But the thing is that Prime Ministers who take over in mid-term, without a general election, seem to have a particular advantage at first. They get the best of both worlds, because they get all the authority that being PM and going to summits with Angela Merkel provides, but, because they haven't (yet) been seen grubbing for votes in general elections, they're also viewed as not being "typical politicians" who are saying things to protect their position - essentially they get seen as like benevolent and un-corrupt monarchs. But that will change when a general election is coming, because, whatever her other strengths, the very fact she'll be competing in a campaign will drag her much more into the "typical politician" sphere than she is right now (even if she doesn't implode as spectacularly as Brown, there's also the example of John Major, whose honeymoon polling got close to 50% - well above the actual result in the '92 election).

This, actually, is part of the reason I think she'll do quite well - because I think she'll be good at avoiding looking like a typical politician (unless she goes ahead and calls that snap election for electoral advantage without a government confidence issue being at stake).

 

She 'panders' (to whatever extent you can call it that, given I think she genuinely believes it) to popular issues in ways that the public isn't used to being pandered to, because politicians haven't pulled those levers in a long time: grammar schools, actually going all out to cut immigration, cutting down on cronyism and doing something about the House of Lords, generally favouring social order and stable society over unfettered capitalism. She's generally been profiled as someone who doesn't let go of an issue until she's achieved the goal, which is the kind of thing that I can imagine earning grudging respect - and, crucially, would also add to a view that she isn't typical given it's not a trait most people would ascribe to the last few Prime Ministers.

 

The difficulty it probably raises is that a lot of those policy objectives and aims have been left well alone for good reason - because they're counterproductive or have big knock-on effects that are fairly costly. It will be interesting to see if those kinds of policies have an impact on her popularity when the negative consequences come out, in the long-term.

Also, why do you say that Labour's results in 2015 in London were better than in 2014?

Higher percentage of the vote and bigger swing compared with 2010 between the two elections.

Higher percentage of the vote and bigger swing compared with 2010 between the two elections.

 

They got a higher share of the vote in 2015 than in the European elections EVERYWHERE (except Scotland) - 24% across the UK in the 2014 Euros, compared to 30% in the general election. Their performance in London relative to the rest of the UK was pretty much the same both years (they did 12% better in London than in the rest of the UK in 2014, and 13% better in London in 2015).

 

I really don't think Labour's performance in London in 2015 was particularly exceptional, over and above the long-term trend to Labour in London which was shown in both 2010 (where they held onto more marginal seats than they did elsewhere) and in the 2014 elections. Thus, since 2015 wasn't exceptional, it's pretty damning Sadiq Khan failed to perform any better than that 2015 baseline, whereas Corbyn atleast managed to make some modest (albeit unspectacular) progress on the 2015 baseline in the elections he was responsible for, in generally much more unfriendly territory than London.

Edited August 23, 20168 yr by Danny

Anyway, as somebody who didn't even vote for Corbyn last year (or even gave him my 2nd preference), I've now cast my vote for him this time.

 

Not because he's remotely surpassed my expectations, but because the MPs have proven even more politically inept, and generally much worse human-beings, than I would've guessed a year ago. The outright lies from some of them about "death threats" and "John McDonnell broke into my office" and "Corbyn fired me because I'm black" were the last straw.

Edited August 23, 20168 yr by Danny

They got a higher share of the vote in 2015 than in the European elections EVERYWHERE (except Scotland) - 24% across the UK in the 2014 Euros, compared to 30% in the general election. Their performance in London relative to the rest of the UK was pretty much the same both years (they did 12% better in London than in the rest of the UK in 2014, and 13% better in London in 2015).

 

I really don't think Labour's performance in London in 2015 was particularly exceptional, over and above the long-term trend to Labour in London which was shown in both 2010 (where they held onto more marginal seats than they did elsewhere) and in the 2014 elections. Thus, since 2015 wasn't exceptional, it's pretty damning Sadiq Khan failed to perform any better than that 2015 baseline, whereas Corbyn atleast managed to make some modest (albeit unspectacular) progress on the 2015 baseline in the elections he was responsible for, in generally much more unfriendly territory than London.

Council elections in London, not Euros. I didn't count Euros as FPTP vs PR is an unfair comparison. But the council swing from 2010 to 2014 was a 4.5% swing to 36%, compared with an 8% swing for the general election to 44% (or thereabouts IIRC)

"Corbyn fired me because I'm black" were the last straw.

That isn't Chi Onwurah's claim - as you would know if you read her article/had read it but weren't being obtuse. She said that any major company that treated her and Thangam Debbonaire the way they had been done, coincidentally identically, as two of the very few BAME women in the PLP, would have been investigated for professional misconduct, with racial discrimination investigated as well. And they would have done. Most companies would be mortified to be accused of racism, but plenty would still likely be capable of an action which looked exactly like it couldn't tell two black women apart and had gotten them mixed up in a decision with huge professional repercussions.

