Labour people, its time to dump Corbyn

mrginge

westernpromise wrote: »

Why is that more realistic? And how do you vote against something?

Erm... you vote for a party other than the government.
Come on keep up.

Exactly wrong. Based on actual votes, it is less likely that you can persuade a young non-voter to participate than an old one. Why? Because old voters have seen Labour governments, and know what happens.

Erm... there are more non-voting young people than old.
Old non-voters have not voted through multiple elections are are less likely to change behaviour.

Come on keep up please.

You'd be wrong. Pollsters have studied this and found the opposite. But yours is exactly the kind of complacency bordering on delusion that's going to deliver Theresa a crushing 3-digit majority in 2020.

Ok I'll concede this point since you have studies available on it. Can you provide me with links to them since all I see is studies that say higher turnout would favour labour and that they suffer the greatest drop off from those who say they will vote but then don't.

No. What your simplistic analysis wholly fails to consider is where these voters are.

No it doesn't. I am very clear on talking about % of vote and specifically state at the end that % does not turn into electoral seats. You even quoted it. Honestly you should try to read and understand the information before flying off into an indignant rant.

...<indignant rant>...

Oh.

I know you're getting in a flap but I wouldn't get too upset about it to be honest. I think you and your ahem...centre-right :rotfl: friends will be OK come voting day.

chris_m

mrginge wrote: »

Erm... you vote for a party other than the government.
Come on keep up.

It doesn't make any difference which way you vote - the government always gets in.

Sapphire

mrginge wrote: »

However hard it is to get a non-voter to actually start caring, its probably a hell of a lot easier than getting Middle England to start wearing sandals and singing the red flag.

The lib dems have no identity other than anti-Brexit at the moment. […] they have zero quality and a record of betraying their voters.

The Tories of course have nothing else to do other than not screw up Brexit. If they do that even reasonably then they will get over the line imo. And let's all hope they do because would you really trust any other *current* party to not totally shaft the economy?

Too true, on all these points. :cool:

Thrugelmir

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I believe this is the plan Labour have,

Labour have a plan? Somewhat unlikely given they don't appear to have a coherent policy on any topic. Other than to self destruct.

chris_m

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Labour have a plan? Somewhat unlikely given they don't appear to have a coherent policy on any topic. Other than to self destruct.

Either that or they have a plan and also achieved a miracle - assembled a whole bunch of politicians every one of whom can keep a secret

westernpromise

mrginge wrote: »

Erm... you vote for a party other than the government.

So if I vote Lib Dem I am voting against Labour, am I?

Erm... there are more non-voting young people than old.

Well spotted! Young people don't vote! - for anyone!

Ok I'll concede this point since you have studies available on it. Can you provide me with links to them since all I see is studies that say higher turnout would favour labour and that they suffer the greatest drop off from those who say they will vote but then don't.

This gives quite a good summary:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/can-non-voters-win-next-election-labour

And this study from before the 2015 election suggested that only 32% of non-voters would vote Labour:
http://survation.com/a-new-in-depth-study-of-non-voters-by-survation-on-behalf-of-lodestone-communications/

As I have explained to you, turnout is irrelevant. What matters is where it is. Yeremiy adding 1,000 more Labour votes in Islington is not going to help if he loses 10,000 votes in marginals elsewhere.

I'm pleased you're anxious not to understand this, because it ensures several more crushing and - inshallah - terminal election defeats for Labour. If that is to be avoided, someone more realistic than Khorbiyn will eventually have to engage with the actual facts. The problem Labour faces is that no such person could get nominated for a seat and then win a leadership election, given that the leadership electorate are, largely, barking loonies.

mrginge

westernpromise wrote: »

So if I vote Lib Dem I am voting against Labour, am I?

Are you having some kind of mental breakdown?

Well spotted! Young people don't vote! - for anyone!

Oh good grief.

This gives quite a good summary:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/can-non-voters-win-next-election-labour

That is a piece on reasoning, not actual numbers. It in no way demonstrates that non-voters are distributed by party in the same % as actual voters.

So we can say that is an interesting study, but of no relevance to your claim.

And this study from before the 2015 election suggested that only 32% of non-voters would vote Labour:
http://survation.com/a-new-in-depth-study-of-non-voters-by-survation-on-behalf-of-lodestone-communications/

Now your second source is much more interesting.
It does indeed state that only 32% of non-voters would vote labour.

But it also states in the exact same paragraph that only 15% would vote conservative, which of course is significantly less than their actual % received.

So what you have actually found is a study that demonstrates quite clearly that my assertion that distribution of non-voters would be skewed towards labour rather than the tories was correct.

Thank you for providing this evidence as it saves me the effort. For future reference though (and for the second time) it might be best to read things before posting as you will soon have no feet left to shoot through.

As I have explained to you, turnout is irrelevant. What matters is where it is. Yeremiy adding 1,000 more Labour votes in Islington is not going to help if he loses 10,000 votes in marginals elsewhere.

You have explained nothing to me. I don't need it explaining because in two posts now I have said exactly the same thing.

padington

mrginge wrote: »

So your response to the alienated and disenfranchised poor of Britain is to point them in the direction of China as the model for their future economic prosperity.

