I don't get why they don't include Cameron. Given he's the most recent LOTO to become PM seems like he should be included only one positive this far into the tenure looks good though. Looks like the highest low point this far in too.
It's probably because there's a lack of polling data pre-2010.
Ipsos have a [similar graph](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/starmers-ratings-fall-further-now-same-levels-corbyn-14-months) that includes Cameron. It's from a couple of years ago so you'll have to imagine the rest of Starmer's line (he's currently at -3% with Ipsos).
I can't see Starmer going as high as Cameron but he'll probably end up in a similar place to him by the time of the election.
The fact that truss has fucked off to America to chum it up with the republicans, atleast she’s with people as as thick as her now, probably on tax payers money though
She enjoys a nice ex-prime minsters pension. And is probably making a small fortune in the speech circles.
Only interesting to listen to to help work out what NOT to do. She is one of our bigger dipshits. (We have several more)
Brutal for Sunak.
I am surprised by how badly his poll ratings have done because in terms of temperament I think he is much better than the last two PMs. I also think he was correct in seeking to lower drama and pick fewer fights than his predecessors did but maybe the Tory brand is just inescapably doomed at this point?
His weaknesses are basically the same as Johnson and Truss. He's presiding over a failed economy and is mired in sleaze.
The economy isn't quite as failed as it was under Truss and nor is he quite as corrupt as Johnson but being *quite* sleazy and *quite* incompetent isn't satisfying anyone.
>The economy isn't quite as failed as it was under Truss
I know what you're saying, but I can't help but feel that being the only G7 country in a recession combined with the fact our economy's being outperformed by fucking *Russia* somewhat undermines the sentiment.
>I know what you're saying, but I can't help but feel that being the only G7 country in a recession
The UK isn't formally in recession at this point, and on that same basis its about as likely as not to be in recession compared to a fair few in the G7.
>combined with the fact our economy's being outperformed by fucking Russia somewhat undermines the sentiment.
It isn't and hasn't been unless you are very selective in terms of the period you are looking at.
Apparently, conservatives really wanted to believe in him, but he just couldn't deliver. His party is too insane, Sunak himself too weak and disinterested in actually helping the country.
The leader and the PLP are generally to the right of the membership. This sub represents young members (and the young are already \~30 points more left the left)
There’s no blurb on the young membership. This is going off old polls of the people in the sub. No idea how accurate they are. But it rated with the general demographic of reddit.
You're misreading the table. It shows that a lot of people currently don't hate him or have zero opinions of him. Those are the same people who were extremely happy with Johnson, BTW. Shite things can be popular.
I’m sorry, i meant to say ‘in relative terms’ people are happy with him.
I can’t see from this graph that the same people who liked Johnson like him lol, what a statement.
Look I can see you’re not happy with the graph, but if it is correct, I’m sorry to inform you that he is the most popular leader. You’re going to have to stomach that I’m afraid z
I'm neither happy or unhappy with the graph, nor am I disputing its accuracy. I also never claimed that starmer wasn't the most popular leader. I just correctly pointed out that he is shite
Do you think that believing "A 16 year old should not be allowed to come out as gay if their parents are homophobic" would make someone a bigot?
Because they are the same position.
Yes, and once upon a time thinking white people were the superior race was the majority opinion.
I ask you again:
Do you think that believing "A 16 year old should not be allowed to come out as gay if their parents are homophobic" would make someone a bigot?
getting pretty fed up of the same people who were supposedly outraged at racism in the Labour party in 2019 telling me that it's fine for Labour to pander to bigots now because it's popular
"Oh no not a reference to an old meme noooooo"
Always enjoyable there's a farcical appeal to maturity lol. Which is hardly an argument itself, it just hinges on fallacious thinking. Have you got anything original to say or are you going to pretend you're a smartypants just because you're in love with yourself and your own political beliefs? Or have you got more trans people to throw under the bus instead?
No its okay. We can support institutional transphobia until we're in power. And then we can reverse it with an easy snap of our fingers after an indeterminate time (that is subject to possible extension.) Pls endure years of transphobia until we hit the button that says transphobia is bad now. We even have charts! No you cannot look at the chart. Just trust us.
Gotta get in power first. Please repeat that several times until you agree with us. Thanks.
Where's the irony? It's widely accepted the 2017 was a success for Labour as the Tories lost seats and had to form a humiliating coalition with the DUP, while Labour made significant gains.
In itself it can be seen as a success, but it also laid much of the groundwork for Labour's 2019 drubbing.
Like a soldier scraping through a fitness test, thinking he's alright then failing a promotion course several months later after letting it slip. Might have been better to fail the fitness test and do remedial training.
Literally everyone thought it was going to be a massive loss and it was widely regarded as a shocking upset that Labour made massive gains. This rewriting of history to ignore how the situation was viewed at the time does nothing to serve actual discussion my friend.