 

Nonetheless, that Chi is one of the MPs going vocal with such criticisms shows exactly how shatteringly incapable Corbyn is of operating as a remotely functioning leader. She is the epitome of "won't say boo to a goose, loyalty to the leader first, don't rock the boat" soft leftism (hell, probably even a bit lefter than that). She is nobody's idea of a Blairite stooge trying an 'evil stitch-up'. She is exactly the type of MP that really tried to make it work with Corbyn. And yet he refused to meet her, refused to co-ordinate with her, trod all over her work, gave away half her job without even speaking to or calling her, and treats her as non-existent. If Corbyn can't make it work with someone like Chi Onwurah, it is difficult to think who he *could* make it work with who he didn't agree with chapter and verse.

 

That kind of leader isn't going to make it through a general election alive. I don't know what planet you're on that you think anybody who can't even command the confidence of the soft elements of their party who try to make it work with them is going to be the figure best placed to get the least bad result.

There's an interesting article in The Spectator from an anonymous Labour supporter as to every single flaw of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. A lot of it is stuff that I was already aware of, but it's amazing to read it all in full. Not that any of it will change the views of any of the devout Corbynistas, mind.

Dugdale's record thus far is to fall to 3rd in Holyrood when days before the election she was confident of being biggest party. Basically anything she says, do the opposite.

 

 

 

Has everyone seen the Virgin Trains debacle?! Neither party are looking particularly great in the debate, although most of the critics are only mouthing off to their own echo chambers.

I wouldn't say that everyone has suffered as a result of "The Train Thing" (I refuse to use that suffix) - Virgin Trains have just been gifted millions in free publicity. I can almost imagine the ad now - Choose Virgin Trains, the train where you're guaranteed a seat, because of all the twits that refuse to take one.

There's an interesting article in The Spectator from an anonymous Labour supporter as to every single flaw of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. A lot of it is stuff that I was already aware of, but it's amazing to read it all in full. Not that any of it will change the views of any of the devout Corbynistas, mind.

 

It's all pretty damning and well-documented fact. I just dont understand how intelligent people who wish to change the world for the better are utterly blinkered into believing that none of the facts matter and that Corbyn is anything other than a snivelling, useless, two-faced, terrorist-supporting, hypocrite with a calm demeanor. Being quietly-spoken does not mean you are a wonderful human being in any way. Supporting SOME good causes (end of Right To Buy, rail nationalisation) does not forgive your past and current behaviour. What you DO and have done is what you should be judged on, and he's a sorry excuse for a man determined to wreck the Labour Party, despite having seen his personal heroes (who were much less extreme than he) do exactly the same in the 80's. He has never shown any personal loyalty to his colleagues, or to the safety of his constituents in the face of his warped idealism.

 

 

I wouldn't say that everyone has suffered as a result of "The Train Thing" (I refuse to use that suffix) - Virgin Trains have just been gifted millions in free publicity. I can almost imagine the ad now - Choose Virgin Trains, the train where you're guaranteed a seat, because of all the twits that refuse to take one.

 

has no-one heard of all the munchkins that were on board that day? All those suitcases had reserved seats, they needed to be on the seat instead of the luggage rack or floor! Peopel never ever EVER try to grab some personal space by putting their luggage on the window space and sitting on the aisle seat. No, never happens. Not ever. And if they hypothetically did do that and were asked to move the luggage so someone over the age of retirement can have a seat, they would obviously say "Piss off" because they have a right to have 2 seats and no-one ever asks them to move the case please.

 

Anyone who has ever travelled on a crowded train (and yes they do get crowded - they also get crowded on nationalised rail services too, not that I'm in any way suggesting one is better than the other, I like nationalised rail services) knows the ground rules. Perhaps Corbyn just doesn't know how to ask anyone to do something, he's used to lackeys just bending over at his bidding, or he's too important...

Dugdale's record thus far is to fall to 3rd in Holyrood when days before the election she was confident of being biggest party. Basically anything she says, do the opposite.

Again, given the entire point of the Scottish manifesto was to disprove the idea in Labour circles that SNP success was based on them being a radical left wing alternative (which it did resoundingly), I'm not sure that's reason to dismiss her appeal to go away from that politics. It's like saying 'how can we trust the burns victim to tell us how to avoid the fire?'. They have something to say about it. They know where the fire is.

Good to see corbyn tweeting his best wishes to brighton pride. He is less forthcoming on requested responses to the execution of a 19 year old in iran for being gay. He was of course an iran regime tv paid contributor for years so i assume hes both in favour of gays being executed and yet simultaneously trying to get the british gay vote by avoiding the subject as he always does when it might lose him his foreign supporters, frequently those organisations not overly bothered about killing innocents.

 

He will get my vote when hell stops freezing over and thaws out his cold dead hypocritical heart.

People - Mr Corbyn, over the past few days, your links to an Iranian state broadcaster, Press TV, has been called in to question, and you have failed to give a satisfactory answer to the question. You took over £20,000 in fees from them over a 2 year period, which is more than many of the working families you claim to care about take home, and during the time you were a presenter on their propaganda network, many homosexuals were put to death, and there is no evidence to suggest you challenged this whilst working for them, which flies directly in the face of your claims to care about LBGT rights. Now, no more dodging the question Corbyn, we want honest answers regarding this, and nothing else. We demand a proper explanation!

