Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It was dislike of Corbyn not Brexit that was the main driver o

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 14 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It was dislike of Corbyn not Brexit that was the main driver of LAB’s GE2019 losses

If the Opinium survey on the day of the General Election is accurate then the departure of Corbyn, as will happen on April 4th with the new Labour leader, should have a significant impact on the party’s recovery.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Well duh.
  • Hurrah for being primus inter pares.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 23,297
    Fifth like Burgon
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,500
    edited January 14
    I wonder if the leadership is adequate cover for those ex-Labour voters who don't want to admit to not liking the left wing policies?
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900
    tlg86 said:

    I wonder if the leadership is adequate cover for those ex-Labour voters who don't want to admit to not liking the left wing policies?

    It's probably the politest way of avoiding saying you've been in power locally for 40 odd years and have screwed everything up.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 79,777
    edited January 14
    FPT
    kyf_100 said:



    It's just a guess but I have a feeling that the Federation elects its president much like the EU does. With the heads of states of individual member states voting for an overall leader, which is then ratified by whatever passes for its legislative body.

    Either way, it sounds like a job far too important to let the proles have a say.

    I'd quite enjoy an episode with a Farage-esque alien stirring up trouble. The Maquis are obviously Brexiteers.

    Well 99.99% of The Maquis were wiped out so perhaps not the best analogy for you Brexiteers.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 1,557
    So, four women v one man. Again - I`m thinking about laying Starmer (1.40 BF).

    Thoughts?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,023
    edited January 14
    tlg86 said:

    I wonder if the leadership is adequate cover for those ex-Labour voters who don't want to admit to not liking the left wing policies?

    Its all tied together. It was a rejection of the SWP/STW far left for sure.

    I don;t think people are that politically engaged as a whole, and that's a good thing. They just want things to be good, and to work, and to feel like things are fair. They don't really care about the delivery mechanics.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,023
    Stocky said:

    So, four women v one man. Again - I`m thinking about laying Starmer (1.40 BF).

    Thoughts?

    I wouldn't to be honest. You might get people voting as a first choice for a woman 'because they think it's time', but Starmer will be many peoples second choice.

    I think he'll win the first round, and then easily pick up transfers.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    edited January 14
    @Morris_Dancer The Star Trek writers aren’t even consistent on the ‘no money’ thing since they have a system of Federation credits to pay other alien races.

    You need a monetary system to measure and efficiently allocate and trade resources in any economy: it’s a key measure that allows an economy to be advanced and its peoples wealthy.

    In theory you wouldn’t if you had totally unlimited and unconstrained access of everyone to such resources, with complete fungibility, although I suspect you’d get all sorts of social problems and challenges with that too. One big effect would be that it’d be a form of anarchism.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,921

    FPT

    kyf_100 said:



    It's just a guess but I have a feeling that the Federation elects its president much like the EU does. With the heads of states of individual member states voting for an overall leader, which is then ratified by whatever passes for its legislative body.

    Either way, it sounds like a job far too important to let the proles have a say.

    I'd quite enjoy an episode with a Farage-esque alien stirring up trouble. The Maquis are obviously Brexiteers.

    Well 99.99% of The Maquis were wiped out so perhaps not the best analogy for your Brexiteers.
    Ah, but has anyone actually seen UKIP lately? :wink:
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 17,784

    FPT

    kyf_100 said:



    It's just a guess but I have a feeling that the Federation elects its president much like the EU does. With the heads of states of individual member states voting for an overall leader, which is then ratified by whatever passes for its legislative body.

    Either way, it sounds like a job far too important to let the proles have a say.

    I'd quite enjoy an episode with a Farage-esque alien stirring up trouble. The Maquis are obviously Brexiteers.

    Well 99.99% of The Maquis were wiped out so perhaps not the best analogy for you Brexiteers.
    By the Dominion. Is that China?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    Yet in 2017 Corbyn was also Labour leader and Labour held many of those Leave voting northern and Midlands seats. The main difference was Labour refused to deliver Brexit so they defected to Boris and the Tories who would.

    There were far fewer Labour defections in London and the South, hence Labour lose 0 net seats in the former and only 1 in the latter. The main problem there was Labour were not able to advance because Tory Remainers still refused to vote for Corbyn, London also saw Remainers defect to the LDs as Labour were not Remain enough as the chart suggests
  • kyf_100 said:

    FPT

    kyf_100 said:



    It's just a guess but I have a feeling that the Federation elects its president much like the EU does. With the heads of states of individual member states voting for an overall leader, which is then ratified by whatever passes for its legislative body.

    Either way, it sounds like a job far too important to let the proles have a say.

    I'd quite enjoy an episode with a Farage-esque alien stirring up trouble. The Maquis are obviously Brexiteers.

    Well 99.99% of The Maquis were wiped out so perhaps not the best analogy for your Brexiteers.
    Ah, but has anyone actually seen UKIP lately? :wink:
    Plus isn't The Maquis name a bit too much rootless cosmopolitan foreign muck, surely you'd prefer a name like The Lionhearts*

    *Yes, I know where Cœur de Lion spent most of his life.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652
    OK but a straightforward "Corbyn is loathsome" thesis doesn't account for his spectacular success and popularity in 2017. Labour lost because Johnson is not May, not because Corbyn is Corbyn.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    I’m not surprised at Star Trek: Picard.

