Well, the Conservatives’ wholly undeserved success was dismal last night and the triumphalism of their supporters tonight is still less edifying. Enjoy your moment. Meanwhile, the country is going up shit creek.
Ever wondered, perhaps, whether it was the behaviour of some entitled Remainers that has helped navigate the country up shit creek ?
After the Brexit Referendum, your call for a London Independence Party because the rights and interest of Londoners had not been respected was the most idiotic misreading of the political situation since the downfall of the East European dictators, still praising Communism to the skies as the Wall fell and the citizenry rioted.
I am not very happy with what has happened, but I can at least see that the blame has to be pretty widely sprayed around.
A London Independence Party would remain one of the best ways out of this sorry mess. The inbred yokels who expect to be cosseted by the country’s breadwinners could indulge their backward-looking fantasies at their own expense. Meanwhile, the bits of the country that actually work could be invested in properly.
Oh come on, Alastair. I’m often in agreement with you. But calling people living outside London “inbred yokels” is beneath you. Badly done.
Also, even accepting that London is the breadwinner, its main industry - the City - has cost the country very dearly, is still costing it and has not exactly done much to improve the country’s moral character, for those who care about such things. People see an entitled bunch of incompetent, greedy and, in some cases, crooked people who expected to be bailed out by others from the consequences of their own misdeeds and then sneer at those who suffered the opportunity cost of that bailout.
Those on the Remain side / living in London need to do a bit of self-reflection too.
Game, set & match, problem is the likes of Meeks don't do self-reflection.
In terms of Northern Ireland parties, I think it's onwards and upwards for The Alliance Party and SDLP can only grow their vote share. I think those DUP safe seats are no longer safe.
How do you rate the chances of Irish reunification within the next 10 years?
(Many thanks for your NI posts, especially your comprehensive, and objective, analysis early on in the campaign.)
No worries. On the Irish unity subject, I was informed a 3-4 years ago that it would take 10-12 years before we can even have a poll / referendum. Also, SF would need to improve their seat count in the republic which is probably inevitable.
I don't think SDLP are too interested in it although the two newly elected MPs are definitely the best for their Constituencies as the result proved. Alliance would probably be very accepting of an all Ireland. I also think if Arlene Foster's father wasn't murdered by the opposition (I.R.A), I'd say she would be a lot more accepting of united Ireland.
Some unionists have said there will definitely be a referendum. There should be a vote within the next 8-10 years and as for the chances of winning, there actually fairly decent specially with the demographic changes in the North.
Great! I look forward to that.
How do the NI Greens plan to campaign? For reunification?
Isn't the basis of the Alliance Party that they refuse to see NI in sectarian terms?
That's their policy but as I said all the leading members are from unionist backgrounds / area's if you like.
Interesting, I imagined it being more balanced as a party. Surely by being neutral, but mostly Protestant, that makes reunification more likely.
Reunification would rather radically reshape Ireland as a bicultural country, but perhaps we are seeing that change already. In practice, NI might need devolution within Ireland, rather than in the UK.
Indeed, it's always good to see someone interested in Northern Ireland politics.
Isn't the Alliance bias more of identity than religion? So I could say I am Irish and protestant and not see a contradiction in that. Regardless of constitutions, it seems Irishness is winning out, no doubt in part because of the recent success of that country, which is also becoming more socially tolerant.
I came on this evening expecting to see our PB Tory friends magnanimous in victory. I leave disappointed.
Tyson this evening called Tories evil, it reflects the attitude of much of the left, sometimes a little triumphalism is due and with the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher today tonight is just such a time
By the way congratulations for all your many correct calls despite the bile directed at you..
Isn't the basis of the Alliance Party that they refuse to see NI in sectarian terms?
That's their policy but as I said all the leading members are from unionist backgrounds / area's if you like.
Interesting, I imagined it being more balanced as a party. Surely by being neutral, but mostly Protestant, that makes reunification more likely.
Reunification would rather radically reshape Ireland as a bicultural country, but perhaps we are seeing that change already. In practice, NI might need devolution within Ireland, rather than in the UK.
Indeed, it's always good to see someone interested in Northern Ireland politics.
I don't think he is. PB's arch-remoaner faction is always feverishly looking for signs of doom for the UK; it's the political equivalent of taking the ball away when you've lost. See also William Glenn's conversion to Sturgeonism.
Well, the Conservatives’ wholly undeserved success was dismal last night and the triumphalism of their supporters tonight is still less edifying. Enjoy your moment. Meanwhile, the country is going up shit creek.
We won, you didn't.
It's SO satisfying
That warm feeling you have is from having pissed yourself.
Chill out and grow up and accept defeat like an adult.
Well, the Conservatives’ wholly undeserved success was dismal last night and the triumphalism of their supporters tonight is still less edifying. Enjoy your moment. Meanwhile, the country is going up shit creek.
Ever wondered, perhaps, whether it was the behaviour of some entitled Remainers that has helped navigate the country up shit creek ?
After the Brexit Referendum, your call for a London Independence Party because the rights and interest of Londoners had not been respected was the most idiotic misreading of the political situation since the downfall of the East European dictators, still praising Communism to the skies as the Wall fell and the citizenry rioted.
I am not very happy with what has happened, but I can at least see that the blame has to be pretty widely sprayed around.
A London Independence Party would remain one of the best ways out of this sorry mess. The inbred yokels who expect to be cosseted by the country’s breadwinners could indulge their backward-looking fantasies at their own expense. Meanwhile, the bits of the country that actually work could be invested in properly.
Like the Bourbons, you have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
Off to Hungary with you, so you can look at refugee children in cages while eating cheese under your fig tree.
The lack of self awareness from him is at times astounding
It was almost even worse for Labour! Cooper, Milliband and others barely held on. There is another tranche of seats in the "red wall" that could fall with another small swing to the tories.
Labour getting up to 203 was just a bit frustrating. More than we managed in 1997, 2001 *and* 2005.