 

Jezza - Umm...after-work drinks are sexist!

 

Half the people - yay, that's right! Women with children are seriously disadvantaged by these events!

 

Another half of people - are you kidding, Jeremy? That's a ridiculous thing to say!

 

*Back and forth for the whole day, until*

 

Lone person - hey wait a minute Corbyn, are you once again trying to distract us from the very serious allegations regarding Press TV by once again changing the subject to one that's likely to get people talking intensely, in the hope that people will stop bringing up your serious failings in the past? Now for the final time we want a straight answer, explain why you accepted money from...

 

The people - shut it you. We're all talking about a serious issue here.

 

Corbyn - he he he.

not to mention his latest brainwave headline-attempt-grabber, the assurance that he's going to set up high-speed broadband in the country for everyone. He doesn't say how it's going to be paid for, who'll do the work, how much connecting that pub on the top of the Pennines will cost, nor does he mention his invention of secure on-line personal cards is a rewrite of the ID Card fiasco which down very well, as I recall.

 

Presumably his mates in Moscow, the Middle East will assure everyone all of their citizens wont get past any online ID fraud blocks, just as the military net links are utterly totally secure from other government attacks.

 

I wonder why he has no comment on Syria? personally conflicted? well, they deny women rights and kill gays (IS) just like Iran, Russia is taking action (no criticism there then) and so are other countries (Hi UK & USA).

 

It's a good thing we have an honest straight-talking caring leader of the Labour Party to slag off those selfish fellow MP's who only joined parliament for their own interest, not like saintly Jezza who's stuck to his principles throughout: he's always hated his fellow MP's since Kinnock booted out his bestest mates; he's always said you have to fight (as in kill innocent people) to get political justice; and he's always loved allotments, drain covers and empty train rides...

 

wattaman!

not to mention his latest brainwave headline-attempt-grabber, the assurance that he's going to set up high-speed broadband in the country for everyone. He doesn't say how it's going to be paid for, who'll do the work, how much connecting that pub on the top of the Pennines will cost, nor does he mention his invention of secure on-line personal cards is a rewrite of the ID Card fiasco which down very well, as I recall.

It'll come from the same magic money tree as all that money the Leave campaigners promised would be spent on all sorts of wonderful things.

There's also already plans to roll out superfast broadband across the whole country, it's just going rather too slowly. If Jez could have acknowledged that and set out a decent plan on how to improve it I might have been impressed. As it is, it just comes across like he's making it up on the fly.

 

Don't even get me started on this after-work drinks fiasco.

There's also already plans to roll out superfast broadband across the whole country, it's just going rather too slowly. If Jez could have acknowledged that and set out a decent plan on how to improve it I might have been impressed. As it is, it just comes across like he's making it up on the fly.

 

Don't even get me started on this after-work drinks fiasco.

 

Another thing where Labour MPs have been flat-out lying (Corbyn never said he wanted to ban after-works drinks), to go with their lies about racism/sexism/break-ins/death threats/etc.

Edited September 4, 20168 yr by Danny

Another thing where Labour MPs have been flat-out lying (Corbyn never said he wanted to ban after-works drinks), to go with their lies about racism/sexism/break-ins/death threats/etc.

 

Please go into the detail about what lies MPs have been telling about those issues. Because as far as I am aware -

 

- Labour does have a racism problem, particularly in anti-Semitism since Corbyn took over as leader

- Labour does have a sexism problem, with female MPs being targeted with abuse from Corbynistas (with some also being mixed with point 1, like Ruth Smeeth)

- There have been death threats made against MPs, including the MP mentioned in point 2, and it as got to the point that at least one MP has installed a panic room for safety. And let's not forget that it's barely been three months since an MP was murdered, so I'm in mind to take any death threats against elected representatives reasonably seriously.

So, effectively, Corbyn is saying "Don't vote for those lying gits". Not a terribly clever way of winning an election and keeping yourself from having to stand down immediately afterwards.

 

I've read some of those heartfelt "lies". He is just a terrible leader and won't admit it because his grassroots supporters (new to politics or kicked out previously) are blindly in love.

 

He's a terrorist sympathiser, has no respect for human rights in awful regimes, has never supported any leader of his party since Michael Foot took Labour down trying to keep the party extremes together (failed) and supported policies which made Labour unelectable and gave us Thatcherism and everything that that has led to since.

 

He's learnt nothing from his own parliamentary history and is just repeating the whole scenario again. Has no coherent, financed policies. Has no parliamentary support. Refuses to engage with the media and general public. Appears quite happily on Eastern and Middle Eastern TV. Does that strike any Corbynistas as a bit strange? Or is it a case of Jezza says bend over, followers say "how far"?

 

I suggest a quick viewing of The Life Of Brian*.

 

(* He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy)