RugbyRebels

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Aye, the Tories could completely implode. Otherwise, there is still a mountain to climb. Labour need to convert Tory supporters, or at least make them think that a labour government wouldn't be that bad. At the moment they aren't. there is a while to go, but that work needs to start form them sooner rather than later, but to listen to Corbyn, he isn't interested in reaching out to those who support other parties. As EW points out, the new boundaries will be making life even harder for labour, without effectively not trying to appeal to large portions of the electorate.

Not appeasing Tory economic lunacy is Corbyn's raison d'etre. Playing Milliband's game would see his suport plummet and Labour lose the momentum that his election has created.

The electorate has a problem with the neoliberals in the Labour right more than it does with the left.

That may not fit with the media narrative but it is the reality.

But the inconvenient reality is that Labour have no momentum. In the local authority elections they had zero gain of council control, and lost council seats, while in the Scottish Parliament they were relegated to third behind the Tories.

That is, at the most optimistic, just about holding position.

Given the array of forces against his leadership, I'd count that as a win. And the momentum within the party membership is very new and not organised as yet.

Quite how they'll get their message out to the electorate I don't know, because the media is part of the establishment who loathe democracy and are happy with the status quo, but the general population is well to the left of the media and political establishment. More so than ever at the moment.

But he has to stop arguing within the neoliberal framework and talk about job creation and wage growth. Not the fucking deficit nonsense. And he'll have to do a deal with the SNP.

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Not appeasing Tory economic lunacy is Corbyn's raison d'etre. Playing Milliband's game would see his suport plummet and Labour lose the momentum that his election has created.

The electorate has a problem with the neoliberals in the Labour right more than it does with the left.

That may not fit with the media narrative but it is the reality.

But the inconvenient reality is that Labour have no momentum. In the local authority elections they had zero gain of council control, and lost council seats, while in the Scottish Parliament they were relegated to third behind the Tories.

That is, at the most optimistic, just about holding position.

Given the array of forces against his leadership, I'd count that as a win. And the momentum within the party membership is very new and not organised as yet.

Quite how they'll get their message out to the electorate I don't know, because the media is part of the establishment who loathe democracy and are happy with the status quo, but the general population is well to the left of the media and political establishment. More so than ever at the moment.

But he has to stop arguing within the neoliberal framework and talk about job creation and wage growth. Not the fucking deficit nonsense. And he'll have to do a deal with the SNP.

Well, those "forces" aren't likely to be going away.
There isn't a deal to be done with the SNP. Why would the SNP even bother talking to a party that is on the path to insignificance in Scotland, and Scottish Labour see the SNP as a bigger enemy even than the Tories.

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
But the inconvenient reality is that Labour have no momentum. In the local authority elections they had zero gain of council control, and lost council seats, while in the Scottish Parliament they were relegated to third behind the Tories.

That is, at the most optimistic, just about holding position.

Given the array of forces against his leadership, I'd count that as a win. And the momentum within the party membership is very new and not organised as yet.

Quite how they'll get their message out to the electorate I don't know, because the media is part of the establishment who loathe democracy and are happy with the status quo, but the general population is well to the left of the media and political establishment. More so than ever at the moment.

But he has to stop arguing within the neoliberal framework and talk about job creation and wage growth. Not the fucking deficit nonsense. And he'll have to do a deal with the SNP.

Well, those "forces" aren't likely to be going away.
There isn't a deal to be done with the SNP. Why would the SNP even bother talking to a party that is on the path to insignificance in Scotland, and Scottish Labour see the SNP as a bigger enemy even than the Tories.

I've acknowledged that already.
The SNP are natural allies and potential coalition partners. Scottish Labour is dead.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Yes I can. There is no effective opposition. If you want to win a general election, then it's normally considered a good thing to build some mo entomology in local elections between the main event. Evenin 98 the Tories took seats off the Blair government who were still very popular.

Whilst Corbyn didn't plumb to Michael Foot depths, this wasn't a success for him. Aside from the London mayor result, it was a sign if a party that isn't trusted by the electorate at large. The less said about the Scotland result from a labour perspective the better.

Face some reality, Corbyn is unelectable.

