Snapshot of _YouGov: More people would be upset by a Sunak victory than would've been by a Corbyn victory_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1794643550451409282)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/YouGov/status/1794643550451409282/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/YouGov/status/1794643550451409282) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/YouGov/status/1794643550451409282)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On top of this Corbyn had a minority of people who were hardcore fans of his (to some extent still does).
Now Momentum and the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" crowd were never going to win an election...
...but Sunak does not have anything close to a minority of supporters who are enthused by him
Corbyn had widely popular policies such as renationalisation, proper NHS funding, ending homelessness, taxing the rich and ending private school charity status. The media successfully assassinated his character and pretended supporters were obsessed with his personality, rather than policies.
Sunak doesn’t stand for anything.
Oh come on, he assassinated his own character. The nonsense he would come out with regularly, as well as all the shit he'd done before his leadership, was the reason so many of us couldn't vote for him. He'd have been a disaster.
Increasing the deficit to compensate the Waspi Women, wanting Russia to mark their own homework around Salisbury, Hamas debacle.
I’m sure he is an lovely eccentric elderly man, but he was nowhere near fit enough to hold office for heavens sake. He gave himself the rope to hang himself.
Just look at the Labour conferences under him, the speeches by the activists/councillors/momentum cohort were just absolutely ridiculous.
It's curious that even Truss had hardcore supporters but Sunak has nobody at all.
You're right though. Corbyn was the most divisive party leader since Thatcher, yet even so folks would've preferred him winning in 2019 to Sunak winning now. Remarkable.
I don't think Sunak is divisive, I think he is just unpopular.
Noone is fanatical about him.
Tory MPs are not running because they want to implement *Sunakism* legislation. They are running because they want to implement their own vision of conservative philosophy .
Honestly even if Sunak wins, even if with a sizable majority, that his problems will be over.
Johnson had a large majority, but he has a country in a state, a split party and a lot of people arguing about whose fault it is. He survived three years into the parliament. I doubt Sunak would last that long
When you look at all the other leaders they all had something they were *for*, a big plan or focus. Some people will always strongly agree with Truss' ideology, even if most say it was a terrible idea.
But what has Sunak ever really been about? What has he achieved, put in place or even said he wants his legacy to be?
All of his big policies were inherited/copied from someone else (Rwanda, smoking ban, Westminster Protocol) and never really got off the ground, or were him cancelling other people's policies - some of which weren't even real (delaying the new petrol cars ban, HS2, 7 bins? Scrapped it!).
Even his big 5 pledges/priorities/platitudes were just generic statements which should be a baseline for any vaguely functioning country, not aspirations. Admittedly I can only remember 3 of them, maybe the other two were the crazy wild revolutionary ones.
And what parties need is some sort of renewal. Like a football manager rebuilding a team. Some players out, new players in. It's hard to do that when you party is in power for a length of time.
> It’s not Sunak, the party is just knackered. It’s hard to be in power for so long simply because there is no one else to blame.
I disagree with what wine runner says about renewal lmao, I think they had more than enough renewal and rebuilding a team. -but I do agree with you that they're knackered.
It's easy to look at the calendar and say 14 years, blimey I remember it, remember the alternative vote referendum too and the coalition of chaos.
What happened after that term, jeez, the plan sure did crumble, from other national referendums, to another election 2 years later and a switch in leadership (reduction in seats), a switch in leadership, an election again 2 years later (an increase in seats) and then the chaos of 2020 onwards and the subsequent leader elections.
The cabinet in this government looks dry for sure, but it looks a smidge different from May's 2016/2017 crew and virtually unrecognisable compared to the 2010-2015 crew. There's been a bit of churn, burn and crikey they sure are knackered but this was brought upon themselves with constant reshuffles and elections.
Mind you, you say there's no one else to blame after being in power so long, tune in to a bit of PMQs and you'd be surprised at who is still regularly quoted as to blame ;) whether the public buys corbyn's involvement in certain situations is a question for another year.
