Yesterday I wrote about how manifesto policies don’t really have much effect on voting intentions. Today’s ComRes poll for the Daily Mirror neatly illustrates it.

The poll asked about the individual policies in Labour’s leaked manifesto and found strong support for almost all of them. Banning zero hours contracts, renationalising railways, building more council homes, keeping the pension age at 66, increasing tax on those earning over £80,000, bringing back train conductors were all backed by a majority of respondents (and most of the other policies they asked about received more support than opposition).

After all those questions on Labour’s policies ComRes went onto ask which party people thought had more realistic and well-thought through policies. After having approved of nearly all of Labour’s policies, respondents went onto say that the Tories had the more realistic and thought through, by 51% to Labour’s 31%. Asked if they would be more or less likely to vote Labour having heard about all these new policies 34% said more likely, 47% said less likely. Asked who was running the better election campaign, 42% said the Conservatives compared to 20% for Labour.

One can perhaps rationalise this as people liking Labour’s policies but not thinking they are realistic or thought-through (supporting something is, after all, not necessarily the same as thinking it’s realistic), but it does underline that what makes a party attractive or not to voters is about an awful lot more than a shopping list of policies that meet with public approval.

ComRes also asked the “like the party/like the leader” question (getting people to say if they like both the party and its leader, just one or the other, or neither). While the results don’t come as a great surprise, it nicely illustrates exactly why the Conservative campaign is focusing on their leader rather than their party and the Labour campaign really isn’t: 49% of people said they liked Theresa May, 11 points ahead of the Conservative party on 38%. In contrast only 27% of people said they liked Jeremy Corbyn compared to 46% who like Labour, a nineteen point deficit compared to his party.

Full tabs are here


300 Responses to “ComRes poll on the leaked Labour manifesto”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. It seems a bit optimistic for SNP to get “rid” of Labour. Even given their current travails they still seem to have a lot of support in Scotland.

  2. Just listened to Barry Gardiner on radio (not real time). He is really really good, I’ve remarked on him before. He is very tough with interviewers and a very good communicator. Nick Robinson hardly gave him a chance but he got his points across. Conflict resolution in a dangerous world, not being Americas poodle.

    Of course he was defending the indefensible as Corbyn has never voted for military action – he was against the first gulf war which was was UN backed.

  3. @Prof Howard

    From decades of total domination to 1 MP, 3rd in Holyrood elections, 3rd in council election, 18% of the first preferences: in a decade & Possibly further to fall in GE17

  4. ROB SHEFFIELD.
    Good Morning to you and everyone.
    In 1923 Labour was only 7% behind the Con and Unionist Party.
    I think the result will be close to the 1935 GE Result, except that 1935 was a recovery from 1931, and the pacifist Lansbury had been replaced on eve of Election by Attlee, owing to the ‘coup’ undertaken by Ernest Bevin (TGWU). His successor today is Len McCluskey.
    Bevin’s main attack on Lansbury was based on the vote losing effects of pacifism and opposition to re armament.

  5. Not sure about the “two weeks easily to the Tories”. Looking at my graph of the averages of the polls Labour have gone up a bit each week, roughly as much as the Tories. May started with a 3:0 lead and it is now about 4:1.

  6. AW,
    Havn’t read the results but from your commentary, I take it there was a high correlation between liking the leader and liking the party. I am reminded of the referendum results, where there was a similar high correlation between belief in a positive economic result -or not – and direction of vote. Aha, I said, ‘its the economy, stupid’. Others argued that view on economy was merely a rationalisation based upon desire to remain/leave.

    Similarly, do people dislike the leader because they dislike the party? As far as I know, no one disliked Corbyn before he became leader. They seem to have quite liked him as a token traditionalist in the labour party.

    The results say the policies are fine. So it isnt true Corbyn has bad policies. He seems nice enough and had good support as a constituency MP. The onbvious problem he has faced is that many labour MPs have set out to undermine him. They did not like the policies, not the voters.

  7. Couper

    I have been impressed by Barry Gardiner’s approach to interviews. He is quite softly spoken yet he is very firm with the interviewer and comes across as being very serious minded (a good thing).

    Regarding “getting rid of” Labour: the facts you state are clear and that can indeed be claimed as an impressive SNP achievement. I just suspect that in a PR electoral system that Labour can survive and revive.

