FlyTheNest

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm always ready to hear Hugo and TE, but may I say that anyone who can possibly judge what kind of politician will be "electable" at the next General Election is a much, much smarter guy than me.

One week Dave is unassailable, the next Osborne is the anointed successor, then it's Boris romping home. Currently May is the favourite. Leadsom? Gove?

If it's so chaotic on the Tory side, how can we possibly know what an "electable" Labour PM looks like?

howsillyofme1 wrote:See Caroline Flint is accusing her own party of sexism because there hasn't been a female leader

JonnyT1234 wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:See Caroline Flint is accusing her own party of sexism because there hasn't been a female leader

Wonder what Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman think about Flint airbrushing them both out of Labour's history books.

Rebecca wrote:

Freedomofthepress wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
The ones who've just signed up to support Corbyn are pretty close to being cultists. And some of the new members since his nomination are too. There are enough of them to be a right nuisance.

Sorry but is this Jess Phillips in disguise??????

Tubby,you have no evidence that people who vote for Corbyn are 'cultists'.
In fact it is fucking offensive.
They are all people,and also voters.
Because they vote for someone you dislike does not make them members of a cult.
You are letting yourself down here,I know you are better than this.
Unless,as Freedom says,you are in fact Jess Phillips,in which case as you were.

HindleA wrote:Bloody hell just been reminded the Schumacher flying goalie takeout of Battiston was 34 years ago.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm always ready to hear Hugo and TE, but may I say that anyone who can possibly judge what kind of politician will be "electable" at the next General Election is a much, much smarter guy than me.

One week Dave is unassailable, the next Osborne is the anointed successor, then it's Boris romping home. Currently May is the favourite. Leadsom? Gove?

If it's so chaotic on the Tory side, how can we possibly know what an "electable" Labour PM looks like?

Generally I look at actual election results, then polling and then I listen to what people I know are saying.

By all these measures I am reasonably certain Corbyn is heading for a huge defeat (he might poll as low as 20-25%). I do agree that it is hard to work out what an electable Labour leader looks like though. You get a view of what isn't working, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what will.

The fact the Tories are a shambles, have fucked over the country, may be taken over by the Kipper fringe and are still unassailable is really depressing.

JonnyT1234 wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:See Caroline Flint is accusing her own party of sexism because there hasn't been a female leader

Wonder what Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman think about Flint airbrushing them both out of Labour's history books.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm always ready to hear Hugo and TE, but may I say that anyone who can possibly judge what kind of politician will be "electable" at the next General Election is a much, much smarter guy than me.

One week Dave is unassailable, the next Osborne is the anointed successor, then it's Boris romping home. Currently May is the favourite. Leadsom? Gove?

If it's so chaotic on the Tory side, how can we possibly know what an "electable" Labour PM looks like?

Generally I look at actual election results, then polling and then I listen to what people I know are saying.

By all these measures I am reasonably certain Corbyn is heading for a huge defeat (he might poll as low as 20-25%). I do agree that it is hard to work out what an electable Labour leader looks like though. You get a view of what isn't working, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what will.

The fact the Tories are a shambles, have fucked over the country, may be taken over by the Kipper fringe and are still unassailable is really depressing.

howsillyofme1 wrote:See Caroline Flint is accusing her own party of sexism because there hasn't been a female leader

What is it that makes people put this type of stuff....

Surely she isn't having a dig at Corbyn about this?

Perhaps if we had a quality woman available (a modern day Barbara Castle perhaps) then we would stand a chance of a woman leader

None of the woman I have seen at the top of Labour have had the necessary quality (mind you neither have some of the men) but Labour has made great strides in female representation

Just as the lack of a woman, or gay leader is not a representation of Labour at large, having a femal leader does not mean the Tories aren't still a party containing a significant amount of bigots

Why do some people on the right of the party never seem to lose and opportunity to praise the Tories and denigrate their own party

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

JonnyT1234 wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:See Caroline Flint is accusing her own party of sexism because there hasn't been a female leader

Wonder what Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman think about Flint airbrushing them both out of Labour's history books.

