If these numbers hold up, Jo Swinson and Adam Price will likely be gone, and something will be very wrong if Corbyn doesn't go.

The last two exit polls have underestimated Tory support slightly, probably due to the Shy Tory effect.

Fingers crossed they have severely underestimated the youth/student vote.

If not...I despair, I really do.

>>88127
>something will be very wrong if Corbyn doesn't go.

I have a bad feeling if the exit poll is correct that Corbyn and his acolytes won't change a thing.

>>88122
mfw tbh

(A good day to you Sir!)

10% swing to the Tories predicted.

This democracy lark has been fun this past century. I'll miss it when it's gone.

>>88133

Why should they? They were perfectly in the right, it's the media etc sticking the odds against them who need to change

>>88143
This wasn't even funny when Dear Leader's fans started parroting it in the first place.

>>88146
My Facebook feed is now full-on cope from those who've spent weeks spamming pro-Labour posts.

>>88150
>cope
I know it's a big evening, but let's keep a certain level of decency is play.

If Blyth goes to a recount when is the next seat expected to declare?

>>88122
I keep forgetting I live in London. I should stop being surprised. Other parts of this country is weird to me now.

>>88158
Does it really matter? I don't get the obsession with being "first". It's making think of the most cliched YouTube comment, in a lot of ways.

>>88164
I don't care who's first, I just want to know how long I should be waiting until more results come in.

Well then. It looks like I'm going to have to start saving up for the surgery I was supposed to be having next year.

On the plus side, the housing market's going to plummet through it's own fucking arse. At least I'll be able to afford a house then.

The exit poll is yet another media smear. Labour have won literally every seat so far declared.

The state of those Sunderland candidates, Christ alive, this is being shown around the globe.

>>88171
The Lib Dem candidate looked like they'd just roped a special needs kid into standing.

At least Nige stopped the Tories from taking it.

The Tories taking Blyth. What a fucking farce.

>>88173
10% swing!!

His head is far too shiny.

Blyth Valley has gone blue, been Labour seat since 1950.

>>88171
>This is being shown around the globe.
Not sure about that one.

>>88173

PRECEDENT SET

Newcastle Central wins the race, and unsurprisingly comes in with a safe result.

Houghton and Sunderland South a close second.

Third is Blyth Valley, which is a former mining seat which has gone blue.

>>88179

Blyth turning blue all but confirms the accuracy of the exit polls. While they've never been landslide labour, it's certainly a flip.

I'm picking up majority may be closer to 100 as exit poll conducted in marginals.

>>88180
>While they've never been landslide labour

1997: 41.8% majority (17,736 votes)
2001: 35.3% majority (12,188 votes)
2005: 23.8% majority (12,188 votes)
2010: 17.3% majority (6,668 votes)
2015: 24.0% majority (9,229 votes)
2017: 18.6% majority (7,915 votes)

It's a former mining town. This should be Labour's bread and butter.

>>88185

Grim.

>>88186
It normally is grim that far north.

I like how the election coverage has broken off for news coverage about the election.

>>88189
Carries getting laid tonight.

For fuck's sake.

>>88191
Boris is probably getting yet another kid we won't get to know about.

>>88194
I'm not surprised. The "you know you have lived in Wakefield when" group is full of the thickest knuckle dragging cunts ever observed. The one interesting thing is that the Tory candidate for Wakefield is called Imran Afsal-Khan.

>>88198
>The one interesting thing is that the Tory candidate for Wakefield is called Imran Afsal-Khan

That's because the original candidate was forced to stand down due to old social media posts about food banks, Mary Creagh and Bradford. I bet he's absolutely kicking himself now.

>>88195

On the plus side Dianne Abbott might get thrown out, which means no more polite bitings. You have to go pretty far down the periodic table to find a material denser than her skull. I mean she didn't manage to wear matching shoes today.

>>88203
That was a photoshopped picture but well done for falling for it m9

>>88122

As long as this lady doesn't lose her seat, i fancy her.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/10261570?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen

Channel 4 coverage like a funeral.

Perhaps telling centrists and Blairites to fuck off from Labour and join the Tories was a really, really bad idea.

>>88207
A lot of their "comedic" spin-off bits have been atrocious tonight.

MILIBAND LOSES SEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>88203
I'm a troll but you're a cunt.

>>88210

You're welcome XD

>>88207>>88209
I turned over and then quickly had to change the channel back. What an absolute car crash.

PLACE BETS NOW.

>>88212
The pre-result show on Sky1 was awful, Russell Howard just made fun of the prospective MPs and then did 2 promo bits for peoples shows/films, it was like a long advert. Don't know what I expected from the lineup of it but I expected more than that.

>>88170
I'd like to agree but what would be the point in smearing right after polls have closed?