    Patrick Stewart explicitly did it because he wanted to make a point about his vision of the future of humanity, and he’s the executive producer, so I always expected it to be about as political as it gets.

    The original Star Treks (particularly the Next Generation) were safe, cozy, family friendly, interesting and inclusive, though. Something no-one really got too offended by and provided food for thought. They were also fun too.

    If this is full-on luvvie and preachy then there is a risk it might alienate across the political divides but I doubt Stewart or his writers care too much about that.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    Mr. Eagles, he spent most of it in Angevin territory.

    Imposing modern day borders on the past is the sort of historical revisionist nonsense that leads people to claim Alexander was Greek.
  • I’m not surprised at Star Trek: Picard.

    Patrick Stewart explicitly did it because he wanted to make a point about his vision of the future of humanity, and he’s the executive producer, so I always expected it to be about as political as it gets.

    The original Star Treks (particularly the Next Generation) were safe, cozy, family friendly, interesting and inclusive, though. Something no-one really got too offended by and provided food for thought. They were also fun too.

    If this is full-on luvvie and preachy then there is a risk it might alienate across the political divides but I doubt Stewart or his writers care too much about that.

    Everything’s Dr Who now.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    As an aside, it's interesting that Eleanor of Aquitaine can be a leader of France or England in Civ VI.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900

    Stocky said:

    So, four women v one man. Again - I`m thinking about laying Starmer (1.40 BF).

    Thoughts?

    I wouldn't to be honest. You might get people voting as a first choice for a woman 'because they think it's time', but Starmer will be many peoples second choice.

    I think he'll win the first round, and then easily pick up transfers.
    The campaign has nearly 3 months in it. I've laid Starmer to zero as I expect he will drift a bit over time.

    Don't expect him to reach evens but he may hit 1.7 or so.
  • MaxPB said:

    FPT

    kyf_100 said:



    It's just a guess but I have a feeling that the Federation elects its president much like the EU does. With the heads of states of individual member states voting for an overall leader, which is then ratified by whatever passes for its legislative body.

    Either way, it sounds like a job far too important to let the proles have a say.

    I'd quite enjoy an episode with a Farage-esque alien stirring up trouble. The Maquis are obviously Brexiteers.

    Well 99.99% of The Maquis were wiped out so perhaps not the best analogy for you Brexiteers.
    By the Dominion. Is that China?
    No, The Romulans were the Chinese in Trek mythology.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,077
    "Bung a bob for a Big Ben bong". Good grief. What a joke of a PM we have. I suspect people will soon see through and tire of this faux, off the cuff, "bumbling wit".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    Mr. Powerhouse, ha, the second episode of the incumbent's tenure was a case in point.

    Two guest characters competing to win a race. The man's an incompetent who needs to be saved by the Doctor. He's ungrateful and selfish. The woman's a desperate but talented individual who's trying to win the prize to save her family from poverty.

    The next episodes clashed with F1, after which I didn't bother returning (I'd not watched it since the early episodes of Capaldi's time. He's a great casting choice but the writing was not great).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013
    tlg86 said:

    I wonder if the leadership is adequate cover for those ex-Labour voters who don't want to admit to not liking the left wing policies?

    Personally I think that dislike of Cotbyn was the lead factor (much though I like him and would have liked to see him in Number 10, it's been obvious for some time that most people disagree), coupled with irritation over perceived Brexit vacillation. There was a policy problem too, but it wasn't that many people disliked any particular policy, but that the overall impression was neither focused nor credible. There's plenty of scope for the new leadership to retain a chunk of the policies so long as they dispel the impression that everything would be addressed with large cheques and nothing in particular was a priority.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 1,262
    edited January 14
    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,023

    I’m not surprised at Star Trek: Picard.

    Patrick Stewart explicitly did it because he wanted to make a point about his vision of the future of humanity, and he’s the executive producer, so I always expected it to be about as political as it gets.

    The original Star Treks (particularly the Next Generation) were safe, cozy, family friendly, interesting and inclusive, though. Something no-one really got too offended by and provided food for thought. They were also fun too.

    If this is full-on luvvie and preachy then there is a risk it might alienate across the political divides but I doubt Stewart or his writers care too much about that.

    Everything’s Dr Who now.
    And Dr Who is utter s*** now too.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    This thread header is going to fall on very stony ground. Ardent Leavers are convinced the nation is yearning for Brexit, ardent Corbynites are convinced their leader was stabbed in the back by centrist Remainers.

    A tapestry of polling evidence showing that the nation was unconvinced by Brexit (or Boris Johnson) but still more unconvinced by Jeremy Corbyn is not going to persuade them out of their comfort blanket beliefs.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    Are rightwingers now being triggered by Star Trek?

    FFS. Don’t watch it if you don’t like it.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 79,777
    edited January 14

    I’m not surprised at Star Trek: Picard.

