Jump to content


The Labour Party. All discussion here please

Vaati

This is the final warning we are going to give about bickering, name calling etc. If a post breaks the forum rules, report it. Any further and accounts will be suspended.

Message added by Vaati

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

It was the electorate that needed to get behind Corbyn. They didn't.

and the electorate didnt get behind Corbyn because they  were seen as a divided party,  which they were,  and as we now know that was the whole plan, the report now tell us this, it tells us that labour mp's deliberately went out of their way to make the party unelectable, they prefered to see a tory government  in power rather than a Corbyn led one.

Do you not think that if the whole of the party got behind Corbyn then it would have put them close to gaining power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

and the electorate didnt get behind Corbyn because they  were seen as a divided party,  which they were,  and as we now know that was the whole plan, the report now tell us this, it tells us that labour mp's deliberately went out of their way to make the party unelectable, they prefered to see a tory government  in power rather than a Corbyn led one.

Do you not think that if the whole of the party got behind Corbyn then it would have put them close to gaining power?

Corbyn was pretty much a novelty in 2017 - remember the chants at Glastonbury?

 

Remember the awful campaign that May ran for the Tories?

 

Corbyn got closer to the Tories (ie only 50 seats behind) than anyone could believe. It didn't warrant the "one more push" approach that ended in total disaster last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Baron99 said:

All I recall in the run up to the General Election was the endless reporting of first time voters who were going to throw their entire electoral weight behind Corbyn in the so called 'Youth quake'. 

 

Because the election was called in December, many were students, spouting how they were mobilising via various social media groups, deciding whether to vote in the constituencies where they were students or had registered to vote back in their home cities & towns; cleaverly intending to tactically vote for one particular party in order to keep the Tories out. 

 

Didn't seem to work, did it?  Perhaps too much time spent in social media chat rooms believing how smart & savvy they thought they were?  

 

Perhaps they forgot to vote? 

 

Although it is a shame that Labour didn't get in.  As someone once told me, "We need a Labour government at least once in a generation to remind & teach a new generation of people how bad things can be." 

Just about everything we hold dear, such as the NHS, would not have happened without the Labour party.  So yes, we do need the Labour party at least once every generation to put right the iniquities wrought by the Tories.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, banjodeano said:

i think they were close to winning, i read somewhere that it was a matter of 2,500 votes in the right place could have got labour into power, i wouldnt call that delusional, and if they hadnt got labour mp' working for the tories, who knows what the outcome may have been, as stated in the report certain labour mp's were actively plotting against their own party

Unfounded and completely inaccurate.

 

Below is a link to the marginal seats results

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/ge2017-marginal-seats-and-turnout/

For labour to win the 12 seats out of the 31 most marginal seats where they came  second then it needed a swing of 2844 votes. Thats just for 12 seats .

From the same 31 marginal seats the Tories would have needed only 1483 votes to win a further 10 seats. To gain 8 seats and  an overall majority they would have needed only 776

 

In order to gain 50 by taking 25 Conservative seats so doubling the impact would take 21209 votes. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8067/ (download and read the report)

However for The Conservaties to win the same number of seats from Labour it would have only taken 23513 votes. 

 

Labour were never close to winning in 2017, The Tories only need 3.7% of the votes Labour would have needed to get an overall majority if you want to use number of votes per seat than Labour were. This is only assuming that Labour took Tory seats. If they needed more than 25 seats it gets  even worse for Labour

 

 

Edited by sheffbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Longcol said:

I see the (anonymous) authors are still maintaining Labour came close to winning in 2017 - despite finishing  over 50 seats behind the Tories.

 

Delusional.

The 2017 election was an ill judged snap election with little more than a couple of weeks to prepare. The Labour party was catching up so fast that Theresa May lost her majority and had to pay the Irish DUP a huge amount of cash to prop up her ailing government.

 

And never forget this last election (December 2019) was an election like no other, with crafty Johnson diverting attention away from the Tory's appalling record, by turning it into a mini referendum on the Brexit question, which totally (and deliberately) confused matters. That, coupled with a truly disgusting  anti-Corbyn smear campaign in the Tory owned press and media did for the Labour party. 

 

Subsequent events have blotted that out of history. But post Coronavirus, a lot of chickens will be coming home to roost. I believe Jeremy Corbyn will yet be vindicated.

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Unfounded and completely inaccurate.

 

Below is a link to the marginal seats results

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/ge2017-marginal-seats-and-turnout/

For labour to win the 12 seats out of the 31 most marginal seats where they came  second then it needed a swing of 2844 votes. Thats just for 12 seats .

From the same 31 marginal seats the Tories would have needed only 1483 votes to win a further 10 seats. To gain 8 seats and  an overall majority they would have needed only 776

 

In order to gain 50 by taking 25 Conservative seats so doubling the impact would take 21209 votes. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8067/ (download and read the report)

However for The Conservaties to win the same number of seats from Labour it would have only taken 23513 votes. 

