Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

Filo25 wrote: »

The only way I can see this parliament lasting 5 years is if the polls look pretty desperate for the Tories throughout.

The Tories are used to coalition government - having been in coalition with the LibDems for 5 years.

They also like hanging on to the levers of power - controlling taxes and spending, Brexit, etc. Unlike the LP.

I can't see them being desperate to have a GE.

I know this is not what most political commentators are saying yet it's my humble opinion.

System

setmefree2 wrote: »

2 extra years in office is the victory. A Conservative government until 2022. Labour out of office until 2022.

I call that a win.

The Tories have traded the certainty of being office until 2020 with the possibility of being in office until 2022 and sweating on every vote.

The history books will show the Tories won the election but when some context is applied it's fairly obvious they'd give up this 'victory' in exchange for a trip back in time to change their minds about the GE.

Cakeguts

Fella wrote: »

The Corbynista logic seems to be along these lines:

Tories are rich.
The rich are evil.
They're evil, therefore any amount of bile is justified.
Likewise dirty tricks, fake social media stories/accounts, hijacking demonstrations etc etc.

One amusing aspect of Corbyn's rich-bashing approach is footballers. He's on an extremely sticky wicket there as they're all millionaires, however unlike other "banker-type" millionaires they are extremely popular, if not adored, by a large chunk of the people Corbyn needs to vote Labour. That's why he goes extremely quiet on the subject of taxing footballers (& the exodus of talented premiership players that would ensue under a Corbyn Govt).

This would be an easy target for the Tories to tie him in knots & expose some of his policies for the unworkable nonsense they are if they got their act together.

That football thing caused me a lot of amusement because I realised early on that if you included footballers and football clubs in the list of "wealthy" the Labour supporters would suddenly find the need to change the subject to something else that was "bad" about the Conservatives.

I don't know how many Labour supporters who were also football supporters realised that they would loose all the good players if football and the clubs got taxed?

I have a lot of friends who work in the arts and so many of them seemed to think that they would be better off under Labour. Why I have no idea. Communist countries tended not to allow musicians to own their own instruments. The state provided them with rubbish ones bought as cheaply as possible.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

The history books will show the Tories won the election but when some context is applied it's fairly obvious they'd give up this 'victory' in exchange for a trip back in time to change their minds about the GE.

Alternatively.

There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance the next time.

Spidernick

Fella wrote: »

All three votes were first past the post. Remain, the Democrats and Corbyn all came second.

Coming 2nd by more than a million votes in a two-horse race is a sound beating.

That's nonsense of the 'Lies, damn lies and statistics' kind, as under a two percent swing would have meant a Remain vote last year and Labour with the most votes in the recent General Election. That is far from a 'sound beating' in anyone's definition except yours and those who thanked your post (presumably without thinking it through). It's not the overall numbers that are important, but the percentages.

Let's put it another way: if the votes had gone against you there's no way you'd agree that your side had been beaten soundly/convincingly. Take out the politics and look at the 2003 Rugby World Cup Final. England won 20-17, so got 54% of the total points, so more than the Leave vote in the Referendum, for example. I can't see many Australians thinking they were soundly beaten, even if that was the score before extra time, and as an Englishman, I also don't think that. Please try and be a little more objective, if you can.

(I haven't followed the recent US election, so if your comment relates to that then I'd take your word for it, but if it was the Presidential election then Clinton actually got more votes than Trump.)

Spidernick

Like him or loathe him, Corbyn has now overtaken May as most likely to be the better Prime Minister in voters' eyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/jeremy-corbyn-now-viewed-capable-prime-minister-theresa-may/

A new YouGov poll for The Times suggests the Labour leader has overtaken Mrs May for the first time on the key question of who voters believe would make the best prime minister.



Mr Corbyn was on 35 per cent with Mrs May on 34 per cent and nearly a third (30 per cent) said they were unsure.



But while Mr Corbyn only has a one point lead on the leadership measure, the simple fact that he is now ahead represents a major turnaround.

Cakeguts

Spidernick wrote: »

Like him or loathe him, Corbyn has now overtaken May as most likely to be the better Prime Minister in voters' eyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/jeremy-corbyn-now-viewed-capable-prime-minister-theresa-may/

Luckily he can't be because he lost and it is now time for him to show how decent he is and resign and let someone else lead the Labour party.

Thrugelmir

Spidernick wrote: »

Like him or loathe him, Corbyn has now overtaken May as most likely to be the better Prime Minister in voters' eyes:

Next week the polls will change again. Just like the weather. People are fickle. I suspect that many are underestimating May. Simply judging her on an X Factor basis. Rather than ability to do the job and deliver. Already strikes me she's on the front foot with the unelected EU elite. Attack being the best form of defence. David vs Goliath.

DiggerUK

Even if this government stays put. Even if the neanderthalls in the DUP stick with "confidence and supply".....that can all change within six by-elections.
Do the sums if the tories lose just six seats. Funny old parliament innit..._

Thrugelmir

DiggerUK wrote: »

Even if this government stays put. Even if the neanderthalls in the DUP stick with "confidence and supply".....that can all change within six by-elections.
Do the sums if the tories lose just six seats. Funny old parliament innit..._

Never any point in wondering what might happen in the future. If the seats were to swing the other way. Then the Government has a clear mandate.

Let's see if Corbyn can keep a coherent front bench together. So far the turnover has been let's say rather high.