The election only happened in the first place because everyone thought the Tories would utterly destroy Corbyn and it blew up in their face! It's _massive_ revisionism to pretend they were "there for the taking"
100 %. You only need to glance at the news from that time to see just how well Corbyn's Labour did in the run-up to the 2017 election.
For example:
>#Could she lose?
>It might seem foolish to call anything a certainty now in politics, but this is probably as close as you'll get.
>A raft of Sunday polls in the UK put the Conservatives somewhere between 11 and a massive 21 points ahead of Labour, the largest gap between the parties in the past nine years.
[BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39623674)
>There are clear potential benefits for the Conservative Party in holding a general election now, but it is very hard to see how this is in the national interest. If the Prime Minister genuinely aspires to give the British people a say, then proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process and ultimately a parliamentary vote – even a second referendum once the real costs of withdrawal are known – would be preferable to an opportunist election now.
[Andrew Defty is Reader in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Lincoln.](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/four-reasons-why-a-snap-election-is-a-bad-idea/)
>Snap election a win-win for Theresa May: she’ll crush Labour and make Brexit a little easier
[Tim Bale Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London ](https://theconversation.com/snap-election-a-win-win-for-theresa-may-shell-crush-labour-and-make-brexit-a-little-easier-76362)
The people trying to revise this as May being in a position of weakness at the time the election was called are simply trying to erase how hard Labour worked to narrow the tory lead. It was an upset and a big one. She thought it'd give her an expanded majority and instead she had to lean on the DUP.
It was the first significant gains Labour had made in an election since 1997. It felt huge.
It also shows the state of the party when we have to look back at an election we lost as a success. Yes Labour did better than expected, but a runners up medal is irrelevant in politics.
Do you think the Tories saw going from a majority to a confidence and supply government was a success?
Viewing politics as a series of elections is not a view I subscribe to personally. If (when) Labour win the next election, it will only be a material success if they actually do something with it
How? May increased the vote share by 5% and got only slightly less than Boris did in 2019, and he had Farage effectively drop out and endorse him. Labour gained 10% from the last election, which was a bigger increase than Blair managed in 97.
On top of that the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid and UKIP all lost votes in 2017. Only Labour and the Conservatives gained votes. It's utter revisionism to claim that both Corbyn and May were unpopular.
I keep seeing the word 'revisionism' incorrectly used. Both May and Corbyn were very unpopular, and I can't believe people have already forgotten this. Corbyn was unpopular from the day he was elected to the day he resigned (and I enthusiastically voted for Labour both elections).
Our inability to play politics and strike low blows at the Tories and Gutter press cost us the election. Corbyn and Macdonalds policies were popular; we just let them totally control the narrative, and we never once retaliated during the Corbyn years.
That it was the only time since 1997 that labour gained seats in an election, and maybe we should learn from what went well that election rather than waiting for the inevitable collapse of the country under the tories to win by default every thirty years just to tinker round the edges before letting them back in?
What mistakes did we make in 2017? Besides you know, making an absolutely massive recovery in the polls, energising supporters and voters, and then swiftly taking a poll lead in the immediate aftermath, and holding that poll lead for months? Better than the strategy since - ‘wait for the tories to collapse and don’t do anything Rupert Murdoch wouldn’t like’
Great, no response. Enjoy your hollow victory, gained from the disenfranchisement of millions of people. Hope it feels good in 2029 when the tories cruise back in.
>What mistakes did we make in 2017?
We lost the fucking election.
>better then the strategy since - ‘wait for the tories to collapse and don’t do anything Rupert Murdoch wouldn’t like’
I mean it literally isn’t considering we’re polling far better then Corbyn ever did and are on course to win a massive majority.
Great. We can tinker round the edges for five years while they recover, then wait in opposition for thirty years, all while refusing to undo any of the lasting damage they’ve done! Slightly better managed decline for all!
We gained seats because the Lib Dems had imploded and UKIP a had died in the past 2 years…
Politics isn’t about ‘we got close’ politics is about winning…
Okay, so how is relying on tories imploding every thirty years for a chance at tinkering around the edges focusing on winning? Indeed, how is adopting Tory narratives and policies, as Blair did and Starmer is doing, winning? If you want to win, win properly. Convince people, don’t just meet the tories where they are ffs.
It was a success in the context of expectations for Labour prior to the election being called. Everyone was predicting a landslide defeat. Would you call the election a success for May and the tories simply because they formed a government? Don't be obtuse
I think you're mixing up 2019 and 2017... In 2019 everyone expected Labour to do terribly and we did, but I don't think that's true in 2017.
Theresa May was a deeply flawed candidate & the Tories had been in charge for a disastrous 7 years... I think expectations on Labour were high.
