Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Spadge Vernacular]

Yes, in that almost all of those critiques are based on how Corbyn (or Labour) was reported rather than individuals reviewing and assessing of the circumstances. Look at this bit for example:

Most people who themselves like or dislike something are able to articulate why reasonably - this cake is too sweet, this bath is too hot, I like how economical this car is etc. Look at that selection though - they dislike Corbyn, but no-one gives an actual, individual reason as to why.

What we are left with is, basically, reflections of the media and political campaigns against Corbyn run between 2015 and 2019. He isn't a good leader (even though if you ask most people to define what makes a good leader, he'd probably up ticking more boxes than other politicians); he (or Labour) aren't credible (which begs the question - credible to who? This is the old electable argument); he's proved himself totally unfit to govern (based on what, exactly?).

I get that you like Corbyn and the project, or at least your posts on here give that impression so it's natural for you to push back upon a slight upon these things. That said if someone didn't/doesn't like Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury poisoning, his handling of anti-Semitism, national anthem, dropping the Waspi women payment as a side thought, etc it would be easier to summarise those multiple concerns and grievances as the quotes that you have quoted do. Just because you do not like what is being said, this does not invalidate people's opinions.

 

[edge]

The party went to the left and towards a London centric powerbase at the top unfortunately they have little in common with the people they want to vote for them ,
Other than voting Labour just because they always do , what do they have to entice a new voter?
Seems the young Uni types ,Like the way the party has gone the last decade or so but the rest of electorate doesn't ,
From the minute we got the last two leaders we have been destined to lose, no shock to anyone outside of the labour community .
No matter how many times they show a graph saying people agreed with this and that, fact is it means nothing in the ballot box, we have lost Scotland and large parts of the north and show no signs of getting back either and just had a disastrous election result, but it seems people want more of the same again ?
Starmer isnt my cup of tea , lacks passion ect but ,he has to get the party looking electable which is a mountain to climb at the minute.
Once this pandemic is over and the Tories are put under the microscope with there cronyism ect the labour party will have a golden opportunity to go forwards, if they dont take it this time they may as well just accept the fact they are just a bigger version of the Liberal party a glorified protest party.
I work in the Rail industry and its got a long history of backing labour , but asking the people I work with they have little or no passion for labour party , so either voting because they hate the Tories, others because they always do and more and more not bothered to vote because they dont see them as relevant to themselves, it's a shame , going the same way with the unions sadly more dropping out as time goes by.

 

[tsubaki]

I get that you like Corbyn and the project, or at least your posts on here give that impression so it's natural for you to push back upon a slight upon these things. That said if someone didn't/doesn't like Corbyn's reaction to the Salisbury poisoning, his handling of anti-Semitism, national anthem, dropping the Waspi women payment as a side thought, etc it would be easier to summarise those multiple concerns and grievances as the quotes that you have quoted do. Just because you do not like what is being said, this does not invalidate people's opinions.

It doesn't, but I would point out that all of those things were specific reasons to criticise Corbyn for (though to a greater or lesser extent they were reported in a distorted way too, of course) and yet the people quoted by Yougov didn't mention any of them.

There isn't any evidence to suggest they summarized them together either (unless you expect that everyone summarized them in the same sort of format as the media and critics were pushing out), and plenty (the "credible" quote and the one later about Labour allowing a second Scottish independence referendum being the most blatant) showing that it is the reporting of Corbyn that was key here.

As for your first sentence, as I've repeatedly said on here there are legitimate criticisms of Corbyn that can be made, as leader and as a politician. The problem here is that very few people ever get to have that debate, instead we just endlessly recycled the crap that was pumped out about him on a daily basis.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

It doesn't, but I would point out that all of those things were specific reasons to criticise Corbyn for (though to a greater or lesser extent they were reported in a distorted way too, of course) and yet the people quoted by Yougov didn't mention any of them.

