ICM have released their August poll for the Guardian. Topline voting intention figures are CON 40%, LAB 31%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 10%, GRN 4%. Full tables are here.

This is the first ICM poll since the election to feature an updated methodology in light of the polling error. Since 1993 or so ICM have reallocated people who don’t give a voting intention based on how they say they voted at the previous election. Colloquially this is often known as a “shy Tory” adjustment, as when it was initially introduced in the 1992 to 1997 Parliament it tended to help the Tories, though after the Iraq war it actually tended to be a “shy Labour” adjustment, and in the last Parliament it was a “shy Lib Dem” adjustment.

In practice ICM didn’t reallocate all their don’t knows and refusals as many people who refuse to give a current voting intention also refuse to say how they voted at the last election (ICM call these people “total refusals”, as opposed to “partial refusals” who say how they voted last time but not this time). Under the new method ICM are also attempting to estimate the views of these “total refusals” – they are reallocated at the same rate as “partial refusals” but are assumed to split slightly more in favour of the Conservatives, based upon what ICM found in their post-election re-contact survey. The effect on this change on ICM’s headline figures this month is to increase the level of Conservative support by one point and decrease Labour support by one point.

The implication of this adjustment is that at least some of the error at the general election was down to traditional “shy Tories”, that those who refused to answer pollsters’ questions were disproportionately Conservative supporters. However, from being on panels with Martin Boon since the election and hearing him speak at the British Polling Council inquiry meeting I don’t think he’ll have concluded that “shy Tories” was the whole of the problem, and in ICM’s tables they are clear that they “expect to produce further methodological innovations in the future.”


689 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 40, LAB 31, LDEM 7, UKIP 10, GRN 4”

1 11 12 13 14
  1. ComRes ask the useful question (this far out from another Westminster GE) – “Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru or another party”.

    VI can change for all sorts of reasons but, as with YG, Party ID may be more valuable [1] at this stage in understanding mood and potential support.

    England – Con 32% : Lab 32% : UKIP 10% : LD 9% : Grn 3% : Unsure 15%
    Scotland – SNP 45% : Con 17% : Lab 19% : UKIP 2% : LD 5% : Grn 4% : Other 2% :Unsure 6%

    [1] Assuming new weightings aren’t screwing up the figures. They seem to be finding a helluva lot of “Labour” identifiers intending to vote Tory.

  2. The new ComRes Voter Turnout Model which “also takes historical election data on turnout among different social classes and age groups, and assigns each respondent a probability of turning out to vote based on their age and social grade” may be suspect simply because it applies a GB model to voting behaviour in all the component parts, in order to produce the worthless GB VI numbers.

    Polling in London, Wales in Scotland was pretty accurate at the last WM GE, so applying a correction to these areas based on behaviours elsewhere seems foolish at best, and incompetent at worst.

    Pretending that there is a “British” behaving electorate when reality is different may explain the regular ComRes nonsense in their Scottish sample of Tories outperforming Labour.

    Could it be distorting the situation in London (VI C 43% : L 37% : UKIP 9% : LD 7% : Grn 3%) and Wales (VI PC 7% : C 37% : L 33% : UKIP 15% : LD 6% : Grn 3%) as well? It seems a distinct possibility.

  3. Scottish Labour seem to have been briefing that turnout in their leadership election was “around 60%”.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13599931.Kez_wins_but_inherits_an_in_tray_of_problems/

    Of course, lots of numbers are “around 60%” – it rather depends on how big “around” is!

    Hopefully Kez can move LiS away from its obsession with hiding information, and damaging themselves in the process.

  4. Went to see Yvette Cooper last night. Standing room only (as a jammy sod I got a seat on the front row) and she got several warm rounds of applause (Andy Burnham wins it on points as he got a standing ovation).

    But there was a slightly bad feeling in the room. A couple of question askers heckled. Yvette heckled a few times. One woman said she’d been inspired to join by Corbyn, and asked Yvette what she would do with that momentum. When Yvette tried to answer, the woman stormed out of the hall.

    There was no major incident, really, but there were moments of tension that weren’t present at Burnham’s rally three weeks ago.

    She gave a good answer to my question about Labour in rural seats, though, so I’m happy. Plus there was a bloke there wearing a top hat (which unless you’re at a wedding or Ascot, always makes you look absurd) so that cheered me up.

