This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[CumbrianLefty]

And there's some wretched Twitter rumpus about Nandy supposedly saying "Britain first".

(it appears that perhaps she didn't, but what *were* her exact words?)

[Blair]

FWIW didn’t we have this whole debate When RLB did her progressive patriotism article?

And there's some wretched Twitter rumpus about Nandy supposedly saying "Britain first".

(it appears that perhaps she didn't, but what *were* her exact words?)

My first thought was that this might be a hangover from the leadership election; I remember the level of vitriolic attacks on Nandy were quite high and I remember being extremely thankful that the very online lot spent a lot time attacking her rather than Keir...

[Blair]

In news three PPS’s (lowest level of the front bench, bag carriers to shadow ministers) have left after rebelling to vote against the Overseas Operations Bill; when the labour line was to abstain.

Ofc one of them Nadia Whitthome found out live on TV as she assumed she could break the whip and stay on the frontbench.

I don’t use it anymore but seems to be some low level anger over it; ironically no-one cares about the other two quitting.

The bigger news is that others didn’t quit; Sam Tarry, Nav Mishra, Kim Johnson and Dan Carden all remain.

This will shift the FB to the right but give the SCG 3 more votes

[EastAnglianLefty]

It's a situation that nobody comes out of with much credit. On the one hand, abstaining to send a message is as pointless a strategy as it's always been; on the other hand, abstaining on a vote that's going to pass anyway is not a huge ask, and if you can't make that compromise then you're never going to last very long on the frontbenches anyway.

I suspect those three will probably get another opportunity in a year or two, but very few people get a third such opportunity.

[CumbrianLefty]

The most credible explanation of this I have seen is that Labour taking a definite stance over this might have cost them actual front benchers, abstaining kept the "losses" to a handful of PPSs. Now that isn't exactly a noble reason either, but it maybe makes more sense than the rather pat "they won't do anything to upset these increasingly imaginary 'Red Wall' voters".

[Blair]

https://news.sky.com/story/leicester-east-mp-claudia-webbe-charged-with-harassment-against-female-12084430

[CumbrianLefty]

What's the worst that can happen to her if she is found guilty?

Considering what her predecessor got away with in pretty much broad daylight, it would indeed be ironic if she fell foul of the law so quickly. And no, i didn't think she was anything like 55.

[EastAnglianLefty]

What's the worst that can happen to her if she is found guilty?

Considering what her predecessor got away with in pretty much broad daylight, it would indeed be ironic if she fell foul of the law so quickly. And no, i didn't think she was anything like 55.

Sentencing guidelines say that if it's not racially/religiously aggravated then the maximum sentence is 6 months imprisonment. It's triable in a magistrates' court, so ordinarily you might expect it to be dealt with quicker but given the delays in the system at the moment I'd be surprised if there's a verdict before 2022.

[CumbrianLefty]

So still not looking good for her if she is convicted.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If she's convicted there's little doubt that the Vaz machine would be able to produce the necessary signatures for a recall in double-quick time, frankly.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Though a recall is only triggered if a custodial sentence is imposed, or a sufficiently long suspension from the House.

Without knowing the details of the offence there's no way to be certain, but I suspect that most convictions for harassment don't lead to actual prison time. So possibly the biggest threat she faces is from the Standards Committee.

[Blair]

I might be wrong but don't most cases go to a Magistrates first before then being sent to the Crown Court?

[cp]

https://twitter.com/BenJolly9/status/1309766414006398979

Sad to say, but this is a far more perspicacious forum for gauging popular opinion and political skill than PMQs ever was or will be.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

[cp]

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

Actual representative surveys mean nothing. Corbyn was personally popular for a good spell around and after the 2017 election. It's how the person is portrayed that matters, especially in putatively unmediated forums like Gogglebox.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

Actual representative surveys mean nothing.

Well that's just - there is no other way to put this - simply not true.

Corbyn polled better at the time you mention, when more people actually liked him.

This isn't rocket science.

[DaWN]

Actual representative surveys mean nothing.

This has to be a joke.

[afleitch]

He's like a Labour Theresa May.

[Cassius]

Gogglebox is the best argument for returning the electorate to its pre-1832 size. Irrelevant nonsense.

[Silent Hunter]

Gogglebox is the best argument for returning the electorate to its pre-1832 size. Irrelevant nonsense.