    Patrick Stewart explicitly did it because he wanted to make a point about his vision of the future of humanity, and he’s the executive producer, so I always expected it to be about as political as it gets.

    The original Star Treks (particularly the Next Generation) were safe, cozy, family friendly, interesting and inclusive, though. Something no-one really got too offended by and provided food for thought. They were also fun too.

    If this is full-on luvvie and preachy then there is a risk it might alienate across the political divides but I doubt Stewart or his writers care too much about that.

    That's not true, Stewart said he loved the gritty nature of DS9 where Trek idealism met reality.

    Particularly In The Pale Moonlight when a Starfleet Captain faked evidence (and covered up a murder) to ensure the Romulans would join the war.

    He also cited Tacking Into The Wind where Sisko pretty much told Worf to assassinate The Klingon Chancellor compared to Picard's reaction in Reunion when he nearly kicked Worf out of Starfleet for killing the likely next Klingon Chancellor.

    He's always wanted to do stuff like that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 14

    I’m not surprised at Star Trek: Picard.

    Patrick Stewart explicitly did it because he wanted to make a point about his vision of the future of humanity, and he’s the executive producer, so I always expected it to be about as political as it gets.

    The original Star Treks (particularly the Next Generation) were safe, cozy, family friendly, interesting and inclusive, though. Something no-one really got too offended by and provided food for thought. They were also fun too.

    If this is full-on luvvie and preachy then there is a risk it might alienate across the political divides but I doubt Stewart or his writers care too much about that.

    The capitalist, money and profit driven Ferengi would definitely be Trump voters though
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Stocky said:

    So, four women v one man. Again - I`m thinking about laying Starmer (1.40 BF).

    Thoughts?

    I wouldn't to be honest. You might get people voting as a first choice for a woman 'because they think it's time', but Starmer will be many peoples second choice.

    I think he'll win the first round, and then easily pick up transfers.
    Indeed. Sir Keir is very “transfer-friendly” - the key to winning under AV-style systems.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    Mr. Eagles, getting the Romulans to join the war that way was a very good episode.

    Garak was a good addition to the mix.

    Mr. Slackbladder, the Dalek Parliament (Matt Smith, I think) was one of the weirdest bits. Not PC or anything just bloody odd. Do they have a Dalek Chancellor of the Exchequer who takes Treasury Questions from the Dalek Shadow Chancellor? Do they have by-elections on Skaro?

    Do the Dalek Liberal Democrats prefer solar-powered death rays?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819

    @Morris_Dancer The Star Trek writers aren’t even consistent on the ‘no money’ thing since they have a system of Federation credits to pay other alien races.

    You need a monetary system to measure and efficiently allocate and trade resources in any economy: it’s a key measure that allows an economy to be advanced and its peoples wealthy.

    In theory you wouldn’t if you had totally unlimited and unconstrained access of everyone to such resources, with complete fungibility, although I suspect you’d get all sorts of social problems and challenges with that too. One big effect would be that it’d be a form of anarchism.

    The Federation has replicators to produce most material things instantly so work is mainly based on the 'betterment of humanity' supposedly
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,023

    Are rightwingers now being triggered by Star Trek?

    FFS. Don’t watch it if you don’t like it.

    Star Trek has always been progressive and Utopian and great.

    The latest series isn't that. It's cynical about human nature and the opposite of the guiding premise.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652

    Mr. Eagles, he spent most of it in Angevin territory.

    Imposing modern day borders on the past is the sort of historical revisionist nonsense that leads people to claim Alexander was Greek.

    Whether he was or wasn't (and the only right answer can ever be "depends how you define Greek") the point is purely racist, surely?
  • I’m not surprised at Star Trek: Picard.

    Patrick Stewart explicitly did it because he wanted to make a point about his vision of the future of humanity, and he’s the executive producer, so I always expected it to be about as political as it gets.

    The original Star Treks (particularly the Next Generation) were safe, cozy, family friendly, interesting and inclusive, though. Something no-one really got too offended by and provided food for thought. They were also fun too.

    If this is full-on luvvie and preachy then there is a risk it might alienate across the political divides but I doubt Stewart or his writers care too much about that.

    Everything’s Dr Who now.
    And Dr Who is utter s*** now too.
    I know some foreign Dr Who fans who find Jodie Whitaker's speech very hard to follow. I think the problem is not her northern accent so much as her poor enunciation. Since overseas sales are important, you'd have thought the producers might have taken this into account but apparently not.
  • Mr. Eagles, he spent most of it in Angevin territory.

    Imposing modern day borders on the past is the sort of historical revisionist nonsense that leads people to claim Alexander was Greek.

    The point is The House of Angevin was of French origin, not something hardline Brexiteers would like.
  • Are rightwingers now being triggered by Star Trek?

    FFS. Don’t watch it if you don’t like it.

