Son, David, got the largest number of votes among both MPs and among the party membership. Ed only won through his support among affiliated supporters; something which was used as rather a bludgeon against him later, of course...

[PoliticalShelter]

You'll find that the Prodigal Son, David, got the largest number of votes among both MPs and among the party membership. Ed only won through his support among affiliated supporters; something which was used as rather a bludgeon against him later, of course...

Yes i've edited my post upon finding this out.
And of course even if the blairites did have signifcant grassroot support in 2010 you'd have to be delusional to think this is true in 2017.

[thumb21]

It's not as simple as "move to the right on migration and you win!!!!!!", they already have done that and it quite clearly hasn't worked.  As a party it's always going to be an issue that you'll struggle with, you have to square the circle between the people who've moved away from Labour on that kind of cultural issue and people who would be more reluctant to support Labour if they went down that route - that's probably more than some would think and both groups are needed for Labour to form a government.  Being a left-wing UKIP runs the risk of alienating more people than it brings back...

I'd argue that Labour's biggest mistake in the past was not responding to the increasing importance of migration as an issue (2005 is probably the big one; the Howard campaign used it a lot more than any mainstream campaign ever) with a positive defence of migration, but instead running around like a headless chicken trying to out-Tory the Tories on it.  That both hurt Labour's credibility generally; plus it basically conceded the whole framing of the issue to the anti-migration side.  I mean I'm broadly pro-migration (I'm looking for work outside the UK so I'd by a hypocrite if I wasn't really) so maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see it being any worse for the party...

I don't think anyone is saying its simple as just move to the right on immigration. Labour also has to improve its messaging, stop speaking in jargon and they need to stop electing people like Miliband and Corbyn and get someone who is a good leader and is likeable.

Labour hasn't really moved to the right on immigration. They have failed to give a real firm stance on it and people haven't forgotten the boom of immigration under Blair. It goes back to what I was saying about messaging really. Even if they have moved to the right on immigration, they have failed to get that message across.

As for how many people move away from Labour from this, I think the number won't be too high. I don't think a massive number of people would be willing to potentially give the Tories a victory just because they don't like one policy change. On the other hand, when you look at the polls, you see that there is a large constituency of people are economically left wing but right wing on immigration who could be attracted to Labour. Let's not forget that the Conservatives' mega-lead in the polls mostly comes from UKIP defectors who Labour has completely failed to attract.

[thumb21]

Lord Ashcroft Mega poll (40K)

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/05/election-2017-ashcroft-model/#more-15204



UK sample of (40,000):
Cons 40%
Lab 23%
Lib 10%
UKIP 5%
others 6%
Won't vote or Won't say 15%

CONSTITUENCY-BY-CONSTITUENCY



https://dashboards.lordashcroftpolls.com/Storyboard/RHViewStoryBoard.aspx?RId=%C2%B2%C2%B7&RLId=%C2%B2%C2%B3&PId=%C2%B1%C2%B4%C2%BA%C2%B5%C2%B4&UId=%C2%B4%C2%B9%C2%B9%C2%B9%C2%BC&RpId=26

If 2017 is bigger landslide then 1997 , would that convince Labour to move in a more centrist direction.

I think the Blairites would use it as an opportunity to take back control of Labour and most Labour members would probably fall for it to be entirely honest. However, going centrist is just as disastrous.

What is holding back Labour is not their left-wing policies, the polls are very clear that the British people support most of them. The problem is messaging. Corbyn especially and the Labour party as a whole is bad at messaging and Corbyn as an individual is holding Labour quite far back.

What Labour needs is not to become the Red Tory, but to have fresh leadership with better messaging that is straight to the point. They should probably move to the right on issues like immigration to appeal to English voters as well as coming out in favour of English devolved parliament. An important factor that will cost Labour this election is the fact that they have failed to pick up much of the collapsing UKIP vote.

If Blairites get back control of Labour, any chance of a far left split, leading to a small party to the left of Labour? (like say, Linke in Germany). I guess they could get an amount of votes similar to the Greens, and maybe be slightly more competitive than them (I guess they could get 1 or 2 seats with the adecuate candidates and enough effort)

Probably many of the Corbynistas would go to TUSC but I think they would largely stick with Labour to keep the Tories out.

[jaichind]

New Comres poll
CON 48%-2
LAB 30%+5
LIB 10% -2
UKIP 5%-2

LAB resurgence story seems alive.

[Phony Moderate]

You'll find that the Prodigal Son, David, got the largest number of votes among both MPs and among the party membership. Ed only won through his support among affiliated supporters; something which was used as rather a bludgeon against him later, of course...

Yes i've edited my post upon finding this out.
And of course even if the blairites did have signifcant grassroot support in 2010 you'd have to be delusional to think this is true in 2017.

David Miliband got a lot of support because he was a figure of gravitas and experience and was both willing to and capable of appealing to people who weren't members of Progress. Liz Kendall, on the other hand, is to the Blairites what Diane Abbott is to the Hard Left.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You'll find that the Prodigal Son, David, got the largest number of votes among both MPs and among the party membership. Ed only won through his support among affiliated supporters; something which was used as rather a bludgeon against him later, of course...

Yes i've edited my post upon finding this out.
And of course even if the blairites did have signifcant grassroot support in 2010 you'd have to be delusional to think this is true in 2017.

David Miliband got a lot of support because he was a figure of gravitas