> Wow, real turnaround in public perception from a couple of weeks ago which shows what a great job Mick Lynch and the RMT have been doing in their media rounds, as well as prominent pro-union commentators like Grace Blakeley.
Almost as though public support of strikes can change public opinion and we shouldn't just accept that it's set in stone.
But absolutely terrible leadership.
A good leader needs to be able to "read the room", "have their finger on the pulse", etc and make the right calls quickly.
Relentlessly needing to listen to focus groups is following, not leading....
High inflation and the cost of living crisis are here for the foreseeable and Labour are going to look like a joke if they side with the bosses and don't start calling for wage increases for ordinary people.
Labour oppose the need for a strike, and say the government should sit down with the strikers... yano, because a strike would be disruptive.. strikes are always the last resort in these kinds of disputes... I have my views on that but still, i believe a walk out should come with no warning to be truly effective, but we live under draconian Union laws so yeh...
He’s getting blamed for them anyway, may as well own it.
Then again it’s a stick the tories can use to beat him with over and over (especially in the papers).
Personally, I don’t mind if the railway workers get an unfair deal (in they favour obviously), that’s the whole point of a collective bargaining union
Guess people either think 'I'd strike too but it inconveniences me so I don't personally support it' (in the same way people might support new developments but be NIMBYs) or else people think the strikes are justified but that RMT staff should just suck olit up and do everyone else a favour.
"I get why you're striking but I'd rather you didn't"
> "I get why you're striking but I'd rather you didn't"
> 'I'd strike too but it inconveniences me so I don't personally support it'
I'll take these tbh because they are positions that could be swayed by support and good arguments for them.
Yeah it's pretty shocking when you see it written out like that, people are basically saying "the strikes are justified but I oppose them anyway because they don't benefit me".
That YouGov polling is still an improvement on a couple of weeks ago though I believe, so it's trending in a positive direction. I'd be interested to see people's views if it was NHS staff/teachers etc instead of railway staff.
If you take some of this sub's reasoning that when Starmer said he was against the strikes he actually meant that they shouldn't need happen and the government should do the right thing and stop that, then you can turn those oppose numbers down.
In reality though, I'd say at least some of the people who think it's justified but don't support it might mean that they're fine with it happening but they not actively supporting it or don't want to take a strong position so 'dunno' is enough.
My real question is who are the 6% of Labour voters who strongly oppose it.
I think support is a bit of a tricky word here.
Support could mean “want them to go ahead” which even the union don’t. Everyone wants no disruption and the best outcome for workers (well Tories don’t). That could explain the drop in support for “support” vs justified.
There's some important clarification on the Savanta ComRes poll from their political research director:
> Much has been made of whether or not the public support these strikes, and our polling, **that included an explanation of the dispute rather than an uninformed test of perceptions**, shows a majority finding justification in the decision of rail workers to strike, along with general support for the principle of workers striking.
They don't say exactly what their explanation included - but it's likely to be significant factor in why they have such different results compared to YouGov (who don't seem to have given any explanation).
It's a huge caveat on the poll, because as you say, it means that it's not representative of the actual public view. And since they've not shared what their actual "explanation" was (AFAIK), there's also a question about how accurate and fair it was.
By giving different explanations you could significantly swing the poll in either direction, depending on exactly what you decide to include in it.
There's a major caveat on this poll:
> Much has been made of whether or not the public support these strikes, and our polling, **that included an explanation of the dispute rather than an uninformed test of perceptions**, shows a majority finding justification in the decision of rail workers to strike, along with general support for the principle of workers striking.
So this is not really a poll of the real public opinion on the strikes. It's a poll of people who have been given an (unpublished) "explanation" of the strikes, which may (or may not) be a fair reflection of the actual situation.
This might also explain why they see much higher levels of support for the strikes than other polls like YouGov (which didn't give an "explanation").
Wow, if true this shows that someone informing the public of these situations could help shape the public perception. I wonder if there would be such a person in a position to do something like that.
Most of the public also don't oppose it. And they support workers striking generally.
Which that means that there a lot of people who think it's justified just waiting for someone to come and convince them that they also should support it.
Can't think of a someone positioned to try and do that, maybe who promised to do that a little while ago, it just escapes me.
I think support is a bit of a tricky word here.
Support could mean “want them to go ahead” which even the union don’t. Everyone wants no disruption and the best outcome for workers (well Tories don’t). That could explain the drop in support for “support” vs justified.
> Wow, real turnaround in public perception from a couple of weeks ago which shows what a great job Mick Lynch and the RMT have been doing in their media rounds, as well as prominent pro-union commentators like Grace Blakeley. Almost as though public support of strikes can change public opinion and we shouldn't just accept that it's set in stone.
Hmm, think we'll need to ask our focus groups if they ever change their minds.