If I may return to this. Could you answer the question in terms of their performance as an administration. Which doesn't mean whether they have been elected or not, it just means what they have done in office.

So what have they done well in office?

Mate, read the thread, I've already covered this. However, if the Tories are doing such a bad job, why isn't corbyns Labour Party doing a lot better? Milliband had the baggage of blame for the crash to deal with. 2 elections later and Corbyn should be wiping the floor with the Tories n local elections. But he isn't, at best he is holding his own councils in England whilst losing hugely in Scotland.

The point made repeatedly by me, and ignored repeatedly by Corbyn supporters, is that labour needs to pick up a lot of seats to form the next government in 2020. Labour aren't looking like they are convincing undecideds or even Tory voters to give them a chance. And they need some Scottish seats, which looks unlikely as well.

At the moment Corbyn is talking to his core supporters, but he needs to engage wider if he wants a realistic chance of getting to Downing Street.

Again, I have not read on, as most of this thread is boring as hell.

But there's a good reason Labour aren't doing better. They're not in government. Only the Conservatives have a record in office.

So what is that record like? What have the Tories done that makes you want to keep them in power?

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Given the array of forces against his leadership, I'd count that as a win. And the momentum within the party membership is very new and not organised as yet.

Quite how they'll get their message out to the electorate I don't know, because the media is part of the establishment who loathe democracy and are happy with the status quo, but the general population is well to the left of the media and political establishment. More so than ever at the moment.

But he has to stop arguing within the neoliberal framework and talk about job creation and wage growth. Not the fucking deficit nonsense. And he'll have to do a deal with the SNP.

Well, those "forces" aren't likely to be going away.
There isn't a deal to be done with the SNP. Why would the SNP even bother talking to a party that is on the path to insignificance in Scotland, and Scottish Labour see the SNP as a bigger enemy even than the Tories.

I've acknowledged that already.
The SNP are natural allies and potential coalition partners. Scottish Labour is dead.

A coalition with Labour would be political suicide for the SNP, and I don't believe it is an option.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
If I may return to this. Could you answer the question in terms of their performance as an administration. Which doesn't mean whether they have been elected or not, it just means what they have done in office.

So what have they done well in office?

Mate, read the thread, I've already covered this. However, if the Tories are doing such a bad job, why isn't corbyns Labour Party doing a lot better? Milliband had the baggage of blame for the crash to deal with. 2 elections later and Corbyn should be wiping the floor with the Tories n local elections. But he isn't, at best he is holding his own councils in England whilst losing hugely in Scotland.

The point made repeatedly by me, and ignored repeatedly by Corbyn supporters, is that labour needs to pick up a lot of seats to form the next government in 2020. Labour aren't looking like they are convincing undecideds or even Tory voters to give them a chance. And they need some Scottish seats, which looks unlikely as well.

At the moment Corbyn is talking to his core supporters, but he needs to engage wider if he wants a realistic chance of getting to Downing Street.

Again, I have not read on, as most of this thread is boring as hell.

But there's a good reason Labour aren't doing better. They're not in government. Only the Conservatives have a record in office.

So what is that record like? What have the Tories done that makes you want to keep them in power?

This seems to turn conventional wisdom on it's head - that being that in mid-term, the Opposition tend to do better than the governing party precisely because they don't have a record in office. I don't know, maybe you can show that this isn't the case?

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
If I may return to this. Could you answer the question in terms of their performance as an administration. Which doesn't mean whether they have been elected or not, it just means what they have done in office.

So what have they done well in office?

Mate, read the thread, I've already covered this. However, if the Tories are doing such a bad job, why isn't corbyns Labour Party doing a lot better? Milliband had the baggage of blame for the crash to deal with. 2 elections later and Corbyn should be wiping the floor with the Tories n local elections. But he isn't, at best he is holding his own councils in England whilst losing hugely in Scotland.

The point made repeatedly by me, and ignored repeatedly by Corbyn supporters, is that labour needs to pick up a lot of seats to form the next government in 2020. Labour aren't looking like they are convincing undecideds or even Tory voters to give them a chance. And they need some Scottish seats, which looks unlikely as well.

