How many think Corbyn will get in in Islington next election?

[gassor]

No I don't see the irony. I would never question your honesty and integrity.

But if he was a person who did not pay his debts (a measly £5 at that) you certainly would.

 

[Swamp Thing]

Islington is a bit New Labour though, surely?

Maybe the parties Blairites could form a group - call it "inertia", say. And campaign at the local level to remove JC for siding with the Tories on Brexit.

 

[Mescalito]

You'd love to see him kicked out. Now there's a surprise. Coming from a bloke who put such faith in the ace charlatan, bullshitting conman Nick Clegg, that is truly hilarious. Your Corbyn hatred clouds everything you post. You should stick to rugs.

I would hate to see him kicked out. His presence as Labour leader ensures that Labour have zero chance of winning an election, so long may his reign continue

 

[Guest432]

I would hate to see him kicked out. His presence as Labour leader ensures that Labour have zero chance of winning an election, so long may his reign continue

You're no Mr Parry so don't try channelling the blue rinsed purchasing guru.

 

[Seanm]

JC will be fine regarding his own seat, he is a brilliant constituency MP, by all accounts. His position (or lack of it) on Brexit is understandable. More Labour seats voted Leave but more Labour voters voted Remain. That would be problematic for any leader.

Right now, the Tories are divided and incompetent, yet Labour cannot get a lead in the polls. Corbyn (seems a nice bloke, but not a leader) and McDonnell (a tad more competent, but does not seem like a nice bloke) are '30%' politicians. I can't see them getting into the 40 odd percent required to win a GE. Another hung parliament is their limit, I suspect.

40% is exactly what they got at the last election, making up about 15 points between the day the election was called and polling day. Between 2015 and 2017 Corbyn increased Labour's share of the vote by more than any leader since Clement Attlee. They've already done a lot of the heavy lifting needed to get a left wing Labour Party into government. Brexit is obviously a problem, and it's shoring up the Tory vote. But I don't think the idea that the leadership are just intrinsically unelectable fits the facts.

 

[Mescalito]

What a load of sanctimonious, mealy-mouthed clap trap. Here's how it was Mr high and mighty. I had three young kids and a wife to think about as well as myself. On top of that I had a legal employment issue to fight with mounting costs. Added to that I was facing the very real prospect of having my home repossessed. That's the home that my wife and children relied on to keep a roof over their heads.

Had it just been me to think about, then I may have turned the job down at the time but not with hindsight. The MoS was a brilliant employer and I got to dish the dirt on New Labour who in my opinion were almost as bad as the Tories. Presumably (and I'm guessing here) your employment choices have not needed to be made with that backdrop.

But here's the bottom line on right wing newspapers (that means virtually all of them). Nobody has to buy them and nobody has to read them. By the same token nobody has to jump on a moral high horse for forum effect and claim outrage.

I was employed by a right wing newspaper. I never once wrote anything racist, bigoted or right wing. I didn't damage or injure anyone. I worked bloody hard and conscientiously to provide a good upbringing for my children. All three of them are now contributing to society in very worthwhile ways. It could have been very, very different.

So, I don't have a single regret. And the fact that you feel the need to repeatedly have personal digs makes me feel rather superior to you in many ways.

I’d have done the same as you and had no qualms about it. Welfare of wife and family come first.

Chris

 

[droodzilla]

psycho
drama

 

[savvypaul]

40% is exactly what they got at the last election, making up about 15 points between the day the election was called and polling day. Between 2015 and 2017 Corbyn increased Labour's share of the vote by more than any leader since Clement Attlee. They've already done a lot of the heavy lifting needed to get a left wing Labour Party into government. Brexit is obviously a problem, and it's shoring up the Tory vote. But I don't think the idea that the leadership are just intrinsically unelectable fits the facts.

I follow that. Fair point. But you could also say that the Tories had their highest share of the vote since Thatcher's heyday. It was a fairly high turnout, iirc, and the other parties got squeezed.

Brexit is a problem for both main parties, alright.

I hope Corbyn does win the next GE. More than happy for my scepticism to be proved wrong.

 

[Nick_G]

psycho
drama

Pycho
Killer

 

[SteveS1]

They've already done a lot of the heavy lifting needed to get a left wing Labour Party into government. Brexit is obviously a problem, and it's shoring up the Tory vote. But I don't think the idea that the leadership are just intrinsically unelectable fits the facts.

This is all part of the clever plan then?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...s-unlikely-gain-enough-seats-solve-brexit-woe

From the 2nd to the 7th of February we asked 40,119 respondents who they would vote for in the event of a general election, and the results were modelled by Ben Lauderdale and Jack Blumenau of UCL.

The most likely outcome according to the model is that the Conservatives would win 321 seats – just four more than their current tally. Because Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats, this figure would probably give the Conservatives a working majority, but would not be enough to offset the scores of Tory rebels the PM needs to overcome.

In terms of vote share the two main parties see sizeable slumps. The Tories shed four percentage points, falling from their 43% figure in 2017 to 39%. Labour meanwhile lose almost seven percentage points, going from 41% to 34%.

