I think it's true for some people, but there are probably also 'I'll stop voting Labour if you replace Corbyn' people.I'm sure that's right but i'm thinking that since there is no obvious contender to or heir of Corbyn any new contender would be a foist or a parachutist.
Can we the trust the statement ''I'd vote labour if it wasn't for Corbyn''?What? All of them?
I would say no for the following reasons.
These people are insufficiently politically savvy
to know that there is no obvious contender to or heir of Corbyn.
The 2015 opinion polling. The polling companies were criticised but I don't think hedging or even tactical misinformation amongst people polled was taken sufficiently seriously as an idea.Since 2015, there has been a disastrous Brexit poll and a disastrous general election (except for the Scottish Tories). 2015 is ancient history. Forget about it.
What? All of them?Well some of them may be savvy. Savvy Tories who have realised that the disgruntled labour voter act might sway people.
Well Corbyn wasn't an obvious contender for the leader and I think he still isn't.
Since 2015, there has been a disastrous Brexit poll and a disastrous general election (except for the Scottish Tories). 2015 is ancient history. Forget about it.
Well some of them may be savvy. Savvy Tories who have realised that the disgruntled labour voter act might sway people.You're still making assumptions. I think there are plenty of centre and centre right people who don't call themselves Tory but won't vote for Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn.
No he wasn't an obvious contender but where and who, now, are the contenders?
2015 is the last time we saw people who might have been contenders. Where are they now, for example why has Chukka just resurfaced in labour will never get into power unless they realise they will never get into power mode? Dan Jarvis hotly tipped as a contender couldn't find time for national labour politics in 2015 now apparently is an MP and Mayor of Yorkshire The 2015 apologising for being labour routine which I think certain Labour celebs not active in national politics are retreading is making a comeback and after reading Katy Balls of the Spectator the tories no longer fear Jeremy and are partying like it's 2015.
2015 has made a comeback Jeremy....if only we could forget it.
You're still making assumptions. I think there are plenty of centre and centre right people who don't call themselves Tory but won't vote for Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn.I'm certain Jeremy Corbyn was not active in 2010 and certainly the withdrawees, the tipped and the actual leadership contenders were unpurged immediately after Milliband only to immediately disappear from the scene with the exception at a pinch of Hilary, Yvette and Owen. Their disappearance with the exception of Hilary and Owen was largely self exile therefore any reappearance is a bit rich.
It's not relevant to your question.
Well, if you are talking about credible Labour candidates to be prime minister and why there aren't any, 2015 is not far enough back. Everything went wrong in 2010 when the Ed Miliband was elected.That was the start of the purge of everybody associated with New Labour. Unfortunately, that meant purging all of the best members of the PLP because of course, the best members of the PLP were in the cabinet and hence associated with New Labour.
Going back to 2010 who could have been a contender? I can only think of David who lost to his brother, went away and never came back even though I think people wanted him too.
Do you not think there is some truth in these people not wanting to be seen in opposition because ''it's not a good look''?No. I think DM left politics because he lost and he realised that had been his best chance. The only way he could have recovered the situation would have been to set up in opposition to his own brother. And that certainly isn't a good look.
David Miliband was the obvious choice for leader at the time to anybody except the people who voted.Yes I seem to remember the tories being onto that angle and what you say doesn't contradict my idea that David was obviously part of a generation that didn't want to be around as a prominent opposition politician.
No. I think DM left politics because he lost and he realised that had been his best chance. The only way he could have recovered the situation would have been to set up in opposition to his own brother. And that certainly isn't a good look.
Can we the trust the statement ''I'd vote labour if it wasn't for Corbyn''?I am one of those people who would vote for labour of it wasn't for Corbyn - indeed I always did, was a party member and actually stood as a candidate a couple of times. I can think of plenty of others who are the same - indeed many were once fellow members of the party.
I would say no for the following reasons.
These people are insufficiently politically savvy to know that there is no obvious contender to or heir of Corbyn.
The 2015 opinion polling. The polling companies were criticised but I don't think hedging or even tactical misinformation amongst people polled was taken sufficiently seriously as an idea.
I am one of those people who would vote for labour of it wasn't for Corbyn - indeed I always did, was a party member and actually stood as a candidate a couple of times. I can think of plenty of others who are the same - indeed many were once fellow members of the party.OK then where does your vote go then?
