UKH

Just came accross this short (12 min) profiling Corbyn and his life in politics.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ua6RnipJFiQ&

For anyone interested in understanding politics in the wider sense, as in how we got to where we are, its quite interesting. It appears to have been made in the run up to the 2017 election so not directly relevant to now but very interesting nontheless.

Edited to add, I'm not posting this to have another bash at him, that's pointless now. I just think its genuinely interesting to understand the wider picture.

Thank you for acknowledging that there is a wider picture.

I'm not a Labour member but I am from the middle-class-metropolitan-"elite"-remainer demographic that now forms a core part of the Labour vote. I voted Labour for the first time this election, and canvassed for them locally on a couple of occasions in marginals. (For perspective, I also canvassed with the Lib Dems in a Lib/Con marginal.)

I voted for Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election. I regret that now (and indeed have done for some time), I was naive and poorly informed and hadn't given thought to how his leadership would be perceived outside of my bubble. However I felt that the Labour party needed to change urgently. It had lost badly in 2015 as a result of trying to be Tory-lite, accepting a consensus position on austerity and immigration that I rejected, and I wanted the Overton window to shift back towards the left. Corbyn's victory in the leadership election was all but guaranteed when the PLP sans Corbyn chose to abstain on the wellfare bill, a dreadful strategic blunder even though Labour didn't have the numbers to halt the bill. 

I was never quite sure what to make of Corbyn's involvement in the EU referendum. I accept that if he'd fully backed EU membership along with the unions the result might have turned out differently but it seemed like deflection from remain's broader failings to expect him to do so enthusiastically given his historic skepticism (which I hadn't considered when I voted for him in 2015). The party's convulsions over Brexit since then were excruciating to watch for a supporter of a second referendum, but I'm not sure how they could have really handled it better, they were caught between a rock and a hard place. Ultimately I think their position in this general election was the right one, but reached in a way that put off remainers and leavers alike. I think they ought to have simply offered to put Johnson's WA plus a white paper on the future relationship vs remain to a referendum, not the rubbish about renegotiating a softer Brexit.

I was put off by entirely by the spectacle of the 2016 leadership contest. On the one hand I was concerned the ruthless takeover of the party structure, but at the same time the party rebels seemed to be in contempt of the membership. Ultimately Owen Smith was the worst possible candidate to field against Corbyn and his drubbing was not unexpected. I couldn't vote for Corbyn again and declined to take part.

On Corbyn himself, well his leadership was utterly woeful. It's comforting to attempt to blame the establishment/media, but that's too easy and solves nothing. For sure, the media was very much hostile to him, but that was entirely expected. The job of the leader is to cut through and change the narrative, and he was incapable of doing that beyond a brief period around the 2017 election. I don't believe he was antisemitic, but once the perception took hold it didn't really matter whether he was personally, because at that point he was incapable of carrying out his job properly. I had a lot of respect for him personally for not folding in the face of the fiercest hostile media campaign I've ever seen carried out over many years, but again if you're continually on the defensive then you're losing the argument even if the attacks are mostly fabricated. I personally found myself feeling extremely defensive towards him at a time when really I would have preferred for him to step aside for a new leader. I now perceive that this was a part of the strategy - not only to fearmonger about him personally to the less engaged, but also to make his supporters close in and create the perception of a cult. Furthermore, he was too stubborn for leadership. His adherence to principle and ideology had often been touted as one of his strengths, but a good leader should exhibit a balance of principle, flexibility, openness to new ideas and charisma to drive the narrative. On most of those fronts he was sorely lacking. Those around him, Milne and McLusky, were also highly toxic and held far too much of a grip upon him, such that his stated aim of representing the membership was impossible.

I liked his vision of a more equal and fairer society, and felt he was genuine in wanting to accomplish it. I felt it was important to challenge the idea that properly funded public services weren't possible. But the manifesto went too far with promises of free broadband and a 4 day working week, stuff that the public didn't feel was possible (and nor did I). I hoped that electorate would decide that the impossibility of a majority Labour government would lead to this being watered down, and therefore they might still find it palatable.

The leadership is for certain mostly responsible for this defeat but I think there's more to it than that. Mostly I'm curious about the differences between 2017 when Corbyn was able to cut through, and 2019 when Johnson's campaign seemed as weak and inept as May's. Johnson's hard-right takeover in the Tory party has been as revolutionary and ruthless as Corbyn's within Labour. I thought that revulsion at Johnson would offset many of the Labour losses over Brexit, but I was wrong. I couldn't even convince my own formerly remain-voting father to vote for David Gauke who seemed the perfect candidate for disenfranchised remain-Tory voters. Now he's not talking to me, and I'm not sure if I'll be welcome at home for Christmas.

I don't know where Labour goes now. I think the leadership contest should wait till spring but Corbyn should step down immediately, staying on discredits him and the party further. Who the leader should be I don't know - preferably someone young and charismatic who can bridge the internal divide, and absolutely somebody from a non-London seat. Blaming Corbyn entirely and knee-jerk shifts away from the left won't help Labour. Labour still received nearly a million more votes than in 2015, but the spatial and demographic distribution of those votes is where the damage has been done.

Finally, Labour must embrace some form of electoral reform. FPTP is an utter disgrace and totally unfit for purpose. One of the tragedies of this election is that Brexit can no longer be resisted, despite the remain/leave vote share more or less vindicating the long term polling which has shown a consistent 52/48 split in favour of remain.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. If anyone agrees with them or thinks it's a load of self-justifying, blinkered patronising bollocks, I'd be keen to know.

A very good summary. McCluskey is a slippery fish. He was a prime manipulator who put Corbyn into power, but now he's happy to blame everything on him. It takes a brave party member to cross McCluskey, one guy in Unite tried to run against him in the Unite leadership vote and was promptly sacked. 

I normally try and avoid political conversations at work, however listening in and partaking in the relatively infrequent discussions around the election. Here’s my observation from the coal face of working class discourse.

*The “working class” as a social group don’t identify as such, any one using the term is probably middle class.

* The above demographic are very politically disengaged, they truly believe “they are all the same” in this apathy the meme is king. “Get brexit done” and “maga” are going to get through the way a 50 page labour document is not.

* Jeremy Corbyn is political Kryptonite the utter contempt he is viewed by what should’ve been natural Labour supporters is shocking, I’m talking 5th generation labour shipyard workers voting Tory because they didn’t like Corbyn.

on a personal level I feel that the real changes we need to make in our political system re. Changing FPTP and the lords are not going to happen as the Tories are the biggest beneficiaries of a broken system ( and labour are fully complicit in this)

the other is that labour are going to throw the baby out with the bath water and over compensate and swing to centre right.

I wondered about this but I think it might be difficult now that the grassroots membership know how powerful they can be. The PLP have desperately wanted a swing to centre/right ever since Miliband but the membership wouldn't have it.

The centre ground should lie somewhere in the middle of these two halves of the Labour Party  the ability to get things done of the centrists with some meaningful and achievable reform from the left.

The danger is that the Labour Party try and move the centre to a point between centre left and the Boris cabinet 

Any chance of a bit more detail?

No point in watching your video if it is anything like the dross you have been serving up continuously. 

This election was like A Very British Coup but instead of waiting until he got into power the full force of the right wing establishment from a British General spouting garbage about a security threat to all the billionaire owned media poisoning the ordinary Sun readers brains with IRA and Islamist terrorist friend and anti-semitic smears and lies was used every week on Corbyn for years.

And if you repeat the same lies all the time in all the gutter press (which is them all) then the ordinary voter thinks it must be true and before you know it you ask a pal about JC and the first reaction to your utter disbelief is "oh no he is an IRA supporter", then another says " I would never vote for him he is a nazi, have you heard what Jewish people are saying about him". 

There is no democracy in the UK with billionaires owning all the media, its a farce.

75% of all media stories on JC were misrepresentations, he was the most attacked prospective PM in history. 

I'd be looking to see who the membership are...

socialists should buy more newspapers...

We got one daily, owned by the people and it was the only one that supported JC, unfortunately it isn't full of gossip and selebs and advertisers don't go near it as it exposes corporate greed. 

Looks like you need to find a leader that won't be so easy pickings for the media to attack then... 

Much as you like to blame this election result as the fault of everyone except Corbyn or the party, I should point out that labour has lost 4 consecutive elections under 3 different leaders. I think that is a clue that they are getting something wrong and not offering the people what they want.

But carry on ranting at the establishment and carry on losing elections.

So who should own newspapers then? Poor people? The state?

What happens when someone gets rich from owning a paper?

As always, the socialist answer is both simplistic, authoritarian and naive. 

Anyone can start their own media these days.

Seems like Corbyn is still in denial and will continue denying the UK of any meaningful opposition in parliament. His supporters continue to show their respect for democracy.

Boris isn't the answer to many of the UK problems, but I think it has dodged the Corbyn or far left bullet for another 40 years, until the next generation comes along who cant remember how deluded they were. 

But hardly any socialist buys it.

The written media will always be biased towards conservative*, because conservative voters are on average older, and older people actually buy newspapers. Most young labour voters do not buy newspapers.

I read Guardian, which has both pro and anti Corbyn pieces during the election. The readership is pretty left wing. And every pro Corbyn piece got much more criticism than support from the readership. Because the policies and the leader are not that popular.

* This will change once Labour gets a leader and policies that are popular among the older people. Than some of the papers will switch to support. Because selling papers is more important than ideology.

This is a pathetic excuse. Every Labour election win has been in the face of vociferous and dishonest press campaigns. Remember the Zinoviev letter?  It was hardly unexpected. Selecting a leader with baggage fell into the hands of the conservative media. Corbyn’s team then failed to have any kind of strategy for dealing with the predictable hostility and lies. Remember Blair’s ‘rapid rebuttal unit’? Lies crushed within minutes. This shower of incompetent ideologues only have themselves to blame. 

Remind me of the Murdoch media's " vociferous and dishonest press campaigns", against Blair in 1997.

You can't? Because Murdoch told people to vote Labour in 1997.So no the billionaire media barons will tell their gullible readers to vote Labour if Labour embrace Thatcherism and participating in US illegal wars. 

Again the media was with Blair for services rendered so mattered not and baggage? What baggage? Being a man of peace who wants to end all conflicts? You are allowing yourself to be fooled by the organised weekly smear campaigns in the billionaire owned gutter press. 

Ah you mean a Labour leader who is a Tory because tell me who else are these billionaire oligarchs going to tell people to vote for?

You want two Tory parties and democracy? Lol. 

This is how Labour won an election. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/election-97-blairs-long-trek-to-victory-...

There was none of this on display this time around. They were alienating swathes of the population rather than targeting swing voters. The social media I saw from Momentum clearly targeted the youth vote - who'd be more likely to vote Labour anyway, but was incredibly childish and patronising - e.g "I'm your landlord/boss/energy company, please don't vote". Ignoring the fact that quite a lot of voters are probably landlords or have their own small companies. It was so easy for the media to attack, and there was no defence.

