[B0ycey]

What? Labour party has existed long before Corbyn was even alive. So membership in the Labour party is not something that can be defined by Corbyn. In the greater scheme of things Corbyn hasn't been the leader for that long. Once again, you are showing the radical die hard ways of the Labour party. If you don't get your way then you try to bring the whole party down with you.

There was a loophole in Labour membership when Corbyn was fighting for leadership. It caused a spike in membership. It isn't really a secret that the majority of Labour membership are Corbynites. So in that regard Skinster is correct. The Labour party has evolved. I cannot see Centrism returning there. It just hasn't hit home as there are still Blairites in parliament.

[JohnRawls]

There was a loophole in Labour membership when Corbyn was fighting for leadership. It caused a spike in membership. It isn't really a secret that the majority of Labour membership are Corbynites. So in that regard Skinster is correct. The Labour party has evolved. I cannot see Centrism returning there. It just hasn't hit home as there are still Blairites in parliament.

I am not denying this. I have said in the previous posts that this is the case. Corbynits can fight against change since they are basically in a position of power within the Labour party. My point being is Labour has no chance whatsoever to win in that form. If the Centrists abandon Labour fully then what chance does Labour have against the Tories who have both Right-wingers and Centrists? Let us be realistic here, this is where it is heading right now. Why can the two sides coexist within the Tory party but can't within Labour? (To be more precise, can't exist anymore)

[B0ycey]

I am not denying this. I have said in the previous posts that this is the case. Corbynits can fight against change since they are basically in a position of power within the Labour party. My point being is Labour has no chance whatsoever to win in that form. If the Centrists abandon Labour fully then what chance does Labour have against the Tories who have both Right-wingers and Centrists? Let us be realistic here, this is where it is heading right now. Why can the two sides coexist within the Tory party but can't within Labour? (To be more precise, can't exist anymore)

The Tory party are dead John. But nobody can see it yet because their fate is all down to Brexit. When the cards crash down so do they. Centrists will go to the Lib Dems if the right leader takes over. If it wasn't for two stupid mistakes from Swinson they would have probably already have been a force in this election actually. And all that means is Labour don't need to change. They may well win in five years by Tory incompetence and the Lib Dem inexperience. And if they don't, their youth core base will make them a force in the election after that.

[JohnRawls]

The Tory party are dead John. But nobody can see it yet because their fate is all down to Brexit. When the cards crash down so do they. Centrists will go to the Lib Dems if the right leader takes over. If it wasn't for two stupid mistakes from Swinson they would have probably already have been a force in this election actually. And all that means is Labour don't need to change. They may well win in five years by Tory incompetence and the Lib Dem inexperience. And if they don't, their youth core base will make them a force in the election after that.

I don't know, your plan is wee bit not to my liking. You are basically betting on Tories getting significantly weaker for your future. Don't get me wrong, Brexit will hurt them in the long term but that won't change the fact that Tories will remain being a right and centre party. Worst case scenario for them is that they fail horribly and more sane right and centrists will move to Lib Dems. Along with Labour centrists and some soft leftists. This is like giving Lib Dems a win then? I do not think that this will happen because Lib Dems just don't have the resources to sustain such a party.

[skinster]

What? Labour party has existed long before Corbyn was even alive. So membership in the Labour party is not something that can be defined by Corbyn. In the greater scheme of things Corbyn hasn't been the leader for that long. Once again, you are showing the radical die hard ways of the Labour party. If you don't get your way then you try to bring the whole party down with you.

Corbyn was trying to bring the party back to its origins, you twerp.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Labour party stance on Brexit had surely big influence on Labour election results. Many Labour voters wanted to get Brexit done, while conservative voters were more disciplined. It can be argued that the same issue also poisoned Corbyn's popularity. If we look at popularity of other political leaders like Jo Swinson, Nigel Farage or even Nicola Sturgeon in Britain overall we will see that they are about as unpopular as Corbyn.

I'm sure Brexit didn't help and he was seen as weak and indecisive on this as well as being regarded as a weak leader in general. Nevertheless, except for his surprise performance in 2017 it's hard to find a leader who is so consistently unpopular and outright loathed by a large part of the electorate and this has less to do with Brexit than the stance he took on various issues throughout his career. In 2019 his popularity never went higher than -28 and as low as -60 several times, with an average of around -40. No other leader matches this low baseline.

