RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I think it’s both. I don’t think that left wing policies appeal to enough of the electorate to gain a victory at a general election, especially without the old safe Scottish seats.

On top of that you have Corbyn and his obvious failings. And that’s before you get to the supporting caste like Dianne Abbott.

Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

No argument there. The opposition needs to be effective and that will be hard against such a big government majority, albeit one built on sand I think.

If Labour wants to win a general election, it needs to move more to the centre.

A few points:

1) Nandy and Kinnock are talking rubbish. Labour would have lost even more votes if it had become a Brexit party (albeit a softer one) - its voters are primarily for remain. They had to offer a second referendum (IMO), or lose half their votes to the Lib Dems. Their main problem (IMO) was not to move decisively to a second referendum position earlier. By the time they did it, they'd lost a huge number of voters and not all came back. I don't think the "neutral on the referendum" position was a big problem (broad church and all that), but the months wasted getting there was.

2) Labour would get more votes if it moved towards the centre, but how far is a big question. It's pointless moving to the (New Labour/Lib Dem/Tory-lite) centre - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. But a slightly less aggressive approach would be better. And certainly an attempt to appear more centrist would be good (an impossible task for Corbyn).

3) If you believe Mells' graphs on the previous page, Labour's economic policy was not a big factor in people not voting for Labour, so I'd argue that many of their left-wing economic policies are (at the very least) not a problem for voters.

4) I do blame the media for a lot of the supposed "leadership" issues with Labour. When people say they didn't like the Labour leadership, I think they're not so much saying that their leadership qualities are bad - they're saying they simply don't like or respect Corbyn (et al). And this essentially emotional position is something that is very much influenced by the newspaper that your household gets. If you take a random tabloid, it's far more likely to contain right-wing propaganda than the opposite; read that for a few years, telling you Corbyn is a twat 100% of the time, you can't help but believe it a little.

5) Whoever Labour picks - unless it is a centrist, and therefore not such a worry for the billionaire newspaper owners - will have their character assassinated from the second they arrive in the position. This is a problem. Therefore, Labour need to pick someone sharp, without any significant chinks in their armour, and who looks like they could take Johnson on. From my POV, at this early stage, Starmer looks most promising.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

No argument there. The opposition needs to be effective and that will be hard against such a big government majority, albeit one built on sand I think.

If Labour wants to win a general election, it needs to move more to the centre.

A few points:

1) Nandy and Kinnock are talking rubbish. Labour would have lost even more votes if it had become a Brexit party (albeit a softer one) - its voters are primarily for remain. They had to offer a second referendum (IMO), or lose half their votes to the Lib Dems. Their main problem (IMO) was not to move decisively to a second referendum position earlier. By the time they did it, they'd lost a huge number of voters and not all came back. I don't think the "neutral on the referendum" position was a big problem (broad church and all that), but the months wasted getting there was.

2) Labour would get more votes if it moved towards the centre, but how far is a big question. It's pointless moving to the (New Labour/Lib Dem/Tory-lite) centre - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. But a slightly less aggressive approach would be better. And certainly an attempt to appear more centrist would be good (an impossible task for Corbyn).

3) If you believe Mells' graphs on the previous page, Labour's economic policy was not a big factor in people not voting for Labour, so I'd argue that many of their left-wing economic policies are (at the very least) not a problem for voters.

4) I do blame the media for a lot of the supposed "leadership" issues with Labour. When people say they didn't like the Labour leadership, I think they're not so much saying that their leadership qualities are bad - they're saying they simply don't like or respect Corbyn (et al). And this essentially emotional position is something that is very much influenced by the newspaper that your household gets. If you take a random tabloid, it's far more likely to contain right-wing propaganda than the opposite; read that for a few years, telling you Corbyn is a twat 100% of the time, you can't help but believe it a little.

5) Whoever Labour picks - unless it is a centrist, and therefore not such a worry for the billionaire newspaper owners - will have their character assassinated from the second they arrive in the position. This is a problem. Therefore, Labour need to pick someone sharp, without any significant chinks in their armour, and who looks like they could take Johnson on. From my POV, at this early stage, Starmer looks most promising.

