Forum menu
Yeah, it's just cringe and unfunny. You've either got it or you haven't, and that isn’t it.
I also think that it's interesting that so much emphasis has been on Corbyn (male, with limited political career left, not grabbing leadership as much as involvement) and so little on Sultana (female, with 50 years of political career left in front of her, ambitious), yet they're equal co-leaders.
Because Zahra Sultana isn't the threat, Corbyn is. And I am not necessarily talking about attitudes on STW but in the wider world.
However dismissive people might try to project themselves Corbyn is real threat to Labour, Sultana isn't. If he decided to remain an independent MP and let her carry on with forming the party on her own there is absolutely no chance that they would have over half a million people signed up already, most people have no idea who Zahra Sultana is.
Whilst he is widely despised by many Corbyn is far more popular than the myths created suggest. Even in his worst general election result Corbyn got three quarters of a million more votes for Labour than Tony Blair managed to get in the 2005 general election. Obviously that didn't translate into seats thanks to our weird electoral system.
Corbyn easily beat the Labour Party candidate in the general election 12 months ago despite years of smears against him
He is massively popular with young voters, more than any high profile politician, do you think many young voters have the slightest idea who Zahra Sultana is ?
He was also massively popular with Labour party members, he won the leadership contest with 60% of the vote which I believe is biggest mandate ever given to a Labour leader. And then a couple of years later following a challenge after years of smears and attacks he increased that to 62%. He was also responsible for a huge surge in Labour Party membership.
And the reason for this popularity? Well it certainly isn't because of his great personality, or his charisma, or his oratorical skills, or a steady hand firmly in control.
He is a piss-poor speaker with little charisma and even less leadership skills.
It is quite simply because of what he argues in favour of and against. It chimes extremely well with a lot of people who are absolutely desperate for change and want to be offered some hope. The complete opposite of Labour under Starmer which guarantees the status quo and offers no hope....... remember "no hope is better than false hope" from Labour? That really isn't very inspirational.
Corbyn's trump card are his policies and that is what makes him a threat to Labour.
Where do YOU start, I don't see Corbyn as a lunatic at all. Much more damage is being done by Starmer and Reeves than Corbyn would/could ever do.
Well he single handedly ensured we had to suffer Boris. How much more damage do you want any him to do
Actually that was Mandelson and the labour right in England feeding anti Corbyn nonsense to the press and Scottish labour having a pact with the tories which resulted in 10 extra tory MPs which saved Mays government. Without that we would have had a Corbyn PM in a minority government, no brexit and no Johnson
Just for historical accuracy
I bet they do not.
Okay £100 which winner will give to charity of their choice. Key to this is what is the deadline by when the 6MPs are required seeing as party if not officially a party yet? (And obviously there needs to be a party formed otherwise all bets are off)
I never bet for money - the offer is I buy you all the greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat if the new party wins more than 6 seats at the next GE. NO ifs buts and ands - I bet they win less than 6 seats
Well simple electoral maths tells you that many Pele voted for Boris because the alternative was Corbyn.
That's not how maths works. Simple electoral maths tells us that many people voted for Boris instead of Corbyn. The "because" part is a non sequitur you've added yourself, hand-waving it away as "simple maths" doesn't provide us with any sort of reason as to why.
In the last GE it was well discussed before, during and after that many people voted against Sunak rather than for Starmer. I don't recall a similar narrative back in 2019, rather it'd be optimistic for anyone to go up against Boris in a popularity contest.
the offer is I buy you all the greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat if the new party wins more than 6 seats at the next GE. NO ifs buts and ands - I bet they win less than 6 seats
What if they win exactly 6 seats? 😁
Scottish labour having a pact with the tories which resulted in 10 extra tory MPs which saved Mays government.
This is such a weird read.
In the 2017 General Election in Scotland, the Tories kept their 1 existing seat and won 12 new ones. They took all their wins from the SNP. Labour kept their 1 existing seat and won 6 new seats - again, all from the SNP. If Labour had taken *all* the Tories' Scottish seats, Theresa May still would have had a 29 seat majority at Westminster.