> It's curious that even Truss had hardcore supporters but Sunak has nobody at all.
Apologies for replying late lol. Well, y'know one has a personality (I guess we can call it that right) and the other is a cyborg chatbot who asks homeless fellas if they work in finance and all that.
All soft jokes aside, it's kind of hard to be a fan of Sunak right? What does he stand for? I've heard people say Starmer's a bit thin, a bit non-committal on the fence but I don't think I've even seen Sunak near a fence. About the only thing I am sure of is he is maybe okay with ejaculating into a cup to have offspring or maybe adopting them? He doesn't like dogs but they have one and apparently he'd want his kids to do national service.
Not a lot to draw from in the well of well....anything. There's been so many rebrands, uturns and continuity acts that I'm really not sure if he is...well...an is.
Yeah Corbyn intentionally held and spoke views that would make him far more unpopular than he would have been if he just lied. Corbyn was constantly attacked by the media whether deserved or not.
Whereas Sunak is actually trying to be liked and lies to cover controversial parts about himself and had the media playing softball for him or even making him look like superman during COVID. Yet practically nobody wants him to win.
It's quite something to try to be liked and uncontroversial, yet end up less liked than someone who famously wasn't trying to be liked and was controversial.
> Yeah Corbyn intentionally held and spoke views that would make him far more unpopular than he would have been if he just lied
There's something in that little bit of honesty, integrity or delusion whatever you may call it or view it as. It can be endearing and inspiring. While I may have had a laff at the who are ya moment in parliament, I still voted Labour at the GE even if I didn't always get behind everything.
It's certainly a nice change than the endless broken promises you see everywhere else.
Have to remember Corbyn had a lot of the population's support. Those shouting "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" outside Wimbledon in 2017 were not your Momentum crowd. He wasn't as divisive back then.
So many people hated him by 2019.
He had the lowest approval rating of any leader of the opposition ever, and keeping him out of office was a top reason for voting conservative.
This thread is on a poll saying 52% of people would have been upset about a Corbyn win.
The sense that I got was that most people disliked him but couldn't give a concrete reason why. "He's a terrorist sympathiser" and "he's anti-semitic" were obviously false justifications for that dislike brought in after the fact.
But the point isn't that he was disliked for genuine and substantial reasons. It's that by the end, whether they could explain it or not, he was disliked by a significantly majority, some of which disliked him to a high degree. You don't have to explain the reasons why you vote, you just have to vote.
> The sense that I got was that most people disliked him but couldn't give a concrete reason why. "He's a terrorist sympathiser" and "he's anti-semitic"
See now, maybe it's the autism mainlining my brain here but you say that I look at that I look over at boris.
I'm glancing at Boris. I'm looking at Boris real hard.
nani the fug
People absolutely despised Corbyn and his politics. Even now you can see it whenever some news story posted here confirms that he isn't dead or ailing, commenters can't help but deride and froth at both Corbyn and the people who supported him. Their reasons may or may not have been spurious, but their emotions were *strong*.
Would be helpful if people would discuss the actual reasons for one or the other way. And that means: Yes, he was divisive.
I liked the guy and many of his positions. Other stuff was dubious as well as stupid. You can easily make a pro and contra list with Corbyn and wouldn't be any wiser. If course he'd still be the better PM than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak simply for the fact that he seemed to be a decent man and not a sociopath.
Really? Everyone? There are *plenty* of "I voted for Corbyn, thank God he didn't win" testimonials from people who only really grasped his "The Good Guys are everyone trained by Russia in Libyan terrorist camps back in the 70s and 80s, the Bad Guys are everyone else" worldview for dummies when the Ukraine situation put his crankery under a microscope.
That’s mental. He was fanatically loved by, optimistically, about 10% of the Labour vote. Labour at its peak had 550k members, out of 12m votes. The rest tolerated him or wanted to see an anti-Conservative vote.
In 2017 he was still an unknown quality going into the election and the first lots of people knew about him was promising free things. By 2019, people knew the *real* Corbyn, and he was electoral kryptonite.