Neither of them were elected leader, so her point still stands. I led a rather sheltered life but the first time I met shockingly open sexism it came from two Labour Party union types, it is noticeable by the way that many of the CorbynNats that post in the Guardian are very sexist.

It is interesting Labour has never come close to electing a woman. I wouldn't claim it as evidence of sexism but it is noteworthy.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm always ready to hear Hugo and TE, but may I say that anyone who can possibly judge what kind of politician will be "electable" at the next General Election is a much, much smarter guy than me.

One week Dave is unassailable, the next Osborne is the anointed successor, then it's Boris romping home. Currently May is the favourite. Leadsom? Gove?

If it's so chaotic on the Tory side, how can we possibly know what an "electable" Labour PM looks like?

Generally I look at actual election results, then polling and then I listen to what people I know are saying.

By all these measures I am reasonably certain Corbyn is heading for a huge defeat (he might poll as low as 20-25%). I do agree that it is hard to work out what an electable Labour leader looks like though. You get a view of what isn't working, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what will.

The fact the Tories are a shambles, have fucked over the country, may be taken over by the Kipper fringe and are still unassailable is really depressing.

What election results have you been looking at that suggest Labour will get 20%? Polling is not exactly at a high point at the moment and if I talked to my circle of peers then we will be leaving Europe tomorrow, Boris would be PM or we would be campaigning for Corbyn to be PM.....not much help really are they small biased sample sets

mbc1955 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I'm always ready to hear Hugo and TE, but may I say that anyone who can possibly judge what kind of politician will be "electable" at the next General Election is a much, much smarter guy than me.

One week Dave is unassailable, the next Osborne is the anointed successor, then it's Boris romping home. Currently May is the favourite. Leadsom? Gove?

If it's so chaotic on the Tory side, how can we possibly know what an "electable" Labour PM looks like?

Generally I look at actual election results, then polling and then I listen to what people I know are saying.

By all these measures I am reasonably certain Corbyn is heading for a huge defeat (he might poll as low as 20-25%). I do agree that it is hard to work out what an electable Labour leader looks like though. You get a view of what isn't working, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what will.

The fact the Tories are a shambles, have fucked over the country, may be taken over by the Kipper fringe and are still unassailable is really depressing.

Maybe you should try broadening your circle of friends. You might be living in the TE version of the Westminster Bubble.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote: Generally I look at actual election results, then polling and then I listen to what people I know are saying.

By all these measures I am reasonably certain Corbyn is heading for a huge defeat (he might poll as low as 20-25%). I do agree that it is hard to work out what an electable Labour leader looks like though. You get a view of what isn't working, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what will.

The fact the Tories are a shambles, have fucked over the country, may be taken over by the Kipper fringe and are still unassailable is really depressing.

What election results have you been looking at that suggest Labour will get 20%? Polling is not exactly at a high point at the moment and if I talked to my circle of peers then we will be leaving Europe tomorrow, Boris would be PM or we would be campaigning for Corbyn to be PM.....not much help really are they small biased sample sets

Fair question.

Firstly the local election results (which have a string correlation - far better than opinion polls) showed Labour about 15% off where they needed to be to be in a winning position.

Secondly relative to Miliband we were 5 points down, but arguably 2016 was far far more favourable to Labour than 2011.

Thirdly there is a reasonable degree of consensus that about 1 in 5 Labour voters have walked away since 2015.

Finally anecdotally (entirely evidence free this) pro Labour people I mix with won't vote for Corbyn to run the country. I get told this a lot, far more than I heard it about Ed.

So ignoring the last bit Labour looks about 5-6 points down on Ed, which would put the party on 24-25.

Finally Corbyn's personal performance in campaigning (he isn't listened to by far too many people) and the fact he consistently screwed up Remain when he did get coverage, and the fact his campaign team is shambolic at best, suggests his election campaign will rival Foot's for hopelessness. So down on 24-25 maybe towards 20.

