June Election UK. Which Party do you think should win the election

[Derec]

Prolly by raising taxes on the rich - isn't that what lib'ruls always do?

Pretty much:
Jeremy Corbyn interview: Labour leader pledges to slash bosses' pay and tax the rich with a Britain built on 'fairness and justice'

By "excess" I assume you mean "muslim", correct? If not, please clarify.

Vast majority of mass migrants flooding into Europe are Muslims. And a majority of them are from countries where Islamism is widespread (such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia ...)

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like the UK will be sending Europe a Conservative and Unionist Negotiating Team. I wonder what acronym we could use for them?

Is that somehow non-sexist iff it is applied to conservative women?

 

[bilby]

Pretty much:
Jeremy Corbyn interview: Labour leader pledges to slash bosses' pay and tax the rich with a Britain built on 'fairness and justice'

By "excess" I assume you mean "muslim", correct? If not, please clarify.

Vast majority of mass migrants flooding into Europe are Muslims. And a majority of them are from countries where Islamism is widespread (such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia ...)

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like the UK will be sending Europe a Conservative and Unionist Negotiating Team. I wonder what acronym we could use for them?

Is that somehow non-sexist iff it is applied to conservative women?

Mate, I'm an Australian. Around here, the word 'cunt' isn't sexism, it's punctuation.

 

[Derec]

Mate, I'm an Australian. Around here, the word 'cunt' isn't sexism, it's punctuation.

People tend to get touchy about that word around here, friend-o.
Especially when it's about certain people.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, Corbyn is deeply unpopular.

Reading comprehension fail. I was specifically talking about his popularity among his fellow MPs. And that's who he would have to convince if he were to form a coalition or minority government. If his own fellow Labour MPs do not like him what chance does he have attracting 64 non-Labour MPs to back him for PM?

That's why he got 40% of the vote,

Actually Corbyn got 40k votes, which is about 73% of the votes cast in Islington North, his constituency. 40% is the combined total of the votes cast UK-wide for all Labour MP candidates. How much of that vote total was due to Corbyn and how was was despite him or indifferent to him is difficult to tell. However, since Labour increased its vote share significantly, we can say that yes, a significant portion of the 40% were because of Corbyn. But so what? I was not disputing that he is extremely popular among his base and part of the electorate. I was specifically talking about MPs.

to May's HUGELY popular 42%

Well, majority of her party's MP did not vote to declare no confidence in her, at least not yet.

Your fond imaginings don't actually become facts just because you really really want them to be true.

And your misreading of what I wrote does not become fact for the same reason either.

Corbyn is popular, despite an orchestrated campaign to denigrate him.

I did not dispute that. He is not nearly popular enough with the electorate to bring Labour within shouting distance to the majority.

The rules are clear; the leader of the largest party, May (or her successor), gets the first chance to try to form a government. But if she fails to get the support of the Commons, the leader of the second largest party, Corbyn, gets to try.

I know the rules. I am saying that Corbyn can try but he can't succeed in forming a government, both because of Labour's distance to majority and because Corbyn is so polarizing.

If nobody can form a workable coalition, then it's back to the polls - I predict that the DUP will overplay their position (subtlety is NOT their forte), and that there will be another election within a year - and Labour are well placed to win an outright majority at any such election; the distribution of marginal seats favours Labour, and the voters will (correctly) blame the Tories for the upcoming chaos of minority government.

I don't think Labour will be able to win an outright majority until they get rid of Corbyn.

Labour now need a swing of less than 2% nationally to achieve a Commons majority.

Nevertheless, I think Corbyn has pretty much hit his ceiling this election.

 

[fromderinside]

Nevertheless, I think Corbyn has pretty much hit his ceiling this election.

Naw. Factoring in May's rate of decline in popularity. Corbyn's upside is at least another 60 MPs.

I expect we'll find out at the next election in about 5 months.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Pretty much:
Jeremy Corbyn interview: Labour leader pledges to slash bosses' pay and tax the rich with a Britain built on 'fairness and justice'

Vast majority of mass migrants flooding into Europe are Muslims. And a majority of them are from countries where Islamism is widespread (such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia ...)

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like the UK will be sending Europe a Conservative and Unionist Negotiating Team. I wonder what acronym we could use for them?

Is that somehow non-sexist iff it is applied to conservative women?

Mate, I'm an Australian. Around here, the word 'cunt' isn't sexism, it's punctuation.

The problem is as I always mention, we don't have enough affordable housing, or even non-affordable housing to accommodate a net of over 300,000 per year and rising. Slashing pay from 'bosses' will not solve this as it insignificant.

The common thread between Labour and Tory is that they are both useless with May perhaps a shade more so.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Jezza! Jezza! Jezza! Jezza!