They'll carry on losing unless they ditch Momentum and learn the lessons of the past. But will they?

UK tv channels empty chaired, or Ice sculptured Boris, bad mouthed his non attendance.  exactly which billionaire owns them?

Social media is littered with left leaning luvvies with millions of follows all praising Corbyn.. 

What happened should have been a Corbyn landslide? Only people didn't fall for it. 

You can look to lay the blame elsewhere but even Milliband faired better and that's saying something. 

Maybe the world has changed in the last 100 years and the UK doesn't need a far left anti business socialist party? 

... McCluskey's cack-handed involvement goes back to 2010... he was instrumental in electing the 'wrong' Miliband as leader of the Labour Party...

... one wonders if we'd be having these discussions had the 'right' Miliband been elected Labour leader...

Look at it this way, if the billionaire owned media do the same routine for each Labour leader then what will you get? The same result so there is your answer.

JC wanted to take Britain from a right wing dictatorship into a European style social democracy but the far right British establishment said no way. That is why 75% of all media reports on him were lies and the entire British establishment joined to demonise him from the very start.

It's a funny game when you give the capitalists carte blanche as they can't lose no matter what. They destroy their own system through greed, then blame it on the poor and immigrants, so the gullible vote them in, then they make the poor and working masses pay for the collapse they the oligarchs caused but tell people we are all in this together yet real wages are lower than 10 years ago but not for the top 1,000 families whose wealth now goes through the roof by 112%. Then they fool the gullible voters that we need a law to stop the  scapegoats (the immigrants) so we get brexit.

And all the while anyone who says "wait a minute why should the poor and immigrants pay whilst you get rich? Let's change this", is branded, smeared and lied about to the same gullible voters. Who then think they are being radical and anti- establishment by voting for a far right con called brexit, created to deflect blame from the super rich and their right wing party.So again vote for the billionaire party as they see them as being, wait for it..... Radical lol. 

Whereas in all likelyhood they will be the ones howling in 4 years time about how they thought voting Boris and brexit and would make life better for them but now it is worse and they can join the ranks of the 14 million British people in poverty.

And the super rich will continue to get richer on the backs of everyone else and any moral upstanding person of integrity who wants to change society for the better has no chance as all the power is in the hands of those whose interest is purely selfish and class based and their right wing dictatorship continues.

It's a rigged game as Randle McMurphy would say. 

True, social media was more balanced and that is why if you see a map of Britain based on election results of 18-24 year old it is entirely red everywhere other than a few SNP. Since older voters still read the media owned by the billionaires or watch the public school boy run BBC. 

Thanks for your lengthy reply. I do understand how battered many on the left must feel but also how those on the left who warned of this may feel vindicated (how many MPs resigned the whip blaming Corbyn and his entourage?, I lost count).

I didn't start this thread for another argument so I'm not going to challenge you on any of what you wrote, I agree with some of it disagree on other parts of it.

The left needs a serious period of reflection. It moved to the left under Miliband and lost in 2015, moved further left in 2017 under Corbyn and lost and moved further left again in 2019 and was hammered. By the end of this parliament it will be 50 years since anyone other than Tony Blair won an election for Labour. I'm sure there is a lesson to be learnt there. The slight improvement in 2017 was an outlier.

I do genuinely hope that Labour can reform itself into an outfit acceptable to the British people because I recognise that a one party state even if a democratic one is not healthy (think South Africa). At some point Labour will win an election and they need to be fit for purpose when they do.

How they do this is not for me to say but its not going to easy as the likes of Pefa, still pedalling her delusional fantasies, demonstrates.

Ultimately the labour moderates may have to form a new party. I heard an interesting programme on R4 a couple of years ago about how to do that. Its conclusion was to the best way (under a FPTP system) was to take over an existing one! This is what momentum have done in effect and they aren't going to give up easily.

After Corbyn was re-elected leader in 2016 the moderates seemed to give up, especially after he "won" in  2017. They seemed, as far as I can tell, to pin their hopes on constraining him if he actually ever did win which didn't seem like a great strategy.

I actually think the best hope for them would have been to resign en-masse and join the Lib Dems. If my maths is correct then if 125 (of the 262 Labour MPs) had joined the Lib Dems they would have become the biggest opposition party and the official opposition. At that point the momentum (small m) shifts and they become the party people vote for who want a change and the hard left Corbyn rump of Labour is eclipsed.

Who knows whether this would have worked? But doing nothing certainly didn't.

To me the whole Corbyn saga has been like the King's New Clothes and this election was finally the small boy (in this case traditional working class voters) pointing out what the chattering classes couldn't see even though it was blindingly obvious all along.

Nothing new in that. That sort of voting pattern is normal. It’s not rocket science. 

But you're ignoring political reality. The left need to fight better and cleverer to win. If Corbyn wasn't able to cut through the media, he wasn't the right leader. We need somebody who is able to clearly express a brand of patriotism that isn't parochial or nationalist.

Or the 18-24years have been barely worked and haven't learnt the life lesson that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is... 

There have always been 18-24 year olds and old people..  they existed in the 00, 90,80,70,60,50s.... face the facts Corbyn and his policy ideas were the reason they got wiped out. McDonnell has.

🙂

Perhaps the answer is Momentum form their own party instead of hijacking Labour? 

Ideally yes but why would they give up access to all that party infrastructure now they've got their hands on it.

They have had their own party for decades, the Communist party but how many elections did they ever win? Like that programme concluded, the best way to success is to hijack an existing party.

Should Labour moderates have hijacked the Lib Dems? Afterall, whats the difference between the Liberals and New Labour? Its the People's Front of Judea V the Judean People's Front.

The media are Tory owned so who other than a Tory are they going to tell people to vote for?

It's hopeless for democracy as its all stitched up by the capitalist class and the old upper class establishment. The only way to get them on Labour's side is to make Labour Tory hence no democracy,one party totalitarian state of the bourgeoisie putting on a show of democracy to the mob, complete control. A dictatorship of the capitalists.

Sorry to be so glum BTW but it is current political reality here and now.

I think some of this problem stems from before the 1979 election campaign where Murdoch, who owned The Sun told Thatcher if she promised to repeal a law on limitation of monopoly of ownership of British newsmedia that would let him buy out The Times or FT then he would guarantee that she got voted into No10. She promised him she would and the rest is history. 

Is that the same media that gave Boris and farage a hard time for not being interviewed? 

I've never heard that the various social media are tory owned? Who owns them? 

But 18-24 year olds also feel that their parent's generation received a free university education, benefited from improved social mobility, were able to get on the housing ladder much more easily and didn't have the existential threat of climate change looming large in their future.

I'm neither claiming that there's an easy solution to those things (or that Corbyn could have solved it), nor that previous generations didn't have their own struggles and fears. Neither of those claims would have any truth about them. But before Corbyn took over the leadership, young voters felt entirely unrepresented in politics, apart from a very shortlived period immediately before the 2010 election. Young voters perceive the Tories to be actively hostile towards their involvement in politics.

That's a disingenous answer. Who has the budget to buy a presence on things like Facebook?

Your ability to entirely miss the point is impressive. Why did Murdoch do this? Because Blair knew what the power of the conservative media was and did his best to get them onside. In other respects too Blair's team took steps to neuter the effects of the media - with the rapid rebuttal unit, with the deployment of spin doctors and so on. In other words they faced the reality involved with getting a Labour government into power, something Corbyn and co. didn't do. Pathetic really. 

https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/general-election-1997-role-of-th...

Clearly thousands of companies whose adds pop up continuously. Peanuts compared to the financial funding Unite gives Labour. 

Plus. If done cleverly your celeb followers do the leg work for free. 

here's one view

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonchandler/2019/12/14/thousands-of-misleadi...

And if Labour countered them with some factual figures on Facebook about ow they'd fund the big give away may be they'd have won?! 

You can't win general elections preaching to your converted disciples in Islington town hall. 

I feel the need to correct you there, there haven't always been old people, life expectancy in the 1900 for males was below 50 years. Politics that moved social outcomes forward in the early 19th century was mainly driven by what we would call relatively youthful under 30’s. 

Both sides had a strong presence on social media, neither of them used it very effectively.

Even after the result Momentum are still defending their decision to use the election as an opportunity to set "a radical new public agenda".  They are overlooking the fact that at an election you need to address the public agenda rather than trying to dictate it.

Momentum will be the deserved targets of Monty Python type humour for years to come. 

Average. Mainly lowered by horrendous child mortality, hence why families often reached double figure births. My family before me have been miners since at least the 1600s, most who reached adulthood then went into their 60s or 70s. 

If there is one thing you and the far left hate, it is a billionaire, that word is used time and time again in a derogatory manner, to explain away all manner of ills. 

You only used "billionaire" twice in your post to me, what is it about this totally arbitrary figure that annoys you all so much? Corbyn is only worth an estimated 3 million, which some poor might consider more than a person needs, but it does prevent you ranting at "millionaires" because the big boss is one himself. Best gloss over that.

Another word is is Eton or Public School,  to conjure up an instant image of the right wing enemy, irrelevant of the individual.The privileged few, like Jeremy Corbyn who began his education at a private preparatory school. Best gloss over that as well.

The population does not solely consist of  50 British billionaires and 14 million in poverty, there's a hell of a lot of others muddling along in the middle and they have a big say at voting time.

Generations of Miners who lived to a hale 70 working down the pit, I think you need to either review your family tree or possibly slap a patent on your DNA 😏

Living in Llanberis it is notable for its lack of 70 year old ex quarrymen

I fully concede that mortality figures are distorted by infant mortality but I believe the concept of the the old voter  as we know it didn’t exist in 1900 ( obviously because most people couldn’t vote)

As I remember average life expectancy of coal miners around 1900 was in the mid-fifties. Slate miners in north Wales lasted until their mid-40s. I think metalliferous mine workers were even worse off - dying in their thirties. 

I don't think my family tree is lying. I lost one in the bloodline aged 40 to asthma whilst working in a pit in 1890.. luckily for me my ancestor was born. Unluckily for them he left his lassie and 4 kids, the Colliery doctor said it was unrelated to mine conditions and no pay out. My ancestors were in the metal mines of swale and upper weardake for a few centuries until they ran out and then they moved around various Durham collieries. 

Of course most didn't see 80 or 90 years, but 60 or 70 wasn't that rare. 

Of course the element missing is that those who did die before being parents have no ancestors today to look back in the records etc.  to see that they died aged 17, 18..

It's a good point, but technically all our DNA has been well tested. Our ancestors have survived plagues, influenza, dire work conditions, poor housing, malnutrition, various infections from bacteria and viruses that barely concern us today. 

I’m sure your family tree is not lying, but as ever individual cases don’t tell us everything. 