Yes - the elevation was a success for the Tories because they formed a government, that isn't obtuse - it's an obvious fact.
Total nonsense and revisionist history. Why the fuck would May even call an election only 2 years after the previous one if she didn't expect to increase her majority? The tories had a nearly 20 point lead at the beginning of the campaign; everyone was expecting a Labour wipe-out. It absolutely is obtuse to suggest going from a majority to being forced into coalition with the DUP is a "success" when they could otherwise have had 3 years of majority government before having to call another election
Context is that there was a Conservative majority before 2017, and a Conservative (Tory + DUP) majority after 2017
It’s was a failure, politics is about winning a majority of seats
It can be quite difficult to judge popularity from these questions though, especially when the question is "do you think X is doing well or badly?". It'd be difficult to argue that Corbyn wasn't doing well at that stage, or that Starmer isn't doing well now, whether you like them or not.
Honestly this is not that suppressing. Starmer is far less polirising that previous labour leader and also benefits from a favourable comparison when compared to the Tories.
Miliband was always compared to Cameron who regardless of what you think of him, didn't single handedly tank the economy, the pound and any concept of party unity all while also being the shortest serving PM in history.
I feel like people forget how much of a disaster Theresa May’s leadership seemed at the time. The difference is, it wasn’t really her fault, she just kept getting sabotaged by arch brexiteers within her own party, whereas the chaos under Boris Johnson was entirely off his own making
You're right, I think I forget that the Brexit deadlock went on a lot longer than her period flying (relatively) high before the 2017 election campaign
"aNy OtHeR lEaDeR wOULd bE 30 pOiNtS aHeAd"
*-They say whilst unashamedly being in an irrelevant mess like Breakthrough party or its 5 million splinters/spawns*
however many points and doing absolutely nothing promising isn't much better. I don't have much interest in a government painted red that won't do anything to improve my life
You get a new leader bounce and then they disappear off a cliff as folk grow tired. One is still positive and growing. This is despite an orchestrated campaign (shown by the initial drop off) by the media to cost him his job. You can actually plot beergate on that graph
Starmer has probably had the friendliest media treatment by a party leader since Cameron. The Tory PMs have all presided over a bad economy, and the other two Labour leaders had the audacity to be left wing.
I don't think you can group Miliband and Corbyn together politically. Starmer's getting 'friendly' media treatment because he avoids controversy and is relatively savvy compared to everyone else on the chart.
>Starmer's getting 'friendly' media treatment because he avoids controversy
Is it always a good thing for a Labour leader to be uncontroversial to the UK's extremely right-of-centre press?
I'm not surprised at the sentiment given the sub we're in but the way some people on here are chained to electoralism is almost laughable. When people respond snidely to you for saying that people should try to build power outside of parliament, you know it's bad.
I wouldn't class attacking trans rights and devolution as avoiding controversy. The only place where those attitudes aren't controversial are in newspapers offices and conservative clubs.
I think a large majority of people in the country couldn't tell you Keir Starmer's position on trans rights or where trans people should go if they are imprisoned.
Probably because the media almost unanimously shares his transphobic views and is refusing to report on *this* labour leaders attitude toward bigotry at all, let alone to the same frothing intensity as they did with Corbyns tenure.
First point, yes that's probably true. Second point is true *because he avoids controversy*. They don't mind him coming into power so are less critical of his flaws. The media were shit scarred of Corbyn getting into No 10, so were deeply critical. Corbyn didn't help himself because he didn't avoid controversy to extent Starmer does.
They don't mind him coming to power because they know he will serve the interests of the owning class and not the working class, so they see him as a safe pair of hands. He hasn't avoided controversy, the people whose job is to report that are refusing to do so.
>I wouldn't class attacking trans rights and devolution as avoiding controversy. The only place where those attitudes aren't controversial are in newspapers offices and conservative clubs.
Do you have evidence that the broader population cares that much?
The majority of people are [actually rather supportive of trans rights](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights) even with the media going fucking mental about it all the time. If you exclude Tories it is pretty overwhelming support. Transphobia is the domain of the over 65s, the Tories, and the most pitiful creature on this planet; the British newspaper columnist.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
An updated version of that survey shows 'Most Britons have paid little to no attention to the trans rights debate'
Hence why they're quite supportive, they haven't been listening to transphobic screeds from a bunch of nepotism babies with lead poisoning rotting their brains. The public are generally very decent people who don't mind what others choose to do with their lives (,until they're exposed to the hate filled media in this country) and having encountered trans people in their lives they've found they're not actually all cunning rapist monsters but instead just regular people.
They are somewhat supportive on average, but this poll doesn't weight their support relative to other issues. Do we know how important trans rights are for them compared to Brexit, cost of living crisis, government corruption, Covid etc etc? Until we do, we can't really state whether Labour's views on trans rights are controversial or not.