Which oddly was what one of his campaign team is alleged to have said off the record to some political journalist (who probably made it up).

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

mbc1955 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote: Generally I look at actual election results, then polling and then I listen to what people I know are saying.

By all these measures I am reasonably certain Corbyn is heading for a huge defeat (he might poll as low as 20-25%). I do agree that it is hard to work out what an electable Labour leader looks like though. You get a view of what isn't working, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what will.

The fact the Tories are a shambles, have fucked over the country, may be taken over by the Kipper fringe and are still unassailable is really depressing.

Maybe you should try broadening your circle of friends. You might be living in the TE version of the Westminster Bubble.

Well I can only work with what I know. So I am only measuring relative popularity in a small segment of the population.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Well bugger off and support another party then - you seem to hate Labour and there is compulsion for you to vote with them.....


The Labour Party you seem to want is no longer there....it is undergoing a transformational change. That is a fact and the current membership will not elect a leader that you like - so instead of bitching about it go and find somewhere that you feel happier with and leave us who are tolerant of this change to try to work out how it should develop

howsillyofme1 wrote:Oh and by the way Leadsom seems to be indicating A50 in September. My bet is that May matches her commitment

Rebecca wrote:

Freedomofthepress wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
The ones who've just signed up to support Corbyn are pretty close to being cultists. And some of the new members since his nomination are too. There are enough of them to be a right nuisance.

Sorry but is this Jess Phillips in disguise??????

Tubby,you have no evidence that people who vote for Corbyn are 'cultists'.
In fact it is fucking offensive.
They are all people,and also voters.
Because they vote for someone you dislike does not make them members of a cult.
You are letting yourself down here,I know you are better than this.
Unless,as Freedom says,you are in fact Jess Phillips,in which case as you were.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Rebecca wrote:

Freedomofthepress wrote:
Sorry but is this Jess Phillips in disguise??????

Tubby,you have no evidence that people who vote for Corbyn are 'cultists'.
In fact it is fucking offensive.
They are all people,and also voters.
Because they vote for someone you dislike does not make them members of a cult.
You are letting yourself down here,I know you are better than this.
Unless,as Freedom says,you are in fact Jess Phillips,in which case as you were.

I didn't say people who voted for Corbyn are cultists. You actually quoted what I said.

You do not have to think Corbyn is a far leftist, the point is that he's their man, as Taylor Parkes correctly said. This is hugely important because literally every organisation they touch goes to shit. The SWP, as you probably know, dealt with a rape allegation against one of its top brass by having the rest of the top brass conduct a DIY investigation and trial. Stop The War has become an embarrassment for its tankyism. These aren't obscure organization's I'm choosing.

You have to see Corbyn in this context. He's their man. And that's really bad.

howsillyofme1 wrote:Oh and by the way Leadsom seems to be indicating A50 in September. My bet is that May matches her commitment

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Rebecca wrote:

Freedomofthepress wrote:
Sorry but is this Jess Phillips in disguise??????

Tubby,you have no evidence that people who vote for Corbyn are 'cultists'.
In fact it is fucking offensive.
They are all people,and also voters.
Because they vote for someone you dislike does not make them members of a cult.
You are letting yourself down here,I know you are better than this.
Unless,as Freedom says,you are in fact Jess Phillips,in which case as you were.

I didn't say people who voted for Corbyn are cultists. You actually quoted what I said.

You do not have to think Corbyn is a far leftist, the point is that he's their man, as Taylor Parkes correctly said. This is hugely important because literally every organisation they touch goes to shit. The SWP, as you probably know, dealt with a rape allegation against one of its top brass by having the rest of the top brass conduct a DIY investigation and trial. Stop The War has become an embarrassment for its tankyism. These aren't obscure organization's I'm choosing.