I don't think I (and others) can be characterised as being insufficiently politically savvy.
OK then where does your vote go then?In the 2017 general election and in the recent local election it went to the LibDems. In the former they came second to the Tories (this is a seat that Labour won in 97 and 01), with Labour trailing far behind in 3rd. In the latter the LibDems won, as they always do in my ward.
Who or what would ensure your vote for Labour?A pragmatic centre left leader, who is actually charismatic and a leader. My preferred choice would be Chukka - he impresses me massively.
In the 2017 general election and in the recent local election it went to the LibDems. In the former they came second to the Tories (this is a seat that Labour won in 97 and 01), with Labour trailing far behind in 3rd. In the latter the LibDems won, as they always do in my ward.He withdrew from leadership and then disappeared from frontline opposition politics because he did not want to be seen in opposition and followed the Conservative and national narrative put around by Toby Young that Labour would never again be electable. Why and How can Chukka be considered a serious candidate after a three year sabbatical?
A pragmatic centre left leader, who is actually charismatic and a leader. My preferred choice would be Chukka - he impresses me massively.
Well Labour MPs have historically got away with throwing punches.If he had been a backbench Labour MP would he had got away with it. I think not since the Labour MP for Falkirk didn't.
And how would you respond to the person who said ''I'd vote Labour if it wasn't for Umunna''?
A pragmatic centre left leader, who is actually charismatic and a leader. My preferred choice would be Chukka - he impresses me massively.
I'm a bit sceptical about people who say they'd vote Labour if it wasn't for Corbyn. I'm reminded of a member of my then church, years ago, who said that she'd always vote for a candidate who was a committed Christian, regardless of party (which is itself very naive). A few years later, Paul Boateng stood for Labour in our constituency, and was the only candidate who was openly a committed Christian. I reminded her of her earlier comment, and she said "yes, but he's Labour, so I can't vote for him".Thanks, another reason for taking this Vote Labour if it weren't for Corbyn with a pinch of Salt.
And how would you respond to the person who said ''I'd vote Labour if it wasn't for Umunna''?Not sure it is for me to respond - if that is their view so be it.
Not sure it is for me to respond - if that is their view so be it.Umunna has not put himself in the position where he could be leader of the opposition.
But we've seen this before - there were plenty on the hard left who wouldn't vote Labour while Blair was leader. Many of them left the party. But regardless of missing the votes of these supposed 'core' Labour voters Blair managed to win 3 elections each with either a landslide or a comfortable working majority. Point being, you win elections broadly from the centre ground, or certainly you need to be seen as the less extreme of the main parties. Hence Corbyn's problem and why I cannot see him winning an election, let alone a working majority.
Corbyn though turned out to be a phenomenon. First Garnering a membership Labour are not a dying party in terms of membership, secondly opening up a new constituency of voters, youth, thirdly saving the party by not resigning in 2016, Charismatically raising the vote for Labour at the 2017 election and overturning the tory majority and
finally in extrapolation of the vote of 2018 coming out as the party, which by coalition or confidence and supply or merely just not being able to stomach the tories, that would be in government.
And yet the government is in complete disarray. It looks like whatever deal they get on Brexit will only satisfy a small minority of people. However, Labour is only polling on level pegging with the Tories. Labour should be annihilating the Conservatives at the moment. Corbyn is shit and the cracks are only papered over by the fact that May is also shit.Corbyn is less shit than Miliband who was treated as victor in waiting right up until the last moment when it was all revealed as an illusion. Miliband represents the kind of Labour you think cuts it but was easily cut down for being so empty, so apologetic (http://being so empty, so apologetic) about its continuing existence it was easily felled by pointing out that Miliband couldn't eat a bacon sandwich without looking odd.
Corbyn is less shit than Miliband who was treated as victor in waiting right up until the last moment when it was all revealed as an illusion.And Corbyn was treated as a victor even after he lost the 2017 general election.
Miliband represents the kind of Labour you think cuts itWhat kind of Labour do I think cuts it? I've been careful only to comment on the qualities of the various leaders and almost leaders, not on the party itself and its policies, so I'm wondering how you know what I think cuts it.
was easily felled by pointing out that Miliband couldn't eat a bacon sandwich without looking odd.Which is concerning because what you look like when eating a bacon sandwich is not correlated with the qualities needed to run a major democracy as far as I know. I agree it was easy not to take Miliband seriously which is a problem.