 

Labour were never close to winning in 2017, The Tories only need 3.7% of the votes Labour would have needed to get an overall majority if you want to use number of votes per seat than Labour were. This is only assuming that Labour took Tory seats. If they needed more than 25 seats it gets  even worse for Labour

 

 

So The Independant are wrong when they claim....?

Jeremy Corbyn was just 2,227 votes away from having the chance to become Prime Minister in the general election, an analysis of marginal seats has revealed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, banjodeano said:

So The Independant are wrong when they claim....?

Jeremy Corbyn was just 2,227 votes away from having the chance to become Prime Minister in the general election, an analysis of marginal seats has revealed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html

 

The claim by the Independant that you are using has the following scenario

 

Labour win the 7 seats available with the fewest majority that the Conservaties won/held

Then every other party joins together including the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats and the 1 independent MP (who was a Unionist so why would they form an alliance with 5 other parties)

Except the Lib Dems had already ruled out forming a coalition https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/22/lib-dems-no-coalition-tim-farron-general-election 

All the leaders of all the parties in this hypothetical situation would then have to agree that Saint Jez would lead the coalition as PM

 

That is the fantasy scenario that the Independant created. If you are clinging onto that hope as proof that "i think they were close to winning" (your words not mine post 10179) then that is a very far fetched theory.

 

Factually is your comment of JC being 2227 votes away from being PM correct? If the stars aligned and the 5 other parties (including the independent MP) all agreed to have a coalition under JC (the cabinet would have been interesting) then yes JC could have had a chance of becoming PM. But that is one far fetched position, would you not agree? When was the last time so many parties joined to form a government

 

I will counter that point you have made with the fact that Teresa May only needed 776 votes for an outright majority. No need for other parties, no need to try and form very difficult alliances and maintain them. 

 

So 2227 votes, lots of political alliances and an agreement for JC to lead a very unstable coalition (and lets not forget the former MP for Hallam getting thrown out of the party mid-term effectively ending the majority)

or

776 votes, 7 more seats and an overall majority for the Tories 

Which looks more likely?

 

I stand by my post and the facts. Labour were never close to winning the election as you have stated. And the Tories were roughly 3 times more likely to win an outright majority than JC having the chance to be PM based on votes alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sheffbag said:

The claim by the Independant that you are using has the following scenario

 

Labour win the 7 seats available with the fewest majority that the Conservaties won/held

Then every other party joins together including the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats and the 1 independent MP (who was a Unionist so why would they form an alliance with 5 other parties)

Except the Lib Dems had already ruled out forming a coalition https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/22/lib-dems-no-coalition-tim-farron-general-election 

All the leaders of all the parties in this hypothetical situation would then have to agree that Saint Jez would lead the coalition as PM

 

That is the fantasy scenario that the Independant created. If you are clinging onto that hope as proof that "i think they were close to winning" (your words not mine post 10179) then that is a very far fetched theory.

 

Factually is your comment of JC being 2227 votes away from being PM correct? If the stars aligned and the 5 other parties (including the independent MP) all agreed to have a coalition under JC (the cabinet would have been interesting) then yes JC could have had a chance of becoming PM. But that is one far fetched position, would you not agree? When was the last time so many parties joined to form a government

 

I will counter that point you have made with the fact that Teresa May only needed 776 votes for an outright majority. No need for other parties, no need to try and form very difficult alliances and maintain them. 

 

So 2227 votes, lots of political alliances and an agreement for JC to lead a very unstable coalition (and lets not forget the former MP for Hallam getting thrown out of the party mid-term effectively ending the majority)

or

776 votes, 7 more seats and an overall majority for the Tories 

Which looks more likely?

 

I stand by my post and the facts. Labour were never close to winning the election as you have stated. And the Tories were roughly 3 times more likely to win an outright majority than JC having the chance to be PM based on votes alone.

So whether it was likely or unlikely to happen is neither hear not there, in theory Labour could have won the election, 

Just as in theory labour were due to receive an ass whooping from May, thats why she called an election because in  theory she was going to increase her majority, i stand by my claim that Labour were close to winning the election, and would have without a shadow of doubt won it if it were not for some labour party members actually plotting to make sure the party doesnt win, serious action should be taken against these people, i wouldn't be surprised if what they did was not criminal,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

So whether it was likely or unlikely to happen is neither hear not there, in theory Labour could have won the election, 

Just as in theory labour were due to receive an ass whooping from May, thats why she called an election because in  theory she was going to increase her majority, i stand by my claim that Labour were close to winning the election, and would have without a shadow of doubt won it if it were not for some labour party members actually plotting to make sure the party doesnt win, serious action should be taken against these people, i wouldn't be surprised if what they did was not criminal,

Banjo, to quote one of your favourite phrases. answer the question

 

So 2227 votes, lots of political alliances and an agreement for JC to lead a very unstable coalition (and lets not forget the former MP for Hallam getting thrown out of the party mid-term effectively ending the majority)

or

776 votes, 7 more seats and an overall majority for the Tories 

Which looks more likely?