    If you don’t think tv is used as a means to wage a culture war you’ve not been paying attention. And like US Dems, every real world battle loss causes them to double down and push further.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    It's a good question. I think that in 2017 the media focused on the policies, which most people quite liked. There was lots of anti-Corbyn stuff too, but he was new to most people and they were struck by the enthusiastic rallies on TV. By 2019, both Brexit and the anti-semitism row had worn the gloss off, and he was no longer new and the rallies rather smaller. But the shit-posting was a factor too, and will be again even if we select Jesus Christ as leader - look how he incited violence against bankers, he'll ruin Britain's finances.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 17,784

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    kyf_100 said:



    It's just a guess but I have a feeling that the Federation elects its president much like the EU does. With the heads of states of individual member states voting for an overall leader, which is then ratified by whatever passes for its legislative body.

    Either way, it sounds like a job far too important to let the proles have a say.

    I'd quite enjoy an episode with a Farage-esque alien stirring up trouble. The Maquis are obviously Brexiteers.

    Well 99.99% of The Maquis were wiped out so perhaps not the best analogy for you Brexiteers.
    By the Dominion. Is that China?
    No, The Romulans were the Chinese in Trek mythology.
    Anyway, it doesn't matter. The Federation is obviously based on the US and the Borg on the EU.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    It's a good question. I think that in 2017 the media focused on the policies, which most people quite liked. There was lots of anti-Corbyn stuff too, but he was new to most people and they were struck by the enthusiastic rallies on TV. By 2019, both Brexit and the anti-semitism row had worn the gloss off, and he was no longer new and the rallies rather smaller. But the shit-posting was a factor too, and will be again even if we select Jesus Christ as leader - look how he incited violence against bankers, he'll ruin Britain's finances.
    2017 - the policies were generous and with few immediately obvious flaws.
    2019 - the labour policies were overly generous and included things that had flaws that were immediately obvious. Nationalising Railways fair enough, nationalising broadband utterly insane.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 943

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    It's a good question. I think that in 2017 the media focused on the policies, which most people quite liked. There was lots of anti-Corbyn stuff too, but he was new to most people and they were struck by the enthusiastic rallies on TV. By 2019, both Brexit and the anti-semitism row had worn the gloss off, and he was no longer new and the rallies rather smaller. But the shit-posting was a factor too, and will be again even if we select Jesus Christ as leader - look how he incited violence against bankers, he'll ruin Britain's finances.
    He overthrew the moneychangers tables iirc. I don't think he went about with a baseball bat
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,630
    edited January 14
    Remember my meme theory.

    In 2017 Corbyn was a meme and therefore there was fun and exciting bandwagon to jump on. It meant the baggage could be overlooked. See: Glastonbury.

    In 2019 the meme was past its shelf-life. It was no longer exciting or ‘fun’ to vote for Corbyn. It was merely a reluctant anti-Boris vote.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    Mr. Z, why's it racist?

    Macedon was culturally Hellenistic but when Demosthenes condemned the people in a speech he said they weren't even civilized enough to make decent slaves, using barbaros rather than xenos (the former meaning non-Greek, the latter meaning Greek but from a different city).

    Mr. Eagles, it was from Anjou, which was part of Angevin territory.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 17,784

    I’m not surprised at Star Trek: Picard.

    Patrick Stewart explicitly did it because he wanted to make a point about his vision of the future of humanity, and he’s the executive producer, so I always expected it to be about as political as it gets.

    The original Star Treks (particularly the Next Generation) were safe, cozy, family friendly, interesting and inclusive, though. Something no-one really got too offended by and provided food for thought. They were also fun too.

    If this is full-on luvvie and preachy then there is a risk it might alienate across the political divides but I doubt Stewart or his writers care too much about that.

    That's not true, Stewart said he loved the gritty nature of DS9 where Trek idealism met reality.

    Particularly In The Pale Moonlight when a Starfleet Captain faked evidence (and covered up a murder) to ensure the Romulans would join the war.

    He also cited Tacking Into The Wind where Sisko pretty much told Worf to assassinate The Klingon Chancellor compared to Picard's reaction in Reunion when he nearly kicked Worf out of Starfleet for killing the likely next Klingon Chancellor.

    He's always wanted to do stuff like that.
    In the Pale Moonlight is probably one of the best ever Star Trek episodes. That and the city on the edge of forever are basically peak ST.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 943

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    It's a good question. I think that in 2017 the media focused on the policies, which most people quite liked. There was lots of anti-Corbyn stuff too, but he was new to most people and they were struck by the enthusiastic rallies on TV. By 2019, both Brexit and the anti-semitism row had worn the gloss off, and he was no longer new and the rallies rather smaller. But the shit-posting was a factor too, and will be again even if we select Jesus Christ as leader - look how he incited violence against bankers, he'll ruin Britain's finances.
    He overthrew the moneychangers tables iirc. I don't think he went about with a baseball bat
    .. and of course they were doing business inIN the temple at Jerusalem.
  • Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    It's a good question. I think that in 2017 the media focused on the policies, which most people quite liked. There was lots of anti-Corbyn stuff too, but he was new to most people and they were struck by the enthusiastic rallies on TV. By 2019, both Brexit and the anti-semitism row had worn the gloss off, and he was no longer new and the rallies rather smaller. But the shit-posting was a factor too, and will be again even if we select Jesus Christ as leader - look how he incited violence against bankers, he'll ruin Britain's finances.
    He overthrew the moneychangers tables iirc. I don't think he went about with a baseball bat
    And Jesus only wanted 10%. Across the income thresholds rich and less rich people now tend to hand over around 35% to 40% of their earnings in taxation.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 943