 

[Seanm]

This is all part of the clever plan then?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...s-unlikely-gain-enough-seats-solve-brexit-woe

From the 2nd to the 7th of February we asked 40,119 respondents who they would vote for in the event of a general election, and the results were modelled by Ben Lauderdale and Jack Blumenau of UCL.

The most likely outcome according to the model is that the Conservatives would win 321 seats – just four more than their current tally. Because Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats, this figure would probably give the Conservatives a working majority, but would not be enough to offset the scores of Tory rebels the PM needs to overcome.

In terms of vote share the two main parties see sizeable slumps. The Tories shed four percentage points, falling from their 43% figure in 2017 to 39%. Labour meanwhile lose almost seven percentage points, going from 41% to 34%.

If an election were to be held next week it would be worrying. But at this stage polls like this one, whatever other merits they might have (mostly allowing people to say that Labour should be miles ahead in the polls) have zero predictive value.

 

[HarryB]

I would hate to see him kicked out. His presence as Labour leader ensures that Labour have zero chance of winning an election, so long may his reign continue

Brexit is likely going to make the poor, sick and vulnerable in society worse off than they are now. If we get another Tory government their misery will be compounded. But that won't concern you in the slightest as it won't affect you in any way. You used to tell us that regularly before your lengthy absence. I'd love to say it's good to see you back but I'd be lying.

 

[SteveS1]

If an election were to be held next week it would be worrying. But at this stage polls like this one, whatever other merits they might have (mostly allowing people to say that Labour should be miles ahead in the polls) have zero predictive value.

Except this is with a government under more pressure than 2017 with much more antipathy toward a sitting PM. More crucially this was before Remain inclined younger voters found their new found leader to be less than enthusastic about what they want.

Just because you are ambivalent at best about the biggest priority of over 70% of his support, it would be foolish to think they will be.

 

[Guest432]

Brexit is likely going to make the poor, sick and vulnerable in society worse off than they are now.

If that is the case then why is Labour supporting brexit and the tories?

 

[Stunsworth]

If that is the case then why is Labour supporting brexit and the tories?

I asked that a week or two ago - or more precisely I asked why Labour are supporting Brexit if it's going to make the poor poorer. I don't think I got an answer.

 

[Seanm]

Except this is with a government under more pressure than 2017 with much more antipathy toward a sitting PM. More crucially this was before Remain inclined younger voters found their new found leader to be less than enthusastic about what they want.

Just because you are ambivalent at best about the biggest priority of over 70% of his support, it would be foolish to think they will be.

Young people face rent exploitation, debt, dead-end jobs, and they're capable of prioritising.

 

[Seanm]

I asked that a week or two ago - or more precisely I asked why Labour are supporting Brexit if it's going to make the poor poorer. I don't think I got an answer.

Because the alternative is a Tory Brexit. It's as simple as that really.

Brexit is going to be more or less bad, but it isn't intrinsically a very bad thing in its own right, like victimising the poor or putting young children in detention camps. If they can't stop it, which they can't, IMO, they have to take responsibility for doing it in an equitable way. Above all they have to stop the Tories from doing it.

Again, it's interesting to see the same people lamenting Corbyn's lack of pragmatism 2 years ago now acting dumbfounded at this idea.

 

[SteveS1]

Because the alternative is a Tory Brexit. It's as simple as that really.

Brexit is going to be more or less bad, but it isn't intrinsically a very bad thing in its own right, like victimising the poor or putting young children in detention camps. If they can't stop it, which they can't, IMO, they have to take responsibility for doing it in an equitable way. Above all they have to stop the Tories from doing it.

Again, it's interesting to see the same people lamenting Corbyn's lack of pragmatism 2 years ago now acting dumbfounded at this idea.

But Corbyn will need to appeal beyond you and Len. An enabler of Brexit will pay a higher price than the driver, the outcome may be the same but the contrast in reaction is all about the expectation. His vote in 2017 contained (possibly naive) high expectation which he did nothing to temper.

 

[farfromthesun]

Above all they have to stop the Tories from doing it.

I have just seen Andrea Leadsom on Sky News stating that there is "no chance" that Theresa May is going to take on Labours ideas for Brexit, so what now?

 

[Guest432]

Because the alternative is a Tory Brexit. It's as simple as that really.

Brexit is going to be more or less bad, but it isn't intrinsically a very bad thing in its own right, like victimising the poor or putting young children in detention camps. If they can't stop it, which they can't, IMO, they have to take responsibility for doing it in an equitable way. Above all they have to stop the Tories from doing it.

Again, it's interesting to see the same people lamenting Corbyn's lack of pragmatism 2 years ago now acting dumbfounded at this idea.

A leaders job is to look after the people they are responsible for.

The vast majority of us know that brexit is going to be bad for most people and even worse for the poor. Why hasn't Corbyn come out and publicly said that he doesn't support Brexit and that if a good deal cannot be made it has to go back to the people for a vote?

Seems to me that Corbyn is using "the will of the people" over the welfare of the people in order to better his chances in a general election, pure political greed and selfishness.