McDonnell: 2 more weeks and we would have won it

[wutang]

John McDonnell: Jeremy Corbyn would be in No 10 if election campaign was two weeks longer

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... rbyn-would

Latest Poll numbers

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 45% (+5)
CON: 39% (-3)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 3% (+1)

(via @Survation / 10 Jun)
Chgs. w/ GE2017

https://twitter.com/britainelects/statu ... 8224862210

[wutang]

On the subject of latest polls

Should May resign

Agree: 49%
Disagree: 39%

"Theresa May is a strong and stable leader":

Agree: 36%
Disagree: 50%

If they fight another election with her as PM they are doomed. The Tories must be hoping they can replace her before the Government collapses forcing another election.

[Guest]

On the subject of latest polls

Should May resign

Agree: 49%
Disagree: 39%

"Theresa May is a strong and stable leader":

Agree: 36%
Disagree: 50%

If they fight another election with her as PM they are doomed. The Tories must be hoping they can replace her before the Government collapses forcing another election.

Don't be too hasty - there's plenty of time.

First we want the internal pressure of working with the DUP whilst trying to placate people like Justine Greening, Greg Clarke and Anna Soubry are in the cabinet to corrode them a little

[Guest]

Napoleon said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

[Text]

OP,
You might be right.
Labour were 20points below cons originally
They eventually narrowed the deficit to just one point
Now they have actually overtaken the cons and lead by 5points. according to a polling group with a proven accuracy record.
Meanwhile 150,000 new members have reportedly joined labour since the elections.

[Text]

Speaking of shocking results,

Miss Abbott had a landslide victory on june 8, delivered the loyal people who have been electing her for decades. A bigger majority than she got in 2015.



Maybe they admired her quiet dignity during the recent period of ott vitriol directed at her?

[wutang]

Meanwhile 150,000 new members have reportedly joined labour since the elections.

Google searches for how to join the party surged following the shock result, which saw Labour gain 30 seats. The new membership applications have brought total membership numbers to 800,000. Conservative Party membership figures were just under 150,000 in December 2016.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84241.html


The last time Labour had that many members was in the 1960's.

[Guest]

Speaking of shocking results,

Miss Abbott had a landslide victory on june 8, delivered the loyal people who have been electing her for decades. A bigger majority than she got in 2015.



Maybe they admired her quiet dignity during the recent period of ott vitriol directed at her?

The fake news Sun said she just won

[Guest]

Speaking of shocking results,

Miss Abbott had a landslide victory on june 8, delivered the loyal people who have been electing her for decades. A bigger majority than she got in 2015.



Maybe they admired her quiet dignity during the recent period of ott vitriol directed at her?

Just shows how bad the tories are, they couldn't unseat a hopeless politician that was vilified in almost every newspaper and political website

[Cannydc]

Speaking of shocking results,

Miss Abbott had a landslide victory on june 8, delivered the loyal people who have been electing her for decades. A bigger majority than she got in 2015.



Maybe they admired her quiet dignity during the recent period of ott vitriol directed at her?

Just shows how bad the tories are, they couldn't unseat a hopeless politician that was vilified in almost every newspaper and political website

She's far from being a hopeless politician.

See, unless you are one of her constituents, and see first hand her constituency work, you would have to get your info from our trustworthy media.

40,000+ voted for their choice as best constituency MP. Her.

[McAz]

UK Labour more popular than Conservatives: poll
By Saim Saeed 6/19/17, 8:29 AM CET

If an election were held in the U.K. today, Labour would win 44 percent of the vote, 3 points more than the Tories, according to a Survation poll published Monday.

The poll, commissioned by Good Morning Britain, is the first the pollster has taken since June 5, three days before the U.K.’s general election. It showed the Conservative Party’s support stable at 41 percent, while Labour’s support has increased 4 points since the June 5 poll, when 40 percent backed the party.