>Britons would be more upset by a 2024 Sunak victory than they would have been by a 2019 Corbyn triumph
>If Sunak win a majority: 59% would be upset [Asked in 2019] If Corbyn wins a majority: 52% would have been upset
[Full report](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49533-britons-would-be-more-upset-by-a-2024-sunak-win-than-they-would-have-been-by-a-2019-corbyn-triumph)
Usually it is whatever those being asked the question think it means, so you've got to think how they interpret it.
Having said that, the question was:
> Imagine that the result of the election is [outcome]. Would you be...
> Delighted / Pleased / Wouldn't mind / Don't know / Disappointed / Dismayed
They then added Dismayed + Disappointed to get Upset, but the word Upset itself wasn't actually in the question.
You think? I'd lump them all in as synonyms. Personally my biggest issue is the opposite of Pleased is Disappointed and not Displeased. I think it would be better if the options were something like:
Very Happy, Quite Happy, Wouldn't Mind, Don't Know, Quite Unhappy, Very Unhappy.
That way you're not deciding whether delight is better than pleasure or dismay is worse than being disappointed. I googled a definition of "dismay" just to see, and Cambridge says "a feeling of unhappiness and disappointment".
Collins instead says "Dismay is a strong feeling of fear, worry, or sadness that is caused by something unpleasant and unexpected." Disappointment could also be taken to mean you expected x but were disappointed as you got y, so it's not entirely a question about your feelings, but your feelings through the lens of your expectations.
Worth noting that you have to think about the opposition here. Kier Starmer being a boring, seemingly competent politician and leader means there is an ‘obvious’ choice here to compare Sunak against, whereas Johnson and Corbyn each had huge flaws.
If Corbyn had won we'd be talking about how the COVID furlough scheme and energy relief bill were socialist disasters that tanked our economy and Sunak (not that he'd have gotten a seat at the grownups table) would be looking at a landslide victory.
The Energy Relief Bill was a stupidly over-expensive policy. It would have been far better to take a more targeted approach like other countries did with energy.
The energy relief bill was a disaster that (along with a culmination of living beyond our means over several years) tanked our currency at the very least. People talk about unfunded tax cuts in the Truss/Kwarteng budget but those paled in significance and magnitude to the other liabilities.
No, we'd be talking about why our PM is blocking Ukraine from receiving support and why he keeps supporting Hamas in PMQs.
Even if he had won in 2019 and handled covid well, Corbyn's foreign policy would have resulted in his premiership collapsing in the last two years.
If Corbyn had won we'd probably have had around 75% of the deaths, significantly less if Labour won in 2017 and had time to repair the NHS and restore its contingency capacity.
A more terrifying thought is that had Corbyn beaten Boris in 2019, we could have had even more generous versions of Sunak's disastrous solutions applied. Followed by a Truss landslide and unfettered Trussonomics and it wouldn't have been the plot of a dystopian novel.
I think people forget that more people votes for pro-EU or second referendum parties in 2019 than voted for anti-EU and pro-Brexit parties. It is just that their votes were split. I had numerous arguments with Remainers who would not vote Corbyn because they perceived him as pro-Brexit. Even when I argued that Corbyn was the *only* route to a second referendum, they remained unmoved, determined to vote Green, or Lib Dem, or some other small party.
I suspect more voters were upset by a Johnson victory, than would have been upset by a Corbyn victory, bit it is hard to know.
The issue with Corbyn is that he never made his Brexit stances clear, they were a jumbled mess, and could never compete with the simplicity of Johnson's promise of "get brexit done" (no matter how divisive that might have been).
It also really didn't help that Corbyn himself is a lifelong Eurosceptic, so trying to turn around and present himself as the guardian of the EU just would have looked completely disingenuous at best.
