The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[sheffbag]

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.

[banjodeano]

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,

[sheffbag]

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? 

 

 

[banjodeano]

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

[sheffbag]

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 April 15, 2020 by sheffbag

[Mister Gee]

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

[the_bloke]

12 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

A much respected Conservative journalist thinks otherwise.

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

He needs to make his mind up.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7389251/PETER-OBORNE-Jeremy-Corbyn-spineless-tepid-destined-damned-history.html

[banjodeano]

20 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

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

 

I'm not basing it on facts, i never have, how can i base it on facts, it is something that can not be backed up with facts, as i have said many times its my opinion,  but looking at how well labour did compared to how poor they were predicted to do, then if they had the whole party pulling in the same direction then i am confident that Corbyn would now be in number ten, now we can argue that all day wrong, but neither of us can prove that right or wrong

[Mister Gee]

20 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

He needs to make his mind up.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7389251/PETER-OBORNE-Jeremy-Corbyn-spineless-tepid-destined-damned-history.html

I think Boris Johnson  made him make his mind up.

 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-election-why-i-will-vote-jeremy-corbyn

[sheffbag]

15 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

I'm not basing it on facts, i never have, how can i base it on facts, it is something that can not be backed up with facts, as i have said many times its my opinion,  but looking at how well labour did compared to how poor they were predicted to do, then if they had the whole party pulling in the same direction then i am confident that Corbyn would now be in number ten, now we can argue that all day wrong, but neither of us can prove that right or wrong

You have based your whole 2500 votes argument on the Independent report that you quoted above on page 850. 

You claim party members where undermining the Labour Party committing potentially criminal acts but wont name any as you quoted on page 850

Its not really an argument is it. you got challenged on an opinion, tried to present it as a fact, got challenged on the fact and now saying that its wasn't a fact.

 

I'll leave it there Banjo. Keep believing that JC would have been PM but the facts dont back you up. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by sheffbag