ahwiles - Memberuniversal suffrage wasn't mentioned.
'functional democracy' was.
I didn't realise that you could have 'functional democracy' without universal suffrage.
Does that mean that Saudi Arabia has 'functional democracy' if all the members of the Saudi Royal family get together and have a vote on something ?
martinhutch - MemberIf that's the primitive standard we're working to...
by and large, it seems we're still working to that, yes.
No I am thick obviously. So no point thinking about it further.
ernie, you're missing the 'oppositional' bit too.
you seem to be looking for an argument?
[img] 
[/img]
(there were only 2 clauses in the original post, 'functional' and 'oppositional' you've successfully ignored both, for little more than point scoring)
you seem to be looking for an argument?
I don't think politely correcting someone with [i]"Actually that's not strictly true...."[/i] suggests looking for an argument anymore than you challenging me does.
I assume the "looking for an argument" fallback is because you realised how silly your comment was ?
Do you know what made Britain great?
I was under the impression it was something to do with baking.
ernie_lynch - MemberI assume the "looking for an argument" fallback is because you realised how silly your comment was ?
er, no. it was a genuine question.
i think the statement 'we had functional democracy before we had universal suffrage' is not without merit. I may well be wrong, but it's certainly a topic worthy of debate.
not an ideal democracy, granted. But 'functional' nonetheless.
Do you know what made Britain great?
I thought it was tea. That and the brutal military oppression of large chunks of the planet
Innovative finance was a major player in Britain becoming great.
Opium was too, wasn't it?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html ]The 9 charts that show the 'left-wing' policies of Jeremy Corbyn the public actually agrees with[/url]
[i]Putting railways back into public sector ownership has cross-party support, with even Conservative supporters.
There's a public appetite for a 75% top rate of tax on incomes over £1m.
Two thirds of Brits want to see an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.
Six out of ten people want to see rents controls on landlords.
The public support a mandatory living wage.
Jeremy Corbyn wants to cut tuition fees and so does the public.
The public were on the same side as Jeremy Corbyn in Iraq War debate.
The public were also in sync with Corbyn when it came to bombing Syria.[/i]
I didn't realise that you could have 'functional democracy' without universal suffrage.
Even without universal suffrage, our parliamentary system made sure that no single dynasty/clan had too much power. If you think Britain would be as rosey as it is now under some 18th century version of the CCP then you're deluded. Competent opposition is the most important tenant of any vaguely democratic system, universal suffrage is secondary to this.
If he gets elected then he is going to have to answer a lot of questions on his love of terrorist organisations like the IRA and Hamas, he'd better have some good, snappy answers.
Yes, he advocated negotiating with the IRA, and then everyone else came to realise he was right. He is also right about the need to negotiate with the democratically elected Hamas.
You mean increased debt for schools and hosps using the Tory PFI system. Public risk, private profit. As Gordon Brown said with PFI, financiers would be investing in services which
[i]Some[/i] spending certainly, and I thought it was poor value for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, I remember the state of my schools in the early 1990s, and I look at what we have now, which is so much better.
Some of that is spin by the Independent, take the below for instance where they have taken a result to one question and then wildly extrapolated to get an answer to a completely different question.
It appears the public share his opposition to renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent - a poll for ComRes last year found 64 per cent of the public wanted to see an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.
Some of that is spin......
You mean some of that isn't spin - the public actually agrees with some of Jeremy Corbyn's fundamental principles which completely differentiates him from the other 3 leadership candidates ?
So in a matter of just a few days we've gone from claiming that Jeremy Corbyn is guaranteed loser who the British public could never support to talking about precisely how much of his fundamental principles the public agrees actually with.
They say that one week is a long time in politics.
I'm surprised that anti-unionist feelings are so strong in Scotland that it effectively wiped out a long established party, but yet isn't strong enough to have resulted in a vote in favour of the dissolution of the union.
I see a flaw in your analysis.
Where? The SNP went from 20% of the Scottish vote in 2010 to 50% of the vote in 2011. In a FPTP system anywhere over 40% is likely to result in a landslide. Minor parties like Labour will get very few seats because off FPTP even where there isn't a majority for independence.
When Labour in Scotland are widely referred to as red Tories they are in deep trouble. Working people don't think of Labour as their party any more.
Putting railways back into public sector ownership has cross-party support, with even Conservative supporters.There's a public appetite for a 75% top rate of tax on incomes over £1m.
