Election prediction time

[Tuna]

4 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Can't wait until we see the scene where he shoots up the whammy burger

[The Doctor]

29 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Important context - May got 42% in 2017 whereas Hague got 31% in 2001. It's a bit like celebrating our higher xG than our opponents despite losing 4-1.

 

His polling had been utterly dreadful for his entire 'leadership' - his best - and ONLY good - rating against May was a 2% lead in the days running up the election, in which she had proposed a DEMENTIA TAX.

 

Trying to put any sort of positive spin on the 2017 election is absolutely absurd.

trying to pretend his labour were despised in 2017 is what's absurd. he was up against a much stronger Tory party in 2017 than Blair faced in 2001 (unsurprising given Blair had been in power for 4 years, whereas corbyns labour were in opposition) but their (corbyn 2017, Blair 2001) popularity was similar.

[urban.spaceman]

9 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

trying to pretend his labour were despised in 2017 is what's absurd. he was up against a much stronger Tory party in 2017 than Blair faced in 2001 (unsurprising given Blair had been in power for 4 years, whereas corbyns labour were in opposition) but their (corbyn 2017, Blair 2001) popularity was similar.

I never said they were despised in 2017.

 

But they weren't exactly liked, were they? The national party polls were a bad enough indicator of his performance with the public.

 

Check his leadership poll ratings vs May - his nearest rating to her was -9%. His worst was MINUS THIRTY NINE PERCENT.

 

He just wasn't liked by the electorate, and that was before the regular scandals of his own making.

 

He was shit.

[The Doctor]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I never said they were despised in 2017.

 

But they weren't exactly liked, were they? The national party polls were a bad enough indicator of his performance with the public.

 

Check his leadership poll ratings vs May - his nearest rating to her was -9%. His worst was MINUS THIRTY NINE PERCENT.

 

He just wasn't liked by the electorate, and that was before the regular scandals of his own making.

 

He was shit.

he wasn't liked no, he was considered weak and ineffective up to 2017, and then became the biggest threat Britain has ever faced, not because he or labour under him changed but because the way he was reported changed. it went from "magic grandpa" to this sort of shit:

 

 

Same happened to Johnson, he was teflon until he wasn't, and again with Sunak who went from being portrayed as superman to currently, and it will happen to Starmer, it's nothing to do with stepping away from the centre like Bilo suggested, it's whether or not you're useful to the robber barons this country is run in service to, if you're not the propaganda mill goes into overdrive. take the labour 2019 manifesto as a prime example - it was fully costed and how it would be achieved was clear, but everyone regards it as fantasy politics even now because that's how it was presented in coverage of that election.

[Greg2607]

45 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

he wasn't liked no, he was considered weak and ineffective up to 2017, and then became the biggest threat Britain has ever faced, not because he or labour under him changed but because the way he was reported changed. it went from "magic grandpa" to this sort of shit:

 

 

Same happened to Johnson, he was teflon until he wasn't, and again with Sunak who went from being portrayed as superman to currently, and it will happen to Starmer, it's nothing to do with stepping away from the centre like Bilo suggested, it's whether or not you're useful to the robber barons this country is run in service to, if you're not the propaganda mill goes into overdrive. take the labour 2019 manifesto as a prime example - it was fully costed and how it would be achieved was clear, but everyone regards it as fantasy politics even now because that's how it was presented in coverage of that election.

Ultimately, that's the main reason that the current iteration of labour has had to distance themselves from everything Corbyn stood for.  The "brand" had become too toxic. 

 

It's the same for the current torys.  The party will need to limp off, lick their wounds and come back as a different version of themselves. 

 

Unless the populist movement of reform destroys them entirely. 

 

I'd love a labour government, but I am worried that they offer a populist alternative to those who lent their vote to Johnson and the Tories.

 

It might not be as clear cut as everyone is thinking. 

[urban.spaceman]

38 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

he wasn't liked no, he was considered weak and ineffective up to 2017, and then became the biggest threat Britain has ever faced, not because he or labour under him changed but because the way he was reported changed. it went from "magic grandpa" to this sort of shit:

 

 

Same happened to Johnson, he was teflon until he wasn't, and again with Sunak who went from being portrayed as superman to currently, and it will happen to Starmer, it's nothing to do with stepping away from the centre like Bilo suggested, it's whether or not you're useful to the robber barons this country is run in service to, if you're not the propaganda mill goes into overdrive.