So the Labour moderate MPs are wrong (and these are ones who all won their seats)- they are all pretty much saying the same thing; Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises cost them. I suppose they were between the rock and a hard place given the 'split' in where their power base comes from.Remain/Metropolitan Leave/Red Wall Towns. It wasn't so much of an issue for the Tories, who had a similar but lesser Remain voter issue, because Labours leadership and policies were so toxic to their Remain voters.

Your arguments are virtually identical to Richard Burgon's, and suspect the metaphor for the upcoming chat in Labour will be Burgon v Wes Streeting

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: No argument there. The opposition needs to be effective and that will be hard against such a big government majority, albeit one built on sand I think.

If Labour wants to win a general election, it needs to move more to the centre.

A few points:

1) Nandy and Kinnock are talking rubbish. Labour would have lost even more votes if it had become a Brexit party (albeit a softer one) - its voters are primarily for remain. They had to offer a second referendum (IMO), or lose half their votes to the Lib Dems. Their main problem (IMO) was not to move decisively to a second referendum position earlier. By the time they did it, they'd lost a huge number of voters and not all came back. I don't think the "neutral on the referendum" position was a big problem (broad church and all that), but the months wasted getting there was.

2) Labour would get more votes if it moved towards the centre, but how far is a big question. It's pointless moving to the (New Labour/Lib Dem/Tory-lite) centre - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. But a slightly less aggressive approach would be better. And certainly an attempt to appear more centrist would be good (an impossible task for Corbyn).

3) If you believe Mells' graphs on the previous page, Labour's economic policy was not a big factor in people not voting for Labour, so I'd argue that many of their left-wing economic policies are (at the very least) not a problem for voters.

4) I do blame the media for a lot of the supposed "leadership" issues with Labour. When people say they didn't like the Labour leadership, I think they're not so much saying that their leadership qualities are bad - they're saying they simply don't like or respect Corbyn (et al). And this essentially emotional position is something that is very much influenced by the newspaper that your household gets. If you take a random tabloid, it's far more likely to contain right-wing propaganda than the opposite; read that for a few years, telling you Corbyn is a twat 100% of the time, you can't help but believe it a little.

5) Whoever Labour picks - unless it is a centrist, and therefore not such a worry for the billionaire newspaper owners - will have their character assassinated from the second they arrive in the position. This is a problem. Therefore, Labour need to pick someone sharp, without any significant chinks in their armour, and who looks like they could take Johnson on. From my POV, at this early stage, Starmer looks most promising.

So the Labour moderate MPs are wrong (and these are ones who all won their seats)- they are all pretty much saying the same thing; Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises cost them. I suppose they were between the rock and a hard place given the 'split' in where their power base comes from.Remain/Metropolitan Leave/Red Wall Towns. It wasn't so much of an issue for the Tories, who had a similar but lesser Remain voter issue, because Labours leadership and policies were so toxic to their Remain voters.

Your arguments are virtually identical to Richard Burgon's, and suspect the metaphor for the upcoming chat in Labour will be Burgon v Wes Streeting

Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises
So that's three different things.

Just to be clear, when you say Brexit policy, you mean they think Labour should have been pro Brexit? Tough one, but surely on balance, a vote loser for them, albeit not in Nandy's seat.

Corbyn was a problem. They hoped he could cut through in the election campaign like last time, but it didn't make enough of a difference. So, Corbyn was definitely a weakness. Not sure who would have stepped in, and whether they actually have any charisma (Labour's not exactly loaded with that at present).

Manifesto promises. Well no, I don't think this was a major issue (as surveys have indicated). I would think a lot of people voted Labour because of the manifesto, although you will always find some who hold the opposite view.

Speaking of Nandy, she wrote a little piece in the Mirror yesterday. She said "Labour wins when we are rooted in our communities and work to deliver on their priorities." Which is pretty easy to say, but she didn't actually spell out what those priorities actually are, or what policies should logically follow from them. And what if different communities want different things? So, not much of substance.