Brexit and immigrantion was an important issue to voters, more than other policies. Given that Brexit is unavoidable now, approval ratings could change within a year or two. Therefore I'm suggesting that Jeremy Corbyn should wait it out, with the question of leader for the next general election being decided at a later time.

I guess hope never dies, but there are some political realities to contend with which are among other things that the leader of a party ought to take some responsibility for its defeat, even more so if it is so devastating, and that in these circumstances it would be irresponsible to rely on the repeat of a past exceptional and surprise performance which was, by the way, also influenced by Brexit as Remainers united behind Labour but which still didn't deliver a Labour government. Corbyn had not one but two shots and he's given Labour first a normal loss and then a historic defeat in its heartlands. At its most basic, such a leader has to own up to it and step down.

[colliric]

Statement of "Jews Against Boris" concerning the election result.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Statement of "Jews Against Boris" concerning the election result.

Who are these people and what's their significance?

More seriously and importantly, she has pronouns in her Twitter bio so why would you listen to anything she says?

[colliric]

Who are these people and what's their significance?

More seriously and importantly, she has pronouns in her Twitter bio so why would you listen to anything she says?

I find anti-establishment Jews interesting generally. So what?

Johnson has had a history of anti-semetism too, so it's not all a one way street. I guess our Jewish Members went with "the lesser of two evils" approach.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -forgotten

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/jews- ... on-1328319

Corbyn wasn't the only one with a questionable attitude to the Jews generally. But of cause as he believes in Free Palestine, he has to be the most evil person in history next to Hitler and Boris being "lesser anti-semetic" means he gets the vote.

[Patrickov]

I find anti-establishment Jews interesting generally. So what?

Johnson has had a history of anti-semetism too, so it's not all a one way street. I guess our Jewish Members went with "the lesser of two evils" approach.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -forgotten

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/jews- ... on-1328319

Corbyn wasn't the only one with a questionable attitude to the Jews generally. But of cause as he believes in Free Palestine, he has to be the most evil person in history next to Hitler and Boris being "lesser anti-semetic" means he gets the vote.

I am afraid it is rather naive thinking to assume electorates judged Corbyn by only one and (IMHO) rather insignificant standard.

[colliric]

I am afraid it is rather naive thinking to assume electorates judged Corbyn by only one and (IMHO) rather insignificant standard.

Yes, but it was a major factor for a large chunk of voters.

[Patrickov]

Yes, but it was a major factor for a large chunk of voters.

I am afraid this statement needs some statistical figures to prove.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I find anti-establishment Jews interesting generally. So what?

Johnson has had a history of anti-semetism too, so it's not all a one way street. I guess our Jewish Members went with "the lesser of two evils" approach.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -forgotten

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/jews- ... on-1328319

Corbyn wasn't the only one with a questionable attitude to the Jews generally. But of cause as he believes in Free Palestine, he has to be the most evil person in history next to Hitler and Boris being "lesser anti-semetic" means he gets the vote.

The left had one of its favourite weapons turned against itself and was completely inept in dealing with it. I actually doubt whether it had a significant influence on the election outcome, but it was still a joy to see. If you wear "anti-racism" credentials on your sleeves, you better live up to your own expectations. Best of all, the Guardian officially declared itself morally bankrupt by writing that the anti-semitism in the Labour Party was terrible but nevertheless endorsing the party in the same article.

As for the Israel/Palestine conflict, I agree that a large part of the Labour Party's recent troubles with anti-semitism stem from this, but it is just a particular expression of the leadership's third worldism/anti-imperialism ideology, albeit an obsessive one that is out of proportion as compared with other similar conflicts. It's no coincidence that Corbyn was warmly welcomed and endorsed by Nick Griffith and similar people and, as we all know, by the left-wing logic of guilt by association the endorsed person is just as guilty as the person endorsing him. In left-wing parlance, Corbyn enarmoured anti-semites and gave them room and a platform.

Furthermore, the Muslim vote plays a role as well. This is an ethno-religious conflict playing out in western countries, predominantly within left-wing parties, and the more numerous group usually wins.

[B0ycey]

I don't know, your plan is wee bit not to my liking. You are basically betting on Tories getting significantly weaker for your future. Don't get me wrong, Brexit will hurt them in the long term but that won't change the fact that Tories will remain being a right and centre party. Worst case scenario for them is that they fail horribly and more sane right and centrists will move to Lib Dems. Along with Labour centrists and some soft leftists. This is like giving Lib Dems a win then? I do not think that this will happen because Lib Dems just don't have the resources to sustain such a party.

