Labour have largest polling average deficit within first year of election since 1959!

Well due to the timing of his leadership and the Paris attacks he kind of had to declare his opinions on ISIS and shoot to kill. Pretty sure he is talking about domestic policies but it obviously isn't being covered in the same way. Why would the Tory tabloids and the BBC present positive and attractive things about Corbyn?

Shoot to kill has been taken out of context. He just wants to make sure that we don't move to that kind of society (like America) which impinges on our civil liberties. And he thinks that this threat of terrorism is being used as a political tool and we shouldn't be hasty about something so major.. When he said that jihadi John shouldn't have been killed in a drone strike and should have been brought to justice, basically all of the families affected by his beheadings agreed that they wanted him brought to justice as well. Whether that's feasible or not in reality is irrelevant. He's just talking on matters of principle, which is something that has been completely ignored in British politics. The torys don't really have 'principles' they just care about the budget and the economy and driving inequality. People aren't individuals they are statistics and opportunities to impose austerity on.

Back channels to ISIS, again is taken out of context. He's not suggesting popping over to Syria and having a cup of tea with Al-Baghdadi. He's suggesting that the world as a whole works together to strategically negotiate with them. It won't be Britain that does that but from within the Muslim world. People might cry out that you can't negotiate with these brainwashed radicalised terrorists but the whole concept of 'back channels' means trying to covertly access and understand their ideologies better as well as their future plans to cause disruption in the west. Isis actually want us to bomb them as it plays into their world view that it's them vs the world and they believe they can withstand the remote military threat. It might be different if ground troops were involved. But some sort of back channels that enable us to understand ISIS better and start to be one step ahead of them is imperative. And I don't think this because Corbyn has said it. I'm not a labour voter and am not really aligned with party politics. I believe this after non-media based research and listening to some of the Arab Spring activists who understand the way that ISIS think better than anyone in the bubble of parliament does.

Shoot to kill was not taken out of context:


Mr Corbyn was asked by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's streets.

Mr Corbyn said: "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive.

"I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know.

"But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing."

He was asked a question about using force to respond to terrorists on the streets, he chose to use that opportunity to talk about shoot to kill policies. Despite no policy actually existing, armed police use force to defend themselves depending on the situation. He chose to respond in that manner, you cannot blame the media for reporting his answers.

The Jihadi John comment was spun by the Telegraph and that was it. The Guardian and Independent simply reported what was said by him. There was no grand media conspiracy there.

Back channels to ISIS was an idiotic comment made by someone who has no understanding of the group's he was talking about. It merely showed how confused his foreign policy agenda is. I've gone over why he was completely wrong here. Again the media were not conspiring, he said something stupid and it was reported.


Anyway we are getting away from the issue here. Corbyn's lack of support cannot be boiled down to a bias media. It comes down to the things he himself has been saying. The down right strange opinions on foreign policy, terrorism and others. That is what is switching off the public to him. Whether the media applies too much focus on his foreign policy agenda is frankly irrelevant. They are still his views and thoughts and should be judged accordingly.

In an incredible show of just how poorly Corbyn is performing, the average Tory lead of 8% last month was the strongest on record for 8 months into a parliament and not until 12 months after the 1959 election do you find a stronger lead.

For comparison purposes, Corbyn is 7% down on Miliband! At this point in 2011 the quarterly average was a 2% Labour lead, now it's a 5% Tory lead and ICM themselves believe that Labour is overvalued if we just stick to ICM values!!

This is glorious, the Tories have not a polling lead so strong after 8 months since at least WW2!

*One caveat to add is that the polling council's findings suggest not enough Tories in the sample. While the last quarterly average from ICM was 5% it's worth noting that Comres for the Independent On Sunday have averaged a 12% Tory lead which if replacated at a general election would produce a landslide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12107745/Labour-has-never-polled-as-badly-in-election-cycle-since-Second-World-War.html

Ok I have seen the interview and I get it but I do feel like the media and torys are really focusing on him being a danger to security and using that to negate anything he says on domestic policy which has some strengths.

Ultimately he is shooting himself in the foot with his foreign policy ideas and principles and I think he should be more careful now he's the leader of the opposition rather than sticking to his perhaps unrealistic principles.

I don't think it's irrelevant that the media only focus on the bad things and not on the good. That has to be important in these polling figures that this discussion is about. If you're only seeing that someone is a threat to national security but not seeing that he wants to support the NHS and fund it properly and ensure we maintain free at the point of access healthcare then of course it will affect your opinion of his electability.

The problem with the final statement is the Tories are miles ahead on best with the economy, something always very important to voters. If we look back to April (most recent I came across quickly, but I recall the divide being greater now) 39% trusted the Tories most with the economy, only 23 for labour. On the NHS, fair enough, labour commanded a lead, but nowhere near as big and the Tories will almost certainly be able to outbid Jezza on the NHS, just as they did with Miliband. Immigration, another key issue, Tories tend to have a slight advantage. Defence, which even though it is never included in polling, is a critical issue, the Tories have a massive lead, and Corbyn has already done the damage, everything he has said will be brought up if needed, even though it will be over 4 years old at the time.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Great post and thank you for your points.

I guess I see the NHS as a bit of a tip of an iceberg issue. It's the country's biggest employer and obviously is a big deal for the lot of the population.

