UKC

Labour's best local election result since 1971.

God yes. I'm shooting myself in the foot by opposing Corbyn becoming PM.

In what way? 

Oh Jeremy Corbyn.... Go Jezzer!

In London...

And still he comes behind 'don't know' when asked who would be best PM, May, Corbyn or Don't know.

As a classic former floating voter (Thatcher, Major, Blair, Blair, Blair, Cameron, Clegg) regarless as to the anti-Semitism problem in Labour I just couldn't vote for his policies and more importantly regardless as to the policy offering the Labour leadership team just doesn't appear to have the ability to manage and lead the party let alone the Government.

Being a government in waiting is more than waiting for the government to fall, it is actively demonstrating that you can actually run the country.

Would I be correct in thinking you're talking rubbish in an attempt to be provocative or do you actually believe the bollocks that floats round Facebook like slicks of raw sewage?

Yes, mostly being provocative. 

But if I was being serious, I would question why having made significant gains since he came in, a night where he merely consolidated that position should be seen as a reason to get rid of him, regardless of the shambles in power.

Were at a time when England is so politically polarised, with so many seemingly desperate to get out of Europe and the single market. I know Corbyn is no Europhile, but if brexit is your goal (and let's not forget over 50% of England voted for it) there's only really one party to vote for until it's set in stone. 

He seems to have done all right to me all things considered.. 

Can I just vote for you shooting yourself? 

Why would you vote for Labour to secure Brexit? 

You wouldn't, that's my point.

With the majority in England wanting brexit, the Tories can keep making a mess, and the English electorate will keep voting for them regardless. So long as they're "taking back control", everything else pales into insignificance.

Yes, and that's part of the reason for the increase of 4m ish votes (for an additional 4-6 seats) in the 2017 election but the next GE will be post Brexit.

If Labour want to take political advantage of the (in my view) likely serious damage Brexit will cause they have to start saying 'I told you so' now and opposing Brexit without a customs union / EEA arrangement.

They can't enable Brexit and then blame the mess on the Tories.

They are already saying they would keep us in a customs union. Amounts to the same thing.

HP?

The policy I have heard is that Labour are saying Brexit means leaving the CU.

Quite telling that nobody's really sure what Labour policy really is on important matters such as the Customs Union. It's starting to seem like a 'strong and stable' opposition.

Or, more accurately, no real opposition at all on the issues that matter most right now.

The Tory party gave us the referendum, senior figures in the party campaigned for leave, senior figures in the party spouted outright lies in support of leaving such as the £350m a week extra for the NHS, their supporters voted us out of europe (labour voters were almost as pro remain as my party, the SNP) and they are the party delivering brexit.

Of course the mess that will ensue can be blamed on them.

If you've nowt to say, say nowt.

It's 'flexible ambiguity', apparently. And according to this article it works:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/02/labour-clarify-positi...

I'm not sure how hedging one's bets, as it's otherwise known, squares with Corbyn's reputation as a politician of principle, but that's another question...

Jezza is an old school Trot. He sees EU as a front for bankers and big business. Hence his virtual absence on the Remain ticket during the referendum. It’s an honourable and sustainable Left of centre position (Guardians Larry Elliott is withering in his book on the Euro/EU). But flexible ambiguity is just a bullshit description of someone who says one thing, believes in something else, and acts in the opposite way. 

If JC was really a Trot he'd be trying to destroy the Labour Party not leading it. He seems to have some shared ideas, that's all. 

Technically, they didn't.

72.21% of the electorate voted.

52.29% of votes cast were for Brexit.

That means 37.5% of the UK electorate voted for Brexit. In England, the figure was 38.9%

That excludes those not eligible to vote: those under age, EU citizens resident in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Unio...

Whats HP?

Their position since Feb is fairly clear (at a high level) - a customs union. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/25/lab...

Edited spelling 

Which was described as 'total b0llocks' by the Shadow Chancellor.

Update. According to Emily Thornberry Sh Foreign Sec that Labour now want to stay in the Customs Union. How long this policy will last is an open market and I'm short.

His back bencher career was spent voting against his party leaders, perhaps he is trying a different tactic and he might just be really bad at being both a leader or a destroyer. 

Until McDonnells next interview where he will skirt around a concise response. 

But this is Starmers problem he isn't pulling the party strings. He might have more ability than Corbyn, Abbott and Thornberry put together, but Labour's grand committee don't care about that. 

We can exclude those who were not politically engaged enough to vote in the referendum, as they're unlikely to have become politically engaged enough to vote in a local election, and we can exclude those who were under age, because the vast majority of them still are.