 

There are 3 alternate scenarios with regard to the 2015 election which are different to t5he actual result (the one that matters)

Labour win outright - Nowhere near. see the stats on page 849 showing they needed 21000+ votes for Labour to win the election minimum (remember Tories only need less than a thousand to get outright majority)

Labour form a coalition by winning the 7 most marginal seats by getting 2227 votes (your stats), uniting 4 other parties and an independent and persuading them to accept JC as the PM and keeping them together? Still three times less likely than Teresa May getting a majority.

Tories gain 776 votes to get the 7 seats it requires to gain an overall majority

 

Which of those was the most possible?  

 

You really are clutching at straws if you believe Labour were "close to winning" (define winning, is that Labour outright or a coalition). The facts back me up 

 

Which party members are you on about and did they win their seats? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Banjo, to quote one of your favourite phrases. answer the question

 

So 2227 votes, lots of political alliances and an agreement for JC to lead a very unstable coalition (and lets not forget the former MP for Hallam getting thrown out of the party mid-term effectively ending the majority)

or

776 votes, 7 more seats and an overall majority for the Tories 

Which looks more likely?

 

There are 3 alternate scenarios with regard to the 2015 election which are different to t5he actual result (the one that matters)

Labour win outright - Nowhere near. see the stats on page 849 showing they needed 21000+ votes for Labour to win the election minimum (remember Tories only need less than a thousand to get outright majority)

Labour form a coalition by winning the 7 most marginal seats by getting 2227 votes (your stats), uniting 4 other parties and an independent and persuading them to accept JC as the PM and keeping them together? Still three times less likely than Teresa May getting a majority.

Tories gain 776 votes to get the 7 seats it requires to gain an overall majority

 

Which of those was the most possible?  

 

You really are clutching at straws if you believe Labour were "close to winning" (define winning, is that Labour outright or a coalition). The facts back me up 

 

Which party members are you on about and did they win their seats? 

 

 

I suppose facts backed you up when people said May was going to trounce corbyn and increase her majority, the facts backed it up, every opinion poll said so, all the facts pointed to that, but everyone was shocked by the result, ....... you cant ask me a question that doesnt have a definite answer, you can ask me what my opinion is, and my opinion is that Corbyn was very very close to winning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

I suppose facts backed you up when people said May was going to trounce corbyn and increase her majority, the facts backed it up, every opinion poll said so, all the facts pointed to that, but everyone was shocked by the result, ....... you cant ask me a question that doesnt have a definite answer, you can ask me what my opinion is, and my opinion is that Corbyn was very very close to winning

Nope, they were opinions and polls prior to the election which are based on a sample and prior to any results

 

Facts are items based on the actual election results that are verified and accountable

Fact 1 - Labour needed a minimum of 21000 votes to gain an outright majority

Fact 2 Labour needed over 2000 votes plus the agreement of every other party bar the DUP in order to form a coalition

Fact 3 The Conservative party needed less than 800 votes to gain an outright majority.

 

There's your facts. Based on any way you look at it 800 is less than 2000 and 21000.  Or alternatively Teresa May was very very very close to getting an outright majority

There is of course Fact 4. Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn lost to possibly the weakest PM in living memory in 2015 and then again in 2019.

 

I respect your opinion but if you are trying to base it on facts then you leave yourself open to challenge and the actual results don't support you.

 

I can however ask you which members do you think were undermining JC during the election since you didnt answer that last time

 

Edited by sheffbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, West 77 said:

At the time when the Conservative party had such a big lead over the Labour party in the polls  calling a snap General Election was the correct thing for Theresa May to do in order to increase her majority. Things went wrong because Theresa May ran a disastrous  campaign and took advice from the wrong people. Many traditional Labour voters who were unhappy with Corbyn still voted Labour because they like most of the Labour MPs assumed the Conservative party would still win the General Election easily,  leading to Corbyn resigning as Labour party leader after that election. The Conservative party did enter into an agreement with the DUP to continue in power but didn't give the DUP any cash. The DUP secured an investment of £2 billion for Northern Ireland infrastructure projects which is beneficial to all the people who live in Northern Ireland.

 

Boris Johnson won the majority in December 2019 that Theresa May should have won in May 2017 because he ran a good campaign and took advice from the right people. I doubt very much Jeremy Corbyn will be vindicated or history will be kind to him.

A much respected Conservative journalist thinks otherwise.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/stepping-down-labour-leader-corbyn-can-hold-his-head-high

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.