Every Labour leader has been subject to the same thing. Miliband’s dead dad was attacked for months to the point where a reporter ambushed a private family event in a hospital. He was eventually undone by a bacon sandwich. 
 

They’ve tried the same with Starmer with Jimmy Savile and beergate, but haven’t made any of them stick because they turned out to not be true.

 

Corbyn was an open goal. A career’s worth of appalling judgement of character and events he’d been attending. A terrible understanding of foreign affairs and a history of criticising his open party. He was a constant own goal. The political equivalent of Danny Ward. 
 

47 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

take the labour 2019 manifesto as a prime example - it was fully costed and how it would be achieved was clear, but everyone regards it as fantasy politics even now because that's how it was presented in coverage of that election.

No, it wasn’t.

 

The manifesto pledged to nationalise rail, mail, water and energy but didn’t give any idea of how much it would cost or how they would pay for it. Just that they’d “compensate at a fair rate”. 
 

That’s bad enough. Days after the manifest was published Corbyn announced plans to compensate WASPI women for £58bn but without any information about where it would come from. 
 

Everyone regards his manifesto as fantasy politics because it made bold plans of nationalising everything, even giving everyone free broadband, without explaining the funding behind it. To then be making unfunded promises on top of that is pathetic and unforgivable.

[urban.spaceman]

Next week: Ed Davey comes third in

nobbly knees competition.

[LVFox]

Corbyn was popular in 2017, but not across the electorate, it was just the first real occasion of an echo chamber occurring in the social media age.

 

To those that supported him, it appeared that he was far more popular than he was.

 

I do however, think it's underestimated how much hope he gave to a good number of people about politics in 2017.

 

2019 was batshit crazy 

[Bilo]

3 hours ago, The Doctor said:

sorry, but this is pretty massive historical revisionism. 2017 corbyn was comparable to Blair 2001 in terms of popular vote, it was specifically 2019 where he was about as popular as Rooney would be taking the Liverpool job, and a big part of that was the antisemitism allegations - despite not being any more antisemitic than the UK at large (we're talking about a country where Blairs labour ran attack ads against Howard for being Jewish, and where the press crucified miliband with classic "dual loyalties" antisemitic allegations), if you read the papers you'd think he was going to open Auschwitz the moment he took power, because that suited the press, and this has been a consistent theme over the last 5 years - Boris was the man, your charming uncle, right up until the aftermath of COVID. he didn't change at all, but the press coverage of him did, because he'd outlived his usefulness. same with Sunak, from the BBC portraying him as Superman to now, his politics haven't changed, whether he's useful to the likes of Murdoch and Dacre did. If Truss wasn't in and out quicker than the average Watford manager she'd likely have faced the same. this is the issue Starmer will also face and why is not be surprised if he didn't last to 2029 - the kid gloves have been on for now in terms of press coverage, but once Sunak is gone, how long is Starmer useful to them before the propaganda machine goes into overdrive and he's killed off.

I've seen this argument on Twitter and it's wildly simplistic.

 

Firstly, popular vote means jack. Labour's vote under Corbyn was incredibly inefficient as the party built huge majorities in strongholds but haemorrhaged votes in marginals. It made Labour look more electable than it ever actually was because Corbyn was only really good at motivating people who basically already agreed with him.

 

Secondly, Blair had to deal with the Lib Dems when they were viable under Ashdown and then Brown had to deal with them under Clegg before he became one of the most hated politicians in the UK. Fast forward to 2015 and Miliband is having to battle out working-class constituencies with UKIP.

 

By 2019, with the Lib Dems on their arse and UKIP gone, you had millions of working-class and pro-Remain votes that had to go somewhere. Effective Labour leadership would have loved this situation, but Labour had someone who was only interested in speaking to people who were already on side. Some working-class voters went to Labour, making the party look more popular than it was, but the vast majority went to the Tories in what had all but become a two party system. The result was that the Tory popular vote grew far more than the Labour vote, especially in marginals where UKIP had once been strong and the Brexit Party/Company stood aside for Brexit. The result was obvious. 