  8. @ProfHoward

    You are correct, it was PR that enabled a weak SNP to rebuild after the 90s. I never criticise PR because the SNP wouldn’t be where it is without it. And so Scottish Labour may indeed re-build and thrive – that’s why SNP have to take advantage of this window to push on with their strategy for independence. Before the winds of change.

  9. @Danny – “The onbvious problem he has faced is that many labour MPs have set out to undermine him. They did not like the policies, not the voters.”

    There is a major flaw in this entire argument.

    People were OK with Corbyn as an MP because he was harmless and they weren’t voting for him as PM, which is effectively what the GE is about. You can’t say he was not disliked as an MP so therefore it isn’t his unpopularity now that is the problem – no one gave him a second thought until he became leader.

    We can agree the policies appear popular, if a little unbelievable to many, which leaves you appearing to blame those who failed to believe in him. I think this is deeply unfair.

    The central point is that many of us knew (and I mean really knew) right back to his initial election that this would be a disaster. We’re not just talking about Blairite plotters here – Owen Jones in the Guardian was appalled at Corbyn’s rambling ineffectiveness on his acceptance speech (the first one in 2015) and at how dreadful his media operation was once he won.

    To blame other parts of the Labour party is wrong – they were only saying what all sensible people knew all along, that Corbyn makes Labour unelectable.

    To think anything else is to be oblivious to the obvious. Corbyn is the drag on Labour, and nothing anyone said or did would alter that fact.

    As it happens, I think since his second election his critics have been quite quiet, and yet Labour fell back further. Unless and until his supporters recognise that he is destroying the party, there will be no future for Labour, petty much anywhere in the UK.

  10. “what makes a party attractive or not to voters is about an awful lot more than a shopping list of policies that meet with public approval”

    Or maybe it is about a lot less. Maybe it is about people paying more attention to the character assassination of the Labour leader in the press, than they do to actual substantive policies the parties put in their manifestos.
    Which probably says a lot about the massive democratic deficit in the UK. It is the plutocrats in the media who have the biggest influence on public opinion, and unfortunately the UK population seems very bad at critical thinking.
    The Tories and their cheerleaders in the UK press, which is overwhelmingly hard-right (borderline fascist), are past masters at getting the electorate to vote against its own best interests, they are the masters of divide and rule politics. They are the masters at corrupting the democratic process by lying and lying and lying again. And how is the electorate supposed to make an informed choice, when it has so little access to reliable information? People are starved of the truth when it comes to UK politics, because the media is overwhelmingly the propaganda arm of the Tory Party.
    Couple that with the dubious and biased electoral system, and the UK barely deserves to be considered a democracy at all.

  11. It looked like a good week for Labour to me: the manifesto leak played into their hands and put their stories at the top of the headlines. Even the very clear goal for the Conservatives of painting Corbyn as not willing to take military action has been somewhat missed as the EtneralBlue worm took all the headlines.

    While people have been saying for a while that the Conservatives have been ‘keeping their powder dry’ they will need to start trying to control the narrative soon if they want to make their attacks succeed. They’re doing ‘strong and stable’ but they need a few more lines than that – ones that specifically attack Labour’s spending plans.

  12. I hope nobody on here has made these bets?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39894643

    ‘Fools and their money…’ springs to mind.

  13. @ EXILEDINYORK – thank you once again for detailed analysis.

    I agree you groupings. The loyalty of CONs can be seen in VI versus 2015 and is very strong (90%). The switch vote in from UKIP can also clearly be seen and may prove to be “loan” but that is more of an issue for 2022 not 2017. I agree we’re just talking about the size of the majority but the odds on huge majority are still quite long (dropped a little) and CON seats still sub 400 mid-market. Long conservative seats, CON >50% and a sprinkling of crazy high majorities are my personal favourite ways to express my prediction.

    In summary I think we have two important issues regarding motivation to vote:

    1/ Complacency affect (should be affect but most will call it effect!): “the bigger the lead, the poorer the conversion of VI into actual votes”. Basically if your confident of the result it will influence whether you actually vote – agree (that was certainly a factor in the Brexit vote)
    2/ Cognitive dissonance: where a voter has unresolved dissonance (eg leadership approval versus VI, personal motives ahead of national interest, etc), the “shy Tory/Labour bias” affect causing differences in the polling VI versus actual votes

    These two offset so maybe the polls end up being pretty close and the 3% swing tweak (+CON/-LAB) will cover the combined effect.