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    It's a good question. I think that in 2017 the media focused on the policies, which most people quite liked. There was lots of anti-Corbyn stuff too, but he was new to most people and they were struck by the enthusiastic rallies on TV. By 2019, both Brexit and the anti-semitism row had worn the gloss off, and he was no longer new and the rallies rather smaller. But the shit-posting was a factor too, and will be again even if we select Jesus Christ as leader - look how he incited violence against bankers, he'll ruin Britain's finances.
    He overthrew the moneychangers tables iirc. I don't think he went about with a baseball bat
    And Jesus only wanted 10%. Across the income thresholds rich and less rich people now tend to hand over around 35% to 40% of their earnings in taxation.
    Lol. I don't think Jesus demanded 10%. I think money was meaningless to.him.
  • novanova Posts: 130

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    In 2017, I think he actually got a chance to make a SECOND first impression. It was probably the first time a lot of people had actually seen much of him, rather than read about his faults. He sharpened up his appearance, and kept his temper mostly in check, and the 2017 manifesto was pretty tame (based on 2015 as they had to get it out in a hurry).

    Theresa May turned out to be totally awful at campaigning, and so Corbyn didn't look so bad. Brexit, plus the collapse of the Lib Dems, made it a straight choice of Tory v Labour, and so he ended up with a high vote share.

    In 2019, people had seen the best of Corbyn, but also seen a lot more of the antisemitism, his comments about Salisbury, etc., and weren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt again.

    As for Corbynism, if it's the 2019 manifesto, then it's a mess, and I don't really think it exists. I'd be surprised if anyone could create a coherent platform based on the last four years of Labour.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652

    Mr. Z, why's it racist?

    Macedon was culturally Hellenistic but when Demosthenes condemned the people in a speech he said they weren't even civilized enough to make decent slaves, using barbaros rather than xenos (the former meaning non-Greek, the latter meaning Greek but from a different city).

    Mr. Eagles, it was from Anjou, which was part of Angevin territory.

    And you don't think Demosthenes's pronouncement verges on the racist? Try translating it to any modern context.

    It has always seemed to me that the right to compete at Olympia is a pretty unanswerable argument.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    Mr. Z, Canada is culturally very similar to the UK but that doesn't make them British.

    Greece was a collection of city-states. Macedon was the territory, the kingdom. Everyone knows Sparta, and Athens. Very few can name Pella, the Macedonian capital. Like Epirus, it was adjacent to Greece and heavily influenced by Greece, but that doesn't make it the same place.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,329
    HYUFD said:
    This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:
    This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
    Should work well on social media in that case, the home and creator of many mental issues.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:
    This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
    Would save Mark Francois doing it
  • BromBrom Posts: 2,879
    HYUFD said:

    Yet in 2017 Corbyn was also Labour leader and Labour held many of those Leave voting northern and Midlands seats. The main difference was Labour refused to deliver Brexit so they defected to Boris and the Tories who would.

    There were far fewer Labour defections in London and the South, hence Labour lose 0 net seats in the former and only 1 in the latter. The main problem there was Labour were not able to advance because Tory Remainers still refused to vote for Corbyn, London also saw Remainers defect to the LDs as Labour were not Remain enough as the chart suggests

    I can't disagree with this. Clearly Lab leadership encompasses their Brexit position, and it seems pretty clear they lost more votes due to their 2nd ref stance than through being not remain enough. I struggle to believe any of the current leadership candidates would have done better than Miliband 2015 given the underlying Brexit issue.

    On a betting front. I had a bit on 1917 Best Picture at 4.1 yesterday. It went out to 4.3 and is now around 3.5. It really is an incredible film and I'm still thinking about it 2 days later and wish to see it again. It is a flawed masterpiece but considerably better than the market fave 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood' which is a no more than a good movie with 2 or 3 standout scenes. Are the Academy going to give a 1960s nostalgia trip Best Movie for a 3rd year in a row, and also to a film that has now been out months? I'm not sure.

    1917 has only been out worldwide for 4 days and will gather a head of steam through word of mouth alone so expect betting crossover, and I could even see it being odds on before the Ceremony. I can't second guess the Academy but Parasite could be the only legit threat to 1917 as something of a wildcard. Though I expect the concept of a foreign language movie winning might have come a few years too soon.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652

    Mr. Z, Canada is culturally very similar to the UK but that doesn't make them British.

    Greece was a collection of city-states. Macedon was the territory, the kingdom. Everyone knows Sparta, and Athens. Very few can name Pella, the Macedonian capital. Like Epirus, it was adjacent to Greece and heavily influenced by Greece, but that doesn't make it the same place.

