There is next to no chance that would be Yvette Cooper's platform. The bigger risk is that on June 9th they all start saying "legitimate concerns" in sync.

 

I was thinking more of Keir Starmer and other "moderates" (not to mention Blair and Mandelson themselves) who are still constantly wittering on about "hard Brexit". Not to mention that most of the vocal "moderates" on Twitter and the Labour blogosphere are people who were aghast at Corbyn supporting Article 50.

 

...and yet if Corbyn had vigorously represented the official Labour Party position on Brexit and convinced 2% of voters (or 4% of non-voters) that the Labour Party believed in a fair society for poorer people that wouldn't be served by a Brexit vote, despite what the Tory right-wing press and Brexit lying polticians were saying (including leaving the single-market), then that "Toxic" electoral stance wouldnt be an issue and we wouldnt even be having an election right now....

 

Are we really still on this patronising idea that "Labour voters" would've followed the party leader like sheep in voting Remain if only he'd been more "passionate"?

 

Ruth Davidson is an example of just how limited party leaders were on the referendum last year - she had North Korean-style personal ratings with Scottish Tory voters, and gave a very "passionate" case to Remain during a primetime TV debate - yet a majority of Scottish Tory voters still voted to Leave in spite of that. People were able to make up their own minds regardless of what the leaders of the parties they support said.

In fact, the thing that sums up most how clueless Labour "moderates" are is that they the buzzword theyre still using is that Labour needs to "modernise" - an odd conclusion when the reason for their problems is getting SLAUGHTERED with elderly voters (Labour have a small lead with all voters under 50 in an average of recent polls).

Tbh if people had just been a bit more educated on Brexit we also wouldn't have this toxic electoral stance or bloody Theresa May as possibly the most spineless PM ever, given it was only 2% and there were stories of loads of people regretting their Leave votes. I know it's speculative though and you could say that about a lot of close votes!

 

I agree about all this "modernising" crap, you hear it so much but that would only damage them more with older votes and thus in general. It's such a shame that older voters who won't be around for as long to feel the consequences enforced Brexit and have built the Tories up to such a position, but of course you can't just be like "don't let over 50s vote so Labour can win" :lol:

Current prediction by Electoral Calculus: A Tory majority of 188. Surely won't be as high as Blair's 179 in 1997.

 

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Edited May 9, 20178 yr by common sense

Tbh if people had just been a bit more educated on Brexit we also wouldn't have this toxic electoral stance or bloody Theresa May as possibly the most spineless PM ever, given it was only 2% and there were stories of loads of people regretting their Leave votes. I know it's speculative though and you could say that about a lot of close votes!

 

I agree about all this "modernising" crap, you hear it so much but that would only damage them more with older votes and thus in general. It's such a shame that older voters who won't be around for as long to feel the consequences enforced Brexit and have built the Tories up to such a position, but of course you can't just be like "don't let over 50s vote so Labour can win" :lol:

 

This has just never been supported by evidence, though. In fact, the main changes have been huge numbers of Remain voters thinking we just have to go ahead with Brexit now. There was a poll a couple of months ago which showed only 21% of people wanted Brexit to be blocked or overturned in a new referendum. 21% is the exact same % of people saying they want Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister in the latest YouGov poll, which puts into perspective just how few takers a "stop Brexit" message would have!

 

The overwhelming feeling no matter how people voted last year seems to be that you can't just override a democratic decision, and that, even if the decision last year was the wrong one, we're now so far down the road that we just have to make the best of it.

Current prediction by Electoral Calculus: A Tory majority of 188. Surely won't be as high as Blair's 179 in 1997.

 

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

 

I can't see the Lib Dems getting less seats than they already have, and I really cannot see Caroline Lucas losing her seat, unless she does something really offensive to her Brighton constituents in the next month, like eating cous cous with a spoon, or sticking a plastic bottle in the regular bin.

Are we really still on this patronising idea that "Labour voters" would've followed the party leader like sheep in voting Remain if only he'd been more "passionate"?

 

A large proportion of voters of any persuasion (and including Labour supporters) had no idea what the Labour party position was, so yes he failed abysmally. Making your own mind up depends on having access to facts and highlighting what was fairly obviously (and has turned out to be) propaganda lies by the VERY passionate Brexiters. One only has to see the way people fall for someone who appears to be strong (May) - but isn't - and someone appears to be weak and wishy-washy (Corbyn) - even if he has the policies. So, yes a large proportion of people are very much sheep and inclined to believe whatever they are fed by "strong" leaders and "strong" opinionated media.

 

Not forgiving Corbyn. Ever. Call it patronising if you like, but I would have thought the very obvious Trump/right-wing/Putin-driven propaganda (not least very good friends of the alt-right who are clearly in it together - witness Farage visiting Trump (and interfring in the US election) then Wikileak Assange, or Le Pen visiting Putin, or Trump's cabinet having multi-Putin links, or the leaders of the Leave campaign having media jobs with the likes of Murdoch - who May has visited several times already as he tries to get a vice-like grip on SKY and more opportunities for foreign manipulation of our media) demonstrates being half-arsed is not an option when so much is at stake. Like the future of a young generation.....