    We should also include the impact of a 3rd influence – protest vote (you covered this in the grouping of voting against). It might keep some UKIP voters loyal and in London it will help LDEM win higher share than 2015 but its not going to have as much impact as I had thought a few weeks back. Feeling let down the protest vote might even reverse and increase abstentions in these two sets of voters?

    I put these motivations in as 3 separate coefficients for each party and since my model is a scaled-up by-election model I can consider it seat-seat, region-region or national. It’s hugely subjective, hence the interest in empirical findings.

    I’m treating London and Scotland as “special cases” but for the rest of England and Wales I’m currently ignoring seat-seat or regional factors.

    NB all of the above factor point to a low turnout (the drop from 1997 to 2001 showing would could be possible!)

  14. @Morfsky

    “However distasteful people may find Marine LePen and her (former?) Party, she is not a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist.”.

    She’s more extreme than General Franco. Perhaps you don’t regard Falangists as fascists?

    Even if you don’t, she’s an extreme exclusive nationalist. Like Modi in India. To me this is synonymous with a fascist.

  15. @alun parsons

    That is significantly over the top. There are equally left wing websites that are economical with the truth. I keep getting links to on Facebook and twitter.

    And that is partisan in the extreme

  16. As anyone who has read my previous posts will know I am a convinced believer in the EU, however I become furious with the approach of the organisation to members which engage in anti-democratic and treaty breaking actions: Others have mentioned the Austrian situation with the Freedom Party, but far more frightening is the Polish Government’s planned interference in its independent judiciary. I imagine it has not permeated into the British consciousness much but it has led to British Judges taking the unprecedented step of expressing their collective concerns:
    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/english-judges-join-disapproval-over-polish-judicial-reforms/5061005.article

    Those of us who believe in Democracy (which is every poster on this site as far as I can see) should be very concerned when Executive Government tries to take control of the Judicial Arm; it is the hallmark of totalitarianism. Since Thomas Paine separation of powers has been the badge of good governance We should all remember his words

    “We repose an unwise confidence in any government, or in any men, when we invest them officially with too much, or an unnecessary quantity of, discretionary power.”
    and
    “I have never made it a consideration whether the subject was popular or unpopular, but whether it was right or wrong; for that which is right will become popular, and that which is wrong, though by mistake it may obtain the cry or fashion of the day, will soon lose the power of delusion, and sink into disesteem.”

  17. The polls show very clearly that most people ( including lots of Labour voters ) do not think Corbyn is suitable to be PM.

    As Corbyn was elected to lead a parliamentary party into government how can anyone lay the blame anywhere else but with Corbyn that Labour are not taken as serious contenders to run the country.

    He does not have what it takes to lead a strong opposition let alone lead a country. The Labour Party and the majority of its moderate supporters know this- that is why the PLP tried to get rid of him.

    It is sad that Corbyn is making it so easy for TM and the Tories to win and probably win big.

  18. @ Trevor Warne

    Your segmentation in London, Scotland and “the rest” is pragmatic as there isn’t a lot of data other than crossbreaks available to differentiate within the rest.

    However, I would suggest that Wales has it’s own dynamic due to the PC and the well regarded Carwyn Jones providing an alternative leadership focus for Llafur supporters. It also get the occasional full poll to benchmark your model.

    It might be worth differentiating within the rest of England along the lines of the “three tribes” theory advocated by some in the 2015 election. There were better write ups than this one by Paul Mason, but I can’t find any at the moment.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/29/three-new-tribes-of-voters-will-dominate-this-election

  19. @ ANDY T – following on from our chat y’day if you open up Electoral Calculus and put in the 2015 results you can see how MB’s model has captured the impact of the “pulled candidates” (mostly UKIP impact but some Green influence as well)

    8 seats where UKIP pulled candidate has tipped the seat to CON, irrespective of any other changes.

    I do it different to MB so my prediction on impact is higher. Also note UKIP are still standing in a lot of seats (far more than the 100 that was rumoured) – I guessed wrong thinking they would pull far more candidates than they did.

    NB he hasn’t zeroed out all the UKIP pulled candidates yet (e.g. Brighton Kemptown should stay CON if most of the UKIP vote moves to CON)

    I’m having to go through my s/s and manually do the UKIP pulled candidates. I blew my model up trying to be clever about copying in the pulled candidate list and fixing it is not helped by a hangover!

  20. Andy T

    It is not only that he doesn’t have what a leader needs (if we assume that such a thing exists), but he couldn’t assemble a team either in the PLP or outside that has it.