The rule that an opposition has to be streets ahead in a local election has not worked now two years running.
Going even further back Tory and labour were frequently neck and neck, it's only Thatcher and Blair who bucked that trend.
The truth is being at high water is more of a risk for the Tories than labour.
Those Labour politicians who now seek to destabilise Corbyn are guilty of trying to destroy Labour by leaving the party effectively in 2010, Miliband, 2015 and 2016 and have done nothing to build a convincing alternative.
And Corbyn was treated as a victor even after he lost the 2017 general election.
What kind of Labour do I think cuts it? I've been careful only to comment on the qualities of the various leaders and almost leaders, not on the party itself and its policies, so I'm wondering how you know what I think cuts it.
For the record, I voted Lib Dem in 2017 because they are against Brexit. It was the easiest decision I've ever made in a general election.
Which is concerning because what you look like when eating a bacon sandwich is not correlated with the qualities needed to run a major democracy as far as I know. I agree it was easy not to take Miliband seriously which is a problem.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. I see a Tory government that is at historic levels of incompetence, some of whose policies are so beyond the pale that even the Daily Mail has drawn a line, a Tory government pursuing a Brexit deal that almost nobody will agree with and yet they manage to be at level pegging in polls with the main opposition. I honestly do not understand what is going on. Labour should be killing them.
I disagree, we are only half way though the political cycle with a recent change on tory face,May has been in post for well over a year. How recent is recent?
the precedence being the replacement of Churchill with Eden who was completely shit.Cameron was no Churchill.
The tories had another eight years to run with two more changes of face.British politics was very different back then. I don't think parallels will work.
We know we have a stubborn electorate which have been right wing and have not so far as we are in europe still have not had to come face to face with the consequences of their actions and consequently punish the tories.If the electorate is right wing, then Labour should never be in power.
May has been in post for well over a year. How recent is recent?But we are in the middle of a political cycle unless you are saying may's election reset the clock in which case Corbyn is doing exceptionally well
Cameron was no Churchill.why did lose in 1945 then?
and yet you are coming from a world of Blairite landslides and Thatcher's trouncing of Foots or should that be feet?
British politics was very different back then. I don't think parallels will work.
If the electorate is right wing, then Labour should never be in power.Electorates change. The electorate of 2017 were obviously not in the same mode as the electorate of 2015.
But we are in the middle of a political cycle unless you are saying may's election reset the clock in which case Corbyn is doing exceptionally wellYou're just using tradition as an excuse for Corbyn's shortcomings. There's no universal law that says the opposition has to be doing badly a year after a general election.
why did [Churchill] lose in 1945 then?Well it certainly wasn't because Cameron is like him.
and yet you are coming from a world of Blairite landslides and Thatcher's trouncing of Foots or should that be feet?Electorates change. The electorate of 2017 were obviously not in the same mode as the electorate of 2015.Clearly not. In 2015, the Tories hadn't yet had a really destructive referendum or nearly imploded because of the result.
If there are people that think Corbyn should not be leader....what are they doing about it? Since just getting Corbyn to resign and worrying about the rest after is not a solution.I suspect they recognise that they need to play the long game, that Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon, and even if he were to his successor would be another Corbynite.
Umunna has not put himself in the position where he could be leader of the opposition.Given that Brexit is the number one critical issue for the country, that topic is where real opposition is to be found. So actually it is Corbyn who is failing to show leadership in opposition, as he is fudging the whole Brexit issue. In fact perhaps the two most high profile 'leaders' of the opposition (i.e. to Brexit) are Soubry and Umunna.
I suspect they recognise that they need to play the long game, that Corbyn isn't going anywhere soon, and even if he were to his successor would be another Corbynite.In which case Brexit or indeed anything has any importance greater than power and entitlement for these people. At least the left could plead that they could have been involved had they not been purged by the right.
But again there are parallels to the past - the hard left played a very long game from the point when the Blairites took over.
In the current situation I imaging minds will only begin to change once it becomes clear that 'one more push' isn't going to get Corbyn into number 10 and that the outcome of a continued Corbynite leadership will be continued Tory rule.