Which leaves EU citizens, are they going to make a great difference? You're still going to be left with half of the English electorate who are interested in voting keen on the party that will deliver brexit, no matter how incompetent. 

Normal party politics won't resume until after we're out.

I suppose some would have said he's doing a pretty good job of destroying the Labour Party, but the jury's still out on that.

Isn't that what's happening now under the Tories? I'm pretty certain there's no need for any Labour input for Brexit to fall apart.

Maybe, but I think it is probably more likely that the tories tear each other apart first; once the shape of Theresa May's Brexit becomes clear, half her party are going to be extremely unhappy and it's hard to see her surviving.

I think he's done a damn good job of screwing up the Labour Party already. Far too many people who would like to vote Labour have either stopped voting or have gone to other parties.

Under any other leader, the Labour Party would have stuffed the Conservatives every which way in the latest elections, but all they've managed to do is keep it roughly even, and make a few small gains (when you take the entire country into account).

The recent election results don't support this theory though, do they?

On the contrary, they do. The results obtained by Labour are quite poor when you take into account the state of the Conservatives.

Under any previous leader Labour would have thrashed the Conservatives pretty well everywhere, and not just done well in London.

I am currently trying to be very fair to Mr Corbyn and am waiting for more evidence... despite a horrible feeling  that you're right.

Corbyn isn't even willing to give the Brexit house of cards a little push with his pinky.   All it would take is for Labour to vote to stay in the customs union.

See Zeno's dichotomy paradox. There comes a point in time when the absolute evidence is no longer necessary. (but let's not get into epistemology as I have a bottle or red wine in front of me and an empty house)

He’s what Lenin might have called a ‘useless idiot’ and yes he is making a good job st destroying the Labour Party. It is now increasingly the Momentum Party. They should be streets ahead of the Tories. May got elected on a bigger vote than Blair’s landslide in 1997. Merkel dreams of such numbers. 

You’re not being fair to him. Just blind to his atavistic politics. It’s like being trapped in a time warp. Let’s all pogo to Clash songs. I suppose it’s all so old to some people it sounds new. 

You’re not being fair to him. Just blind to his atavistic politics. It’s like being trapped in a time warp. Let’s all pogo to Clash songs. I suppose it’s all so old to some people it sounds new. 

But you are wrong, at least on this specific point.

This is a full transcript of the Brexit speech that Corbyn gave (I think probably the biggest and most recent he has given the subject) the day after the Starmer interview that I linked above.

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-full-speech-britain-brexit/

I would suggest searching on the word ''customs" unless you really want to read it all. The key passage is:

"Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and to help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland."

The devil is in the detail but the key differentiator vs the Cons approach is in place.

Of course people are leaving, the party is going back to its more traditional political position, there are bound to be many who identified with New Labour moving away.

There are also people coming back (who left during the Blair years) and young people arriving, attracted by what's on offer.

Time will tell whether the net movement is positive or negative, but I don't think any of us can predict the outcome on the information we have so far. I'm somewhat sceptical that a significant English left still exists, but at least there's a left of centre party to vote for in England again, so we'll have a chance to find out...

Don't be bringing facts to the table FFS!!

You seem to labour under the illusion that the GE is determined by the number of votes cast: it is not, it is won and lost in a relatively small number of marginal seats.

In the last GE Corbyn's Labour won c. 4 million more votes than Gordon Brown and this resulted in an additional four (from memory) seats.

Labour need to win in places like Nuneaton, Swindon, Basildon, Worcester, in fact in any number of English regional towns, have a look at the map if you want to understand the scale of the challenge (and remember this was against the backdrop of the worst Conservative campaign in living memory).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40176349

If you really think that soft Tories are going to vote Labour in its current form I have a bridge to sell you.

Or basic comprehension.

Negotiating a (indefinite article) CU is not the same as staying in THE CU.

Or reality.

In that Labour are not in office and therefore have no seat at the table.

If by traditional you mean Corbynite you are mistaken. That has only ever been the view of an extreme minority. Corbyn wants us to leave the EU, he does not want us to remain in the Customs Union as the CBI and the Banks want us to.  Labours manifesto, as many have said, was for a hard Brexit. The end of free movement, beloved of so many  fUKCers. Without that there is no soft exit. 

No, by traditional I simply mean "left of centre".

Don't be ridiculous. Why would I think that, and why would I want to see the English left give up and become the English right again?

Breaking news. There is no English 'left'.

Like if the recent local elections were translated to GE results we'd have a Labour government, so they don't need Swindon, Basildon or Worcester. If everyone voted the same, then Labour would win so why do they need anything more than what they got?

