YouGov Poll - 33 Point lead!

[Andy_W]

First of Corbyns numbers were damaged by the second referendum so maybe take some responsibility for that loss rather than constantly put individual blame onto the bloke who gave you what you wanted

Secondly YOU made the claim the rise in the polls is because of Labour moving to the centre

And I'm saying Labour hasn't really progressed since 2019, but rather the Tory vote has collapsed and that weighted into the polls is pushing Labour to around a 15% - 18% average in the polls

It's your point Andy, so you should be the one explaining that Labour's vote is increasing and where the votes are coming from, not me

It's not like a game or league, it's a prediction or a guess that is being discussed

Second referendum?

There was no second referendum, Labour were not in a strong enough position after 2017 to force one, Tories had too many more seats, especially with the ones they paid off. Labour didn't do enough to get MP's or their people in the red wall the remain side. It was all confused, Tories offered the brexit vote for 2015 GE, but Cameron was seen as more of a remainer than JC was. Then when he went it was pretend leaver BJ v pretend remainer JC, and BJ was the better liar.

The hardcore Tories would vote Tory over Brexit anyway, it's not like the remainers on their side jumped ship and voted for Labour. Tories won 2019 by 14m to 10m (or even worse 165 seats), and it's not like 58% wanted leave, it was probably more like a remain lead at that time. The problem was Labour lost leavers and their number of remainers was not enough to do anything meaningful.

It's impossible to deny Labour have moved to a position which would secure an election win, there's only two ways to go, and loads of you complain we've not gone left, or stayed left, so you all think it too. I'm fine with Labour occupying the centre to win an election, it's the only option we have. The makeup of voting boomers, and hard-core far-right nut jobs who rule the tory party and the press make it a terrible fight to be in, but we are in that fight.

Labour has progressed, they had 203 seats, they're predicted 475.



I've told you, the votes are coming from the rough centre, swing voters, and ex-leavers, and Labour have lost some on the left, that's fine, they'll vote green and they're not going to vote Tory. Actual number of votes doesn't matter though (for one party, without considering the other), like I say, it's seasts what count, and they're won on percentages, just like they're lost on percentages.

 

[Easterside_Red]

Andy, it’s really simple the second referendum was really unpopular and should never have been included in the Labour 2019 manifesto

Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 manifesto?

 

[Easterside_Red]

Yes, and the one that offered a soft Brexit which people like Andy wanted and the same Corbyn people like Andy are annoyed at for offering a soft Brexit

Makes no sense at all fella. Have another crack at it

 

[SuperStu]

FWIW, I think if (hopefully when) Labour win the next election they’ll start where they are at now and gradually slide a little further left once in power

But he is Labour and his views will lean leftwards

After the next GE (which it will win) undoubtedly it's policies will move closer to a status you deem more acceptable than previous.

Have to say I'm surprised so many on here seem to be so confident of this idea that Starmer's Labour will be more left wing in power than they are now. To my knowledge we've never had a UK government move to the left during their time in office, nor one that is more left wing in practice than they promised to be when campaigning. Even Attlee's government wobbled quite a bit about nationalising steel and went in to the 1950 and 51 elections with a manifesto promising to consolidate what they'd already done rather than make any further progress socialising the economy. Obviously I'm not saying this is an actual barrier now. What other people did 70 years ago has no bearing on what someone can choose to now, clearly. But it's worth noting just as an indicator of the way people in the type of position Starmer hopes to be in tend to act.

And lets be honest it's not just history that's up against this idea of Starmer's Labour moving to the left. It's the entire centre of gravity of politics in this country. Look at the treatment Corbyn got - every newspaper, every media org, most Labour politicians, all the other big Westminster parties, loads of celebrity figures - all of them were ready to throw themselves in to making sure he wasn't allowed anywhere near power. I find it hard to believe that Starmer would actually have the inclination or the cojones to go up against the sheer viciousness that would be thrown at him if he tried to move the party to the left.

We either take them at their word or gamble on it all being a massive con to gain power. The former is unpalatable. The latter will see Labour in the same political wilderness as the Liberals after their catastrophic coalition.

I think Scrote's probably right here as well. People are well within their rights to expect to get what they were voting for when their side wins.

Centre to Center left is a good place to be in my opinion, I’ve always espoused capitalism with a conscience of if you prefer socialism without stifling individual ambition which to me is fairly centre ground and allows opportunities for growth without leaving anyone behind. You can make as much profit as you can but you pay back into the system (taxes) in full before you take your cut and those taxes are used for the benefit of all (nhs, education, social care, infrastructure and so on).