And there was no Labour-Tory "pact" - this was SNP conspiracy theory after Corbyn refused to form a pact with the SNP (which knew it was cruising towards disaster).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_breakdown_of_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
In the last GE it was well discussed before, during and after that many people voted against Sunak rather than for Starmer.
Unfortunately this is no better founded than chrismacs crap argument (amazing how brexit doesnt play a part in their understanding)
At least in the latter case Johnson did get more votes (not many more but a couple of hundred thousand than May) which was boosted by the 2.5 million drop for labour.
In Starmer vs Sunak though Starmer lost 500k votes but was boosted/saved by the absolute collapse for the tories.
PCA - there was a Scottish labour / tory pact. I saw it in action on Alistair Jacks facebook page where they were urging labour voters to vote tory in some seats. I also saw the cheers for tory wins from labour party officials. Its not just SNP paranoia - its what actually happened
May could only make a majority with the DUP. without those 10 extra MPs from Scotland her government would have fallen and we would have had a labour MINORITY government. May would not have had been able to form a government without those 10 extra scottish seats gained because the labour / tory pact. Edit : Labour would have been able to with SNP and Lib Dem support
How many labour seats were lost because of the constant anti corbyn briefings from Mandelson and co? Half a dozen? More?
go look at the numbers again. The tories were short of a majority and needed the DUP to get a queens speech passed. Without those seats gained via the labour / tory pact and because of mandelsons and cos briefings to the press then Mays government would have fallen.
tories won 318 seats if I can add up correctly - short of a majority
she needed the DUP on side and even then the majority was wafer thin. Half a dozen seats less and she would have not been able to form a government
The ~Scotsman is hardly a credible source as it hates the SNP.
Apologies. It was Ian Murrays facebook I saw the urging to vote tory
PCA - there was a Scottish labour / tory pact.
...
The ~Scotsman is hardly a credible source as it hates the SNP.
...
Apologies. It was Ian Murrays facebook I saw the urging to vote tory
So in the nicest possible way the credible source for the existence of a Labour-Tory electoral pact is "TJ saw a post on someone's Facebook page 8 years ago" and The Scotsman is just fake news because they don't like the SNP?
Not often you see a literal "no True Scotsman" argument in the wild...
You can't compare vote shares between 24 and other elections directly. While stats like lowest ever vote share and "1/2 a million less than Corbyn got" are technically true, they don't address that in 24 there was a four credible party contest, so votes and vote shares were inevitably less as a result. [I know there are more than four, more in a moment on that but four main parties with a chance of gaining substantial vote share. And I don't mean to offend my Scottish readers, I know SNP are credible north of the border just as DUP and SF are in NI, but as a % of the whole votes I'm afraid they count as 'other']
I can't find the summary I read on this after the event now, but it modelled the baseline as being broadly that in a 3 party contest, your baseline would be 33% and your performance can be measured based on how much better or worse than that baseline. In a four party contest, 25%. If "Your Party" takes hold and contests an election then 20% will be the baseline in 2029
Actually in a more sophisticated version, you can model that 'others' typically get ~15% of the share so your baseline is a third or a quarter of 85, but the point is the same.
In 24 LAB = 34%, CON = 24%, REF = 14% and LD = 12%, total = 84%
LAB substantially exceeded their baseline, CON were thereabouts. LAB won a landslide
In 19 LAB = 32%, CON = 44%, REF = 0% and LD = 12%, total = 84%
LAB were on their baseline, CON substantially exceeded. CON won a landslide
You can continue arguments about whether the vote was for Labour or against CON, and what has happened since with a massive comparative vote share and majority but comparing total votes as a measure of Corbyn's popularity against Starmer's in 2 different contests is a red herring.
I never bet for money - the offer is I buy you all the greggs ( or artisanal sourdough) you can eat if the new party wins more than 6 seats at the next GE. NO ifs buts and ands - I bet they win less than 6 seats
Okay, that's off then as betting for food is stupid (even more so for disgusting Greggs) and much more sensible to give £100 to a charity.