Are you serious?

You do realise that Labour needs a majority in the House of Commons, not a majority of the popular vote? 

Exactly. Eddie the eagle was a popular nice guy, but he was never going to win. Maybe he could be the next Labour leader. After all getting a cheer from a crowd off their faces at Glastonbury seems to make corbinites think 'jeremy' is pm material. 

He gained 30 seats at the last election, if he does the same at the next one he'll be forming a coalition government.

You might not want him to be elected, but the idea that he's unelectable is up there with "brexit will give the NHS an extra £350million a week" in the bullshit stakes...

I suppose anyone could be electable if all of the others aren't!

This is the motivation for brexit:

Tory:

Deregulation of employment to make the rich richer

Avoidance of EU anti corruption legislation so that the rich get richer

Ability to trade comprehensively with the US and adopt a profit making NHS so that the rich get richer.

To take back the bigot votes from UKIP

Labour:

To be free of EU legislation so that they can nationalise as much as possible. 

To fully reform unions without interference

To take back the bigot votes from UKIP.

The election they claim they won? 

I'd say they've reach peak vote with their ideology. Plus he has also back tracked on many of his promises that he knew were simply unfundable. 

He is burning more bridges than his party are building. 

The election they we told they'd be annihilated in, and Corbyn would be gone within a few days of the result.

Just because stayed doesn't mean it has benefited UK politics. They are hardly holding the Tories to account. 

Do you have any reason behind your assertion that they've reached peak vote, or are we expected to be convinced he's unelectable on your gut feeling?

It's just a nonsense statement that he's made up, or heard somewhere, made up by someone else, on the web, media etc. in a feeble attempt to project himself as being incredibly knowledgeable.

You tell me. He promised the world last year, free this, nationalise that, wage rises, better pensions, more money for the NHS.. schools... etc.. It has since come to light there was not a  hope in hell they could fund those dreams without massive borrowing and/or tax rises for everyone. 

What new rabbit is he going to pull out of hat to lure in any new voters and convince people that when they admitted they couldn't afford their last manifesto, now they can?

He could win  but he will need to lead and engage with the media much more in person, not send his henchmen and women. But, then he would become the person he isn't. 

Don't be bitter, just because you've drawn a non runner of a horse in the political sweepstakes. I voted lib dem, I understand your position. 

I'm not the one making assertions, I'm saying we don't know and can't know unless we wait and see.

So you're happy he's not unelectable?

If he started to lead, if he engaged with mainstream media in person, if he made his wishes financially viable... of course he is electable. 

It benefits the people who want change, and who see Corbyn as the only way for that change to happen. People are sick and tired of not being included, that's partly what Corbyn stood for, which is part of the issue there is with Brexit, if you're supposed to be the listening party you can't simply change tack without going against what you said.

For many people it's been a choice between not voting and a Labour Tory Lite. I keep saying this, it's not about Corbyn it's about what he represents, which is a change from the usual shite. Lots of people don't understand this simple fact, they see Corbyn as some sort of populist figure and I think they shy away because of it, the fact is, it's about the chance of the change in politics he seems to advocating.

You seem to speak for a lot of people there, very magnanimous of you. How come these people didn't vote in Corbyn at the last election if they are so keen for change?

What were they not included in?

Remember this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/theresa-may-could-give-conserva... ?

That didn't happen, did it?  I wonder why? Oh, lots of people must have voted Labour, considerably more than expected.

Did I tell you, Tories lose Trafford?

It didn't happen as the Tories blew their chances by calling an election too soon after the last one, plus the referendum. Just because the Telegraph forecast something, doesn't mean it will come true.

Yes, but Labour didn't win Trafford, so I fail to see what you're getting all excited about.

In  fact, the Tories gained Barnet, Basildon, Peterborough and Redditch, four councils, Labour only managed to gain three Kirklees, Plymouth and Tower Hamlets.

How do you think he won two elections to become leader?

How has Labour the highest membership of any political party in Europe, is it because no one thinks he's worth voting for?

If you remember rightly Corbyn was about to be finished at the last GE, it was his farewell party because Labour was about to collapse, even a number of Labour MPs (Kinnock amongst then were pissed off this didn't happen). A lot of people didn't vote for him then because they were convinced by the media it was a waste of time.

General life, a political voice. The forgotten, non-London people for starters, the disenfranchised, take your pick!!

Brexit was party down to people railing against general lack of a voice.

Because he promised lots of free things?

Because they changed the membership rules where for the price of a latte you could join and vote. I bet there are more Tories keeping Corbyn in that seat, than corbinites. 

