Maybe in the alternative, Daily Mail fueled reality that you live in.
Well you see that's why I cited some actual research into what the voting public thought, rather than put another stitch in the silly comfort blanket you've woven for yourselves.
No, I doubt that they would have. However, any potential for any kind of meaningful left wing movement must be crushed and they got a scare in 2017.
I used 'logic' in the sense of an explanation or reason, including emotional reasons. I am really struggling to understand what exactly is keeping the Tories popular, even if I accept I always would have a blind spot when it comes to seeing Tory appeal.
Johnson called a snap election because he was enjoying the usual new leader popularity bounce and could wage the entire election campaign around a single issue on which the entire Labour party and its target electorate were split.
People who invest time in ridiculing political opponents are either morons or threatened by said opponent. In the first instance, you have to be stupid to spend your life criticising something which has no impact upon you as the effort/reward ratio cannot be justified. So, for instance, you would either be a moron in this instance or in some weird way threatened by the prospect of a Labour leader who no longer leads Labour.
There was nothing usual about it. Miliband was ridiculed in the usual way, such as the way he ate a sandwich. Corbyn was subject to a sustained attack in which papers and broadcast media implanted a false perception of anti-Semitism which was never grounded in actuality. You'd have to be very disingenuous to pretend Corbyn's treatment was parallel to Miliband's.
I was not going to bother having read this part. Corbyn was unelected, not unelectable. It has little to do with emotion and more to do with reason, but then the point of this part of your post is to provoke. In other words you are being very emotional and belligerent in such a way that you would ascribe to others - seek help.
Yes. Let's perform one operation which has minimal impact upon the other for no apparent reason. Look at the actual vote. 13 million cast for Corbyn's Labour beats every other Labour leader except Blair in 1997.
A third of British people were found by the ECHR to have a perception that anti-Semitism had risen. The findings were that the increase was in fact 0.3%. That's an enormous discrepancy.
I don't even disagree with this. Some of your points are correct but you make them in a hostile way which makes me question the point of engaging. 2017 was the maximum though when you define electability you have to take into account the actual landscape within which left wing candidates and policies must function. Had Corbyn received positive or even neutral media coverage then who knows. As the entire media of the state and private enterprise was stacked against him from the start, then yeah, I'd tend to agree. But that has almost nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personal attacks, smear campaigns, and Brexit. In other words, a Corbyn-like manifesto is entirely plausible even if it means that Corbyn himself can have no hand in it. Not only plausible but in many respects the basis for the Tories' economic propaganda in 2019.
But didn't you vote Tory? Or have I misread it? They've been in power for over a decade and all of this is on them, with Brexit itself being a backbench Tory schism and the UK's health facilities and so on being essentialy fecked from ten years of cuts to every conceivable part of the public sector.
Your ideology has prevented you from seeing that the list of horrors you note has little to do with Corbyn.
Many valid points.
Yes. Let's perform one operation which has minimal impact upon the other for no apparent reason. Look at the actual vote. 13 million cast for Corbyn's Labour beats every other Labour leader except Blair in 1997.
People who invest time in ridiculing political opponents are either morons or threatened by said opponent. In the first instance, you have to be stupid to spend your life criticising something which has no impact upon you as the effort/reward ratio cannot be justified. So, for instance, you would either be a moron in this instance or in some weird way threatened by the prospect of a Labour leader who no longer leads Labour.
Personal satisfaction with a party's leader is important but not as important as Ipsos MORI contrive to make out. It obviously became highly salient in 2019 as people, aside from the momentum base and the centrist saboteurs who occupied the other pole, turned against Corbyn.
There was nothing usual about it. Miliband was ridiculed in the usual way, such as the way he ate a sandwich. Corbyn was subject to a sustained attack in which papers and broadcast media implanted a false perception of anti-Semitism which was never grounded in actuality. You'd have to be very disingenuous to pretend Corbyn's treatment was parallel to Miliband's.
I was not going to bother having read this part. Corbyn was unelected, not unelectable. It has little to do with emotion and more to do with reason, but then the point of this part of your post is to provoke. In other words you are being very emotional and belligerent in such a way that you would ascribe to others - seek help.
Why?
Because the action would harm the weakest and least able to help themselves. Rich people would pay to get round it, it would be the poor that suffer.
Yes, and with Corbyn supporters it's actually worse than that. Look at the number of posts on here that say the press are to blame for Corbyn's failure, but they're not just saying that, they're effectively saying that the press are to blame for Corbyn's failure and all their readers are too stupid to realise it. People should have learned from the disastrous Remain campaign in the referendum and afterwards, calling people stupid does not work, it has the opposite effect to that desired. So I agree, learning to use the press is a much cleverer way forward.
learning to 'use' the press or learning to do what a handful of media barons / industrialists want you to do?
as for the readership, only have to look at the selective outrage this weekend at what someone at the BBC is being paid (taxpayers money being thrown away on diversity etc), whereas hardly any anger at the hundreds of millions more that have been leeched by friends of the government in dodgy PPE contracts.
Not 'use', use.
And what do you think is the best way to deal with that? The current solution seems to be to rage continually at the injustice and imply that everyone that doesn't agree is stupid, I'm merely saying that is one approach that will not work.
Ah right, so they, clearly some of the most important people in all the land, should just shut up and take shitty wages and working conditions. Cool.
Where did I say that or even anything remotely like that?
So what should they do if they're unhappy with their wages and working conditions? Given that you wouldn't allow them strike.Where did I say that or even anything remotely like that?
Meanwhile, I answered your question about a prime minister's position on strikes, you have yet to answer mine on care workers, who are also important but have far far shittier wages and working conditions, much worse, where are all the posts about them?
Where did I say that or even anything remotely like that?
Meanwhile, I answered your question about a prime minister's position on strikes, you have yet to answer mine on care workers, who are also important but have far far shittier wages and working conditions, much worse, where are all the posts about them?
And again, where did I say they shouldn't be allowed to strike? Stop making things up man
. I said a prospective prime minister is right not to support a strike, which is not at all the same as making them illegal.You're right that most care, though by no means all, residential or at home, is provided by the private sector, but the funding is almost all public. There are people paying £3k a month from their own pocket, but not many. Yes there should be a mechanism, public ownership for a start. And voting for a party that would do that would indeed help. My question to raven was why aren't there more posts on here about their situation, but thanks for your answer, every little helps.