Labour below 165 seats is what we should be aiming for. Taste of their own medicine and all that.
Well, the Conservatives’ wholly undeserved success was dismal last night and the triumphalism of their supporters tonight is still less edifying. Enjoy your moment. Meanwhile, the country is going up shit creek.
Ever wondered, perhaps, whether it was the behaviour of some entitled Remainers that has helped navigate the country up shit creek ?
After the Brexit Referendum, your call for a London Independence Party because the rights and interest of Londoners had not been respected was the most idiotic misreading of the political situation since the downfall of the East European dictators, still praising Communism to the skies as the Wall fell and the citizenry rioted.
I am not very happy with what has happened, but I can at least see that the blame has to be pretty widely sprayed around.
A London Independence Party would remain one of the best ways out of this sorry mess. The inbred yokels who expect to be cosseted by the country’s breadwinners could indulge their backward-looking fantasies at their own expense. Meanwhile, the bits of the country that actually work could be invested in properly.
Oh come on, Alastair. I’m often in agreement with you. But calling people living outside London “inbred yokels” is beneath you. Badly done.
Also, even accepting that London is the breadwinner, its main industry - the City - has cost the country very dearly, is still costing it and has not exactly done much to improve the country’s moral character, for those who care about such things. People see an entitled bunch of incompetent, greedy and, in some cases, crooked people who expected to be bailed out by others from the consequences of their own misdeeds and then sneer at those who suffered the opportunity cost of that bailout.
Those on the Remain side / living in London need to do a bit of self-reflection too.
I agree. It is the “us vs them”-ism that has led us to this point.
"Holier-than-thou Lefties have spent months telling traditional Labour supporters who didn’t like what they had done to their party to ‘F*** off and join the Tories’.
Millions, it seems, did just that. "
No, I don't think that is so. The Tory vote was only up by 300 000 over 2017. Lab dropped 3 and a bit million votes. The other 2.7 million went elsewhere, mostly to the LD, and also about a million to not voting.
I am interested in the turnout anecdata, but to study it I would like to look at turnout by Constituency.
Leicester West (the most Leavey part of the city) had a particularly low turnout, and I am interested in why.
I note that the Northern Con Gains that I have looked at seem to be polling lower than the Nat average, and with bigger drops in turnout than average. Scotland had a high turnout, and that seems to favour the SNP.
It was almost even worse for Labour! Cooper, Milliband and others barely held on. There is another tranche of seats in the "red wall" that could fall with another small swing to the tories.
Labour getting up to 203 was just a bit frustrating. More than we managed in 1997, 2001 *and* 2005.
Labour below 165 seats is what we should be aiming for. Taste of their own medicine and all that.
Isn't the basis of the Alliance Party that they refuse to see NI in sectarian terms?
That's their policy but as I said all the leading members are from unionist backgrounds / area's if you like.
Interesting, I imagined it being more balanced as a party. Surely by being neutral, but mostly Protestant, that makes reunification more likely.
Reunification would rather radically reshape Ireland as a bicultural country, but perhaps we are seeing that change already. In practice, NI might need devolution within Ireland, rather than in the UK.
Indeed, it's always good to see someone interested in Northern Ireland politics.
I don't think he is. PB's arch-remoaner faction is always feverishly looking for signs of doom for the UK; it's the political equivalent of taking the ball away when you've lost. See also William Glenn's conversion to Sturgeonism.
Lay of the drugs, my friend.
I think you mean 'off', but cheers for the advice.
My colleague told me her boyfriend was a Tory the other day...I asked her how could she cope? She said he's just stupid, and they don't talk politics....
They won the most seats, percentages are just numbers.
If doesn't matter if you win by 5,000 votes or 50 votes, ultimately the aim is to win.
Yes, and that is why I am fairly chilled about the Tory majority. In practice it matters little if it is 10 or 100, a majority is there.
The electorate seems increasingly volatile so quite possible to recover in one election, with the right leader and policies. Incidentally, true too of the Lib Dems who added 1.3 million voters. Jo was not as bad as is being said on this board. That was quite an achievement.
Labour members need to get a grip of that strange thing called reality. Ditch the Owen Jones pieces and the Aaron Novari media rants, and elect someone who in 5 years can reduce the Tory majority to something within touching distance 5 years later.
That is the brute reality.
This 'aint the Student Union coffee shop, this is the election of a government.
They won the most seats, percentages are just numbers.
If doesn't matter if you win by 5,000 votes or 50 votes, ultimately the aim is to win.
Yes, and that is why I am fairly chilled about the Tory majority. In practice it matters little if it is 10 or 100, a majority is there.
The electorate seems increasingly volatile so quite possible to recover in one election, with the right leader and policies. Incidentally, true too of the Lib Dems who added 1.3 million voters. Jo was not as bad as is being said on this board. That was quite an achievement.
I agree with you there. 13% is not to be sniffed at. More of a legacy for her than 'being a woman'.
Isn't the basis of the Alliance Party that they refuse to see NI in sectarian terms?
That's their policy but as I said all the leading members are from unionist backgrounds / area's if you like.
Interesting, I imagined it being more balanced as a party. Surely by being neutral, but mostly Protestant, that makes reunification more likely.
Reunification would rather radically reshape Ireland as a bicultural country, but perhaps we are seeing that change already. In practice, NI might need devolution within Ireland, rather than in the UK.
Indeed, it's always good to see someone interested in Northern Ireland politics.
I hope not, obviously, but I'm a shitting-the-bed hyper-pessimist at heart.
Probably means I'll enjoying savouring this victory more than most, because I'll be worrying that Labour could win big next time or I could get cancer and die before the next GE etc.
"Holier-than-thou Lefties have spent months telling traditional Labour supporters who didn’t like what they had done to their party to ‘F*** off and join the Tories’.
Millions, it seems, did just that. "
No, I don't think that is so. The Tory vote was only up by 300 000 over 2017. Lab dropped 3 and a bit million votes. The other 2.7 million went elsewhere, mostly to the LD, and also about a million to not voting.