Not having a go at you personally El G' but I feel like I see this a lot with Starmer supporters. They'll say what they want politically, call it centrist, then call Starmer a centrist, and then assume he therefore must be out there saying the same things. And if you listen to him and his shad cab, he's actually not.

Without leaving anyone behind? The Labour commitment to end homelessness has gone, the National Education Service and lifelong learning has gone, just this week the leadership went against party conference and won't be doing free school meals for all kids.

Pay back into the system? A year ago Starmer whipped his party to vote against increasing corporation tax. Imagine that. A tory government going to parliament to increase corporation tax and the Labour opposition voting against it. But that's the reality. Reeves has pledged not to increase capital gains tax.

Taxes used for the benefit of all on the NHS? Someone else has already pointed our Streetings links to private healthcare. On education? The party have refused to commit to a payrise for teachers any better than the tories. Reeves' fiscal rules make infrastructure spending seem particularly unlikely, the only thing we've been told about there is the environmental policy where a government scheme will apparently build up green energy resources only to hand them over to private interests to milk a profit from.

I suppose it links back to the first points I replied to. If yourself and others don't actually believe anything Starmer and Reeves tell us about what they plan to do then I guess you won't care about any of this. I just find that so strange because what's to stop you just applying that logic to any party or politician? You could espouse voting for the Libs or the Greens or UKIP or Monster Raving Loony or the Communist Party of Great Britain or BNP or ANYONE and just say "well don't worry about what they're saying they'll do. Once they're in office they'll do the centre left stuff I personally like".

I don't WANT Corbyn back (but I wouldn't be against it). I do WANT Labour to represent the people that need their representation.

Again I agree with Scrote. Couldn't care less if Corbyn the person was back in. My view of the Labour Party is entirely transactional. Give me something I want and I'll give them the only thing I have that they could want - my vote.

 

[SuperStu]

Blair is most unpopular yet delivered 2 landslides and won 3 elections

Corbyn led Labour to one of its worst ever defeats . All this shows is how detached the socialist Labour membership is from the rest of the electorate

The problem you've got there is you're assuming people only like or dislike a politician based on their election results. Try factoring in a comparison of how many illegal wars those two politicians have dragged the country into!

 

[Easterside_Red]

@SuperStu stop selectively quoting me.

 

[SuperStu]

@SuperStu stop selectively quoting me.

How would that work? I have to quote all your messages ever if I want to reply to one specific part of one?

 

[Scrote]

There was no second referendum, Labour were not in a strong enough position after 2017 to force one, Tories had too many more seats, especially with the ones they paid off. Labour didn't do enough to get MP's or their people in the red wall the remain side. It was all confused, Tories offered the brexit vote for 2015 GE, but Cameron was seen as more of a remainer than JC was. Then when he went it was pretend leaver BJ v pretend remainer JC, and BJ was the better liar.

I think he's referring to the campaign for a second referendum. I'll admit that I turned up in London for the first march - and was then told I was helping the anti-Corbyn brigade by taking part. I don't think you realise that the referendum wasn't fought on party lines. I fully agree that many Labour MPs did nothing in their constituencies to try and prevent Brexit. That's one reason why I won't vote fot Anna Turley if she stands in Redcar.

The hardcore Tories would vote Tory over Brexit anyway, it's not like the remainers on their side jumped ship and voted for Labour. Tories won 2019 by 14m to 10m (or even worse 165 seats), and it's not like 58% wanted leave, it was probably more like a remain lead at that time. The problem was Labour lost leavers and their number of remainers was not enough to do anything meaningful.

You're almost getting it. Chasing a Tory vote that will vote Tory regardless, at the expense of someone who would have voted Labour if they hadn't bounced right, is a net loss of two.

Labour have lost some on the left, that's fine, they'll vote green and they're not going to vote Tory.

So we're happy that some of us might not vote Labour due to the candidate that's foisted upon us? I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 manifesto?

Yes. The one where he tried to keep Labour as a broad church. The fact that certain elements went off and did their own thing doesn't seem to matter to you; which is why I'm surprised that you're so bothered about the left doing their own thing in the next election

@SuperStu stop selectively quoting me.

Why don't you reply with the full quote for context if you feel you've been misqouted? I don't think the sentence that Stu posted misrepresents your original post at all. What do you think you said that has been portrayed as something different?

 

[Easterside_Red]

which is why I'm surprised that you're so bothered about the left doing their own thing in the next election

I'm not bothered at all, not now anyway. There's only so much pleading can be done but if a group of people are so needy in wanting policy absolutely 100% their way then it's right for them to go off and do their 'own thing'.