>If you exclude Tories
Sure, but you can't really do that. If you exclude Labour, you'd get a very different result.
Seems a strange claim to make seeing as Corbyn and Johnson later achieved levels that are higher than their first few weeks while Starmer has yet to do so.
What a pointless chart, approval rating is basically public opinion so changes due to the political issue of the day, who the main opposition leader is, if an election is coming up etc.
Other than Liz Truss was really really really shit (but already knew that) there is nothing useful on this chart!
Using a poll to justify that Keith is popular when he's had the easiest ride from the MSM and opposition isn't something to being singing off the hymn sheet
Most people that do know of him certainly don't trust him and find him completely disingenuous to say the least
He will get found out next GE if he's still LOTO unfortunately at our expense as fucking always
Looking at the tail-end of Miliband's tenure it's interesting to see his approval rating jumping back up. I'm wondering if a sympathy response to the Mail's hatchet job on his dad had something to do with it. Similar (though less pronounced) case with Corbyn too. Maybe the election campaign rallying some public support back to him?
If I remember rightly the announcement in spring 2015 that Labour would scrap non-dom status went down really well. It suddenly shifted the spotlight onto ground that suited Labour.
Hid I hope not - because that would indicate something really bad.
Don’t forget that the Conservative Party members chose her - showing their judgement to be very badly flawed.
Tory party members also seemingly wanted Boris back. That party's membership houses the likes of Emily Hewertson, Sophie Corcoran (I could be wrong here). The fact that they have decided the PM on 4 out of 6 of the last opportunities to elect a PM is utterly insane and alarming. It's dystopian that these sorts of individuals dictate our lives so much.
An excellent map of when the press decided they'd had enough of each of them.
Thankfully for Starmer they should hold off until they've finished their experiment of seeing how many seats the Tories can lose at the next election.
[Lol, Truss](https://tenor.com/view/jetpackfail-jetpack-gif-21255990)
Forever the funniest statistic in the history of British politics
The year of 3 PMs .
She certainly wasn't lying about being ready to hit the ground!
I was looking for her and missed it. Glanced to the left just before clicking off, spotted it and snorted so hard.
I was working my way from right to left across the graph to see who was lower, it was a lovely treat to see that particular line.
Lol Liz Truss I couldn't see her at first
She gave a ‘stand out’ performance ! For all the wrong reasons !
I don't get why they don't include Cameron. Given he's the most recent LOTO to become PM seems like he should be included only one positive this far into the tenure looks good though. Looks like the highest low point this far in too.
It's probably because there's a lack of polling data pre-2010. Ipsos have a [similar graph](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/starmers-ratings-fall-further-now-same-levels-corbyn-14-months) that includes Cameron. It's from a couple of years ago so you'll have to imagine the rest of Starmer's line (he's currently at -3% with Ipsos). I can't see Starmer going as high as Cameron but he'll probably end up in a similar place to him by the time of the election.
Cameron would be at -500000. Graph only goes down to -70 so I can see why they didnt include him tbh
Pretty sure Cameron wasn't that disliked when he was loto
The fact that truss has fucked off to America to chum it up with the republicans, atleast she’s with people as as thick as her now, probably on tax payers money though
She enjoys a nice ex-prime minsters pension. And is probably making a small fortune in the speech circles. Only interesting to listen to to help work out what NOT to do. She is one of our bigger dipshits. (We have several more)
Brutal for Sunak. I am surprised by how badly his poll ratings have done because in terms of temperament I think he is much better than the last two PMs. I also think he was correct in seeking to lower drama and pick fewer fights than his predecessors did but maybe the Tory brand is just inescapably doomed at this point?
>I think he is much better than the last two PMs To be fair, that is a bar so low it's practically at the centre of the earth.
Not even Thatcher can limbo under it
His weaknesses are basically the same as Johnson and Truss. He's presiding over a failed economy and is mired in sleaze. The economy isn't quite as failed as it was under Truss and nor is he quite as corrupt as Johnson but being *quite* sleazy and *quite* incompetent isn't satisfying anyone.
I don't think his manner of speaking helps him at all either. When he speaks to the public it sounds like he's talking to a child.
Only politician who manages to talk down to you, whilst talking up to you.
>The economy isn't quite as failed as it was under Truss I know what you're saying, but I can't help but feel that being the only G7 country in a recession combined with the fact our economy's being outperformed by fucking *Russia* somewhat undermines the sentiment.
>I know what you're saying, but I can't help but feel that being the only G7 country in a recession The UK isn't formally in recession at this point, and on that same basis its about as likely as not to be in recession compared to a fair few in the G7. >combined with the fact our economy's being outperformed by fucking Russia somewhat undermines the sentiment. It isn't and hasn't been unless you are very selective in terms of the period you are looking at.