At the moment Corbyn is talking to his core supporters, but he needs to engage wider if he wants a realistic chance of getting to Downing Street.

Again, I have not read on, as most of this thread is boring as hell.

But there's a good reason Labour aren't doing better. They're not in government. Only the Conservatives have a record in office.

So what is that record like? What have the Tories done that makes you want to keep them in power?

As Stones write, you're entirely missing the point. Opposition parties nearly always do better in local elections. Only six time since the early 70s has that not been the case. Even against Blair, the Tories did well in local elections.

If labour was communicating a message that resonated with voters, they would be doing better in the polls. History shows that this is the case with opposition. Either the Tories are doing a great job and voters don't want to give them a bashing in the polls, or the alternatives are just too dire to contemplate.

But please, carry n treating Corbyn like the best thing since sliced bread.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Mate, read the thread, I've already covered this. However, if the Tories are doing such a bad job, why isn't corbyns Labour Party doing a lot better? Milliband had the baggage of blame for the crash to deal with. 2 elections later and Corbyn should be wiping the floor with the Tories n local elections. But he isn't, at best he is holding his own councils in England whilst losing hugely in Scotland.

The point made repeatedly by me, and ignored repeatedly by Corbyn supporters, is that labour needs to pick up a lot of seats to form the next government in 2020. Labour aren't looking like they are convincing undecideds or even Tory voters to give them a chance. And they need some Scottish seats, which looks unlikely as well.

At the moment Corbyn is talking to his core supporters, but he needs to engage wider if he wants a realistic chance of getting to Downing Street.

Again, I have not read on, as most of this thread is boring as hell.

But there's a good reason Labour aren't doing better. They're not in government. Only the Conservatives have a record in office.

So what is that record like? What have the Tories done that makes you want to keep them in power?

As Stones write, you're entirely missing the point. Opposition parties nearly always do better in local elections. Only six time since the early 70s has that not been the case. Even against Blair, the Tories did well in local elections.

If labour was communicating a message that resonated with voters, they would be doing better in the polls. History shows that this is the case with opposition. Either the Tories are doing a great job and voters don't want to give them a bashing in the polls, or the alternatives are just too dire to contemplate.

But please, carry n treating Corbyn like the best thing since sliced bread.

Meaningless psephology.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Mate, read the thread, I've already covered this. However, if the Tories are doing such a bad job, why isn't corbyns Labour Party doing a lot better? Milliband had the baggage of blame for the crash to deal with. 2 elections later and Corbyn should be wiping the floor with the Tories n local elections. But he isn't, at best he is holding his own councils in England whilst losing hugely in Scotland.

The point made repeatedly by me, and ignored repeatedly by Corbyn supporters, is that labour needs to pick up a lot of seats to form the next government in 2020. Labour aren't looking like they are convincing undecideds or even Tory voters to give them a chance. And they need some Scottish seats, which looks unlikely as well.

At the moment Corbyn is talking to his core supporters, but he needs to engage wider if he wants a realistic chance of getting to Downing Street.

Again, I have not read on, as most of this thread is boring as hell.

But there's a good reason Labour aren't doing better. They're not in government. Only the Conservatives have a record in office.

So what is that record like? What have the Tories done that makes you want to keep them in power?

As Stones write, you're entirely missing the point. Opposition parties nearly always do better in local elections. Only six time since the early 70s has that not been the case. Even against Blair, the Tories did well in local elections.

If labour was communicating a message that resonated with voters, they would be doing better in the polls. History shows that this is the case with opposition. Either the Tories are doing a great job and voters don't want to give them a bashing in the polls, or the alternatives are just too dire to contemplate.

But please, carry n treating Corbyn like the best thing since sliced bread.

Well, no. I cannot be missing my own bloody point, can I...

In terms of what I am asking, elections do not matter. More than just a government's record in office come into play, which is why I'm not touching it: there's can be no rational discussion.

I just want your thoughts on what the current government - and indeed the last one, as they are somewhat related - have done that makes you want to keep them in office? I'm not suggesting an alternative. I'm not asking you to vote Labour, or Green, or UKIP, or Lib Dem. It's a simple question.