Clarkson'd probably do better than either May or his socialist namesake. With Captain Slow as Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Hamster as Foreign Secretary.

You confuse Britain with some nation where they elect buffoon TV celebrities.

The "Ree.Zult" is that Labour has more than 50 seats fewer than Tories and are 64^* seats away from a majority. Not exactly a thundering endorsement of Corbyn or Labour under his leadership.

Oh but it is. With radical policies, thought unacceptable barely a month ago, he got 2% less of the popular vote than the only other serious contender. This despite huge, concerted hostility from the establishment, the media and his own party. I personally never particularly cared for Corbyn, but this has been nothing short of heroic.

This stops decades of the centre ground drifting rightward.

Does it?

Yes. It's now about what gets renationalised, not what gets privatised; how we can restore decent secure wages, not how much we cut taxes for the rich. Corbyn has shown that real left wing policies are not unacceptable to voters, just to the establishment and media. What's becoming unacceptable is neoliberalism because it palpably isn't working for too many people. That's why May couldn't go head to head with a leader who explicitly opposes neoliberalism and austerity. Because she'd have to defend them and they are becoming indefensible.

Chances are there will be another election long before the normal term expires, perhaps even next year. And with somebody else at the helm, and perhaps even support for second Brexit referendum, I would say Labour would have good chances. When is the latest Article 50 could be untriggered anyway?

Speaking of Tories, this should shut the feckin Blairites up.

Blair was Labour. And he was much more successful than Corbyn at leading it too.

He was a Tory tribute act, successful at conceding ground to the right. Thatcher, asked in 2002 what she considered her greatest achievement, said "Tony Blair and New Labour". Ultimately New Labour's adoption of one of her defining policies - deregulation of the financial sector - proved catastrophic.

418 seats, 413 seats, 403 seats, 355 seats. Sure, he lost seats during his premiership, but from a very high level. And even the worst of these is much better than Corbyn's 262^* seats. Sure, he exceeded expectations, but that's because everybody had really low expectations (which is why May took the gamble in the first place). It's like when that charity guy was impressed with Kramer because he thought he was mentally handicapped.

And yet this is a sea change. New Labour and the Tories were essentially conducting a pantomime squabble over the pace at which neoliberalism should proceed. This stops and potentially reverses it.

(and I'm only exaggerating slightly)

 

[iolo]

their hysterical lies about Mr Corbyn

What hysterical lies about Corbyn? Did he not speak at extremist anti-Israel rallies where "gas, gas Tel Aviv" was yelled? Did he not refer to Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends" who were fighting for "peace and social justice"? Did he not support regressive economic policies of nationalizing industries such as rail and reopening uneconomical coal mines?

If you could read, you'd know. The Sun and the Mail are sick, lying vomit: they no more know truth than does Mr Trump. Hamas and Hezbullah oppose Nazism and colonialism - that's why right-wing yanks hate them. Naturally, all Labour Party members prefer democratic control of industry to allowing thieves to milk the country. They always have.

 

[iolo]

So, why did she lose?

Because the young were taught to vote by Labour, and because she threatened the old.

 

[Derec]

If you could read, you'd know. The Sun and the Mail are sick, lying vomit:

I asked for specific examples of "hysterical lies". And I suspect I can read much better than you.

Hamas and Hezbullah oppose Nazism and colonialism - that's why right-wing yanks hate them. Naturally, all Labour Party members prefer democratic control of industry to allowing thieves to milk the country. They always have.

First of all, you have to learn what a lie is. Just because you disagree with a value judgment of something does not make it a lie. You do not deny that Corbyn supports Hamas and Hezbollah, but you think, like him, that they are "social justice warriors" and not terrorists. Of course that is BS, as they are most definitely terrorists and very close to Nazi ideology.
Same goes for nationalizing industries. You do not deny Corbyn supports that. By the way, what evidence do you have that "all Labour Party members" support it?

So I am still waiting for some examples of these "hysterical lies" about Corbyn.

 

[Derec]

You confuse Britain with some nation where they elect buffoon TV celebrities.

It was a joke in reference to your enthusiastic chants of "Jezza!".
That said, why are buffoon career politicians better than buffoon celebrities?

Oh but it is.

That's your opinion. Labour's seat count is worse than under Neil Kinnock in 1992, against John Major, which led to Blair and New Labour in the first place.

With radical policies, thought unacceptable barely a month ago, he got 2% less of the popular vote than the only other serious contender.

