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.

i don't know how Corbyn escaped with more scrutiny on his policies - the corporation tax rise is extremely ill advised to coincide with brexit and the min wage most economists think may cause unemployment and hours cuts.

People in Britain have forgotten but 1 in 4 young people are jobless in the EU - do we want a jobless future?

That's why we moved away from these old style central control of economic lever policies, because they weren't working for young people.

I understand people are voting for a dream, but some of it could turn into a nightmare.

i don't know how Corbyn escaped with more scrutiny on his policies

Because the policy was to attack him on Trident and terrorism.

Only an utter moron would think leaving with no deal is a good idea. But some morons are obsessed with sticking two fingers up to Europe above all else.

i wonder if the lib dem vote share WILL increase as it becomes clearer that labour and conservative offerings both have us out the single market.

Also, i think it makes it impossible for Ruth Davidson to take a bigger role - she can't deliver Scotland out of the single market.

The real question is whether we actually have a legitimate government right now.

The Lib Dems need to knife Farron and put Cable in charge - Farron was wot lost it big time for them, nobody knew who he was.

And yes, they needed to make it MUCH plainer that both main parties support Leave - so many deluded people on my Facebook seemed to have got it in their heads that Labour was anti-Brexit. It also needs to be drummed home that renationalising the railways and other Labour manifesto pledges can only be done outside EU law, so if you want these for the country then you have to accept they comes with Brexit

Only an utter moron would think leaving with no deal is a good idea.

Not a question of it being a good idea but whether it turns out to be the only option. That will largely be dictated by the other member countries and whether we offer enough money!

It would be irresponsible government not to have a plan for that.

I was always pro Europe until Brussels made it clear there could be no end to FOM or a cap on immigration while we stayed in. And the end of FOM means leaving the single market. May and Davis have been realistic and clear about that all along which I respect.

I agree lala, personally I like Farron and feel his voting record was fine but he got so much bad press, most people clearly didn't warm to him. Cable is a good choice for them.

I foolishly didn't pay much attention to Brexit because both parties were offering similar but the rhetoric on Brexit coming from labour was much more pro soft brexit - the fact that this position is a contradiction with FOM wasn't explored properly.

NoLotteryWinYet - I think the huge volume of supporters turning up at JC's rallies and the momentum his campaign had coupled with the focus on TM's terrible campaign meant that JC's manifesto went largely unquestioned. I could be wrong, but I don't recall JC taking any questions from journalists at these rallies. He just stood there with a microphone repeating the freebies he was handing out.

Cuppaoftea - I agree it will be very interesting to see how Labour handle the Brexit issue. They kept their feet in both camps during the campaign and the only interviewer who questioned this was Jason Farrell from Sky news and that was only once.

Corbyn has gone from "totally unelectable laughing stock" to "a very credible contender for the next election."

In politics, that is a blinding success. Politics is a long game, it's all about winning the war, not the battle.

i do think JC's terrorist/trotskyist links are a part of the picture - the attack should've been more on his policies though and why we moved away from 70s style big state intervention.

My Dad who votes lib dem now said he'd never vote for JC over the IRA issue - he lived and worked in London in the 70s/80s/90s.

So that part of the electorate who remember JC in the 80s are already convinced not to vote for him, and the part that don't remember and don't agree are probably just thinking this is slander.

It would be irresponsible government not to have a plan for that

The DUP/Tory regime have no Brexit plan.

there was nowhere near enough attention to the boring old style economics and WHY that has been the consensus for so long. Economic liberalism has some clear failures - but there are some clear wins too and people need to understand it better.

It ought to be possible to point to the dreadful, life destroying levels of youth unemployment in the eurozone and draw parallels with policies that Corbyn has in his manifesto.

NoLotteryWinYet - exactly

I know plenty of people over the age of 50 who are more committed to voting for JC than they have been for any other Labour politician for over 20 years.

He's just been elected for his ninth parliamentary term. Won two leadership elections.

That's not bad for someone who is 'unelectable' I would say.

I said all along that I thought people were really saying 'I'm not voting for him' when they said unelectable.

Do I think it's impressive that seniors who are continuing to benefit from JC's commitment to a tory policy to win pensioner votes, the triple lock, and his promised spending on health and social care are voting for his platform? No.

We should be grilling JC on how the programme of transformation looks from a tax and spend perspective 10, 15 years down the line.

Christinrossetti - he won 2 leadership elections because supporters of the group Momentum joined the Labour party in huge numbers to make sure he got in. He didn't win because of the overwhelming support of the PLP. They were desperate to get rid of him.

I know now that some Labour MPs are now coming back with him but a lot are not. It will be interesting to see how long his popularity lasts.

the next focus will be on economics to some extent - Corbyn interviewed with Marr is saying voters are rejecting the failures of economic liberalism.

That's a statement open to a lot of debate - because the 1970s command policies he favours were also rejected because they were failing a lot of people and there are modern echos with crazily high youth unemployment in the Eurozone.

i wonder if the lib dem vote share WILL increase as it becomes clearer that labour and conservative offerings both have us out the single market.

I think it will.

I am seeing that there are quite a few people voted Labour or lent Labour their vote thinking that they were either anti Brexit or for SM if we were to leave.

That isn't true as the manifesto shows so if they were to go again them they may not vote that way again.

he won 2 leadership elections because supporters of the group Momentum joined the Labour party in huge numbers to make sure he got in.

Do you know what Momentum is thiscant? Because this isn't what happened. And if you knew what Momentum was you'd know why it's ridiculous to think it happened this way round.

He won two leadership elections because the vast majority of the Labour party members voted for him. That's how it works.

All the more remarkable given the undermining, deriding and scorn poured towards him by the PLP and media really, when you think about it.

I agree that it would be helpful to look more closely at the economic policies in the Labour manifesto. The problem I find, is that as soon as the Labour Manifesto is mentioned people start going on about 'magic money trees' and 'freebies' and debate doesn't get very far.

Austerity is an ideologically driven, proven to be flawed economic model. It's proven to be incredibly damaging to the majority of people in the UK. Anyone who has children in state schools, uses the NHS, benefits from jobs done by local councils eg street sweeping, park maintenance, wants to be able to afford somewhere to live and was born after 1990 for example. Oh, and borrowing and the deficit are increasing every month.

It's very necessary that attention and consideration is given to alternative models which are what the Labour Manifesto is advocating. I wish the right would properly engage with it.

^^The real question is whether we actually have a legitimate government right now. Bless you Make still plugging away. Of course it's legitimate.

It's such a marker of how far right the UK has moved since the 1970s when things like the fifth richest country in the world being committed to ensure that all its citizens are housed, educated and able to access health care are seen as 'freebies' rather than markers of a decent, civilised society.

Um, I don't think we do iseenodust. Seems that TM hasn't managed to consolidate a deal with the DUP and the Queen's Speech may be delayed.