Enjoyable nonsense with a big audience who would otherwise see little of politics.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

Actual representative surveys mean nothing. Corbyn was personally popular for a good spell around and after the 2017 election.

Yes, and Labour did (relative to how it "by rights should" have done) very well in the 2017 election. How is that an argument for surveys not meaning anything?

He's like a Labour Theresa May.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not familiar enough with Starmer's public image or "aesthetic" to know what exactly you mean by this.

[cp]

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

Actual representative surveys mean nothing.

Well that's just - there is no other way to put this - simply not true.

Corbyn polled better at the time you mention, when more people actually liked him.

This isn't rocket science.

Oh my sweet summer child ...

What's untrue is the premise, upon which your estimation is based, that popular opinion of political leaders is primarily dependent on the intrinsic characteristics and personalities of those leaders. It isn't. If it was, Johnson would have been laughed out of the backbench 15 years ago and Ed Milliband would be Prime Minister.

My point is that the image of politicians confected by journalists, partisans, and professional opinion-havers is the primary determinant of how said politicians are perceived. The surveys produced to quantify this process are at best seen as symptoms of their efforts or (more accurately) additional fodder for spin. Gogglebox, for all its shortcomings, at least has the virtue of capturing live and instinctual reactions. It's harder for spin doctors with budgets to pay for favourable polling to manipulate.

You're right that this isn't rocket science. It's politics. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the difference.

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

Actual representative surveys mean nothing. Corbyn was personally popular for a good spell around and after the 2017 election.

Yes, and Labour did (relative to how it "by rights should" have done) very well in the 2017 election. How is that an argument for surveys not meaning anything?

The surveys showing Corbyn as popular came at the end of the 2017 campaign and in the month after. That is to say, when the influence on public perception held by procedural formulaic polling had been largely superseded by the alternative lens - I would argue, less biased lens - of the equal time provisions of the campaign (and, admittedly, the aura of success that came from the momentum Corbyn generated).

[Blair]

The shocking revelation for me is that googlebox is still on TV.

I don't understand the argument; is it that this reveals that the public do not like Starmer or that Starmer will not be liked because he's getting slagged off on gogglebox?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

Actual representative surveys mean nothing.

Well that's just - there is no other way to put this - simply not true.

Corbyn polled better at the time you mention, when more people actually liked him.

This isn't rocket science.

Oh my sweet summer child ...

What's untrue is the premise, upon which your estimation is based, that popular opinion of political leaders is primarily dependent on the intrinsic characteristics and personalities of those leaders. It isn't. If it was, Johnson would have been laughed out of the backbench 15 years ago and Ed Milliband would be Prime Minister.

My point is that the image of politicians confected by journalists, partisans, and professional opinion-havers is the primary determinant of how said politicians are perceived. The surveys produced to quantify this process are at best seen as symptoms of their efforts or (more accurately) additional fodder for spin. Gogglebox, for all its shortcomings, at least has the virtue of capturing live and instinctual reactions. It's harder for spin doctors with budgets to pay for favourable polling to manipulate.

You're right that this isn't rocket science. It's politics. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the difference.

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

Actual representative surveys mean nothing. Corbyn was personally popular for a good spell around and after the 2017 election.

Yes, and Labour did (relative to how it "by rights should" have done) very well in the 2017 election. How is that an argument for surveys not meaning anything?

The surveys showing Corbyn as popular came at the end of the 2017 campaign and in the month after. That is to say, when the influence on public perception held by procedural formulaic polling had been largely superseded by the alternative lens - I would argue, less biased lens - of the equal time provisions of the campaign (and, admittedly, the aura of success that came from the momentum Corbyn generated).

You could have saved yourself a few minutes and just posted the image instead

[cp]

The shocking revelation for me is that googlebox is still on TV.

Ratings wise it pulls in at least a few million each episode. About the same as some of the better panel shows (QI, 8 out of 10 Cats), and about half as much as daytime soaps like Coronation St.

By contrast, PMQs only gets above 1M when there's a new leader or it's September 2019, and that only lasts a week.

My point is that the efforts of Starmer's acolytes to portray his forensic (ugh) performances in PMQs and the wholly predictable improvement over Corbyn's late 2019 numbers as something voters are impressed by is little more than wishful thinking.