I am also not referring to the next election, I am referring to say 12 months time when party is up and running and they have around 10 MPs.
You can continue arguments about whether the vote was for Labour or against CON, and what has happened since with a massive comparative vote share and majority but comparing total votes as a measure of Corbyn's popularity against Starmer's in 2 different contests is a red herring.
Agree but we all know how both elections played out - 2019 Corbyn attacked from own party and from media, Boris very popular and Get Brexit Done whereas 2024 Starmer given an easy ride, everyone completely fed up with tories and went for Starmers 'change'
I am also not referring to the next election, I am referring to say 12 months time when party is up and running and they have around 10 MPs.
Thats possible with defections. what is not possible is they get many folk elected. Plenty of examples of new parties getting representation from defections, very few of them actually getting folk elected
PCA - come on mate - you are better than that :-). The Scotsman has been turned into a right rag since the ownership change. there was loads of other evidence as well including the fact that in 2019 when there was no pact ( as Scottish labour understood how damaging it was as it allowed a tory westminster government) most of those seats returned to the SNP, ( the opposite of what happeneined in England when the tories won a landslide) the total lack of any campaigning in those seats by whichever party threw the election, the cheering of tory wins in those seats by labour party officials
NO acknowledgement that you got your arithmetic wrong?
Agree but we all know how both elections played out - 2019 Corbyn attacked from own party and from media,
A summary so brief it manages to miss everything. You'd need to include Corbyn agreeing to an election at the worst time imaginable, a campaign that was disorganised, and the fact that Corbyn by 2019 was just unpopular with voters as he was within the PLP. Just pointing at the media (again) and divisions in Labour (true but equally nothing new) is just lazy anti-historic thinking.
Unless and until Labour left are able to look both the failures as well as the successes of the last Labour left leadership, we'll continue to have a rudderless and pointless Labour (in name only) party and marginal influence generally. I agree with @tjagain, this new party will have little, if any impact on the next election and beyond. Sultana is already being briefed against, I heard her being described as "Ambitious" from a source in the new party which far from a compliment is political speech for 'pushy young woman* who doesn't know her place' so it all seems to be going well so far.
* it's always used to describe young women in politics, and always used by hoary old men who should know better.
I don't understand why there is not a by-election if the candidate was voted to represent a particular constituency for a party and then changes party.
I am also not referring to the next election, I am referring to say 12 months time when party is up and running and they have around 10 MPs.
How will they have 10 MPs, are you including the 4 Green MPs who are obviously in another party, or are you expecting defections? Either way it won't be a reflection of the popularity of the new party.
Realistically I suspect that in an alliance with the Greens the two parties combined could possibly poll 15-20% of the vote. And to give that context almost every single opinion poll in the last few months has placed Labour on less than 25% (crisis? what crisis?) so they could equal or even possibly beat Labour.
How that translates into seats is incredibly hard to predict thanks to our weird polling system, after all at the last general election the LibDems increased their MPs from 11 to 72 despite a half a percent drop in their vote.
Number of seats and popularity are therefore really not the same thing in Westminster elections and poorly reflect on eachother.
In terms of people getting up off their fat arses and walking down to their polling stations to vote, the two general elections in which Labour has done best in the last 25 years both occurred when Jeremy Corbyn was leader, but that wasn't necessarily reflected in election results.
Even in Corbyn's worse general election result (2019) more people voted Labour than voted Labour in 2005 when Tony Blair was leader. Nevertheless despite the unpredictability of how support for a party translates into seats I do expect that a red-green electoral alliance is likely to get dozens of seats.
It obviously very much depends on how seats are targeted (hence the LibDems sudden increase in seats) the Greens came second in 39 seats in last year's general election so there is a substantial base support to build on, especially considering how unpopular Labour has become since then.
One huge advantage a red-green electoral alliance would have is that you can be absolutely certain that many of the half a million individuals who have expressed interest in the new party will be former Labour Party activists expelled or driven out by Starmer and McSweeney, and will therefore have a wealth of experience in fighting elections, including presumably a lot of councillors and former Labour candidates who were denied the chance to stand at the last general election.
