the snap general election thread

Fella

Ballard wrote: »

I'll keep this simple for you so that you can hopefully understand. Labour were widely expected to lose miserably. They started from a low position. Under Corbyn they picked up several MPs whilst May lost enough MPs to lose her majority.

Labour did not win the election. The Conservatives did. I have never said otherwise.

The Conservatives, however, are in a far worse position than they were prior to the election. Labour are somewhat stronger.

Losing miserably is not a victory. Improving your position is a minor victory. Gambling by calling an election in order to improve your parliamentary majority but ending up needing help of another party to remain in power is not what many would call a great move.

I don't care about the polls. They've largely proven themselves to be untrustworthy but on the subject of resigning, why would the leader of any party resign if the feedback from a poll suggests that the public back them more than they back others?

I've tried my best to keep the words simple but please don't hesitate to ask if there are any that you don't understand and I'll explain them for you.

Try to learn to debate without being rude.

I only skimmed your post but other than rudeness it didn't appear to contain anything new.

As I said before, The Tories are in power, Labour are out of power. Call it what you like., that's the reality. Another horrible defeat for Labour

TrickyTree83

Ballard wrote: »

I don't follow football but if my team were in the second division and they lost 1-0 to Chelsea then I'd be delighted. I wouldn't be calling for the manager to go.

The fact is that Corbyn was widely expected to lead Labour to a massive defeat. He didn't. He was expected to become less and less popular but his popularity as measured by the polls has increased. It wouldn't make sense for him to resign or others to usurp him as that would almost certainly make the party less popular.

I'm not talking about party politics here. My posts have been solely about whether Corbyn should resign. I see no reason why he should based on the facts.

Please feel free to continue to be a one-eyed Tory. I can't be bothered going over the same ground continually with posters who are unable to grasp these basic facts.

No no. You mis-understand. The issue i was talking about is the association of the word victory with Corbyn's election result. That is a warped perception of reality. There was no victory for Labour, they just lost better whilst the Conservatives won worse.

Good to know that sticking to reality and the true meaning of words in the English language makes me unable to grasp basic facts whilst at the same time being a "one-eyed Tory". That's the kind of momentum-think that needs to be purged from society.

Fella

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No no. You mis-understand. The issue i was talking about is the association of the word victory with Corbyn's election result. That is a warped perception of reality. There was no victory for Labour, they just lost better whilst the Conservatives won worse.

Good to know that sticking to reality and the true meaning of words in the English language makes me unable to grasp basic facts whilst at the same time being a "one-eyed Tory". That's the kind of momentum-think that needs to be purged from society.

Corbyn himself & his devoted fans are literally unable to grasp the concept of him getting beaten. It doesn't compute for them. Hence his own reaction on election day & the numerous comments since, all variations on the theme of him having won. It's why they react with such rage when you point out he lost.

I don't recall anybody claiming Brown's defeat in 2010 was anything other than an utter trouncing. It led to his immediate resignation & the Labour party wringing their hands over what needed to change.

Brown won 258 seats, Corbyn won 262.

Herzlos

GreatApe wrote: »

The election was a disaster for May but not for the conservative party, they are still in government and have upto 5 years to get their act together by getting rid of May and putting in place someone more likable and less !!!!

I think it was a disaster for the Tory party too. They've just clung onto power by making a disliked deal with a disliked party, and lost a lot of seats. I'm sure they'll recover, but I don't think many people in the Tory party are celebrating at the moment except those who are going to try and stick the knife into May to advance themselves.

They'll recover, but boy did they mess up badly.

Ballard

Fella wrote: »

Corbyn himself & his devoted fans are literally unable to grasp the concept of him getting beaten. It doesn't compute for them. Hence his own reaction on election day & the numerous comments since, all variations on the theme of him having won. It's why they react with such rage when you point out he lost.

I don't recall anybody claiming Brown's defeat in 2010 was anything other than an utter trouncing. It led to his immediate resignation & the Labour party wringing their hands over what needed to change.

Brown won 258 seats, Corbyn won 262.