>>88212
Jimmy Carr's on now, C4 coverage is starting to actually be a good election show, does sound like he's setting himself up to run though.

>>88215
Laying the groundwork for 2024.

>>88217
Doubt Corbz will be leader then, just from the way every labour MP is talking about him, he'll be replaced by either a blairite or a faux socialist who seems cleaner (probably a pro-israel candidate)

Workington:

1997: 39.8% majority (19,656 votes)
2001: 25.9% majority (10,850 votes)
2005: 20.4% majority (7,895 votes)
2010: 11.7% majority (4,575 votes)
2015: 12.2% majority (4,686 votes)
2017: 9.4% majority (3,925 votes)

Not as surprising as Blyth, but a seat that has been held by Labour for all but three years (1976 to 1979) since it was created in 1918.

Welp. I'm off to bed.

>>88218
It sounds like Pidcock is going to lose her seat, so expect Momentum to back Long-Bailey.

Most people aren't stupid enough to believe the lie that the Tories are going to privatise the NHS, so it's not a very surprising result.

If however the above does apply to you, then please view this gif in lieu of a text reply because I'm off to bed. With a smile on my face, I might add.

>>88222
>the lie that the Tories are going to privatise the NHS
I see Dom's propaganda worked on you then.

If there's one thing I hate more than a Tory, it's a dickhead centrist Blairite coming out like a smug cunt to pretend this is any indication people want their watered down pish concept of politics, ignoring the absolutely fucking colossal elephant in the room like they have been doing for decades.

People don't. They want GET IIIWW DUN. They want the immigrants out. They want Britain First. And frankly, you're an absolute dullard for thinking people would have voted any more favourably for one of your fucking watered down Nescafe Original robot wankers.

This vindicates what I've been saying for years in that what we genuinely actually need is a socially conservative (read: old fashioned and bigoted) Labour party. You can splash all the cash you want on public services, you could nationalise people's fucking underwear for all they crare, but what the public actually cares about is whether you come off as a bleeding heart snowflake or not.

>>88224

People don't want Blairism, which is why they gave Blair a huge majority at three elections. They want Corbynism, which is why Corbyn is on track for Labour's worst election performance since 1924.

>>88222

>Most people aren't stupid enough to believe the lie that the Tories are going to privatise the NHS

Oh dear me.

Really wish Vine would stop saying "reaching deep", it's turning my stomach.

>>88225

You're comparing apples to fucking TV remotes though mate.

I guarantee you Blair himself would have lost this election campaigning on half hearted second referendum platform. If people loved Blairism so much why the fuck did Labour lose in 2010?

The public broadly supports Corbyn's nationalisation policies. Polling shows that to be true. The problem is he's a softy who loves poofs and brown folk- And all your Blairite lot do too. They offer the worst of both worlds.

>>88228
That's funny. The biggest reason people have given for switching away from Labour has been Corbyn.

Updated projection:

CON 357 (MAJ 64)
LAB 201
SNP 55
LD 13
OTH 24

>>88229

Every single Conservative gain has been in a pro-leave constituency, you don't think that might have even a bit to do with it?

Benn wants to be leader very badly.

>>88231
Caroline Flint, who stood up against the party to wholly endorse IIIWW, having voted for the deal under both May and Johnson, has lost her seat.

>>88233
Not him, but most people vote for who they want to be PM.

>>88233

You're even more deluded than I originally thought if you think the average voter has any clue what their MP has actually done in parliament.

It's this simple mate. The Sun told them to vote Tory because Jez is a member of the IRA and it's the only way IIIWW will happen. The Sun is going to tell them some bullshit about your favourite Blairite too, and it's all going to end up the same.

See you in 2024.

>>88234

They shouldn't.

Forecast updated again:

CON 365 (MAJ 80)
LAB 196
SNP 52
LD 13
OTH 24

RIP Swinson.

>>88237
Don't tell me that.

Polls prior to the election showed Labours policies were liked by the public, but they couldn't get behind labour because "He's an anti-semite", "he's a daft militant wog sympathiser", "He's a marxist" most of that is due to the media spin as we've covered earlier in the election run up thread.

IIIWW was an issue and I think a lot of that is Labour trying to appeal to both sides when there were parties offering clearer cut decisions, IIIWW supporters thought Labour policy was too soft, Remainers thought it would lead to IIIWW or there was a chance it would.