I don't understand why there is not a by-election if the candidate was voted to represent a particular constituency for a party and then changes party.
Because in FPTP you are voting for an individual to represent you in Parliament, not for a party. The party that individual is a member of is very much secondary as their first responsibility is to the 10,000-15,000 people they represent.
This is the theory but it also illustrates why FPTP is an archaic undemocratic system. It was out of date by the time nationally televised party political broadcasts became a thing but with social media it belongs in a museum.
It's a shame as I like the idea of a representative who is primarily responsible to the community they represent but we just don't live in that world anymore.
You'd need to include Corbyn agreeing to an election at the worst time imaginable
Aside from, of course, the credit for this belongs to the Libdems and SNP who pushed for the vote at that time and provided sufficient votes to make Labours position irrelevant.
As such Labour took the position of voting for it for the obvious reason that all the headlines would have been "Labour frightened of democracy" etc etc.
There has been the argument made that if Labour had opposed the act then enough SNP and Libdems would have voted against to block it but that would be an amazingly risky position to take and even if successful shortterm would have just fed those headlines.
and the fact that Corbyn by 2019 was just unpopular with voters as he was within the PLP
And why was that? Given the average voter never met him handwaving and announcing that just possibly the media and the labour right who did their best to help them out might have some responsibility I dont think is unreasonable.
I don't understand why there is not a by-election if the candidate was voted to represent a particular constituency for a party and then changes party.
BruceWee covers it but to put it another way.
Should an mp be allowed to vote against the party whip?
I don't understand why there is not a by-election if the candidate was voted to represent a particular constituency for a party and then changes party.
Because in FPTP you are voting for an individual to represent you in Parliament, not for a party. The party that individual is a member of is very much secondary as their first responsibility is to the 10,000-15,000 people they represent.
This is the theory but it also illustrates why FPTP is an archaic undemocratic system.
MSPs elected under the PR component of Scottish elections don't lose their seat when they defect or otherwise lose the support of the party that sponsored them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yp8gee2peo
1) "there was loads of other evidence as well".
You're asking people to believe the Labour Party - led by Corbyn at the time - agreed an electoral pact with the Tories that would have required hundreds of people in both parties to know about...and they kept it a secret? No-one has ever spoken about it then or no, and the existence of the deal can only be inferred from various phenomena (some of which happened in the following GE)?
I've seen inside constituency Labour parties (and I think you have too...?) and that's just not how they work!
2) "NO acknowledgement that you got your arithmetic wrong?"
Sorry! I totally overlooked that section of your post. You are absolutely right that May got a majority but not an absolute parliamentary majority. I completely forgot about that aspect. Apologies.
MSPs elected under the PR component of Scottish elections don't lose their seat when they defect or otherwise lose the support of the party that sponsored them.
Fair enough. List MPs definitely aren't representing a specific constituency and were elected on the party manifesto so there is a good case to be made that they should have to resign if they quit the party.
But then the question becomes why bother having list MSPs at all. Why not just give the party leader extra votes based on the regional vote share if those MSPs can be fired at the whim of the party leadership (if we assume losing party membership means losing your seat)?
And if the manifesto is a distant memory from 3 party leaders ago should any of the list MSPs really be bound to vote in alignment with the current party leader? Shouldn't they always vote according to the manifesto they were elected on?
Who would have thought politics can be complicated and seldom has simple solutions that fit all scenarios?
the question becomes why bother having list MSPs at all. Why not just give the party leader extra votes based on the regional vote share if those MSPs can be fired at the whim of the party leadership (if we assume losing party membership means losing your seat)?
List MSPs are supposed to balance out unfairness arising from quirks of the FPTP seats eg NP gets 51% in every seat and wins 100% of MSPs.
The FPTP/list MSPs blend only really exists because there was an emotional attachment to having "your" local MSP when Holyrood was launched.