Why don't you reply with the full quote for context if you feel you've been misqouted?

Why didn't you reply to the original quote?
That's where all the context is.

The fact that certain elements went off and did their own thing doesn't seem to matter to you

Irony alert.

 

[Easterside_Red]

How would that work? I have to quote all your messages ever if I want to reply to one specific part of one?

Because I acknowledged it was unlikely that any move to the left would go as far or as fast as most on the left need to see happen. I thought that was important for context, you and others don't. Fair enough.

 

[SuperStu]

Because I acknowledged it was unlikely that any move to the left would go as far or as fast as most on the left need to see happen. I thought that was important for context, you and others don't. Fair enough.

It's not particularly important for context no. I'm saying the history, the political and media pressure, and Starmers lack of an ideological underpinning point to him not moving the party left. Not a long way to the left, not a little bit to the left. They'll get more right wing the longer they're in government.

 

[Easterside_Red]

It's not particularly important for context no.

It is to me as I was the one who said it.

They'll get more right wing the longer they're in government.

That's all speculation. You are no more able to predict the future than I am. Only time will tell but I and millions of others are not prepared to throw away an opportunity to improve the lot of those who need it most based on the whims of the Left.

 

[SuperStu]

That's all speculation. You are no more able to predict the future than I am.

No I disagree. We're not talking about a random outcome like predicting lottery numbers. With this you can absolutely look at the history, the ideology of the people involved, the things they're saying, the media landscape and make an educated guess.

 

[Andy_W]

Andy, it’s really simple the second referendum was really unpopular and should never have been included in the Labour 2019 manifesto

And people like you supported it didn’t you?

No, I didn't, Certainly not with Corbyn as a leader, as I didn't believe him to be much of a remainer. Equally, he shouldn't have been in charge of Labour in the lead into the referendum. I can understand why though, as most thought remain was in the bag back in 2015-2016, I did too.

I thought a vote on the broad scope of the deal we got would have been a good option, considering there was no single defined leave option.

 

[Scrote]

Andy, it’s really simple the second referendum was really unpopular and should never have been included in the Labour 2019 manifesto

And people like you supported it didn’t you?

No, I didn't, Certainly not with Corbyn as a leader, as I didn't believe him to be much of a remainer. Equally, he shouldn't have been in charge of Labour in the lead into the referendum. I can understand why though, as most thought remain was in the bag back in 2015-2016, I did too.

I thought a vote on the broad scope of the deal we got would have been a good option, considering there was no single defined leave option.

I assume by this you mean a vote without the option of remain?

How would that have worked?

Q: Here's the deal we've managed to agree with the EU, do you like it?
(a) Yes - we'll implement it.
(b) No - erm, we'll implement it anyway as there aren't any other options in this scenario.

 

[Andy_W]

I think he's referring to the campaign for a second referendum. I'll admit that I turned up in London for the first march - and was then told I was helping the anti-Corbyn brigade by taking part. I don't think you realise that the referendum wasn't fought on party lines. I fully agree that many Labour MPs did nothing in their constituencies to try and prevent Brexit. That's one reason why I won't vote fot Anna Turley if she stands in Redcar.

See, even as probably the most hardcore remainer I know, I don't think I ever thought a second referendum was a good idea. Even if it was fuelled with illegal money it was going to be hard to get the public to accept it, nobody likes being told they're wrong etc.

The referendum wasn't fought on party lines, most parties lost (Con, Lab, LD, SNP etc) and all were and should have been pro-remain. Bad remain campaign on many fronts v lying and non-specific leave campaign which was very well ran strategy wise ultimately bent the result so far that leave won, mental.

The loss put Labour in a bad position though, as Remain was always going to be far better for the least well-off (impossible to support leave), and the Tories could switch sides quite easily. Tory backers would have been fine anyway (rich), as they could likely exploit the poor with it. Of course, those whose votes they stole, the 30k a year Tories, those in the red wall etc, got absolutely screwed over, but they fell for it.

You're almost getting it. Chasing a Tory vote that will vote Tory regardless, at the expense of someone who would have voted Labour if they hadn't bounced right, is a net loss of two.

I'm not saying chase Tories, who have always been Tories, we don't need to do that, we just need to target previous labour voters who switched sides, enough to offset those you lose to the left. We might have chased too many, but I think there are quite a few Tories who are that ***ed off they won't vote for them (doesn't mean they will vote for Labour). It's early days still, no manifesto out yet, but Labours position v the tories in the last 3 month will be interesting. I would prefer a comfortable lead, something ending up with 350-400 seats, any more than that is giving up too much ground, but getting more due to Tories not voting isn't a bad thing.