Personally I'm not sure if that's going to swing the electorate towards a labour government...

My response to Britains poor is to tell them to upskill. Education is the only answer. Sitting in Grimsby with no skills to offer mankind is never going to get you anywhere.

Telling them that their problem is Europe is a lie. The moving sands technological innovation is their problem and it will probably be most of our problem if we don't watch it.

The north has lost its mojo because it was built on an industrialised world which is now dead. Everything is changed. We don't really need British doctors anymore for example, skyping ones in India is now entirely feasable. Accountants might soon be gone with automation. Bus drivers, taxi drivers, tube drivers, train drivers, long gone soon. Maybe some post men. It's possible drones could cull the police force. Estate agents jobs could be cut massively. Retail jobs cut massively. Travel agents, thing of the past. Bar men numbers will be massively down with self pouring technologies. This is what the challenge is.

We will become a massively divided world. The robot engineers will become rich and anyone owning good assets that can be rented now and a few others will remain prosperous ( mainly those with shares in good robot companies) and we will grow a larger and larger minimum wage working population because their skills will not be in demand. Targeting their animosity towards institutions like the European Union is totally missing the point.

The solution is to encourage anyone able to re-skill quick and focus all energy towards encouraging personal growth to help UK plc take lead of this new technological revolution and work with the world to consider ways we can franchise everyone into this new world quickly. The citizens wage is a great idea which we should trial maybe linked with more education. Borrowing to upskill our population is a great idea. Creating unions of countries working to make universal laws of decency and fairness is a good idea which can ensure the the robots are taxed to pay for the education of others is a great idea. Maximising people's freedoms is good idea where it doesn't hurt others. Making sure when people feel hurt, their anger is well placed to help them overcome their problems in a real and meaningful way is a great idea.

Making people believe their problems are all caused because of foreigners is not a great idea.

BobQ

westernpromise wrote: »

I reckon Brexit will be hugely positive for the Tories. If it's painful, too bad, it was what was voted for, so there can't be any argument that it's the government's fault. The LibDems are Remainers and are trying to thwart Brexit and Labour likewise cannot be trusted, so if we had a Brexit election the Tories would cruise it.

I agree if it goes well and is seen (or spun) to be going well May will get the benefits you suggest. But to coin a phrase "many a slip between cup and lip".

If Brexit and/or the economy goes badly, people will not say "well that's what we voted for". Most electors are fickle. They will say "well I never voted for it" and "Those Tories and Farage lead us into this mess, we need a change".

May has the advantage that Labour has a leader who is not credible and a support base who would rather be a protest movement than win power. In any other situation to the present, May could call an election and win a huge majority I agree.

The only reason (in my view) that May has not called an election is that she fears her own party's serious divisions will emerge, so she will see the negotiations though. Once Brexit is legally irreversible, she will have a united party and probably win the election.

But if Brexit goes badly, and people struggle with more austerity, higher inflation/interest rates or believe that what they voted for is not being addressed, they could easily turn on the Tories. If that happened, a more inspirational Labour Leader might make their job much harder with a centre left coalition with the Lib Dems and SNP emerging.

The first signs of Labour changing seems to be the comments of Len McClusky. Nothing is certain in these unusual times, even a Tory re-election, as the referendum shows, people vote for many reasons. My view is that the referendum shocked a lot of under 25s and I do not think they will be so indifferent to voting in the future.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

My response to Britains poor is to tell them to upskill. Education is the only answer. Sitting in Grimsby with no skills to offer mankind is never going to get you anywhere.

Telling them that their problem is Europe is a lie. The moving sands technological innovation is their problem and it will probably be most of our problem if we don't watch it.

The north has lost its mojo because it was built on an industrialised world which is now dead. Everything is changed. We don't really need British doctors anymore for example, skyping ones in India is now entirely feasable. Accountants might soon be gone with automation. Bus drivers, taxi drivers, tube drivers, train drivers, long gone soon. Maybe some post men. It's possible drones could cull the police force. Estate agents jobs could be cut massively. Retail jobs cut massively. Travel agents, thing of the past. Bar men numbers will be massively down with self pouring technologies. This is what the challenge is.

We will become a massively divided world. The robot engineers will become rich and anyone owning good assets that can be rented now and a few others will remain prosperous ( mainly those with shares in good robot companies) and we will grow a larger and larger minimum wage working population because their skills will not be in demand. Targeting their animosity towards institutions like the European Union is totally missing the point.

The solution is to encourage anyone able to re-skill quick and focus all energy towards encouraging personal growth to help UK plc take lead of this new technological revolution and work with the world to consider ways we can franchise everyone into this new world quickly. The citizens wage is a great idea which we should trial maybe linked with more education. Borrowing to upskill our population is a great idea. Creating unions of countries working to make universal laws of decency and fairness is a good idea which can ensure the the robots are taxed to pay for the education of others is a great idea. Maximising people's freedoms is good idea where it doesn't hurt others. Making sure when people feel hurt, their anger is well placed to help them overcome their problems in a real and meaningful way is a great idea.

Making people believe their problems are all caused because of foreigners is not a great idea.

you make a very persuasive case for not needing more people in the uK