Spoony
The People's President
ok isabel oakeshott lost me, the first 20 mins she walk talking sense, she has reverted to name calling
Aye. Playground stuff from her.
ok isabel oakeshott lost me, the first 20 mins she walk talking sense, she has reverted to name calling
Yeah, every person who spoke (or 4/5) seemed like complete tossers.Biggest cheers of the night was for Labour winning Kensington! The main problem was that it seemed to be full of morons.
i disagree, one of corbyns streaghs is he has just come out and talked and seen genuine, bringing in some one who will twist & spin is just gonna pollute that!
plus as engaging as he has been tonight he is still a prick
you've got a point their, i've got assume as the negotiations start in 9 days that she is read as she has been working on it for 9 months.Why do you think she's prepared though? I mean what evidence of that is there? That she was so busy on preparation she had to duck out of debates?
Lets not forget all the hard work the civil service are actually doing and will so throughout the Brexit process. May does not do the leg work
Corbyn is likeable for sure but the reasons why Labour lost this election in non brutal fashion also include a manifesto that was promised the earth but was proven to be total bollocks, the collapse of the UKIP vote and a truly pathetic campaign from the Tories. If Corbyn's Labour want to actually get close to getting in power they do need to appeal to a broader audience.
Shami Chakrabarti is the third worst Labour voice on the panel.
Many would argue the positivity of the manifesto led to the Labour resurgence.
I'm still feckin shocked, all the moaning about brexit and the same shit gets the most votes, unreal. I guess you really do get the govt you deserve.
5 minutes to form a coalition, we had our GE in March, still no Govt.
I actually see the result as a big disappointment for Labour, I expected an overall win either way.
@Paul the Wolf. did your brexit hating friends back home still vote Tory?
It was still fantasy. I said at that the time they released it that it was designed to retain control of the Labour Party from a side that had accepted defeat.
They wouldn't have run with such fanciful policies if they really thought they could win a majority.
i personally think it was the positivity of Corbyn not the positivity of the manifestoMany would argue the positivity of the manifesto led to the Labour resurgence.
i personally think it was the positivity of Corbyn not the positivity of the manifesto
But you're arguing that the manifesto is part of the reason Labour lost the election when it's quite clear that it wasn't; whatever our opinions are on it, there's a sense that it helped lead to a certain resurgence, giving the party a sense of purpose to an extent.
Naturally I do think the party requires a broad appeal and they largely benefited from May being absolutely awful, but at the same time Corbyn won over 12m votes. There's clearly a lot of appeal there and it's not out of the realms of possibility he could be electable now.
right now, looking at the rest of that party, i just don't think it is practical for her to go.
for all Mays faults, and god i hate the woman, she does seem like the only one vaguely ready to start these negotiations any time soon
it did, but i also think the amount of things he promised hurt him and made people question his validity.Corbyn's campaign was inherently related to what he was promising in the manifesto though.
FFS, Madness. More poison please!Didn't ask them this time although they mainly live in safe Tory seats so wouldn't make a lot of difference.
My sister, who voted for Brexit, voted Tory for the first time in her life and finally had an MP elected that she voted for
It's all madness.
Ah, sweet irony.
Didn't ask them this time although they mainly live in safe Tory seats so wouldn't make a lot of difference.
My sister, who voted for Brexit, voted Tory for the first time in her life and finally had an MP elected that she voted for
It's all madness.
People arguing Labour needs a broader appeal are missing the point entirely. The reason Labour failed so miserably in 2015 was because of the perception that there wasn't much difference between the two major parties, and people went with the incumbent over an awkward opposition leader few people cared for.
To regain its identity, Labour had to set out a manifesto diametrically opposed to the Tories' vision. That meant a larger state, more NHS funding, student tuition fees, triple lock, etc. The point was to demonstrate the difference between choices. Vote Tory, get A. Vote Labour get B (instead of 2015 when A and B seemed awfully similar). Labour has been tainted by the Blairite faction ever since Iraq. Only now is it starting to recover, and that was a direct consequence of moving to the left in order to show actual opposition. In the future the party can encompass more of a centrist outlook, but to have done so for this election would have been stupid beyond belief and just replicated the same mistakes of 2015.
disown her
Are they like Bob Dylan's the basement tapes?Diana Tapes. Beyond caricature.
I agree with him too, but I don't think criticism of the manifesto is right. It was an astute political choice which gave the electorate a clear distinction between two parties. It was costed, though there are problems with that costing, and you can debate its fiscal pragmatism, and as a result it seemed viable. Whether or not it would have been doesn't matter, because it recaptured Labour's social identity and the public went for it.I was agreeing with Campbell in terms of going forward.
Diana Tapes. Beyond caricature.