    Greece wasn't a collection of anything, nor was it a place. Demosthenes would have accepted the Greek colonies in modern Libya, Italy and Turkey as being unequivocally Greek. His point about Macedonia was about race. It is an interesting question in its own right, I suppose, and possibly one which DNA testing will eventually resolve, but it is fundamentally unimportant.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273
    Savvy Momentumites ahould be saying that the defeat was all down to Jezza.

    Then they can advocate the same policies under a new leader (RLB) as an election winning strategy.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    It was Corbyn and everything he stood for that repelled voters. You just can't easily make the distinction between what he stood for and his personal traits.

    Regardless of that, whichever way you look at it it I suggest that those expressing hostility to Corbyn would be less than convinced if he were replaced with an accolyte on record as giving him 10 out of 10, would it? That would just make matters even worse by rubbing salt in the wound.

    In terms of internal Labour politics, one thing that has changed is that many Labour members came out of their bubble by listening first hand to hostile responses from a household they expected to be supportive when knocking on their door.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:
    This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
    Would save Mark Francois doing it
    Won't he be the clapper?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,812
    Nice to have what I have believed all along proved by hard data. This wasn't a pro-Johnson or pro-Brexit GE, it was an anti-Corbyn GE.

    If Labour detoxify their leadership, the problems caused by Johnson and Cummings and the way they have thumbed their nose at 48% of the electorate may well come home to roost.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 37,530
    Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.

    The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18157697.jess-phillips-become-labour-leader-party-will-100-per-cent-committed-union/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    I’m not surprised at Star Trek: Picard.

    Patrick Stewart explicitly did it because he wanted to make a point about his vision of the future of humanity, and he’s the executive producer, so I always expected it to be about as political as it gets.

    The original Star Treks (particularly the Next Generation) were safe, cozy, family friendly, interesting and inclusive, though. Something no-one really got too offended by and provided food for thought. They were also fun too.

    If this is full-on luvvie and preachy then there is a risk it might alienate across the political divides but I doubt Stewart or his writers care too much about that.

    That's not true, Stewart said he loved the gritty nature of DS9 where Trek idealism met reality.

    Particularly In The Pale Moonlight when a Starfleet Captain faked evidence (and covered up a murder) to ensure the Romulans would join the war.

    He also cited Tacking Into The Wind where Sisko pretty much told Worf to assassinate The Klingon Chancellor compared to Picard's reaction in Reunion when he nearly kicked Worf out of Starfleet for killing the likely next Klingon Chancellor.

    He's always wanted to do stuff like that.
    It is true, if you re-read my original post you’ll see I was referring to the Next Generation and *not* DS9, which was political.

    I remember DS9 when it first came out and it wasn’t shy of courting controversy at the time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    HYUFD said:

    @Morris_Dancer The Star Trek writers aren’t even consistent on the ‘no money’ thing since they have a system of Federation credits to pay other alien races.

    You need a monetary system to measure and efficiently allocate and trade resources in any economy: it’s a key measure that allows an economy to be advanced and its peoples wealthy.

    In theory you wouldn’t if you had totally unlimited and unconstrained access of everyone to such resources, with complete fungibility, although I suspect you’d get all sorts of social problems and challenges with that too. One big effect would be that it’d be a form of anarchism.

    The Federation has replicators to produce most material things instantly so work is mainly based on the 'betterment of humanity' supposedly
    That’s what motivates most reasonable thoughtful people now.

    It isn’t a function of the presence of money, or not.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 25,921
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:
    This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
    I am sure there will be plenty of nutjobs desperate to donate
  • Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:
    This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
    Ah yes, the list of donors. It will be interesting to see if this is a government, party or pressure group project to harvest addresses.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,812

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:
    This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
    Would save Mark Francois doing it
    Won't he be the clapper?
    As he is a headbanger, perhaps he can headbutt the bell at the appropriate hour. Unlikely to cause him to lose too many braincells.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624
    I assume it is going to have to be repaired anyway (unless the plan was to have big ben never strike again), so it seems like a cheeky way to lower the cost by soliciting donors from those that are too eager to be parted with their money.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,812
    RobD said:

    I assume it is going to have to be repaired anyway (unless the plan was to have big ben never strike again), so it seems like a cheeky way to lower the cost by soliciting donors from those that are too eager to be parted with their money.
    Apparently approximately 52% of people are willing to be parted from their money for an even bigger pointless exercise.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 25,921
    edited January 14

    Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.

    The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18157697.jess-phillips-become-labour-leader-party-will-100-per-cent-committed-union/

    LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon.
    PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 1,262
    edited January 14

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    It was Corbyn and everything he stood for that repelled voters. You just can't easily make the distinction between what he stood for and his personal traits.

    Regardless of that, whichever way you look at it it I suggest that those expressing hostility to Corbyn would be less than convinced if he were replaced with an accolyte on record as giving him 10 out of 10, would it? That would just make matters even worse by rubbing salt in the wound.

