How so? We would have peace, a social democracy, and respectability - oh, and no corruption (in the government. The British state is rotten through and through.)

Every different leader faces challenges and adversities, Corbyn lost, not once but twice. Anything else is just an excuse, the definition of madness is trying something again and again until it works. Corbyn was not well liked, you can argue he was sabotaged or maybe just maybe, he sabotaged his own party so much over his political career that those people came back to bite him on the arse, karma is a bitch.

 

There is no definition of insanity, as insanity is not a clinical term. If that WERE the definition, then every weightlifter, martial artist, pianist, jogger, runner, violinist, etc, would be insane for coming back every single day after starting to expect different results from practising.

 

No. Those are game-changing paradigms within a RIGGED SYSTEM!

I will stick to the belief that lots of people didn't think Corbyn would be a good Prime Minister because he didn't look much like what they thought of as a Prime Minister which is to say a loud, larger-than-life, alpha male type. Image is a lot of things in politics, far more than it should be. Eventually it just became received wisdom that he was one of two terrible choices (urgh).

 

Long-term, it seems like he will be a blip that stemmed the tide of Labour's decline as a social democratic party before declining himself. The future is looking fairly populist, and that's something that'll be worth keeping an eye on, there's signs of left populism being successful once again in the Americas (new Peruvian president + return of Lula), if that reaches Europe as it might with interconnectivity higher than in the past, then Britain's next. Britain's got a fairly strong institutional dislike of populists and specifically leftism (which is to say the commentariat dislike them, not necessarily the people) - which is my interpretation of Michael's 'rigged system', power disliking threats to its existence and using the power it has to ensure its opinion radiates outwards into manufacturing consent, but that can change. The system can be changed. Eventually, if our generation's wealth inequalities are not resolved, some force will emerge to ensure they are, and it will be born from the legacies of Corbynism more than anywhere else.

 

It is of course, not coming from Starmer. For now, I see the easiest way back for Labour would be to lose Batley, Starmer resigns, Rayner comes in as leader and does the unity thing right this time - get both Reeves and McDonnell in the shadow cabinet if need be.

I will stick to the belief that lots of people didn't think Corbyn would be a good Prime Minister because he didn't look much like what they thought of as a Prime Minister which is to say a loud, larger-than-life, alpha male type. Image is a lot of things in politics, far more than it should be. Eventually it just became received wisdom that he was one of two terrible choices (urgh).

 

Long-term, it seems like he will be a blip that stemmed the tide of Labour's decline as a social democratic party before declining himself. The future is looking fairly populist, and that's something that'll be worth keeping an eye on, there's signs of left populism being successful once again in the Americas (new Peruvian president + return of Lula), if that reaches Europe as it might with interconnectivity higher than in the past, then Britain's next. Britain's got a fairly strong institutional dislike of populists and specifically leftism (which is to say the commentariat dislike them, not necessarily the people) - which is my interpretation of Michael's 'rigged system', power disliking threats to its existence and using the power it has to ensure its opinion radiates outwards into manufacturing consent, but that can change. The system can be changed. Eventually, if our generation's wealth inequalities are not resolved, some force will emerge to ensure they are, and it will be born from the legacies of Corbynism more than anywhere else.

 

It is of course, not coming from Starmer. For now, I see the easiest way back for Labour would be to lose Batley, Starmer resigns, Rayner comes in as leader and does the unity thing right this time - get both Reeves and McDonnell in the shadow cabinet if need be.

 

But where was the idea he was a good Prime Minister? There isn't one! Let's promote a serial back bencher who regularly ignores the whip, to be the Leader of the Party he has consistently voted against for his political career! It's a bit like my boss being promoted to CEO of the company - yeah I am sure they could do an OK job, but they don't have the experience, allies or support to get things done and will have the knives sharpening constantly.

Rejecting the dominance of party politics and having principles are not indications of being a poor Prime Minister, most legacy-defining historical figures go against the grain in some fashion.