The way the conservatives and Hunt have handled junior doctor contracts is not good and if this continues to consultants and nurses as its set to its a real risk. Coupled with the fact public services tend to stick together and lots of teachers and police force have shown solidarity with the JDs on this the conservatives could be alienating a lot of people with their hard line austerity and it's only been going for 8 months.

In terms of academic economics then yes the conservatives are the strongest but we are not a society of robots and people matter too and I think this is where the conservatives really fall down.

The thing I would say with the Junior Doctors is it's probably going to be in the long run not that big a deal, the better true 7 day NHS rhetoric keeps getting pumped out and eventually people get red up of the strikes and Hunt won't back down, for once we have a minister with a spine...ish.What happens then? Exactly the same as happened to Gove in Education, hunt gets pushed off somewhere else, quite possibly back to the back benches, and then a new fresh, quite possibly female, face gets brought in to replace him, his works been done, make the minister help rather than hinder in the next election.

Yes, it is true that we are people not robots, but I doubt that the economy come 2020 will be in a good enough state, especially in the face of Corbynomics, that people will decide that they want a Labour led government that they perceive as caring about the people more over a Tory Government that they see as driving the economy forwards better towards a brighter economic future. Labour do well when the economy is healthy and thus largely a non issue because people feel they have the security to do such things, when the security isn't there, or there are clouds of insecurity on the horizon they prefer the safer bet of the Tories.

Can you please explain what you mean by the bit in bold?

All the rhetoric about how the changes allow for a true 7 day NHS where the service isn't worse at weekends and where the risks of death don't vary significantly depending on what day of the week you are admitted, so there is no real change for the doctors buy the NHS provides a much better weekend service.

The risks of death don't vary significantly. It's based on one report, the statistics are shoddy and Hunt's interpretation has been officially refuted by the BMJ editor.

Have you had a look at the primary report that those claims are based on and is being used as the whole rationale for this ill thought out plan? It includes all admissions. Of course the weekend will look potentially riskier because most weekend admissions will be emergency and not appointment-led. In the week admissions in the form of planned inpatient and outpatient admissions are obviously going to be less risky. It's a function of the patient profile not of doctor number.

Everyone agrees a 7 day NHS would be great in an ideal world but if the number of doctors remains unchanged and you are increasing the social working week by 40% then something has to give. And that will be the stretching of doctors which will be ridiculously unsafe.

For something so major, there needs to be more funding and more doctors. They've repeatedly said the pay bill is staying the same so they're not increasing funding and I'm not sure if you're aware but doctors can't be magicked out of thin air. 6 years of medical school and 2 years of foundation training at least.

If the problem with the weekend is less doctors then using the same number of doctors and increasing the amount of time they will be covering will just shift the difference to the week. It might even it out but it's not saving anyone's life on balance.

The thing that has to be remembered about rhetoric is that there needs not to be any sound basis to it, how many times have we been told that a Tory government will, in essence, slaughter the poor and privatise the NHS? Still waiting on that, and a single report can be damning, it doesn't matter how iffy the conclusion is, the idea is now stuck in people's heads

I understand what rhetoric is. I'm more questioning your use of 'true and better' in reference to the rhetoric.

The Tory government hasn't been in power alone for 18 years until May and their plans for the NHS with this unfounded 7 day stuff is undoubtedly going to cause issues and lends itself to privatisation. It won't happen overnight. It might not even happen in the nezt 4 years. But if the one horse race in British politics continues because of Corbyn and a la the OP then it's an eventuality.

I though we were now coming up on the end of the 37th year of conservative rule...

And you seem to be suggesting there is a possibility of Corbyn going, which is unlikely unless there is a severe deterioration in health, he is certainly not getting forced out.

As for privatisation, need I remind you that privatisation of the NHS is a grand total of 0? Even when we're looking at what the rhetoric espoused as privatisation it is rather low and increasing at a decreased rate?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Something as major as NHS privitisation needs longer than one or two terms to come into fruition.

Not suggesting a possibility of Corbyn going. Just saying that with him in it looks likely that the only electable option is the conservatives which will drive the move towards privatisation.

You didn't even respond to me asking why you said the 7day stuff was true and better? do you still think that in light of my comment explaining why it's all a spin of shoddy stats?

I think you would tend to find that if the intention is to make the NHS entirely privately managed to lead into sell offs the rate would likely have increased, would it not?

We also seem to have this totally irrational view that the NHS is somehow great, perfect, the global pinnacle of healthcare when it is far from. Privatisation is seen as a dirty word and betterment is unnecessary.

A better NHS as the weekend I would say is a necessity, and the stats might be shoddy, but they also might not be and with better weekend service we may see the probabilities flatten out, we might not, but I do not see that as a reason not to improve weekend care.

Posted from TSR Mobile

On what basis is a better NHS weekend service a necessity? As far as we know no extra people are dying on the weekend (infact less people actually die on the weekend than in the week). As you know the paper is about death within 30 days of admission and this goes back to the severity of patient profile at the weekend, not doctor numbers.

But who is crying out for this apart from the Tory government? Are patients and people?! .

Imagine the reverse though. Let's say we currently had more elective care at the weekend, and the government was trying to scale it back. The very same medics complaining now, would be furious about the government trying to "cut back the NHS" etc.