Labour needs to recognise that only a small percentage of the population are socialist. Socialists could put forward their full ideas to the public and would have a small platform and receive only a few votes in elections, Those on the right in the Labour Party want to see a more right wing Labour Party because there is more chance of getting elected,which is is true,but also easy for them to say as it fits with their beliefs, Those on the left wing of the Labour Party have a choice of moderating their pitch to the public or only remaining a minority. This issue is nothing new ( the election for party leader between Tony Benn and Tony Blair was a choice for the left wing between those policies they liked v. those policies most likely to win an election),Both wings of the Labour Party would rather be influential in the Labour Party than join the Lib.Dems, or a Socialist Party because it is a strong brand.Many people vote for the brand without  much study of the content. John McDonnell blames himself for not articulating Labours case effectively.The public did know  what Labours case was and they voted against it,

Pefa is right in mentioning the great influence of the press.The press influence is there not just for one election,but has had a cumulative affect over generations.As Pefa said ,it is difficult for Left Wing paper to become big because of lack of funds.It is true that its readership would be limited because Socialists are in a minority,but why are they in a minority,is it because its a flawed idea,or is it because of the strength of the vested interests against it.

But he knew that, and he knew that his brand has become toxic because of it, so why in all hell did he not find a successor? Hanging on was a sure way of not achieving any of the goals of the party and his own manifesto.

Of course. Individual cases are meaningless. 

Either way. Labour lost, took a kicking and the buck stops with the leader.  

Yes. Miliband was gone by 10am. next day if I remember. And Kinnock said two election losses were quite enough and quit sharpish too.  Time for him to go. 

You know what they say. Not a socialist at twenty, no heart. Still a socialist at thirty, no brain.

Yes, virtually unheard of for someone in defeat, particularly on this scale, not to resign immediately. The only honourable thing to do. Clearly JC, despite his resounding failure, is wanting to interfere with the leadership contest as much as he possibly can.

Why do I get the suspicion that Momentum will pull the strings and Corbyn will 'reluctantly' stay on as leader of Labour. 

... yep; I'm staggered by the man's inability to grasp the reality of what has just happened on his watch...

...as you rightly point out, anybody with a modicum of self-awareness would have 'walked'...

I rather suspect he now sees himself as the 'King-Maker' and will attempt to ensure his successor is a 'chip off the old block'... one wonders if they will ever learn...

Because pragmatism is not a word in their dictionary.

Hi Tom. I need to talk to you please. Can you message me through the site?

All the best!

Phil

In reply to:

Obviously Corbyn is not universally loved but Labour overcame this in 2017. The policies are largely the same 2017-2019. The key difference is Labour's position on Brexit.

These are the constituencies Labour lost to the Conservatives, there's a bit of a pattern to them.

Blyth Valley – leave
Workington – leave
Barrow & Furness – leave
Blackpool South – leave
Leigh – leave
Bolton N.E. – leave
Bury South – leave
Hyndburn – leave
Burnley – leave
Keighley – leave
N.W.Durham – leave
Bishop Auckland – leave
Darlington – leave
Sedgefield – leave
Stockton South – leave
Redcar – leave
Penistone – leave
Dewsbury – leave
Wakefield – leave
Scunthorpe – leave
Great Grimsby – leave
Lincoln – leave
Don Valley – leave
Rother Valley – leave
Bassetlaw – leave
Bolsover – leave
Ashfield – leave
Gedling – leave
Peterborough – leave
Ispwich leave
Derby North – leave
Stoke on Trent – leave
Newcastle – under – Lyme – leave
Crewe and Nantwich – leave
Wrexham – leave
Clywd South – leave
Vale of Clywd – leave
Delyn – leave
Yns Mons – leave
Wolverhampton N.E. – leave
Wolverhampton S,W. – leave
Dudley North – leave
Birmingham, Northfield – leave
Stroud – remain (54.1%)
Bridgend – remain (50.4%)
Kensington – remain (68.7%)
Colne Valley – remain (50.4%)

3/4 of the remain seats at the end had been shock Labour wins from Tory incumbents in 2017.

Against a hostile media Labour can win as the anti-establishment ticket but not if they have alienated the anti-establishment voters. This was another failing of the "Centrists" who forced Labour into this position. Labour "Centrists" have killed the party in Scotland, they were defeated in 2015 with their austerity lite, and in 2016 with their uninspiring remain campaign.

"Centrism" doesn't win elections anymore, people have had enough of the status quo and have gone for the snake oil instead of the real thing. Clearly Labour need to work on getting their message out, and this may require a significant change in approach, but a return to "Centrism" will kill the party off.

... they lost that election too! Do you not think it’d be easier if you had a leader whose ambitions were a bit higher than just ‘not losing by much’?

So, let me get this straight, labour lost an election on the most left wing manifesto in recent history and the answer to this is to move even further away from the manifestos that have won elections in the past 30 years, or have I misunderstood your point?

Labour's Brexit strategy was not a strategy of centrism. It was a strategy that is best described by a phrase much used lately, having the cake and eating it. Labour just pissed both leavers and remainers off, they lost the leave vote and didn't pick up much of the remain vote to make up for it. This has nothing to do with centrism as far as the political spectrum is concerned.

The Tories have moved towards the centre. That, and promising to get on with the referendum result, won them the election.

Being even less pragmatic and even more hard-line will not win Labour anything but decades out of power. 

Very interesting post, some actual analysis.  Thanks. 

Its more accurate to say that he got away with it in 2017. Everyone wrongly assumed that voters would know about Corbyn's past forgetting that half the electorate are too young to remember the IRA, communism and 1970s and forgetting that voters who only engage at election times hadn't had chance to evaluate him so his past largely sneaked under the radar.

Since then politics and parliament has been in the spotlight almost non stop so voters have had chance to see what's on offer and his past finally caught up with him.

By the end of this parliament it will be 50 years since anyone other than Tony Blair won an election for Labour with his "centrist" policies.

The only thing centrism will kill off is the loony left fringe that puts ideological purity ahead of electability.

This shows how incredibly bad Labour has been in the last four years in explaining the advantages of the EU to their core voters.

Labour lost 2.5M voters, the majority of which were remainers. And most went to the Lib Dems.

The Tories did not lose too many of their remainers, see here:

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/12/lord-ashcroft-how-britain...

20% of Remain voted Tory. This is 10% of the electorate and matches quite well to the difference betweeen CON and LAB vote share. Conclusion: either the country wants to get on with brexit or brexit is judged a lesser problem than JC as PM (or both).

The conclusions are complex, though the facts (around the Brexit votes you show) are simple.

Labour tried to ignore brexit (our local literature didn't mention it at all)(not one reference). The Candidates web site had an oblique reference to it in a tweet, which highlighted a move by the local conservative in favour of gender equality...eh?!! Later added a tweet about TM loosing a vote in March 2019.

They had an ambiguous position (and the way that was reached at the party conference with an iffy vote). There seemed to be an attitude that Brexit was an unimportant done deal and there was a need to move on to more important issues.

It came over to many remainers as Brexit on the quiet, leavers as uncommited and the impatient as more time wasting. I'm sure Brexit was damaging, but in a more complex way.

(I do also wonder if the 2017 push was helped by optimistic remainers. A lot of polsters would have invested resources in knocking that one).

The manifesto was not aspirational enough for what I call traditional blue collar workers who do not link themselves with the public sector.This is the same group who Margaret Thatcher won over back in the 80's. And also the same lot who Trump has succesfully appealed to in the USA.

A reconnection to that group will reap dividends.

I suspect it will take 10 years for the Labour Party to reconnect with that group.

They didn't promise a 4 day week.

McClusky didn't put Corbyn in power, it was the members, twice.

From my home town of Hartlepool, which still managed to stay red. What people seemed to  dislike, and dislike is a mild term, it was outright hatred for many.

this hatred wasn't base don policy, but the major factor was "Corbyn's and IRA sympathiser". Some how in a safe Labour seat, he nearly lost it on some bullshit accusation.

I know you still spout this as a reason for you disliking him, but you, or anyone else, is trying to convince a life long anti-war and peace campaigner and makes an exception for IRA bombers. It doesn't make sense, in the same way him being branded as an anti-Semite, doesn't make sense, when you look at his record on fighting racism through his lifetime.

There's been a lots of shit slung at Corbyn, and people unfortunately have believed it. They've also chosen to believe a load of bullshit spouted by Johnson, 40 new hospitals, 50,000 new nurses, 50,000 new police, it all bollocks and yet people lapped it up.

Labour were the only party committed to making the likes of Amazon, Costa, etc., paying their fair share of tax, this would have gone a long way to funding many of the projects in their manifesto, which by the way is no more outlandish than the Tory's.

Corbyn wasn't very charismatic, but it shouldn't have been about that, it shouldn't even be about a single person, it should be about policies and what's needed, and how we can make a better future for the people of the UK, not a better place for a few people of the UK, which is what we've had for the past 10 years.

Two-thirds of investment in the NHS has gone to private companies, that money we are never going to get back.

I had a Tory friend post something about the NHS blaming the people who turn up to A&E for all it current woes, plainly bollocks, and yet this is what she thought and this is partly why she voted Tory. If such a small part of the NHS can be crippling the rest of it, by mams taking kids with snotty noses there, then maybe we need to invest in preventing this from happening in the first place.

So we've ended up with a Tory government, based on lies, lies from the Tories themselves, and lies from the media, telling us Corbyn was Satan incarnate, an IRA cheerleader, and Anti-Smite, a communist, etc.,etc.,

Labour didn't lose by not winning the election, we did, and the people living on the streets, the NHS, the people working two or three jobs and still needing to use foodbank.

It's not about which party wins, it's about what society wins, or loses, and we lost big-time.

And just how many votes does McCluskey "control" ?

The big question is whether the membership is going to take responsibility for this.

Radio 4 did various group interviews of residents from northern seats before the election. A common theme I saw is that they very much have NOT chosen to believe any of this. They voted conservative despite not believing anything he said, because they want Brexit and they dislike Corbyn.

Seriously, any analysis by Labour would have seen this and it could have been course corrected some time ago by:

• Shifting to another Corbynite leader.
• F*cking apologising without reservation for any antisemitism. This is basic politics, whether the accusations are made up or not is entirely irrelevant.
• Not going quite this batshit in the run up to the election, they were announcing more and more on a daily basis, it was utterly confusing.

If the Corbyn project is about ideology and not about a particular person getting into power, there were ways of achieving that.

Yes, a large part of the population that works on low-medium levels wages simply does not care about the unions. Some are even happy with the freedom of zero-hour contracts.

They pull the strings. Look who held the big meetings last Friday etc.. McCluskey... 

I'm sure you read it already, but.. https://unitetheunion.org/what-we-do/unite-in-politics/unite-and-the-labour... they are wedded.

Without unites money the Labour party would be bankrupt. 

Several million pounds of funding every year. He keeps Labour afloat. 

Keeping the party afloat and electing it's leader aren't the same thing, are they?