So, what have they done that makes you want to keep them in office?

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
But the inconvenient reality is that Labour have no momentum. In the local authority elections they had zero gain of council control, and lost council seats, while in the Scottish Parliament they were relegated to third behind the Tories.

That is, at the most optimistic, just about holding position.

Given the array of forces against his leadership, I'd count that as a win. And the momentum within the party membership is very new and not organised as yet.

Quite how they'll get their message out to the electorate I don't know, because the media is part of the establishment who loathe democracy and are happy with the status quo, but the general population is well to the left of the media and political establishment. More so than ever at the moment.

But he has to stop arguing within the neoliberal framework and talk about job creation and wage growth. Not the fucking deficit nonsense. And he'll have to do a deal with the SNP.

Well, those "forces" aren't likely to be going away.
There isn't a deal to be done with the SNP. Why would the SNP even bother talking to a party that is on the path to insignificance in Scotland, and Scottish Labour see the SNP as a bigger enemy even than the Tories.

The forces can go away. You keep on asking why Labour isn't doing any better; I'd say its blindingly obvious - every 2 minutes there is another internal argument or a Blairite undermining the leadership. The Tories aren't landing any hits, policy wise there are no issues, its all Labour attacking each other that is destroying the party.

Corbyn was elected on a huge mandate that if you look across many parts of the world, including the US, is gaining huge groundswell. The people know economies are rigged against them, they are sick of inequality and the establishment and having to live under austerity. His message will resonate.

Get rid of the Blairites, they belong to the Conservatives anyway, cop it and then move on, unified.

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
Given the array of forces against his leadership, I'd count that as a win. And the momentum within the party membership is very new and not organised as yet.

Quite how they'll get their message out to the electorate I don't know, because the media is part of the establishment who loathe democracy and are happy with the status quo, but the general population is well to the left of the media and political establishment. More so than ever at the moment.

But he has to stop arguing within the neoliberal framework and talk about job creation and wage growth. Not the fucking deficit nonsense. And he'll have to do a deal with the SNP.

Well, those "forces" aren't likely to be going away.
There isn't a deal to be done with the SNP. Why would the SNP even bother talking to a party that is on the path to insignificance in Scotland, and Scottish Labour see the SNP as a bigger enemy even than the Tories.

The forces can go away. You keep on asking why Labour isn't doing any better; I'd say its blindingly obvious - every 2 minutes there is another internal argument or a Blairite undermining the leadership. The Tories aren't landing any hits, policy wise there are no issues, its all Labour attacking each other that is destroying the party.

Corbyn was elected on a huge mandate that if you look across many parts of the world, including the US, is gaining huge groundswell. The people know economies are rigged against them, they are sick of inequality and the establishment and having to live under austerity. His message will resonate.

Get rid of the Blairites, they belong to the Conservatives anyway, cop it and then move on, unified.

This reads like a whole lot of wishful thinking.
1. What is going to make the "array of forces against his (Corbyn's) leadership" go away?
2. "The Tories aren't landing any hits.....is all Labour attacking each other". Your solution? "Get rid of the Blairites". Oh, it's attacking each other...
3. "Get rid of the Blairites" - How? Membership purge? The 3 quid Labour members are to get together and expel all non-Corbynista?
4. "His message will resonate" Yeah, we really saw that last week.
5. "Corbyn was elected on a huge mandate that if you look across many parts of the world, including the US, is gaining huge groundswell" Is it really?

This reads like a whole lot of wishful thinking.
1. What is going to make the "array of forces against his (Corbyn's) leadership" go away?
2. "The Tories aren't landing any hits.....is all Labour attacking each other". Your solution? "Get rid of the Blairites". Oh, it's attacking each other...
3. "Get rid of the Blairites" - How? Membership purge? The 3 quid Labour members are to get together and expel all non-Corbynista?
4. "His message will resonate" Yeah, we really saw that last week.
5. "Corbyn was elected on a huge mandate that if you look across many parts of the world, including the US, is gaining huge groundswell" Is it really?

No, I don't think it is and I think thinking it is is the fundamental mistake many contributors to this thread are making. I realize I've massacred English there, hope you can understand it.