Two thirds of Brits want to see an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.
Six out of ten people want to see rents controls on landlords.
The public support a mandatory living wage.
Jeremy Corbyn wants to cut tuition fees and so does the public.
The public were on the same side as Jeremy Corbyn in Iraq War debate.
The public were also in sync with Corbyn when it came to bombing Syria.
Sounds like the 2020 election is a done deal for labour then with Jezza at the helm.
Fairly predictable at this stage of the contest. You can't beat a good bit of desperate Labour smearing.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/23/labour-leadership-john-prescott-tony-blairs-totally-unacceptable-jeremy-corbyn ]I see Kendall the tory has now piped up[/url]. It's hilarious really, you can smell the panic. What's most revealing from all these 'labour' MPs and former MPs going on about a return to the 1980s, is that the labour party has for a long time simply been a vehicle for their own personal ambitions, and now someone has come along who threatens that, they're all running around like headless chickens. There's a very simple solution if they don't like it, they could join the conservative party.
When Labour in Scotland are widely referred to as red Tories they are in deep trouble. Working people don't think of Labour as their party any more.
Well make your mind up! I agree with that ^ and I said basically the same thing and yet you responded by contradicting me and claiming that it was "because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist".
Here :
My impression though is that the SNP gained not because it was left wing but because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist.
Sounds like the 2020 election is a done deal for labour then with Jezza at the helm.
No, it sounds like the Blairite and media hysteria that Corbyn's views are completely at odds with the British public, as opposed to those of Liz Kendall, are false.
Well make your mind up! I agree with that ^ and I said basically the same thing and yet you responded by contradicting me and claiming that it was "because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist".
But that is why Scottish Labour are perceived as red Tories. Because they campaigned with the Tories for the referendum. Their other policies (whether left or right) don't have much to do with it. I'm not saying it's logical but that's just what I hear people say.
Scottish Labour had been perceived as 'Red Tories' for a while. Their referendum campaign merely cemented/confirmed this perception.
Fairly predictable at this stage of the contest. You can't beat a good bit of desperate Labour smearing.
You forgot the comma - it should be "desperate labour, smearing" considering that it is a Labour MP making the accusations.
Campaigning hand in hand just made the SNP landslide possible. But people have been suspicious of labour for a long time in Scotland. It's not really got a lot to do with unionism imo. It's just that in previous general elections there wasn't really any viable alternative to them.irc - MemberBut that is why Scottish Labour are perceived as red Tories. Because they campaigned with the Tories for the referendum. Their other policies (whether left or right) don't have much to do with it. I'm not saying it's logical but that's just what I hear people say.
If you actually think about it, Labour establishing the Scottish parliament was Labours downfall in Scotland(ignoring policy and politics for a moment), as it allowed the SNP to gain power at Holyrood, firstly as a minority and then as a majority, and which ultimately lead to confidence in the SNP that they could be a different voice to represent Scotland other than Labour.
Margret Hodge will be able to clear up any misunderstandings regarding child abuse in childrens homes in Islington during the relevant period
Yep, seosamh hits the nail on the head imo. Scots, traditional Labour voters that is, in May 2015 felt (rightly or wrongly) that they had a credible alternative to Labour, so they went for it.
What the rest of the UK needs is to be offered is likewise a perceived credible non-Tory alternative to Labour, and that alternative can similarly expect significant electoral success imo.
Create a credible Labour Party which connects with the people (a less likely scenario imo) and whole the game completely changes.
People are crying out for change imo, misguided support for UKIP proves that to an extent.
Bit late to this gig and if it's not obvious my grasp of politics doesn't really get any further than what you might term "soft focus", but if Corbyn's fellow party members are shifting to try and prevent his election on the basis that they don't think his views are popular enough to win, rather than basing it on what they think is the correct way to govern the country, then they have my full permission to **** off and die. In a democracy, the politics of conviction have to be better than the politics of retaining power, innit?
if Corbyn's fellow party members are shifting to try and prevent his election on the basis that they don't think his views are popular enough to win, rather than basing it on what they think is the correct way to govern the country
That's not strictly true. Tony Blair let the cat out of the bag yesterday when he publicly declared, quote :
[i]"Let me make my position clear - I wouldn't want to win from a traditional leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory"[/i]
So there you have it, Tony Blair doesn't really care about winning he just doesn't like left-wing policies. And why indeed would the self-serving multimillionaire adviser to wealthy despots ?