You have to see Corbyn in this context. He's their man. And that's really bad.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:
What election results have you been looking at that suggest Labour will get 20%? Polling is not exactly at a high point at the moment and if I talked to my circle of peers then we will be leaving Europe tomorrow, Boris would be PM or we would be campaigning for Corbyn to be PM.....not much help really are they small biased sample sets

Fair question.

Firstly the local election results (which have a string correlation - far better than opinion polls) showed Labour about 15% off where they needed to be to be in a winning position.

Secondly relative to Miliband we were 5 points down, but arguably 2016 was far far more favourable to Labour than 2011.

Thirdly there is a reasonable degree of consensus that about 1 in 5 Labour voters have walked away since 2015.

Finally anecdotally (entirely evidence free this) pro Labour people I mix with won't vote for Corbyn to run the country. I get told this a lot, far more than I heard it about Ed.

So ignoring the last bit Labour looks about 5-6 points down on Ed, which would put the party on 24-25.

Finally Corbyn's personal performance in campaigning (he isn't listened to by far too many people) and the fact he consistently screwed up Remain when he did get coverage, and the fact his campaign team is shambolic at best, suggests his election campaign will rival Foot's for hopelessness. So down on 24-25 maybe towards 20.

Which oddly was what one of his campaign team is alleged to have said off the record to some political journalist (who probably made it up).

There is very poor correlation between local election results and general elections - especially only 1 year after GE
Also elections were in 2012 not 2011 around the time of the worst of Osborne's omnishambles budget
There is no consensus that Labour voters have walked away...the media says this but the media is uniformly hostile.


To be honest I am not going to bother anymore you are just making up things to support your thesis - a lot of it 'I reckon' and anecdotal.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote: Fair question.

Firstly the local election results (which have a string correlation - far better than opinion polls) showed Labour about 15% off where they needed to be to be in a winning position.

Secondly relative to Miliband we were 5 points down, but arguably 2016 was far far more favourable to Labour than 2011.

Thirdly there is a reasonable degree of consensus that about 1 in 5 Labour voters have walked away since 2015.

Finally anecdotally (entirely evidence free this) pro Labour people I mix with won't vote for Corbyn to run the country. I get told this a lot, far more than I heard it about Ed.

So ignoring the last bit Labour looks about 5-6 points down on Ed, which would put the party on 24-25.

Finally Corbyn's personal performance in campaigning (he isn't listened to by far too many people) and the fact he consistently screwed up Remain when he did get coverage, and the fact his campaign team is shambolic at best, suggests his election campaign will rival Foot's for hopelessness. So down on 24-25 maybe towards 20.

Which oddly was what one of his campaign team is alleged to have said off the record to some political journalist (who probably made it up).

There is very poor correlation between local election results and general elections - especially only 1 year after GE
Also elections were in 2012 not 2011 around the time of the worst of Osborne's omnishambles budget
There is no consensus that Labour voters have walked away...the media says this but the media is uniformly hostile.


To be honest I am not going to bother anymore you are just making up things to support your thesis - a lot of it 'I reckon' and anecdotal.

There is not a very poor correlation between the national equivalent vote in local elections and general election results. It is fairly striking how the lead between two parties correlates to a change of government. If you do a bit of research you will find the information.

I am more than happy to discuss where I may be wrong, but I am not in the game of making stuff up.

SpinningHugo wrote:Neil Kinnock at the PLP, audio

I agree with Neil (and Ed, and Gordon, and Harriet and ....)

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:
There is very poor correlation between local election results and general elections - especially only 1 year after GE
Also elections were in 2012 not 2011 around the time of the worst of Osborne's omnishambles budget
There is no consensus that Labour voters have walked away...the media says this but the media is uniformly hostile.


To be honest I am not going to bother anymore you are just making up things to support your thesis - a lot of it 'I reckon' and anecdotal.

There is not a very poor correlation between the national equivalent vote in local elections and general election results. It is fairly striking how the lead between two parties correlates to a change of government. If you do a bit of research you will find the information.

