Why doesn't Corbyn understand that he lost?

[Sittinonthefloor]

I'm totally bemused! He thinks it's an absolutely 'incredible' result and that May should resign. Has no one told him that more people voted for her and the tories have more MPs? The tories ran an appalling campaign, trying to sell hugely unpopular policies, May comes across dreadfully (all twitchy and brittle) yet still more people voted for her - even with all the bribes he was offering. A decent candidate could have won it for labour, (Yvette cooper?) I know there's been a big swing, but still! Not winning against a poor opponent who's run a dreadful campaign is hardly a cause for celebration.

Teresa May is still PM.

Jeremy Corbyn isn't.

All this grumbling, hair-splitting and trying to wave the banner of Da Moral Highground is neither here, nor there.

Teresa May is still the PM.

Even if she is ousted by one of the Tory big-hitters (which I think will happen by the Autumn) we will still have a Tory PM for the next 4.5 years.

I don't actually there will be any formal agreement tbh.

DUP aren't going to vote with Corbyn are they.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good thing. But it is what it is...

Dolls Absolutely, on the numbers alone May was the only one in a position to form a government. Whereas in 2010 it would have been possible for Gordon Brown if the Lib Dems and others had been prepared to enter a coalition with Labour instead of the Tories.

I've got a funny feeling that if it had been labour with more seats but not a majority, labour voters would call it a win. But they don't see the Tories as having won 🤔🤔

Well, yes.

But that's because Labour didn't call this election whilst sitting on a majority themselves, they weren't predicted a landslide a mere few weeks ago, and they didn't do surprisingly well in the recent mayoral elections. Whereas all those things are true for the Tories. They have snatched, nay dragged defeat from the jaws of victory.

If, in that scenario, Labour had managed to win 318 seats and be the largest party, it would have been the biggest shock in politics since, well, the US electing a reality TV star as President.

If roles were genuinely reversed and Labour had managed to do this to themselves like the Tories have, no doubt there'd be Labour people still trying to spin it as a win. But like the Tories trying that now, they'd be wrong.

Even if she is ousted by one of the Tory big-hitters (which I think will happen by the Autumn) we will still have a Tory PM for the next 4.5 years.

Will we really? I admire the something of those of you who are so sure this will hold for 5 years. Optimism, maybe?

TM as PM, propped up by the DUP with a wafer thin majority was the best possible outcome for Labour IMO. If the conservatives hadn't taken the seats they did in Scotland Corbyn would have had to attempt some sort of unstable minority or rainbow coalition. Hopefully the Tories will hang on for at least six months (ideally a year or so) or so before calling the next election and hopefully by then labour will have their arse in gear ready for the next election. If the PLP rally around Corbyn and people get a chance to see just how weak this conservative government will be and how unpalatable the DUP are as partners then I really think labour can get a proper majority next time. I think this result represents a big shift. I'm quite relieved that the Tories have just about hung onto power, they still have a way to fall yet.

Is it all that amazing given the amount of spending increases Corbyn is promising? If I was a student and someone was offering me a free degree and living allowance I would feel pretty warm about them.

Similarly with pensioners - Corbyn promising massive increases in NHS spending and confining the triple lock, all paid for by somebody else.

If any of the other moderate labour leaders had promised anywhere near this level of spending they'd have romped home.

She will be lucky if she lasts 5 months.

or put it another way labour seats 2017 261 2015 232 2010 258 similar to today and brown resigned 2005 356 2001 412 1997 418 1992 271 more than today and kinnock resigned 1987 229 1983 209 michael foot resigned so comoaritively most labour leaders getting that number of seats resign

He didn't. He didn't win, but he didn't lose. Same as the Tories, only unlike the Tories he increased his personal majority significantly and increased his the party presence in the commons. For a man who had nothing but slating and lies from the press, he hasn't lost at all. He's played a blinder. Oh, and for a man constantly accused of fraternising with the enemy, he must be amused, if a tad bewildered whilst he watches those accusers doing a deal with a party set up by Ian Paisley. He's lost nothing.

Yup. All of this.

Also I wouldn't really think he would actually like to be at the helm during Brexit.