I think the biggest issues are:
1) He has a lot of history, a lot of it is good, but the amount of bad has been heavily focused on and exploited against the party a fresh face could be the answer but that brings forth a whole host of other issues.
2) Labour played clean (respectively,) the sheer quantity of disinformation from the conservatives broke the fucking scales, same thing happened in the referendum, lie enough and people will see and believe it and miss the factcheck that follows up.
3) The Labour party weren't proactive enough at shutting issues down, the whole anti-semitism issue could've been countered by explaining that anti-zionism is not equal to anti-semitism and that anti-semitism is no higher within the labour party than it is in the general populace.
4) The internal rifts brought about by fucking blairites.
5) Policies were a threat to establishment, media, big business, rail companies, energy companies, tax avoiders. Clear blowback from them for that.

As (I think) someone previously said in this thread or maybe the other thread, if the voting system was based on "pick which policies you agree with most out of the following" without knowledge of who the party is, similar to the WhoShouldIVoteFor tests, Labour would've walked it. Corbyn is the issue, but not for the reason people think.

I fucking hate the general populace though so fuck 'em all, and fuck you for reading this. Goodnight.

>>88241
>because "He's an anti-semite", "he's a daft militant wog sympathiser", "He's a marxist" most of that is due to the media spin
I'm not really sure how you could put that down to "media spin". He is a Marxist and an antisemite. He has expressed sympathies for daft militant wogs, including laying a wreath at the founder of fucking Black September. The party platform was fine, it was the man himself they didn't like.

>>88244
The idea that supporting and selling weapons to oppressive and murderous regimes is somehow more acceptable than simply expressing sympathy for victims of an oppressive and murderous regime seems like media spin to me.

>>88245
... and rubbish like that is why nobody takes you far-left types seriously.

>>88246
British arms sales to Saudi Arabia have been ruled unlawful by the court of appeal in a critical judgment that also accused ministers of ignoring whether airstrikes that killed civilians in Yemen broke humanitarian law.

Three judges said that a decision made in secret in 2016 had led them to decide that Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt and Liam Fox and other key ministers had illegally signed off on arms exports without properly assessing the risk to civilians.

>>88247
OK, and ... is there a point in there somewhere?

>>88248
A pretty obvious one, yeah.

>>88248

Here we have a perfect illustration about how the tories retain power. People like this decide who they're voting for because of a single issue they feel strongly about, or maybe just the gut feeling that a party is 'their party'. Then whenever they're confronted with facts that might detract from that decision, that make make them wrong in some way, they just ignore them, to the point that they can't even process the information themselves. It's interesting, for sure, but I do wonder if this has always been the case.

>>88250
Quite. Such as this lad who says "b-b-but arms sales!" as if the average person on the street cares about such things.

>>88251
Why don't they care about it, do you think? What could possibly make them see it as more acceptable than expressing sympathy for someone?

Dennis Skinner has lost his seat by a majority of over 5,000. Staggering.

>>88252
>Why don't they care about it, do you think?
Because they have more pressing concerns at home, maybe?

>>88254
That would also apply to their concerns about the expressed sympathy.

>>88255
No, you're right. Nobody should care about wog sympathisers because nobody in this country has ever been killed by one.

>>88256

You keep saying that while ignoring the point that the other lot were selling the guns to the fucking wogs in the first place.

Is it just that it's easier to process an concept of emotion, like feeling bad for someone who is a bad guy, than it is to actually think about a physical, political action?

>>88256
By a sympathiser? Probably not, no.

>>88257
>Is it just that it's easier to process an concept of emotion, like feeling bad for someone who is a bad guy, than it is to actually think about a physical, political action?

No. It's that it's straight-up whataboutery.

>>88256
If there are as many immigrants as you seem to think then yeah a lot of people in this country have lost loved ones to those weapons and a hell of a lot more recently than anything the IRA did.

Don't blame it on the sunshine
Don't blame it on the moonlight
Don't blame it on the leave vote
Blame it on the Corbyn

>>88213
ARE LIZ CAN STILL WIN IT

>>88228
>If people loved Blairism so much why the fuck did Labour lose in 2010?

Brownism had become the dominant faction in 2010 and then we got Red Ed etc.

>>88241
>Polls prior to the election showed Labours policies were liked by the public

Is that from your underground polling, John McDonnell?

It looks like all the Remain parties, such as the Lib Dems and the Greens, were shedding votes. Wait, that doesn't fit the narrative...

>>88264

I thought the narrative was it was all jezzas fault?

>>88265
>>88264
Most of the sneering from Tory voters I've seen so far have been about how Labour didn't pledge to get IIIWW done and something something foreigners.

>>88265
Most of it is but a lot of what I'm reading is blaming it on everything but him, such as Leave voters being too thick to vote Labour.

What we've seen is the same as what we saw with IIIWW. There's no real good reason for the vast majority of people to vote leave or tory, other than spite. They don't like foreigners or snowflakes, and the act of spiting them comes before all else, even if it means shooting themselves in the foot, their foaming rage at people who don't mind calling someone "they" rather than "he" has allowed them to ignore the fact that they have no money or future. It's quite funny if you think about it.