Everyone is fed up with corporate greed etc, but extrapolating that to a world wide boom in socialism is, erm, somewhat fanciful to say the least.

For all UG's demands that the discussion shouldn't be about deficit etc and should be about guaranteed jobs and wages, he's asking people to understand economics on a level that isn't accessible without explicit, directed education. The economic conversation isn't about debt and deficit because the evil nasties who run our lives say so, its because that's economics that joe public understand.

Again apologies, I think I've rambled a bit all over the shanty with this post. Just my tuppence worth.

As you were.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

This reads like a whole lot of wishful thinking.
1. What is going to make the "array of forces against his (Corbyn's) leadership" go away?
2. "The Tories aren't landing any hits.....is all Labour attacking each other". Your solution? "Get rid of the Blairites". Oh, it's attacking each other...
3. "Get rid of the Blairites" - How? Membership purge? The 3 quid Labour members are to get together and expel all non-Corbynista?
4. "His message will resonate" Yeah, we really saw that last week.
5. "Corbyn was elected on a huge mandate that if you look across many parts of the world, including the US, is gaining huge groundswell" Is it really?

No, I don't think it is and I think thinking it is is the fundamental mistake many contributors to this thread are making. I realize I've massacred English there, hope you can understand it.

Everyone is fed up with corporate greed etc, but extrapolating that to a world wide boom in socialism is, erm, somewhat fanciful to say the least.

For all UG's demands that the discussion shouldn't be about deficit etc and should be about guaranteed jobs and wages, he's asking people to understand economics on a level that isn't accessible without explicit, directed education. The economic conversation isn't about debt and deficit because the evil nasties who run our lives say so, its because that's economics that joe public understand.

Again apologies, I think I've rambled a bit all over the shanty with this post. Just my tuppence worth.

As you were.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

And you manage to hit the nail on the head.

That's the biggest problem Labour have: communication. They haven't bothered to communicate their core message, at all.

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

This reads like a whole lot of wishful thinking.
1. What is going to make the "array of forces against his (Corbyn's) leadership" go away?
2. "The Tories aren't landing any hits.....is all Labour attacking each other". Your solution? "Get rid of the Blairites". Oh, it's attacking each other...
3. "Get rid of the Blairites" - How? Membership purge? The 3 quid Labour members are to get together and expel all non-Corbynista?
4. "His message will resonate" Yeah, we really saw that last week.
5. "Corbyn was elected on a huge mandate that if you look across many parts of the world, including the US, is gaining huge groundswell" Is it really?

No, I don't think it is and I think thinking it is is the fundamental mistake many contributors to this thread are making. I realize I've massacred English there, hope you can understand it.

Everyone is fed up with corporate greed etc, but extrapolating that to a world wide boom in socialism is, erm, somewhat fanciful to say the least.

For all UG's demands that the discussion shouldn't be about deficit etc and should be about guaranteed jobs and wages, he's asking people to understand economics on a level that isn't accessible without explicit, directed education. The economic conversation isn't about debt and deficit because the evil nasties who run our lives say so, its because that's economics that joe public understand.

Again apologies, I think I've rambled a bit all over the shanty with this post. Just my tuppence worth.

As you were.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

And you manage to hit the nail on the head.

That's the biggest problem Labour have: communication. They haven't bothered to communicate their core message, at all.

Do the have a core message? I ask because it just looks like a rabble arguing amongst themselves at the moment.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
No, I don't think it is and I think thinking it is is the fundamental mistake many contributors to this thread are making. I realize I've massacred English there, hope you can understand it.

Everyone is fed up with corporate greed etc, but extrapolating that to a world wide boom in socialism is, erm, somewhat fanciful to say the least.

For all UG's demands that the discussion shouldn't be about deficit etc and should be about guaranteed jobs and wages, he's asking people to understand economics on a level that isn't accessible without explicit, directed education. The economic conversation isn't about debt and deficit because the evil nasties who run our lives say so, its because that's economics that joe public understand.

Again apologies, I think I've rambled a bit all over the shanty with this post. Just my tuppence worth.

As you were.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

And you manage to hit the nail on the head.

