Excellent Interview

[theclaud]

LOL yeah we all remember Jess Phillips famously knocking on 25,000 doors in the six weeks of the 2017 election.

It's the stuff of legend.

 

[Rusty Nails]

In it for the long haul ? He's one of a handful of MP that deserves reconigtion for what he's done and been through.
I get the Corbyn has gone move on.But it's infuriating watching the Labour Files/AlJazeera documentary about the Labour Party staff and MPs who went against party members who supported Corbyn.Whatever you think of him it's a discrace and it should say far more about them than it does about him.

I'm not on about Corbyn. He was/is a principled politician.

In it for the long haul was actually a compliment.

 

[theclaud]

Anyway, here's a more sophisticated analysis which references the same data.

Relative deprivation was plainly a significant factor that drove people, and particularly first-time joiners, to join Labour once a candidate with a clear radical profile was on the leadership ballot: those who might be labelled ‘left behind’ flocked to Jeremy Corbyn’s colours, including graduates earning less than the average income. Anti-capitalist values also appeared to be a feature of the new members, as was disenchantment with politics as usual and a yearning for a new style of politics. However, incentives like ideology mattered too. Post-2015 recruits who had previously belonged to the Labour Party and who rejoined it were more left wing. Demographic factors played only a limited part in understanding Labour’s membership surge, although it looks as if those in lower social grades seemed to be more likely than others to be attracted to the party. First-time joiners were not, on the whole, university graduates or high-income middle-class radicals; rather, they looked a little more like the party’s ‘traditional’ grassroots, being less educated and in lower status occupations than existing members. In addition, although first-time joiners were younger than returning members, the average post-2015 recruit is still middle aged. There were also more women among the new recruits, which is interesting and requires further investigation. How all these developments affect the party’s policy platform – theoretically responsive to its grassroots – is well worth watching.

The last sentence is a little sad in its innocence, in view of the subsequent leadership's war on the grassroots.

 

[Rusty Nails]

LOL yeah we all remember Jess Phillips famously knocking on 25,000 doors in the six weeks of the 2017 election.

Is she one of the branch members you call a shower of sh*t?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Anyway, here's a more sophisticated analysis which references the same data.

Relative deprivation was plainly a significant factor that drove people, and particularly first-time joiners, to join Labour once a candidate with a clear radical profile was on the leadership ballot: those who might be labelled ‘left behind’ flocked to Jeremy Corbyn’s colours, including graduates earning less than the average income. Anti-capitalist values also appeared to be a feature of the new members, as was disenchantment with politics as usual and a yearning for a new style of politics. However, incentives like ideology mattered too. Post-2015 recruits who had previously belonged to the Labour Party and who rejoined it were more left wing. Demographic factors played only a limited part in understanding Labour’s membership surge, although it looks as if those in lower social grades seemed to be more likely than others to be attracted to the party. First-time joiners were not, on the whole, university graduates or high-income middle-class radicals; rather, they looked a little more like the party’s ‘traditional’ grassroots, being less educated and in lower status occupations than existing members. In addition, although first-time joiners were younger than returning members, the average post-2015 recruit is still middle aged. There were also more women among the new recruits, which is interesting and requires further investigation. How all these developments affect the party’s policy platform – theoretically responsive to its grassroots – is well worth watching.

The last sentence is a little sad in its innocence, in view of the subsequent leadership's war on the grassroots.

Experts schmexperts... The view of those unsophisticates of the LSE:

"First up, we find that new members are not significantly younger or more working class – but they are more likely to be slightly less well-off and female. The average age of both old and new members is 51 and more than half of them are graduates (56% and 58% respectively). Whereas three quarters of them live in households in which the chief income earner (CIE) has a ‘middle class’ (ABC1) occupation (76% vs. 75%), a third (34%) of old members’ household gross income falls below the national average of around £35,000 –something that’s the case for 41% of new members. Moreover, women make up a greater proportion of the new members than of the older members (52% to 38%). Corbyn, then, does not seem to have attracted a very different type of crowd in many socio-demographic respects, except insofar as it is slightly less well-off and more gender-balanced.
New members are certainly not very different from the old members when it comes to their views on the state vs the market. The overwhelming majority of members are pretty left wing, whether they joined prior to the 2015 GE or after.
They do, however, self-position differently on a left (0) – right (10) scale, with new members seeing themselves as significantly more left-wing (1.95) than older members (2.39). And if we isolate only Momentum members (10%), this difference is even more accentuated, given that they self-locate a full point further to the left than older members (1.39). Thus, in terms of subjective self-image, which probably embraces more than just state-market opinions, the new members see themselves as something of a leftist vanguard."