>>88269
Yeah, it's not because these constituencies represent the left behind, those taken for granted by Labour for decades, it's because they're spiteful racists.

You're part of the problem. You're why the Durham Miner's Gala will now be in a Tory constituency.

>>88253
I do feel bad for Skinner.
Shows how IIIWW was the main thing this time, rather than considering the quality of the established MP.

That said, he'll likely stand at the next election.

>>88270

>Yeah, it's not because these constituencies represent the left behind, those taken for granted by Labour

I'm sure the tories will look after them. Oh, no, they haven't been for the last ten years.

>>88274
>You may only have lent us your vote, you may not think of yourself as a natural Tory and you may intend to return to Labour next time round. If that is the case I am humbled that you have put your trust in me. I will never take your support for granted

He's making the right noises. Meanwhile all Labour are offering is blaming the electorate.

>>88281
Oh no! Will that affect the vote?

>>88281

When do they start blaming the joos

>>88281

Do you really think that? If the tories had any intention of helping these areas they'd have done it already. They're not new to power and the problems I'm talking about weren't anything to do with the local government. Maybe they'll get right on those starter homes they were supposed to build years ago, or maybe they'll actually find 50k nurses instead of just lying about it, but I've got a feeling they won't.

I'd love to be wrong. Believe me. I'm not going to pretend I'm not partisan, but I am for a reason beyond tribalism. I'd fucking love to be surprised by the tories. Nothing would make me happier than them becoming a party I could support. But I've watched them lie unashamedly for this entire election about their past and present actions, so I can't imagine a future where they're fulfilling their promises.

>>88287
He's a massive charlatan, but he's a massive charlatan that was able to appeal to the people who've had enough of Labour. Shaming people for voting Tory doesn't work if they feel Labour have burnt all of their bridges with them.

The problems with Labour run much deeper than Corbyn, but he was never going to be the person to bring back into the fold the traditional voters who have grown disillusioned by being taken for granted for decades.

>>88296

As the chap in the other thread points out, the numbers suggest that he didn't sway anything - merely that people were put off by labour. Whether that was because of Corbyn specifically or the wider party issues, time will tell.

I have never thought it a particularly good idea to shame people into anything, it would be interesting to know if the student-like ranting of labour supporters on social media did anything other than galvanise those disillusioned voters. But at the same time, it's hard to really get on board with the idea that people didn't vote labour because they were let down by the blairites fifteen years ago. They've been let down by the tories in the meantime just as much.

>>88297
>But at the same time, it's hard to really get on board with the idea that people didn't vote labour because they were let down by the blairites fifteen years ago. They've been let down by the tories in the meantime just as much.

This is specifically about people who were traditional lifelong Labour voters rather than the general public.

Lifelong Tory voters may or may not have been let down by Labour, but that doesn't really matter too much because they won't even significantly consider voting for parties other than the Tories because they've got little reason to be unhappy with them and start looking elsewhere. There's a significant number of lifelong Labour voters who are disenfranchised, feel that their loyalty hasn't been repaid so they're now looking at other parties or not even voting at all.

I am still enjoying the fact people can't cope with Corbyn just being unlikable so having to attribute it to malice and the 'right wing press' boogie man.

>>88311

It's not a boogieman, but a well-studied reality of our media, from historical studies of how the working class press was squeezed out of the industry due to advertising money, despite higher readership numbers (James Curran), to studies of corporate ownership and measurable media "filters" which set the scope of debate (Ed Herman, Noam Chomsky, the Media Reform Coalition, David Cromwell, David Edwards), to specific how Corbyn was represented in the UK press (Bart Cammaerts and other researchers at the London School of Economics).

This is a very deep-rooted problem in our democratic system.

>>88315
If that's what helps you feel better. Maybe people just didn't like his past and that's fine. One day you'll learn.

>>88311
I don't understand why it can't both? During the GE coverage this morning the question getting fired off on the BBC was "is this Corbyn or is this IIIWW"? and in a complete failure of imagination no one considered that there may be more than one factor to a loss this massive. Similarly while Corbyn's rigidity and various other personality flaws don't help, people think he's in the can for the IRA and lives in a mansion, amongst other things, because of what the right wing press have said.

>>88311

It's just not an actionable explanation. Even if the press are hopelessly biased against Corbyn, how does pointing that out help Labour get into government? What's the plan that follows on from that observation?

"Corbyn is the least popular opposition leader since records began, replace him with someone merely mildly unpopular and Labour could win a landslide" may or may not be a successful plan, but at least it's a plan.

>>88316

I think your line of thought leads directly to mine, though. I can believe that voters did not like Jeremy Corbyn, I accept that as a possibility. But if you ask the obvious question after that, which is "why?", that's where the meaningful discussion begins.