If you want to give more votes to party leaders and whoever has the most votes decides - that's really just a presidential and not parliamentary system. Never considered it before but maybe it could have worked in Scotland with the parliament smaller and more of a check on the Heidyin...?
Suspending the whip and losing party membership don't cause the elected official to lose their seat during the term of their office. Obviously it might make reelection more difficult - or easier! How that happens depends on the internal arrangements of the party in question - it's not always a party leader's decision.
TBH I think the MP/MSP defecting concern is a bit of a red herring. It doesn't actually happen that much, and as Jeremy Corbyn shows - you can have a parliamentarian that remains in a party for decades but never does what the party/leader want, and gets elected time after time by his constituents. Apart from when he himself was leader (!), there was never any real difference between Corbyn as a Labour MP and Corbyn as an Indy MP and Corbyn as a Your Party MP.
Corbyn's trump card are his policies and that is what makes him a threat to Labour.
There was a picture of him recently, he just looked like a regular guy, the way he was dressed and in amongst a bunch of regular people (protesting, so those sort of regular people), no pretension. Cannot for one second see starmer as one of the people.
just possibly the media and the labour right who did their best to help them out might have some responsibility
If your apology/excuse for the failure of Corbyn's leadership relies on 3rd parties acting entirely predictably, then they didn't have a plan in the first place.
Somewhere in 1915 in the trenches, an officer: "Smithers, tell me why we didn't defeat the Hun?"
Smithers: "Well Sir, not only did we know what the dastardly Germans would do, the bastards did exactly that!"
Officer: "Those devious Krauts, how will we ever defeat them?"
If your apology/excuse for the failure of Corbyn's leadership relies on 3rd parties acting entirely predictably, then they didn't have a plan in the first place.
Who on earth could have predicted the sheer level of vitriol directly by right-wing Labour MPs against the party leader who was overwhelming backed by Labour Party members?
Who are earth could have predicted the tsunami of briefings to the Tory right-wing press by right-wing Labour MPs who denounced their own leader accusing him of being a terrorist-sympathising racist ?
I certainly didn't predict any of that, did you ?
Corbyn was undoubtedly a weak leader, the only explanation that despite fighting the Tory Party, the Tory press, and three-quarters of Labour MPs, all at the same time, he still managed to get only 2% less votes for Labour than Starmer managed in the last general election, is that the message he shared was well received by voters.
Character assassinations have their limitations.
There was a picture of him recently, he just looked like a regular guy, the way he was dressed and in amongst a bunch of regular people (protesting, so those sort of regular people), no pretension.
This has always been Corbyn's biggest strength. Despite the fact that binners et al ridicule his 'scruffiness' and down-at-heel persona, I think it's pretty clear these days that voters want their political representatives to be approachable and relateable to normal people, rather than establishment technocrats who think they're a cut above. Farage has figured this out too, although in his case it's a clever performance rather than genuine like Corbyn.
I've always said that despite Corbyn's (or any other people-focused politician for that matter) shortcomings, imagine having a PM who genuinely cares about normal people rather than aloof sociopathic technocrats like Starmer, or priveleged public school boys like Johnson and Sunak?
I'm encouraged by the formation of this new party. As a leftie leaning middle aged gentleman with more than an ounce of compassion I'm hopeful the party will align with my desire for social improvements for the poorest in this society. I think I might like to stand but unsure if I've got enough social confidence or eloquence to do it properly.
Two questions for debate if you like?
Is the number of people willing to vote for yourparty sufficient to cancel out the gammon vote? or make enough of a dent to deny fartrage no10.
What will yourparty's plans to deal with the boat people likely be? This is important issue for some, whether it is or not is another question. If they wish to attract enough votes to get into power this plan needs to be good.
Corbyn's trump card are his policies and that is what makes him a threat to Labour.
There was a picture of him recently, he just looked like a regular guy, the way he was dressed and in amongst a bunch of regular people (protesting, so those sort of regular people), no pretension. Cannot for one second see starmer as one of the people.