They found it easy to reabsorb the UKIP vote because the electorate knew the tories were the only ones who could effect a referendum.
Clearly not. In 2015, the Tories hadn't yet had a really destructive referendum
Another pair of prats reviving the unassailability of the Tories narrative. When these guys absented themselves..... labour made progress.I didn't see anything in that article that supports your commentary on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/07/labour-mps-revive-campaign-for-progressive-alliance
When the two parties are neck and neck that's somehow a big failure for Labour and the Tories magically become unassailable? We have not returned to those days. Stop partying like it was April 2015.
In fact it looks very like a piece of anti-Corbyn passive aggression which hasn't left much room for the survival of any it's components because the premise undermines the political self esteem necessary to weaken the Tories.
I didn't see anything in that article that supports your commentary on it.Is this Tory Press opportunism/flat misrepresentation and this is an ongoing project or two non Corbyn politicians are a bit jittery and see an opportunity to publicly display a lack of political self esteem which benefits the tories or are these two anti corbynites reviving the myth of Tory unassailability/Labour unelectabilty?
Labour unelectability of course will be tested at the Lewisham By election but judgment of that is already loaded since Labour victories are now spun as defeats.No it won't - the result of the Lewisham East election will tell us nothing useful, given that Labour achieved nearly 68% of the vote just a year ago. This is an absolute rock solid Labour seat and if they win the by-election that is hardly an endorsement of their electability or otherwise. Likely it will be a comfortable Labour win but on a significantly reduced turnout and vote share. Were Labour to lose it (by the way I don't think they will) that really would be news.
No it won't - the result of the Lewisham East election will tell us nothing useful, given that Labour achieved nearly 68% of the vote just a year ago. This is an absolute rock solid Labour seat and if they win the by-election that is hardly an endorsement of their electability or otherwise. Likely it will be a comfortable Labour win but on a significantly reduced turnout and vote share. Were Labour to lose it (by the way I don't think they will) that really would be news.I think you have contradicted yourself in your last sentence.
All would be falsed friends since they are aimed at Labours political self esteem as is your hyperbole of unelectability.Corbyn failed to win the general election last year and I cannot see anything that suggests he is on course to win a future general election.
Unelectability does not equate to the present analyses of what REAL votes might mean.
I think you have contradicted yourself in your last sentence.Perhaps, but I don't think it will happen so the notion that Labour wins in Lewisham will tell us nothing about electability in a general election sense.
Is this Tory Press opportunism/flat misrepresentation and this is an ongoing project or two non Corbyn politicians are a bit jittery and see an opportunity to publicly display a lack of political self esteem which benefits the tories or are these two anti corbynites reviving the myth of Tory unassailability/Labour unelectabilty?I saw an article about two Labour members who want an alliance with other anti-Tory parties to make it easier to defeat the Tories. I didn't see anything in it that suggests these two people are concerned that Labour can't win with Corbyn.
All would be falsed friends since they are aimed at Labours political self esteem as is your hyperbole of unelectability.I've never claimed Labour are unelectable, let alone in a hyperbolic way. My entire thesis is that, given the current government track record, they should be running away with everything but they are not. I place the blame for why they are not at the door of Jeremy Corbyn who is a terrible leader.
Unelectability does not equate to the present analyses of what REAL votes might mean.
Labour unelectability of course will be tested at the Lewisham By election but judgment of that is already loaded since Labour victories are now spun as defeats.Not really for all the reasons given above by PD.
Corbyn failed to win the general election last year and I cannot see anything that suggests he is on course to win a future general election.And I see nothing else to say that it can be anything less than a hung parliament with labour becoming the Government. As in 1974.
And I see nothing else to say that it can be anything less than a hung parliament with labour in Government.On what basis - certainly not on the projected vote share derived from last week's local elections, which suggest a hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party again.
On what basis - certainly not on the projected vote share derived from last week's local elections, which suggest a hung parliament with the Tories as the largestSources please.
party again.
It is worth noting that the projected national vote share change from 2014 (when these seats were contested last) indicates Labour up 4% and the Tories up 6% - effectively the Tories improving more than Labour. A year after the 2014 local elections the Tories won an overall majority.
Sources please.