What's the first public reference point to develop an opinion of Corbyn? It would surely be news media. And if there's good scholarship out there showing that his past was systematically misrepresented in our most prolific media outlets, how can that not factor in?

>>88316
He also had a past in 2017.

This time around they bet on a second referendum as a half measure to appease both leavers and remainers, leavers weren't having it and the IIIWW party ate their lunch.

>>88318

Sure, it's a plan, but I'm pretty skeptical of the idea that the problem was Corbyn on the basis that the same biases have been shown against other Labour leaders in the past. I think it was particularly vicious with Corbyn, because frankly, he came in with the strongest mandate and posed the most genuine threat.

In fact, this entire push towards a contest of personalities like a U.S. presidential election bodes horribly for us.

>>88319

>But if you ask the obvious question after that, which is "why?", that's where the meaningful discussion begins.

The pollsters have spent the last four years specifically asking that question; the predominant answers are "he's not patriotic", "he doesn't support the armed forces" and "he's bad for business and the economy", which aren't exactly refuted by Corbyn's own words.

>>88320

In 2017, Corbyn's net approval ratings were hovering somewhere around zero and were occasionally positive. By 2019, he was wavering between -30% and -60%. Corbyn lost the 2017 election and he got much less popular over the following two years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#Jeremy_Corbyn

>>88322

Perhaps the Murdoch press is systematically biased in favour of the Tories, but it's equally plausible that they just like to back the favourite and take credit when they win.

>>88323
>Perhaps the Murdoch press is systematically biased in favour of the Tories, but it's equally plausible that they just like to back the favourite and take credit when they win.

What determines "the favourite"? The Murdoch press largely shares the same concerns as other large corporate interests, which have a heavy influence in government. I'm not saying there's a systematic bias in favour of the Tories as much as a systematic bias against anything that challenges the neoliberal consensus. Blair was backed because he wholeheartedly embraced that consensus.

>The pollsters have spent the last four years specifically asking that question; the predominant answers are "he's not patriotic", "he doesn't support the armed forces" and "he's bad for business and the economy", which aren't exactly refuted by Corbyn's own words.

This is not true. Listen to Corbyn's own words:

"Our armed forces do incredible work. A lot of it is unsung and little known. From disaster relief to peacekeeping, they are always willing to put themselves on the line."

There's obviously more to his position, in that he opposes violent foreign interventions, but this is unequivocally supportive and, depending on your definition, can also be patriotic. I stand by the position that Corbyn was repeatedly
and deliberately misrepresentedd.

The economic side of things needs no further comment in light of the above in regards to corporate ownership of media.

>>88320
>He also had a past in 2017.
True, but he also had media soon and smears in 2017 too. I wonder what he might have had this time that he didn't have in 2017. Oh, right, a credible opponent.

>>88327

Boris is a credible opponent? Really?

He hid in a fucking fridge

>>88329
And Maradona put it in the net with his hand.

>>88323

>Perhaps the Murdoch press is systematically biased in favour of the Tories, but it's equally plausible that they just like to back the favourite and take credit when they win.

It's also possible that people vote the way their papers tell them too, which is chilling, considering most of the papers are Murdoch's.

>>88329
You do remember how utterly fucking dire May was, right?

>>88329
Theresa May is an awkward and uncharismatic woman unable to connect with people who went into an election campaign with deeply unpopular proposals such as the so called dementia tax and gaffes such as telling a nurse there was no magic money tree.

Boris Johnson is incredibly charismatic man able to connect with people who went into an election campaign with popular policies such as tax rises, more police officers, more money for schools and more money for the NHS.

There's a huge difference between the two. Most people knew Corbyn would get blown the fuck out the moment he came up against someone slick or competent.

>>88333
Quite. As we all know, Boris may not be entirely competent, but he's slicker than the Gulf of Mexico.

Not that it will make any difference whatsoever, but what about the Russia report, Arcuri, etc.?

>>88311

I wonder how Magic Grandpa feels right now, having changed in an instant, from believing within the Momentum echo chamber he is going to be PM, to finding out he is one of the least liked people in the country.

>>88336
Buried. All of it.

>>88337
Honestly I don't know if he's figured it out yet. Rather than resigning, he just said he won't load the party into another GE, which suggests he's likely to stay on for a bit longer. PMQs is going to be agonising.

Apparently he's clinging on so that he can secure a left wing successor and keep the communism up.

>>88339
There's also the slight matter that there's no deputy leader to take over in the interim should he stand down immediately.

Also condolences to that Chuka Umunna stanning Maoist I had an argument with on here 4 years ago, it's always sad to see great men fall.