Well, it's not easy to accuse Blair of a lack of conviction, even from my uninformed position.
I've posted this before...
[img] 
[/img]
..but it strikes me that rather than Labour chasing the million or so of the electorate that they [i]might[/i] poach from the Tories if they make their policies right-wing enough, they could go after some of the 20-odd Million that didn't vote for either Labour [i]or[/i] Tory at the last election.
If you actually think about it, Labour establishing the Scottish parliament was Labours downfall in Scotland(ignoring policy and politics for a moment), as it allowed the SNP to gain power at Holyrood, firstly as a minority and then as a majority, and which ultimately lead to confidence in the SNP that they could be a different voice to represent Scotland other than Labour.
That can't be true as George Robertson told us that ""Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead" .
🙂
I've posted this before...
Yes I think you have......several times 😉
But there is something else your graph shows apart from the growth of the 'did not vote' which is interesting, and rather poignant at this particular time.
Much in being made in the media and by the blairites at the moment about Labour "not going back to the eighties", the suggestion being electoral failure.
Yes Labour did do badly in 1983 as the result of the right-wing breaking away and forming a rival party to Labour which damaged Labour electorally - your graph shows how the SDP damaged Labour and helped the Tories (the Tory vote actually dropped in 1983)
But while 1983 is offered as an example of electoral failure is wasn't the worse result for one of the two main parties in recent history. That award goes to the Tories who in 2001 got less votes than Labour did under Michael Foot in 1983.
And yet when did you last hear talk of the Tory election disaster of 2001? It's never mentioned - despite the fact that the Tories received less votes than Labour ever has since the end of World war 2, as your graph shows.
William Hague's Tory Party was less popular with the British people than Michael Foot's Labour Party was.
And the Tories managed to that without the existence of a media-backed breakaway rival party.
I watched Corbyn speaking.
None of the PR trained positive head movements, none of the exaggerated hand pumping, none of the waffle and diversionary bullshit, none of the special authoritative voice stuff, basically no signs of having any of the nausea inducing professional liar and deceiver skills. He'll never get elected as leader by Labour.
Unfortunately.
seems to me that most of this noise that masquerades as debate is because there's been an inordinate amount of time between announcing the candidates and electing them, so the press have been having a pop because the torys don't do much in parliament
they could go after some of the 20-odd Million that didn't vote for either Labour or Tory at the last election.
It's not that simple though, you need to understand where the votes would matter rather than just increasing the winning share of the vote in a particular constituency. Labour and the Tories should have all this data already, well the Tories do, not so sure about the Labour parties intelligence unit capabilities. Hence, why the politicians focus a specific constituencies in the run up to the election.
None of the PR trained positive head movements, none of the exaggerated hand pumping, none of the waffle and diversionary bullshit, none of the special authoritative voice stuff, basically no signs of having any of the nausea inducing professional liar and deceiver skills.
I cant think of a single MP on any bench and certainly not cabinet/shadow cabinet that is that genuine
we are doomed to a continued cycle of plastic tony blair clones....
[i]What the rest of the UK needs is to be offered is likewise a perceived credible non-Tory alternative to Labour, and that alternative can similarly expect significant electoral success imo.
Create a credible Labour Party which connects with the people (a less likely scenario imo) and whole the game completely changes.[/i]
Agree, I think the key is a new Left party. Or a Labour party that is able to go through the pain of realising it's dabble with centre right politics has been disastrous, there are too many influential figures in the labour Party who probably aren't willing or able to do/see that.
seems to me that most of this noise that masquerades as debate is because there's been an inordinate amount of time between announcing the candidates and electing them, so the press have been having a pop because the torys don't do much in parliament
Indeed. Its an awful lot of time for everyone to effectively say nothing at all, for fear of scaring the horses. You could listen to anything the other 3 candidates have said, all the simpering meaningless platitudes, and just like Ed before them, you'd be none the wiser as to what any of them actually stand for.
Corbyn has come out and said "I believe in this, this and this!". And thats simply not the done thing. Saying what you believe in? In modern politics? Whatever next?