 

[theclaud]

Experts schmexperts... The view of those unsophisticates of the LSE:

Same blog as Aurora linked to, Rusty. The study is one of two referenced in my link, which is a meta-analysis, two years on, by a team including the same authors. I don't know where you think you are going with this, or why you imagine it's such a gotcha.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The fact that new first time members were younger and were attracted by Corbyn's radical agenda is no surprise. As is the fact that the new first time members were poorer. Most people are earning more at 40 than at 20. Most people are further 'left' at 20 than at 40. You'd think they'd have a bit more energy to go knocking on doors though wouldn't you?

The fact that they are poorer than current members doesn't mean they aren't middle class. I suspect that for some of them Corbyn was their latest radical hobby and when that didn't immediately pan out they moved on to the next thing. Shouting abuse at women's meetings or pouring sh*t over an old bloke's statue, or whatever performative identity indulgence passes for political activism these days.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Same blog as Aurora linked to, Rusty. The study is one of two referenced in my link, which is a meta-analysis, two years on, by a team including the same authors. I don't know where you think you are going with this, or why you imagine it's such a gotcha.

I don't do gotchas, they rarely work in political discussions. It was a furtherance about the discussion about the "youth, energy and optimism" of the new influx of members and a response that just shows that issues can quite legitimately be seen differently depending on the perspective of the viewers.

Just as your point about Jess Phillips was not a gotcha about the efforts or commitment of those party members you appear to despise, just a cheap jibe.

 

[BoldonLad]

Has any one done a report, or analysis of how many joined the Labour Party, to vote for Corbyn as leader, on the basis that this made them unelectable?, job done, they did not renew their membership.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Has any one done a report, or analysis of how many joined the Labour Party, to vote for Corbyn as leader, on the basis that this made them unelectable?, job done, they did not renew their membership.

I seem to remember that this did come up at the time, mainly as "clever" suggestions online by idiots such as Toby Young and Louise Mensch (remember her, it seems she is still batsh*t crazy and fitting in well in the US) and in rags such as the Telegraph, but was looked into and found to be of no significance in the overall numbers joining and another one of those loony conspiracy theories that political nerds love.

 

[BoldonLad]

I seem to remember that this did come up at the time, mainly as "clever" suggestions online by idiots such as Toby Young and Louise Mensch (remember her, it seems she is still batsh*t crazy and fitting in well in the US) and in rags such as the Telegraph, but was looked into and found to be of no significance in the overall numbers joining and another one of those loony conspiracy theories that political nerds love.

and, still, he didn't win the Election, but, at least we know it was "looked into" so, all is well

 

[AuroraSaab]

Wasn't it David Lammy who nominated Corbyn? Then said he only did it because he didn't think he had a chance of winning. Play stupid games get ... etc.

I'll be interested to see the breakdown of those leaving the Labour Party, especially by age and sex. Wonder if it's older women leaving Labour. I know a lot of women my age feel politically homeless at the moment.

 

[Rusty Nails]

and, still, he didn't win the Election, but, at least we know it was "looked into" so, all is well

By all means keep up the conspiracy theory, especially if you have any inside knowledge.

 

[BoldonLad]

By all means keep up the conspiracy theory, especially if you have any inside knowledge.

Is it a conspiracy, if lots of people, happen to act in the same way, without it being organised, by a third party?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Wasn't it David Lammy who nominated Corbyn? Then said he only did it because he didn't think he had a chance of winning. Play stupid games get ... etc.

Corbyn needed a certain number of nominations from parliamentary colleagues. As the deadline approached he was scratching around for the last few.

Not sure about David Lammy but IIRC another nominator was Margaret Becket. Seems they thought it 'fair' to allow the left onto the slate. Assumption was that the Corbyn candidacy, like that of Diane Abbot in a previous contest, would founder with all hands in the first stage of the ballot.

Presumably they'd not read or understood the new system.