It's very simple. Brown started from a position of power. Corbyn didn't. It doesn't take Einstein to deduce that Brown needed to go and go quick. It's a shame that it needs to be repeated but Labour under Corbyn were expected to lose scores of seats by pretty much everyone. They didn't. In the circumstances they far exceeded expectations. It wasn't a victory but it was expected to be far worse. Some commentators were predicting the end of the Labour Party altogether.

Spidernick

Fella wrote: »

The Conservatives are in Power. Labour have none.

I'd contend that what happened around the time of the Queen's speech indicates otherwise. The Tories may be 'in power' but do they 'have power' in any meaningful sense, given the policies they have had to ditch, together with the fact that they seem to be adopting some of Labour's to stay 'in power'?

Fella

Ballard wrote: »

It's very simple. Brown started from a position of power. Corbyn didn't. It doesn't take Einstein to deduce that Brown needed to go and go quick. It's a shame that it needs to be repeated but Labour under Corbyn were expected to lose scores of seats by pretty much everyone. They didn't. In the circumstances they far exceeded expectations. It wasn't a victory but it was expected to be far worse. Some commentators were predicting the end of the Labour Party altogether.

Totally irrelevant. You could argue that Brown had a far tougher job as incumbent leader of a by then very unpopular party. In contrast, Corbyn was up against a Conservative Govt that had just delivered 7 years of perceived austerity. An even remotely credible Labour leader could have won in those circumstances. Corbyn lost by 60 seats.

Fella

Spidernick wrote: »

I'd contend that what happened around the time of the Queen's speech indicates otherwise. The Tories may be 'in power' but do they 'have power' in any meaningful sense, given the policies they have had to ditch, together with the fact that they seem to be adopting some of Labour's to stay 'in power'?

You may contend that, but you're wrong. The Tories are in power. None of the ridiculous things in Labour's manifesto, from "free" tuiition, to nationalising Rail & Water etc, scrapping the marriage tax allowance, introducing the Garden tax, the massive increases in Corp tax etc etc are going to be implemented. The Labour manifesto is in the bin where it belongs.

The Tories have been forced to take out the bits of their manifesto (e.g. the foolish social care policy, the vote on fox hunting) that should never have been there in the first place.

Ballard

Fella wrote: »

Totally irrelevant. You could argue that Brown had a far tougher job as incumbent leader of a by then very unpopular party. In contrast, Corbyn was up against a Conservative Govt that had just delivered 7 years of perceived austerity. An even remotely credible Labour leader could have won in those circumstances. Corbyn lost by 60 seats.

I completely disagree. The Tories have the backing of the popular press which is massive. I have plenty of working class friends and not a single one of them would ever vote Labour. This is, in my opinion, because they read and believe The Sun.

There does appear to have been an upsurge in Labour supporters in the run up to the election and since. Perhaps it'll translate into a victory for them next time around and perhaps it won't. The fact that Corbyn has become more popular strongly suggests that he has more credibility than you're giving him credit.

Edit: I forgot to add that it's absolutely relevant that Brown was in power in 2010. The bare minimum requirement for a PM for an election is to maintain in power. May just about managed this with some help and she will have to go before the next election because of that (among other reasons).

Spidernick

Fella wrote: »

You may contend that, but you're wrong. The Tories are in power. None of the ridiculous things in Labour's manifesto, from "free" tuiition, to nationalising Rail & Water etc, scrapping the marriage tax allowance, introducing the Garden tax, the massive increases in Corp tax etc etc are going to be implemented. The Labour manifesto is in the bin where it belongs.

The Tories have been forced to take out the bits of their manifesto (e.g. the foolish social care policy, the vote on fox hunting) that should never have been there in the first place.

'Take out bits'? I think it's a lot more than that.

If you really think Labour has no power then why doesn't the Telegraph agree with you?:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/29/theresa-mays-fragile-grip-power-exposed-accepts-labour-abortion/

Theresa May’s fragile grip on power was exposed yesterday as she was forced to agree to demands from a backbench Labour MP for a change in abortion laws to head off a historic defeat in the House of Commons.

I think you're in denial, old chap!