theclaud
Reading around the chip
It's Boldon Lad level disingenuity
Ha! I'm going to steal this formulation.
It's Boldon Lad level disingenuity
There'll be a few Tories amongst them. After all, it only cost £1 to help shatter the Labour party for an electoral term.
What, like this you mean?
View attachment 3920
That is the constituency polling. The regional polling is near identical.
Oh.
View attachment 3929
It's almost as though the Scottish electorate are starting to think about this, scratching their heads & wondering if voting for continuation Tory hard-Brexit, anti-refugee, privatise-the-NHS, roll back devolution policies, reintroducing prescription charges and ending free further education might possibly not be in their best interests.
And then this.
View: https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/1661335145654235139?s=20
It's Boldon Lad level disingenuity to complain about supposition (execpt I backed it up with evidence) whilst serving up your own suppositions.. Incidentally, the suggestion that people who'd nturally vote for the very much left leaning Greens would vote for Starmer on the strength of his right of centre policies is just daft.
Support for the SNP has actually been quite consistent, allowing for noise - right up to spring this year. That coincides rather well with their funding scandal breaking out. The rise in Labour support closely mirrors the fall in Conservative support. Remember what I said about the historical precedent of Labour being the natural beneficiary of disaffectted Tories?
And why are you still banging on about Corbyn? I've not mentioned Corbyn, because he just isn't relevant any more. Dismissing those 100,000 ex Labour members are Corbynites is shallow. The usual rule of thumb is that the number of diaffected voters in the electorate is ten times greater - and that's an awful large number to dismiss. Losing all those votes sis a high risk strategy: especially when you consider that there's a good chance they'll be gone for good.
Fundamentally, it's not enough for Starmer to style himself as a more competent version of the Tories. He hasn't the charisma to pull that off. Support from jaded Conservative supporters won't last long with that strategy. He needs to be different, with distinct policies to the Tories, and appealing. Blair, for all his faults, understood that. Oh... and because I just know that some tediously tendentious comparison between my saying distinct policies and Corbyn is rushing to your keyboard this very instant, well no, it really isn't. There are plenty of policies, all it takes is some imagination. I just wish that Starmer had some.
Don't be mean to Slowmo. His £1 bumped Liz Kendall up to 4%.
[Corbyn won the leadership comfortably amongst existing members as well - the registered supporters didn't swing it for him. But it was very enjoyable that the scheme was dreamed up by the Labour right, under the delusional belief that centrist politics has vast popular appeal.]
Oh.
View attachment 3929
It's almost as though the Scottish electorate are starting to think about this, scratching their heads & wondering if voting for continuation Tory hard-Brexit, anti-refugee, privatise-the-NHS, roll back devolution policies, reintroducing prescription charges and ending free further education might possibly not be in their best interests.
And then this.
View: https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/1661335145654235139?s=20
Nevertheless, I know for a fact that many Tories joined the Labour party for a quid expressly to elect Corbyn...and it wasn't because they thought he would win a GE.
Yes dear - it was the fact the Starmer Scottish Surge is trending downwards that was the point of my post.
Surprised I needed to explain. Or am I?
Yes, that is definitely a downward trend
View attachment 3930
As is Labour's projection to almost half SNP lead in seats, based on current polling.
Unless of course if you can explain how '+' is actually '-', and vice-versa
I've given you not one, but two graphics.
Bring me three or accept defeat.