to wonder why Corbyn isn't more popular considering the battering Theresa May/the Tories is getting?

[mothertruck3r]

The Tories/Theresa May have been getting an absolute kicking in the press recently (rightly deserved) and every day there seems to be a new controversy. May seems completely inefficient and doesn't seem to know whether she is coming or going (literally).

However, I am surprised that Corbyn/Labour is not polling higher. On all the polls I have looked at his rating seems to be either equal to, very slightly above or very slightly below May. He should be well out in front at this point.

I am not a Corbyn/Labour fan (although agree with a lot of their policies) but I am wondering why is he not polling better?

Are you saying that the almost universally acknowledged truism that cutting fiscal spending during a downturn slows growth is incorrect

Nope, I'm saying you need to understand the economic model that you champion and have a proper grasp of defecit and debt, which although you have moved on from a couple of months ago you're still parroting the party line without a true understanding of it.

It's simple, and cannot just be just brushed away with "low interest rates", a hint is to look at why dear leader wasn't going to reverse the majority of the benefit cuts in his manifesto.

As for picking up on the "Red white and blue" retorhic, it's ironic that you have spent months spamming the boards with "For the many not the ~~Jew~~ Few" bullshit

For the many not the ~~Jew~~ Few

I am not sure what is being said here.

You're not sure about labour's problem with antisemitism, make? Oh dear.

Mcdonnell is utterly terrifying. Oh how people like him love to spend other people's money, whilst contributing pretty much sod all themselves!

Your catchphrase makeourfuture.

The anti-Semitism that Momentum is failing to acknowledge and you're failing to acknowledge now.

For the many not the ~~Jew~~ Few

Scary

For the many not the Few

I am unaware in any untoward connection with this motto. It is a utilitarian call in the Bentamic tradition.

I would suggest those who find anything with it bothersome to take some time and examine themselves and why a call for fair distribution of resources makes you think of something sinister.

It's 'them and us' isn't it. Why not say for everyone
That sort of 'rich people are evil' narrative doesn't appeal to everyone make, believe it or not.

the vote on Article 50 is a prime example of Tories in government (only 1 Tory defied the whip)

Yes, I confess I was amazed by this; perhaps, even after all these years, I underestimated their capacity for unity when it comes right down to it

Did anyone see John McDonnell ... on The Andrew Marr Show this morning ... he was talking about all the nationalisations he was going to do. Apparently in exchange for forceably taking these companies he will give them an IOU of the value he will decide and it won't cost anyone anything because he will use the profits from these companies to pay the IOUs

And yes, I saw this; I'm afraid it was precisely the sort of renationalisation model I was expecting and no doubt some, unable to understand the consequences, will leap upon their class warrior hobbyhorses and praise it as a way of stuffing "those greedy rich shareholders"

Tragic, really

My Dh watched the Andrew Marr interview. I was upstairs but could hear him laughing! He said it was either laugh or cry.

I heard him on Today and I had to switch him off. He was so bloody rude to the female presenter.

For the many not the Few This stinks actually. When I really think about it.

If you go and call a completely unnecessary election, with the expectation that you will win 100 seats, to come out without any majority is not success. It's a bit like an athlete saying that they are going to beat a world record, coming in first but with a slow time which is nowhere near the record. Yes they've won and they get their medal, but it won't take away the sense of disappointment in not beating the record.

If you go and call a completely unnecessary election

With hindsight it does seem like an unnecessary election. But give it a few years and we might be glad we are not calling an election right in the middle of Brexit negotiations or a transitional period.

Probably damned now if you do, damned later if you don't. Just ask Gordon Brown.

No one on here is saying the Tories were successful in their last election

But even with the incredibly poor election campaign they still gained a high percentage of votes becuase people didn’t like the alternatives and are still in power and still marching forward with Brexit without opposition to this and that is with the Labour Party gaining seats and the Tories loosing seats

May could go down as the worse PM ever but she is still in power and is having no issues in dealing with the opposition which she has to be grateful for with so much fighting in her own party

But again regardless of how much the Tories are fighting when they have to they unite that is why as a political party (not a government) they are so successful

Corbyn is very quiet at the moment say what you like about Blair no one can deny he would have been arguing every point about the Brexit negotiations on tv on radio writing articles and in parliament and working to get the party united behind him because that is what a party leader needs to be doing

With hindsight it does seem like an unnecessary election.
You are really trying desperately to put a gloss on this, aren't you Julie 8008?

Gordon Brown was certainly criticised for dithering and not going for an immediate GE. This was before the Fixed Term Parliament Act, so had much more latitude in this respect. Or so it was believed, when it was thought that the Fixed Term Parliament Act prevented calling elections on the basis of opportunism. Then May called the election and found that the Opposition did not obstruct the dissolution of Parliament. Now the FTPA seems a bit of a nonsense, but that wasn't known until it was tested.