>>88337
It tickled me how the likes of Owen Jones and Ash Sarkar were gleefully Tweeting that Johnson was rattled and on the verge of losing his seat... only for his majority to go up.

Perhaps the troops should have been better deployed elsewhere instead of mobilising them towards the slim chance of unseating Tory marquee names.

>>88342
The deputy isn't even in the succession any more. Emily Thornberry has been taking PMQs when convention calls for a sub. The PLP can just pick someone aa caretaker until an actual leader is elected. Which is ironic, because Corbyn looks a bit like a caretaker.

>>88346
It is a mass membership party. The caretaker should be someone with a mandate from the party at large, not imposed by the PLP.

>>88350
DAN THE MAN.

>>88350
A PLP-selected caretaker has a mandate. They were elected to Parliament by their electorate.

Like it or not, the PLP knows best. That's how they ended up with Kinnock and Blair, who turned the party around from the shitshow that was 1983 to the longest continuous spell in government and the longest serving PM since the Great Reform Act.

The house is on fire, and you're proposing some sort of decision-making process to figure out exactly what to do about it. It's a nice idea, but you probably want to get the fuck out of there to make sure nobody dies of smoke inhalation first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8Fad9yJN_o

>>88357
They were elected to parliament to represent their constituents, not to run the Labour party, which is a job for Labour party members. Party democracy is an end in itself, not some frivolity to be thrown aside so the PLP braintrust can take over.

>>88382
Right, and party members will get their chance as soon as a proper leadership contest is arranged.

Again, the PLP does, in fact, know better than the membership, as has been proved at the ballot box repeatedly.

>>88384
Yes, the PLP does know best, as Neil Kinnock (?) demonstrates. They're almost as smart as you.

>>88396
You mean the Neil Kinnock that delivered the party's best election result since 1974 and gained 3 million voters? Yes, I'd say they made a smart choice picking him over Roy Hattersley and Tony Benn.

>>88374

Huh, I listen to this album every day on the way to work. Funny seeing it here of all places.

>>88420
The Neil Kinnock that delivered Thatcher a landslide, yeah.

>>88476
>landslide
u wot m8

Who the fuck cares about the 1980s?

>>88490
I've had similar thoughts about the Miners Strikes.
That business was nearly 40 years ago. Yet Labour still seem to go in thinking it's an automatic vote winner in some towns.

>>88484
Google 1987 Tory landslide and I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of it being referred to as such.

Please don't pretend not to know what words mean in order to win an argument. Especially not when it's part of a bizarre self-imposed mission to rehabilitate Neil fucking Kinnock as a testament to the political acumen of the PLP.

>>88497

>Please don't pretend not to know what words mean in order to win an argument

'Lefty tossers'

LABOUR REKT

>>88497
Mate, this came about because you couldn't accept the notion that anyone other than the membership at large should ever be able to pick a leader under any circumstance. The party needs a new leader this week, not at Conference next year.

Like I said, one the past 40 years, the party has managed to pick leaders that successfully turned around the shitshow that was 1983 to win a landslide at the third time of asking. In 2011 the PLP was overruled and you end up with fucking Ed Miliband. In 2015 the one-member-one-vote process hand you the walking disaster zone that is Corbyn.

So you've got two options. Get someone, anyone, to put their hand on the tiller and start putting together some kind of opposition. Alternatively, leave the retiring geography teacher as the caretaker with his usual hands off approach and let a fucking sociopath drive the country off the cliff unchallenged. Pick one. What's it to be? Ideology or capability?

>>88503

M7 millenials will be in their 40's before Labour get a decent leader, by then Generation Z will be old enough to vote out communists.

T

>>88503
I'm afraid you're going to have even less success convincing me that democracy is an expendable luxury than you did with the attempt to recast the political career of Neil Kinnock as an unalloyed success.

I don't get this one.

>>88503

What happened to Corbyn will happen to any politician that dares step outside of our economic consensus. The viciousness of the attacks will be proportionate to how far they stray outside the accepted bounds of debate.

We once had a brilliant post here about how easy it is to craft a media image of a politician as incompetent, or charismatic, or scheming, or whatever you want to portray just through the creative use of photographs. It's media that shapes perceptions of politicians, and without their support, even a figure as inoffensive as Corbyn can be warped into a daft militant wog sympathiser, a frumpy geography teacher, or whatever else.

Your entire point about "capability" has nothing to do with the actual character of the people you're talking about. It's how well those politicians are supported by media. It's easy to forget that Corbyn came into the Labour leadership with a greater mandate than Blair. It took three years of nasty, constant coverage (much of which was conducted by the political editor of our impartial BBC) to turn Corbyn into an "unelectable" figure.

>>88514
Some kind of lefty circlejerk I suppose.

