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.

Are you talking about Theresa May fawning over Trump and the Saudis, Dreich, or Jeremy Corbyn? Or all people in public life?

Re people using private education for their DCs 'paying twice over' for education - That argument makes no sense - I don't have DC but part of my taxes still goes towards paying for state education for other people's DCs. That's how our country works.

He doesn't realise he lost, because he is deluded, and he doesn't like to admit he is wrong.

Like many of his supporters.

As I opined on another thread
if labour (and corbyn) had won 318 seats and the Conservatives were sat on 261 seats you could bet your bottom dollar - it would be praised to the skies and how labour would save the country. they only would have to get into bed with the SNP/LD/Greens/DUP to get their giveaway manifesto through hmm

If Labour had been leading the polls by 20 points, had called the election based on arrogance of being so sure they would get a very large majority...then ended up losing the small majority they DID have, you think that people would class that as a win?! Tories had their majority. May was arrogant..it could have paid off and it didn't. Theres really no need to pretend this went the way she planned it to

It's interesting that those who are so certain Corbyn is a deluded loser have failed to engage with the fact that this is the first time in the postwar period that a Labour lurch leftwards has led to a gain in seats. I mean, you can think Corbyn is the worst person in politics and still see how that would be significant to someone who's in the left Labour faction, surely? Ie him.

If these people actually thought Corbyn was a deluded loser, they would not bother to be talking about it. Actually, they are scared by the thought he might increase further in popularity and end up being in a position to carry out all his extravagant promises. They are thus desperately seeking reassurance and hoping that if they sound disdainful enough, they will be able to convince others he's a deluded loser (whereas actually, disdain and lip curling is like a red rag to a bull).

I agree. I've read (although I can't find it now) that it was the biggest shift towards Labour in a single parliament since 1945. It would be incredibly stupid to try and write that off.

And speaking of stupidity - the Tory party has always enjoyed a reputation for competence but, after first Cameron and now May's catastrophic errors of judgement, I think that reputation is now well and truly trashed. In fact, to paraphrase Carrie Bradshaw: we need a new word for stupid.

if labour (and corbyn) had won 318 seats and the Conservatives were sat on 261 seats

It would have been a blooming miracle as the prejudice in the coverage of Jeremy Corbyn , together with the fawning over Theresa May on all the mainstream media should have resulted in a landslide victory for the Tories.

*I am sure most of us have worked with people we dislike.

Personally I don't invite them for tea to be provocative and fawn upon them at their socials / memorials.*

This.

What i'd like to compare is the increases in income tax being proposed in 1983 to Corbyn's plan, the other important thing to mention is that when the 'longest suicide note in history' was proposed, people could well remember the economic disasters of the 70s, unions running things and few going to university. We've forgotten.

The establishment hate Corbyn and all that he stands for, particularly reducing wealth inequality.

They're also shit scared of him.

Ot really wasn't just the youth vote, but if it had been, what is wrong with that? They're the future, and they know first hand how badly fucked up their present is.

I tell you what I'm scared of: that Corbyn runs up an unrecoverable debt. That our children and grandchildren end up with huge taxes to pay for his foolish and unaffordable blank cheques.

I'd like to see some public sector specialist economists explain Corbyn's policies and vomit to helping him execute them whilst maintaining macroeconomic stability. It's easy for 129 economists to sign a letter saying borrowing is good in times of downturn, but we need a better plan than that, a letter commits nobody to anything - just blame the execution of those polices.

There's lots we've forgotten. The world did not commence in the 1970s, NoLottery, so pretty ludicrous to keep harking back to it. My df keeps harking back to straight after WW2, because he remembers life immediately pre-WW2, during it and after, and remembers how shit life was before we had a Welfare State to take for granted and before shell-shocked countries started building what is now the EU because they had a vision for a less divided world. And I'm sure there were people then who harked back to something else, too. There were certainly people who whined the country could not afford everything it was being promised. Money should be saved for wars, you see, not for health and education of the masses. We have a long history of glorious warfare - it's what Kings always used taxation for....

Or kings, even.

I hark back to it because that's the last data point economists have for most of Corbyn's policies. It's a pretty important point.

Why on earth can't you, op, accept that the hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members aren't 'disciples' but people who want the real change that Corbyn's Labour Party is offering rather the watered down Tory lite version that somebody like Yvette Cooper would offer? We didn't want anyone else, that's why we voted twice for Corbyn! Also, it's not just fandom. It is the fact that a hell of a lot of people are sick of suffering under austerity while the conservatives asset strip this country and line the pockets of their donors and themselves.

Totally agree. Well said.

Why on earth can't you, op, accept that the hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members aren't 'disciples' but people who want the real change that Corbyn's Labour Party is offering rather the watered down Tory lite version that somebody like Yvette Cooper would offer?

This is fucking spades.

At least half are not pensioners. Thinking so born pre 52 are. Those born afterwards are not.

NoLottery - no it is not, it is just important to you and those who share your opinions. And amazingly, they appeared to have those opinions even before Labour came up with a manifesto at all, despite the fact our economy was entirely different, then, and is highly unlikely ever to look quite the same again (we actually had some manufacturing industries, then, for example).

That was about half baby boomers being pensioners. Sorry threads moved on.

I'm looking on from abroad.

But I think he both won and lost.

He won by increasing Labour seats, and keeping the Tories from a 100 + majority. Win in anyone's language.

He lost by not being in a position to form a Government, that's true.

But when I read about the absolute bollocking he got from the press at day one, and the inevitability of the Tories wiping the floor with him. Well yes, you could say he won the day by proving them all wrong!

And you now have a Tory Government being propped up by very unlikeable bigots the DUP, but they obviously have similar values. So there you go.

I do not know when the Golden Age was. Or, if there has ever been an age in which everyone has had a 'fair' shake. The mid-20th century was perhaps the most egalitarian the UK has ever been. But for much of that period (until 1953), everything was on ration books, unless you had enough money to buy on the black market, and rationing did not end completely until 1959 (IIRC). The arrival of the NHS in 1947 was immense progress but I know that in 1998, I interviewed a just retired GP who explained the limitations of his prescribing powers when he first practised. If you had cancer then, he could only sympathise and estimate how many months you had left. He could offer aspirin and antibiotics, and there was not yet a vaccine for polio; the pill hadn't arrived. The possibilities have exploded (as have the costs) but everything for everyone remains a pipe dream.

You won't (any of you) like this (I don't), but at some stage we are going to have to make choices about the standards and quality of service that can be universally provided, eligibility for said services, and if we can make them cradle to grave. Failure to bite this bullet is condemning future generations to destitution. Personally I wonder if we need a global pandemic.

People that share my opinions - people that want to avoid huge unemployment rates and imf bails outs?

Unemployment was 14% in 1982!

Those 2 factors aren't well known because of good management of the economy in recent times and Corbyn is moving away from that.