  5. “You confirm my point that the remnants of LiS would probably be unconcerned at Corbyn’s stance of not mentioning Scottish issues when in Scotland.”

    ————–

    Don’t take it personally, he probably doesn’t mention them when not in Scotland either…

  6. Old Nat – 9.06 Com Res

    I see that the youngest age category is now less likely to vote SNP than than those above them. Perhaps this is a good sign – a bit of cynicism coming back into Scottish politics?

    Anyway, I’m almost at the point of deciding to vote for Labour next time round – well someone has to! Though maybe I’ll vote Green……

  7. Graham

    “I believe their post election polls have all recorded them in the 27 – 29% range – a fair bit lower than other pollsters.”

    However, likely to be nearer the actual situation considering the current state of the Labour party IMO.

  8. As discussed the main leadership question in the ComRes poll:

    http://comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SM-IoS_Political-Poll_16th-August-2015-2542.pdf#page=20

    was:

    If each of the following people were leader of the Labour Party, do you they would improve, worsen or make no difference to Labour’s current chances of winning the next General Election?

    But there were actually two other options. One was ‘Unsure’ which caused an amazingly consistent 14-15% across all four candidates. The other was ‘I don’t know who this person is’. The candidates score:

    Corbyn 15%

    Cooper 18%

    Burnham 20%

    Kendall 24%

    So Corbyn is now best known, something that I suspect would not have been true six weeks ago. All that googling was obviously to some purpose.

    In terms of {improve – worsen} their actual scores were:

    Burnham 19 – 14 = +5 (Con 17 – 19 = -2)

    Cooper 15 – 18 = -3 (Con 14 – 22 = -8)

    Kendall 11 – 17 = -6 (Con 14 – 16 = -2)

    Corbyn 21 – 31 = -10[1] (Con 10 – 50 = -40)

    So while Corbyn gets the worst nett score, he also gets the best rating for ‘improve’ and most of his minuses come from Conservative voters.

    Now Labour does need to win over some people who voted Conservative last time, but the vast majority, especially of those who have formed an opinion, will always be unreachable. So the apparent deficit for Corbyn, which isn’t that great, probably doesn’t matter. That’s not to say that most people still need to be won over, just that it’s too early to tell.

    Incidentally ComRes also asked the same question about some Labour politicians who weren’t standing:

    Tony Blair 13 – 56 = -43

    That’s got to hurt.

    [1] There’s an interesting gender gap with Corbyn between men (-17) and women (-3). There is a gap for the other candidates too – mainly because women are less likely to have an opinion – but it’s most dramatic for Corbyn.

  9. John B
    “a bit of cynicism coming back into Scottish politics? ”

    No, it’s called “socialism”.

    Spearmint

    I searched your web reference, which leads to the Roskilde University website, but not the article.
    The embargo by the US was on permitting Vietnam back into any normal international diplomatic and trade relations or development aid, required Vietnam to fulfill a “Road Map” of satisfying the US that that there were no “Missing in Action” servicemen being held in bamboo cages. It was for all the NATO countries and accepted by the EU, but ignored by some Scandinavian organisation, and , I think, in official Norwegian aid.
    I helped plan the EU programme for the repatriation of the boat people there in 189/90, which bypassed the embargo.

  10. ROGER MEXICO
    Good post.
    “So the apparent deficit for Corbyn, which isn’t that great, probably doesn’t matter.”
    It does not matter because it does not reflect the views of those eligible to vote in the leadership election, and because, in respect of the wider population, it does reflect a natural bias of those opposed to socialism.
    What it does reflect, beneath the headline figures, is a substantial body of support, not so much for a socialist politics as such, still less a socialist system, but rather for the Keynesian economics and for the social, and cultural reform which Corby advocates with some clarity, and for the specific measures and reforms he advocates, including the redistributive taxation and reallocation of spending, away from nuclear defense, widely supported, as the polling shows, in the Labour movement.

  11. Judging from JC’s new policy proposals he agrees with Roger Mexico’s and John Pilgrim’s view of potential target groups beyond LP supporters.

  12. The most interesting Corbyn question for me is whether he would draw a lot of SNP voters back to Labour. He seems to be appealing to the same sort of demographic and world view.

  13. @John Pilgrim
    @Roger Mexico

    My goodness talk about interpreting figures the way you’d like them to be. On reading the ComRes poll no one would conclude Corbyn is the best candidate other than people desperate to put a good gloss on the inevitable.