I am interested in the turnout anecdata, but to study it I would like to look at turnout by Constituency.
Leicester West (the most Leavey part of the city) had a particularly low turnout, and I am interested in why.
I note that the Northern Con Gains that I have looked at seem to be polling lower than the Nat average, and with bigger drops in turnout than average. Scotland had a high turnout, and that seems to favour the SNP.
I think you are right - I chose that part of the article because it is something the Corbynistas have said before - it's a standing joke on here. . It might have been better to say they told them to f**k off and they did.
I posted a tweet earlier from a guy who is allegedly a doctor, 2 actually
Leaving the one aside where he blames Israel and Russia for Labour's defeat.
Take a look at what he called the people in the midlands and the north who dared to look at Labour's offer and say, "you know what, no thanks"
Labour members need to get a grip of that strange thing called reality. Ditch the Owen Jones pieces and the Aaron Novari media rants, and elect someone who in 5 years can reduce the Tory majority to something within touching distance 5 years later.
That is the brute reality.
This 'aint the Student Union coffee shop, this is the election of a government.
Really is astonishing to learn that thinkpieces about shouting at the working classes on the doorstep, and t shirts about sucking cock weren't quite the election winning strategy for sweeping to victory across the nation that they had assumed.
Well, the Conservatives’ wholly undeserved success was dismal last night and the triumphalism of their supporters tonight is still less edifying. Enjoy your moment. Meanwhile, the country is going up shit creek.
We won, you didn't.
It's SO satisfying
That warm feeling you have is from having pissed yourself.
Chill out and grow up and accept defeat like an adult.
Sean telling other folk to “grow up”!?!
About as much self-insight as Jo Swinson.
I'm looking forward to SeanT putting on his big girl's pants and accepting losing a grand to William Glenn like an adult. I think one of the wee Tory boys on here was proposing that the handing over of the filthy lucre should be filmed, though that was very much based on the expectation of it travelling in the opposite direction. The moment should definitely be recorded for posterity.
I need to know more about the membership before deciding on Labour leader markets but my view is probably with union backing the Corbyn approved successer gets in, I think this will be Long Bailey or Rayner. I just don’t forsee Corbyn, Milne et all letting the party drift back to the centre while they have their hands on the wheels of power, thus Starmer seems too short in the markets.
I can see someone like Lammy or Jess Phillips as centrist candidates but if they win Labour are even more fucked as their brand of divisive identity politics and social media attention craving will go down like a bucket of sick in the seats they need to win. Every party needs a Jess Phillips in the same way they need a James Cleverley, but they don’t need them as leaders. I think Lammy and Phillips both might stand though as their egos have substantially been boosted by their twitter echo chambers.
For me Nandy is the best communicator and has the broadest appeal out there (Burnham would also be a possibility if he was an MP), but they won’t pick her because the membership are idiots. Starmer would be ok as a Michael Howard style caretaker but he doesn’t inspire, he’s too London and is on the border of being too left to win an election (His Remain credentials have disguised his politics) and he has all the charisma of Terry May.
At the moment my money would be on Angela Rayner, but either way they have no one obvious with anything like the Boris factor and the future looks a bit bleak for them.
"Holier-than-thou Lefties have spent months telling traditional Labour supporters who didn’t like what they had done to their party to ‘F*** off and join the Tories’.
Millions, it seems, did just that. "
No, I don't think that is so. The Tory vote was only up by 300 000 over 2017. Lab dropped 3 and a bit million votes. The other 2.7 million went elsewhere, mostly to the LD, and also about a million to not voting.
I am interested in the turnout anecdata, but to study it I would like to look at turnout by Constituency.
Leicester West (the most Leavey part of the city) had a particularly low turnout, and I am interested in why.
I note that the Northern Con Gains that I have looked at seem to be polling lower than the Nat average, and with bigger drops in turnout than average. Scotland had a high turnout, and that seems to favour the SNP.
I think you are right - I chose that part of the article because it is something the Corbynistas have said before - it's a standing joke on here. . It might have been better to say they told them to f**k off and they did.
I posted a tweet earlier from a guy who is allegedly a doctor, 2 actually
Leaving the one aside where he blames Israel and Russia for Labour's defeat.
Take a look at what he called the people in the midlands and the north who dared to look at Labour's offer and say, "you know what, no thanks"
Imagine if a tory had said anything like that.
There is an arsehole element in every population, but he seems particularly nasty. I try to ignore that stuff.
I need to know more about the membership before deciding on Labour leader markets but my view is probably with union backing the Corbyn approved successer gets in, I think this will be Long Bailey or Rayner. I just don’t forsee Corbyn, Milne et all letting the party drift back to the centre while they have their hands on the wheels of power this Starmer seems too short in the markets.
I can see someone like Lammy or Jess Phillips as centrist candidates but if they win Labour are even more fucked as their brand of divisive identity politics and social media attention craving will go down like a bucket of sick in the seats they need to win. Every party needs a Jess Phillips in the same way they need a James Cleverley, but they don’t need them as leaders. I think Lammy and Phillips both might stand though as their egos have substantially been boosted by their twitter echo chambers.
For me Nandy is the best communicator and has the broadest appeal out there (Burnham would also be a possibility if he was an MP), but they won’t pick her because the membership are idiots. Starmer would be ok as a Michael Howard style caretaker but he doesn’t inspire, he’s too London and is on the border of being too left to win an election (His Remain credentials have disguised his politics) and he has all the charisma of Terry May.
At the moment my money would be on Angela Rayner, but either way they have no one obvious with anything like the Boris factor and the future looks a bit bleak for them.
What the hell is wrong with the unions? They are supposed to be interested in gaining representation for the workers in HoC. So why elect another loser?
Having said that, betting wise, I have been on Rayner for a while now.
It's surely got to be Jarvis if Labour has any sense. Ex-Army officer neutralises the un-patriotic angle, LFI member the anti-semitism bit. Articulate and a clear break from Corbyn.