Corbyn did not succeed at the last GE, the Tories and the lib dems campaigns were dismal and easily outclassed. 

You really think Corbyn has any connection with rural UK? He might buy some fruit at a posh Islington farmers market to make his jam, but he is hardly a country boy. 

Exactly what was Corbyn's stance during the referendum? You are right people do perhaps want change, but do you really think Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott.... are capable of delivering It?

I definitely wouldn't trust Abbott with change.

That's £9.90 for that Sir.
OK, here's a tenner.
Thanks, that'll be 100p change then. No, 10000p. 1p?

He didn't promise anything to become the Labour leader.

So it should be expensive to have a say in our democratic process?

That's exactly why people voted for him, why should democracy be restricted to the people who can afford to pay?

I didn't say he succeeded, but he wasn't roundly defeated, as we were told he would be, and with that defeat, he'd be off and  normal service would be resumed.

It's not about where you live , it's about your attitude, you really do play dumb sometimes, simply because I don't live in Syria, is it impossible for me to understand the plight of the people there or want to do something about it?

Corbyn's stance was, in general he was for the EU, there were things about it he didn't like and things that should be changed.

Yes I do, I think the Labour fiscal policy is much better than QE and austerity, it helps the people that need it most and it gives something back to the "bloke on the street" rather than the bankers.

Due to him being the least worse option for most. Combine that with Labour being split between Blairites and hard lefties, the hard lefty won out.

Answered above by Summo, but also factor in an appeal to students.

Ok, we'll see if they vote for him next time. Though you have to admit that his support isn't that good if people can be so easily convinced that he's not worth voting for.

LOL!! What about invisible pink unicorn riders?

Yes and they won. Corbyn may pick up some votes if he shows his true Eurosceptic nature.

People already knew what he stood for.

Since when has the internal politics of the Labour party or their union backers had anything to do with democracy?

Elections are free. Labour only became the biggest party when the funding changed, not because of Corbyn.

Be honest. Labour were dancing around as though they'd won.

Attitude? You really think Corbyn cares about rural affairs?

Corbyn for the eu? Really? 

Isn't it to be funded by the same infinite growth that Gordon Brown used to end boom & bust?

I have to admire your loyalty, but the Labour party survives in spite of Corbyn, not because of.

It has loyal voters who are weathering the Corbyn storm knowing there are younger more able people coming through than are in the shadow cabinet now. It is people like Starmer, who are well briefed and knowledgeable, but also out there facing the media daily that are keeping the majority of Labour voters on side, hoping this era will pass. 

If Corbyn got rid of his numpty buddies off his shadow cabinet and replaced them with the talent in the party, they'd be flooring the Tories on a daily basis. PMQs, AQ, QT, today programme etc.. the Tories would be dreading their public appearance being held to account. 

Under those prior to Corbyn labour lost to the tories, and had fewer voters.  I'm not a fan of him myself, but I can't see any reason to believe that if someone else was in charge, following their previous line, they'd be doing better.

Seems to me they have a huge amount of anti-tory plus vote labour whatever support which never goes away, and Corbyn's added a bunch of new voters to those supporters.  Who are those labour for life people who complain about Corbyn voting for?  Labour, of course.

So why was there such a surge in Labour membership since Corbyn became leader?

Your statement doesn't fit the facts, Labour was in the decline before Corbyn, because it was seen as Tory Lite. I understand you don't like him, but please lets try and be honest.

As for the unions, members are asked if they want to contribute to the Labour funding, it's not compulsory and you have to opt in. We've been through this before but you seem to want to make it an issue when it really isn't.

Membership soared prior to his election as leader?

Perhaps because no one wanted Gordon Brown, the man who end boom and bust, as PM in 2010. Also people disliked Labour because of Blair's greed and power grabbing?

What proportion of Labour party donations are from unions? How much did unite fund the last election campaign? Exactly how many unite members voted for McCluskey? Labour wouldn't see Xmas if the unions stopped funding it now. 

Least worse for who exactly? You're making no sense at all, he obviously wasn't the least worse option for the members that joined because of him, either before the leadership election or since.

Are students not allowed a say in our politics then?

Again you're repeating the fact they won and telling us they lost. They increase the number of Labour councillors by 79 up to 2,350, meanwhile the Tories lost 35 down to 1,332. So where's the lack of support? I't pretty obvious, if you care to look at the figures rather than quoting shite, that people do seem to think Labour are worth voting for, and that more people than last time seem to think that too.

You don't think Brexit, was partly a protest vote then?