You are forgetting to add that this "other serious contender" ran a rather lackluster campaign.
It is also the fact of the British system that they do not vote for Prime Minister. Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn were only on the ballot in their respective constituencies. Most of that 40% vote was cast for other Labour MPs and most of them dislike Corbyn too, and even more importantly, do not share his radical policies. Which means that even if Corbyn somehow managed to win the majority, and thus become Prime Minister, he would have faced an almost impossible task to actually pass any of his radical policies into law.
And note that despite 40% of the vote, Labour is very far away from majority in terms of seats, which is what counts.

This despite huge, concerted hostility from the establishment, the media and his own party. I personally never particularly cared for Corbyn, but this has been nothing short of heroic.

Third-worst Labour seat share in 25 years (i.e. the post-Thatcher era) is hardly "heroic".

Yes. It's now about what gets renationalised, not what gets privatised; how we can restore decent secure wages, not how much we cut taxes for the rich.

Under a Tory/DUP government? Surely you must be joking!

Corbyn has shown that real left wing policies are not unacceptable to voters, just to the establishment and media. What's becoming unacceptable is neoliberalism because it palpably isn't working for too many people. That's why May couldn't go head to head with a leader who explicitly opposes neoliberalism and austerity. Because she'd have to defend them and they are becoming indefensible.

And yet the Tories are still 56 seats ahead of (Old?) Labour.

He was a Tory tribute act, successful at conceding ground to the right. Thatcher, asked in 2002 what she considered her greatest achievement, said "Tony Blair and New Labour". Ultimately New Labour's adoption of one of her defining policies - deregulation of the financial sector - proved catastrophic.

Thatcher did pretty much destroy collectivist Old Labour. So yes, that was an achievement. But like any good horror film villain, it rises one last time even when the protagonist thought they killed it.

And yet this is a sea change. New Labour and the Tories were essentially conducting a pantomime squabble over the pace at which neoliberalism should proceed. This stops and potentially reverses it.

Not without Labour actually winning enough to form a government under Comrade Jezza.

 

[iolo]

I asked for specific examples of "hysterical lies". And I suspect I can read much better than you.

Hamas and Hezbullah oppose Nazism and colonialism - that's why right-wing yanks hate them. Naturally, all Labour Party members prefer democratic control of industry to allowing thieves to milk the country. They always have.

First of all, you have to learn what a lie is. Just because you disagree with a value judgment of something does not make it a lie. You do not deny that Corbyn supports Hamas and Hezbollah, but you think, like him, that they are "social justice warriors" and not terrorists. Of course that is BS, as they are most definitely terrorists and very close to Nazi ideology.
Same goes for nationalizing industries. You do not deny Corbyn supports that. By the way, what evidence do you have that "all Labour Party members" support it?

So I am still waiting for some examples of these "hysterical lies" about Corbyn.

I see the muck lying on the newstands when I'm shopping, and I assure you they are lying filth. You think I am going to dirty my mind with writing down their muck? Try an inspirational headline on election day like 'Cor -bin'. they are Nazi filth, child. and no decent person dirties his hands on them. I mostly hear their Nazi rantings on 'Today', where the BBC tries to see to it that we get our full ration of tory propaganda to keep the One Party State going. If they are what you read, Jesus wept! Naturally, like all decent people, Mr Corbyn has an open mind on the anti-nazi Resistance, whereas you are as nazi-supporting racist.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The Pie nails it again (in case it hasn't been posted already) :

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsGVghRBdKI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Derec]

I see the muck lying on the newstands when I'm shopping, and I assure you they are lying filth. You think I am going to dirty my mind with writing down their muck? Try an inspirational headline on election day like 'Cor -bin'. they are Nazi filth, child. and no decent person dirties his hands on them. If they are what you read, Jesus wept!

So you admit that you don't read them, just look at humourous and provocative Sun covers (and possibly page 3 girls?), and can't state any specific "hysterical lies" they published, but are still convinced that they spread "hysterical lies" about Jeremy Corbyn?

Naturally, like all decent people, Mr Corbyn has an open mind on the anti-nazi Resistance, whereas you are as nazi-supporting racist.

LMAO!

Calling Nazi-like Palestinian and pro-Palestinian terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah "anti-nazi Resistance" is prime example of alt-Left Newspeak!

P.S.: That wasn't a bad cover! Yeah, it's partisan as hell, but it's still funny.

Labour would do well to bin the Cor and pick a mainstream leader who can actually win and successfully govern.
P.P.S.: What Corbyn's friends from Hamas are up to these days:
UNRWA discovers Hamas tunnel under Gaza schools

 

[Derec]

The Pie nails it again (in case it hasn't been posted already) :

Tony Blair governed for a decade. Jeremy Corbyn is 64 seats away from majority.
Old Labour, the "genuine socialist alternative", hasn't governed since 1979, almost 40 years.