I need to know more about the membership before deciding on Labour leader markets but my view is probably with union backing the Corbyn approved successer gets in, I think this will be Long Bailey or Rayner. I just don’t forsee Corbyn, Milne et all letting the party drift back to the centre while they have their hands on the wheels of power this Starmer seems too short in the markets.
I can see someone like Lammy or Jess Phillips as centrist candidates but if they win Labour are even more fucked as their brand of divisive identity politics and social media attention craving will go down like a bucket of sick in the seats they need to win. Every party needs a Jess Phillips in the same way they need a James Cleverley, but they don’t need them as leaders. I think Lammy and Phillips both might stand though as their egos have substantially been boosted by their twitter echo chambers.
For me Nandy is the best communicator and has the broadest appeal out there (Burnham would also be a possibility if he was an MP), but they won’t pick her because the membership are idiots. Starmer would be ok as a Michael Howard style caretaker but he doesn’t inspire, he’s too London and is on the border of being too left to win an election (His Remain credentials have disguised his politics) and he has all the charisma of Terry May.
At the moment my money would be on Angela Rayner, but either way they have no one obvious with anything like the Boris factor and the future looks a bit bleak for them.
What the hell is wrong with the unions? They are supposed to be interested in gaining representation for the workers in HoC. So why elect another loser?
Having said that, betting wise, I have been on Rayner for a while now.
I would agree Rayner is the most likely winner.
I would prefer Nandy, who is exactly what Labour need, but I think she can't win & I am not sure she has the hunger.
Phillips would be a disastrous choice, IMO. Vain, combative and empty-headed.
I genuinely don’t understand how any of those who felt strongly about leaving the EU can not have a sense of empathy with Scots who want independence. If you’re English and you want to keep the Union together without consent, that’s not unionist. It’s (literal) empire building.
Pidcock losing may just have been Labour's dodge of a major bullet.
Got a feeling the membership currently would have gone for it. 5 more wasted years.
I said last night that her losing her seat may well have been significant as Benn losing his in 83 was. Given that RLB is a charisma vacuum, there is no clear Corbynite heir apparent.
They won the most seats, percentages are just numbers.
If doesn't matter if you win by 5,000 votes or 50 votes, ultimately the aim is to win.
Yes, and that is why I am fairly chilled about the Tory majority. In practice it matters little if it is 10 or 100, a majority is there.
The electorate seems increasingly volatile so quite possible to recover in one election, with the right leader and policies. Incidentally, true too of the Lib Dems who added 1.3 million voters. Jo was not as bad as is being said on this board. That was quite an achievement.
You could argue that the LibDems are building a more stable base and a single identity. You can’t now argue they claim to be one thing in the north and another down south.
It's surely got to be Jarvis if Labour has any sense. Ex-Army officer neutralises the un-patriotic angle, LFI member the anti-semitism bit. Articulate and a clear break from Corbyn.
It’s like being back in 2015 and his background is ace I agree, but there is no evidence he wants the job given his personal life ruled him out last time and his gender counts against him. 50/1 seems long as he’s potentially a decent leader but he’s the antithesis of what I reckon the membership are looking for.
Yes, and that is why I am fairly chilled about the Tory majority. In practice it matters little if it is 10 or 100, a majority is there. The electorate seems increasingly volatile so quite possible to recover in one election, with the right leader and policies. Incidentally, true too of the Lib Dems who added 1.3 million voters. Jo was not as bad as is being said on this board. That was quite an achievement.
I agree with you there. 13% is not to be sniffed at. More of a legacy for her than 'being a woman'.
In fact, the Lib Dem strategy very nearly came off. It was only the utter stupidity of Corbyn and his inflexible minders who came up with an outrageously Socialist agenda, which naturally panicked all the decent Conservatives into heading back to the short-term safety of a Boris government.....
Without this short-sighted strategy of the Labour leadership, the Lib Dems could have taken a lot more Conservative seats and, who knows, the Labour Party might have been able to hang on to a few more too.
There was no need for us to be landed with the hard-line Tory dictatorship. As you see, I blame the Labour Party entirely.
In fairness Polly is never consistent - her contortions about whether or not to support Gordon Brown were legendary.
You mean she'll parrot any old rubbish?
She just hates the Tories with a passion, but it's not always clear whether sticking or twisting with the current Labour leader that week is the best way to harm them.
It's surely got to be Jarvis if Labour has any sense. Ex-Army officer neutralises the un-patriotic angle, LFI member the anti-semitism bit. Articulate and a clear break from Corbyn.
It's surely got to be Jarvis if Labour has any sense. Ex-Army officer neutralises the un-patriotic angle, LFI member the anti-semitism bit. Articulate and a clear break from Corbyn.
I don't think he's likely to go in for any cross dressing.
Pidcock losing may just have been Labour's dodge of a major bullet.
Got a feeling the membership currently would have gone for it. 5 more wasted years.
I said last night that her losing her seat may well have been significant as Benn losing his in 83 was. Given that RLB is a charisma vacuum, there is no clear Corbynite heir apparent.
Dawn Butler has a bit about her (despite the incompetence), bit of a firebrand and as a black female surely the membership couldn’t resist voting for her to show off their credentials, even more so if she has a decent campaign. Corbyn certainly wouldn’t oppose her.
As a rule of thumb since 2015 whoever is the least electable candidate probably has the greatest chance of winning the leadership.
It's surely got to be Jarvis if Labour has any sense. Ex-Army officer neutralises the un-patriotic angle, LFI member the anti-semitism bit. Articulate and a clear break from Corbyn.
It’s like being back in 2015 and his background is ace I agree, but there is no evidence he wants the job given his personal life ruled him out last time and his gender counts against him. 50/1 seems long as he’s potentially a decent leader but he’s the antithesis of what I reckon the membership are looking for.