Projected National vote share and changes from previous:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/992394782243786752
Plug into Electoral calculus (or one of the other election predictors)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/You can be the largest party and loseIndeed you can, but that applies just as much to the Tories as to Labour.I think it depends on whether May or the Tories could maintain the exact status quo. Unlikely given Lib Dem and SNP resurgence.History tells us that Governments tend to poll very badly mid term and in local elections, yet tend to bounce back in a general election - which is why an opposition needs to be way ahead in the polls to feel comfortable about winning a general election.
What makes you think that a resurgent LibDem or SNP will affect the Tories more than Labour - I'd have thought that the opposite would be true with the Tories benefiting from LibDems/SNP taking Labour votes.
Indeed you can, but that applies just as much to the Tories as to Labour.Thanks for the sources.
History tells us that Governments tend to poll very badly mid term and in local elections, yet tend to bounce back in a general election - which is why an opposition needs to be way ahead in the polls to feel comfortable about winning a general election.
What makes you think that a resurgent LibDem or SNP will affect the Tories more than Labour - I'd have thought that the opposite would be true with the Tories benefiting from LibDems/SNP taking Labour votes.
I guess you are ignoring the Local election/general election 2017 as a blip or outlier in the electoral pattern. And I am saying that 2017 teaches us that historical phenomena are not that scientific.In what way did the 2017 local election results suggest anything other than that Labour would not win the upcoming general election?
In what way did the 2017 local election results suggest anything other than that Labour would not win the upcoming general election?I think it rather predicted the complete rout of Labour to the point of not even getting near to power until 2030.If indeed it survived.
I think it rather predicted the complete rout of Labour to the point of not even getting near to power until 2030.If indeed it survived.It predicted that Labour would lose, which they subsequently did.
So much for electoral "science".
It predicted that Labour would lose, which they subsequently did.As I say in 2017 a rout of Labour was predicted which didn't come about. Although there is a case to say you are projecting with hindsight onto something which is inherently more neutral
That May ran the worst campaign in living memory and Corbyn campaigned beyond expectation and the Tories still won (albeit failed to get an overall majority) tells you all you need to know about how far from winning a general election Corbyn was then, and still is now.
As I say in 2017 a rout of Labour was predicted which didn't come about. Although there is a case to say you are projecting with hindsight onto something which is inherently more neutralSo Labour lost 1-0 rather than 5-0 - so what - they still lost. The local election results indicated they would lose the election and as predicted they duly lost it.
Since you are flip flopping between a supposed electoral ''science''(Disserving science, Prof?) and opinion based either on a lack of political self esteem or rampant Toby Young-ism, I suppose I shall have to leave you in your reverie that these Elections predict the return of Theresa May into majority Government or Boris majority Government or any Tory government.What I am predicting is that Corbyn will not win a general election, as I've seen so evidence to suggest he will. Indeed prior to the 2017 election being called I predicted that he wouldn't win the next general election (although we didn't know it would be in 2017) and right on cue he failed to win it.
So Labour lost 1-0 rather than 5-0 - so what - they still lost. The local election results indicated they would lose the election and as predicted they duly lost it.I know not what the local elections themselves as inanimate predicted the score to be but the analysis of them predicted them losing 5-0 up to the year 2030.
What I am predicting is that Corbyn will not win a general electionAnd I am predicting that May will not win another election on account that she would have to have the powers of political resurrection of.......well, Jeremy Corbyn.
I know not what the local elections themselves as inanimate predicted the score to be but the analysis of them predicted them losing 5-0 up to the year 2030.I think your article demonstrates part of Corbyn's problem. Many of his supporters have the persecution complex so bad that instead of trying to engage with potential allies, they choose to sneer at them and denigrate them. Your article does a hatchet job on an experienced Labour politician instead of stopping to ask why Blunkett allied himself with Blair's government. Instead of learning from the people that won elections for Labour, Corbyn's supporters insult them.
Since you are now doing an Argumentum ad Footy
This might be of interest to you
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-local-elections-david-blunkett-labour-a8338961.html
I think your article demonstrates part of Corbyn's problem. Many of his supporters have the persecution complex so bad that instead of trying to engage with potential allies, they choose to sneer at them and denigrate them. Your article does a hatchet job on an experienced Labour politician instead of stopping to ask why Blunkett allied himself with Blair's government. Instead of learning from the people that won elections for Labour, Corbyn's supporters insult them.Labour demonises people far, far, far less than the Conservatives.