    In terms of internal Labour politics, one thing that has changed is that many Labour members came out of their bubble by listening first hand to hostile responses from a household they expected to be supportive when knocking on their door.
    It is the common analysis of this and similar surveys by those opposed to Corbyn which I am questioning. If, as centrists claim, the problem was only Corbyn, then there is no need to change policy or anything else for that matter because Corbyn is leaving anyway. It is ironically the Corbynites like RLB who are saying there was a policy issue.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    Honestly, if Big Ben striking Brexit in is going to make Leavers happy, why not? There's no reason to lessen their joy just because I think it's a complete disaster.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,500
    RobD said:

    I assume it is going to have to be repaired anyway (unless the plan was to have big ben never strike again), so it seems like a cheeky way to lower the cost by soliciting donors from those that are too eager to be parted with their money.
    They had it working for NYE:

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2019/december/big-ben-and-new-years-eve-2019/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 37,530
    edited January 14
    malcolmg said:

    Jess Phillips one of five contenders for the Labour leadership, has insisted if she became her party’s leader it would be “100 per cent committed to the Union”.

    The Birmingham MP, who is due to campaign in Glasgow today, said the SNP’s “abject failings” on health and education were a "threat to opportunity and equality" for working people in Scotland.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18157697.jess-phillips-become-labour-leader-party-will-100-per-cent-committed-union/

    LOL, where do they dig up these nutters, labour have less support than UKIP in Scotland. Perhaps she should ponder that fact, just another dumbo who will sink back to the bottom soon.
    PS: Another liar peddling rubbish re NHS and education as well.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546

    Honestly, if Big Ben striking Brexit in is going to make Leavers happy, why not? There's no reason to lessen their joy just because I think it's a complete disaster.

    Are you a gloomster or a doomster, Alastair? :lol:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 42,624
    tlg86 said:

    RobD said:

    I assume it is going to have to be repaired anyway (unless the plan was to have big ben never strike again), so it seems like a cheeky way to lower the cost by soliciting donors from those that are too eager to be parted with their money.
    They had it working for NYE:

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2019/december/big-ben-and-new-years-eve-2019/
    Odd, maybe those were the old clappers. ;)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,329

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:
    This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen. I suppose the list of donors will provide an easy way of identifying those who need lifelong disability benefits due to chronic mental impairment.
    Ah yes, the list of donors. It will be interesting to see if this is a government, party or pressure group project to harvest addresses.
    Those three are no longer separate entities. #getbrexitdone #classicdom
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616

    Nice to have what I have believed all along proved by hard data. This wasn't a pro-Johnson or pro-Brexit GE, it was an anti-Corbyn GE.

    If Labour detoxify their leadership, the problems caused by Johnson and Cummings and the way they have thumbed their nose at 48% of the electorate may well come home to roost.

    Re-run the Dec 12 GE with everything the same except that Corbyn stepped down in the summer and was replaced by Starmer.

    What was the result?

    I'll go first. Con majority of 50.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908

    Are rightwingers now being triggered by Star Trek?

    Yes. Genuinely. The ongoing alt-right vs SJW conflict over "Star Trek Discovery" and "The Orville" is a sight to see. Preferably from a distance.

    (plus those pylons are definitely wrong. #justsaying)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546
    HYUFD said:
    Actual National GE, 2016:

    Clinton 48%
    Trump 46%
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546
    viewcode said:

    Are rightwingers now being triggered by Star Trek?

    Yes. Genuinely. The ongoing alt-right vs SJW conflict over "Star Trek Discovery" and "The Orville" is a sight to see. Preferably from a distance.

    (plus those pylons are definitely wrong. #justsaying)
    I actually liked the first season of Discovery.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,812

    Honestly, if Big Ben striking Brexit in is going to make Leavers happy, why not? There's no reason to lessen their joy just because I think it's a complete disaster.

    I agree. As a puerile expensive gesture it is a pretty good metaphor for Brexit. I think they should think of a whole load more too.

    I am surprised they haven't yet commissioned an equivalent cringer like New Labour's Millennium Dome exhibition. They should get the Queen to open it and sing a cross between Rule Britannia and Auld Lang Syne while holding hands with Bozo and Rees-Mogg, or better still Megan Markle ! The leaders of the world could be invited so they can all laugh at us. It is going to be great!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    It's a good question. I think that in 2017 the media focused on the policies, which most people quite liked. There was lots of anti-Corbyn stuff too, but he was new to most people and they were struck by the enthusiastic rallies on TV. By 2019, both Brexit and the anti-semitism row had worn the gloss off, and he was no longer new and the rallies rather smaller. But the shit-posting was a factor too, and will be again even if we select Jesus Christ as leader - look how he incited violence against bankers, he'll ruin Britain's finances.
    He overthrew the moneychangers tables iirc. I don't think he went about with a baseball bat
    And Jesus only wanted 10%. Across the income thresholds rich and less rich people now tend to hand over around 35% to 40% of their earnings in taxation.
    Really ?
    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    viewcode said:

    Are rightwingers now being triggered by Star Trek?

    Yes. Genuinely. The ongoing alt-right vs SJW conflict over "Star Trek Discovery" and "The Orville" is a sight to see. Preferably from a distance.

    (plus those pylons are definitely wrong. #justsaying)
    Jesus H Christmas !
    Can’t they confine themselves to the BBC and leave it at that....?
  • nova said:

    Again, this analysis is backwards.