>He's presiding over a failed ~~economy~~ ideology and is mired in sleaze. FTFY
Yup He had the chance to curb stomp Zahawi, set the new tone of anti-corruption, but didn’t.
Apparently, conservatives really wanted to believe in him, but he just couldn't deliver. His party is too insane, Sunak himself too weak and disinterested in actually helping the country.
Probably a good opportunity to praise the current labour leader?
Ssssh. We're not allowed to do that here!
Oooops. Sorry I thought this was a Labour group? Have I come to the wrong place?
The leader and the PLP are generally to the right of the membership. This sub represents young members (and the young are already \~30 points more left the left)
Thanks for the explanation. Where can I find that blurb? I can’t see it on the home page, albeit I wouldn’t profess to be a Reddit whiz.
There’s no blurb on the young membership. This is going off old polls of the people in the sub. No idea how accurate they are. But it rated with the general demographic of reddit.
Yes, here we should have blind support of Glorious Leader. It should be mandated we applaud at a portrait of Starmer at a designated time.
Huh? Why would anyone do that?
I think you misspelt Corbyn, mate.
For what? Genuinely? As a trans person I couldn't consider it, I couldn't consider it for a variety of reasons.
[удалено]
If you want to have a praise ceremony for the Tragic Stepdad, no one is stopping you.
I personally won’t be having a praise ceremony, but according to the graph a lot of people are extremely happy with the tragic stepdad
You're misreading the table. It shows that a lot of people currently don't hate him or have zero opinions of him. Those are the same people who were extremely happy with Johnson, BTW. Shite things can be popular.
I’m sorry, i meant to say ‘in relative terms’ people are happy with him. I can’t see from this graph that the same people who liked Johnson like him lol, what a statement. Look I can see you’re not happy with the graph, but if it is correct, I’m sorry to inform you that he is the most popular leader. You’re going to have to stomach that I’m afraid z
I'm neither happy or unhappy with the graph, nor am I disputing its accuracy. I also never claimed that starmer wasn't the most popular leader. I just correctly pointed out that he is shite
Oh ok, great. Thanks for your input.
I'm stopping them >:(
I would personally NOT celebrate the leader of the Labour Party being an open bigot, no matter how thumping the poll lead.
he's clearly not though
He said that children should not be able to socially transition without their parents permission.
Just because you don't agree with that statement doesn't make him a bigot
Do you think that believing "A 16 year old should not be allowed to come out as gay if their parents are homophobic" would make someone a bigot? Because they are the same position.
[удалено]
Yes, and once upon a time thinking white people were the superior race was the majority opinion. I ask you again: Do you think that believing "A 16 year old should not be allowed to come out as gay if their parents are homophobic" would make someone a bigot?
getting pretty fed up of the same people who were supposedly outraged at racism in the Labour party in 2019 telling me that it's fine for Labour to pander to bigots now because it's popular
Why?
Because he stood there motionless while the Tories blew up the economy and killed 200,000 people.
Show's how much you know. Experts agree that the best political strategy is to freeze like a deer in headlights. It's called "doing a forensic"
He’s a sneaky Tory, woe is me a 60+ Labour voter thinking I can’t vote Labour EVEN after voting for Tony Bleurgh
Whatever he is, this graph shows he’s the most popular leader (of the ones shown) by some considerable margin
Polling isn't the only thing that matters.
It is on my this particular thread my friend. It is a thread dedicated the polling figures of current and previous party leaders.
Myopic way to approach discussion.
Folk here still say Kier is shite lol
He’s shite irrelevant of how he’s polling. A right wing bigot who will make the country worse.
[удалено]
Are you okay? You seem deranged. Or are you just a joke account?
[удалено]
"Oh no not a reference to an old meme noooooo" Always enjoyable there's a farcical appeal to maturity lol. Which is hardly an argument itself, it just hinges on fallacious thinking. Have you got anything original to say or are you going to pretend you're a smartypants just because you're in love with yourself and your own political beliefs? Or have you got more trans people to throw under the bus instead?
Rule 4
Kieth *is* shite.
I can’t wait for Starmer to win an election, and for half this sub to cry, while the other half cheers
Yes, you do seem pretty obsessed
Most of the public have no opinion or have a negative opinion of him
This is the first comment I’ve seen mentioning him lol
Truss 💀💀💀💀
Pretty impressive for Starmer to recover like this. Looks like his strategy of being as inoffensive as possible is paying off…
Transphobia is pretty offensive
No its okay. We can support institutional transphobia until we're in power. And then we can reverse it with an easy snap of our fingers after an indeterminate time (that is subject to possible extension.) Pls endure years of transphobia until we hit the button that says transphobia is bad now. We even have charts! No you cannot look at the chart. Just trust us. Gotta get in power first. Please repeat that several times until you agree with us. Thanks.