Fair enough that Corbyn does not strike anyone as a member of the elite who's disconnected from cost of living crisis, housing concens, workplace conditions etc faced by ordinary working people.
But does the electorate want "one of the people" as PM? Thatcher, Blair, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak - all PMs that were not at all "of the people". Salmond, Major, Sturgeon and Brown were not at all from elite backgrounds, but they weren't perceived as being of the people (even tho I think those four were closer to Corbyn socially than to Johnson and Sunak).
Edit: I'm not suggesting that PMs shouldn't be "of the people", just that the revealed preference of voters (within the choice theyve been given) doesn't seem to rank it that high. Kinnock was probably the best example of "of the people" and "presentable", and he wasn't elected (not saying that was the only factor).
"scruffy" worked for Johnson because it was an affectation and against Corbyn and Foot because it seemed/was presented as oblivious and they pushed back against it.
I'm quite surprised at the mostly positive zest for some left-wing pushback. (Yes people are utterly sick of useless governments.)
It's a good thing.
The sooner Labour has been decided a dud the better - we can try and move forward and talk about how things are rebuilt.
I'm still fairly negative long-term (there's too much confusion and misinformation about how we pay for things.) But just about anything positive to come out of this and mostly wholesale rejection of the Starmer mistake is about as pragmatic as it gets at this point.
As much as I like Corbyn's ideals I still believe second time around, age and reheated desperation probably won't pan out as we'd like.
For the time being it's nice to have some possible alternatives for the disaster that is Labour.
But does the electorate want "one of the people" as PM?
I reckon that's pretty clear. How often do we hear 'they're all the same', 'they only look after themselves' etc? Politicians are among the least respected public servants in the UK, down there with traffic wardens and bailiffs. That's a result of the fact they mostly come from priveleged backgrounds while pretending to relate to the people they represent, or in some cases (ie Rayner) they come from normal backgrounds but soon forget their roots and become establishment apologists.
The main group of people who tell us that we need politicians who are 'qualified' or 'competent' are establishment types like political journalists/commentators, business leaders, senior civil servants and academics who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I think today people want their political representatives to focus their time on changing things rather than looking for excuses to keep it all the same.
What will yourparty's plans to deal with the boat people likely be?
Well they won't be parroting Farage, Enoch Powell and Tommy Robinson that's for certain! Instead I expect they'll combat the 'problem' head on by making the case that the 'boat people' are a direct result of inhumane asylum and immigration policies which forces desperate people to take extreme risks and actions instead of receiving the support they need to lead a decent life in their home countries/communities.
But does the electorate want "one of the people" as PM?
Did you honestly not think of Nigel Farage whilst you were writing that?
Obviously Nigel Farage isn't a man of the people but purporting to be is central to his appeal.
Exactly the same in the US with Donald Trump. It might seem ridiculous to consider someone as wealthy as Trump as a man of the people but that is how he is perceived by many.
This is primarily for two reasons, firstly the subjects they talk about and secondly because they are not seen as being part of the political elite.
In the case of Corbyn it is simply more genuine. Not only does his comfortable middle-class upbringing not match the upbringing of Farage and Trump but he is genuinely committed to issues which concern the average man and woman.
But does the electorate want "one of the people" as PM? Thatcher, Blair, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak - all PMs that were not at all "of the people"
How many of those were actually voted for by the electorate rather than party members? Some perhaps, but not all.
And with impeccable timing, here we have the Green party leadership demonstrating how little they undertand the current political climate. I suppose they haven't seen all the polls over the past 6 months which show a clear lead for Reform? 🙄
"I strongly believe that most British people have had enough with populist approaches to politics that seek to simplify everything, that are all about chasing the next headline, the next set of likes, rather than real substance,” said Ramsay, who has co-led the party with Carla Denyer since 2021."
Or the greens could have this instead. I know which I'd prefer..
https://twitter.com/ZackPolanski/status/1947911859388231759
Been saying it for years, they need to fight fire with fire. Populism can be good or can be bad, all depends what you are selling.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong to boiling big problems that have many factors down to a single sentence people can get their heads around.