Yeah, I guess that my 'if Labour has any sense' caveat rules him in. I'd just really like a valid alternative next election
Yes, and that is why I am fairly chilled about the Tory majority. In practice it matters little if it is 10 or 100, a majority is there. The electorate seems increasingly volatile so quite possible to recover in one election, with the right leader and policies. Incidentally, true too of the Lib Dems who added 1.3 million voters. Jo was not as bad as is being said on this board. That was quite an achievement.
I agree with you there. 13% is not to be sniffed at. More of a legacy for her than 'being a woman'.
In fact, the Lib Dem strategy very nearly came off. It was only the utter stupidity of Corbyn and his inflexible minders who came up with an outrageously Socialist agenda, which naturally panicked all the decent Conservatives into heading back to the short-term safety of a Boris government.....
Without this short-sighted strategy of the Labour leadership, the Lib Dems could have taken a lot more Conservative seats and, who knows, the Labour Party might have been able to hang on to a few more too.
There was no need for us to be landed with the hard-line Tory dictatorship. As you see, I blame the Labour Party entirely.
In fairness Polly is never consistent - her contortions about whether or not to support Gordon Brown were legendary.
You mean she'll parrot any old rubbish?
She just hates the Tories with a passion, but it's not always clear whether sticking or twisting with the current Labour leader that week is the best way to harm them.
At least the New Statesman can hold its head high. Their final editorial before the shellacking said Jezza was not fit to be PM.
Pidcock losing may just have been Labour's dodge of a major bullet.
Got a feeling the membership currently would have gone for it. 5 more wasted years.
I said last night that her losing her seat may well have been significant as Benn losing his in 83 was. Given that RLB is a charisma vacuum, there is no clear Corbynite heir apparent.
Dawn Butler has a bit about her (despite the incompetence), bit of a firebrand and as a black female surely the membership couldn’t resist voting for her to show off their credentials, even more so if she has a decent campaign. Corbyn certainly wouldn’t oppose her.
As a rule of thumb since 2015 whoever is the least electable candidate probably has the greatest chance of winning the leadership.
This is a joke contest. There is not a competent, marketable successor to Corbyn who is any better than Corbyn - stick with him 🥳
Yes, and that is why I am fairly chilled about the Tory majority. In practice it matters little if it is 10 or 100, a majority is there. The electorate seems increasingly volatile so quite possible to recover in one election, with the right leader and policies. Incidentally, true too of the Lib Dems who added 1.3 million voters. Jo was not as bad as is being said on this board. That was quite an achievement.
I agree with you there. 13% is not to be sniffed at. More of a legacy for her than 'being a woman'.
In fact, the Lib Dem strategy very nearly came off. It was only the utter stupidity of Corbyn and his inflexible minders who came up with an outrageously Socialist agenda, which naturally panicked all the decent Conservatives into heading back to the short-term safety of a Boris government.....
Without this short-sighted strategy of the Labour leadership, the Lib Dems could have taken a lot more Conservative seats and, who knows, the Labour Party might have been able to hang on to a few more too.
There was no need for us to be landed with the hard-line Tory dictatorship. As you see, I blame the Labour Party entirely.
Pidcock losing may just have been Labour's dodge of a major bullet.
Got a feeling the membership currently would have gone for it. 5 more wasted years.
I said last night that her losing her seat may well have been significant as Benn losing his in 83 was. Given that RLB is a charisma vacuum, there is no clear Corbynite heir apparent.
Dawn Butler has a bit about her (despite the incompetence), bit of a firebrand and as a black female surely the membership couldn’t resist voting for her to show off their credentials, even more so if she has a decent campaign. Corbyn certainly wouldn’t oppose her.
As a rule of thumb since 2015 whoever is the least electable candidate probably has the greatest chance of winning the leadership.
Trouble is Butler is attached to her taxpayer funded whirlpool bath..
In fairness Polly is never consistent - her contortions about whether or not to support Gordon Brown were legendary.
You mean she'll parrot any old rubbish?
She just hates the Tories with a passion, but it's not always clear whether sticking or twisting with the current Labour leader that week is the best way to harm them.
At least the New Statesman can hold its head high. Their final editorial before the shellacking said Jezza was not fit to be PM.
Well that just makes them one more outlet to point the finger of blame at, doesn't it? "It's The Staggers Wot Swung It" and all that...
(Somewhat amused by the Twitterbynistas cancelling their Guardian subscriptions en masse today.)
The sad thing for Labour is the shoes have taken too long to drop. There's sometimes a cycle where a party loses, indulges its base which rebuilds the membership but then loses more, then learns from that and moves back to where the voters are over the next couple of elections.
But because there was no convincingly left-wing candidate in 2010, they didn't really get down to entertaining themselves in a gentleman's manner until 2015. Then because TMay was too stubborn to do the normal thing of asking the voters what they wanted and pretending she was going to give it to them, Corbyn failed to get defeated convincingly in 2017, and the next step had to wait until yesterday.
So now they've got *at least* another five years in opposition, probably more like ten if the members are as slow on the uptake as I suspect they are.
Pidcock losing may just have been Labour's dodge of a major bullet.
Got a feeling the membership currently would have gone for it. 5 more wasted years.
I said last night that her losing her seat may well have been significant as Benn losing his in 83 was. Given that RLB is a charisma vacuum, there is no clear Corbynite heir apparent.
Dawn Butler has a bit about her (despite the incompetence), bit of a firebrand and as a black female surely the membership couldn’t resist voting for her to show off their credentials, even more so if she has a decent campaign. Corbyn certainly wouldn’t oppose her.
As a rule of thumb since 2015 whoever is the least electable candidate probably has the greatest chance of winning the leadership.
She’s pretty dense. What was it about having one stupid leader losing two elections that would make Labour choose a second stupid one?
I genuinely don’t understand how any of those who felt strongly about leaving the EU can not have a sense of empathy with Scots who want independence. If you’re English and you want to keep the Union together without consent, that’s not unionist. It’s (literal) empire building.
The message on the doorstep in this election was clear: the party was out of touch, the leader was weak, and we weren’t a credible party of government. Our manifesto was not affordable, our party had become nasty.