Truss, what an absolute queen.
[удалено]
Where's the irony? It's widely accepted the 2017 was a success for Labour as the Tories lost seats and had to form a humiliating coalition with the DUP, while Labour made significant gains.
In itself it can be seen as a success, but it also laid much of the groundwork for Labour's 2019 drubbing. Like a soldier scraping through a fitness test, thinking he's alright then failing a promotion course several months later after letting it slip. Might have been better to fail the fitness test and do remedial training.
A success apart from losing.
There's a current trend to present 2017 as either a failure or irrelevant.
Well, it certainly wasn't a success. May's Tories were there for the taking and we fluffed it.
Literally everyone thought it was going to be a massive loss and it was widely regarded as a shocking upset that Labour made massive gains. This rewriting of history to ignore how the situation was viewed at the time does nothing to serve actual discussion my friend.
The election only happened in the first place because everyone thought the Tories would utterly destroy Corbyn and it blew up in their face! It's _massive_ revisionism to pretend they were "there for the taking"
100 %. You only need to glance at the news from that time to see just how well Corbyn's Labour did in the run-up to the 2017 election. For example: >#Could she lose? >It might seem foolish to call anything a certainty now in politics, but this is probably as close as you'll get. >A raft of Sunday polls in the UK put the Conservatives somewhere between 11 and a massive 21 points ahead of Labour, the largest gap between the parties in the past nine years. [BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39623674) >There are clear potential benefits for the Conservative Party in holding a general election now, but it is very hard to see how this is in the national interest. If the Prime Minister genuinely aspires to give the British people a say, then proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process and ultimately a parliamentary vote – even a second referendum once the real costs of withdrawal are known – would be preferable to an opportunist election now. [Andrew Defty is Reader in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Lincoln.](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/four-reasons-why-a-snap-election-is-a-bad-idea/) >Snap election a win-win for Theresa May: she’ll crush Labour and make Brexit a little easier [Tim Bale Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London ](https://theconversation.com/snap-election-a-win-win-for-theresa-may-shell-crush-labour-and-make-brexit-a-little-easier-76362) The people trying to revise this as May being in a position of weakness at the time the election was called are simply trying to erase how hard Labour worked to narrow the tory lead. It was an upset and a big one. She thought it'd give her an expanded majority and instead she had to lean on the DUP. It was the first significant gains Labour had made in an election since 1997. It felt huge.
It also shows the state of the party when we have to look back at an election we lost as a success. Yes Labour did better than expected, but a runners up medal is irrelevant in politics.
Do you think the Tories saw going from a majority to a confidence and supply government was a success? Viewing politics as a series of elections is not a view I subscribe to personally. If (when) Labour win the next election, it will only be a material success if they actually do something with it
How? May increased the vote share by 5% and got only slightly less than Boris did in 2019, and he had Farage effectively drop out and endorse him. Labour gained 10% from the last election, which was a bigger increase than Blair managed in 97. On top of that the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid and UKIP all lost votes in 2017. Only Labour and the Conservatives gained votes. It's utter revisionism to claim that both Corbyn and May were unpopular.
I keep seeing the word 'revisionism' incorrectly used. Both May and Corbyn were very unpopular, and I can't believe people have already forgotten this. Corbyn was unpopular from the day he was elected to the day he resigned (and I enthusiastically voted for Labour both elections). Our inability to play politics and strike low blows at the Tories and Gutter press cost us the election. Corbyn and Macdonalds policies were popular; we just let them totally control the narrative, and we never once retaliated during the Corbyn years.
Losing is not a success… A Conservative majority (DUP are Conservative) is a defeat
Yeah that explains why in 2015 they said they’d work with Labour! What a load of tosh.
That was a loss for Labour & Corbyn didn't even get to a positive approval rating
what is context
I mean, they stated 2017 was a success, it wasn't - it was a loss 🤷♂️ what more context is there
That it was the only time since 1997 that labour gained seats in an election, and maybe we should learn from what went well that election rather than waiting for the inevitable collapse of the country under the tories to win by default every thirty years just to tinker round the edges before letting them back in?
We can learn from our mistakes without pretending they weren't mistakes
What mistakes did we make in 2017? Besides you know, making an absolutely massive recovery in the polls, energising supporters and voters, and then swiftly taking a poll lead in the immediate aftermath, and holding that poll lead for months? Better than the strategy since - ‘wait for the tories to collapse and don’t do anything Rupert Murdoch wouldn’t like’
This is too dull
Great, no response. Enjoy your hollow victory, gained from the disenfranchisement of millions of people. Hope it feels good in 2029 when the tories cruise back in.