The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

morepork wrote:The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

You're welcome to vote for the lefty, though if we're comparing the USA and the UK then Corbyn is no Sanders, just if you want to vote as far left as Corbyn in a country like the UK you'll achieve a decades long worst voting outcome, even up against a thoroughly disliked austerity conservative government

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

You're welcome to vote for the lefty, though if we're comparing the USA and the UK then Corbyn is no Sanders, just if you want to vote as far left as Corbyn in a country like the UK you'll achieve a decades long worst voting outcome, even up against a thoroughly disliked austerity conservative government

That leaves “bearing down on immigration “ as the counter weight to a left-leaning economic philosophy. Hardly a gentle pull to the centre.

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

You're welcome to vote for the lefty, though if we're comparing the USA and the UK then Corbyn is no Sanders, just if you want to vote as far left as Corbyn in a country like the UK you'll achieve a decades long worst voting outcome, even up against a thoroughly disliked austerity conservative government

I think we can safely say that the circumstances of this election were quite unusual, so how can you justify blaming the election result on the economic direction Labour has taken? In Mell's graphs it was the least influential of the three factors.

morepork wrote:The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

Neither of whom I’d describe as centrist. To win a majority to need to appeal to a wide range of voters. Corbyn failed to appeal to all of Labours core support let alone anyone else.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

Neither of whom I’d describe as centrist. To win a majority to need to appeal to a wide range of voters. Corbyn failed to appeal to all of Labours core support let alone anyone else.

Right, meaning the centre is a myth. Voters want a bloke wot is at least casually racist, which is exactly what both countries got. That ain’t no centre.

That being said, if this is the consensus voter priority, then here it is, front and centre. Let the chips fall where they may.

So many puns in that statement

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

Neither of whom I’d describe as centrist. To win a majority to need to appeal to a wide range of voters. Corbyn failed to appeal to all of Labours core support let alone anyone else.

Right, meaning the centre is a myth. Voters want a bloke wot is at least casually racist, which is exactly what both countries got. That ain’t no centre.

I love ya to the moon Porkster but youre calling a hell of a lot of people racist, not to mention implying that they are ignorant and care about nothing else. The majority of people are fed up with business as usual. This is what happens when the majority of people feel their government has dismissed their needs and concerns and that their country as a whole is headed in a direction they dislike. Racism is not a blip on the radar for the vast majority of people... they are way too busy worrying about the future for/of their families.

morepork wrote:That being said, if this is the consensus voter priority, then here it is, front and centre. Let the chips fall where they may.

So many puns in that statement

Good man. Ill bring the salsa and guacamole for the chips.

I’m suggesting that the focus of their angst is misdirected. This focus is writ large in election results.

Merry Xmas by the way bitch.

I meant bitch as a term of endearment Cocoid, in case I appeared sarcastic. A genuine shoutout to you and yours.

X

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: A few points:

1) Nandy and Kinnock are talking rubbish. Labour would have lost even more votes if it had become a Brexit party (albeit a softer one) - its voters are primarily for remain. They had to offer a second referendum (IMO), or lose half their votes to the Lib Dems. Their main problem (IMO) was not to move decisively to a second referendum position earlier. By the time they did it, they'd lost a huge number of voters and not all came back. I don't think the "neutral on the referendum" position was a big problem (broad church and all that), but the months wasted getting there was.

2) Labour would get more votes if it moved towards the centre, but how far is a big question. It's pointless moving to the (New Labour/Lib Dem/Tory-lite) centre - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. But a slightly less aggressive approach would be better. And certainly an attempt to appear more centrist would be good (an impossible task for Corbyn).

3) If you believe Mells' graphs on the previous page, Labour's economic policy was not a big factor in people not voting for Labour, so I'd argue that many of their left-wing economic policies are (at the very least) not a problem for voters.