Theresa May herself said at least six times that she would not call an election. She did so wasting time and money. She had called the election only a couple of weeks after despatching the A50 notification to Brussels, when the clock had started ticking on the two years. It was still the time of the 'Brexit means Brexit and I intend to make a success of it' and the 'Red, White and Blue Brexit. There was no talk at the time about being 'in the middle of negotiations' or a 'transitional period', and it was all supposedly going to be done and dusted within the time period.

Would she have been damned if she didn't if she had waited until the 5 years were up? I doubt it. That would have been playing by the rules - but mighty inconvenient for the Tories because if they hadn't got a good Brexit deal, the election would have come just as things were shown to not be going well.

IMO it was done wholly to serve the interests of the Tory party - she believed the polls talking about a 100 seat majority, which would have been a wonderful opportunity to stick it to the Labour party, (who had by no means covered themselves in glory the previous summer with their botched attempt to rid themselves of Corbyn as a leader). We then had some piffle from May about her sensing the country was behind her, but the Opposition wasn't. In that, she completely misread the situation, the Opposition (the clue should be in the name) fell in meekly behind her in the main, but the Country said words to the effect of 'Wait a minute, we are not sure of your vision for Brexit, although we don't quite know what we want'. Not that this bothered her, she still blundered on but stitched up a deal with the DUP.

What a turn around! I shouldn't be too harsh - it enabled my constituency to boot out a Tory MP, three years sooner than we expected to have the opportunity. Bear in mind that in more than 45 years of voting, I have only once voted Labour, but I for one was utterly sick of the constant criticism which Corbyn was getting. I wonder how many other people thought like me?

it was done wholly to serve the interests of the Tory party - she believed the polls talking about a 100 seat majority

Yes it was. Instead of concentrating on our turbulent times. Instead of calls for unity.

What it showed was that these tens of thousands, soon to be hundreds and hundreds of thousands of excess deaths, andthe uncountable suffering of those in our society who need assistance most have not gone unnoticed by the people.

All for some sick, twisted ideological austerity. Choking growth and boosting debt.

@cardibach Shots an overall majority of people voted for the Conservative party
Really? 42.4% of the 70% who voted. Nowhere near an overall majority.They didn’t even get an overall majority of seats.

Yes, really.

In the 2017 General Election:
Conservatives polled 13,669,883 votes, 42.4%
Labour polled 12,878,460 votes, 40.0%

So the Conservatives won because they got more votes than the other party - otherwise commonly known as "a majority". Turnout (dire as it was) is irrelevant. Trying to play pedantic semantics with that is a bit pointless as the end result is always the same.

@TammySwansonTwo Sun I'd like to hear what you think the positives of the tories are tbh, unless you think paying a percentage less tax here or there is worth sacrificing the poor and disabled, the NHS, social housing stock and many other things?

So basically you agree with my first premise ("massive premeditated plot of hate")? Because you seem unable to comprehend the simple fact that more grown adults thought about it all (just as much as you did) and ultimately decided that the best way to serve the interests of the entire country was to vote differently to you. That is not "sacrificing" anyone or anything; and your opinion/voting preference doesn't automatically elevate you to being a better human/everyone else scum, as it appears you seem to think

I would suggest those who find anything with it bothersome to take some time and examine themselves and why a call for fair distribution of resources makes you think of something sinister.

Shudder.

Hint: it's the fair distribution of resources part that's sinister. 'Resources' have owners.

Resources' have owners

And the 1% hide theirs offshore. The same 1% whose wealth has grown and grown during times when regular people have seen their resources stagnate and fall. Tory friends. Tory policy.

Or perhaps can it be that you have internalised the rightist Social Darwinism? That the 1% are a breed apart, and do not need to contribute as regular folk have done and continue to do.

Perhaps you hold out hope that one day you will be invited to one of these white tablecloth social events with fancy cocktails and they will recognise that you too are elite and above the coarse masses?

Resources' have owners some of which were built under public ownership, but have been merrily privatised.

Poverty is not pretty. It is ugly and it dehumanises. It is natural perhaps to feel his way, to associate oneself not with the common but the extraordinary.

But make no mistakes. Those at the top are not separate from society. With their first breath they sign the same social contract as the soldier or dishwasher. To benefit from a civil society, but also to contribute.

Nor is it just a question of morality. No it isn't.

Society is more stable and peaceful when great gaps between the rich and regular folk don't exist.

I wish there was a hide poster button. Make recycling the same shite from the communist manifesto makes it virtually unreadable when everyone else is making good points, even if they don't agree with one another!

Soundbites are not convincing. Sorry.

I'm ignoring makeourfuture's descent into lunacy.

Resources' have owners some of which were built under public ownership, but have been merrily privatised.

How you feel about privatisation, and whether assets were sold off at a below market rates, is 1. irrelevant and 2. the logical outcome of the government getting in bed with its donors and partaking of opaque property auctions, which should strike fear in any conservative's (with a small c) heart.

New owners are now vested with legitimate property rights, which are enshrined in the British constitution and cannot be put asunder.