    So, he has not led.

  21. @ EXILEDINYORK – Thanks. I’ll put separating Wales out on my to do list. Quite surprised at the high % of UKIP vote there. They also seem to be standing again in most seats.
    If they had pulled out that would have tipped a lot more seats to CON (or at least improved CON chances).

    Off for a long walk to clear my head before I tackle s/s fixes!

  22. @RO27 – what has amazd me the most are the ridiculous odds (500/1) being offered on the Greens or UKIP getting the most seats when there is a zero chance of this happening!

  23. @artair

    You would need to demonstrate by evidence that Sturgeon is an “exclusive” nationalist. You can’t. So that is the end of your discussion.

  24. HIRETON

    For once we agree, I find Sturgeon very irritating personally,( that’s just my personal opinion) but she is clearly a very capable politician who is in no way a fascist IMO.

  25. @ANDREW MYERS

    Totally agree with your comment. It amazed me even more in that BBC article that someone has actually placed £1,000 on UKIP to win.

    I quote the bookies – “… biggest single liability racked up is £175,000 with a North London man who has put £1,000 on UKIP to win.”

    Crazy. The punter might as well of set fire to that money. This bet (see link below) seems safer but it’s an enormous sum of money – £85,000 placed.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/insight/politics/20170506-north-londoner-places-a-gigantic-bet-on-the-conservative-party.amp

  26. @ALBERT

    “so does this poll mean people don’t vote for policies?”

    Wrote a longer, more elaborate version, but the abridged point-by-point version, is that when it comes to MANIFESTOS, a variety of factors result in policies contained within either not necessarily affecting VI that much. Or else not APPEARING to, superficially when actually they might. Policies can affect VI in ways not necessarily captured properly by pollsters, and meanwhile much policy VI effect can occur outside of manifestos.

    A quick list of these confounding factors includes…

    – it’s quite difficult these days to come up with seriously compelling policies for manifestos when a lot of low-hanging fruit has been picked

    – if a policy is obviously compelling, all parties may adopt it resulting in no VI advantage

    – Parties may leave some popular policies out of manifestos in case they get nicked, and deploy them once in power instead

    – they may leave unpopular policies out too, to avoid negative press, and consequent VI hit, and sneak them in when in power instead

    – parties tend to test policies for negative perceptions before releasing them

    – and quickly u-turn if some unexpectedly become unpopular, to limit unfavourable VI impacts

    – Some policy has VI effects, but it’s indirect and not necessarily captured in polling. Many people may not be massively swayed by voter registration as an issue for example. Polling may not find it salient in the minds of voters. But it’ll affect VI all the same if fewer people are registered to vote…

    – Manifestos are political/marketing documents. Some policies may not be there to impact VI directly, but to put your rivals in a bind, to reassure, or to provide insurance and get out clauses with crafty wording like “no top down restructuring” etc.

    Thus, you may not measure a direct response to these elements, but indirectly they may effect VI, or stave off a potential FALL in VI. You measure and see no change, but it did actually prevent a change in VI the party was facing.

    – Some policies may be complicated and inscrutable, and hence may not get much response in polling. It may even elude the polling companies themselves to focus on it much. A good example is QE, a tricky mechanism to get your head around. If polled at all, many may not claim it affects them and may struggle to fully follow it. But the economic IMPACT may be considerable and drive overall perceptions of economic competence.

    – Stuff like QE may well not have been in the manifesto, because a fair amount of policy is formed/deployed in the hoof, in response to events that crop up like the Crunch.

    – Competence may indeed trump policy at times, no good having good policies if you can’t deliver etc., but prior policies may affect perceptions of competence. People may not credit particular economic policies or be aware of them, but if economy goes ok it may affect general perception of competence.

    – many of the biggest VI impacts occur outside of manifestos, because of it being about a response to events dear boy, whether Crunch, ERM, Oil Crisis etc.

    (This may involve rapid and dramatic u-turns and consequent effects on VI, e.g. Tories u-turn on Europe has had quite an effect on VI but wasn’t exactly centre-state in Cameron’s 2015 manifesto).

    – When parties fail to u-turn, or u-turn quick enough, or enact an unhoped-for u-turn, you can see dramatic impacts on VI of policy, or policy failings. LibDems in 2010, ERM etc. etc.

    – policies may be regional, e.g. QE affecting the SE primarily, and not captured nationally. It may even not be captured in regional polling if it simply staved off a potential fall in VI.