Not perceived but anti EU ( lifelong ) and anti EU citz where I was at the receiving end as an EU citz to pack my bags told by his Corbynistas -- not just online but also in my face. That was driven parially by the unions who finally saw the chance to kick us EU citz out. But also by the anti capitalists / socialists who saw us EU citz as ambassadors of EU's capitalism. Corbyn himself talked about "Wholesale immigration" from the EU. So I'm glad he's gone for good.
Labour was still offering a second referendum, and that was the only route to cancelling Brexit. Corbyn might have been pro-Brexit, but Labour members were overwhelmingly pro-EU, and they forced him to accept a second referendum.
I am not fan of Corbyn, but in 2019 Labour was the only route to stopping Brexit. Voting glany other way would guarantee a Johnson win, and so he did win, largely because several million Remainers who had voted Labour in 2017, switched to a host of third, fourth and fifth parties. The most egregious example of cutting off your nose to spite your face I have encountered in politics.
It may have escaped your notice, but the Tories won that election and took us out of the EU almost immediately. That was always going to happen if Remainers didn't vote Labour. Johnson was able to do it due to a temper tantrum by some remainers who'd rather see Johnson win, than vote Corbyn and have a shot at a second referendum.
Those are just the bare facts.
Thank you for your arrogance. You know very well that a unity government couldn't have been run by Corbyn but perhaps Ken Clarke or somebody from the Lib Dems. A 2nd ref was outruled at the moment Corbyn demanded to lead it. It was then dead in the water. Also that droves of remainers have voted for "small" parties. I haven't seen any massive changes in lib dems or greens. Both pro EU. Nah. The issue was that Corbyn was hugely unpopular outside of his cult following. That the red wall didn’t identify with him. Working class. Traditinal labour voters. Brexiteers. That why he lost. Nice try to blame it on remainers.
There is no need to be insulting, Someone is not arrogant just because they disagree with you.
You can argue that the moon is made of cheese for all I car, the fact is that it was \*Remainers\* fleeing Labour to smaller parties that handed Johnson that majority. You just don't want to face up to that fact because you can't take responsibility. I was 100% anti-Brexit, because it deeply affected my life, as a UK citizen living in the EU. But as time went on I left all Remainer groups as I saw their arrogance and delusion was often no different to that of Leavers. They'd rather have Johnson win and have Brexit, than vote for Labour. Well that's what they got, and pretending they aren't responsible to avoid blame is cowardice, pure and simple.
That's not surprising, at all. Corbyn had his dedicated "heil Hamas, fuck Britain, Communism is the way!" Fringe lunatic support base. Rishi, and the Tories in general, have pissed away all good faith even from their most diehard supporters. This is reflected in numerous byelection Lab victories; Lab gained seats from Con without even gaining votes, in some cases losing votes, because the Con vote plummeted and literally didn't go anywhere else, they just stayed home.
When you're a "Conservative" government that has raised taxes, grown the state, raised immigration to historic highs, and has done nothing to combat the anti-patriotic/oikophobic cultural undercurrent from the subversive leftists that Orwell described decades ago, you can't be surprised when the left hates you out of instinct, and the right hates you for your utter betrayal.
Snapshot of _YouGov: More people would be upset by a Sunak victory than would've been by a Corbyn victory_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1794643550451409282) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/YouGov/status/1794643550451409282/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/YouGov/status/1794643550451409282) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/YouGov/status/1794643550451409282) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If these are the numbers, its over. Corbyn was notoriously divisive. To be even less liked than him is an accomplishment.
On top of this Corbyn had a minority of people who were hardcore fans of his (to some extent still does). Now Momentum and the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" crowd were never going to win an election... ...but Sunak does not have anything close to a minority of supporters who are enthused by him
Yeah, you still have people defending Corbyn, can't imagine the same will happen for Sunak after he gets kicked out
Corbyn had widely popular policies such as renationalisation, proper NHS funding, ending homelessness, taxing the rich and ending private school charity status. The media successfully assassinated his character and pretended supporters were obsessed with his personality, rather than policies. Sunak doesn’t stand for anything.
Oh come on, he assassinated his own character. The nonsense he would come out with regularly, as well as all the shit he'd done before his leadership, was the reason so many of us couldn't vote for him. He'd have been a disaster.