Afterall, the huge clusterfuck its going to be...Labour already get the blame for a global banking crisis. Imagine how much blame they would get for bankrupting the country and chasing jobs away (hyperbole of course, but this would be how it was sold to us)

I mean, the inevitable crash won't be the Tories fault either. But if Labour were in 'charge' during it, we would never hear the end of it.

Deal wise too...whoever does it will never be able to please anyone.

So yeah, I would say hes in a pretty decent position at the minute tbh.

Similarly with pensioners - Corbyn promising massive increases in NHS spending and confining the triple lock, all paid for by somebody else

Yes, for all the discussion about older voters being put off by the uncosted stuff In the Labour manifesto, pensioners in recent elections have hardly shown themselves disinclined to vote for goodies that someone else is funding. So it would be quite a change of direction for them suddenly to be put off by such proposals.

Yes bennett sadly May tried a couple of brave things to reduce the aging population costs and it played very badly against a cradle to grave style socialist, even if we can't bloody afford it.

And people (like me) who would have voted lib dem but didn't want that to strengthen Corbyn, even though I don't like may either.

I doubt many people like that exist tbh. You may just be one of a kind votewise.

For someone to go from their usual very left choice, to voting far right..all because they dislike the leader of another left leaning party...well thats just something else

For someone to go from their usual very left choice, to voting far right..all because they dislike the leader of another left leaning party
Actually, I did this, and so did my husband. I'd never voted Tory before. I would have liked to vote Labour, and would have, if it had been David Milliband, or Chukka, for example, assuming their numbers worked. I also know lots of people in their 50s who normally vote Labour, who were thinking of voting for LibDems... but I guess they voted Tory too. I think you really underestimate how much some of us hate the uncosted policies of Corbyn, because we don't believe it would work.

I think it's more that people see what a logic fail it is to vote Tory because you're unhappy Labour's numbers don't add up quiteunfitbit. After all, the IFS basically said both parties were bullshitting.

I mean, there are probably a fair few people who did it, because human beings are strange, but if you wanted properly costed policies you weren't getting them from TM and co.

I really think labour can get a proper majority next time.

I don't. You have to remember that Tories ran a really poor campaign. Infact for some the worst in decades, yet still are the biggest party.

Replace May with a moderate Tory and imo it would be 'game on'.

I think you really underestimate how much some of us hate the uncosted policies of Corbyn, because we don't believe it would work
So you really did think Corbyn was a threat then? You thought he had a chance of getting a majority? Enough of a chance to persuade you to vote right rather than left...despite voting left usually.

Thats more optimistic than Labour supporters

I find it bizarre that you can say his policies are uncosted, then vote for May whos manifesto was completely uncosted.

'Yes bennett sadly May tried a couple of brave things to reduce the aging population costs and it played very badly against a cradle to grave style socialist, even if we can't bloody afford it.' you realise basing how much someone pays to their social care depending on assets is left wing not right wing ?

Labour have taken Kensington and Chelsea! That's a Brexit protest vote right there. Got to be.

Not Kensington and Chelsea (that's a London borough), just Kensington.

Bloody amazing.

But how would the Tories get a moderate leader? They would need to hold a vote. The last time they ended up leaderless they descended into awful infighting (which labour didn't capitalise on because they were too busy gunning for Corbyn) and almost elected Leadsom. I'm feeling very optimistic. There's a huge amount that could go wrong for the conservatives. They might get through the next few years unscathed but I think it's unlikely.

think you really underestimate how much some of us hate the uncosted policies of Corbyn, because we don't believe it would work.

But you were quite happy to vote for the Conservatives' uncosted policies?

In my view, Cameron and the Tories caused this, with the Brexit vote, and they should sort out the mess. Brexit will be a disaster, and whoever handles Brexit won't be elected for the foreseeable future.

Actually, I liked May's policy re paying for care from people's homes. People with houses can subsidise those who have no money. What's not to like? If she'd had a big enough majority, this left-wing policy might have been adopted. I'm happy for my home to be used to pay for my care, if it helps those who don't have enough money to afford proper care themselves.

262 seats.