    – Or again, the effect may be indirect. If QE increases your house price, you may elect to stay with your party, and you might not attribute it to QE, but to housing policy or even general economic competence.

    – Targeting. Parties may put a lot of effort into policies, but at a local level to sway floating voters in marginal seats. Can have a big impact on the electoral outcome without affecting national VI much. E.g. The last election, where small numbers were targeted assiduously, resulting in a considerable impact on seats while overall VI did not change much.

    – polling may therefore actually assist with undermining itself. If polling is used to sway things locally, deliberately behind the scenes, while hiding it’s impacts nationally…

  27. @Andy T On Corbyn.

    I’ve been going through the Ashcroft Constituency Polling where he is reckoning on a 162-180 seat majority based on different turnout scenarios.

    What struck me is that even in deep Labour territory May is considered a more suitable PM than Corbyn! And almost across the board, those who are Enthusiastic about Brexit or voted Remain and accept the result seriously outweigh the ardent Remainers.

    Short of a major incident to change the narrative against the Government the only real discussion is just how big this landslide is going to be.

  28. Tbh I think this GE would always have been a very difficult one for the LP to win, regardless of the leader, policies or the press/BBC. Brexit means that many leavers will automatically vote Blue…. It will be interesting to see how the electorate reacts to the Norway model which seems to be the current Conservative party intention.

    That’s not to say that I don’t agree with @ Alun Parsons

    ‘Maybe it is about people paying more attention to the character assassination of the Labour leader in the press’

    It is fascinating to observe the psychological techniques being rolled out to ‘play the man and not the ball’. For example, few journalists could have failed to know that it was a police driver, from Corbyn’s security detail, who ran over the camera man’s foot.. but a majority of reporting implied that Corbyn was the culprit. This invites an unconscious association of the accident with Corbyn, reinforcing previously implanted stereotypes of incompetence etc (and even perhaps danger)

  29. @SSSIMON

    “How else would you define left-right? There is obviously no objective standard, we rely on perceptions, as these are all invented definitions/categories. I do agree with much of your point though”

    ———-

    Soz, I missed this earlier.

    Anyways I was bypassing the left/right thing, and just going by which parties or ideologies newspapers openly support. E.g. Guardian say they’re liberal (but not with the truth!), The Independent advocate voting LD etc.

  30. Alec, Andy et al

    Apologies in advance for this stream on consciousness.

    I think some of you are misunderstanding why Corbyn was elected. His election was always more about the Labour Party more than the country. A stepping stone on a long road. Some people genuinely liked his gentler style but I think for most it was his policies that they liked. I know some were completely unaware of him prior to the leadership campaign. Corbyn was the first chance for many years to uniquivically reject the Thatcherite neo-liberal agenda. If Andy Burnham had been stronger I think he could have tapped this wellspring of support but his performance was poor; his rejection of austerity late, reactive and with a stench of triangulation. Corbyn’s was genuine.

    The Labour right refused to compromise at all and instead threw all their efforts into destroying Corbyn at whatever long term cost to the party. Former leaders and senior figures rushed to predict doom if he won. Never giving a moment’s thought to the damage their comments would do if he did win. The membership reacted to this holier than thou lecturing as you would expect.

    Once Corbyn was elected the right continued to behave like petulant children; their reputations now inexorably linked to Corbyn’s failure. The thousands of new members were not welcomed but derided as entryists and troskyites. The likes of Michael Dugher, Ben Bradshaw and Tristan Hunt were always willing to hand crates of ammunition to the Tory press on every topic. Others like Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna refused to serve in the shadow cabinet allowing the media to continue their narrative of deep divisions, robbing the Labour front bench of their experience and further damaging Corbyn’s leadership before it had even begun. Is it any wonder he is seen as weak and ineffectual by the public? The Labour right were willing allies of the Tory press in ensuring this was the case.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see Corbyn as some messiah or brilliant leader. He is not good on camera, or at PMQs, he is bad at sticking to the party line, has lots of political baggage and organisationally seems weak. If I had been in charge I would have tried to present him as a wise elder restoring Labour’s soul whilst shielding him as much as possible. A man who was right about neoliberalism and the Iraq war. After a short time of healing he could step aside for a more marketable and less tainted centre left leader. The party would be reset, new Labour’s toxicity buried and the membership rejuvenated. This strategy seemed so obvious to me I was incredulous that the supposed master strategists of new Labour couldn’t see it.