 

The allegations of antisemitism regarding Corbyn himself were unfair, but much harder to dismiss with swathes of his supporters and the reality is that he did a very, very poor job of tackling this phenomenon. It's also, frankly, bizarre to simultaneously laugh off allegations of antisemitism against Corbyn while simultaneously accusing Blair of 'attacking Howard for being Jewish.' The flying pigs ad was tasteless and crass, but the targeted harassment of Jewish activists in Labour who did not unequivocally support Corbyn was real, supported by evidence from the EHRC and grossly unedifying.  

 

FWIW, I suspect Starmer intends to be a one term PM. He'll be in his mid sixties by 2029 and the likely scale of Labour's victory means they're probably still going to be in power on his 70th birthday. He has already spoken in no uncertain terms about Labour's need for a female leader in the near future and Rachel Reeves' profile is very prominent indeed. I would be very surprised if she wasn't Labour leader by the start of the next decade. 

[Bilo]

3 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Important context - May got 42% in 2017 whereas Hague got 31% in 2001. It's a bit like celebrating our higher xG than our opponents despite losing 4-1.

 

His polling had been utterly dreadful for his entire 'leadership' - his best - and ONLY good - rating against May was a 2% lead in the days running up the election, in which she had proposed a DEMENTIA TAX.

 

Trying to put any sort of positive spin on the 2017 election is absolutely absurd.

It's worth pointing out, this.

 

Theresa May was a terrible campaigner. Her party was divided. Brexit was a mess. The manifesto was nothing short of a car crash and that dementia tax went down like a cup of cold sick with the Tories' core vote.

 

I honestly think any Labour leader from Blair onwards who wasn't Jeremy Corbyn wins that election with at least a progressive coalition. Brown, Miliband or Starmer. 

[Legend_in_blue]

 

He's received an upgrade.  

[Daggers]

32 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

He's received an upgrade.  

No, that’s definitely the same wife. 

[cityfanlee23]

One thing that is annoying me at the moment is the sheer amount of mistruths Nigel Farage is getting away with. He needs someone walking behind him at all times fact checking him. His latest being about the cost of the NHS vs French healthcare. 
Farage conveniently fails to tell gullible voters, that although it sounds somewhat sensible that we need to change the way we run the NHS because "we spend the same amount as France but get worse results"
He fails to tell people that when you compare French Healthcare vs the NHS and adjust the costs for PPP (Purchase power parity) we would actually need to increase our healthcare spending by 20% or about £60bn to match French healthcare spending. On the one hand he's telling everyone you can't just keep throwing money at it, whilst on the other pushing for a system that is 20% more expensive than ours. 

He knows his voters won't fact-check him, so he's purposely not comparing us to France in relative terms because it's an easy way to convince people they are getting a raw deal to try to shoehorn more privatisation into it. 

Edited 15 June by cityfanlee23

[leicsmac]

Just now, cityfanlee23 said:

One thing that is annoying me at the moment is the sheer amount of mistruths Nigel Farage is getting away with. He needs someone walking behind him at all times fact checking him. His latest being about the cost of the NHS vs French healthcare. 
Farage conveniently fails to tell gullible voters, that although it sounds somewhat sensible that we need to change the way we run the NHS because "we spend the same amount as France but get worse results"
He fails to tell people that when you compare French Healthcare vs the NHS and adjust the costs for PPP (Purchase power parity) we would actually need to increase our healthcare spending by 20% or about £60bn. 

He knows his voters won't fact-check him, so he's purposely not comparing us to France in relative terms because it's an easy way to convince people they are getting a raw deal to try to shoehorn more privatisation into it. 

This has been true since 2016 and likely before tbh.

 

Social media and the siloing it allows has subverted the very idea of truth. "Alternative facts" and all that.

 

I think it's obvious how hugely damaging it can be when that leaks into policymaking on a few different matters.

[Dr The Singh]

20 minutes ago, Daggers said:

No, that’s definitely the same wife. 

I would 

[cityfanlee23]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This has been true since 2016 and likely before tbh.

