The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[banjodeano]

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

They got 750,000 fewer votes than the Tories.

that may be so, but they still had to buy votes of the DUP to gain power, labour was predicted to get thrashed, they didnt....and as i keep saying, and will say again, if the whole of the party had got behind Corbyn, he may well have got to number 10

[Longcol]

5 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

that may be so, but they still had to buy votes of the DUP to gain power, labour was predicted to get thrashed, they didnt....and as i keep saying, and will say again, if the whole of the party had got behind Corbyn, he may well have got to number 10

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

[Baron99]

25 minutes 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

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." 

Edited April 13, 2020 by Baron99

[Longcol]

5 minutes 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." 

I think you're talking about last years election - not 2017 which was being discussed.

[banjodeano]

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?

[Longcol]

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.

[Anna B]

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.

 

[sheffbag]

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 April 14, 2020 by sheffbag

[Anna B]

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 April 14, 2020 by Anna B

[banjodeano]

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