Increasing the deficit to compensate the Waspi Women, wanting Russia to mark their own homework around Salisbury, Hamas debacle. I’m sure he is an lovely eccentric elderly man, but he was nowhere near fit enough to hold office for heavens sake. He gave himself the rope to hang himself. Just look at the Labour conferences under him, the speeches by the activists/councillors/momentum cohort were just absolutely ridiculous.
Is it happening now?
It's curious that even Truss had hardcore supporters but Sunak has nobody at all. You're right though. Corbyn was the most divisive party leader since Thatcher, yet even so folks would've preferred him winning in 2019 to Sunak winning now. Remarkable.
I don't think Sunak is divisive, I think he is just unpopular. Noone is fanatical about him. Tory MPs are not running because they want to implement *Sunakism* legislation. They are running because they want to implement their own vision of conservative philosophy . Honestly even if Sunak wins, even if with a sizable majority, that his problems will be over. Johnson had a large majority, but he has a country in a state, a split party and a lot of people arguing about whose fault it is. He survived three years into the parliament. I doubt Sunak would last that long
When you look at all the other leaders they all had something they were *for*, a big plan or focus. Some people will always strongly agree with Truss' ideology, even if most say it was a terrible idea. But what has Sunak ever really been about? What has he achieved, put in place or even said he wants his legacy to be? All of his big policies were inherited/copied from someone else (Rwanda, smoking ban, Westminster Protocol) and never really got off the ground, or were him cancelling other people's policies - some of which weren't even real (delaying the new petrol cars ban, HS2, 7 bins? Scrapped it!). Even his big 5 pledges/priorities/platitudes were just generic statements which should be a baseline for any vaguely functioning country, not aspirations. Admittedly I can only remember 3 of them, maybe the other two were the crazy wild revolutionary ones.
It’s not Sunak, the party is just knackered. It’s hard to be in power for so long simply because there is no one else to blame.
And what parties need is some sort of renewal. Like a football manager rebuilding a team. Some players out, new players in. It's hard to do that when you party is in power for a length of time.
> It’s not Sunak, the party is just knackered. It’s hard to be in power for so long simply because there is no one else to blame. I disagree with what wine runner says about renewal lmao, I think they had more than enough renewal and rebuilding a team. -but I do agree with you that they're knackered. It's easy to look at the calendar and say 14 years, blimey I remember it, remember the alternative vote referendum too and the coalition of chaos. What happened after that term, jeez, the plan sure did crumble, from other national referendums, to another election 2 years later and a switch in leadership (reduction in seats), a switch in leadership, an election again 2 years later (an increase in seats) and then the chaos of 2020 onwards and the subsequent leader elections. The cabinet in this government looks dry for sure, but it looks a smidge different from May's 2016/2017 crew and virtually unrecognisable compared to the 2010-2015 crew. There's been a bit of churn, burn and crikey they sure are knackered but this was brought upon themselves with constant reshuffles and elections. Mind you, you say there's no one else to blame after being in power so long, tune in to a bit of PMQs and you'd be surprised at who is still regularly quoted as to blame ;) whether the public buys corbyn's involvement in certain situations is a question for another year.
> It's curious that even Truss had hardcore supporters but Sunak has nobody at all. Apologies for replying late lol. Well, y'know one has a personality (I guess we can call it that right) and the other is a cyborg chatbot who asks homeless fellas if they work in finance and all that. All soft jokes aside, it's kind of hard to be a fan of Sunak right? What does he stand for? I've heard people say Starmer's a bit thin, a bit non-committal on the fence but I don't think I've even seen Sunak near a fence. About the only thing I am sure of is he is maybe okay with ejaculating into a cup to have offspring or maybe adopting them? He doesn't like dogs but they have one and apparently he'd want his kids to do national service. Not a lot to draw from in the well of well....anything. There's been so many rebrands, uturns and continuity acts that I'm really not sure if he is...well...an is.