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-more-popular-than-conservatives-poll/

[Si_Crewe]

UK Labour more popular than Conservatives: poll
By Saim Saeed 6/19/17, 8:29 AM CET

If an election were held in the U.K. today, Labour would win 44 percent of the vote, 3 points more than the Tories, according to a Survation poll published Monday.

The poll, commissioned by Good Morning Britain, is the first the pollster has taken since June 5, three days before the U.K.’s general election. It showed the Conservative Party’s support stable at 41 percent, while Labour’s support has increased 4 points since the June 5 poll, when 40 percent backed the party.

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-more-popular-than-conservatives-poll/

Hardly a big surprise, is it?

No doubt that a significant number of people who voted for outfits like the LibDems or Greens, and just flat-out didn't want a tory government, would have voted Labour if they thought it'd would've assisted in a tory defeat.

Course, I suppose it also depends on where these remorseful voters were.
I mean, if a bunch of Labour-supporting jocks decided not to vote at all because they thought it was a waste of time... it probably would still have been a waste of time even though their would-be votes will count toward the 44% quoted in that poll.
Same thing applies in safe tory seats all over the country.

It'd certainly be interesting to dig into the results of that poll and see if apathy or tactical voting actually changed the results at all but at the end of the day it's all shoulda, woulda, coulda....

[McAz]

UK Labour more popular than Conservatives: poll
By Saim Saeed 6/19/17, 8:29 AM CET

If an election were held in the U.K. today, Labour would win 44 percent of the vote, 3 points more than the Tories, according to a Survation poll published Monday.

The poll, commissioned by Good Morning Britain, is the first the pollster has taken since June 5, three days before the U.K.’s general election. It showed the Conservative Party’s support stable at 41 percent, while Labour’s support has increased 4 points since the June 5 poll, when 40 percent backed the party.

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-more-popular-than-conservatives-poll/

Hardly a big surprise, is it?

No doubt that a significant number of people who voted for outfits like the LibDems or Greens, and just flat-out didn't want a tory government, would have voted Labour if they thought it'd would've assisted in a tory defeat.

Course, I suppose it also depends on where these remorseful voters were.
I mean, if a bunch of Labour-supporting jocks decided not to vote at all because they thought it was a waste of time... it probably would still have been a waste of time even though their would-be votes will count toward the 44% quoted in that poll.
Same thing applies in safe tory seats all over the country.

It'd certainly be interesting to dig into the results of that poll and see if apathy or tactical voting actually changed the results at all but at the end of the day it's all shoulda, woulda, coulda....

The surprise is that McDonnell was right.

[Si_Crewe]

The surprise is that McDonnell was right.

Well, no.

He might have been right, if the additional support grew in areas which would have changed the results in those areas.

See, that's what annoys me about the MSM.
What they've provided, there, is only half a story.
The people who conducted that poll must have gathered the information about where their subjects were.
With a bit of extra effort they could have analysed the results and asserted that the "extra" half-million votes would have secured Labour another 27 seats (at least, and from tory-held constituencies) to put them ahead of the tories.

Instead, all we get is "an extra 4 million people say they would have voted Labour", which means nothing without knowing if those people live in places where their vote would have changed the result.

[Guest]

The surprise is that McDonnell was right.

Well, no.

He might have been right, if the additional support grew in areas which would have changed the results in those areas.

See, that's what annoys me about the MSM.
What they've provided, there, is only half a story.
The people who conducted that poll must have gathered the information about where their subjects were.
With a bit of extra effort they could have analysed the results and asserted that the "extra" half-million votes would have secured Labour another 27 seats (at least, and from tory-held constituencies) to put them ahead of the tories.

Instead, all we get is "an extra 4 million people say they would have voted Labour", which means nothing without knowing if those people live in places where their vote would have changed the result.

Quite right but don;t forget many seats are marginals so even an extra 400 in Hastings etc would result in a Tory loss.
Still 12.8million votes in a GE for a new party leader was exceptional.
Way more than Kinnock got.
Not forgetting Kinnock had a 20+ point advantage and lost