Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Big blow to Corbyn as GMB members vote to back Smith watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It doesn't round to anything, it's a majority against him.

    And AV, if you actually bother to do the allocations, suggests Burnham would win on members alone. Anyone who was inclined to Corbyn would have voted for him first preference; there might have been some Burnhamites who would second pref Corbyn but it would never get there

    First round, Liz Kendall is knocked out and likely all her votes are redistributed to Cooper. There isn't a single Kendallite alive who would second preference Corbyn. Second preference, Cooper gets knocked out; again, there's not a single Cooperite who would preference Corbyn over Burnham. So the votes are redistributed to Burnham; at that point he's over the 50% + 1 vote threshold so Burnham wins.

    So it's completely valid to point out a majority of actual Labour Party members (not £3 Trots and Tories like Toby Young) voted against the Dear Leader
    You didn't say 'a majority', you said 51%.

    Your calculations don't work even on your own terms. If, as you suggest, the bulk of Kendall's vote was redistributed on 2nd preferences to Cooper, then she would have likely finished second in Round 2 (as she was only 1,200 votes behind Burnham in Round 1) and gone to a final run-off with Corbyn, with Burnham being knocked out.

    But that's all secondary. Your central assumption is that literally no Kendall and Cooper voters, and not enough Burnham voters, would have Corbyn as a second or third preference. Yet the only polling data on lower-preference allocation that was carried out - two polls by Yougov, linked here and here - contradicts this. To summarise:

    - In both cases, Kendall went out first round, and the majority of her votes were re-allocated to Cooper, followed by a smaller chunk to Burnham. Corbyn was picking up a very small but not insignificant chunk - in both cases he did 1 point better in Round 2 than in Round 1.

    - In the first poll, Cooper came third and went out in Round 2, and her vote was reallocated on a roughly 2:1 ratio in Burnham's favour. In the second poll, Burnham and Cooper tied in Round 2, so YouGov ran both runoffs - if Burnham went out, his vote would go about 2:1 in favour of Cooper, and if Cooper went out, her vote would go about 3:1 in favour of Burnham.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Again most of what you say is true and will probably be very appealing to Tory voters. Another reason for Labour not to bother try to woo them.
    On the economy by 2020 the Tories may be starting to look weak, as austerity is intrinsically not good for the economy, and it is so far only managing to massage the figures with QE and falling wages, as things bite, tax revenues are going to fall. Corbyn's investment policy is actually better for the economy, and particularly for those finding it harder to find decent paying jobs, it may start to be attractive, cutting into the traditional Tory strength. As for his policies on services, these are likely to appeal to just about anyone not voting Tory. As for strong leadership, if Corbyn comes through this gruelling contest and manages to unite the party, he will be the 'Rocky Bilbao' of leaders, in the eyes of the public.
    Wages falling? Are you using IE? Even real terms wages aren't falling. The floating voter wants strong economy, not offered through high taxes and highly inflationary policies; strong defence, not offered by a pacifist unilateralist; and a strong leader, not offered by the shambles we see before us. Or are you suggesting that the Tory ranks have swollen by 50% since Corbyn for reasons other than Corbyn?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Wages falling? Are you using IE? Even real terms wages aren't falling. The floating voter wants strong economy, not offered through high taxes and highly inflationary policies; strong defence, not offered by a pacifist unilateralist; and a strong leader, not offered by the shambles we see before us. Or are you suggesting that the Tory ranks have swollen by 50% since Corbyn for reasons other than Corbyn?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Real wages have fallen about 10% since 2008, and for those at the bottom it is probably worse. Young people have been hit 16%.
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...t-uk-evidence/
    A strong (in the eyes of the financial markets) economy relies on investment and consumption too. With no investment and lots of low earners, these weaken the economy.
    The Tory gains are due to the Labour infighting and May's honeymoon period, not exclusively Corbyn.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Real wages have fallen about 10% since 2008, and for those at the bottom it is probably worse. Young people have been hit 16%.
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...t-uk-evidence/
    A strong (in the eyes of the financial markets) economy relies on investment and consumption too. With no investment and lots of low earners, these weaken the economy.
    The Tory gains are due to the Labour infighting and May's honeymoon period, not exclusively Corbyn.
    You mean Labout being down 5% on where they should be since Corbyn's election, even when there was no real infighting, is to do with things that hadn't happened?

    And I didn't realise we were already 8 years into the May Ministry, or this term, or even Conservative led government...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You mean Labout being down 5% on where they should be since Corbyn's election, even when there was no real infighting, is to do with things that hadn't happened?
    There has been infighting since day one of Corbyn, in fact it started when he started to look like he was winning.

    And I didn't realise we were already 8 years into the May Ministry, or this term, or even Conservative led government...
    Wages have been falling since the crash. The Tories will be seen as the one's who did nothing to reverse it, and have added to peoples misery by cutting services and benefits too.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    There has been infighting since day one of Corbyn, in fact it started when he started to look like he was winning.

