Do you want to discuss boring politics? (34 Viewers)

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
And Corbyn still got more votes… both times 😉

And lost both times, although thick twats like Richard Burgon seemed to struggle with that concept.

Nearly winning doesn't change lives for the better.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
And lost both times, although thick twats like Richard Burgon seemed to struggle with that concept.

Nearly winning doesn't change lives for the better.
This is correct, but 2017 Corbyn had me engaged and believing in a politician like I haven’t come close to before or since. Just by simply displaying an energetic belief in progressive causes.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
And that's before you even get to Corbyn's Labour being an absolute disaster & completely unelectable getting 12,877,918 vote (40%) and 10,269,051 (32.1%) compared to Starmer's Labour being celebrated as the greatest triumph ever seen with 9,686,329 (33.7%)

Well yeah that's literally it.

Starmer's was a great campaign because they won a huge majority.

Corbyn's was awful because they got drubbed.

Again, in 2017 they won big victories in safe seats. You don't get any extra prizes for that.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
This is correct, but 2017 Corbyn had me engaged and believing in a politician like I haven’t come close to before or since. Just by simply displaying an energetic belief in progressive causes.
Fair enough. The other way around for me. Despite being a lifelong labour member he turned me off. I could never see him being PM. Some of the truly dreadful people he surrounded himself with didn't help.

More importantly, the electorate couldn't see him as PM either.

EDIT: it became all about Corbyn rather than the Labour Party.
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
Immigration has not overwhelmed services or ability to maintain them, austerity has. The users of the most expensive public services are predominantly elderly people.
Are you saying that Immigration has had absolutely no effect ? it is running at well over 500k per year for the last few years when previously it was low tens of thousands.
We should be able to let several million migrants under 40 per year and it would have little impact, by your logic. And that would help boost the economy 😀
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Immigration has not overwhelmed services or ability to maintain them, austerity has. The users of the most expensive public services are predominantly elderly people.

It can be a combination of things. Population has grown by 5m in the past 14 years so of course that’s had an impact. Even if everyone’s net contributors we all know we don’t build anything quickly in this country. Throw in austerity and a pandemic (with regard to nhs).

Peoples dissatisfaction with the nhs plummeted after the pandemic (unsurprisingly). Before that it was ok ish even with higher migration numbers and austerity 🤷‍♂️ ECF13EC0-7EAE-4BC4-A56E-B2DDDB2524A2.jpeg
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Fair enough. The other way around for me. Despite being a lifelong labour member he turned me off. I could never see him being PM. Some of the truly dreadful people he surrounded himself with didn't help.

More importantly, the electorate couldn't see him as PM either.
I feel the way about Starmer that you did about Corbyn. I mostly just want a leader who stops being ashamed of the policies and ideas that would benefit and be popular with more people than not.

I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Western though.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Literally all that matters is winning the election, by as large a margin as possible, and that's exactly what they've done.

How can a huge majority be anything other than a brilliant result, to suggest anything else is just saltiness.
Absolutely no saltiness from me. I was expecting the result in terms of number of seats, but I was also expect8ng a huge swing from Conservative to Labour which simply didn’t happen. people are leaving a laugh ing emoji against my post, but the numbers in terms of votes don’t lie.

It’s going to have to be a pretty remarkable 5 years of Labour rule to get voters to switch from Reform to Labour rather than back to Conservative. A second terms certainly isn’t guaranteed, without rigging the electorate that is.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Go Google to try and find the total for greens vote Actual number, nothing, seats yes.
Third choice Reform total plastered everywhere, not relevant to my question!!
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
That's not how things work.

A large majority is traditionally the worst outcome for any party. As weird as that seems.

With no effective opposition, there are no "checks or balances" in the house of commons. The party with the massive majority doesn't need to unite and eventually starts to fragment, making it impossible to lead and ends up in fragmentation.

That's exactly what we've seen in the Conservative party since they won their massive majority in 2019.

I'd also point out that Labour won their landslide victory with only 35% of the vote.
So that means that 65% of the electorate voted against them, and didn't want them in office.

This inevitably will mean that those 65% will feel disengaged with the Labour party. That doesn't bode well for an incoming government, so I'd expect Starmers problems have only just started.
It doesn’t mean that 65% of the electorate voted against them, 65% of those who voted, voted against them.

It actually means that 80% of the electorate didn’t vote for them.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
It doesn’t mean that 65% of the electorate voted against them, 65% of those who voted, voted against them.

It actually means that 80% of the electorate didn’t vote for them.

Sounding very Remainer in 2016 right now 😂
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
My last job was working from home and it was pretty shocking to me how many people in my area are around in the day and clearly not working, and not just those that are retired. And they definately weren't people who were working from home as they were never working!

Remember looking up some stats and 1 in 4 working age people don't work which is pretty crazy when there's basically full employment and plenty of sectors with staff shortages.
Are they on benefits? If so, should they be?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Absolutely no saltiness from me. I was expecting the result in terms of number of seats, but I was also expect8ng a huge swing from Conservative to Labour which simply didn’t happen. people are leaving a laugh ing emoji against my post, but the numbers in terms of votes don’t lie.

It’s going to have to be a pretty remarkable 5 years of Labour rule to get voters to switch from Reform to Labour rather than back to Conservative. A second terms certainly isn’t guaranteed, without rigging the electorate that is.
You were pretty close to making a coherent point until you finished with this. Another unwanted import from the US
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top