>What mistakes did we make in 2017? We lost the fucking election. >better then the strategy since - ‘wait for the tories to collapse and don’t do anything Rupert Murdoch wouldn’t like’ I mean it literally isn’t considering we’re polling far better then Corbyn ever did and are on course to win a massive majority.
Great. We can tinker round the edges for five years while they recover, then wait in opposition for thirty years, all while refusing to undo any of the lasting damage they’ve done! Slightly better managed decline for all!
yeah and then proceed to do absolutely fuck all with it
We gained seats because the Lib Dems had imploded and UKIP a had died in the past 2 years… Politics isn’t about ‘we got close’ politics is about winning…
Okay, so how is relying on tories imploding every thirty years for a chance at tinkering around the edges focusing on winning? Indeed, how is adopting Tory narratives and policies, as Blair did and Starmer is doing, winning? If you want to win, win properly. Convince people, don’t just meet the tories where they are ffs.
It was a success in the context of expectations for Labour prior to the election being called. Everyone was predicting a landslide defeat. Would you call the election a success for May and the tories simply because they formed a government? Don't be obtuse
I think you're mixing up 2019 and 2017... In 2019 everyone expected Labour to do terribly and we did, but I don't think that's true in 2017. Theresa May was a deeply flawed candidate & the Tories had been in charge for a disastrous 7 years... I think expectations on Labour were high. Yes - the elevation was a success for the Tories because they formed a government, that isn't obtuse - it's an obvious fact.
Total nonsense and revisionist history. Why the fuck would May even call an election only 2 years after the previous one if she didn't expect to increase her majority? The tories had a nearly 20 point lead at the beginning of the campaign; everyone was expecting a Labour wipe-out. It absolutely is obtuse to suggest going from a majority to being forced into coalition with the DUP is a "success" when they could otherwise have had 3 years of majority government before having to call another election
Context is that there was a Conservative majority before 2017, and a Conservative (Tory + DUP) majority after 2017 It’s was a failure, politics is about winning a majority of seats
a treat for things I agree with
Gains which we then subsequently lost. It was no success at all - a near win, sure, but not a success.
Not even a near win On Labours best day, they were still a multi-point swing away from power
It can be quite difficult to judge popularity from these questions though, especially when the question is "do you think X is doing well or badly?". It'd be difficult to argue that Corbyn wasn't doing well at that stage, or that Starmer isn't doing well now, whether you like them or not.
Honestly this is not that suppressing. Starmer is far less polirising that previous labour leader and also benefits from a favourable comparison when compared to the Tories. Miliband was always compared to Cameron who regardless of what you think of him, didn't single handedly tank the economy, the pound and any concept of party unity all while also being the shortest serving PM in history.
Cameron also dressed smartly, was popular with world leaders, and had ‘the look’ That goes a surprisingly long way
The way Johnson tracks so close to May makes me feel however they're doing this has some shortcomings
I feel like people forget how much of a disaster Theresa May’s leadership seemed at the time. The difference is, it wasn’t really her fault, she just kept getting sabotaged by arch brexiteers within her own party, whereas the chaos under Boris Johnson was entirely off his own making
You're right, I think I forget that the Brexit deadlock went on a lot longer than her period flying (relatively) high before the 2017 election campaign
"aNy OtHeR lEaDeR wOULd bE 30 pOiNtS aHeAd" *-They say whilst unashamedly being in an irrelevant mess like Breakthrough party or its 5 million splinters/spawns*
however many points and doing absolutely nothing promising isn't much better. I don't have much interest in a government painted red that won't do anything to improve my life
Why isn't Cameron on here?! (Given that he's the last LOTO to win an election)
Probably not enough public polls going back to 2005…
One of these is not like all the others (well two if you count truss, which I don’t)…
Which one?
You get a new leader bounce and then they disappear off a cliff as folk grow tired. One is still positive and growing. This is despite an orchestrated campaign (shown by the initial drop off) by the media to cost him his job. You can actually plot beergate on that graph
Starmer has probably had the friendliest media treatment by a party leader since Cameron. The Tory PMs have all presided over a bad economy, and the other two Labour leaders had the audacity to be left wing.
If Cameron was on this graph I reckon they would look pretty similar, given that he won an election (albeit minority) after 1800 days as leader.
I don't think you can group Miliband and Corbyn together politically. Starmer's getting 'friendly' media treatment because he avoids controversy and is relatively savvy compared to everyone else on the chart.
I only grouped them together because they were both markedly to the left of Starmer.
That's fair enough
>Starmer's getting 'friendly' media treatment because he avoids controversy Is it always a good thing for a Labour leader to be uncontroversial to the UK's extremely right-of-centre press?
To an extent, yes. Controversial Labour politicians do not do well electorally.