4) I do blame the media for a lot of the supposed "leadership" issues with Labour. When people say they didn't like the Labour leadership, I think they're not so much saying that their leadership qualities are bad - they're saying they simply don't like or respect Corbyn (et al). And this essentially emotional position is something that is very much influenced by the newspaper that your household gets. If you take a random tabloid, it's far more likely to contain right-wing propaganda than the opposite; read that for a few years, telling you Corbyn is a twat 100% of the time, you can't help but believe it a little.

5) Whoever Labour picks - unless it is a centrist, and therefore not such a worry for the billionaire newspaper owners - will have their character assassinated from the second they arrive in the position. This is a problem. Therefore, Labour need to pick someone sharp, without any significant chinks in their armour, and who looks like they could take Johnson on. From my POV, at this early stage, Starmer looks most promising.

So the Labour moderate MPs are wrong (and these are ones who all won their seats)- they are all pretty much saying the same thing; Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises cost them. I suppose they were between the rock and a hard place given the 'split' in where their power base comes from.Remain/Metropolitan Leave/Red Wall Towns. It wasn't so much of an issue for the Tories, who had a similar but lesser Remain voter issue, because Labours leadership and policies were so toxic to their Remain voters.

Your arguments are virtually identical to Richard Burgon's, and suspect the metaphor for the upcoming chat in Labour will be Burgon v Wes Streeting

Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises
So that's three different things.

Just to be clear, when you say Brexit policy, you mean they think Labour should have been pro Brexit? Tough one, but surely on balance, a vote loser for them, albeit not in Nandy's seat.

Corbyn was a problem. They hoped he could cut through in the election campaign like last time, but it didn't make enough of a difference. So, Corbyn was definitely a weakness. Not sure who would have stepped in, and whether they actually have any charisma (Labour's not exactly loaded with that at present).

Manifesto promises. Well no, I don't think this was a major issue (as surveys have indicated). I would think a lot of people voted Labour because of the manifesto, although you will always find some who hold the opposite view.

Speaking of Nandy, she wrote a little piece in the Mirror yesterday. She said "Labour wins when we are rooted in our communities and work to deliver on their priorities." Which is pretty easy to say, but she didn't actually spell out what those priorities actually are, or what policies should logically follow from them. And what if different communities want different things? So, not much of substance.

Thought it was fairly obvious that it was a combination of these problems as is being said in any none momentum circles, just read the Guardian.
2/3 of labour seats were leave voting- and Labours core vote perceived them as blocking brexit, compounded by their fudge designed not to alienate the1/3 remain. They painted themselves into a corner.
Corbyn was a liability not a weakness in these seats.
Almost every labour mp has said the promises made and added to daily met with a combo of confusion, disbelief, and wondering who`d pay. Might have garnered votes in areas where they were already strong.
Going round in circles, but im not making this up- the folks who know these seats inside out are saying the same.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

Neither of whom I’d describe as centrist. To win a majority to need to appeal to a wide range of voters. Corbyn failed to appeal to all of Labours core support let alone anyone else.

Right, meaning the centre is a myth. Voters want a bloke wot is at least casually racist, which is exactly what both countries got. That ain’t no centre.

No one is saying they are the centre are they? Merely that Labour needs to move to the centre, or at least toward. Twice in my lifetime they've gone this far to the left, and both times the've been thumped

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:
So the Labour moderate MPs are wrong (and these are ones who all won their seats)- they are all pretty much saying the same thing; Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises cost them. I suppose they were between the rock and a hard place given the 'split' in where their power base comes from.Remain/Metropolitan Leave/Red Wall Towns. It wasn't so much of an issue for the Tories, who had a similar but lesser Remain voter issue, because Labours leadership and policies were so toxic to their Remain voters.

Your arguments are virtually identical to Richard Burgon's, and suspect the metaphor for the upcoming chat in Labour will be Burgon v Wes Streeting

Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises
So that's three different things.

Just to be clear, when you say Brexit policy, you mean they think Labour should have been pro Brexit? Tough one, but surely on balance, a vote loser for them, albeit not in Nandy's seat.