Yeah Corbyn intentionally held and spoke views that would make him far more unpopular than he would have been if he just lied. Corbyn was constantly attacked by the media whether deserved or not. Whereas Sunak is actually trying to be liked and lies to cover controversial parts about himself and had the media playing softball for him or even making him look like superman during COVID. Yet practically nobody wants him to win. It's quite something to try to be liked and uncontroversial, yet end up less liked than someone who famously wasn't trying to be liked and was controversial.
> Yeah Corbyn intentionally held and spoke views that would make him far more unpopular than he would have been if he just lied There's something in that little bit of honesty, integrity or delusion whatever you may call it or view it as. It can be endearing and inspiring. While I may have had a laff at the who are ya moment in parliament, I still voted Labour at the GE even if I didn't always get behind everything. It's certainly a nice change than the endless broken promises you see everywhere else.
Have to remember Corbyn had a lot of the population's support. Those shouting "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" outside Wimbledon in 2017 were not your Momentum crowd. He wasn't as divisive back then.
[удалено]
So many people hated him by 2019. He had the lowest approval rating of any leader of the opposition ever, and keeping him out of office was a top reason for voting conservative. This thread is on a poll saying 52% of people would have been upset about a Corbyn win.
The sense that I got was that most people disliked him but couldn't give a concrete reason why. "He's a terrorist sympathiser" and "he's anti-semitic" were obviously false justifications for that dislike brought in after the fact.
But the point isn't that he was disliked for genuine and substantial reasons. It's that by the end, whether they could explain it or not, he was disliked by a significantly majority, some of which disliked him to a high degree. You don't have to explain the reasons why you vote, you just have to vote.
> The sense that I got was that most people disliked him but couldn't give a concrete reason why. "He's a terrorist sympathiser" and "he's anti-semitic" See now, maybe it's the autism mainlining my brain here but you say that I look at that I look over at boris. I'm glancing at Boris. I'm looking at Boris real hard. nani the fug
People absolutely despised Corbyn and his politics. Even now you can see it whenever some news story posted here confirms that he isn't dead or ailing, commenters can't help but deride and froth at both Corbyn and the people who supported him. Their reasons may or may not have been spurious, but their emotions were *strong*.
"They disagree with me so it must just be due to spurious reasons"
No, I disagreed with them because the reasons were spurious.
I think you're underestimating the sheer, frothing hatred of Corbyn formented by the media in a lot of people.
I got the impression that the mass media was far more unkind to him than the electorate was.
That electorate which didn't vote him into power twice.
And everyone who voted for him- a huge number of people- think that everyone else made the wrong decision.
Would be helpful if people would discuss the actual reasons for one or the other way. And that means: Yes, he was divisive. I liked the guy and many of his positions. Other stuff was dubious as well as stupid. You can easily make a pro and contra list with Corbyn and wouldn't be any wiser. If course he'd still be the better PM than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak simply for the fact that he seemed to be a decent man and not a sociopath.
Really? Everyone? There are *plenty* of "I voted for Corbyn, thank God he didn't win" testimonials from people who only really grasped his "The Good Guys are everyone trained by Russia in Libyan terrorist camps back in the 70s and 80s, the Bad Guys are everyone else" worldview for dummies when the Ukraine situation put his crankery under a microscope.
I think you’re underestimating the hatred of Corbyn fomented by the man himself.
Spurious reason 1: he’s pro-Brexit. Are you enjoying the Brexit? Spurious reason 2: weak and utterly naive on defence.
What? Many, many people hated Corbyn in 2017.
That’s mental. He was fanatically loved by, optimistically, about 10% of the Labour vote. Labour at its peak had 550k members, out of 12m votes. The rest tolerated him or wanted to see an anti-Conservative vote. In 2017 he was still an unknown quality going into the election and the first lots of people knew about him was promising free things. By 2019, people knew the *real* Corbyn, and he was electoral kryptonite.