 

Social media and the siloing it allows has subverted the very idea of truth. "Alternative facts" and all that.

 

I think it's obvious how hugely damaging it can be when that leaks into policymaking on a few different matters.

The way he is currently misleading tens of millions of voters on the NHS reminds me of 2015/16 when on hundreds of occasions he celebrated the Norwegian model, telling us "how awful it would be to be rich and free like the Norwegians", there are so many clips of him planting the Norway deal seed in peoples minds, within days of Leave winning, he claimed he never wanted it, and that he wanted to force the government to take no deal because "no deal is better than a bad deal" (Norway) 

Frustratingly, he's a good orator, and he knows his voters won't research his claims. 

Edited 15 June by cityfanlee23

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

The way he is currently misleading tens of millions of voters on the NHS reminds me of 2015/16 when on hundreds of occasions he celebrated the Norwegian model, telling us "how awful it would be to be rich and free like the Norwegians", there are so many clips of him planting the Norway deal seed in peoples minds, within days of Leave winning, he claimed he never wanted it, and that he wanted to force the government to take no deal because "no deal is better than a good deal" (Norway) 

Frustratingly, he's a good orator, and he knows his voters won't research his claims. 

Yep.

 

And now you understand the difficulty and frustration (to say nothing of fear) science communicators have had when he and those of his mindset say practically anything about science related policy.

[Daggers]

20 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I would 

The umbrella or Rishi?

[Dr The Singh]

10 minutes ago, Daggers said:

The umbrella or Rishi?

Both and together

[bovril]

52 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This has been true since 2016 and likely before tbh.

 

Social media and the siloing it allows has subverted the very idea of truth. "Alternative facts" and all that.

 

I think it's obvious how hugely damaging it can be when that leaks into policymaking on a few different matters.

But the people who buy into Farage's stuff are often older and so probably use social media less. I'm not sure how much to blame social media is. People here aren't that clued up on politics and the economy and plus I think that spoilt boomers' cognitive dissonance stops them from acknowledging the role austerity and Brexit have played in the current shit show. Easier to blame someone else.

 

If anything social media has been quite useful at opening people's eyes to how bad the situation here is at the moment. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

But the people who buy into Farage's stuff are often older and so probably use social media less. I'm not sure how much to blame social media is. People here aren't that clued up on politics and the economy and plus I think that spoilt boomers' cognitive dissonance stops them from acknowledging the role austerity and Brexit have played in the current shit show. Easier to blame someone else.

 

If anything social media has been quite useful at opening people's eyes to how bad the situation here is at the moment. 

That's a damn good point, really.

 

That being said, I think I can trace mistrust in scientific matters and its effect on policymaking on a large scale back to the middle of the last decade and the explosion of social media and "independent" media sources at that time.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, cityfanlee23 said:

The way he is currently misleading tens of millions of voters on the NHS reminds me of 2015/16 when on hundreds of occasions he celebrated the Norwegian model, telling us "how awful it would be to be rich and free like the Norwegians", there are so many clips of him planting the Norway deal seed in peoples minds, within days of Leave winning, he claimed he never wanted it, and that he wanted to force the government to take no deal because "no deal is better than a bad deal" (Norway) 

Frustratingly, he's a good orator, and he knows his voters won't research his claims. 

He's not really a good orator. His arguments are incredibly easy to debunk and when you do that he flounders badly, as we sometimes see when he speaks with members of the public on the radio. Just for some reason our media class are mostly incapable of doing that. 

[bovril]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That's a damn good point, really.

 

That being said, I think I can trace mistrust in scientific matters and its effect on policymaking on a large scale back to the middle of the last decade and the explosion of social media and "independent" media sources at that time.

Almost every day on twitter now you see stuff that is scarily wrong and hate-filled getting 10s and sometimes 100s of thousands of likes so tbf you're probably right. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

Almost every day on twitter now you see stuff that is scarily wrong and hate-filled getting 10s and sometimes 100s of thousands of likes so tbf you're probably right. 

I'm pretty sure that bots play a big part there, but then that's irrelevant, it appears the same to the casual observer either way. Not good.

[Tommy Fresh]

Still makes me laugh