Yet the narrative rehashed ferociously by the social media cheerleaders and dozy frontbenchers is that it was Brexit wot won it. But for every time Brexit was raised on the doorsteps, the leadership was raised four more – even by those sticking with us. There was visceral anger from lifelong Labour voters who felt they couldn’t vote for the party they had supported all their lives because of “that man at the top”. They had sent us this message loud and clear in 2017; I was told frequently by my constituents to “go back down to London and get rid of him”.
Speaking as a remainer Conservative, the EU had bugger all to do with this election. This was about stopping Marxism for me. I read the Labour manifesto and buried my head in my hands. I'm an investor, I have many investor and self-employed friends. Labour's manifesto was a bigger suicide note than 1983
Corbyn is the most unpopular opposition leader since records began. And though we may not like it, we know that voters’ assessment of the party leaders plays a huge part in their decision.
Labour knew it and Corbyn knew it. Those appalling numbers were not state secrets. His admirers always describe him as a selfless, almost saintly man, devoid of ego. So why didn’t he take one look at his own ratings and say, “I am clearly a drag on this party’s prospects. Those who need a Labour government have a better chance of getting one if I step aside.” Not a chance.
Corbyn’s own vanity was too great for him even to consider such an act of self-sacrifice. Instead he was encouraged by his own devoted legions of supporters, for whom the idea of a change of leader was heresy. In their mind, it was better to lose under Corbyn than to have a shot at winning with someone – anyone – else.
I genuinely don’t understand how any of those who felt strongly about leaving the EU can not have a sense of empathy with Scots who want independence. If you’re English and you want to keep the Union together without consent, that’s not unionist. It’s (literal) empire building.
This is absolutely spot on. If the Scots wish to have another referendum then it should not be up to the British Parliament or Government to stop them. The most likely way to make a majority of Scots want independence is to tell them they are not even allowed to vote on it. The same arguments about sovereignty apply to both the position of the UK in the EU and the position of Scotland in the UK.
The message on the doorstep in this election was clear: the party was out of touch, the leader was weak, and we weren’t a credible party of government. Our manifesto was not affordable, our party had become nasty.
Yet the narrative rehashed ferociously by the social media cheerleaders and dozy frontbenchers is that it was Brexit wot won it. But for every time Brexit was raised on the doorsteps, the leadership was raised four more – even by those sticking with us. There was visceral anger from lifelong Labour voters who felt they couldn’t vote for the party they had supported all their lives because of “that man at the top”. They had sent us this message loud and clear in 2017; I was told frequently by my constituents to “go back down to London and get rid of him”.
"We ignored that warning in the unquestioning belief that everyone hates the Tories as much as we do, and went boldly out to the public for a general election. To do so just after the October Brexit deadline had been missed, when public frustration and confusion was at its peak, was naive and self-destructive. "
This is a very good point. Remainers thought they were being terribly clever in forcing Boris to miss his own deadline. They believed Leavers would turn on him over it. Actually it just pissed them off over Remainer game playing even more, pushing support to Boris.
If Labour fail, there will be no penance for their betrayal of their supporters. They will blame the media, the Conservatives, internal saboteurs, Centrists and bad fairies. They will blame the Jews, although they will call them Zionists.
Labour runs on rage, which is why I dislike Corbyn: he is a raging man, but he tries to hide it. If you want to know who he really is, watch him shout at journalists and tell photographers they will behave better under Socialism. Was it a joke? If he lies about his rage — and he does — what else does he lie about? If rage attracts activists, it repels voters, because rage, by itself, has never changed a mind. That is not politics. It is psychosis.
The message on the doorstep in this election was clear: the party was out of touch, the leader was weak, and we weren’t a credible party of government. Our manifesto was not affordable, our party had become nasty.
Yet the narrative rehashed ferociously by the social media cheerleaders and dozy frontbenchers is that it was Brexit wot won it. But for every time Brexit was raised on the doorsteps, the leadership was raised four more – even by those sticking with us. There was visceral anger from lifelong Labour voters who felt they couldn’t vote for the party they had supported all their lives because of “that man at the top”. They had sent us this message loud and clear in 2017; I was told frequently by my constituents to “go back down to London and get rid of him”.
"We ignored that warning in the unquestioning belief that everyone hates the Tories as much as we do, and went boldly out to the public for a general election. To do so just after the October Brexit deadline had been missed, when public frustration and confusion was at its peak, was naive and self-destructive. "
This is a very good point. Remainers thought they were being terribly clever in forcing Boris to miss his own deadline. They believed Leavers would turn on him over it. Actually it just pissed them off over Remainer game playing even more, pushing support to Boris.
They also believed 'hypothetical' polls which showed a drop in support for Boris id the deadline was missed.
On Tuesday, the Guardian ran an opinion article that accidentally explained everything about Labour’s historic wipeout. Written by Ash Sarkar, it bore the headline “It’s a myth that Labour has lost the working class”. In it, Sarkar took issue with psephologist Sir John Curtice for saying that Labour had ceased to be a party of the workers and become instead a party of the young, leaving the ‘Red Wall’ of Labour’s historically safe northern seats vulnerable.
This, said Sarkar, was “fraff”: it wasn’t that Labour had lost the working classes, it was that the definitions of class being used by Curtice no longer applied. Actually, the majority of Britain’s young people (in her obviously superior analysis) were in such precarious employment that they qualified as working class. Those young voters, she claimed, would turn out for Labour and save those heartland seats.
By Friday morning, constituencies like Blyth Valley and Redcar had turned blue, and Sarkar’s thesis had gone from looking desperately hopeful to definitively embarrassing.
If Labour fail, there will be no penance for their betrayal of their supporters. They will blame the media, the Conservatives, internal saboteurs, Centrists and bad fairies. They will blame the Jews, although they will call them Zionists.