    Which parties do the candidates have the highest net support ie which party is the candidate a good fit for
    – Corbyn Greens
    – Burnham Labour
    – Cooper Labour
    – Kendall Tory

    This might point to Kendall as a good choice for winning in the Labour-Tory marginals.

    Which X scores the best net rating by party ie which party supporters is the candidate likely to gain from\keep

    Con – Burnham & Kendall (tied)
    Labour – Burnham
    Lib Dem – Burnham
    UKIP – Kendall
    Green – Corbyn
    SNP – Corbyn

    Given that Greens and SNP only make up 9% of voters, then Burnham, more attractive to 77% is the best choice with Kendal more attractive to 53% in second.

    Which candidate is the biggest turn off per Party ie lose Labour the chance of winning back\keeping the voters

    Con – Corbyn
    Lab – Kendall
    Lib Dem – Kendall
    UKIP – Corbyn
    Green – Kendall
    SNP – Kendall

    This should rule out both Kendall & Corbyn. Labour are at 29% in this poll they need to be gaining not losing votes.

    The only interpretation is Burnham is the best chance, Cooper wouldn’t be a disaster, Kendall might win you back Tories but is a problem with Labour voters, Corbyn might gain some left wingers from the Greens & SNP but will give you little chance with Tories which are currently at 40% of voters.

    Then on the Economic question, which is widely polled as the reason people give for not voting Labour at the GE.

    Do you think the economy would be better\worse with Corbin as Labour leader? (Unfortunately they only asked about Corbyn)

    Corbyn scores -22 with only 14% thinking he would improve the state of the economy.

    When that is broken down by party
    Cons are -63% with only 3% saying he would improve the economy.

    UKIP are -36% with only 9% thinking he would improve the economy.

    Lib Dems are -24% and 12%.

    The net positives are:
    Anti-Austerity Greens +25
    Labour +15
    Anti-Austerity SNP is a neutral net 0

    Corbyn will reinforce Labour’s negative economic ratings when Labour need to be improving the ratings.

    A Corbyn win will destroy Labour at least for a decade. And the sad thing is even if Labour members and affiliates come to realise that electing Corbyn is suicide, the die is already cast with the 122k £3 sign-ups, who will be over-whelmingly pro-Corbyn So Corbyn could win without the support of the PLP, the members or TU affiliates.

  14. @COUPER2802 you really do protest too much. Take it from me, a LP member you don’t have to feel sorry for us.

  15. @MICO

    The SNP will be very happy with a Corbyn win. Although, the pro-independence people have changed their tune since Corbyn visit to Scotland and have swung against. He ruled out a second independence referendum or more powers for Holyrood, argued for a reduction in Barnett while still opposing FFA and didn’t seem to know which powers were devolved and which weren’t.

    The advantage of a Corbyn win is it keeps the SNP in the centre and avoids the SNP being painted as left-wing. The people that the SNP need to win over to independence are not the people that dream of an independent, socialist, republic they are voting Yes anyway. The SNP need to win over the centre, centre-right voters in Edinburgh, Angus, Pitlochry. and the dynamics of a left-wing demonised Labour will help them do that.

  16. @Lizh

    I don’t feel sorry for the Labour party members. I feel sorry for the rUK people condemned to a decade or more of Tory rule.

    What will your NHS, Welfare State, public services look like by 2030? All because Labour folk are throwing their toys out of the pram, in reaction to the crushing and unexpected GE loss.

    Take a lesson from the SNP, did they embark on a very public war, discard their leadership and appoint a fundamentalist calling for UDI as leader? No they picked themselves up and got back to the grind.

  17. @Coupe2802
    “The SNP need to win over the centre, centre-right voters in Edinburgh, Angus, Pitlochry. and the dynamics of a left-wing demonised Labour will help them do that.”

    You are for independence and an SNP win so why the anguish of a Corbyn win for Labour?

  18. Roger Mexico – “So while Corbyn gets the worst nett score, he also gets the best rating for ‘improve’ and most of his minuses come from Conservative voters.
    Now Labour does need to win over some people who voted Conservative last time, but the vast majority, especially of those who have formed an opinion, will always be unreachable. So the apparent deficit for Corbyn, which isn’t that great, probably doesn’t matter.”

    Oh it does matter. Whenever Conservative voters feel threatened, their certainty to vote soars and they haul themselves to the voting booths come rain or shine.