There isn't any evidence to suggest they summarized them together either (unless you expect that everyone summarized them in the same sort of format as the media and critics were pushing out), and plenty (the "credible" quote and the one later about Labour allowing a second Scottish independence referendum being the most blatant) showing that it is the reporting of Corbyn that was key here.

As for your first sentence, as I've repeatedly said on here there are legitimate criticisms of Corbyn that can be made, as leader and as a politician. The problem here is that very few people ever get to have that debate, instead we just endlessly recycled the crap that was pumped out about him on a daily basis.

The methodology generally employed by Yougov is online, quant, and active sampling to ensure a robust population of interest. As you may well know the use of quant is to produce the statistical data that is generally used to describe political findings. These tend to be closed and scale-type questions for the most part but with limited open questions. This limitation being that open questions within quantitative surveys is not qualitative research but factoring limited open question into a quantitative survey does allow for the limited expression of feeling that can be considered within the framework of statistical findings. If they had run depth interviews or focus groups you would have seen broader examination that you allude to but it is not required for the methodology employed and in no way limits its findings.

That you don't feel that this method is valid, or that the presentation of findings is as you suggest, biased, is possibly a truer reflection of your own position on the matter. As I have mentioned previously there was anecdotal evidence from the Labour boots going door to door across the north reporting back that they were coming up against people saying they would not vote for that 'that man' - in agreement with the Yougov findings and the GE result which also is to be considered. Obviously not within a controlled study but for consideration. You might well be of the opinion that this was because these voters were not capable of forming their own opinions and were told what to think by the press. You could also try and hide the heavy defeat behind Brexit which will have played a part but as the evidence suggests, there were other variables in play. If you want my academic opinion, choosing to ignore these variables is indicative of bias.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

It doesn't, but I would point out that all of those things were specific reasons to criticise Corbyn for (though to a greater or lesser extent they were reported in a distorted way too, of course) and yet the people quoted by Yougov didn't mention any of them.

There isn't any evidence to suggest they summarized them together either (unless you expect that everyone summarized them in the same sort of format as the media and critics were pushing out), and plenty (the "credible" quote and the one later about Labour allowing a second Scottish independence referendum being the most blatant) showing that it is the reporting of Corbyn that was key here.

As for your first sentence, as I've repeatedly said on here there are legitimate criticisms of Corbyn that can be made, as leader and as a politician. The problem here is that very few people ever get to have that debate, instead we just endlessly recycled the crap that was pumped out about him on a daily basis.

 

[tsubaki]

The methodology generally employed by Yougov is online, quant, and active sampling to ensure a robust population of interest. As you may well know the use of quant is to produce the statistical data that is generally used to describe political findings. These tend to be closed and scale-type questions for the most part but with limited open questions. This limitation being that open questions within quantitative surveys is not qualitative research but factoring limited open question into a quantitative survey does allow for the limited expression of feeling that can be considered within the framework of statistical findings. If they had run depth interviews or focus groups you would have seen broader examination that you allude to but it is not required for the methodology employed and in no way limits its findings.

That you don't feel that this method is valid, or that the presentation of findings is as you suggest, biased, is possibly a truer reflection of your own position on the matter. As I have mentioned previously there was anecdotal evidence from the Labour boots going door to door across the north reporting back that they were coming up against people saying they would not vote for that 'that man' - in agreement with the Yougov findings and the GE result which also is to be considered. Obviously not within a controlled study but for consideration. You might well be of the opinion that this was because these voters were not capable of forming their own opinions and were told what to think by the press. You could also try and hide the heavy defeat behind Brexit which will have played a part but as the evidence suggests, there were other variables in play. If you want my academic opinion, choosing to ignore these variables is indicative of bias.

This is just daft, though. I'd have thought it would be obvious, even to a non-biased academic such as yourself, that Corbyn was portrayed in a largely negative way by the media and his political rivals. Do you really find it hard to believe that the public's opinion was not shaped by that?

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

This is just daft, though. I'd have thought it would be obvious, even to a non-biased academic such as yourself, that Corbyn was portrayed in a largely negative way by the media and his political rivals. Do you really find it hard to believe that the public's opinion was not shaped by that?