So we're happy that some of us might not vote Labour due to the candidate that's foisted upon us? I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Yes, I'm ok with that, reluctantly, if it means bringing an ex-labour voter back from the Tories. Not if it swaps you for a voter who has never voted Labour though, that's a poor trade. Please vote though, vote green or whatever to show you're still there. It's not possible to please everyone but the win needs to be secured. We can come back to this when a fully costed manifesto comes out, and we know what the current UK situation is late 24, and where we sit with debt, GDP, NHS, Energy, Inflation, Cost of living etc. If Labour's win is looking incredibly secure and the manifesto is similar to the Tory one, then I will join you and vote green myself, albeit the Labour manifesto won't be anything like the Tory manifesto, so it's not going to happen.

 

[Andy_W]

I assume by this you mean a vote without the option of remain?

How would that have worked?

Q: Here's the deal we've managed to agree with the EU, do you like it?
(a) Yes - we'll implement it.
(b) No - erm, we'll implement it anyway as there aren't any other options in this scenario.

Yeah, I think having the remain option would have just stirred up the hornet's nest again. Would have been hard to do as well as you would have had to do a series of knockout rounds with the 5 or so leave options which were contradictory, then put the winner up V remain. Would have been hard to work, if a public vote.

I don't think a negotiated deal, and a vote on that would be the right way, as it would have taken too long (and been too much uncertainty for trade), so would have favoured a broad starting point which could later maybe be refined.

So, I would have preferred a vote on preference, so something like this:
A - Leave, but keep SM/ CU for no set end date
B - Leave, but keep SM/ CU for one full election term after the leave date (then have a vote on whether to leave both)
C - Leave, ditch SM/CU but pay for access for certain aspects
D - Leave, no deal/ **** deal

Not sure how we would do that mind, as a knockout, or people just rank their preference 1 to 4.

Option D would never have won, as only 25% of brexiters wanted no deal/ **** deal, I'd have been Ok with C (if done ok), reluctantly but would have been more than happy with A or B. When I say happy, I mean happy considering that leave won etc, so assuming remain wasn't an option.

 

[Scrote]

There's only so much pleading can be done but if a group of people are so needy in wanting policy absolutely 100% their way

Firstly, why do you keep using pejorative language to describe people that disagree with you? There is nothing "needy" about voting for the person who most closely represents your political position.

Secondly, I don't now, and have never wanted or expected policy to match my views 100%. It doesn't work like that.

It's about policy and direction of travel at the party level.

It's about personality, experience and historical actions at the local candidate level.

 

[Scrote]

Yeah, I think having the remain option would have just stirred up the hornet's nest again. Would have been hard to do as well as you would have had to do a series of knockout rounds with the 5 or so leave options which were contradictory, then put the winner up V remain. Would have been hard to work, if a public vote.

I don't think a negotiated deal, and a vote on that would be the right way, as it would have taken too long (and been too much uncertainty for trade), so would have favoured a broad starting point which could later maybe be refined.

So, I would have preferred a vote on preference, so something like this:
A - Leave, but keep SM/ CU for no set end date
B - Leave, but keep SM/ CU for one full election term after the leave date (then have a vote on whether to leave both)
C - Leave, ditch SM/CU but pay for access for certain aspects
D - Leave, no deal/ **** deal

Not sure how we would do that mind, as a knockout, or people just rank their preference 1 to 4.

Option D would never have won, as only 25% of brexiters wanted no deal/ **** deal, I'd have been Ok with C (if done ok), reluctantly but would have been more than happy with A or B. When I say happy, I mean happy considering that leave won etc, so assuming remain wasn't an option.

A - impossible without FoM. The EU wouldn't have agreed to SM/CU access without, at least, FoM which would essentially be the BrINO that leavers were dead against.
B - as above. Just extending the period of uncertainty and only one of the later options would have been accepted by the EU without FoM.
C - largely where we're headed now. Probably impossible to vote for back in 2016/17 as the negotiations to make it happen wouldn't have taken place.
D - what we ended up with as it was the only real option on the table

Not having a remain option would have caused just as many problems with the electorate as having one. But, in my opinion, it was the only sensible next step.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said as much in parliament and Farage had already intimated that further votes would be necessary. It was only after the 'shock' win for leave that the narrative changed. We allowed ourselves to be bullied into something disastrous for the country and history won't look kindly on those who orchestrated it.

 

[TeessideCleveland]

Think this would mean a narrow Labour majority (18) - or so a seat predictor site said