Um. In a FPTP voting system, you really only need worry about the marginal seats, so capture about 300,000 votes in 30 - 40 key marginals and Bob's your uncle (as the Tories demonstrated in May). In my constituency, the incumbent Tory MP got 50-odd % of the vote, with a 65% turnout, so 17+% of his vote was actually wasted, so total votes cast nationwide means absolutely nothing. In this scenario, Labour would need the support of the SNP (assuming a "hard left" Labour leader fails to woo the Scots back). That's why the voting system is so shit, as it enables this sort of "democracy".
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Jeremy Corbyn.
- Thread starter Diablo
- Start date
Um. In a FPTP voting system, you really only need worry about the marginal seats, so capture about 300,000 votes in 30 - 40 key marginals and Bob's your uncle (as the Tories demonstrated in May). In my constituency, the incumbent Tory MP got 50-odd % of the vote, with a 65% turnout, so 17+% of his vote was actually wasted, so total votes cast nationwide means absolutely nothing. In this scenario, Labour would need the support of the SNP (assuming a "hard left" Labour leader fails to woo the Scots back). That's why the voting system is so shit, as it enables this sort of "democracy".
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
Still Corbyn would need to win over Conservative support - not just more traditional support from the Greens, to win in key marginals, although I would suggest Labour aren't planning on ousting Sir Peter Bottomley in Worthing any time soon.
Corbyn can rely on left wing support, but how many voters who went Labour in 1997 and Tory in 2010/2015 - The Middle Classes (who decide elections) will support the same message as the 'hard left'? You say and 'bobs your uncle' Could Corbyn really win over the numbers he would need to win?
Well, he need to win the votes of those who voted Tory in around 5% of the constituencies. Not exactly a mountain to climb and certainly not millions of votes as you claimed.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
I agree, its not that many votes. It will be great to see Labour put that forward to the electorate. Lets have a proper idealogical battle
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
Could he do it though? Could he win across the board in all the marginals he would need to win. It certainly would be an increase of votes - as the Tory vote would have to fall. Labour are 100 seats short of winning a majority. Could a Corbyn led Labour party win in these 100 seats that Miliband could not?
Maybe someone like Corbyn will engage the currently disengaged? He might not need to convert many Tories, more encourage current non-voters/new voters to the ballot box.
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
I would suggest that its highly unlikely - those not interested in politics are not going to register to vote en masse because of him IMO - and even if they did, let's say by 5% that wouldn't be enough to win the 100 seats he needs to.
To win elections - you need the Middle Classes on board - it's no guarantee that Labours vote has to go up, very easily more 'middle class' voters could head to the Conservatives and the Lib Dems whilst the 'working class' in the North head towards UKIP thanks to JC's pro-immigration message. Even if Corbyn's message resonated with those who didn't vote are his policies really going to keep middle class 'new labour' support on side which are vital to any election win?
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,578
Bottom line - he's never going to win a General Election in a million years.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Shhhhh
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
I have been making some cheap points on this thread but in all seriousness this is exactly the debate the Labour Party need to have. It needs to decide on the direct it wants to take and then try and convince the electorate that they are the right party with the right ideas. Corbyn is no fool and should be treated with respect, as should the others
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
this is naive view of policital accountancy. aside couple of seats vote against the grain, generally moving a few dozen seats requires the same shift as moving the nation. and a strategy focusing so heavily on those few dozen seats would risk losing others elsewhere. point is those "300,000 votes in 30 - 40 key marginals" are not in isolation, so one may think the numbers are easier, in reality to achive that hundreds of thousands of other votes are needed. what Labour risks under Corbyn is simply acquiring large numbers of votes in already safe Labour seats, while not making inroads elsewhere. he could achive a result, to do so he must appeal to the centre vote, which given his convictions to the left make this a difficult proposition. a bit of Cleggism, what is he going to sacrifice to put himself in a winning position?
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,578
The fact is Labour led us into the longest recession since the 1930s, so the longest in living memory. There is not a cat in hell's chance the public will vote for a bloke who will be 70 at the next election with a left wing manifesto which, history tells us, will leave the country further in debt.
We've worked too hard to get ourselves out of this recession to take any sort of risk on a left wing chancer like Corbyn. Umunna was Labour's only hope, with him at the helm and David Miliband as his No. 2 they begin to look vaguely electable once more. Dan Jarvis, Burnham and Kendall look decent Cabinet material, but they've got to forget about this far left bollocks.
We've worked too hard to get ourselves out of this recession to take any sort of risk on a left wing chancer like Corbyn. Umunna was Labour's only hope, with him at the helm and David Miliband as his No. 2 they begin to look vaguely electable once more. Dan Jarvis, Burnham and Kendall look decent Cabinet material, but they've got to forget about this far left bollocks.
to be quite frank a lot of people on here are saying what they want to be the case rather than looking at cold hard facts. Here are a few facts
At the last election;
5% of the total electorate voted Liberal
8% of the total electorate voted UKIP
20% voted Labour
24% Voted Conservative
9% voted Green SNP Plaid Cymru or one of the irish parties
34% didnt vote
The largest block is the non voters. the reality is the labour party dont need to win even one Tory liberal or Ukip voter over, if the can get sufficient non voters to vote for them. The younger one is the less likely they are to have voted. also the lower your income the less likely you are to have voted.
these are all statistical facts.