Do you have figures for this?, Some might be, I've not met one who is, it doesn't cut both ways like it's supposed to for a start off, if you can't make it in to work you're penalised with less work or none at all.

"Labour will tackle excessive working hours. Within a decade we will reduce average full-time weekly working hours to 32 across the economy, with no loss of pay, funded by productivity increases."

I suggest you read this,

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/12/16/labour-leadership-el...

The election of the leader is one man one vote, the selection of candidates is where the unison have some input but not to exclude others.

If you remember rightly there were four possibilities last time and Corbyn won, by a vote of the members not the unions.

He then went on to win again, also voted for by the members.

You can't just make things up because you want them to be true.

...

The protests that Corbyn's dealings with supporters of Irish Republican and Arab terrorists have only ever been about bringing people together in peace would be a bit more convincing if there had been similar meetings and declarations of friendship with Unionist extremists or radical Israeli settler groups in the West Bank. Also if it wasn't so typical of the hard-Left view that all the ills of the world are the fault of the USA, UK and Israel so anybody who is against them must be OK.

On your last point, I agree completely but we all lost because of the foolish, self-indulgent choices taken by Labour in recent years that alienated so many voters that a Tory leader as shambolic and unpopular as Johnson was able to win a landslide after 9 years of increasingly rubbish Tory (or Tory led) government.

I sort of stand corrected, it doesn't say four day week though does it, it might just mean shorter working days, but still five days a week, and it does say over a ten year period. It also goes on to explain how they would do this.

The opt out, is a prime example, I've worked for companies that, while saying it's your choice to opt out, it was implicitly accepted that you would opt out if you wanted a job.

So you're suggesting he made two exceptions in his lifelong fight against racism and war and he condoned the IRA methods and he was anti-Semitic. It simply doesn't make sense, add to that a number of the picture "proving" his involvement, were either after the peace agreement of simply faked.

On top of all of that, there is the opportunity to agree with the ideals of a group, but not their methods of going about it. Malcolm X is a prime example.

I don't agree with Hamas, but I know they're fighting for the freedom of Palestine, so what does that make me, and a large number of Jewish groups who want freedom for Palestinians.

I suppose we could take a leaf out of Thatchers book and support Pinochet, or denounce Nelson Mandela, is that a better way to go?

But the point that it doesn't matter what the policy is, or whether it's a good policy, if that hasn't been conveyed to voters. It might be deplorable, but right now in politics perception matters more than truth. See how the LD's Revoke policy crashed and burned. The job of a politician is to convey to voters why their policy is the right one, even if it isn't.

Similarly, you and I both know that Kuenssberg deliberately manipulated the editing of that interview years ago to make it appear that Corbyn was relaxed about the idea of terrorists running around a UK city gunning people down. But that perception has stuck with people anyway. Why? Because he was shit at his job.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/15/unions-colluded-in-fi...

The only people in greater denial than you are pefa and Corbyn himself. 

Come on Fred you can do better than that, what if the members hadn't vote Corbyn as leader? Your plan falls apart then doesn't it, or are you suggesting the unions put forward all candidates? So they'd have won in any case.

Have a look at the candidates and see how alike they were, NOT!

Again that's not the unions selection a leader is it, FFS!! at least read what you're posting, it's nothing to do with being in denial, the process of electing the leader is by the members one person one vote. You do understand how that works?

I'm off do do some real work at a factory which might well be moving abroad post Brexit.

No. Would be very interesting to find out what the people who switched from lab to con actually want as policies.

Agree with that, in particular they should have shifted to a new leader after the  2017 loss. It was treated as a victory though, which it clearly wasn't. Also the leadership team misinterpreted why they didn't do as badly as expected.

Now we need an almost total clear out at the top as the election camaign and coverage were damaging. Nothing that can't be repaired but only with a clear out.

We don't really know what anybody who voted Conservative wanted as policies: beyond the three-word slogan, there was really nothing in the manifesto.

... yes but McClusky did put Ed Miliband in power who then fundamentally changed the way the Labour Party elects it’s leaders...

... during Miliband’s leadership; many leading Labour MP’s had deep misgivings about these changes... quite rightly given the events of last week...

Also, listening to the latest from McDonnell and Corbyn is delusional ‘we won the argument’ but unfortunately didn’t win the election.  what does this mean?  I have no idea, they won the argument in their own bubble amongst themselves maybe?

My recollection is that the 'one member, one vote' rule changes implemented by Miliband were done precisely to curb the influence of the Unions' blockvotes - which seems to contradict the point you're making.

A very stupid (in my opinion, obviously) part of the rule changes was to give a vote to 'registered supporters', rather than just full members.

Schrodinger's Corbyn.

If you suggest not voting Labour because of Corbyn his fans rush to point out that 'we elect parties, not individuals'.

When you suggest getting rid of the individual who is preventing the party succeeding, suddenly keeping Corbyn in place is very important.

The issue on zero hour contracts is more about the % of the wroking population who are on those type of contracts. all I remember of the reports on it in the past few years the most striking thing was how many people have full time permanent contracts.The last stat I saw was 2.4% of the working population are on these contracts.Now alot of those want full or part time contracts.Zero hours being those where there is no guaranteed no of hours.

Yes its an issue, but its not the be all and end all.

Lets put it this way- it is not 50% of the working population.

Not exactly a critical  election vote winner.

... yes; you’re right... my comments do come across as slightly contradictory...

I guess the point I was trying to make is the Labour Party now finds itself in a difficult position... the membership can elect a leader despite the misgivings of the Parliamentary wing of the party. This will inevitably lead to conflict and will never work as we witnessed when JC was challenged for the leadership a couple of years ago...

If the party won't flex, then the mps might leave to form a new party... or the infighting continues and Labour won't be elected again. It is choice between ideologies and being electable. 

No mention of Brexit from a heavy leave area....just Corbyn is an IRA sympathiser....I find this staggering.

I enjoy your devotion to the cause but the combination of ignorance and delusion in this statement is exemplary Corbynista.

So clearly targeted at US tech that the new measures of 2015 are called the effing "Google Tax" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax, the Tories have followed up with the Digital Services Tax  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-new-digital-... with Amazon in its cross-hairs.

As for delusion, the idea that these companies will pay for your unicorns doesn't even begin to add up. Amazon will be paying a healthy £220m in tax under the new law, which is more than twice the amount that would be payable on their profits if they were fully and honestly declared. But that's about £3 per UK inhabitant. How many massive tech and fast food multinationals are there? And how many would you need to pay for Corbyn's fantasies?

Although Johnson's statement on hospitals, police, nurses, may well turn out to be bollocks in time, you stating it's bollocks and people lapped it up when the bloke has only been in the job a couple of days is a bit rich. You are slinging shit at Johnson before he has even started.

No, I don't think he made an exception in an otherwise blemish free and consistent stand against racism and war. I think that, like a many on the extreme left he doesn't have a problem with violence and deeply unpleasant, racist (and especially misogynistic) people with no regard to human rights, just as long as their unpleasantness is directed at the real enemies: the USA, UK and Israel.

I certainly don't advocate or excuse Thatcher's support for Pinochet or apartheid South Africa, and those weren't even the worst examples of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" by the West during the Cold War. I suppose the best that could be said of the Thatcher examples is that it was in the context of global struggle against the genuinely existential threat of the Soviet Union but the same sort of thing continues today and I can't think of any such cases that have brought lasting advantage (quite the opposite!) and, even if it had, it wouldn't have been worth the moral compromise of standing alongside torturers and dictators.

It is sad to see people who claim to be liberal, pro-peace and pro-human-rights making the same mistake - assuming it is a mistake and not cynical hypocrisy.

This part of your reply has some relevance. Blair embraced Toryism and set about privatising as much as his Tory heroine Thatcher did and he invaded a country illegally all with the resounding approval of Murdoch the multi-billionaire media baron. Now Murdoch used Blair as Blair embraced Tory policies and could be trusted to do the work the Tory oligarchs wanted so he showed Blair favourably and told the British to vote for him. 

Now what point am I missing? What have I stated that is wrong? How about this point: we don't have democracy or a free press as it is practically all owned by Tory billionaires. They decide who gets Into power and only a party wling to become Tory will get into power, a totalitarian one party system. A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. 

Prove me wrong. 

That's meaningless in the face of what I wrote above. 

It is a bit arbitrary and a bit lazy granted but makes a change from the official class analysis term of capitalist class to describe the mega-wealthy. And JC maybe a millionaire and live in a very big house but he isn't one of them. 

Not really, you could look at Tony Benn one of the most socialist Labour MPs they ever had who was born into the upper class landed gentry. Its not where you come from you see its what you become that matters. 

Really? I never knew that. Seriously though does that make 14 million in poverty OK? 

Or the fact that Tory billionaire/oligarchs/capitalists/bourgeoisie media barons decide who gets Into power in No10? 

The woman who isn't an MP any more but is still in the cabinet, said it was bollocks not two days ago, Nicky Morgan. She was the one who was trying to tell 30,000 new plus 20,000 old = 50,000 new.

She said it's at least 10 years away!  A little more honesty at least, but still no details of how they are going to keep the 20,000 we already have.

Why are we still waiting for this? The Tories have had the power for the last ten years, they could and should have sorted this out by now.

I did too, I could hardly believe it, to be fair it was a straw poll at a friends funeral, and it wasn't across the board. Corbyn was popular with the younger people, but older people, probably those who knew more about the IRA, gave this for their reason for despising Corbyn, I was very surprised. No one I spoke to could tell me what was wrong with Labour policies, or which policies they didn't like.

No one mentioned Brexit as a reason for not voting Labour, I left my home town shocked and disappointed.

Surely, for the better as it stopped the block votes of the unions having such a massive effect.

Which events? Again, the members elect the leader, so what happened last week that contradicts that?

Like Margaret Thatcher, humble grocers daughter, state education and went on to become probably the greatest Tory prime minister of modern times. It is what you become that matters, work hard in this land of opportunity and even a grocers daughter can make it to the top.

The point you're missing is that Blair compromised to win power. You might not like what he did with that power, but in this country with its flawed democracy a Labour government will never be elected unless it makes some kind of compromise. What do you want? Ideological purity and permanent opposition? That happens at the expense of the ordinary people of this country, who have just been sold down the river for the sake of supposed 'principle', and will continue to be if the Labour party doesn't remember what it's actually for: to make real positive changes to people's lives. 

Am I right in saying that the unions have a veto on who gets on the ballot paper for leadership?

My mum voted Tory not Labour for the first time in 60 odd years because she can't stand JC. You can complain about the media all you like, but, I'm afraid it worked. JC as well as being utterly useless at PMQs and ignoring the will of his party over brexit was electoral kryptonite. It's a complete disgrace that he is hanging on until he's seen his desired brexit complete and if he simply anoints his chosen acolyte then the process will be repeated in 2025, with the press building the picture of JC pulling the strings in the background. If the labour party want to be a party in power then JC, momentum, and the 3Ms need to do one, pronto.