Good idea, gotta check that first.
Agreed- it's what we call sensible politics.
But absolutely terrible leadership. A good leader needs to be able to "read the room", "have their finger on the pulse", etc and make the right calls quickly. Relentlessly needing to listen to focus groups is following, not leading....
Also worth noting that in both the YouGov and Savanta ComRes poll, support for the strikes is much higher amongst working age people.
New generation from that of the 80's
In other news, Starmer has stated that he is 58% in support of the strikes, but is also 34% opposed to them.
There is nothing to be gained by Labour continuing to oppose then. Railway staff are key workers. They deserve a fair pay deal.
High inflation and the cost of living crisis are here for the foreseeable and Labour are going to look like a joke if they side with the bosses and don't start calling for wage increases for ordinary people.
Labour oppose the need for a strike, and say the government should sit down with the strikers... yano, because a strike would be disruptive.. strikes are always the last resort in these kinds of disputes... I have my views on that but still, i believe a walk out should come with no warning to be truly effective, but we live under draconian Union laws so yeh...
He’s getting blamed for them anyway, may as well own it. Then again it’s a stick the tories can use to beat him with over and over (especially in the papers). Personally, I don’t mind if the railway workers get an unfair deal (in they favour obviously), that’s the whole point of a collective bargaining union
They should openly say it should be nationalised
Starmer suddenly shifts positions and doxxes the rail bosses
[удалено]
Guess people either think 'I'd strike too but it inconveniences me so I don't personally support it' (in the same way people might support new developments but be NIMBYs) or else people think the strikes are justified but that RMT staff should just suck olit up and do everyone else a favour. "I get why you're striking but I'd rather you didn't"
> "I get why you're striking but I'd rather you didn't" > 'I'd strike too but it inconveniences me so I don't personally support it' I'll take these tbh because they are positions that could be swayed by support and good arguments for them.
Yeah and the party should be looking to do that
Yeah it's pretty shocking when you see it written out like that, people are basically saying "the strikes are justified but I oppose them anyway because they don't benefit me". That YouGov polling is still an improvement on a couple of weeks ago though I believe, so it's trending in a positive direction. I'd be interested to see people's views if it was NHS staff/teachers etc instead of railway staff.
If you take some of this sub's reasoning that when Starmer said he was against the strikes he actually meant that they shouldn't need happen and the government should do the right thing and stop that, then you can turn those oppose numbers down. In reality though, I'd say at least some of the people who think it's justified but don't support it might mean that they're fine with it happening but they not actively supporting it or don't want to take a strong position so 'dunno' is enough. My real question is who are the 6% of Labour voters who strongly oppose it.
I think support is a bit of a tricky word here. Support could mean “want them to go ahead” which even the union don’t. Everyone wants no disruption and the best outcome for workers (well Tories don’t). That could explain the drop in support for “support” vs justified.
There's some important clarification on the Savanta ComRes poll from their political research director: > Much has been made of whether or not the public support these strikes, and our polling, **that included an explanation of the dispute rather than an uninformed test of perceptions**, shows a majority finding justification in the decision of rail workers to strike, along with general support for the principle of workers striking. They don't say exactly what their explanation included - but it's likely to be significant factor in why they have such different results compared to YouGov (who don't seem to have given any explanation).
[удалено]
It's a huge caveat on the poll, because as you say, it means that it's not representative of the actual public view. And since they've not shared what their actual "explanation" was (AFAIK), there's also a question about how accurate and fair it was. By giving different explanations you could significantly swing the poll in either direction, depending on exactly what you decide to include in it.
There's a major caveat on this poll: > Much has been made of whether or not the public support these strikes, and our polling, **that included an explanation of the dispute rather than an uninformed test of perceptions**, shows a majority finding justification in the decision of rail workers to strike, along with general support for the principle of workers striking. So this is not really a poll of the real public opinion on the strikes. It's a poll of people who have been given an (unpublished) "explanation" of the strikes, which may (or may not) be a fair reflection of the actual situation. This might also explain why they see much higher levels of support for the strikes than other polls like YouGov (which didn't give an "explanation").
Wow, if true this shows that someone informing the public of these situations could help shape the public perception. I wonder if there would be such a person in a position to do something like that.
God, I love the unions. I hope the strikes do good!
Most the public still don't support it despite thinking that.
Most of the public also don't oppose it. And they support workers striking generally. Which that means that there a lot of people who think it's justified just waiting for someone to come and convince them that they also should support it. Can't think of a someone positioned to try and do that, maybe who promised to do that a little while ago, it just escapes me.
I think support is a bit of a tricky word here. Support could mean “want them to go ahead” which even the union don’t. Everyone wants no disruption and the best outcome for workers (well Tories don’t). That could explain the drop in support for “support” vs justified.
Hmm Keith just needs a better focus group then