I can't see the Lib Dems getting less seats than they already have, and I really cannot see Caroline Lucas losing her seat, unless she does something really offensive to her Brighton constituents in the next month, like eating cous cous with a spoon, or sticking a plastic bottle in the regular bin.

 

Yeah there's no chance of those two happening! Aren't Lib Dems also not standing against Caroline Lucas to keep her in?

Yeah there's no chance of those two happening! Aren't Lib Dems also not standing against Caroline Lucas to keep her in?

Yes, the Lib Dems have decided not to contest the seat. In addition, the Labour candidate withdrew unexpectedly and has been replaced by a 20-year-old student. A cynic might think that is Labour's way of not putting too much effort into the seat.

After Brexit and this campaign I'm beginning to feel like the end of democracy wouldn't be the worst thing. The public clearly can't be trusted and if dictator May starts cracking down on the Scottish and Welsh nationalists I'll be able to seek asylum in Europe

I was thinking more of Keir Starmer and other "moderates" (not to mention Blair and Mandelson themselves) who are still constantly wittering on about "hard Brexit". Not to mention that most of the vocal "moderates" on Twitter and the Labour blogosphere are people who were aghast at Corbyn supporting Article 50.

There's a huge difference between backsliding on Brexit and opposing a Brexit that would have us leave all trade arrangements with the EU. Would a Labour Party that committed to staying in the customs union and doing everything possible to avoid leaving on WTO terms (which would immediately make most goods bought and sold with the EU 10% more expensive) be that unelectable? Because that's the substance of Keir Starmer's position. Certainly he's not someone who's pushing for Labour to oppose Brexit full stop.

 

Are we really still on this patronising idea that "Labour voters" would've followed the party leader like sheep in voting Remain if only he'd been more "passionate"?

 

Ruth Davidson is an example of just how limited party leaders were on the referendum last year - she had North Korean-style personal ratings with Scottish Tory voters, and gave a very "passionate" case to Remain during a primetime TV debate - yet a majority of Scottish Tory voters still voted to Leave in spite of that. People were able to make up their own minds regardless of what the leaders of the parties they support said.

It's a spectrum though - people aren't sheep, but plenty of party supporters that are undecided do take a lead. A majority of Scottish Tory voters voted Leave, but without Ruth Davidson being so active in favour of Remain the majority would likely have been bigger.

 

We already know from previous referendums that big news events such as joint events can make a difference, and we already know that about two thirds of Labour voters didn't know what the Labour Party's position was. 70% voted Remain, but more could have done so if, say, Corbyn had agreed to do a joint event with all Labour leaders (something he refused to do), even if he considered doing a joint event with Cameron beyond the pale. We already know from the AV referendum that the turning point in the polls for Labour voters was John Reid doing a joint appearance with Cameron, so it's not beyond imagining that it could have made a difference if Corbyn had been more explicit and co-operative with the Remain campaign, considering a swing of 600,000 voters would have swung the result.

In news so shocking it's only comparable to such alarming shocks as "the sun will rise tomorrow", "Ricky Martin comes out" & "the pope is a catholic".... the CPS have bottled it and aren't levying any charges.

In news so shocking it's only comparable to such alarming shocks as "the sun will rise tomorrow", "Ricky Martin comes out" & "the pope is a catholic".... the CPS have bottled it and aren't levying any charges.

 

 

Good. They obviously didn't break any laws. British justice at it's best.

Good. They obviously didn't break any laws. British justice at it's best.

Somebody did. The Tory party (the self-proclaimed party of law and order) had to pay a record fine.

Somebody did. The Tory party (the self-proclaimed party of law and order) had to pay a record fine.

 

Well yes but they've decided not to charge anyone with any offences. The CPS is neutral remember and does not show favouritism to any person or organisation or political party.

There's still one under investigation, and that is over the expenses relating to Thanet South aka the seat that Nigel Farage didn't win in 2015, so there still could be someone within the party for the chop before the General Election.

Well yes but they've decided not to charge anyone with any offences. The CPS is neutral remember and does not show favouritism to any person or organisation or political party.

Thanks to Mayhem's decision to call an unnecessary election, the CPS were in an almost impossible position. They were going to face cynicism and allegations of bias whatever decision they made. The decision clearly shows that electoral law needs to be changed but there is no chance of the Tories doing anything.

If there are charges in Thanet, it will be after the deadline for entering candidates. It was widely assumed with the other seats involved that any candidate implicated would have to resign, so it would be interesting to see if that was still the case when there was no opportunity for the Tories to replace them.

 

Whether they were to stand down or not, it looks like it could either be the only seat where UKIP has a hope of winning or the unlikeliest Labour gain of the election.

An alleged leaked draft of the Labour's Manifesto is being reported in both The Telegraph & The Mirror.

 

Fun, fun, fun.

The Elite do not want someone who challenges their vested interests in power.

 

This is where all these attacks stem from.