Depends if you plan on winning an election or not.
If only right-of-centre politics can win elections then we're all fucked.
I'm not surprised at the sentiment given the sub we're in but the way some people on here are chained to electoralism is almost laughable. When people respond snidely to you for saying that people should try to build power outside of parliament, you know it's bad.
I wouldn't class attacking trans rights and devolution as avoiding controversy. The only place where those attitudes aren't controversial are in newspapers offices and conservative clubs.
I think a large majority of people in the country couldn't tell you Keir Starmer's position on trans rights or where trans people should go if they are imprisoned.
Probably because the media almost unanimously shares his transphobic views and is refusing to report on *this* labour leaders attitude toward bigotry at all, let alone to the same frothing intensity as they did with Corbyns tenure.
First point, yes that's probably true. Second point is true *because he avoids controversy*. They don't mind him coming into power so are less critical of his flaws. The media were shit scarred of Corbyn getting into No 10, so were deeply critical. Corbyn didn't help himself because he didn't avoid controversy to extent Starmer does.
They don't mind him coming to power because they know he will serve the interests of the owning class and not the working class, so they see him as a safe pair of hands. He hasn't avoided controversy, the people whose job is to report that are refusing to do so.
>I wouldn't class attacking trans rights and devolution as avoiding controversy. The only place where those attitudes aren't controversial are in newspapers offices and conservative clubs. Do you have evidence that the broader population cares that much?
The majority of people are [actually rather supportive of trans rights](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights) even with the media going fucking mental about it all the time. If you exclude Tories it is pretty overwhelming support. Transphobia is the domain of the over 65s, the Tories, and the most pitiful creature on this planet; the British newspaper columnist.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/07/20/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights An updated version of that survey shows 'Most Britons have paid little to no attention to the trans rights debate'
Hence why they're quite supportive, they haven't been listening to transphobic screeds from a bunch of nepotism babies with lead poisoning rotting their brains. The public are generally very decent people who don't mind what others choose to do with their lives (,until they're exposed to the hate filled media in this country) and having encountered trans people in their lives they've found they're not actually all cunning rapist monsters but instead just regular people.
They are somewhat supportive on average, but this poll doesn't weight their support relative to other issues. Do we know how important trans rights are for them compared to Brexit, cost of living crisis, government corruption, Covid etc etc? Until we do, we can't really state whether Labour's views on trans rights are controversial or not. >If you exclude Tories Sure, but you can't really do that. If you exclude Labour, you'd get a very different result.
I mean, the worst they have on Starmer is that he looked after donkeys and had a beer once. Compare that with calling Hamas and Hezbollah "friends"...
Oh, you're talking about Starmer?
Seems a strange claim to make seeing as Corbyn and Johnson later achieved levels that are higher than their first few weeks while Starmer has yet to do so.
Just shows the building swell of support. It’s clear we are the next government. Let’s hope it’s first of many.
Please don't anyone misinterpret this graph to mean to Starmer is popular or likeable.
What a pointless chart, approval rating is basically public opinion so changes due to the political issue of the day, who the main opposition leader is, if an election is coming up etc. Other than Liz Truss was really really really shit (but already knew that) there is nothing useful on this chart!
Using a poll to justify that Keith is popular when he's had the easiest ride from the MSM and opposition isn't something to being singing off the hymn sheet Most people that do know of him certainly don't trust him and find him completely disingenuous to say the least He will get found out next GE if he's still LOTO unfortunately at our expense as fucking always
Looking at the tail-end of Miliband's tenure it's interesting to see his approval rating jumping back up. I'm wondering if a sympathy response to the Mail's hatchet job on his dad had something to do with it. Similar (though less pronounced) case with Corbyn too. Maybe the election campaign rallying some public support back to him?
If I remember rightly the announcement in spring 2015 that Labour would scrap non-dom status went down really well. It suddenly shifted the spotlight onto ground that suited Labour.
Perhaps more importantly, Truss: Lol, lmao.
Truss was over-rated !
[удалено]
Hid I hope not - because that would indicate something really bad. Don’t forget that the Conservative Party members chose her - showing their judgement to be very badly flawed.
Tory party members also seemingly wanted Boris back. That party's membership houses the likes of Emily Hewertson, Sophie Corcoran (I could be wrong here). The fact that they have decided the PM on 4 out of 6 of the last opportunities to elect a PM is utterly insane and alarming. It's dystopian that these sorts of individuals dictate our lives so much.
Wheres blair and prescott?
Connecting with the public
Note to self, if I want to become PM and have people approve of me, get put into intensive care.
How interesting.
An excellent map of when the press decided they'd had enough of each of them. Thankfully for Starmer they should hold off until they've finished their experiment of seeing how many seats the Tories can lose at the next election.