 

While obviously he failed, reawakening a new branch of British politics and being able to get a decently sized branch of self-defining socialist MPs (that would have been more numerous in a hypothetical victory), are indications of how he changed the country without getting the office; he could have been good. There's going to be a lot more people out there who believe that he's the best PM we never had then there are for Ed Miliband - who to be clear, would also have been superior to the PMs we've had this decade and for similar 'not looking like an alpha male' reasons, also stumbled on image where he should not have.

Rejecting the dominance of party politics and having principles are not indications of being a poor Prime Minister, most legacy-defining historical figures go against the grain in some fashion.

 

While obviously he failed, reawakening a new branch of British politics and being able to get a decently sized branch of self-defining socialist MPs (that would have been more numerous in a hypothetical victory), are indications of how he changed the country without getting the office; he could have been good. There's going to be a lot more people out there who believe that he's the best PM we never had then there are for Ed Miliband - who to be clear, would also have been superior to the PMs we've had this decade and for similar 'not looking like an alpha male' reasons, also stumbled on image where he should not have.

 

There's nothing wrong with going against the grain, but he was a back bencher promoted to party leader. I don't feel voting against your party whip for most of your time as an MP is a great way to make allies. The likes of Michael can moan he was sabotaged internally- so what, it happens in politics and it happens in the real world too.

 

He could have been good, but he wasn't. A man of self-principles, which is great and I have nothing against that but he built up his support network with some horrible cronies and fell in to a lot of the traps other politicians do as well, but people would turn a blind eye because it was Corbyn and he couldn't possibly do anything wrong because he was a socialist.

Pasokification accelerating...

 

@1403303642845827078

Pasokification accelerating...

 

@1403303642845827078

 

I would argue had we had a PR voting system, the green party would have been a much bigger party years ago. I know a lot of friends/family who want to vote for them but don't due to them not being close to winning the sit in their area.

I would argue had we had a PR voting system, the green party would have been a much bigger party years ago. I know a lot of friends/family who want to vote for them but don't due to them not being close to winning the sit in their area.

 

Yeah they definitely suffer because of that. Although a lot of their MPs/councillors are fruit loops, we've got a Green coalition government and they often forget that just because they don't use cars, doesn't mean 80% of the city have access to a vehicle :lol:

Yeah they definitely suffer because of that. Although a lot of their MPs/councillors are fruit loops, we've got a Green coalition government and they often forget that just because they don't use cars, doesn't mean 80% of the city have access to a vehicle :lol:

 

I mean not much different than the current government.

I mean not much different than the current government.

 

Most councillors are fruit loops tbf.

Most councillors are fruit loops tbf.

In my time as a councillor, I disagreed with many fellow councillors but wouldn't describe any of term in that way. Most councillors want to do their best for their community; comments like that just serve to put people off standing.

Councillors imo do the dirty hard constituency work whereas anywhere further up are just PR people who stand for photos!

Loads of opinion polls out in the last couple of days with a real mix of data with leads of Tories over Labour varying from 5 to 12 points. Although the ones with very recent polling samples are more positive to Labour.

 

And good news (as Davey is doing well after Swinson debacle and Green's are in trouble atm with leadership issues) one poll has LD up to 13%! First for ages.

Another poll had the Lib Dems on 12 so there may be some movement in that direction.

Westminster voting intention:

 

CON: 39% (-4)

LAB: 35% (+3)

LDEM: 11% (+2)

GRN: 5% (-1)

 

via @Survation, 19 - 20 Jul

Chgs. w/ 13 Jul

With a socialist, Labour would be 20 points ahead!!

Westminster voting intention:

 

CON: 39% (-4)

LAB: 35% (+3)

LDEM: 11% (+2)

GRN: 5% (-1)

 

via @Survation, 19 - 20 Jul

Chgs. w/ 13 Jul

 

That's a nice significant poll - and great that the Lib Dems are getting some of the rise. Progressive Alliance should be a given.

Would rather the libs in single digits and let Labour take over 40%, get more done that way. There’s enough liberals in the Labour Party!

Would rather the libs in single digits and let Labour take over 40%, get more done that way. There’s enough liberals in the Labour Party!

 

I’m assuming a multipronged attack. In posh places like Surrey and Oxfordshire people vote Lib Dem, other parts Labour.