That's the biggest problem Labour have: communication. They haven't bothered to communicate their core message, at all.

Do the have a core message? I ask because it just looks like a rabble arguing amongst themselves at the moment.

Well, that's kind of my point...

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Again, I have not read on, as most of this thread is boring as hell.

But there's a good reason Labour aren't doing better. They're not in government. Only the Conservatives have a record in office.

So what is that record like? What have the Tories done that makes you want to keep them in power?

As Stones write, you're entirely missing the point. Opposition parties nearly always do better in local elections. Only six time since the early 70s has that not been the case. Even against Blair, the Tories did well in local elections.

If labour was communicating a message that resonated with voters, they would be doing better in the polls. History shows that this is the case with opposition. Either the Tories are doing a great job and voters don't want to give them a bashing in the polls, or the alternatives are just too dire to contemplate.

But please, carry n treating Corbyn like the best thing since sliced bread.

Meaningless psephology.

You're saying that studies of voting behaviour mean nothing in determining the significance of voting behaviour? Sure. That makes sense.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
As Stones write, you're entirely missing the point. Opposition parties nearly always do better in local elections. Only six time since the early 70s has that not been the case. Even against Blair, the Tories did well in local elections.

If labour was communicating a message that resonated with voters, they would be doing better in the polls. History shows that this is the case with opposition. Either the Tories are doing a great job and voters don't want to give them a bashing in the polls, or the alternatives are just too dire to contemplate.

But please, carry n treating Corbyn like the best thing since sliced bread.

Meaningless psephology.

You're saying that studies of voting behaviour mean nothing in determining the significance of voting behaviour? Sure. That makes sense.

Well, in relation to the question posed, yes it was meaningless psephology.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
As Stones write, you're entirely missing the point. Opposition parties nearly always do better in local elections. Only six time since the early 70s has that not been the case. Even against Blair, the Tories did well in local elections.

If labour was communicating a message that resonated with voters, they would be doing better in the polls. History shows that this is the case with opposition. Either the Tories are doing a great job and voters don't want to give them a bashing in the polls, or the alternatives are just too dire to contemplate.

But please, carry n treating Corbyn like the best thing since sliced bread.

Meaningless psephology.

You're saying that studies of voting behaviour mean nothing in determining the significance of voting behaviour? Sure. That makes sense.

I'm saying that the psephological statistic quoted is meaningless as a benchmark for evaluating electoral success, because it ignores important context which must be included in any evaluation of the electoral results under discussion in order for that evaluation to be meaningful.

The psephological statistic used has meaning in this case only as a propaganda tool, as it serves to misrepresent the reality, under the guise of pseudo-scientific objectivity.

Donny osmond wrote:

This reads like a whole lot of wishful thinking.
1. What is going to make the "array of forces against his (Corbyn's) leadership" go away?
2. "The Tories aren't landing any hits.....is all Labour attacking each other". Your solution? "Get rid of the Blairites". Oh, it's attacking each other...
3. "Get rid of the Blairites" - How? Membership purge? The 3 quid Labour members are to get together and expel all non-Corbynista?
4. "His message will resonate" Yeah, we really saw that last week.
5. "Corbyn was elected on a huge mandate that if you look across many parts of the world, including the US, is gaining huge groundswell" Is it really?

No, I don't think it is and I think thinking it is is the fundamental mistake many contributors to this thread are making. I realize I've massacred English there, hope you can understand it.

Everyone is fed up with corporate greed etc, but extrapolating that to a world wide boom in socialism is, erm, somewhat fanciful to say the least.

For all UG's demands that the discussion shouldn't be about deficit etc and should be about guaranteed jobs and wages, he's asking people to understand economics on a level that isn't accessible without explicit, directed education. The economic conversation isn't about debt and deficit because the evil nasties who run our lives say so, its because that's economics that joe public understand.

Again apologies, I think I've rambled a bit all over the shanty with this post. Just my tuppence worth.

As you were.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Bollocks it isn't. It is disinformation used to confuse and misdirect Joe Public.

The economics is easy to understand absent the ubiquitous scaremongering.

What you think you understand is in fact irrational, antiscientific nonsense. The simple maths is plain wrong.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Meaningless psephology.