They also demonise the people that don't vote for them. People who vote Tory are called inhuman and selfish. That's not a good way to persuade them to vote Labour instead.
Labour demonises people far, far, far less than the Conservatives.Nope. Not when it comes to people who might potentially vote for them.
I don't know why you're even bothering to even suggest that the sensible money is on aligning with blairites and Milibandites since they went AWOL two years ago.You can't read, I didn't say "aligning".
Nope. Not when it comes to people who might potentially vote for them.You can't read, I didn't say "aligning".The magic has worn off Jeremy. There is no evidence that these people can win elections for labour any more and probably two elections which demonstrate they can't.
Anyway, the Corbynites should be getting them - these people who have won elections for Labour - to align themselves with modern Labour, not the other way around.
The magic has worn off Jeremy. There is no evidence that these people can win elections for labour any more and probably two elections which demonstrate they can't.The 2010 election was lost for various reasons like the financial crash and Gordon Brown having the personality of a dead haddock. In fact, given the way the polls looked before the election and the aforementioned issues, you can argue that Labour did quite well to prevent the Tories from having an absolute majority.
The 2010 election was lost for various reasons like the financial crash and Gordon Brown having the personality of a dead haddock. In fact, given the way the polls looked before the election and the aforementioned issues, you can argue that Labour did quite well to prevent the Tories from having an absolute majority.I don't think it's a case of them not doing well just of leaving the field of battle in 2015/2016 only to return to spike the guns every now and then.
Actually it is interesting: In 2010, Labour coming off of forming a deeply unpopular government prevents the Tories from getting a majority and they are painted as a bunch of losers; in 2017, Labour coming off of opposing a deeply unpopular government prevents the Tories from getting a majority and they are painted as heroes. I think you need to take an objective look at how well Mr Corbyn has really done.
I don't think it's a case of them not doing well just of leaving the field of battle in 2015/2016 only to return to spike the guns every now and then.Which, of course is a perfect description of Corbyn and his cronies for the whole period from 1983 (when Kinnock became Labour leader) until Corbyn's election in 2015.
Which, of course is a perfect description of Corbyn and his cronies for the whole period from 1983 (when Kinnock became Labour leader) until Corbyn's election in 2015.Corbyn was never in the position to do what was attempted in 2016 which must go down as the worst case of frustrated sense of entitlement in U.K. Politics.
And actually rather than 'leaving the field of battle' many of those people are actively engaged - running London and Manchester as examples - jobs that these days have far more influence than being a back bencher or minor member of the shadow team. Or being de facto leader (or deputy leader) of the opposition in parliament on the biggest issue facing this country as opposed to Corbyn who simply fudges and vacillates on Brexit.
Cameron resembles Churchill the nodding dog from the adverts,
doubt the Tories will be quite as pathetic next time.
Dear Vlad,Or his achievements which include saving the Labour party twice and confounding the press... but at the end of the day the GBP need to vote the tories out and make a thorough job of getting rid of the toxic legacy.
Good thread.
As a big Corbyn fan this thread has me thinking and I have to agree that it because of Corbyn that the Labour party is not fairing better, Mr Corbyn is a enigma, voters are very wary of the man, he has been branded Marxist, Communist, anti Semite, his die hard supporters are all labelled lefties, and the press have done a sterling job in highlighting all of the above.
But ( always a but ) no one has highlighted the mans basic qualities, his honesty, his compassion and his fight against the one per cent holding all the wealth, Mr Corbyns time will come and I hope it is very soon, it just makes me wonder how many more tory disasters it will take before the voting public wake up.
Gonnagle.
I'd vote for Labour if Corbyn wasn't around.And why should we believe that?
And why should we believe that?Why shouldn't you believe it?
Why shouldn't you believe it?There is and can be no evidence of it. Now that should be good enough for you since it is the basis of your atheism I believe.
There is and can be no evidence of it. Now that should be good enough for you since it is the basis of your atheism I believe.What has my atheism got to do with how jakswan might vote?