As I say, many variables to consider.

 

[tsubaki]

As I say, many variables to consider.

For the election loss yes, though there aren't really that many revealed in that Yougov survey.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

For the election loss yes, though there aren't really that many revealed in that Yougov survey.

Aye, just that Corbyn was the main factor.

 

[LEONARD]

YouGov UK: Data Analytics & Market Research Services

Explore YouGov's market research and data analytics services for valuable insights. Make informed business decisions with our consumer analysis & intelligence.

yougov.co.uk

35% of Labour supporters switched allegiance because of Jezza, with 18% switching re Brexit.

What Labour canvassers were coming back and telling anyone who would listen, Corbyn was toxic with people on the doorstep.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

35% of Labour supporters switched allegiance because of Jezza, with 18% switching re Brexit.

What Labour canvassers were coming back and telling anyone who would listen, Corbyn was toxic with people on the doorstep.

Don’t think anyone’s denying that, just more discussing why people thought he was toxic. I mean we voted in a man with a proven track record of adultery, nepotism, racism and incompetence instead. How was Johnson considered to be less toxic?

 

[LEONARD]

Don’t think anyone’s denying that, just more discussing why people thought he was toxic. I mean we voted in a man with a proven track record of adultery, nepotism, racism and incompetence instead. How was Johnson considered to be less toxic?

The Labour party and Labour voters are 2 totally different entities.

The advent of Momentum, and the election of Corbyn as leader, took Labour to places that ' traditional' Labour voters did not want to visit.

I agree with all you say about Johnson, but people obviously thought he was the 'lesser' of 2 evils.

I don't often agree with @davek, politically , but he was right about it being 'the Brexit election'.

Corbyn's performance during the Remain campaign was dreadful, and Labour also immersed in the ongoing 'anti semitism' scandals looked like a party at war with itself.

I have been a Labour voter all my adult life, up to Corbyn and the last election, in which I voted Green, other people obviously went over to the Tories.

I fear that Labour will remain in the political wilderness for many years to come.

 

[Mrk]

Don’t think anyone’s denying that, just more discussing why people thought he was toxic. I mean we voted in a man with a proven track record of adultery, nepotism, racism and incompetence instead. How was Johnson considered to be less toxic?

The answer to your question is in your post - It wasn't about personality, it was about the politics they espoused.

As I said a few pages back, people I spoke to about Corbyn (even those who wouldn't vote for him) found him okay as a person. They just thought his policies were bonkers.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

The Labour party and Labour voters are 2 totally different entities.

The advent of Momentum, and the election of Corbyn as leader, took Labour to places that ' traditional' Labour voters did not want to visit.

I agree with all you say about Johnson, but people obviously thought he was the 'lesser' of 2 evils.

I don't often agree with @davek, politically , but he was right about it being 'the Brexit election'.

Corbyn's performance during the Remain campaign was dreadful, and Labour also immersed in the ongoing 'anti semitism' scandals looked like a party at war with itself.

I have been a Labour voter all my adult life, up to Corbyn and the last election, in which I voted Green, other people obviously went over to the Tories.

I fear that Labour will remain in the political wilderness for many years to come.

I agree with a lot of this to be fair. But what was different from Corbyn and Momentum and say Benn or Kinnock when Militant (who were far further left IMO) were active and you voted for them?
Labour will remain in the political wilderness for many years I think and part of that is due to the people who control the media wishing them to do so.
They need to set out clear political positions, communicate effectively with the population and properly hold the tories to account at every step.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

The answer to your question is in your post - It wasn't about personality, it was about the politics they espoused.

As I said a few pages back, people I spoke to about Corbyn (even those who wouldn't vote for him) found him okay as a person. They just thought his policies were bonkers.

I dunno. I tend to disagree. Nationalising railways and broadband are hardly extreme positions. Conservative policies were largely and intentionally unknown. Think many people were largely put off by his ambiguous brexit stance.