>>88528
Your analysis treats voters as idiots though. People get their "media" from a dizzying array of sources.

>>88532

Media influence works on just about everyone to some degree. And someone who buys the Daily Mail is unlikely to also be reading the grauniad or listening to Revolutionary Despatches.

That's without even touching on the whole targeted facebook type stuff.

>>88528
>even a figure as inoffensive as Corbyn can be warped into a daft militant wog sympathiser, a frumpy geography teacher, or whatever else.

Yeah, it's strange how the media were able to fabricate this narrative about Corbyn when he gave them absolutely nothing to work with.

>>88534
As far as I remember the people they claimed he was laying a wreath for weren't even in that cemetery. Also the definition of 'daft militant wog' used here includes everybody ever associated with the PLO. I think it was a PLO guy who was assassinated in Paris by Mossad, which the entire world including the UK gov condemned at the time.
But the papers tried to say semo for the Munich guys were in that cemetery as well, which I don't think was actually true. but even if so, is ridiculously tenuous

>>88532

Absolutely not, I have great faith in the public and reject the idea that political affairs are "above" anyone. That's why I'm in favour of greater democracy. I consider voting itself to be a very limited form of democratic participation (selecting from parties with predetermined positions, once every few years).

I do think that people are limited by the media available to them, though, and I think that media have a phenomenal power to shape the scope of debate. No one has their opinions dictated to them in the UK, but it's tremendously difficult to put in the time and energy necessary to resist a message that's reinforced by all the main news programmes and papers.

>>88534

The fact that you posted this picture without any context or analysis goes some way to proving my point. Corbyn's actual positions are irrelevant, it's enough to post the picture. Corbyn's intentions are scrutinised to the degree that you have elaborate BBC breakdowns of the floorplan of the cemetary and where the wreath was laid: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45196409

>“I was there because I wanted to see a fitting memorial to everyone who has died in every daft militant wog incident everywhere because we have to end it. You cannot pursue peace by a cycle of violence; the only way you can pursue peace [is] by a cycle of dialogue.”

You'll notice Corbyn's own words are very rarely given much play, because the context doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that Conservative and Lib Dem peers were also present at the conference. It doesn't even matter that there was a conference. The whole point is to sling mud, and the person throwing it will always win.

>>88536
The issue is that it always just happens to be Corbyn there. It always just happens to be Corbyn who is the one calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends. It always just happens to be Corbyn pictured with people of a very questionable background. It always just happens to be Corbyn writing a foreword for a book about Jews running the world. This is without getting to his comments on shoot to kill or even mentioning Northern Ireland.

He has been misrepresented, but when there's so many incidents people are less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you take the whole wreath furore then Corbyn being evasive and denying it at one point was enough for most people; they're not going to wade through masses of text.

>>88537

You've missed my point. The reasons so many "just happens to be" type events involved Corbyn is because they're outright misrepresentations that can be created and run with for as long as needed. Even if the narrative surrounding the event is totally disproved at a later date, as with >>88535 or >>87062, by then the damage is already done.

My broader point is that this can be done (and has been done) to different degrees with anyone, with any history. Where the tenuous associations can't be made, then use ridicule and derision, whatever is necessary to discredit that person.

And most importantly, make it so that people decide based on individual figures and marginal issues rather than issues that matter most to people in ordinary life: rights at work, infrastructure, healthcare and social services get lip service compared to the coverage poured into personalities.

>>88538
>Jeremy Corbyn has admitted for the first time being present as a wreath was laid for members of the daft militant wog group who carried out the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre.

>The Labour leader said yesterday that he watched the wreath being placed to honour members of the Black September group, which killed 11 Israeli athletes, but did not “think” he was involved.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-i-did-attend-wreath-ceremony-for-munich-killers-97hqtlswp

If he is being misrepresented then he doesn't fucking help himself by saying he doesn't think he was involved when there's pictures showing that he quite clearly was. He is very adept at making situations worse for himself.

If someone like Long-Bailey is backed by Momentum to become leader then I can't see the media attacks being as ferocious, even if the policies are the same, because she doesn't have anywhere near the same level of baggage as Corbyn.

If Corbyn stays for another two months it's going to damage Labour, at least in the short-term. I hope someone can talk him down or just fucking push the brittle tit.

>>88539

Why did the BBC and the papers choose to lead with the "I don't think I was involved in it" quote, rather than the discussion of the "cycle of violence" that came right afterward? Why did you do the same? Why would laying a wreath even be an issue if the wreath was indeed for someone else who was assassinated or, as Corbyn says, for all victims of terrorism? Why did you just uncritically repeat the claim that the wreath was for the 1972 Munich killers?

You must be able to understand how important framing is, by this example alone. I seriously doubt that anyone who steps out of the consensus I described earlier would escape this treatment.