And how is Corbyn most powerful politician in UK now exactly? Not losing as badly as people thought is not a victory, and neither does it put one in charge of the country.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It was a joke in reference to your enthusiastic chants of "Jezza!".

Ditto - perhaps humourless people shouldn't attempt jokes.

Oh but it is.

That's your opinion. Labour's seat count is worse than under Neil Kinnock in 1992, against John Major, which led to Blair and New Labour in the first place.

With radical policies, thought unacceptable barely a month ago, he got 2% less of the popular vote than the only other serious contender.

You are forgetting to add that this "other serious contender" ran a rather lackluster campaign.

Not at all. She couldn't run a coherent campaign against a leader who explicity opposed her party's central tennets - neoliberalism and austerity. Because she'd have to have defended them and they have become indefensible. So they tried to make it about Hamas and Trident and stuff about which average Brits don't give a flying fuck. Because they have much more immediate problems caused by neoliberalism and austerity.

It is also the fact of the British system that they do not vote for Prime Minister. Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn were only on the ballot in their respective constituencies. Most of that 40% vote was cast for other Labour MPs and most of them dislike Corbyn too, and even more importantly, do not share his radical policies. Which means that even if Corbyn somehow managed to win the majority, and thus become Prime Minister, he would have faced an almost impossible task to actually pass any of his radical policies into law.
And note that despite 40% of the vote, Labour is very far away from majority in terms of seats, which is what counts.

Fine, then Corbyn would have won bigger had his majority in his constituency been national.

This despite huge, concerted hostility from the establishment, the media and his own party. I personally never particularly cared for Corbyn, but this has been nothing short of heroic.

Third-worst Labour seat share in 25 years (i.e. the post-Thatcher era) is hardly "heroic".

Already addressed.

Yes. It's now about what gets renationalised, not what gets privatised; how we can restore decent secure wages, not how much we cut taxes for the rich.

Under a Tory/DUP government? Surely you must be joking!

Why?

Corbyn has shown that real left wing policies are not unacceptable to voters, just to the establishment and media. What's becoming unacceptable is neoliberalism because it palpably isn't working for too many people. That's why May couldn't go head to head with a leader who explicitly opposes neoliberalism and austerity. Because she'd have to defend them and they are becoming indefensible.

And yet the Tories are still 56 seats ahead of (Old?) Labour.

Already addressed.

He was a Tory tribute act, successful at conceding ground to the right. Thatcher, asked in 2002 what she considered her greatest achievement, said "Tony Blair and New Labour". Ultimately New Labour's adoption of one of her defining policies - deregulation of the financial sector - proved catastrophic.

Thatcher did pretty much destroy collectivist Old Labour. So yes, that was an achievement. But like any good horror film villain, it rises one last time even when the protagonist thought they killed it.

So real left wing policies are re-emerging because of some cinematic convention? Nothing to do with neoliberalism and austerity? Opinion noted.

And yet this is a sea change. New Labour and the Tories were essentially conducting a pantomime squabble over the pace at which neoliberalism should proceed. This stops and potentially reverses it.

Not without Labour actually winning enough to form a government under Comrade Jezza.

Yeah, even without Labour winning enough seats to form a government - for reasons I've already spelled out.

 

[iolo]

So you admit that you don't read them, just look at humourous and provocative Sun covers (and possibly page 3 girls?), and can't state any specific "hysterical lies" they published, but are still convinced that they spread "hysterical lies" about Jeremy Corbyn?

Naturally, like all decent people, Mr Corbyn has an open mind on the anti-nazi Resistance, whereas you are as nazi-supporting racist.

LMAO!

Calling Nazi-like Palestinian and pro-Palestinian terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah "anti-nazi Resistance" is prime example of alt-Left Newspeak!

P.S.: That wasn't a bad cover! Yeah, it's partisan as hell, but it's still funny.

Labour would do well to bin the Cor and pick a mainstream leader who can actually win and successfully govern.
P.P.S.: What Corbyn's friends from Hamas are up to these days:
UNRWA discovers Hamas tunnel under Gaza schools

How is it back then in Bliary-liary time? Jesus, why have they bothered to keep you alive, mug?

 

[Derec]

How is it back then in Bliary-liary time? Jesus, why have they bothered to keep you alive, mug?

You are getting increasingly incoherent.

 

[iolo]

How is it back then in Bliary-liary time? Jesus, why have they bothered to keep you alive, mug?

You are getting increasingly incoherent.

Getting more like your favourite papers then!

 

[Derec]

Getting more like your favourite papers then!

My favorite papers? I was merely asking for you to back up your claims of "hysterical lies" that were supposedly spread against Jeremy the Prophet.
I am still waiting.