    Wages have been falling since the crash. The Tories will be seen as the one's who did nothing to reverse it, and have added to peoples misery by cutting services and benefits too.
    Can I have your 2-3% real wage growth then, or even your 4% rate if you're sat in a minimum wage job?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    If Corbyn went off and left Labour to form a new political party, he would win more seats than Smith and the next GE. Serious.
    You should seek medical attention*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can I have your 2-3% real wage growth then, or even your 4% rate if you're sat in a minimum wage job?
    I think you are confusing wage growth with real wage growth, or using a very selective period. Here the relevant section from a more recent report.

    In July 2014, real wages were 12% below their starting level so they have
    increased by three percentage points over the last year and a half. Real weekly earnings in 2000 constant prices were - £394 in February 2008, £367 in May 2010 and £358 in December 2015.
    Currently real wages are 9% below their peak level reached in February 2008 and 2.5% below their level when George Osborne became Chancellor of the Exchequer.


    Full report here
    http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/rwu004.pdf
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    People keep banging on about how Corbyn is unelectable. The other part of the Labour party seem to think Owen Smith is, yet his policies are mainly just Corbyn lite, except for Trident, which voters don't really care about. The more centre left Milliband failed. Corbyn has at least attracted some interest in the party from new voters. Surely this means he has a better chance, as most of the original Labour voters are still going to vote Labour. Some of the anti establishment UKIP voters who want change may vote for him, now that UKIP have got what they wanted, and haven't really got anything else to offer.
    He is unelectable. What you have to understand is that the media will frame him as: somebody who is unpatriotic, someone who wants to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, someone who is sympathetic to Hamas - the list goes on! All of those items - morally justifiable or not - alienate the so-called 'working class'. Indeed, you might say that the media have been framing him from day one. This is partially true, but Corbyn has not played his cards very well with the media at all and has basically engendered their hatred himself.

    Seeing as he will struggle to appeal to those voters, how exactly he will be elected? The middle class electorate - that silent, powerful majority - surely won't vote for him and herein lies the problem: his appeal is so, so limited.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paraphilos)
    He is unelectable. What you have to understand is that the media will frame him as: somebody who is unpatriotic, someone who wants to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, someone who is sympathetic to Hamas - the list goes on! All of those items - morally justifiable or not - alienate the so-called 'working class'. Indeed, you might say that the media have been framing him from day one. This is partially true, but Corbyn has not played his cards very well with the media at all and has basically engendered their hatred himself.

    Seeing as he will struggle to appeal to those voters, how exactly he will be elected? The middle class electorate - that silent, powerful majority - surely won't vote for him and herein lies the problem: his appeal is so, so limited.
    The Falklands thing has been such hypocrisy by the press throughout, not long ago for example we learned in a glib, 'minor slip' thing from Malcolm Rifkind that he had been negotiating the future of the Falklands in secret with Argentina when he was Foreign Secretary under Major, so it isn't just Labour hard-lefties who have thought that maybe there should be a deal.

    The underlying problem (as Alastair Campbell constantly banged on about when he was Blair's press secretary) is that there is a built in predisposition in the tabloid press to attack Labour, no matter what the facts. Campbell temporarily engineered a solution to this, which was to absolutely bombard them with instant rebuttals and to harass them constantly every time they came out with one of their standard anti-Labour lies. This just about worked some of the time, because Blair was seen by the press as 'different' and on the Right, so they gave him some space. Corbyn is seen as a rerun of the Michael Foot era and therefore fair game to be massacred. The current party doesn't have the well-funded instant rebuttal war room machinery that operated under Blair (paid for by all those wealthy donors Jeremy can't bear to be associated with) and so we have the current situation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paraphilos)
    He is unelectable. What you have to understand is that the media will frame him as: somebody who is unpatriotic, someone who wants to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, someone who is sympathetic to Hamas - the list goes on! All of those items - morally justifiable or not - alienate the so-called 'working class'. Indeed, you might say that the media have been framing him from day one. This is partially true, but Corbyn has not played his cards very well with the media at all and has basically engendered their hatred himself.

    Seeing as he will struggle to appeal to those voters, how exactly he will be elected? The middle class electorate - that silent, powerful majority - surely won't vote for him and herein lies the problem: his appeal is so, so limited.
    Apart from Corbyn not playing his cards right with the media, I pretty much agree with all that you have said. It is not so much that he is not playing them right, he is just not playing their game.
    The media are losing their monopoly on information, and have lost a lot of credibility, if they go too far they are just going to look stupid, you can already see that with the Telegraph, who appear to be in a complete frenzy about him.
    The electorate are doing some strange things these days. UKIP won the EU elections. The EU referendum went against expectations, and had a massive turnout. The SNP took over Scotland. The Liberals did well and then got totally trashed. Corbyn got elected leader with 60% of the vote. UKIP got their referendum.
    I think that the situation with Corbyn is unlike anything we have had before.
    I really don't think we can be certain of any particular outcome.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Corbyn is seen as a rerun of the Michael Foot era and therefore fair game to be massacred. The current party doesn't have the well-funded instant rebuttal war room machinery that operated under Blair (paid for by all those wealthy donors Jeremy can't bear to be associated with) and so we have the current situation.
    Corbyn knows that he is never going to be fairly represented by the media, and that is part of the reason he avoids them. He does have a strategy, but it is an unfamiliar one, and a bit more of a long game. He doesn't do personal attacks and he doesn't throw mud. The media have been desperately trying to fuel things in the leadership debate, but are falling flat as he simply doesn't respond other than to rebut. He does not attack his attackers only what they do. The media are left to dig up tweets from random supporters as their focus. There are signs they are already getting bored of it and we haven't even got to a general election.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The story isn't that 60% of people who would be 'out of a job under Corbyn' voted Owen, the story is that only 60% of people who would be 'out of a job under Corbyn' voted Owen.