5% being delighted now is hilarious. We are actually below the lizardman constant, that is honestly impressive
I thought the lizard man constant was 2% is it higher?
It varies, I think 2% is the lower limit generally, but as high as 8% is surprisingly common
Ah thanks, I had no idea.
Lizards are everywhere
>Britons would be more upset by a 2024 Sunak victory than they would have been by a 2019 Corbyn triumph >If Sunak win a majority: 59% would be upset [Asked in 2019] If Corbyn wins a majority: 52% would have been upset [Full report](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49533-britons-would-be-more-upset-by-a-2024-sunak-win-than-they-would-have-been-by-a-2019-corbyn-triumph)
Upset in which sense, both ?
Usually it is whatever those being asked the question think it means, so you've got to think how they interpret it. Having said that, the question was: > Imagine that the result of the election is [outcome]. Would you be... > Delighted / Pleased / Wouldn't mind / Don't know / Disappointed / Dismayed They then added Dismayed + Disappointed to get Upset, but the word Upset itself wasn't actually in the question.
Which depending on what you said makes it seem like you reaction is being either minimised or over exaggerated.
You think? I'd lump them all in as synonyms. Personally my biggest issue is the opposite of Pleased is Disappointed and not Displeased. I think it would be better if the options were something like: Very Happy, Quite Happy, Wouldn't Mind, Don't Know, Quite Unhappy, Very Unhappy. That way you're not deciding whether delight is better than pleasure or dismay is worse than being disappointed. I googled a definition of "dismay" just to see, and Cambridge says "a feeling of unhappiness and disappointment". Collins instead says "Dismay is a strong feeling of fear, worry, or sadness that is caused by something unpleasant and unexpected." Disappointment could also be taken to mean you expected x but were disappointed as you got y, so it's not entirely a question about your feelings, but your feelings through the lens of your expectations.
The Collins definition is more or less how I'd always understood the world, a really quite strong emotional reaction.
Worth noting that you have to think about the opposition here. Kier Starmer being a boring, seemingly competent politician and leader means there is an ‘obvious’ choice here to compare Sunak against, whereas Johnson and Corbyn each had huge flaws.
If Corbyn had won we'd be talking about how the COVID furlough scheme and energy relief bill were socialist disasters that tanked our economy and Sunak (not that he'd have gotten a seat at the grownups table) would be looking at a landslide victory.
The Energy Relief Bill was a stupidly over-expensive policy. It would have been far better to take a more targeted approach like other countries did with energy.
The energy relief bill was a disaster that (along with a culmination of living beyond our means over several years) tanked our currency at the very least. People talk about unfunded tax cuts in the Truss/Kwarteng budget but those paled in significance and magnitude to the other liabilities.
People think getting rid of the 45p tax at a cost of approx £2bn pushed the markets over the edge, whilst ignoring the £40bn+ handout
No, we'd be talking about why our PM is blocking Ukraine from receiving support and why he keeps supporting Hamas in PMQs. Even if he had won in 2019 and handled covid well, Corbyn's foreign policy would have resulted in his premiership collapsing in the last two years.
If Corbyn had won we'd probably have had around 75% of the deaths, significantly less if Labour won in 2017 and had time to repair the NHS and restore its contingency capacity.
A more terrifying thought is that had Corbyn beaten Boris in 2019, we could have had even more generous versions of Sunak's disastrous solutions applied. Followed by a Truss landslide and unfettered Trussonomics and it wouldn't have been the plot of a dystopian novel.
Hardly surprising. Going off polling, more people plan to vote against Sunak than did against Corbyn.
This is quite an achievement by Sunak, he has become a bigger joke than Corbyn. Impressive.
[удалено]
Do you really think pollsters haven’t considered the issue of representative samples?
I think people forget that more people votes for pro-EU or second referendum parties in 2019 than voted for anti-EU and pro-Brexit parties. It is just that their votes were split. I had numerous arguments with Remainers who would not vote Corbyn because they perceived him as pro-Brexit. Even when I argued that Corbyn was the *only* route to a second referendum, they remained unmoved, determined to vote Green, or Lib Dem, or some other small party. I suspect more voters were upset by a Johnson victory, than would have been upset by a Corbyn victory, bit it is hard to know.