Corbyn monoxide was my favourite. 

The Google tax pre-dates Corbyn and the Amazon tax (for want of a better name) is amongst the first of its type globally. If you don't understand the complications of introducing taxes on a potentially supranational basis then I suggest you widen your sources of information.

Blair took a kicking in beaconsfield when he first tried to get a seat. He learnt from his mistakes, kind of, it is said they told him he lost because it was after the Falklands and the British public do love a war victory and the Tories cleaned up. Sadly he decided to start his own war.  

And to quote Blair himself: "Power without principal is barren, but principal without power is futile".

Which is pretty much the Labour problem in a single sentence, first get elected.

He didn’t start his own war - that was Bush. He just didn’t have the nous to realise that tying himself to the coat-tails of an idiot was a bad idea. Should have done a Wilson... 

Denis Healey, 1959 Conference speech:

”We are not just a debating society. We are not just a Socialist Sunday School. We are a great movement that wants to help real people living on this earth at the present time. We shall never be able to help them unless we get power. We shall never get their power unless we close the gap between our active workers and the average voter in the country.”

I'm not sure, they have an influence on who gets on the list, but it's not down to them, I'll try and find out.

What didn't she like about Labour policies?

My mam didn't vote for Labour either, and that was of Corbyn "terrorist" sympathies, which of course is bollocks.

It's not just about understanding, though is it? It's about intentions, and so far the Tories have done very little, besides give these companies an easy ride.

But how do you do this if you're going to be honest, you can of course tell the electorate a load of lies, and everything they want to hear, that help, but then what?

Answering that question was Corbyn's job.

while I generally respect your posts I think you are overlooking Boris's record - a lot longer than my arm I might say ... (1702)

Where this current system fails is the winning party goes unchallenged. 

I propose a system where the remaining mps form a group, they can oppose and challenge the government on issues as they passes through parliament. They'll obviously need a leader who has access to the same information, perhaps give them a place on the privy council. This extra work will be challenging, so it would be appropriate to pay them extra. We could even go as far as giving this leader of the opposing group a weekly slot to take the government to task. Maybe even a fancy title so they are guaranteed to be invited on all the national media channels and can really hold a government to account throughout the entire year...

What do you think? 

I'm not denying there was more bull**** (or lies) talked in this campaign than I ever thought possible, and not just from one party. 

I think people would appreciate the truth now, or next time, but ultimately you have to have a right person putting the message across, the right figurehead. Much as I dislike Boris, he comes over as an enthusiastic, positive leader, full of hope for the future and voters went for that.

Corbyn's high point was probably Glastonbury (and around that time) in front youngsters chanting "Corbyn". During the campaign he hasn't been Mr Optimism, he simply doesn't inspire hope as a leader. My opinion anyway.

The party could take a leaf out of Jess Phillips’ book. Sincere, caring, Labour through and through, but not dogmatic. Not spouting spittle-flecked rhetoric and dogma. Personality bordering on charisma. Decision taker, leadership qualities. Empathy. I could go on. We can blame the press barons, but at the end of the day JC is a rubbish leader and would be a crap leader no matter what sector he ‘worked’ in, and people recognised that.

I think there are a lot of good people like Phillips in the PLP, and this is what the leader of the party needs to be like. The party doesn’t have to tell lies, it needs a proper, strong  leader and cabinet that’s credible and electable and recognise that there’s a whole constituency outside London. Also recognise that Labour can’t get elected on just the ‘working class vote’ whatever that is, just like the Tories can’t get elected solely by the middle and upper classes. There’s only been one Labour govt in 50 years, and they recognised this.

What not to be like...Corbyn, Burgon, Rebecca double barrel. Seumas Milne for gods sake!

No party has come back from this kind of loss in one term, so my guess is that a Labour govt is 10 years away, but Momentum could potentially make that much longer. 

Corbyn lost the campaign in the last 2 years, not the last 2 months. Boris's campaign was far from startling, but Corbyns fencing sitting, inability to oppose in parliament, not engage with national media over the length of his leadership all meant Corbyn had an uphill start, then when he released that spend crazy manifesto it was the icing on the cake. Boris's work was done, all Boris had to do was avoid the media to avoid losing voters, he had already won. 

I can do no more than show you the evidence to the contrary. If you choose to close your eyes and yell “nerr nerr can’t hear you” then that’s on you.

I may well be in (or is it on ?) the same boat.

I listened to Lisa Nandy yesterday being interviewed by Adrian Chiles. She came across on the radio incredibly well, far better than Rebecca double barrel.

Easily dealt with Chiles hectoring questions( put him in his place in a very even handed manner without a lecturing tone)

Impressive and from Wigan- what more can you want.

It's 'Long-Bailey.'

How about a manifesto and leader the electorate understand, warm-to and that is relevant to today's and tomorrow's problems?  Worked for Blair and Cameron.  Slippery dithering, 1970s rhetoric, shouting at anyone who doesn't agree, and policies people don't want - not so much.

F*ck me. Are you defending Cameron's record as a PM?

Read the thread.  I was explaining how to get elected.  But sure, carry on with Corbynism if ideological purity is more important to you.

And I was trying to point out that 'getting elected' is not an end in itself (*): you need to do something useful with the power that then accrues. If your answer to any political question is Cameron, then give up.

(* It's an obvious means to an end, of course.)

You are projecting. Carry on if you like.

I didn't make any comment on Cameron's subsequent record but he showed, clearly, what's needed to get elected, from a position similar to that which the Labour party finds itself now.

Well let us hope its Lisa Nandy ......

Or spineless servile golddigga willing to do everything the billionaires asked her to. 

Interesting interview with Andy Burnham on R5 this morning. Intimated that it’s better to be in power at local level in Manchester and making positive real change to people’s lives. I suspect he hasn’t the ideological purity required to have another stab at being leader, which is a shame. 

Blair and Cameron WTAF?

Blair's PFI and Cameron,s "I'll see us through this, Oh! f*ck this I'm off"

Are you serious, just because someone was in power 10 or 20 years ago doesn't mean it's a good idea to try an copy them.

Weren't you telling us we were off to the 1970s not so long ago?

Surely we should be looking forwards, to a society we can all be part of and where none are left behind, unless you're one of those which thinks we need a certain number of people to live in poverty.

Nobody will be happier than me to see the end of foodbanks, knife crime, NHS waiting lists, enough coppers, great transport infrastructure across the UK not just servicing London, and a great probation service. If the Tories manage it I'll vote for them.

He's not an MP.

Go on then, I've not seen evidence of any sort of clampdown of bug business avoiding tax, but I'm all ears.

But aren't you them playing into the hands of accusations of "they're all a bunch of liars, only in it for themselves?"

I understand what you are saying, but you're in the realms of "Winning is everything". Ask Lance Armstrong how that turns out, while it may be great for Boris, it's not going to be that good for us, I don't think.

So to "compromise", with the Tory billionaires that own the media you have to abide with how they say society and the economy should function before they will give you their blessing.So what happens when they are abusing the system as they do since absolute power corrupts etc? So some party wants justice and fairness to change this but the Tory oligarchs say no we don't want that and keep hold of their dictatorship of the rich. 

So that means they have complete freedom to ensure a Tory monopoly over government forever.

= no democracy and a dictatorship of the capitalists. 

Are you directly involved in meetings with accountants and say HMRC?

Copy their approach to getting elected I'd say is a good idea, since they managed it. (Indeed Johnson's approach was similar, although he added in the gross dishonesty, unfortunately).

Around policy, not approaches to getting power. (in the 70s socialism clearly did appeal to a lot of the population).

Not poverty but the point that aspiration is a key human motivator is sound.

Wouldn't it be better to have a credible Labour government able to tackle these points, which, let's face it haven't traditionally been strengths of the Tories?  Or do you prefer Cobyn's successors to carry on screaming from the sidelines?

I don't know if you've noticed but things have changed hugely since the Industrial Revolution? How? Incremental attritional hard work on the part of many different people - politicians, ordinary activists, trade unionists and more , squeezing concessions from the capitalists over many long years. And not one spell of government from an ideologically blinkered hard left involved at all. 

Well, they might if the Labour Party can't focus on the idea that pragmatic and actual political power triumphs over blinkered ideology. 

If JC has his way, possibly.

Winning may not be everything but losing is definitely nothing. 

Read the links I posted. That’s all you need to do.

^Get past this please^

It's not about policies it's about JC. He was toxic, however that happened (and I agree that the right wing media have a case to answer here) the point to bear in mind that people like my mum and yours stayed at home or voted LD or even voted Tory because of the man in charge of the Labour party

Something that Blair grasped that Corbyn didn't is that like it or not you have to manage the media. Someone like Alastair Campbell would probably have nullified the IRA / anti semite perception. Or poss  told corbyn to fck off as unelectable.

But the right wing media will similarly do a number on other leader (good or bad) if they choose to. In that sense, it's beyond individuals - and indeed beyond actual policies.

Reading the following from The Guardian left me both bemused and depressed:

"In Conisbrough, a hilly Doncaster town within the Don Valley constituency, residents who switched from red to blue said their decision came down to a pragmatic choice on Brexit and the Labour leadership. “I don’t see it as a vote for the Conservatives, I see it as a vote for Brexit,” said one retired lady shopping on the high street.

“It’s the first time I’ve done it. My dad was a miner, and his dad was a miner, and I’ve always voted Labour,” she added. “I think if there had been another leader, I would have voted for them again.” Asked what it was in particular that she disliked about Corbyn, she replied: “There’s something about his mannerisms.”

(See https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/theyre-getting-their-just-...)

The person interviewed here has both contradicted herself (her vote is either about Brexit, or it isn't), and then come up with the lamest reason ('something about his mannerisms') for voting one way or the other that it's possible to think of. In any event, none of this is anything you can possibly have a sane discussion or argument about. Very weird.

I don't think you are getting this leadership and charisma thing.  It matters to most people.  A soggy position on Brexit and awkward leader who comes over as simultaneously condescending and awkward isn't a good combination.  Blaming the votes doesn't help.

Like it or not people vote on perceptions a lot of the time and the best thing labour could do is show a load of potential leaders to focus groups and see what sticks.

I do get that. But it is really 'post truth' (to use that cliche), and illustrates the tremendous power of the media.

I agree, she's the best candidate. Just hope enough other members can be convinced.

I can't believe an anointed candidate of the current leadership is even under consideration. They're a bunch of incompetents and the whole lot need to go.

Primarily, yes.  However, promising to nationalise loads of things (many of which will be owned by people's pensions) and offer free this, that and the other, isn't convincing.  

It isn't really.  Humans aren't robots.  They react to and are influenced by perceptions, personalities and emotion.  That's why being a good communicator is such a vital skill for a political leader (Clinton, Blair, Cameron etc.).  JC failed utterly on all the above, the media just highlighted the weakness

Another quote from the paper:

"People who had backed Labour all their life deserted the party. At one of the covered markets in the town centre, Mike Evans, a butcher, said he had voted Tory but sighed when asked if he liked Boris Johnson. “I think he’s the best of a bad bunch,” he said.