    The finding is the problem was Corbyn not Corbynism. This should distress centrists and gladden Corbynites. Corbyn the man is soon to leave the stage so if, as centrists and surveys claim, voters were repelled by him personally then job done and there is no need to adopt centrist policies.

    Personally, I am sceptical of these sort of surveys but that is another story.

    Since Oh Jeremy Corbyn walked on water in 2017 but sank in 2019, we should ask what changed in two years. CCHQ micro-targetted shitposting?

    In 2017, I think he actually got a chance to make a SECOND first impression. It was probably the first time a lot of people had actually seen much of him, rather than read about his faults. He sharpened up his appearance, and kept his temper mostly in check, and the 2017 manifesto was pretty tame (based on 2015 as they had to get it out in a hurry).

    Theresa May turned out to be totally awful at campaigning, and so Corbyn didn't look so bad. Brexit, plus the collapse of the Lib Dems, made it a straight choice of Tory v Labour, and so he ended up with a high vote share.

    In 2019, people had seen the best of Corbyn, but also seen a lot more of the antisemitism, his comments about Salisbury, etc., and weren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt again.

    As for Corbynism, if it's the 2019 manifesto, then it's a mess, and I don't really think it exists. I'd be surprised if anyone could create a coherent platform based on the last four years of Labour.
    The 2019 manifesto was appalling as Nick Palmer and others have noted. Labour's 2019 campaign combined the worst elements of Ed Miliband 2015 -- a shapeless wish-list of policies with no priorities or guiding philosophy -- with 2017 Theresa May -- ad hoc announcements almost designed to repel voters. As I posted last year, it is almost as if Labour was run by Tory moles.

    CCHQ on the other hand, did learn from Theresa May and systematically shot all Labour's 2017 foxes and made it appear that Boris was meeting ordinary voters even if on closer examination it was just a series of tightly-controlled photo-ops.

    There is also the suspicion of anti-Corbyn below-the-radar shitposting by CCHQ but not much evidence so far (not that I've looked but I hope this will be explored in any forthcoming "how Boris won" books). We do know there was a late blitz of CCHQ social media activity and that CCHQ had engaged NZ specialists in dark campaigns.

  • RobD said:

    I assume it is going to have to be repaired anyway (unless the plan was to have big ben never strike again), so it seems like a cheeky way to lower the cost by soliciting donors from those that are too eager to be parted with their money.
    Apparently approximately 52% of people are willing to be parted from their money for an even bigger pointless exercise.
    And the other 48% seem quite happy to be mugged off into paying £10 billion a year net for the privilege of preferential access to a market we have a £60 billion trade deficit with.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,329



    I agree. As a puerile expensive gesture it is a pretty good metaphor for Brexit. I think they should think of a whole load more too.

    An auto-da-fé for Remainers and located in Pall Mall but otherwise exactly as described by Voltaire in Candide.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900
    Yet he still advertises himself as ViceChair of IlfordSouthCLP.

    Anyone with any sanity would have resigned responsibility on the spot even if they didn't quit the party.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,239
    kinabalu said:
    Isn't this just recognising public money won't be spent on it?

    I think it's rather clever.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908

    viewcode said:

    Are rightwingers now being triggered by Star Trek?

    Yes. Genuinely. The ongoing alt-right vs SJW conflict over "Star Trek Discovery" and "The Orville" is a sight to see. Preferably from a distance.

    (plus those pylons are definitely wrong. #justsaying)
    I actually liked the first season of Discovery.
    It was a curate's egg. The first episodes were awful, it started to improve when they got on board Discovery, and the latter Mirror Universe episodes were fun. Season 2 was a whole different ball game, and Season 3 will be wildly different again given the time-jump.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900

    kinabalu said:
    Isn't this just recognising public money won't be spent on it?

    I think it's rather clever.
    It's a great metaphor for the future - after Brexit you will be paying for a lot of things that just used to be there.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,375
    There was a very successful hatchet job done on Corbyn by three groups, each with their own agenda.

    1. The Tories obviously. They will try to do the same with whoever wins the Labour leadership. They'll be already trawling through Starmer's record as DPP etc but it will be less fertile ground than Corbyn's. It comes with the territory.

    2. The Blairites within the Labour party who wanted to get rid of Corbyn and were prepared to sabotage him and their party's electoral prospects to achieve their aims. They've succeeded. Hopefully they'll accept Starmer but if Long-Bailey gets the post, I suspect the fight will go on.

    3. The Israeli lobby who aimed to de-legitimise criticism of Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians as anti-semitism. (Not denying there is genuine anti-semitism in the Labour party. Unfortunately there are racists everywhere). They have totally succeeded with all five candidates accepting the 10 demands.

    Three separate agendas that combined with lethal effect on Corbyn's political ambitions.

    Hopefully Starmer will only face the Tories. He'll do well. The Labour 2017 policies were popular and Starmer is going to keep them as a base. That, combined with the crossover later this year between satisfaction with Johnson and Starmer, suggests that Labour next Government is a good bet (even though it will probably be a minority de-toxified government).
This discussion has been closed.