    If that's a big blow to Corbyn, then so were the council elections to the Conservatives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paraphilos)
    He is unelectable. What you have to understand is that the media will frame him as: somebody who is unpatriotic, someone who wants to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, someone who is sympathetic to Hamas - the list goes on! All of those items - morally justifiable or not - alienate the so-called 'working class'. Indeed, you might say that the media have been framing him from day one. This is partially true, but Corbyn has not played his cards very well with the media at all and has basically engendered their hatred himself.

    Seeing as he will struggle to appeal to those voters, how exactly he will be elected? The middle class electorate - that silent, powerful majority - surely won't vote for him and herein lies the problem: his appeal is so, so limited.
    Lol 'unelectable', he motivated some 200,000 people to pay £25 just to vote for him to be leader of Labour.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paraphilos)
    What you have to understand is that the media will frame him as: somebody who is unpatriotic, someone who wants to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, someone who is sympathetic to Hamas - the list goes on! All of those items - morally justifiable or not - alienate the so-called 'working class'. Indeed, you might say that the media have been framing him from day one.
    How is this "framing" him when they're all undeniably true? He straight up stated that we should give the Falklands to Argentina even though the entire population is 100% against it and he called Hamas a great purveyor of social justice. These aren't my words, not the media's words, they're his own words. This is of course on top of things like brown nosing and heaping nauseating praise upon Hamas fund raisers like that scumbag Raed Salah etc etc.*

    So it's cheap, lazy and disingenuous to claim these labels are media inventions and quite frankly it insults everyone's intelligence. You know when your own statements count as "smears" and "framing" by your delusional supporters (most of whom didn't even know who he was before 2 years ago even though he's been an MP for 30 years)*you've got problems.*
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neverdie)
    The story isn't that 60% of people who would be 'out of a job under Corbyn' voted Owen, the story is that only 60% of people who would be 'out of a job under Corbyn' voted Owen.

    If that's a big blow to Corbyn, then so were the council elections to the Conservatives.
    That's an indictment on Owen to be fair. His 70s throwback policy proposals and statements like "I am just as radical as Corbyn" don't exactly inspire people who don't want to see the economy go down the toilet. Though I suppose it's a shade better than Corbyn and Abbott's love of the Venezuelan model which has (further) destroyed that country. But only a shade.....
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Lol 'unelectable', he motivated some 200,000 people to pay £25 just to vote for him to be leader of Labour.
    The size of the membership is irrelevant, they only represent c1% of the voting population. The point that the Corbynistas are missing is that swing voters(the key to winning elections) don't attend rallies and don't join political parties.

    The worst poll ratings of any opposition leader ever gives a clearer indication of the wider public's view of him.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    How is this "framing" him when they're all undeniably true? He straight up stated that we should give the Falklands to Argentina even though the entire population is 100% against it and he called Hamas a great purveyor of social justice. These aren't my words, not the media's words, they're his own words. This is of course on top of things like brown nosing and heaping nauseating praise upon Hamas fund raisers like that scumbag Raed Salah etc etc.*

    So it's cheap, lazy and disingenuous to claim these labels are media inventions and quite frankly it insults everyone's intelligence. You know when your own statements count as "smears" and "framing" by your delusional supporters (most of whom didn't even know who he was before 2 years ago even though he's been an MP for 30 years)*you've got problems.*
    I didn't mean 'frame' in the sense he's been set up or something. I agree with you for the most part, but I would say that to call him unpatriotic for not singing the national anthem is unfair, I believe. Although if I were in his shoes I would sing it anyway; you have to be pragmatic in politics sometimes and forgo your principles.

    By the way, I'm not on Corbyn's side at all. Did you not sense that from my post?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Lol 'unelectable', he motivated some 200,000 people to pay £25 just to vote for him to be leader of Labour.
    It will be to no avail. These new members won't decide the election in any way at all.

    It's not that I feel they don't understand the working class (although there is a case to be made against Jeremy Corbyn there), it's that they are terrible at marketing their style of politics. The conservatives are experts by comparison.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    How is this "framing" him when they're all undeniably true? He straight up stated that we should give the Falklands to Argentina even though the entire population is 100% against it. These aren't my words, not the media's words, they're his own words.
    This is completely untrue. He did not say any such thing. All he said was that we should talk with the Argentinian government about them, rather than simply blanking them.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 17, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.