"Evans’ family has run a butcher’s business since 1911 – even longer than Labour has held Wrexham. He has voted Labour in the past but said: “I didn’t believe in Jeremy Corbyn’s policies – his changes to public services went too far. We’d have gone backwards. Wrexham has been Labour for too long. We need a change. Things can’t get worse.”

(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/things-cant-get-worse-wrex...)

The old 'it can't get any worse.' Guess what: it can.

Making judgements based on initial perceptions has been a vital survival mechanism for millions of yrs. 

Bless you for that reply

But spineless is not a word I would associate with the Iron Lady.

All this talk of the right-wing media might be putting the cart before the horse a little.  The right-wing media appeals precisely because it's not telling its readership they're a bunch of cvnts all the time.  The left-leaning media, like Labour, might start appealing to the working classes, and even make Remain appear more palatable than Brexit, if it simply stopped doing that.

The Guardian does like to focus on the caricature examples.  I don't doubt for a moment there are many out there like this woman from Conisbrough.  But the tone of that article indicates a failure to grasp (like the Labour councillor's wife describing Tory support as if "they were on some kind of drug") that, for many people, the intangible of "culture" is as important as economics or the benefits of European integration. 

I think JC gave the opposition media a free hit too often, he simply has too much baggage. If they tried to paint (for sake of argument) Starmer or Philips as anti-semitic, terrorist sympathisers they'd be laughed to scorn.

I've been reading the Guardian for fifty-odd years and I can't ever remember it telling me I was a c*nt!

Came across well, impressive and from Wigan you say. 

Well in that case she has got no chance! 

really. I guess that was why he was talking about his time as mayor then.

The implication was that he had considered standing at the next election.

I don't recognize your caricature: I don't think any section of the media is telling its readership that they are 'a bunch of cvnts.' (And, if any did, they would rapidly lose that readership.) What's your detailed point, and example?

Left-leaning media is perpetually explaining away not just Tory and Brexit support, but social conservatism, as results of ignorance, stupidity, lies or greed.  Or that these stances are a result of victimhood (austerity) which (surprise surprise) only Labour can resolve.  If that isn't condescending (and ignorant itself) towards the majority of the population then I don't know what is. 

So here we have a demographic who have turned against the left as a result, yet who are clearly (based on their voting history) within easy reach of the Labour party.  They are pro-egalitarianism with a social conscience, but just so happen to also tend towards socially conservative concepts of a social contract, localism and nationhood.  Those later beliefs can easily be accommodated by a social democratic party.  But instead Labour, and the left, seems to view anyone not on board with the whole package as insufficiently doctrinaire.

If you aren't willing to speak to even vaguely socially conservative individuals as if their views have any validity, then expect them to find a home in areas of the media that treat them with some respect.  If those same locations are also overwhelming pro-Brexit then whinging about the right-wing media holding sway over the working classes somewhat misses the point.

I think that is a ridiculous claim, and simply reflects your own perception. But you can bolster your argument by providing explicit quotations and examples.

I am not sure what your point is. It would be unprecedented for a leader of the party to be somebody who wasn't a sitting MP (though I am not myself certain if that would actually contravene rules).

(By the way, I consider the focus on individuals and personalties at this stage to be misplaced - the search for a single silver bullet is usually a mistake. But that's a different story.)

I might agree, except that this is entirely made up. 

Again, you're making things up. What's your source for this single demographic? What's their profile? It's bound to be more complex than this. And as far as I can see many of those who turned against Labour did so because of Corbyn in any case

Who are these people who didn't speak to "...even vaguely socially conservative individuals as if their views have any validity"?

Maybe you'd like to look at this video, see the Guardian's John Harris doing what you seem to think the left-leaning media don't do. Watch from about 11 minutes when he visits Jaywick in Essex. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2019/dec/13/anywhere-but-we...

As I understand it, a candidate can get onto the ballot with the support of 5% of CLPs,so the unions don't get a veto.

Anywhere But Westminster is brilliant, but he's the exception to the rule.

I'm still really not sure what this perception that the left leaning media don't talk to socially conservative people at all comes from. It may be true in some cases (which?), but I'd say that the media as a whole is highly selective about who it talks to, like all those vox pops that only seemed to involve older white people in the weeks before the election. We need higher professional standards all round. 

OK they don't get a veto, but can put up their preferred candidate

https://inews-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour...

The difference between New Labour and the Liberals is the latter have a greater history and commitment to Proportional Representation.

That will possibly be the next GE election hot issue. 

The FPTP inevitably compresses different political views into just two parties. Maybe the example of other PR Parliaments in unlocking political potential will finally hit the English Nation  of UK.

I'm afraid the system  has already become the seed of destruction of the Union which may come to take root. But I never saw PR on the Labour agenda. It explains a lot of their failure in Scotland  for different reasons, namely a desire to keep a strong hand, but that attraction was not there and the failure is more relevant to England now.

And you can't have the politics of extreme jealousy. Look, if you've started with very little like I have, worked hard and got to your fifties, you expect not to have an inheritance tax that eradicates all you've done. There's just no incentive in life. At least pander to the nation of "shopkeepers" who don't want to be characterised as unaspirational.

Did you watch the debate with Corbyn and Boris, I don't think either of them bettered the other by much at all.

One of the major problems for Corbyn was he wasn't allowed to talk about his policies, everyone wanted to know about AS and his jam, while Boris was near enough plastered all over, a couple of sickening interviews with Kuenssberg, where it looked like they were out on a date rather than being interviewed.

My favourite joke of the campaign (Not Mine), "I used to have a lot of respect for Robert Peston, but throughout this election he's been so far up Boris Johnson's arse he can see Laura Kuenssberg's feet."

If he'd been more dynamic then yes they might have stood a better chance, but I'm pretty certain Corbyn is a thinker, so making rash off the cuff decisions isn't is style, which is a good thing in my books.

'I'm pretty certain Corbyn is a thinker,' Well there's two of you who think that then.

Sounds great, I'd also suggest a three stikes and you're out for telling lies, or spreading false information. There needs to be some way of assuring the electorate the people representing us are at least trying to be honest.

This ^^, so I've been told.

The train was full

I wasn't at the wreath laying

. . I just need one more... 

It's happening now, for the new candidates, Emily Thornberry and Caroline Flint's spate is getting plenty of news, what isn't being said much is this "quote" was from 2016-17 AFAIK, but is only being "reported", with plenty of gusto of course, now, and it's not being given the date it was said, so it sounds like she said it recently about the recent elections results.

Can someone please tell me why having nationalised industries is so bad?

We have them already, it's just other nations that own our stuff, so why is it OK for them but not for us?

The Tory carrion call of "nationalisation is bad" doesn't really stack up when you know who owns our stuff.

Surely, this should be more of a worry to "normal" people than straight bananas. Or is it simply the fact they don't know.

They fear. 

The FPTP allows no transitional stages of change- its two dimensional so people never see gradual change that come from coalition poitics that comes with hung PR parliaments. The two party system presents people with sudden shifts. That is the stuff of fear and people, by instinct, need gradual change. A PR system allows people to shuffle towards change like in Scotland so that the general bias becomes left wing. You get there in stages not leaps. 

You could equally argue that the last few years had produced a stalemate whilst people argue. So that is the transitional stage pre 2106 and upto the 2019 election.

the 2019 election produced the result of that transition stage. Basically the remain side lost. 

One man's thinker, another man's ditherer... 

‘We sometimes have it on....er it’s in the morning, isn’t it?’

From a UK perspective I guess many people will point to the likes of British Leyland, British Rail, National Coal Board, Rolls Royce, British Steel Corporation etc which all became bloated inefficient entities often utilising obsolescent plants, that were operating under capacity while using outdated technology. Thow into the mix poor and ineffective management and chronic union disputes you have a recipe for disaster. Nationalised industries are also prone to suffer from 'moral hazard' which occurs whenever individuals or organisations are insured against the negative consequences of their own inefficient behaviour due to no direct competition. For example, if a particular nationalised industry made operating losses, the government would simply cover those loses with subsidies. These industries have limited scope to raise capital for long term investment and modernisation because they have to compete with other government spending departments, like education, health and defence. 

That said, I am still up for the state ownership of utilities and public transport.

I think for the last word in all that has been said  about why the Corbyn led labour party lost so comprehensively, see Tony Blair's speech on BBC news (I know many hate him, but he is no fool in politics). A more scathing speech about ones own political party I have never heard and he reiterates just about everything that has been mentioned here.

If the hard left corbynistas cannot take that on board, then so be it.

Yes but, all your examples are from decades ago, it STILL doesn't answer why we're seem very happy for other Nations to own and run our stuff. Why can they do it, I'm suposing from their profits, well, and we can't? It's not great say what happened years and years ago, because we've all moved on since then.

On another note

Can someone please explain what Corbynism is, and how it differs from Labours root policies of socialism. I ask because Blair is telling us we should ditch Corbynism, but isn't mentioning socialism. Does he know the difference?

I expect Thornberry's tweet from Rochester of a white van and a few England flags to get another good airing within labour circles to remind themselves why she would be a risk to replace Corbyn.

On the nationalisation issues there are a whole variety of points.

Its not really grabbed the attention of people as a real hardcore issue.

Influence of the unions in wanting to nationalise stuff as its good for their members, as distinct from whether its good for the consumers.

Rejection by the City that its a good idea.Nationalistation of say the water companies at below market price would had really dented the UK reputation as a law abiding country recognising property and shareholders rights.

Other matters take a greater priority. To me social care is far more important than renationalistion of a water or rail that work ok in most cases.

We are not that good in the UK at letting the state run these type of services.

The actual upfront costs to do. I can think of better capital projects to spend the money on.

You can influence the market more by giving the regulators more teeth. This is now playing out with Ofwatt and the other regulators..

Keep these things at arms length from govt as the govt has somebody else to blame if it all goes pear shaped.In otherwords why on earth would you want to take on responsibility for it.

You might take responsibility for it, to give value for money, and to stop foreign companies making massive profits and sending the money abroad.

We don't even have to fully nationalise any industry, simply offer a national alternative, like a National Electricity supplier, then you've really got the best of both worlds, more competition (the Tories are very keen on competition) plus a company whose profit go directly to the treasury, and a better influence on the market, personal choice.

I still don't follow the argument that other nations are better than us at running our companies.

I am not sure N Power's owners would say that as they are in effect withdrawing from the market following the energy regulators impostion of price caps on power.This view of massive profits is a bit old hat.Water companies are kicking off over the price restrictions impsed by Offwat and so on.

Understand what you are saying about running companies just that it seems to be something in the UK's genes that stop us doing this. its not other nations, its overseas companies who may in turn be owned by the State.