To try make sure he was elected, it has continued to increase, there are now around 500,000 members. Of course these are probably mainly Tories, I'd imagine. Maybe this is why their membership is falling so dramatically

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42565294

You seem to dismiss the fact these people made the effort and paid to become members, when most people can't even be arsed to change energy supplier and save themselves £100s. You do this to try and trivialise the fact thousands of people see the new Labour party as a chance for change. Something different from the years of greed and austerity, which have become the status quo and which you're trying to convince us is somehow the best we can expect.

At least Jezzer is promoting the building of our navy in the UK.

As I said before, nothing wrong with change. What I question is firstly if the change they propose would even partially work as most are cheap sound bites to lure in people who think they'll get everything for nothing. Secondly that Corbyn and the people he surrounds himself with have a cat in hells chance of delivering any of if. He doesn't pick capable people, but those who simply agree with him. 

Do you really believe there are more Tories in the labour party than there are in the Tory party, or are you just flinging mud and hoping it sticks?

Labour voters.

Not for them, but they are not the majority of the party.

No, of course not! (I can be just as silly as you, who said they were not allowed?)

You reading invisible words again, you really should do something about that. What I actually said was; "Ok, we'll see if they vote for him next time. Though you have to admit that his support isn't that good if people can be so easily convinced that he's not worth voting for."

Oh god, here again is what I said; 

You: "Brexit was party down to people railing against general lack of a voice."

Me: "Yes and they won. Corbyn may pick up some votes if he shows his true Eurosceptic nature."

How about you respond to what I actually write, not what the mouse in you r pocket tells you I have written?

Well obviously not for all of them, given a level playing field and less aggressive media they might well have won the last GE.

As a Labour voter myself, it's simply not true, JC was voted in because he was the best candidate, he was elected a second time to prove that point!!

But the majority of the party no longer represented the electorate, or Labour voters. You seem to forget people we pretty pissed off with Blair and where he'd taken Labour. Some thing you've railed against in previous posts, and yet you're trying to convince us old New Labour were the good old days. Remember PPI?

Your post sounded a bit derogatory, suggesting there was something wrong with Labour appealing to students.

But they did vote, look at the figure FFS! Labour up, Tory down, it's really very simple.

You've completely missed my point, but carry on telling me I don't understand.

What's so wrong with People's Quantitative Easing?

What's so wrong with, having a nationalised choice of energy supplier?

What's so wrong with building our Navy in the UK?

Jobs and taxes to us rather than money pissing out of the country?

Mister! Please, Mister, can I answer?
Is it 'NOTHING'?

Correct, but could you please call me, sir?

Only kidding, comrade will suffice

Who provides the money that buys all the shares back?

The UK can now, provided it does not breach eu defence contract directives, so only security sensitive elements can be UK built, the remainder must be tendered out. You are pro EU aren't you?

Is that shipbuilding  or buliding?  

Edit. Doesn't Corbyn want to cut defence spending?

It's great in theory, but I don't think the shadow cabinet as it stands could deliver a pizza, never mind their manifesto. 

I was being sarcastic as some very public members of the Tory party were caught joining. 

You're one of the most passionate EU leavers on here, you know, 'Take back control'.
Yet you seem perfectly happy for the UK to hemorrhage money to our European cousins for our railways, utilities etc.

"Who provides the money that buys all the shares back?"

You're just looking for obstacles here.  It's a fair question, but life is full of obstacles that we have to overcome to progress.

Have I ever said that? No, not never. So please debate as an adult and don't accuse people saying stuff they haven't. 

The people best able and willing to manage services should run them. As pro EU you can't mind sharing the ownership and management?

Obstacles..  you either have the money or you don't? The amount of investment promises he made on education/NHS etc, plus nationalisation, student loans, public sector pay rises...  I'd say that is a fair obstacle, that requires a financial plan that balances and can't simply be dived into hoping for the best. 

Agreed not for all of them. What do you think was the "un-level" playing field? With the Tories doing their impression of a headless chicken, how much more help do you want?

He beat Owen Smith, hardly a serious or substantial candidate in the second election. It may only have been Corbyn's euro-scepticism which won him the day.

Oh god, you are at it again, I have never tried to convince anyone that Bliar was anything other than a disaster for Labour.

No, I was merely pointing out that Corbyn gained a great deal of support from students with his promise to cancel, (a promise he's now  withdrawn, ) to end tuition fees.

They didn't vote in sufficient numbers to make a difference, it's really very simple.

Until you show some coherence in your thinking, I will. Explain again how your comment 

Is in any way not addressed by  exchange;

I wouldn't trust a man who has most probably eaten out Diane Abbott. Bleughhh!