    Then we hit the nadir in the aftermath of the referendum. The Tories were in chaos, Cameron had resigned and despite everything Labour had gained support during the campaign. Yet the MPs chose this moment to again pick the self interest of the right over the chance for a broader left wing triumph. It seemed more important that Corbyn be defeated than the Tories. I met a fellow Labour member at the school gate and she opened with “what the hell is going on!”

    In the second leadership election the Corbynistas had a choice to support their now irrevocably crippled leader or hand the party back to an uncompromising right. Owen Smith, ironically one of those who might have been leader of a united post Corbyn Labour Party, was now untrustworthy because of his resignation. Is it any wonder the left leaning membership again backed Corbyn?

    So now we are where we are. Corbyn is fatally wounded politically and the Tories will win a landslide. The leftist policies that could have brought real progressive social change are now tarnished with failure and the neoliberal social democracy of the Blairites is even more hated by the membership than it was before.

    My hope is that somehow the defeat will be less than expected and the Labour right will see that compromise is the only way forward. If this is the case maybe it isn’t too late for a genuinely moderate and competent centre left leader to emerge and begin to build a non neoliberal narrative. Such a party might be just what we need in the aftermath of the likely oncoming recession. That’s my hope. My fear is riots on the streets and an increasingly authoritarian government enacting emergency powers to maintain control.

  31. @ Carfew

    ‘Wrote a longer, more elaborate version, but the abridged point-by-point version, is that when it comes to MANIFESTOS, a variety of factors result in policies contained within either not necessarily affecting VI that much. Or else not APPEARING to, superficially when actually they might. Policies can affect VI in ways not necessarily captured properly by pollsters, and meanwhile much policy VI effect can occur outside of manifestos.’
    ——————————————————————
    Good thinking.. elegant even :)

  32. Would I be correct in assuming that the current ransomware crisis is unlikely to affect the election? Labour have predictably seized on it as an example of the Tories running down the NHS, but since it’s hit all sorts of large organisations, they will have trouble making that charge stick.

  33. I am no Corbyn fan but I am not sure exactly where Labour would be without him.

    At present Labour under Corbyn are presenting;

    A Left of Centre alternative to the Tories, but with a less popular Leader and a lack of credibility on the Economy.

    However from what I watched of the Labour Leadership contest you can make a fair argument that if anyone else had won then right now Labour under would be presenting;

    A Centrist approach very much like the Tories, but with a less popular Leader and a lack of credibility on the Economy!

    Would that really be a winner?

    Looking at the tables, across the board, Labour do better in Scotland that overall and yet they are now third, even though their policies are better Received than those of the Tories.

    Peter.

  34. @SSSIMON

    That said, I don’t think Liberal free market economics, and Austerity, as backed by the Graun etc., would conventionally be considered left wing.

  35. @ALEC

    “@Carfrew – indeed. The ideas swirling about regarding a state owned energy provider in the existing market is the kind of idea I was hoping for, rather than straight nationalisation.

    This goes back a very, very long way. Back in the 1870’s (I think) the government was so appalled by the rip off that was the annuity pension market, that they set up a pension annuity scheme within the Post Office, aimed at lower earners.

    It was successful, and attracted savers, with good value products, so much so that the traditional banking sector was outraged and campaign, cajoled and threatened the government to shut it down, which they duly did.

    Someone in government needs to have the balls to face down big business and explain that what are currently living through is economic extremism, and that there really is another, more socially orientated way to organise society.”

    ——————

    Yes, it’s summat I’ve been wanting to see too. A useful compromise to keep the benefits of private sector, but to just steer them away from anti-competitive practices, and to step in when they screw up.

    True, it can require governments to face up to them, which is why capital has been keen to go global, become supra-national, to try and outweigh the government…

    It’s the same-old, same-old, a continuing need neither to let Capital get too powerful, nor the State…

  36. I think it will affect it a little but the fact it’s world wide offers the
    Conservatives a ‘get out if jail free card’ on the issue.

    I also think the Conservative s have yet to get going, they have a lot ammunition on Corbyn which I think they will start using soon.

    One outcome – Conservative Victory, just how big is the question?

  37. My strongest criticism of Corbyn todate in this campaign is that he went along with the election in the first place! If Labour is heavily defeated , that fact on its own would justify ousting him from the leadership. He betrayed the interest of his members by simply bowing meekly to May’s wishes.

