GRcade

Lagamorph wrote:Why is 59% being considered an 'overwhelming victory' anyway? It's barely more than half.

Grumpy David wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11876480/One-in-five-Labour-voters-more-likely-to-defect-to-Tories-after-Corbyn-victory-poll-finds.html

One in five Labour voters more likely to defect to Tories after Corbyn victory - poll finds


Jeremy Corbyn has lost the support of 37 per cent of Labour party voters, new poll reveals after his shaky first week as leader

A fifth of Labour voters say they are more likely to vote Conservative after the election of Jeremy Corbyn as party leader.

A poll published a week after the veteran MP won an overwhelming victory in the Labour leadership race has found him losing support among the wider electorate.

Almost three in four people do not believe Mr Corbyn looks like a prime-minister in waiting and around 37 per cent of Labour voters say they are less likely to back the party at the next election, according to the poll.

The findings will provide further ammunition to Mr Corbyn’s critics within the party after what they say has been a poor start to his leadership.

It follows the rows over his failure to sing the national anthem at a Battle of Britain memorial service and his shadow chancellor forced to apologise for his previous support for the IRA.

According to the poll Mr Corbyn has yet to win over two of the groups whose support he would have hoped to attract more readily.

The poll, conducted for the Independent by ORB on Wednesday and Thursday, found that a majority – 67 per cent – of voters in the bottom DE social group do not see him as prime ministerial. Nor do 68 per cent of public sector workers.

But Mr Corbyn’s election appears to have made more of an impression in Scotland, Wales, the North-east and London – areas seen as crucial to any hope of a revival in Labour’s electoral fortunes.

Some 36 per cent of people who voted for the Scottish National Party in May say they are now more likely to vote Labour with Mr Corbyn as leader – suggesting that his anti-austerity agenda could yet win over voters who deserted Labour at the last election.

Overall, 59 per cent of the public say Labour looks less electable than it did last May, while 41 per cent regard it as more electable.

But this finding contains a silver lining for Mr Corbyn, coming as an improvement since July, when – in the middle of the Labour leadership contest – 76 per cent said the party was less electable than in May and 24 per cent judged it more electable.

Hardly surprising.

Lagamorph wrote:Why is 59% being considered an 'overwhelming victory' anyway? It's barely more than half.

Moggy wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:Why is 59% being considered an 'overwhelming victory' anyway? It's barely more than half.

Because the second placed candidate only got 19%?

Corbyn 59.5%
Burnham 19%
Cooper 17%
Kendall 4.5%

That's pretty overwhelming as leadership elections go.

Mitford and Ross found the middle classes rather prissily given to euphemism while the aristocracy declined to draw a doily over things. False teeth were U, dentures were non-U. Dying was U, passing on was non-U. New and non-New politics is much the same. The ghastly non-New lot will murmur squeamishly of “disagreements about facts”, whereas one has to be New to know that the smart thing to scream is: “Smear!” There really is nothing more non-New than finicky little gradations, from far right to centre right through centre left and so on. This sort of thing is literally as unforgivable as saying serviette instead of napkin. All of the aforementioned people are Tory scum. They belong to whichever “establishment” is at the top of the tree this week – the banker one, the immigrant one or the English one. There is us, and there is them. Just as some sharks must always be swimming forward, so the New politics must be constantly excluding.

Classifying in order to exclude can be almost a full-time job. A single tweet expressing admiration or distaste for something or other requires a New politics operative to seek it out, insert themselves into the conversation, and explain that either or both parties have been classified as “liberal scum”. The classification is terminal. (Liberal now means Tory, FYI. It’s the toilet of the New politics, in a Mitfordian sense; and, apparently, a literal one.)

What the New politics needs is a Peter York figure who can bring out a tenuously ironic Official New Politics Handbook, modelled after its Sloane Ranger ancestor. That earlier work identified one characteristic of the Sloane tribe as an innate confidence allied to a blithe anti-intellectualism. The New politics, as framed by its loudest and most bullishly irrational voices, must be viewed as that strain’s latest incarnation.

As far as charting the history of our rapidly calcifying political tribalism goes, there will be some debate about the first New politics moment of the modern era. But for my money it is George Dubya Bush’s 2001 decree that “You’re either with us or against us,” which cleverly trumpeted the death of nuance, and ushered in 14 years and counting of rolling examples as to why Manichaeism is always the right answer.

f all the non-New things these days, meanwhile, I see more and more evidence that jokes are very much up there. Indeed, a “joke” is another of those horribly déclassé euphemisms for a smear. The decidedly non-New Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop, observes to Press Gazette this week: “There are a lot of people who’ve discovered politics recently but haven’t got the idea that – in the world of politics – it’s possible for the opposition A) to have a point and B) to offer criticism. So a lot of Ukippers cancelled their subscriptions earlier in the year because they thought the jokes about Ukip were not funny and not fair. This was followed by a very similar vein of Scots Nats saying: ‘These jokes aren’t funny, and they’re not fair.’ And I think we’re about to get the Corbynistas, that’ll be the next wave saying: ‘You’ve no idea what you’re talking about.’ A different sort of politics has just arrived – whether it’s Farage or Sturgeon or Corbyn. And any criticism – and certainly any jokes – are not welcome.”