    Part of Blair’s genius was making them think it wasn’t a great deal if he got elected so it was OK if they stayed at home.

    Corbyn will be facing these determined Conservative voters. And he is relying on left-wing voters who are keen to signal they support him via twitter etc, but are flaky when it comes to actually voting. Ditto the assurances he is getting from non-voters. As Miliband found, they really arn’t worth anything ’cause they just don’t turn up.

  19. @LizH

    Because I was around in the 80s, I know what is going to unfold and I would far prefer a Labour party in rUK that was social democratic and could beat the Tories. Forget Socialism it won’t win where you need to win.

    My preferred candidate is Cooper, because I think she is very likeable and she could grow into the job. I didn’t sign up for a £3 vote even though I got plenty of opportunity to, because I didn’t think that would be fair.

  20. @Candy

    Absolutely correct.

  21. Blair had the advantage that mortgaged middle England had been scared to death on Black Wednesday. The biggest threat to middle England are high interest rates. That is even more true now in the 1990s. In fact I would say it is a timebomb under the Tory vote that could well go off before 2020.

  22. @Couper2802
    “Because I was around in the 80s, I know what is going to unfold and I would far prefer a Labour party in rUK that was social democratic and could beat the Tories. Forget Socialism it won’t win where you need to win.”

    Well, I am a rUK social democrat and think parallels to the 1980s are very wide of the mark. These are very different times. The 1980s left no longer exists. It’s one of the main issues with politicians and parties – they gerenerally set their position by what happened in the past when the past has long gone. UK parties should look at what is happening now in the UK, in Europe and in the wider world. There is a massive resentment about how things are – in England as well as Scotland. That may be expressed in different ways but it certainly exists.

    No-one can know how this is going to unfold.

  23. I think that what is being missed in this whole question of who will win over the most Con votes or Green votes or SNP votes etc., is how many votes will the candidates win over from those who normally don’t vote at all or didn’t vote in 2015. If one of the candidates can galvanise these voters then in it doesn’t matter too much about winning over Conservative voters.

  24. I’d love to see ‘improve or worsen’ figures excluding people who identify as conservative. And/or excluding anyone who voted con/lab for (at least) the last 5 GEs straight & say they will again.

    In theory lab want to get people who identify con, but more realistic/important are Lab ID but con voting people and the SNP.

  25. @RAF

    I am not saying that this is like the 80s but that a comparable Tory and press onslaught will ensure Corbyn Labour is demonised to death and looking at ComRes all the conditions are there….

    ‘Uncontrolled public spending bankrupting Britain’
    ‘Reduce Britain’s standing in the world’
    ‘Class War’
    ‘Leave Britain Defenceless’
    ‘Friend of terrorists’
    …….how will Labour combat these charges? – they won’t because they media have already defined Corbyn as hard left & every one of them will be backed up [sic] by Corbyn’s policy positions and words from his long career as a carefree back bencher.

  26. Norbold,

    That’s the line. It doesn’t work. For all the voter registration, for six million conversations, for Russell Brand’s endorsement and everything all the political parties did, turnout was only 66%.

    There are some people who simply do not vote. But even if you could get them to, the idea that they are a reserve army of socialists waiting to be rallied into battle is fanciful.

    Australia has compulsory voting and turnout over 90%. It has a conservative government. Polling of non-voters found very similar attitudes towards Labour as those who voted.

    It is nice, for a Labour supporter, to envisage a situation where they don’t need Tories, nor do they need policies that appeal to Tories. It means they can remain pure, and endorse policies that fire up the base and, they believe, would be excellent if put into practice. I get it.

    But it doesn’t work.

  27. @Wood

    The SNP don’t matter as Scotland will deliver 50+ MPs (or equivalent when boundaries change) to UK Labour in any case (assuming not independent). And winning back SNP and winning back soft Tories require such different strategies it’s not possible. A Corbyn win would focus on winning SNP and Greens and that is a much smaller pool.

    Also winning SNP is complicated by the constitutional question and Corbyn would have to move on that. Ex-Labour MP Tom Harris writing in the Times says LiS will only recover if they ‘offer independence’ which would rather defeat the purpose of winning them back.

  28. @Couper2802

    All very valid points. If Corbyn does win, he will have to address those perceptions immediately.

