YouGov Poll - 33 Point lead!

Easterside_Red said:
Yes we've all seen that one before. Since when did being 'popular' translate to being 'competent' and 'effective'?
Click to expand...
Or being unpopular translate to being competent or effective. In fact their is a certain correlation between being unpopular and being incompetent and ineffective..Liz truss for example
 
BoroMart said:
Or being unpopular translate to being competent or effective. In fact their is a certain correlation between being unpopular and being incompetent and ineffective..Liz truss for example
Click to expand...
To counter this, Boris Johnson. He was and still is, in some quaters, popular.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
View attachment 59794
Click to expand...
Not sure where that poll has come from on YouGov, I couldn't find it when I saw it earler, but did see a comment on twitter that it hadn't been weighted in any way (to make it more accurate/ reprasentitive), not sure if this is true mind as can't find the poll.

Unfortunately, the UK doesn't just exist with people from the left who consider themselves permanent Labour voters. In fact these odds are stacked well against Labour so you kind of have to factor for how much your leader is detested by the other parties and the press.

Interesting that the only proven one on that list, who actualy won (twice) and did some good, is Blair, who is bottom. Mad how Labour like the guy who won twice, least....apparently.

I would say it shows how clueless a lot of voters are, they would seemingly rather lose than actually win and then do some good, as well as stopping the Tories from making things worse, but I won't as I don't think the vote is accurate, now when you consider the charts below.

But I would say the poll is unrealiable, and obvisouly "leftiestats" is going to try and skew things against Starmer and for Cobyn, and even say they're pro Corbyn (no mention of Starmer in their bio), but they seem to have shot themselves in the foot below (I don't think this is accurate either):

1688739055732.png

Then there's also this link for Corbyn https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/jeremy-corbyn-approval-rating

1688738953190.png

Starmer link https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating?crossBreak=labour
1688738995603.png
So, Corbyn was seemgly thought of as doing badly (63%) v well (25%), a net 38% down, even with Labour voters who considered themsevels labour voters at the time were smaller in number, and probably further left. Yet Starmer is on 53% well and 30% badly, so a net up of 23%. That's a net difference of +61% in Starmers favour, or ~30% have changed from dissaprove to approve..
 

Attachments

  • 1688738902577.png
    1688738902577.png
    58.1 KB · Views: 0
Easterside_Red said:
Editing other folk's posts for your own gratification. Really mature.

I think there's a few posters clutching at straws desperate to interpret a +20 point Labour lead as somehow being a poor position.
Click to expand...
I guess it's better than not responding to posts that blow your beliefs out of the water.

A 20 point Labour lead is great if the only job is to GTTO. But if the alternative doesn't make any attempt to improve things then can I at least have the honour of saying "I told you so" when the Tories romp to victory in the next but one election.

Change for changes sake is pointless. There needs to be some substance to the change. Neoliberalism has failed badly. Thatcherism has failed even harder. We need a new direction. I don't see anything that suggests Starmer will make any fundamental change to the lives of the people that really need help.

It'll just be more aid to May's JAMs at the expense of anything approaching socialism. Wes Streeting as Shadow Health is the direction of travel.
 
Scrote said:
A 20 point Labour lead is great if the only job is to GTTO. But if the alternative doesn't make any attempt to improve things then can I at least have the honour of saying "I told you so" when the Tories romp to victory in the next but one election.
Click to expand...
That's an opinion, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, they don't want to carry on the same work as the tory party, therefore it is intrinsically better, even if you think it isn't enough of a leftward swing.

But a Starmer win will certainly have a more leftward swing in government policies than Corbyn managed, that's the reality of the situation. I'd like a more left leaning ideology than Starmer is promising, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face because of it.
 
Last edited:
Scrote said:
I guess it's better than not responding to posts that blow your beliefs out of the water.

A 20 point Labour lead is great if the only job is to GTTO. But if the alternative doesn't make any attempt to improve things then can I at least have the honour of saying "I told you so" when the Tories romp to victory in the next but one election.

Change for changes sake is pointless. There needs to be some substance to the change. Neoliberalism has failed badly. Thatcherism has failed even harder. We need a new direction. I don't see anything that suggests Starmer will make any fundamental change to the lives of the people that really need help.

It'll just be more aid to May's JAMs at the expense of anything approaching socialism. Wes Streeting as Shadow Health is the direction of travel.
Click to expand...
I agree with what I can understand of this, but the acronyms are unintelligible.
 
exiledinboro said:
I think I agree with the tweet below 👇which is arguing when you dive into the numbers Labour/Starmer hasn't really won any new voters over since he has been in charge but the Tory vote has collapsed, which has pushed Labour ahead in the polls

But Labour are still on around 32% which is where Corbyn was in 2019 and was apparently a disaster and the Tory votes have shifted to don't knows and Libs

It would be great if shifting to the "centre" Labour was winning over more voters but the story is currently about the Tory vote collapse

They're all just guesses so who knows? 🤷‍♂️ It's likely Labour won't have as many votes as Corbyn won in 2017

https://twitter.com/x/status/1677351154815057921
Click to expand...
The issue with this is where would people's votes go if Corbyn was in charge? Last time, a huge effing chunk went to Johnson to keep Corbyn out.

If Corbyn (who I very much support) was still Labour leader, I would suggest Labour would have no where near the poll standing they currently do have, although of course no of us can prove or disprove that.

Let's just accept Corbyn has gone and let's get this corrupt and inept government out! Labour wins the next GE. But a Tory wipe out (I'll believe it when I see it) would be lovely.
 
Scrote said:
I guess it's better than not responding to posts that blow your beliefs out of the water.
Click to expand...
A classy response from a classy poster. In fact probably the most knowledgeable, yet humble, poster on the forum.

Scrote said:
A 20 point Boro lead is great if the only job is to get promoted. But if the club doesn't make any attempt to improve the squad then can I at least have the honour of saying "I told you so" when we get relegated next season.
Click to expand...
FTFY

Scrote said:
I don't see anything that suggests Starmer will make any fundamental change to the lives of the people that really need help.
It'll just be more aid to May's JAMs at the expense of anything approaching socialism. Wes Streeting as Shadow Health is the direction of travel.
Click to expand...
That's just speculation, you won't know until they've had an opportunity to govern. You and others of a similar ilk constantly need reminding that the 'baseline' is now. It's 13 years of Tory rule, 14 years before the next GE is called. 14 years! The period of time between the start of nursery education and walking into University for the first time. The period of time between adolescence and family responsibility. The period of time between peak earning capability and retirement. In other words, 14 years is a F***ing lifetime and you want to extend that period of pain, austerity and corruption for another 5 years just so that you can't be seen to be compromising your principles. And all the while the outlook for 95% of the population, including everybody on this forum, will continue to deteriorate.

Just humour me and answer a few questions for the benefit of the forum would you please?

1. How old are you?
2. Do you have children under the age of 16?
3. Which Government in your lifetime has espoused the policies and beliefs that you were able to support?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top