I am more than happy to discuss where I may be wrong, but I am not in the game of making stuff up.

So for a start you got the year wrong as it was 2012 and not 2011

The 2012 were 2 years into a Government and 2011 were around a year after a GE - not comparable

I have been unable to find (in a quick search) any papers that claimed to be able to correlate the 2012 LE results to the 2015 GE results....in fact all the predictions I could find suggested a Labour majority or a hung Parliament up to just before the GE

I am sure you can point me to a paper that can show this correlation that you say

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote: There is not a very poor correlation between the national equivalent vote in local elections and general election results. It is fairly striking how the lead between two parties correlates to a change of government. If you do a bit of research you will find the information.

I am more than happy to discuss where I may be wrong, but I am not in the game of making stuff up.

So for a start you got the year wrong as it was 2012 and not 2011

The 2012 were 2 years into a Government and 2011 were around a year after a GE - not comparable

I have been unable to find (in a quick search) any papers that claimed to be able to correlate the 2012 LE results to the 2015 GE results....in fact all the predictions I could find suggested a Labour majority or a hung Parliament up to just before the GE

I am sure you can point me to a paper that can show this correlation that you say

Here is just one article, there are others.

http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes ... 37UL4nTXqA

Years are a guess, I wasn't overly worried about precision.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Rebecca wrote: Tubby,you have no evidence that people who vote for Corbyn are 'cultists'.
In fact it is fucking offensive.
They are all people,and also voters.
Because they vote for someone you dislike does not make them members of a cult.
You are letting yourself down here,I know you are better than this.
Unless,as Freedom says,you are in fact Jess Phillips,in which case as you were.

I didn't say people who voted for Corbyn are cultists. You actually quoted what I said.

You do not have to think Corbyn is a far leftist, the point is that he's their man, as Taylor Parkes correctly said. This is hugely important because literally every organisation they touch goes to shit. The SWP, as you probably know, dealt with a rape allegation against one of its top brass by having the rest of the top brass conduct a DIY investigation and trial. Stop The War has become an embarrassment for its tankyism. These aren't obscure organization's I'm choosing.

You have to see Corbyn in this context. He's their man. And that's really bad.

So what obviously has to happen has to be an end to factionalism Tubby. That's precisely what you are saying.

So let Progress, Schmogress, Compass, Momentum, the whole sodding lot disband and sit down and talk about how they're going to get on in Labour.

That is all IMHO.

Lonewolfie wrote:

yahyah wrote:Blair has a lot on his conscience.
But why is their no criticism of the soldiers who sign up to kill ?
Without them there would be no war.
The willing recruits who buy the macho myth about 'our heroes', and sign up, are the ones who fire the weapons.

Morfters all....

In my experience people sign on the dotted line for many reasons - family tradition, the camaraderie, escape from drudgery and an expectation of excitement among them.

Speaking for myself personally now, an escape from a bizzare and opressive home life combined with a want to 'do something useful' at a young age led me to the Recruitment Office. (...and having failed dismally at school, the (unfulfilled) promise of a trade on exit)

Once 'in', you are completely at the mercy of the whims of politicians - but you are aware that 1) you could be shot at (and, in that scenario would shoot back), and 2) that ticking (Army lingo for moaning and griping in my day) was fine, but you do as you're told....full stop...end of the line...no questions.

In a perfect world, the military doesn't exist - but the world isn't perfect and some roles performed by the military (peacekeeping/Bosnia/Cyprus/Green Godesses/clearing roads of snow in really bad weather/filling sandbags for flood protection) are useful and necessary.

It has to be said that were I a young man now, I think my decision would be different given the conflicts we (as a nation) are involved in - in my time The Troubles and the USSR/nuclear winter were the threats. Also, we were most definitely not seen as (and did not think of ourselves as) 'heroes'.

Waves to 'extankie' as the username suggests a similar history to mine - and I hope you've sorted the issues you were experiencing.