Of Course, the real turmoil for Labour is yet to come, with the EU referendum rearing its ugly head before long, Corbyn the other day was very non committal in his answer the other day (the other three were clear about staying in)
Of Course, the real turmoil for Labour is yet to come, with the EU referendum rearing its ugly head before long
Because of course the Tories aren't hopelessly divided between Europhiles and Eurosceptics** 🙄
** Or "bastards" as former Tory PM John Major famously called them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/major-says-three-in-cabinet-are-bastards-1486997.html
PMQ's. I've thought for some time that I'd like to see a leading debater on either front bench simply talk quietly in an ordinary conversational manner ignoring all the jeering and school-playground shouty nonsense, finding that the chamber becomes quiet because there's no other way of hearing what is being said, as the member speaking simply keeps quietly talking underneath all the noise.
I've a feeling Jeremy Corbyn could be that person.
PMQ's. I've thought for some time that I'd like to see a leading debater on either front bench simply talk quietly in an ordinary conversational manner ignoring all the jeering and school-playground shouty nonsense, finding that the chamber becomes quiet because there's no other way of hearing what is being said, as the member speaking simply keeps quietly talking underneath all the noise.I've a feeling Jeremy Corbyn could be that person.
Did you not see Jezza lose the plot on channel 4 news under mild questioning last week?
He's getting a lot of coverage right now and the bloody media ar having it away with him which does beg the question do they think, (tinfoil conspiracy)being right wing b'stards, that by getting him elected it'll help keep the Tories in power forever? I seriously think they may have misjudged the mood, he's a serious guy, no doubt a conviction politician the like of which we haven't seen for a long time, lots more like him than they realise and this continual slamming the poor, disabled is going to eventually bite them in their collective butts.
Did you not see Jezza lose the plot on channel 4 news under mild questioning last week?
Must have missed that. I did see him put a Ch4 interviewer in his place, though.
The EU referendum might be Corbyn's path to power. Win the labour leadership. Perfectly possible. Then campaign for a no vote on Europe.
But if he were to win the Labour leadership, then declare himself an EU ‘Outer’ and campaign for ‘No'; and if the ‘No’ side were to triumph, a humiliated David Cameron would have to resign, and the country would bellow for change. An EU referendum is a long time in politics.
http://archbishopcranmer.com/jeremy-corbyns-path-to-power-is-more-plausible-than-people-think/
Did you not see Jezza lose the plot on channel 4 news under mild questioning last week?
I thought it made him look quite human actually, as opposed to a slick PR created political product. Although he could do well to curb his anger in front of cameras, even though I can understand that the Middle East and the plight of the Palestinian people is an emotive issue - it often makes me very angry too, specially when the media is so stacked in Israel's favour.
And I would dispute that it was "mild questioning", I thought it was quite aggressive. I would also dispute that he lost the plot - I thought he stuck to the plot quite well.
I also think Corbyn is the biggest danger to the continued rise of the SNP - if he gets elected leader.
While I would like to see Labour regain its purpose (and LibDems for that matter), the longer they are in disarray, the better.
[b]Bolli the builder[/b] said "And I would dispute that it was "mild questioning", I thought it was quite aggressive. I would also dispute that he lost the plot - I thought he stuck to the plot quite well."
And we agree again, that Forgethisnameon C4 has been trying to be the tough guy and failing ever since Paxman hung up his hat, I also thought it was refreshing, him and that absolute other nob end on C4 make me puke.
Well, it's not easy to accuse Blair of a lack of conviction, even from my uninformed position.
but unfortunately difficult to get Blair convicted of the crimes against humanity of which he has been accused.
"He'll never get elected as leader by Labour.
Unfortunately."
The more of us - the general public, sign up to Labour to vote for him the more chance he has.
[b]There is still time to join up to vote for Corbyn.[/b]
Its the first time I have ever signed up to a political party. Worth every penny. I still have to decide who to vote for for the Deputy Leader position.
Which Deputy Leader are any of you voting for and why?
1983 - Labour manifesto - longest suicide note in history.
2015 Vote for Corbyn - biggest suicide vote in history.
irc - Member
...2015 Vote for Corbyn - biggest suicide vote in history.
If you look at that thick black line in scotroutes graph, I think you'll find that it might give a clue to where Labour's voters have gone.
If Corbyn gets elected leader, it may be the biggest political rescue in history, because at the moment Labour is doing that cliche - re-arranging the deckchairs while denying they are sinking.
Yes of course irc, because the Labour Party will thrive and grow under leadership of this woman
[img] 
[/img]
I can see Scottish former Labour voters deserting the SNP on mass as they return to the warm embrace of a Labour party led by Liz Kendell. Once again they will feel that the Labour Party is the party which represents them.