  38. @Seachange

    The Ashcroft sample is too pro-Tory – and Libdem -. Labour and UKIP have been undersampled. Respondents showed a 9% Tory lead on the basis of 2015 voting – yet the actual Tory lead was only 6.6%. It also has the LibDems on 13% despite their vote share having been 8%.

  39. @Syzygy

    “Good thinking.. elegant even :)”

    ————

    Why thank you. I wrote a few versions before posting. Good spot btw on the Cameramans foot thing… Must admit I’d not been aware it wasn’t Corbyn’s car…

  40. @imperium3

    It depends how the story evolves. It is emerging that the government decided not to renew a contract with MS to continue supporting XP, which might have helped with teh problem (although unpatched Windows 7/8/10 were also affected).

    The story *could* evolve into an NHS suffering cuts and not having the funds to support ungrading their systems and maintaining proper IT support. It could evolve into a story of fragmented provision with many different organisations, with no central IT support ensuring security.

    What it certainly could turn into is that this happened on Hunt’s watch, and he should take the fall. Organisation-wide systemic failures are the fault of the man at the top.

  41. Boredom

    I suspect that a lot of posters are wishing for a little more action in this general election. however, it may be that the Tory strategy is to :

    1. keep it low key and suppress levels of interest and engagement;

    2. Target individual constituencies which really matter; Crosby might be putting the obvious into effect.it would be very interesting to know whether this is a submarine Tory campaign and they are targeting a small but crucial set of voters in a small but crucial set of constituencies,

    3. Perhaps they think that a full blue blooded attack on labour would bring out the tribal instincts of the working class leave minded voters they want to attract.

    Good June 8th/9th telly for me would be:

    Clegg
    farron
    cable
    soubry
    Robertson
    salmond

    being dispatched to political oblivion by the returning officer.Just dreaming?

  42. IMPERIUM3

    I understand that Nissan in the UK have also been hit by this virus. I would be very surprised if they were using out of date software systems.

  43. @Robin

    Not true Microsoft withdrew support for XP. The government contracts include free updates to windows. You are not supposed to be able to get contracts with the public sector without cyber protection.

    If anyone’s is really interested in the ins and outs of these type of cyber attacks it is an area of expertise of mine. If it spun as money or cuts then it is wrong it is a people and process issue.

  44. Interesting article… How Theresa May could land a majority of 212.

    http://news.sky.com/story/vote-2017-how-theresa-may-could-land-a-212-majority-win-10875174

  45. @ Alberto

    ‘I think some of you are misunderstanding why Corbyn was elected. His election was always more about the Labour Party more than the country. A stepping stone on a long road. Some people genuinely liked his gentler style but I think for most it was his policies that they liked. I know some were completely unaware of him prior to the leadership campaign. Corbyn was the first chance for many years to uniquivically reject the Thatcherite neo-liberal agenda. If Andy Burnham had been stronger I think he could have tapped this wellspring of support but his performance was poor; his rejection of austerity late, reactive and with a stench of triangulation. Corbyn’s was genuine.’
    ————————————————————————

    A masterly account which I completely recognise. I recommend all should read if they want to understand the current position in the LP (13th May 12.13)

  46. I don’t think the Nissan, Renault, etc argument holds any water.

    The NHS budget is defined by the government, and it is itemised. The Nissan IT is their problem, they can decide what to do with their IT Boss who accepted inadequate funding for IT security, or did not use it. Their problem. The government was effectively Nissan’s IT department, and their resource allocation department.

    Will Labour recognise that from the point of view of the question it doesn’t matter what organisation’s system was compromised, the principle is the same, so the other organisation is not an excuse, in their aegument?

  47. SYZYGY

    “A masterly account which I completely recognise. I recommend all should read if they want to understand the current position in the LP (13th May 12.13)”

    Yes, I found it very interesting as I did a number of other posts today. Obviously I am not a Labour supporter but I do like insight into what is going on.

  48. Syzygy

    The problem is not why Corbyn was elected, and how. There is no problem there. Not even with the general ideas.

    Why did he get rid of all his economic, housing and health service advisers, leaving him clueless?

    Why are certain constituencies completely starved of resources in this election campaign, when the money coffers are full?

    And most importantly, Graham’s question, how could he agree on this election?

  49. LASZLO

    My post was not meant to deflect any cricism of Hunt or NHS management, it was just an information update.

  50. RO27

    It could happen but I’m not forecasting it.

1 2 3 4 5 6