They might well be, but have a read of this regarding Northumbria Water and the amount being paid out in dividends to its overseas owner..

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-7245781/Hong-Kong-billi...

Summary - £1.7bn has been taken in dividends in 8 years, which is £620 for every one of Northumbria water s 2.7m customers. As one of those customers, i would much rather that money had stayed in the UK...........

Great idea. Achieves the goal without the negative connotations of the old-school style nationalisation.

So why didn’t Corbyn propose it? If he is, in fact, a suitable leader and prime minister and not a political time traveller from 1970 then why did these more modern approaches that would have met much less opposition escape him?

The answer is pretty obvious. It’s because he’s an ideologue who would rather remain pure and lose than compromise to win, and that’s exactly why if Labour want to get back in the business of helping people they need to be shot of him and anyone he would consider a worthwhile successor. 

I assume anyway that UK corporation tax was paid which would be susbstantail as its not clear from that article. So money does work its way back.

There is currently a battle going on between some of the water utility companys ( not all) about Offwats plans.So there is a toughening up process going on.

So as I said before tougher regulation and enforcemenmt by the Regulators is part of the solution.

He did propose it , it was a longstanding idea from John McD.

Again though you are diverting government finance from other potentail projects - say social care. So which is more important. You cannot do everything.

He proposed introducing an additional supplier rather than government acquisition of the existing suppliers? If that was in the manifesto then I genuinely missed it despite reading it fairly closely. 

Indeed it was paid, but some of the money "working its way back" is not the same as "never left in the first place". 

And rightly so. In such a monopoly situation, profit levels should be subject to lower expectation than in more cometitive markets.

Only part of it. But the need for a tough regulator is partly influenced by the profit maximising ways of for-profit organisations. They have to look after their shareholders in preference to their customers, and it i only because they are in a monopoly position that they are able to make such big profits and so pay such large dividends. And dont forget that the corp tax paid by Northumbria water isnt from a particular magic money tree; its comes from UK consumers who could otherwise spend it in other ways, contributing much more efficiently to the UK economy.

In the last reporting year the company they bought for nearly £2bn made £200m before tax. Hardly ground breaking. It has 2700 employees. 

5 years into Corbyns nationalisation and it could have 5000 employees and running a loss of £100m (all speculation of course). 

But say Corbyn bought it back for 2bn and kept prices where they are, that's 10 years pre tax before you can pretend the investment had paid for itself.(ignoring interest on the money Labour would need to borrow). When you factor in tax, interest and perhaps lowering consumer prices, the government will never recoup the initial spend, it's become a taxpayers burden. The same with electricity, broadband... 

Buying goods on Amazon, alliexpress, eBay, wish... resulting in zero tax revenue for the UK? 

I’ve spent a lot of time listening to Kuensberg on the Brexitcast and Electioncast podcasts and can hardly think of a good word she or any of the other presenters had to say about Johnson. In fact they seemed to spend a lot of time ridiculing his flexible relationship with the truth. 
 

Not looking for another excuse about how right wing media bias stole the election despite Labour having the best leader, the best policies and winning the argument, are we?

What are you basing this on though, the 1970s?

They seemed to do quite well with western rail though too.

Splitting hair now though, it could we be British companies which are state owned, if you want to go down that road.

This would also be paid if it was nationalised, so win win.

The way to have handled the Water Utilities would have been to nationalise them at market value and to pay the going rate. Whilst there might have been a bit of a tussle, most observers would accept that is acceptable as the shareholders would have got market price.

The proposal to do it at a govt discounted rate via bonds issued to the exisiting shareholders was a con ( basically a compulsory purchase on the cheap). It would have in effect destroyed shareholders rights which would have had a knock on effect on the market and the view that property and shareholders rights are protected in the UK.If its the water companies now, then who is it next sort of ripple.

The problem with doing it the right way is the market value cost and there are better things to spend the money on. The NHS, social care,education and infrastructure being more of an issue and higher up peoples agendas.

Nationalistaion is a low low priority.

Any examples of these deep, original thoughts? 

His recipe for Strawberry Jam is supposed to be absolutely delicious...

https://twitter.com/RussInCheshire/status/1207071942601248772?s=19

He doesn't do sugar, as I recall  

I agree - I've said it above in this thread, but the new leader, whoever they are, needs to be able to express a positive, open and tolerant brand of patriotism, one which is explicitly set against the more nationalistic Tory brand.

The perception of hating the UK (or perhaps specifically England) was a problem that also hurt Miliband back in 2015.

Pre tax is not what you calculate acquisition prices on, you need EBITDA. Water companies have historically been heavy capital investors, therefore with high depreciation charges. EBITDA nearer £300 - £350m? Therefore only 6 x EBITDA.

Errr, yes, so what?

The extra 2300 will be paying tax and NI to the govt, and not claiming benefits as overall employment will have increased. So you need to look at the bigger picture rather than just pick out some random numbers to try to demonstrate that its a bad idea

As per first paragraph, you are looking at the wrong numbers. Interest would be extremely low, as bond yields (and even commercial rates.....) on that amount is very low. Certainly cheaper than CKI's debt cost.

Looking at everything in such a narrow way will inevitably lead to negative thoughts - if we looked at what could be achieved rather than putting irrelevant obstacles in the way, we might all be a little better off.....

Agree that is the right way to do it.

Dont think there would have been too many murmurs of objection, given it is a subsid of CKI, owned by Li Ka Shing......the problem would be more that the shares arent traded as its a private company, and therefore cant just be bought in the normal markets.

true, and agree, although the income from such enterprises as water co's would come in handy for the NHS etc.

Personal choice. I only wish we brits had the national pride of (say) the french and germans when it comes to choosing what to purchase.....

But they are all public employees... it's not real revenue or employment in the way you portray it. 

But you can't leap in nationalizing companies without doing due diligence, consider every risk and possible solution etc. 

Agree. But that's UK average culture, folk want more for their money, not less but higher quality.  If they can have more of something all the benefits of shopping locally or nationally are lost on their greed. It's also why despite their talk of it Scotland would never have a sovereign wealth investment fund like Norway. They just don't have the same mentality. 

regarding nationalisation of industry

I don't understand how it would be good for the country to have Boris Johnson in charge of most of the countries industry...

And here's the thing.

This isnt the 1970's. They would not not public employees. They would be employees of "The National Water Co ltd" or whatever. This would be a company limited by shares, which would be owned (a majority probably, not necessarily 100%) by the public via either a trust fund arrangement, a sovereign wealth fund or whatever.

It is real revenue and real employment as it is now in Northumbria Water, but with different shareholders. Or with Deutsche Bahn owning some of our rail network.

Indeed you cant, and no reason why you shouldn't.

My preference wolud not be for simple renationalisation, but for a kind of sovereign investment fund, a la Norway / Switzerland / UAE, so strategic companies or industries can be used for the national benefit.

I don't think it's possible for UK politicians to take the long view and keep investing in utilities, they reduce investment and see them as vote buying places to increase employment. Before you can say John McDonnell you've got an inefficient loss making taxpayer subsidised enterprise. 

Sovereign wealth fund, again the UK public wouldn't be able to cope with the concept of all that money sitting there whilst they pay tax etc. There would be too much pressure to spend it now. 

I think you are letting your political bias get the better of your logic again. And stop going back to the 70's!!!! There are a couple of examples of successful privatisation recently; one forced, one unforced. The east coast main line is once again in public ownership, and doing quite well. And Teesside airport has just been taken back into public ownership, and whilst its at an early stage, the new management seem determined to make it a business success. And its been done as a bit of a pet project by the new mayor of teesside, who (put down any hot drinks before reading this last bit) is a tory......

Disagree. The public would be perfectly happy with the notion, its the political parties who couldnt cope.

That's very short term, better to see long term if investment is maintained etc. Plus that's not under a far left union manipulated government who may choose a heavy hand control of companies rather than existing light touch. 

Glad to see you've given it's proper name. 

Good luck to him but he's got his work cut out. I know it well, over priced parking, limited train service, roads that bottle neck on either side (eaglescliffe, yarm, darlo) the only easy way there is via great stainton on the back roads. 

It's has to compete with Manchester and Newcastle(Plus leeds/Bradford and doncaster) which despite being painful airports have good rail connections. 

True but acquisitions also have to consider debt/cash balances in the sense that the purchase payment that is the product of a multiple of EBITDA is subject to adjustment according to the state of the balance sheet. You’d pay more for a cash-rich company over a debt-strapped one, even if profits are comparable. Enterprise value is a calculation that takes debt/cash into account and gives us EV/EBITDA, a better metric when comparing companies across a sector.

Severn Trent has an EV/EBITDA of 13, United Utilities 12.5. That would be a reasonable estimate of the number of years required for payback. Given the almost infinite nature of the monopoly, that still looks reasonable, even allowing for the hidden cost of (probably) low investment in infrastructure by the private owner, which might fundamentally alter the calculations.

So because they are an overseas investor we just trample over the shareholder rights irrespective of the closed nature of the shares? I am not sure that would go down well with other overseas investors in the UK! I can and I am sure you can easily see the downside with a knock on  into overseas investment in the UK.

Sounds just like the thought of thing they would do in say...Venezula ( says with a hint of a smile).

The railways are a different issue on nationalisation as you would just let the franchises run their course, which I think was the Corbyn Projects plan.

not at all (although it would be tempting in this case......but could prove awkward elsewhere given the amount of our infrastructure this company / individual controls........)

I'm sure Venezuela is a lovely place - lots of power centred in the executive - Boris'dream!

fully aware of all this, but dont forget I'm trying to explain it to someone who started with net profit and number of employees......I think if you and i went own the route of discussing all of the factors involved in acquisitions then this thread would, er,  "lose some of its entertainment value" for a large part of the audience (for which read everyone but you and i).

STOP GOING BACK TO THE 70's!!!!!!! Corbyn has almost gone. 

Did it ever have any other name......

Parking is shockingly priced indeed, and limited is a very very kind way of describing the train service. Which still requires a significant walk from the station. And none of the train times will allow you to catch a flight........

Just as well it has good road links (how long is it since you last used it?). there's a new junction on the A66 since just before peel holdings got their teeth into it and upset most of the airlines using it to the point they left. Road transport is no problem now.

It does, but since newcastle is VERY busy, it may be able to attract the holiday flights again (the Iceland and Channel island trips are booked up as soon as they are released) and the more niche, specialised flights, and freight if there is any left after brexit.........

He wouldn't be in charge, the company would be in charge, like any other company, the only difference would be we own it not the German or French government. Again I have to ask if it's OK for them, why not us, why the big furore when we want to do what German, France or Spain do? It makes no sense, other than some mystical time machine back to 1970, which of course is bullshit.

Are you suggesting because it was a centre left Labour party, this couldn't be done with a left wing party?

FFS! keep falling for the "extremem left" bollocks we keep being told by the media, do you ever have a free thought of you own.