In fact millions of former Labour voters throughout the country who can no longer be even arsed to vote will rush to enthusiastically support a party led by Liz Kendell, her connection with ordinary working people and persuasive debating skills is frankly quite staggering.
She will be the next Labour Prime Minister.
*rolls eyes*
I think pretty clear who the suicide candidate is.
History suggests that Labour should not panic - they will be back in power. The question is timing and that will be determined by whether they ask the right questions now or whether they get lost in this BS left versus right debate. Labour did not lose by being too "any wing". They lost because more of the Tory core turn out espcially the silver vote, the C1s don't buy Labour's message and the ability of the SNP to hoodwink they Scottich electorate (and the LDs gifting the SW to the Tories)
They did well among the young and the lower classes and the vote was pretty stable. The SNP mirage will evaporate when people see thought the anti-austerity (sic) message and the it's all the fault of the English narrative and they will recover in Scotland.
The last thing they should do is panic or have their equivalent of an IDS (an obvious non-leader) as their leader.
Of course, they are panicking and asking the wrong questions, so will probably lose 2020 as well. All a bit silly really but amusing political pantomime in the meantime
Jezza on Marr prog now
Thanks switched off when the deceitful one came on with his usual BS. Good to watch Jezza...
teamhurtmore - Member
Thanks switched off when the deceitful one came on with his usual BS...
I'm surprised Cameron was on the same programme. 🙂
The SNP mirage will evaporate when people see thought the anti-austerity (sic) message and the it's all the fault of the English narrative and they will recover in Scotland.
Seriously, can we have just one polital discussion without you diverting it towards your predictably boring SNP bashing? You've just about used all your typical bingo calls as well so you probably should give it a rest to keep things interesting.
Considering you live in Surrey you claim to know a lot about what is going on up here, the truth is you know bugger all and tbh you couldn't be more wrong. Labour have lost the fight up here as the Tories did before them, if they ever want to regain lost ground then they are going to have to fundamentally change.
squirrelking - Member
...Labour have lost the fight up here as the Tories did before them, if they ever want to regain lost ground then they are going to have to fundamentally change.
We stopped listening to the line being pushed in the media owned by the foreign billionaires and the PR trained monkeys jumping to do their political donors bidding.
Social media has enabled the spread of information much quicker and the exposure of the diet of lies we get in the media. Unless Labour wakes up to this and starts listening to their disaffected, they're done for.
Social media has enabled the spread of information much quicker and the exposure of the diet of lies we get in the media.
To be honest if the drivel of half truths, generalities and banal idealism that is passed off as political comment on my social media feeds is considered by the general populous as an accurate representation of the news and current thinking we are thoroughly screwed whatever.
Seriously, can we have just one polital discussion without you diverting it towards your predictably boring SNP bashing
Indeed, heaven forbid that the future of the LP should take Scotland into account. But take the point, criticism of the SNP is verboten. The masters of authoratitve rule and argument suppression.
the truth is you know bugger all
Spot on. And like Andrew Marr yesterday I am very keen to learn why the SNP are so reluctant to use their current fiscal powers or why they think cutting corporation tax suits their anti-austerity (sic) agenda. Among many "hiddens" obviously. So for those of us in ignorance it was a pity that the deceitful one chose not to answer a perfectly straight question yesterday. Plus ca change. Talk about bingo......
Labour have lost the fight up here as the Tories did before them, if they ever want to regain lost ground then they are going to have to fundamentally change.
Well that is the debate isn't it. You have set out your hypothesis and I have set out mine ie, no panic, once the SNP are subject to proper scrutiny and opposition, the mirage will crumble. Of course they will spin the opposite because it is in their interest to do so and make the LP look like a party in panic.
Back to Corbyn, he does an ok job at looking like not panicking but there is that combustible core that just needs a little prodding and then the angry man emerges quite quickly. It's up the the party to decide whether that is the characteristic of a leader and potential PM or not before the electorate do so.
Indeed, should make for interesting PMQ's as I'm sure Cameron's team will be carefully sifting through old files and videos to identify which buttons to press...
needs a little prodding and then the angry man emerges quite quickly.
Apparently... that's refreshing to see and plays well with the punters 😆
that combustible core that just needs a little prodding and then the angry man emerges quite quickly.
That's my favorite bit!