Good Populism: 'You are poor and getting poorer every year because society has been rigged so money flows from your community to the already obscenely wealthy and powerful.'
Bad Populism: 'You are poor and getting poorer every year because brown people.'
Unfortunately this is no better founded than chrismacs crap argument (amazing how brexit doesnt play a part in their understanding)
At least in the latter case Johnson did get more votes (not many more but a couple of hundred thousand than May) which was boosted by the 2.5 million drop for labour.
So anti EU Corbyn stood against anti EU Johnson and managed to drop 2.5m votes. If thats not down to Corbyn and his campaign then who else is responsible? Why does anyone think that Corbyn would do any better this time around. One of the biggest electoral ssets Johnson had was that Corbyn was the alternative. Did that mean they all voted for Johnson instead, clearly not or his landslide would have been even more dramatic. Instead they either didnt bother or voted for other parties
Why does anyone think that Corbyn would do any better this time around.
No one is thinking that because no one, Corbyn included, is expecting Corbyn to be PM. This new party (whatever it ends up being called) exists to provide a platform for people who want to see radical, progressive reform which redresses the balance of power and wealth between rich elites and everyone else. Those of us who want to see real, radical change to how our economy and political instututions operate have been disenfranchised by Starmer's labour party, and this new party provides the opportunity to make our voices heard. That's all it is, and I for one am glad it's finally happening.
So anti EU Corbyn stood against anti EU Johnson
I dont know if you noticed but they were proposing somewhat different policies on brexit? Your arguments are to put it mildly somewhat confusing.
But does the electorate want "one of the people" as PM?
I reckon that's pretty clear. How often do we hear 'they're all the same', 'they only look after themselves' etc?
I agree with a lot of what you say, but two things - first, I don't know how it's possible to disaggregate that "both sides same" nihilist sentiment (if it exists - I wouldn't know) among the electorate from the agenda-framing power of the media which you say is controlled by the establishment.
Second, this "I want a person of the people as leader" stuff might fall into the category of "things that people bullshit to themselves and others about". We all say things in public and to ourselves, and then act differently in private.
That's what I mean by "revealed preference" - when voters had the choice to elect leaders of the people, they mostly didn't bother. Kinnock, Corbyn, Foot and (this will upset you) Brown. Maybe Sturgeon is the only person who's led a GB parliament that qualifies in the last 50 years? (I don’t know much about Wales and NI so maybe I'm overlooking people there).
And I accept Cougar's point that that's a choice that is intermediate through party politics and preselections etc - but that's exactly the same environment in which Your Party will have to fight.
Maybe Corbyn being a "man of the people" (which fwiw I think he is) will not be that influential. And to be fair to Dazh's point - the party shouldn't all be about Corbyn anyway.
managed to drop 2.5m votes. If thats not down to Corbyn and his campaign then who else is responsible? Why does anyone think that Corbyn would do any better this time around. One of the biggest electoral ssets Johnson had was that Corbyn was the alternative.
Do you mean a 2.5M drop from Corbyn's best general election result?
Even with that 2.5M drop it was still better than Brown, Miliband, and Starmer, managed.
And yes I do believe that Corbyn has the potential to do better this time. Why? Because I believe the days of one political party winning general elections are now over, at least for the foreseeable future, UK politics is now too fragmented.
So with a couple of dozen MPs in a coalition government Corbyn would be in a position to influence government policy (and be part of it) more than he was as leader of the opposition.
I am of course fully aware that Labour centrists would rather go into coalition with the Tories than a left-wing social democrat like Corbyn, but they won't necessarily be able to control the narrative, they are currently losing that ability on a daily basis.
And if you want to talk about Johnson's "biggest electoral assets" I suggest that you include Labour centrist MPs queuing up to publicly stab their own leader in the back (didn't one actually boast that they would be happy to stab him in the front?)
But most of all you should include the huge electoral asset for Johnson of Nigel Farage not to stand candidates and give the Tories a clear run against Labour, Johnson would not have won a landslide without that.