The policies suggested by Labour are all fully encompassed in a socialist manifesto, and aren't messages from Uncle Joe. They're so good the Tories stole a few for themselves and said they'd do a few more, but let's wait and see on that one, eh?

But momentum and the unions haven't. 

I believe there are just 10 trains stopping a year, just enough to keep it open under some ruling. 

Last month. My mother lives in yarm, brother in darlo. 

You are joking, there are massive problems. Eastwards traffic backs up from yarm right into eaglescliffe. Even the Durham lane junction the a67 through eaglescliffe next to Tescos is a disaster. These are congested urban 30mph roads, not appropriate airport access. 

Westwards; huge debate in darlo as the new Amazon warehouse in symmetry park is jamming traffic at the yarm road roundabout to the south. 

It's likely flights will decrease as climate change measure take hold; passenger duty increases, taxes and so on will change the market. It's a declining not expanding market. 

Edit. You have to factor in the current road congestion exists whilst there isn't really much airport traffic, imagine how much worse it could get! 

No one is doubting it works elsewhere, what no one believes is that Corbyn, McDonnell, unite, momentum etc. Would have had a hands off approach to their future management. All we can go off is when people with the same mentality as them were last controlling large corporations. 

" Iron"? if that is how you describe psychopaths then that is your choice personally I would call her a weak, backward, homophobic, racist, friend of fascist murderer, willing servant of the capitalist class that would do anything to please them even throw millions of British people on the scrapheap in the process. Basically a glorified spineless servant/groveller. 

Yes. For the rather obvious reason that they wont ever get elected. I have been pointing this out to you for several years now. After last week, id suggest you acknowledge this truth. 

Absolutely not. 

You need to stop reading the daily mail. Project fear has taken over your soul!!

Indeed if you live so locally it may well be a problem. however the target market for the airport is not yarm, it is the north east and north yorkshire. From where access is decent (as long as you use your sat nav, not the roadsigns). Whenever i drive there (from Bishop Auckland), its never been a problem. A66 to long newton, down mill lane, straight across the two roundabouts, into the (rip off) car park.

possibly the worlds worst positioned warehouse.......the current Mrs W works at student finance, and the traffic is just hilarious at times, before amazon opens. That thing would have been a good idea somewhere near the airport (even on it, and just close it as an airport) and build a suitable access road from A66 / 67, but where it is actually located is going to cause absolutely bonkers traffic.

So all other airports are investing in capacity for no reason? Complete rubbish.

c'mon Mr Negative! Cheer up! be positive. Think of how to overcome these obstacles, not blame it all on the fact John mcDonnell used to be shadow chancellor (pretend I wrote this in a couple of months time).

All true.The concessions came first from the power of the organized working class in the form of Trade Unions and their weapon of with holding their Labour and going on strike then men got the vote but it wasn't until the USSR showed the capitalist countries how you don't need capitalism and a society that is not a dictatorship of the rich but a dictatorship of the workers is better for everyone that the capitalists started making real concessions fearing socialist revolution in their respective countries. The USSR also led the way to emancipation from colonialism that was filling the banks in capitalist countries with mountains of wealth at the expense of the countries they occupied. Which in turn kept the workers here from starvation and revolution. That is why we never had a socialist government, because the working class here have also been beneficiaries of our exploitation and imperialist plunder(which continues) of the world. 

Getting backto this century tell me was JC hard left? No he wasn't he was as far left as many European governments of many countries yet members of our ruling class painted him as far left when he isn't. So the ruling class who are Tory decide to lie like this over and over for years and the gullible British electorate follow their masters lies. 

So the capitalist ruling class and not the people decide who gets Into power so how is that not a dictatorship of the capitalists? 

So you aren't a fan of democracy then? 

You must have got muddled there as I had written dictatorship of the capitalists which hasn't done JC any good. 

You are Citizen Smith AICMFP.

Positive solution; extend the a66(m) right across to the airport or even Long Newton. Have just one exit to the town near the existing car dealership on the northallerton road, then a 2nd exit towards the stadium and Amazon. A proper outer ring road if you like. But then it is darlo.. It's like polishing a turd. 

Modern airports shouldn't be served by single lane roads that also serve towns, industrial areas, supermarkets. 

Thats better!! Not so difficult, was it? 

And wholly agree. You can make the best airport in the world, and build the best amazon warehouse in the world, but if you ain't got the transport infrastructure around it.........compare and contrast the darlo amazon to the bowburn amazon warehouse; within half a mile of a motorway junction that is being remodelled to suit (services traffic no longer has to use anything other than the slip road). Yes it will generate many additional vehicle movements, but wont massively impact anyone else. 

The problem is you know it won't happen. They'll do a half hearted effort. Offer a discount on fees to lure in a few airlines, congestion, car parking and dire train service will continue..  then when the discount ends the airline will pull out. It's been like that there for 20 years. 

blimey, that optimism didn't last long. 

but it is now a tory project, so you are probably right 

I grew up in Blair's constituency during his reign, I've learnt to have optimism based on previous performance of mps and councillors of all colours. 

i.e. no optimism........ 

The local councillors, planning dept, workers and contractors almost have comedy value. There is a street in darlo centre, with shops and other businesses on.. they've been having problems with various services phone, internet electricity etc.. 

Turns out it's not so easy to fix when they were put in the ground, they were buried.. But not in soil or fed through conduit, they concreted them in under the road and pavements! And you think the local agencies will turn the airport around fit for the 21st century and beyond? 

Yes, the internet story is a good'un. My employers run a number of fuel stations / convenience stores etc around co Durham, South Tyneside etc, and we have one in Darlington itself. I am fully aware of the comedy value afforded when dealing with DBC, and believe me, the amusement value soon wears off. I have no idea why it is still necessary to have this council as well as Durham County Council. Unless its a throwback to the 70's designed to give you some familiarity on your visits back over here ...   

Regsrding the airport - possible, they have got Stobart Air in to run it. Oh, wait, isnt that the Stobart Air that is closely linked to Stobart transport of recent financial problems fame.......so no money to invest. Noooooo!!

Junk revisionism. This process started long before the USSR was even thought of - eg the Reform Act of 1867. 

The state capitalists of the Soviet Union tried to do the same thing, only they failed.

How many European governments have backed Hamas, the IRA, Iran, the Munich terrorists etc.? He's far-left. And I see you betray the usual contempt for the electorate. 

As an unreformed tankie you clearly aren't. Your slavish admiration of the USSR betrays you. 

I was thinking it was Dave (or Deirdre) Spart...

(Reminder -

https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1156779895503986688 )

This is a fabulous piece of work.......well worth watching one of the best memes I’ve seen so far 

https://captiongenerator.com/1612802/Corbyns-Downfall

It was a Soviet journalist who coined the phrase Iron lady, but I think your description could be applied to certain Soviet leaders.

Here's a song for you, it is the season of good will after all

youtube.com/watch?v=nnToK3kSKKg&

Class. "Our time will come we have Stormzy on board".

That seems a bit shit, Paul. The Hitler character is supposed to be Corbyn (clearly, by the 'successor' references at the end), but at the beginning refers to Corbyn in the third person ('put Corbyn on Andrew Neil.')

Not a very good effort.

I think ‘dictators’ like to talk about themselves in the third person 😁

No - it's just badly done.

Let's not our comedy standards slip, mate: it's all we've got left.

I hear you!

In reply to Summo

Leeds Bradford airport good rail link?? Err, where would that be then??

I thought it was Corbyn's fault not the policies?

Whatever you say, were out of the austerity clap-trap, and that wouldn't have happened without Corbyn, or the Labour party.

If you really compare each others manifesto, there isn't a massive difference between them, except Labour's renationalisation and free broadband. The trouble with the Tory's though is most of the money going to the NHS will be pissed into the hands of private companies, like last year 2/3 of money spent on the NHS went to private companies, this will only get worse.

Yes, we know the Tories are menace, which is  another reason not to indulge sub six form ideologues who can never form a Labour government. 

I deliberately mentioned Manchester and Newcastle, but put Leeds and donnie in brackets, as just other airports, as you rightly point out it's a fair walk from the nearest station. 

Yep, a  mere 48 minutes stroll from Horsforth with your luggage. LBA is the world’s most badly connected airport. Who builds an airport with neither rail nor motorway links??

Is this some form of weird gaslighting I am unfamiliar with where I write something then you reply to it by denying that I wrote it? Lol that nuts. 

Was the USSR state capitalist after Lenin's death? No it wasn't so what are you on about? 

" Backed"? Care to elaborate? What is far left about him? You can say he is billionaire fat cat to but it doesn't make it so. 

What? The question was rhetorical to emphasize how Britain isn't democratic as instead of the people deciding who gets into power it is the Tory capitalists of the ruling class that decides who does and doesn't get into power. 

Nothing slavish about it as it is clearly the future in some form or other when we get civilized and look back on the barbarism of capitalism either that or we are fooked. 

No. You clearly didn’t understand my point.

See Tony CLiff. 

What do you understand as far-left?

A simplistic analysis.

There’s more than one way to deal with capitalism. Which is just as well as it’s like the many-headed hydra. Hard to kill, always reinventing itself. 

So what do you want? Tory and Other Tory, because that seems to be what you're suggesting, Labour are a socialist party, or at least are supposed to be. If all you're worried about is not privatising the NHS and never renationalising anything, how will that work?

If Other Tory's never renationalise anything and real Tory's are selling everything off, eventually there's nothing to sell and everything is privatised. So how can you ever compete when one side is selling everything and the other only protects what's left?

Again, what's wrong with the UK having Water and electricity in the UKs hands instead of in German or French hands? Why do you think it's OK for profits made from our utilities to end up in the hands of another government, rather than ours?

I do not know why you keep focusing on nationalisation it is such an irrelevant topic in this day and age. Its last century politics.That horse has well and truly bolted as in the Uk it was borne out of WW2 which was 70 years ago.Move on, and find relevant issues to focus on.

France and Germany have a different business model which is not really nationalisation int the UK sense.

And in case you had not noticed it amongst Bojo/Cummins plans are more of a focus on the NHS and there is now a shift in the Tory party to constituiences which they have to retain for the future and where the NHS is important. How that actually pans out who knows. Continually going over now old battles ( which the Labour Party lost in the current election) is not going to help you.I reckon the Tories might become more NHS savvy to weaken Labour even more.

This from somebody who voted Liberal and cannot stand Bojo.

I don't think anyone has every said it would be bad for the UK to own it's utilities. 

What they have doubted many times are the current Labour policy of forced buying below market value and the ability of a Corbyn led government to run these utilities in a light touch manner that would continue to generate a profit. 

Most think the buying process alone will massively discredited the UK and it's stock market as an unsafe place to invest. 

It's ok to cite X countries, but they aren't the UK and there is nothing to suggest that the shadow cabinet as it stood 2 weeks ago had any previous competency in anything.