It was a good interview on Marr, came across as very genuine and reasonable.
Apparently... that's refreshing to see and plays well with the punters
indeed, just the sort of 'makes him come across as human and utterley sincere' qualities that Labour identified they needed in a leader last time round, rather than the cold hearted leadership type qualities that won them elections.
teamhurtmore - Memberthe angry man emerges quite quickly
I didn't notice him getting angry on the Andrew Marr yesterday.
When you say quite quickly THM do you actually mean "not" very quickly, or he "once" got angry ?
I think he means "quite" (sic).
Well he seemed very slow to get angry yesterday.
Which is why I was asking.
the angry man emerges quite quickly
Any left leaning politician should be angry right now, tbh.
indeed, just the sort of 'makes him come across as human and utterley sincere' qualities that Labour identified they needed in a leader last time round, rather than the cold hearted leadership type qualities that won them elections.
It's hard to imagine what Tony Blair could get angry about. Certainly not injustice in the Middle East which is what triggered Corbyn.
[img] 
[/img]
Labour have lost the fight up here as the Tories did before them, if they ever want to regain lost ground then they are going to have to fundamentally change.
The Scots were offered a credible alternative to a labour party that had complacently taken their votes for granted for decades. And just look how they embraced it. If voters in the so-called 'Northern Labour Heartlands' we re offered the same alternative, they'd embrace it with equal enthusiasm for the same reasons
The labour party in its present state simply cannot feasibly ever win another election. It has zero appeal t most people. Its a political irrelevence that has no idea what it is actually meant to represent any more.
But when I look at the candidates for the leadership, I don't think any of them even begins to grasp just how electorally ****ed they actually are. They're in complete denial. So how can they possibly hope to offer a serious credible proposition to the electorate within 5 years. Barring another global financial metdown or something monumental going wrong for the Tories (and I can't see it - not even with the referendum), Labour has already conceded the next election. Its already lost.
And you can forget Boris or Theresa. It'll be PM Osbourne. Jesus... what a thought!
Neither - he has held himself back rather well so far, maybe the party PR machine is working already. But it's fairly obvious from Marr and C4 that there is a combustible core and you can bet your bottom dollar that his opponents will be identifying and pushing the appropriate buttons. You know - labelling him incorrectly, misquoting him, manipulating facts, swerving - all the things that irritating people do on a regular basis esp in the Internet age.
It could be fun to watch - the political panto continues.
Fun distraction from the real world. Seems from the not-very-left-wing Guardian that he is doing even better than expected. Good for him.
If voters in the so-called 'Northern Labour Heartlands' we re offered the same alternative, they'd embrace it with equal enthusiasm for the same reasons
You mean the alternative to austerity and Trident replacement which saw the SNP sweep across Scotland in May ?
Well that alternative has an appeal in the 'London Labour Heartland' too.
Since becoming MP for Islington North Jeremy Corbyn has increased his majority by 5 times, and gone from 40% of the vote to 60% of the vote, making his seat one of the safest Labour seats in the UK.
Some people people claim he's a certain election loser btw.
Well, that makes him a winner in Islington. Not exactly a good sample for the likeliest UK outcome...
I've said it earlier on on this thread Ernie but the labour party actually returning to what they're meant to be surely can't be any less electorally appealing than the present utterly pointless, rudderless Tory-lite incarnation. They'd lose a lot of voters, pick up others, and who knows how that would balance out.
But I see no way that Liz whats-her-name, Eds wife, or Andy Burnham have the slightest clue how to make the labour party an actual electable political force, so they might as well have a punt on Jezza. It can't really get any worse, can it?
the angry man emerges quite quickly
Any left leaning politician should be angry right now, tbh.
Indeed and imagine how angry their supporters (France, Greece) must be when they see their leaders implementing policies that even those nasty Tories would be scared of!
Read the posts Woppit. I'm talking to binners about 'Labour Heartlands'.
Since becoming MP for Islington North Jeremy Corbyn has increased his majority by 5 times, and gone from 40% of the vote to 60% of the vote, making his seat one of the safest Labour seats in the UK.
Wow talk about selectively picking your data, that 1983 data point (Corbyn's 1st election win) is the worst election result by % for Labour in that seat since they won it in 1937!!! In fact it shows how unpopular the Labour party was between the late 70's to late 80's as those are some of the worst results in what has clearly been a Labour safe seat since before WW2.