The Lib Dems do have the resources to sustain the party. They just don't have the votes - not yet anyway.

Besides I can only guess the future. So it isn't a plan at all. But in previous elections it is clear people vote with their wallets and any party that crashes the economy is out the door. So those moderate votes are going somewhere and it isn't the Tories.

[Patrickov]

The Lib Dems do have the resources to sustain the party. They just don't have the votes - not yet anyway.

Besides I can only guess the future. So it isn't a plan at all. But in previous elections it is clear people vote with their wallets and any party that crashes the economy is out the door. So those moderate votes are going somewhere and it isn't the Tories.

No vote means no donation means no money.

I don't know about the British Lib Dems, but probably not all parties are like the pro-Beijing parties in Hong Kong or the Liberal Party in Hong Kong (which is the merchants' party), both of which enjoy immense financial support despite quite thoroughly trashed by voters in different stages of Hong Kong history.

[JohnRawls]

The Lib Dems do have the resources to sustain the party. They just don't have the votes - not yet anyway.

Besides I can only guess the future. So it isn't a plan at all. But in previous elections it is clear people vote with their wallets and any party that crashes the economy is out the door. So those moderate votes are going somewhere and it isn't the Tories.

No, I don't think that they have the resources. In here I mean all things and not just money. For example look at the treatment of Swinson and anybody else for the matter besides Labour and Tories. They were mostly excluded from all debates besides a couple. That is not fair ground to compete on. This bias is present in most fields related to politics. Tories and Labour get all access and anybody else are basically beggars.

@skinster

Parties always evolve over time. What does returning to the origins even mean? You want to return to the origins when Labour was created? That is not how politics work. This is not the early 20th century. If those are not the origins then what origins are you talking about? Please explain what "origins" you mean.

[B0ycey]

No, I don't think that they have the resources. In here I mean all things and not just money. For example look at the treatment of Swinson and anybody else for the matter besides Labour and Tories. They were mostly excluded from all debates besides a couple. That is not fair ground to compete on. This bias is present in most fields related to politics. Tories and Labour get all access and anybody else are basically beggars

Well they do have the resources. Had they won the election with a majority they could have formed a government and this isn't even up for debate. Sponsorship isn't much of a factor in terms of resources (although it helps set things and infrastructure up) but in terms of advertising. Though that point is not aimed at you.

In regards to fair treatment, television time is down to opinion polls and public interest. Once Swinson decided to have the election her polls sank and justification for them in TV debates vanished. Although if they are a contender in next election they would get the VIP treatment don't you worry.

[Rich]

I didn't support a second referendum, because that would have implied respect for the first. However if there was to be a referendum there had to be an election first, producing a Labour majority or another hung parliament. One of the joys of this election was seeing that vile woman Anna Soubry defeated. But her idea that an election could have been put off till after a referendum was utterly absurd. The Lib Dems should have demanded electoral reform prior to the election, but that's different to imagining a referendum could have been agreed upon, the question agreed upon, and then held with last parliament. Really anyone who believes that shuld seek urgent mental health care.

[Heisenberg]

Once again, you are showing the radical die hard ways of the Labour party. If you don't get your way then you try to bring the whole party down with you.

This accusation gets thrown at the Labour left a lot, but honestly, it applies much more accurately to the Blairite wing. At this election, Blairites in the party - including Blair and Campbell - went around solemnly telling people not to vote Labour, and that they hoped Corbyn would be destroyed. Meanwhile, Blairite commentators - think Dan Hodges and John Rentoul - have been gloating non-stop about the election result. If anyone is prepared to "bring the whole party down" to get their way, it's the Labour right.

[JohnRawls]

This accusation gets thrown at the Labour left a lot, but honestly, it applies much more accurately to the Blairite wing. At this election, Blairites in the party - including Blair and Campbell - went around solemnly telling people not to vote Labour, and that they hoped Corbyn would be destroyed. Meanwhile, Blairite commentators - think Dan Hodges and John Rentoul - have been gloating non-stop about the election result. If anyone is prepared to "bring the whole party down" to get their way, it's the Labour right.

What are the centrists supposed to do if they have been basically excommunicated from the party and are only there on paper? Centrist are not in leadership nor are they in the manifesto in any way. What is the point for a centrist to vote for Labour if Labour does not defend any interest of the centrists?