You're saying that studies of voting behaviour mean nothing in determining the significance of voting behaviour? Sure. That makes sense.

I'm saying that the psephological statistic quoted is meaningless as a benchmark for evaluating electoral success, because it ignores important context which must be included in any evaluation of the electoral results under discussion in order for that evaluation to be meaningful.

The psephological statistic used has meaning in this case only as a propaganda tool, as it serves to misrepresent the reality, under the guise of pseudo-scientific objectivity.

OK, can you provide scientifically objective psephological statistics that prove the opposite?

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Meaningless psephology.

You're saying that studies of voting behaviour mean nothing in determining the significance of voting behaviour? Sure. That makes sense.

I'm saying that the psephological statistic quoted is meaningless as a benchmark for evaluating electoral success, because it ignores important context which must be included in any evaluation of the electoral results under discussion in order for that evaluation to be meaningful.

The psephological statistic used has meaning in this case only as a propaganda tool, as it serves to misrepresent the reality, under the guise of pseudo-scientific objectivity.

This reads like a rugby coach extolling his sides mastery of possession statistics having lost the game.
Corbyns Labour Party has just chalked up one of the worst results in local government elections, it dire of an election year, by an opposition party in 40 odd years. That is the reality. A major change of direction is needed to make an impact, but labour is only interested in talking to itself. The Tories, UKIP and SNP are all licking their lips.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: You're saying that studies of voting behaviour mean nothing in determining the significance of voting behaviour? Sure. That makes sense.

I'm saying that the psephological statistic quoted is meaningless as a benchmark for evaluating electoral success, because it ignores important context which must be included in any evaluation of the electoral results under discussion in order for that evaluation to be meaningful.

The psephological statistic used has meaning in this case only as a propaganda tool, as it serves to misrepresent the reality, under the guise of pseudo-scientific objectivity.

This reads like a rugby coach extolling his sides mastery of possession statistics having lost the game.
Corbyns Labour Party has just chalked up one of the worst results in local government elections, it dire of an election year, by an opposition party in 40 odd years. That is the reality. A major change of direction is needed to make an impact, but labour is only interested in talking to itself. The Tories, UKIP and SNP are all licking their lips.

Clearly, Corbyn is changing the direction of the Labour Party, or trying to. To one more in tune with Labour's natural constituency i.e. labour.

Whether he is successful or not remains to be seen but to suggest that the Tories are 'licking their lips' is absurd given their obscene ravings against him.

The establishment may not be scared of Corbyn the man. But they are clearly terrified of any popular movement that challenges their ongoing class warfare.

I would still like to hear an answer to the question, asked in honesty, of:

What do you feel the current government has done in office to make you want to keep them in office?

I don't care about the alternatives here, so I do not want to hear about Labour or Corbyn: they have nothing to do with the question.

Oh, and this is addressed to anyone who wants to answer.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: You're saying that studies of voting behaviour mean nothing in determining the significance of voting behaviour? Sure. That makes sense.

I'm saying that the psephological statistic quoted is meaningless as a benchmark for evaluating electoral success, because it ignores important context which must be included in any evaluation of the electoral results under discussion in order for that evaluation to be meaningful.

The psephological statistic used has meaning in this case only as a propaganda tool, as it serves to misrepresent the reality, under the guise of pseudo-scientific objectivity.

This reads like a rugby coach extolling his sides mastery of possession statistics having lost the game.
Corbyns Labour Party has just chalked up one of the worst results in local government elections, it dire of an election year, by an opposition party in 40 odd years. That is the reality. A major change of direction is needed to make an impact, but labour is only interested in talking to itself. The Tories, UKIP and SNP are all licking their lips.

More like a draw, surely? If we go with your tenuous analogy...

Just one note. It's important to compare like with like. Because not all councils are up for election at the same time it's not really usually helpful looking at actual share of the vote in particular elections. That's why the analysis tends to look at number of councillors lost and won. Hence my earlier comparison to this being marginally worse than Milliband - the last time these seats were up for election. It's hard therefore to see much good news for Corbyn's Labour in doing worse than Milliband.