Some opinions. I personally dont believe any of the labour leadership candidate are likely to lead a party to an absolute majority. I believe the next election result is likely to be a hung parliament. The last election showed Britain to be very divided politically, I see no reason to believe this will change with the massive austerity programme coming our way. To see a hung parliament the tories need to lose 6 seats. I think this will happen before the next election though bye election losses.
What is dividing the UK isnt the traditional left/right split as we have seen in the past, but those advocating austerity in some way made up of traditional mainstream politicians of the tories and most of the labour MP's and an anti austerity grouping made up of the greens SNP Plaid and about 40-50 labour MP's. Whilst this may loosely relate to a left right split it doesnt explain for all views.
A lot of the non voters dont identify with either the Labour or Tory party. seeing them as outmoded and not speaking to them. This is why both the nationalist parties did so well. However the vast majority of non voters are made up of younger and or poorer voters. These are the ones feeling the pain of austerity most directly. A party that can mobilise these voters can potentially at least double their votes. The Tories cant do that. The 3 mainstream labour leaders cant do this. Jeremy Corbyn potentially can and seems to be doing it. 140.000 people have registered join or vote as a supporter of the labour party since May. Overwhelmingly they are either young voters or trade unionists like myself. I believe what we are seeing with Jeremy Corbyn shows which way they are voting.
Last year at the Scottish independence referendum we saw a mass mobilisation behind a yes vote. this mobilisation carried over to the general election where you saw high turnouts in areas of traditionally low turnouts. Young people are waking up to the reality of austerity and dont like what it means for them. Quite rightly too. If austerity will be hard for a 50 year ...imagine how much harder it will be felt by a 20 year old. They are paying for the mistakes of the older generation and are consequently rejecting the political solutions of the older generation.
Now very clearly although there is some correlatory evidence to back up my opinion, it is an opinion. it may be wrong. But i do know all the nonsense spouted about how a left wing candidate will take us back to the 1980's is meaningless to young people. To have any memory good or bad of politics in the 1980's youd have to be over 40. People are far more likely to respond to direct personal experiences than some nonsense spouted about how bad the left were under Michael Foot.
Finally one interesting thing I have noticed is how silent leading Tory politicians have been about this all. True they are enjoying the disarray of the labour party and who can blame them. Id be having a great time if they were in such disarray. Which they will be in 12 months when the Euro referendum bites. But don't think for a second they don't see the same statistics I do and can work out the same conclusions I do. They are quiet because they are afraid of what Corbyn is raising and planning how to counter it. The gang of 3 labour candidates are so vocal spouting nonsense about Corbyn because they see their political futures flying out the window. I'd like to say I feel for them. but that would be a lie.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,578
Were you not around for Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan then? Labour's mess in the late 70 s brought the country to its knees and consigned them to the political wilderness for 18 years. It would not surprise me if they paid a similar price for the mess they made on Brown's watch.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,578
I'm over 40 and, like most people over 40, shook my head in despair when Gordon Brown announced he'd abolished boom and bust. In a capitalist, global economy there will always be boom and bust.
Knowledge of political history is key to not repeating the mistakes of the past. I wouldn't expect most young voters to have much political knowledge before Blair but then the majority of the electorate are over 40 and should know only too well the dangers of spending money you haven't got and, crucially, can't afford to borrow.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,578
Callaghan was pretty left wing, indeed left wing enough to be owned by the unions, a fact that did for him and the country.
Actually as much as I agree with most of what you say, we have had a proper left wing Government, and it wasn't the Wilson governments, although they'd be an improvement on the labour party since the mid 90's.
The 1945 Atlee led government came to power with a huge majority. They inherited a deficit 3-4 times the size of the of the current deficit ( as a proportion of GDP). With that deficit they built a National Health service, introduced free education for every child, started a massive council house building programme, introduced a system of social security for the poorest, nationalised the Mines and were generally decent chaps. They had also reduced the deficit by the time they left government.
How did they do this. By investing in all these programmes, they created mass employment, they taxed the wages and then reinvested the taxes. The deficit wasn't paid off in 8 years but over 25 years (just like a mortgage). Funny how none of the mainstream parties have suggested this as a solution. One candidate in the Labour leadership race has. Have a guess which one.
W.C.
New member
- Oct 31, 2011
- 4,927
Good post. I do wonder about the tories crowing about how Corbyn would make Labour unelectable . For sure that might be the case, but he was supposed to be a bit of a non-runner in this leadership race. Politics is changing. It seems people really are sick of the status quo, and who knows?
That said,will he survive the back stabbing of his party members and the wrath of the right wing press (i.e. most of it)?
With centrist parties maybe. But with a proper left party you can't say. History won't tell you much as no one like Corbyn has stood in recent times.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
they could be interpreting th estats any number of ways. for instance turn out was the highest since 1997, so people came out for the Tory's message.