Corbyn slander vs Boris

DEFLECTION.
Guess it's the best you can do.
Any other Corbynistas hanging their hat's on the validity of this poll of 2003 people, less than 3.5 peeps per constituency?

The Conservative supporting media are criticising Mr Johnson because he is a failure. If Mrs Thatcher, Mr Churchill or Mr Cameron were prime minister, do you think they would have been so slow to act over the pandemic. Not at all.

Mr Johnson has never delivered anything remotely successfully. We only had an agreement to leave the political institutions of the EU by the Conservative and Unionist party selling the Ulster Unionist cause down the river. The expensive loss making bike hire scheme in London was an idea of the Green Party, and I bet they could have managed it better.

The media slandered him all the way up in till the elections and now he's being proven right. He proposed a 4 day working week and people made fun of him for it and now :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-four-day-week-poll-rishi-sunak-corbyn-a9595201.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1593786223


He proposed free broadband and now Boris wants to set up free broadband for home schooling.
The money tree that was mentioned for Corbyn is not mentioned for Boris.

He supported human rights and Palestine and you all called him antisemitic.

Yawn.

😎😎😎😎

What's done is done mate, Corbyn had two chances and he failed ultimately, regressing on the gains from 2017(which was still not a win, just a gain on 2015) to one of the worst defeats in history. How many people get the chance to be leader for two election campaigns?

Best thing people can do is support Starmer and actually vote for him than cry about Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn had absolutely no stance on Brexit. He was also going to sell the Union down the river with his coalition with the SNP.

Yeah he did, he said he would do another election.

Did he say if he was a remainer or leaver?

Who cares what his personal opinions are? He just needs to be able to effectively navigate the country though brexit which Boris failed to do.

Corbyn should have taken a stance like any brave politician would do (not saying BoJo is brave). Instead he chickened out and was happy to go with the flow. It cost his party 60 seats.

Bojo hid in a fridge, anyone can be braver than that. & that reflects the uks decision making rather than his stance on Brexit. A lot of people when voting for brexit the first time round didn't know what the effects of it were so he was calling for a second one.

Plenty of context, your problem is that you don't like sleights against "the messiah".
The thread was starting to look a bit echo chamberish.
Could you please provide the actual substance to the claim that covers the views of an average of around 3.5 voters per constituency.

Whilst I don't necessarily dispute your analysis, it's silly to dispute the validity of an accredited poll based on the sample size. Most national polls, for everything including politics, only have a couple of thousand participants. Yet they are usually pretty accurate because a huge amount of work goes into ensuring that the samples are representative.

Put it this way, a poll of 2000 people which is broadly representative is better than a poll of 2 million that is not.

And how good have the polls been in the last few years? I would argue that they are pretty unreliable.

Much more accurate than they are given credit for. In the 2019 election, the polls were pretty much spot on. As they were in the European elections last year. As they are globally, in most elections. They are not perfect, but voting aside, they are by far the best indicator of public opinion, on political and other issues, we have.

When people argue polls are unreliable they seem to point to Brexit and the US election in 2016. It needs to be emphasised that in both cases the end result was within the margin of error (+/- 3%) of what the polls were saying. In the US, the polls had Clinton leading nationally by 4%. In the end she won the popular vote by 2%. On Brexit, most polls suggested a relatively narrow remain win, in the end it was a relatively narrow leave win. Yet the way its talked about you'd think the polls were 20% out.

Having a sample of 2000 is perfectly valid provided it's representative. Having a larger sample beyond that point can often lead to diminishing returns.

And how representative could a poll of 2000 people be on such a niche subject?
To jump to the conclusions that the first few posters on this thread did on such an issue based on said poll is foolhardy to say the least.
The bigger problem is that there are still some people clinging on to the idea that Jeremy Corbyn and all he stood for is good for the Labour Party when in fact all it has done is to weaken it's standing in the electorates eyes and make Labour unelectable at a time when the tories are floundering.

Normally very. If anything, polling opinions on specific issues is more reliable and less likely to fluctuate than asking people how they would vote. I'm no expert on polling at all, but those who are have explained why a sample of 2,000 can be very representative and why increasing the sample size beyond that doesn't necessarily make it more representative. Indeed I frequently despair at those on the left (and right) who point to twitter polls with 50,000 votes to try and prove a point, not realising that the size of the sample means nothing if it isn't representative.

Clearly Corbyn was a big issue. That doesn't mean *some* of his economic policies didn't garner public support. Arguably he did change the conversation on austerity/public spending.

I mean the furlighing scheme has been overwhelmingly popular and that's srghbamt thr greatest act of economic intervention we've had in decades.

Sorry my friend but we're not going to agree on this subject, in the country there is actually very little call for a 4 day working week to be introduced, other than the odd wierdo or 2 or a jokey 3 day weekend would be great kind of way.
The reality is that the majority of sane working people know that if a 4 day week were introduced then wages would drop alongside that, unless the government were to intervene and help make up the shortfall of profit due to companies either losing money because productivity is down or said companies having to employ more people to stay at the same level.
This of course would have the knock on effect of the government having to raise taxes and people having less money.
It was tried in the 70s and it failed in the 70s, all whilst being members of the EEC may I add.

Whether or not a 4 day week is objectively a good idea is not the issue here. The issue is how popular the policy is. Lots of things that you may consider to be bad ideas have high levels of public support. And the available polling evidence shows that by and large the policy of a 4 day week is popular. You have provided no objective evidence that it isn't.

You're argument seems to be 'I don't like/agree with what what this poll says so therefore it's wrong'. Dare I say it, but that's quite a Corbynista response.

This is a really informative article by a pollster, explaining why sample size beyond a certain point does not matter https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9805

It's not that I don't agree, it's that if this poll is to be believed then you would imagine I would know at least 1 person that agrees with it enough to be vocal about it and I don't.
There is not this groundswell of support for Jeremy Corbyn's old ideas as is mooted in the original post.

How exactly do they choose who to ask such a question, this poll is on a par with the pre referendum polls as it is impossible to profile who would be for/against this.

Oh and the big poll that was held in December last year would have gone the other way if the electorate were that enthusiastic about Mr Corbyn's ideas, that is a proper poll for you.