Corbyn was a problem. They hoped he could cut through in the election campaign like last time, but it didn't make enough of a difference. So, Corbyn was definitely a weakness. Not sure who would have stepped in, and whether they actually have any charisma (Labour's not exactly loaded with that at present).

Manifesto promises. Well no, I don't think this was a major issue (as surveys have indicated). I would think a lot of people voted Labour because of the manifesto, although you will always find some who hold the opposite view.

Speaking of Nandy, she wrote a little piece in the Mirror yesterday. She said "Labour wins when we are rooted in our communities and work to deliver on their priorities." Which is pretty easy to say, but she didn't actually spell out what those priorities actually are, or what policies should logically follow from them. And what if different communities want different things? So, not much of substance.

Thought it was fairly obvious that it was a combination of these problems as is being said in any none momentum circles, just read the Guardian.
2/3 of labour seats were leave voting- and Labours core vote perceived them as blocking brexit, compounded by their fudge designed not to alienate the1/3 remain. They painted themselves into a corner.
Corbyn was a liability not a weakness in these seats.
Almost every labour mp has said the promises made and added to daily met with a combo of confusion, disbelief, and wondering who`d pay. Might have garnered votes in areas where they were already strong.
Going round in circles, but im not making this up- the folks who know these seats inside out are saying the same.

I'm not sure they "painted themselves" into a corner. They found themselves in a corner, viz they would piss off some of their voters whatever Brexit policy they chose. I recall surveys saying that something like 75% of Labour voters were pro-remain. This suggests to me that there were more votes to be lost than won if they shifted to a leave position. What Brexit policy do you think would have worked best for them?

Liability, weakness, problem, whatever. I'm not looking to argue with you over choice of words.

The poll of reasons why "Labour defectors" didn't vote for Labour showed that only 6% of them did so for their economic policies. So not a big effect. (NB we don't know from this survey how many people voted for Labour because of its economic policies. That may well have been more than the votes they lost for that reason.)
Sure, there may well have been too many radical policies at once. But that doesn't mean Labour needs to leap onto the centre ground - a moderate move away from the far left would be fine.

morepork wrote:I meant bitch as a term of endearment Cocoid, in case I appeared sarcastic. A genuine shoutout to you and yours.

X

I got a kick out of it jerk... dont ruin the humor with fucking qualifiers now! I also appreciated the actual 'Merry Xmas'... Happy Holidays is so diluted and PC.

Merry Xmas to you and yours too Porky

Jesus, it’s nothing to do with correctness, it’s habit formed of growing up where I grew up. I am not making a fucking statement over and above extending good wishes to you in this enforced break from the monotony of work.

Otherwise known as a holiday.

Although Boris is a lying scumbag, I do think he's less ideologically strict about state spending, so I'm hoping that he tries to secure these former Labour voters by pulling the Tories back a bit towards the centre, and cement his gains.

As for Labour, I think Corbyn has done his job which was to destroy the blairite section of the party. Now Labour needs a more respectable leader, to unite the party and take the fight externally. I think Starmer is the best bet, hopefully he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet.

I was pleased to see Jo Swinson lose her seat. She was a very annoying individual, came across as a bit egotistical, and divided the left/remain when it needed to be united.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises
So that's three different things.

Just to be clear, when you say Brexit policy, you mean they think Labour should have been pro Brexit? Tough one, but surely on balance, a vote loser for them, albeit not in Nandy's seat.

Corbyn was a problem. They hoped he could cut through in the election campaign like last time, but it didn't make enough of a difference. So, Corbyn was definitely a weakness. Not sure who would have stepped in, and whether they actually have any charisma (Labour's not exactly loaded with that at present).

Manifesto promises. Well no, I don't think this was a major issue (as surveys have indicated). I would think a lot of people voted Labour because of the manifesto, although you will always find some who hold the opposite view.

Speaking of Nandy, she wrote a little piece in the Mirror yesterday. She said "Labour wins when we are rooted in our communities and work to deliver on their priorities." Which is pretty easy to say, but she didn't actually spell out what those priorities actually are, or what policies should logically follow from them. And what if different communities want different things? So, not much of substance.