I suppose technically Corbyn was not around then and yet People did not vote Labour even as the polls predicted and it is always touch and Go whether people will vote for a Labour that you can almost certainly squeeze a fag paper in the space between them and the Tories.
What has my atheism got to do with how jakswan might vote?It's analogous to why I don't believe that Jak would vote labour.
It's analogous to why I don't believe that Jak would vote labour.In what way? I don't see how my atheism is analogous in any way to why you doubt jakswan. Or indeed how any analogy from my atheism has anything to do with you doubting a statement of personal choice from jakswan.
In what way? I don't see how my atheism is analogous in any way to why you doubt jakswan. Or indeed how any analogy from my atheism has anything to do with you doubting a statement of personal choice from jakswan.I want him to explain any circumstance in which he would vote Labour.
I want him to explain any circumstance in which he would vote Labour.And I want you to answer the question I asked. Any chance of that?
And I want you to answer the question I asked. Any chance of that?I have.
In what way? I don't see how my atheism is analogous in any way to why you doubt jakswan.I merely lack belief that Jak would vote for Labour if it wasn't for Corbyn.
I merely lack belief that Jak would vote for Labour if it wasn't for Corbyn.Despite the evidence that you think he exists, and he has a vote and he has expressed an opinion? Your idea of an analogy then means that you think your opinion is worthless, You really shouldn't play the relativist position as it shows how ignorant of it you are and indeed how irrelevant it is to the discussion of how jakswan might vote.
Despite the evidence that you think he exists, and he has a vote and he has expressed an opinion? Your idea of an analogy then means that you think your opinion is worthless, You really shouldn't play the relativist position as it shows how ignorant of it you are and indeed how irrelevant it is to the discussion of how jakswan might vote.I've set out my stall in the OP and have not deviated.
I've set out my stall in the OP and have not deviated.Sorry, you are saying there can be no evidence that jakswan vote Labour without Corbyn, and that if he expanded you might think that was evidence? You need to try and state something that isn't a direct contradiction here.
I think the point raised by the OP is very worthwhile and was actually established in 2015 which demonstrated that an electorate that says it is going to vote one way doesn't necessarily.
There is no evidence that Jak is going to vote Labour without Corbyn or can there ever be.
lack of evidence is many atheists reason for being atheist isn't it. Therefore it's a good example. But analogies are not homologies Sane which I think is where your mistake might lie.
Now if Jak expanded then I might shift from a lack of faith in his claim to conviction of it...that's how these things usually work.
I have.That's nothing to do with the question
There is no way anyone can demonstrate how Jak would vote in a Corbyn free election. He has come out as not voting labour. Therefore I need more grounds to believe him since in 2015 people who said they were going to vote Labour obviously didn't and I need more data to form my opinion.
Sorry, you are saying there can be no evidence that jakswan vote Labour without Corbyn, and that if he expanded you might think that was evidence? You need to try and state something that isn't a direct contradiction here.No, Because there is never any direct evidence available how people voted it is a matter of belief with grounds. At the moment i'm afraid people who sound as though they wouldn't vote labour, repeatedly do not then inspire faith when they suddenly declare why they would.
That's nothing to do with the questionI think it's the best you are going to get.
No, Because there is never any direct evidence available how people voted it is a matter of belief with grounds. At the moment i'm afraid people who sound as though they wouldn't vote labour, repeatedly do not then inspire faith when they suddenly declare why they would.this is the problem with you playing at being a relativist.All statements on this including your post here are then worthless
In fact the context is that after the 2015 election it is clear that many won't despite what they say.
We can never prove that someone has voted labour but we can trust that a) a vote was cast and b) it went to labour.
I think it's the best you are going to get.OK. I'll just ignore it since it doesn't address the question
There is and can be no evidence of it. Now that should be good enough for you since it is the basis of your atheism I believe.
I suppose technically Corbyn was not around then and yet People did not vote Labour even as the polls predicted and it is always touch and Go whether people will vote for a Labour that you can almost certainly squeeze a fag paper in the space between them and the Tories.
My votes in last few general elections.
92 - Labour
97 - Labour
01 - Tory
10 - Lib Dem
15- Lib Dem
17 - Tory
Actually joined the Lib-Dems in 15, for the fightback which never happened.
Sadly not on the same page with them on the EU.
I'm very slightly right of centre liberal.