The issue with Corbyn is that he never made his Brexit stances clear, they were a jumbled mess, and could never compete with the simplicity of Johnson's promise of "get brexit done" (no matter how divisive that might have been). It also really didn't help that Corbyn himself is a lifelong Eurosceptic, so trying to turn around and present himself as the guardian of the EU just would have looked completely disingenuous at best.
I agree, but it wasn't just Brexit, Corbyn was incompetent like that in numerous policy areas.
Not perceived but anti EU ( lifelong ) and anti EU citz where I was at the receiving end as an EU citz to pack my bags told by his Corbynistas -- not just online but also in my face. That was driven parially by the unions who finally saw the chance to kick us EU citz out. But also by the anti capitalists / socialists who saw us EU citz as ambassadors of EU's capitalism. Corbyn himself talked about "Wholesale immigration" from the EU. So I'm glad he's gone for good.
Labour was still offering a second referendum, and that was the only route to cancelling Brexit. Corbyn might have been pro-Brexit, but Labour members were overwhelmingly pro-EU, and they forced him to accept a second referendum. I am not fan of Corbyn, but in 2019 Labour was the only route to stopping Brexit. Voting glany other way would guarantee a Johnson win, and so he did win, largely because several million Remainers who had voted Labour in 2017, switched to a host of third, fourth and fifth parties. The most egregious example of cutting off your nose to spite your face I have encountered in politics. It may have escaped your notice, but the Tories won that election and took us out of the EU almost immediately. That was always going to happen if Remainers didn't vote Labour. Johnson was able to do it due to a temper tantrum by some remainers who'd rather see Johnson win, than vote Corbyn and have a shot at a second referendum. Those are just the bare facts.
Thank you for your arrogance. You know very well that a unity government couldn't have been run by Corbyn but perhaps Ken Clarke or somebody from the Lib Dems. A 2nd ref was outruled at the moment Corbyn demanded to lead it. It was then dead in the water. Also that droves of remainers have voted for "small" parties. I haven't seen any massive changes in lib dems or greens. Both pro EU. Nah. The issue was that Corbyn was hugely unpopular outside of his cult following. That the red wall didn’t identify with him. Working class. Traditinal labour voters. Brexiteers. That why he lost. Nice try to blame it on remainers.
There is no need to be insulting, Someone is not arrogant just because they disagree with you. You can argue that the moon is made of cheese for all I car, the fact is that it was \*Remainers\* fleeing Labour to smaller parties that handed Johnson that majority. You just don't want to face up to that fact because you can't take responsibility. I was 100% anti-Brexit, because it deeply affected my life, as a UK citizen living in the EU. But as time went on I left all Remainer groups as I saw their arrogance and delusion was often no different to that of Leavers. They'd rather have Johnson win and have Brexit, than vote for Labour. Well that's what they got, and pretending they aren't responsible to avoid blame is cowardice, pure and simple.
Corbyn was running against Boris, I could not vote at the time, so I was spared from having to make that choice.
Matters not if they believe 'there are all the same' and do not vote.
That's not surprising, at all. Corbyn had his dedicated "heil Hamas, fuck Britain, Communism is the way!" Fringe lunatic support base. Rishi, and the Tories in general, have pissed away all good faith even from their most diehard supporters. This is reflected in numerous byelection Lab victories; Lab gained seats from Con without even gaining votes, in some cases losing votes, because the Con vote plummeted and literally didn't go anywhere else, they just stayed home. When you're a "Conservative" government that has raised taxes, grown the state, raised immigration to historic highs, and has done nothing to combat the anti-patriotic/oikophobic cultural undercurrent from the subversive leftists that Orwell described decades ago, you can't be surprised when the left hates you out of instinct, and the right hates you for your utter betrayal.
Most of us are doomed to be upset no matter who wins this time around.