Thought it was fairly obvious that it was a combination of these problems as is being said in any none momentum circles, just read the Guardian.
2/3 of labour seats were leave voting- and Labours core vote perceived them as blocking brexit, compounded by their fudge designed not to alienate the1/3 remain. They painted themselves into a corner.
Corbyn was a liability not a weakness in these seats.
Almost every labour mp has said the promises made and added to daily met with a combo of confusion, disbelief, and wondering who`d pay. Might have garnered votes in areas where they were already strong.
Going round in circles, but im not making this up- the folks who know these seats inside out are saying the same.

I'm not sure they "painted themselves" into a corner. They found themselves in a corner, viz they would piss off some of their voters whatever Brexit policy they chose. I recall surveys saying that something like 75% of Labour voters were pro-remain. This suggests to me that there were more votes to be lost than won if they shifted to a leave position. What Brexit policy do you think would have worked best for them?

Liability, weakness, problem, whatever. I'm not looking to argue with you over choice of words.

The poll of reasons why "Labour defectors" didn't vote for Labour showed that only 6% of them did so for their economic policies. So not a big effect. (NB we don't know from this survey how many people voted for Labour because of its economic policies. That may well have been more than the votes they lost for that reason.)
Sure, there may well have been too many radical policies at once. But that doesn't mean Labour needs to leap onto the centre ground - a moderate move away from the far left would be fine.

They needed to have an opinion on what they wanted to happen re the EU; lets see what the public wants after we've done a deal was a fairly late fudge, with no time to sell it, and the leader 'being neutral' just sounded odd. Personally, I think living up to their 2017 manifesto would have cost them less. Your 'survey' was likely 75% of Labour 'members'. The Tories managed to retain their Remain voter/constituencies in sufficient numbers, albeit enabled by Corbyn and the manifesto, and by Swinson and the daftness of revoke A50, then watered down.
Its not a semantic on weakness v liability in my mind. He was a catastrophe on the doorsteps- that's not a weakness that could be compensated for.
We'll have to agree to differ on the manifesto- my own personal view of its daftness (methods, not some outcomes) probably lets the opinions of most Labour MPs in the non corbyn camp confirm my own bias , though it was in the top three of issues faced on the doorstep. Your argument on votes garnered is interesting, as you could also say the same on my other posited problems,
Its clear which camp you are in; two of the problems will solve themselves in any case. I think your analysis is wrong, but whatever, Labour were deserted by voters they took for granted.

Zhivago wrote:Although Boris is a lying scumbag, I do think he's less ideologically strict about state spending, so I'm hoping that he tries to secure these former Labour voters by pulling the Tories back a bit towards the centre, and cement his gains.

As for Labour, I think Corbyn has done his job which was to destroy the blairite section of the party. Now Labour needs a more respectable leader, to unite the party and take the fight externally. I think Starmer is the best bet, hopefully he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet.

I was pleased to see Jo Swinson lose her seat. She was a very annoying individual, came across as a bit egotistical, and divided the left/remain when it needed to be united.

And he has succeeded in destroying the successful elements of Labour. Job done, because of course the electorate realises that’s been the most important thing over the past 5 years.

So polling indicates strongly that the main issue was Corbyn. His combination of terrorism living anti Semitic tolerance and general sense of incompetence made him the most despised opposition leader of modern times.

But we must also add Momentum to the list and their incompetence in splitting resources and concentrating on ideologically pure candidates rather than winnable seats.

And of course free broadband which no one really expected to see offered. In fact pretty much free everything without any tax rises.

Rebecca Long-Bailey and Burgon being suggested as a dream ticket....

Banquo wrote:Rebecca Long-Bailey and Burgon being suggested as a dream ticket....

Hmm. No doubt they're the anointed of the current leadership, since they got to fill in for Corbyn in the debates. But I wasn't blown away by either of them. This is just based on my impression of them as people: neither of them seemed tough enough.