Labour runs on rage, which is why I dislike Corbyn: he is a raging man, but he tries to hide it. If you want to know who he really is, watch him shout at journalists and tell photographers they will behave better under Socialism. Was it a joke? If he lies about his rage — and he does — what else does he lie about? If rage attracts activists, it repels voters, because rage, by itself, has never changed a mind. That is not politics. It is psychosis.
I agree, but I think that McDonnell rages internally far more than Corbyn does imho. I remember Chris Dublin's quite about McD wanting to hang every capitalist behind that affable facade. Or words to that effect.
They won the most seats, percentages are just numbers.
If doesn't matter if you win by 5,000 votes or 50 votes, ultimately the aim is to win.
Yes, and that is why I am fairly chilled about the Tory majority. In practice it matters little if it is 10 or 100, a majority is there.
The electorate seems increasingly volatile so quite possible to recover in one election, with the right leader and policies. Incidentally, true too of the Lib Dems who added 1.3 million voters. Jo was not as bad as is being said on this board. That was quite an achievement.
Ultimately it feels as though Lab and LD need to be able to work together to make a breakthrough.
John Harris is worth a 1,000 Owen Jones - if the Labour Party listen to him, there's hope, if they listen to Jones they're finished.
I saw the same thing in late 2015 / 2016 when I was working on the east coast. I came back and spent a long time telling the Labour constituency chairman that they were losing the working class vote and that Leave would win.
The problem? I know many of you won't agree with this but it's what I think and why I've taken the stance I do ...
This is Trumpism without Trump. A conservative future without an ineffective and polarizing nutjob at the heart of it. Johnson now has a mandate to enact this new Tory alignment, and he will be far more competent than Trump at it. Unlike Trump, he will stop E.U. mass migration, and pass a new immigration system, based on the Australian model. Unlike Trump, he will focus tax cuts on the working poor, not the decadent rich.
Johnson will have to work superhard on this if he is to re-create not the Thatcher coalition but the Disraeli nation. That’s what he means when he talks about “One Nation Conservatism.” That was Disraeli’s reformist conservatism of the 19th century, a somewhat protectionist, supremely patriotic alliance between the conservative elites and the ordinary man and woman. It will take a huge amount of charm and policy persistence to cement that coalition if it is to last more than one election. But if Boris pulls that off, he will have found a new formula designed to kill off far-right populism, while forcing the left to regroup.
John Harris is worth a 1,000 Owen Jones - if the Labour Party listen to him, there's hope, if they listen to Jones they're finished.
.
Brexit isn't their answer. It's a chimera.
As they will discover.
No. But "not being listened to" was a big part of the problem - and the last Parliament decided it was going to continue not listening. The voters have reminded them who is boss.
John Harris is worth a 1,000 Owen Jones - if the Labour Party listen to him, there's hope, if they listen to Jones they're finished.
.
Brexit isn't their answer. It's a chimera.
As they will discover.
No. But "not being listened to" was a big part of the problem - and the last Parliament decided it was going to continue not listening. The voters have reminded them who is boss.
The tricksy way my fellow remainers tried to stop Brexit played into it in my opinion, rather than going to an election and fronting up with their/our arguements we tried to use process and parliamentary language to do so. It made us look aloof and elite it really did, I was livid at what was happening but then I live on a council estate so perhaps I have better idea of the working classes than Labour.
Comments
Game, set & match, problem is the likes of Meeks don't do self-reflection.
How do the NI Greens plan to campaign? For reunification?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1217019/election-2019-protests-boris-johnson-win-london-protests-downing-street-jeremy-corbyn
But not much corroboration elsewhere
https://twitter.com/Jess_Labour
https://twitter.com/hashtag/SackBurgon?src=hash
About as much self-insight as Jo Swinson.
Labour getting up to 203 was just a bit frustrating. More than we managed in 1997, 2001 *and* 2005.
Labour below 165 seats is what we should be aiming for. Taste of their own medicine and all that.
I am interested in the turnout anecdata, but to study it I would like to look at turnout by Constituency.
Leicester West (the most Leavey part of the city) had a particularly low turnout, and I am interested in why.
I note that the Northern Con Gains that I have looked at seem to be polling lower than the Nat average, and with bigger drops in turnout than average. Scotland had a high turnout, and that seems to favour the SNP.
If doesn't matter if you win by 5,000 votes or 50 votes, ultimately the aim is to win.
Labour 203 seats
Hmm.
The electorate seems increasingly volatile so quite possible to recover in one election, with the right leader and policies. Incidentally, true too of the Lib Dems who added 1.3 million voters. Jo was not as bad as is being said on this board. That was quite an achievement.
That is the brute reality.
This 'aint the Student Union coffee shop, this is the election of a government.
Got a feeling the membership currently would have gone for it. 5 more wasted years.
Probably means I'll enjoying savouring this victory more than most, because I'll be worrying that Labour could win big next time or I could get cancer and die before the next GE etc.
.
It might have been better to say they told them to f**k off and they did.
I posted a tweet earlier from a guy who is allegedly a doctor, 2 actually
Leaving the one aside where he blames Israel and Russia for Labour's defeat.
Take a look at what he called the people in the midlands and the north who dared to look at Labour's offer and say, "you know what, no thanks"
Imagine if a tory had said anything like that.
https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1205639902731345921?s=09
I need to know more about the membership before deciding on Labour leader markets but my view is probably with union backing the Corbyn approved successer gets in, I think this will be Long Bailey or Rayner. I just don’t forsee Corbyn, Milne et all letting the party drift back to the centre while they have their hands on the wheels of power, thus Starmer seems too short in the markets.
I can see someone like Lammy or Jess Phillips as centrist candidates but if they win Labour are even more fucked as their brand of divisive identity politics and social media attention craving will go down like a bucket of sick in the seats they need to win. Every party needs a Jess Phillips in the same way they need a James Cleverley, but they don’t need them as leaders. I think Lammy and Phillips both might stand though as their egos have substantially been boosted by their twitter echo chambers.