That's pretty overwhelming as leadership elections go.

Lagamorph wrote:Why is 59% being considered an 'overwhelming victory' anyway? It's barely more than half.

I also keep hearing a lot about his 'anti-austerity' agenda, but have heard absolutely nothing of how he plans on funding that agenda. Is it basically "scrap Trident and use the money from that"? Even if he was able to go through with that, it'd take years for any actual money to come from scrapping it surely. It's not like he can just say "Trident replacement is now scrapped" and the next day he'll suddenly have billions to spend.

furiosum wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:Why is 59% being considered an 'overwhelming victory' anyway? It's barely more than half.

I also keep hearing a lot about his 'anti-austerity' agenda, but have heard absolutely nothing of how he plans on funding that agenda. Is it basically "scrap Trident and use the money from that"? Even if he was able to go through with that, it'd take years for any actual money to come from scrapping it surely. It's not like he can just say "Trident replacement is now scrapped" and the next day he'll suddenly have billions to spend.

I'm pretty sure that's what "people's quantitative easing", i.e. "we don't have enough money for our policies so lets just print more", is for. Oh, and more than doubling corporation tax (at least, I presume that's how he intends to more than double tax income from corporations)

The United Nations has been criticised for handing Saudi Arabia a key human rights role - despite the country having “arguably the worst record in the world” on freedoms for women, minorities and dissidents.

strawberry floating Saudi Arabia Pretty much the worst country to give that kind of role to. What a joke.

Lotus wrote:

The United Nations has been criticised for handing Saudi Arabia a key human rights role - despite the country having “arguably the worst record in the world” on freedoms for women, minorities and dissidents.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 09716.html

strawberry floating Saudi Arabia Pretty much the worst country to give that kind of role to. What a joke.

Tafdolphin wrote:Osbourne to consider cutting free school lunches in the November spending review apparently. Comical.

Irene Demova wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Osbourne to consider cutting free school lunches in the November spending review apparently. Comical.

TBF if all the poor die of malnutrion it will save money

Stugene wrote:

furiosum wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:Why is 59% being considered an 'overwhelming victory' anyway? It's barely more than half.

I also keep hearing a lot about his 'anti-austerity' agenda, but have heard absolutely nothing of how he plans on funding that agenda. Is it basically "scrap Trident and use the money from that"? Even if he was able to go through with that, it'd take years for any actual money to come from scrapping it surely. It's not like he can just say "Trident replacement is now scrapped" and the next day he'll suddenly have billions to spend.

I'm pretty sure that's what "people's quantitative easing", i.e. "we don't have enough money for our policies so lets just print more", is for. Oh, and more than doubling corporation tax (at least, I presume that's how he intends to more than double tax income from corporations)

Or by closing the off-shore tax loophole.

furiosum wrote:

Irene Demova wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Osbourne to consider cutting free school lunches in the November spending review apparently. Comical.

TBF if all the poor die of malnutrion it will save money

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that the suggestion is merely that he'll only remove the free school meals for all primary school kids, regardless of income. Free school meals for children from low income families dates back a lot further than the law Nick Clegg brought in last year which is what seems to be being referred to.

Stugene wrote:

furiosum wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:Why is 59% being considered an 'overwhelming victory' anyway? It's barely more than half.

I also keep hearing a lot about his 'anti-austerity' agenda, but have heard absolutely nothing of how he plans on funding that agenda. Is it basically "scrap Trident and use the money from that"? Even if he was able to go through with that, it'd take years for any actual money to come from scrapping it surely. It's not like he can just say "Trident replacement is now scrapped" and the next day he'll suddenly have billions to spend.

I'm pretty sure that's what "people's quantitative easing", i.e. "we don't have enough money for our policies so lets just print more", is for. Oh, and more than doubling corporation tax (at least, I presume that's how he intends to more than double tax income from corporations)

Or by closing the off-shore tax loophole.

Given that that would almost certainly require significant changes to international law, and would be opposed by an awful lot of countries which benefit from being tax havens, I'm pretty sceptical about it being practical.

Stugene wrote:

furiosum wrote:

Stugene wrote:

furiosum wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:Why is 59% being considered an 'overwhelming victory' anyway? It's barely more than half.

I also keep hearing a lot about his 'anti-austerity' agenda, but have heard absolutely nothing of how he plans on funding that agenda. Is it basically "scrap Trident and use the money from that"? Even if he was able to go through with that, it'd take years for any actual money to come from scrapping it surely. It's not like he can just say "Trident replacement is now scrapped" and the next day he'll suddenly have billions to spend.

I'm pretty sure that's what "people's quantitative easing", i.e. "we don't have enough money for our policies so lets just print more", is for. Oh, and more than doubling corporation tax (at least, I presume that's how he intends to more than double tax income from corporations)

Or by closing the off-shore tax loophole.

Given that that would almost certainly require significant changes to international law, and would be opposed by an awful lot of countries which benefit from being tax havens, I'm pretty sceptical about it being practical.

You don't need another country's permission to refuse their money.