  29. @Hawthorn

    People will only change government if there is a credible alternative available. Otherwise they grit their teeth and stick to the incumbents.

    2005 was a good example. There was widespread unhappiness about Iraq, but it was pointless changing the govt as Michael Howard’s Tories supported that conflict plus were unreformed (“NHS is a 60 year mistake” etc). If Ken Clarke was Tory leader, the govt would have changed. He was anti-Iraq and moderate on other things and thought to have done a good job as chancellor in the ’90’s.

    Basically Labour only won 2005 because the opposition was unelectable.

    The same dynamic will apply in 2020. No matter what the crisis, the govt will only change if the opposition is viable. If the opposition is seen to be worse and more risky than the incumbents, the incumbents will stay on.

    You can also look at 2010 as an example – Cameron presented a moderate and personable figure but was forced into a coalition with the LibDems because voters wanted to trial him first before giving him majority power. So the govt did change, but with constraints. And that was after the worst economic calamity since the 1930’s

    The electorate now isn’t that different from how it was in 2010. We live in a cautious age where people don’t like to take unnecessary risks.

  30. Couper
    Why are you so committed to supporting the SNP now when -I believe- you failed to vote for them at general elections prior to 2015? If Independence really is so important to you why were you not voting SNP back in 2010-2005-2005 -1997?
    Personally I cannot abide nationalism and the narrow , parochial – and sometimes selfish – view of the world that it represents. I cannot understand why principles of – say – equality -justice – humanitarianism – should be thought of as being of particular relevance to Scotland – or Wales – or indeed England – with little or no consideration of their application to humanity as a whole. It really is a very divisive destructive creed which seeks to pull people apart. I am of the left but would vote Tory if the only other option was SNP or Plaid.

  31. The position of Scotland is central though not for the reasons some think. Key voters in England were terrified of a Labour Government controlled by the SNP. The large number of SNP MPs are a lock ensuring Conservative government. And both groups know it.

  32. I’m with Norbold on this.

    I have not seen a left wing politician have this sort of impact in my lifetime, as JC has had.

    I think the old Labour and Conservative core vote being 25-30%, and it’s all about the swing voters and soft voters might be a paradigm that is dissolving fast.

    This change looks like it might have already swallowed up the ‘Third Way’ proponents – the Orange Bookers and the Blairites.

    The rules are changing fast, and anyone sticking to the old ground rules might find themselves in a very unpleasant position.

  33. @CatManJeff

    To me it looks like Cleggmania in 2010. Followed by Faragemania in 2014.

    The next election is in 2020, by which time the Corbynmania will have blown itself out.

    It’s nuts going for fleeting manias when there is a clear path to power by looking after basics.

    The electorate has a few non-negotiables – the NHS, NATO, nuclear deterrent and moderate taxation. Hit the nail on all of those, plus present a competent persona and you win. Drop the ball on any of those or present a flaky persona, and you lose. It’s not rocket science.

  34. Electoral support is now much more fragmented than back in the 1980s when a Labour vote share of circa 30% – with the Alliance at 20% or so – implied that the Tories were receiving well in excess of 40%. The progress of UKIP/Greens/SNP in recent years now could well mean that a Labour vote share of 32/33% would only give the Tories 35/36% as compared with the GB share of 43.3% they polled in 1987 when Labour received 31.5%.

  35. @Barney Crockett

    And they’re not going to be even more terrified of Corbyn – good luck with that. And Corbyn has already said he would do a C&S deal with the SNP in the event of a Labour minority government.

  36. @Graham

    Because of Labour people like you.

  37. @Candy
    Basically Labour only won 2005 because the opposition was unelectable”

    Labour lost a large number of seats to the Tories and LDs in 2005. They won because they were defending a majority of over 150, not because the opposition was “unelectable”.

    The Tories in 2020 will be defending a majority of about 11.

  38. OldNat

    Scottish Labour seem to have been briefing that turnout in their leadership election was “around 60%”.

    Of course, lots of numbers are “around 60%” – it rather depends on how big “around” is!

    I see that the Scottish press have shifted their iconography for the SLab leader from Murphy’s permanent halo to Dugdale ascending into Heaven. And people say that religion is on the decline!

    Of course the simplest way to make people believe you is to publish the numbers. I was hoping for a constituency breakdown as in 2010[1], but to not even release the total votes cast comes across as rather North Korean – though even they would at least attempt to make something up.