For me Nandy is the best communicator and has the broadest appeal out there (Burnham would also be a possibility if he was an MP), but they won’t pick her because the membership are idiots. Starmer would be ok as a Michael Howard style caretaker but he doesn’t inspire, he’s too London and is on the border of being too left to win an election (His Remain credentials have disguised his politics) and he has all the charisma of Terry May.
At the moment my money would be on Angela Rayner, but either way they have no one obvious with anything like the Boris factor and the future looks a bit bleak for them.
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1205449254707302400
Having said that, betting wise, I have been on Rayner for a while now.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1205632742349688832?s=20
I would prefer Nandy, who is exactly what Labour need, but I think she can't win & I am not sure she has the hunger.
Phillips would be a disastrous choice, IMO. Vain, combative and empty-headed.
Without this short-sighted strategy of the Labour leadership, the Lib Dems could have taken a lot more Conservative seats and, who knows, the Labour Party might have been able to hang on to a few more too.
There was no need for us to be landed with the hard-line Tory dictatorship. As you see, I blame the Labour Party entirely.
As a rule of thumb since 2015 whoever is the least electable candidate probably has the greatest chance of winning the leadership.
That's it, blame everyone else, pathetic.
Trouble is Butler is attached to her taxpayer funded whirlpool bath..
(Somewhat amused by the Twitterbynistas cancelling their Guardian subscriptions en masse today.)
But because there was no convincingly left-wing candidate in 2010, they didn't really get down to entertaining themselves in a gentleman's manner until 2015. Then because TMay was too stubborn to do the normal thing of asking the voters what they wanted and pretending she was going to give it to them, Corbyn failed to get defeated convincingly in 2017, and the next step had to wait until yesterday.
So now they've got *at least* another five years in opposition, probably more like ten if the members are as slow on the uptake as I suspect they are.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/britains-youngest-mp-vows-only-21094591
One Happy Island
The message on the doorstep in this election was clear: the party was out of touch, the leader was weak, and we weren’t a credible party of government. Our manifesto was not affordable, our party had become nasty.
Yet the narrative rehashed ferociously by the social media cheerleaders and dozy frontbenchers is that it was Brexit wot won it. But for every time Brexit was raised on the doorsteps, the leadership was raised four more – even by those sticking with us. There was visceral anger from lifelong Labour voters who felt they couldn’t vote for the party they had supported all their lives because of “that man at the top”. They had sent us this message loud and clear in 2017; I was told frequently by my constituents to “go back down to London and get rid of him”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/general-election-results-2019-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-a9246311.html
Corbyn is the most unpopular opposition leader since records began. And though we may not like it, we know that voters’ assessment of the party leaders plays a huge part in their decision.
Labour knew it and Corbyn knew it. Those appalling numbers were not state secrets. His admirers always describe him as a selfless, almost saintly man, devoid of ego. So why didn’t he take one look at his own ratings and say, “I am clearly a drag on this party’s prospects. Those who need a Labour government have a better chance of getting one if I step aside.” Not a chance.
Corbyn’s own vanity was too great for him even to consider such an act of self-sacrifice. Instead he was encouraged by his own devoted legions of supporters, for whom the idea of a change of leader was heresy. In their mind, it was better to lose under Corbyn than to have a shot at winning with someone – anyone – else.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/corbynism-labour-left-party?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
This is a very good point. Remainers thought they were being terribly clever in forcing Boris to miss his own deadline. They believed Leavers would turn on him over it. Actually it just pissed them off over Remainer game playing even more, pushing support to Boris.
https://twitter.com/markchopharris/status/1205572946032570368?s=20
Labour runs on rage, which is why I dislike Corbyn: he is a raging man, but he tries to hide it. If you want to know who he really is, watch him shout at journalists and tell photographers they will behave better under Socialism. Was it a joke? If he lies about his rage — and he does — what else does he lie about? If rage attracts activists, it repels voters, because rage, by itself, has never changed a mind. That is not politics. It is psychosis.
https://unherd.com/2019/12/how-labour-betrayed-their-supporters/
This, said Sarkar, was “fraff”: it wasn’t that Labour had lost the working classes, it was that the definitions of class being used by Curtice no longer applied. Actually, the majority of Britain’s young people (in her obviously superior analysis) were in such precarious employment that they qualified as working class. Those young voters, she claimed, would turn out for Labour and save those heartland seats.
By Friday morning, constituencies like Blyth Valley and Redcar had turned blue, and Sarkar’s thesis had gone from looking desperately hopeful to definitively embarrassing.
https://unherd.com/2019/12/how-left-wing-journalism-failed/?fbclid=IwAR2bIz7kH0rxko-una9jSH1kzH4T2O7_B86p4P4ILxnpJY7aQCotlKa1F8w
The way I use PB it's not at all obvious when I get a DM - so can someone tell him if they see him here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7eG1kbdr0M
Labour's defeat owes to at least 3 sometimes competing things:
- Working class Leavers vs Metropolitan middle class remainers
- Ridiculously left-wing agenda that would have made Karl Marx proud.
- Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Toxic.
The LibDems also have a big problem now. Where do they position themselves? I think the previous thread is correct but they played tactics badly.
There is also the Momentum cancer that needs to be excised from the Labour Body Politic. Membership of one should preclude membership of the other.
The problem? I know many of you won't agree with this but it's what I think and why I've taken the stance I do ...
Brexit isn't their answer. It's a chimera.
As they will discover.
Johnson will have to work superhard on this if he is to re-create not the Thatcher coalition but the Disraeli nation. That’s what he means when he talks about “One Nation Conservatism.” That was Disraeli’s reformist conservatism of the 19th century, a somewhat protectionist, supremely patriotic alliance between the conservative elites and the ordinary man and woman. It will take a huge amount of charm and policy persistence to cement that coalition if it is to last more than one election. But if Boris pulls that off, he will have found a new formula designed to kill off far-right populism, while forcing the left to regroup.
Not so much of a clown now, is he?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/andrew-sullivan-boris-johnsons-winning-formula.html
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1205592854292242440?s=20