    Scottish Labour’s ability to make things worse whatever the circumstances is always impressive. Not just allowing this unnecessary secrecy to overshadow Dugdale’s win, but the first internal reaction according to the Herald is to start attacks on the newly-elected deputy[2] and promise a purge of MSPs.

    I now beginning even to doubt the information that the electorate was “About 15,000 party members and 6,000 affiliated and registered members”. That would be up from about 13,000 in 2010, but still a poor increase compared to other parts of the UK and the small increase now looks more like the sort of figure that people come up with when they think “What is the maximum that we can plausibly get away with”. The lack of interest in signing up from TU members and others is also instructive.

    Having said that, when the SNP won the 2011 Holyrood election they only had about 16,000 members:

    http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf#page=10

    (the HoC report numbers are year end)

    and it had only risen to 25,000 by the end of 2013. It’s a bit more now mind, but it shows you can still win effectively with those sort of numbers.

    [1] As I keep on pointing out if the UK Labour leadership results are less comprehensive than in 2010, there will be scope for endless complaints whoever wins. Of course if they are similarly detailed we’ll know the figures for Scottish membership in a month’s time anyway.

    [2] As with much discussion of the UK contest there is also evidence that politics and the media are full of people who don’t understand even a voting system as simple as AV or indeed the concept of voter autonomy.

  39. @Raf -“The Tories in 2020 will be defending a majority of about 11.”

    People like you made that argument in 2015 – the Tories didn’t have a majority and were expected to lose seats.

    Basically if the opposition is unelectable, they don’t win! This is an iron law of politics.

    The idea that you can choose a worse leader than Miliband yet get into govt is wishful thinking on a grand scale.

  40. @RAF

    I would also add that in 2005 the ways votes and seats went to Labour was probably the grossest distortion of FPTP we have ever seen (certainly post war).

  41. @Couper2802
    “Forget Socialism it won’t win where you need to win.”

    You sound a bit like the Blairites – it is all about winning rather than principles.

  42. @Cooper2802
    “I don’t feel sorry for the Labour party members. I feel sorry for the rUK people condemned to a decade or more of Tory rule.”

    If the rUK people choose Tory rule i.e. right wing policies over socialism, then there is no need to feel sorry for them. They have a real choice now to select what they want.

  43. @Roger

    May I copy / quote your post of August 15th, 2015 at 2:51 pm please?

  44. @MrNameless
    “For all the voter registration, for six million conversations, for Russell Brand’s endorsement and everything all the political parties did, turnout was only 66%.”

    By the time Russell Brand made his endorsement, voter registration had closed. If he had made his endorsement earlier I bet the turnout would have been greater than it was.

  45. @Candy
    “People like you made that argument in 2015 – the Tories didn’t have a majority and were expected to lose seats.”
    Me, every pollster and even the Chancellor who was already fully packed and ready to leave! And the Tories did lose seats to Labour (a few, nett).

    “Basically if the opposition is unelectable, they don’t win! This is an iron law of politics.”
    So you are saying: ” You can’t be elected if you are unelectable”.
    Well obviously. But you are only unelectable if you are not elected. It’s after the event reasoning. The polls all pointed to a Labour coalition of some sort.

    “The idea that you can choose a worse leader than Miliband yet get into govt is wishful thinking on a grand scale.”
    Time will tell if Corbyn is a better or worse leader.

  46. @Couper

    In that case I suspect that Labour is well rid of you.

  47. @ MrNameless

    It seems that JC has a Leeds MP supporter.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DhhYnEYnM9A&feature=youtu.be

  48. I haven’t posted for a while since the election, but what are Labour doing? I know Corbyn is widening the debate, but no matter which way you cut it, if he is on a ballot paper against somebody of the weight and competence of Osbourne in 5 years, he stands no chance, as the broad appeal and safety isn’t there.

    I take no pleasure really in this either, as I like a strong opposition. It’s ridiculous that David Miliband isn’t coming back. I never thought Labour would be in this mess just a few months back.

  49. I think the fear of Corbyn stems from the fact that neither the media nor the political hierarchy can control the movement that is growing around him. The rules of the game have changed.

  50. @Lizh,

    Hmm, I heard a similar argument about EM. He stands no chance on a ballot against Osbourne, and I mean no chance. Also, he looks too old for PM now, let alone in 5-10 years.

1 11 12 13 14