>she doesn't have anywhere near the same level of baggage as Corbyn.

The baggage is exactly what I'm talking about. What you're calling "baggage" will be created as needed, and done in any form as long as it targets the right people: taking quotes out of context, inaccurately reporting on old photographs, or even just using unflattering pictures of people eating.

>>88541
They led with that because of the initial denial and because the picture quite clearly contradicted what he said.

The fact is that he doesn't help himself when something like this becomes a story. You can't blame his image all on the media, either. The media didn't misrepresent him when he talked of opening a dialogue with Argentina about a power sharing deal over the Falklands. The media didn't misrepresent his massive fudge over Trident where replacement submarines would be built to preserve jobs but wouldn't carry warheads. He's perfectly capable of making people think he's an absolute clown without any help from the media.

>>88540
It's up to the NEC to decide tomorrow, but if it goes as planned then Corbyn will still be leader until the end of March.

>>88542
>They led with that because of the initial denial and because the picture quite clearly contradicted what he said.

What about my questions which followed that, two of which were addressed directly to you?

Look, I haven't analysed every instance of reporting for these things personally. Not the Falklands or Trident. I ran down as many examples as I had patience for by myself in >>87062.

Luckily, I don't have to, as there are many dedicated people who study this kind of thing full-time. I've repeatedly linked to research about media coverage of Corbyn. I will admit that paper doesn't necessarily support my additional claim that it would happen to anyone with similar beliefs, but the fact all of this hasn't even created the slightest bit of doubt for you leads me to think there is no level of proof that will change your mind.

>>88545
I've no real interest in getting into a lengthy debate about the wreath incident. My point was simply how there's just so many occurrences that people don't give him the benefit of the doubt and he doesn't help himself even if he is being misrepresented because he will do something daft like saying he wasn't involved when he's pictured with the wreath, which makes people view him as untrustworthy.

I'm fully aware that he is regularly misrepresented in the media, but it is possible to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a massive flaccid cock without being brainwashed by them.

>>88513
I'm sorry if the truth doesn't fit your personality cult's narrative.

>>88528
Give it a rest, Seumas.

>>88541

>Why did the BBC and the papers choose to lead with the "I don't think I was involved in it" quote, rather than the discussion of the "cycle of violence" that came right afterward

Let me rephrase your question for you.
Why did the BBC and the papers choose to lead with a matter of controversy and interest, rather than the talking point that came right afterward? Why did they report on the thing that they wanted and needed to report on, and not the thing that he tried to deflect them towards?

There's evidently a clear disconnect between his words and his actions. Just like many other people in politics. The main difference between him and Boris is that we all know and accept that Boris has at best a casual relationship with reality.

>>88549

No, I think we should stick with the question I asked and the three that followed, as they were very obviously building toward a greater point.

>>88550
Yes, I believe your point was "why don't those nasty people in the media take Dear Leader's uncritically instead of doing their job?".

>>88554

The media are not doing their job, if they miss facts like who the wreath was actually being laid for.

>There's evidently a clear disconnect between his words and his actions.

Corbyn has been remarkably consistent in his views and actions, as an anti-war campaigner that advocates for the rights of Palestinians and believes that dialogue is necessary for a peace settlement. If you want to assert that someone has connections to terrorism, that requires strong evidence. That evidence has never been provided, only tenuous connections.

As for my broader points I've already stated them several times. Media willfully fixates on a very narrow range of issues, and has already been shown to misrepresent events.

>>88557
For someone who is supposedly anti-war, anti-dolphin rape and anti-terrorism, he has an awful habit of doing and saying things such people shouldn't be doing. When asked about specific terror groups or specific complaints of dolphin rape, he did the equivalent of "all lives matter", which entirely misses the point, and centres himself over the victims. That right there is a very real disconnect, and simply denying it and calling it a fabrication or spin isn't going to make it disappear.

>>88558
>When asked about specific terror groups or specific complaints of dolphin rape, he did the equivalent of "all lives matter", which entirely misses the point, and centres himself over the victims.

The event itself was for the 1985 Israeli bombing of the PLO headquarters, an entirely different event. Corbyn's response in the interview was to express sympathy for those which the event was actually intended for, and those to which the media were accusing him of disregarding, despite that being a misrepresentation.

That is absolutely not the equivalent of the "all lives matter" argument, particularly when you consider a) that the Black Lives Matter movement is centered around the fact that black people are killed at a much higher rate than other groups in the U.S. and b) the disproportionate number of Palestinian deaths in the conflict with Israel.

You're speaking of a disconnect with reality, but that is a truly blinkered comparison to try and make.

>>88564
You're in no position to talk about blinkers.

He was asked to condemn the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah. He said "all terror is bad".
He was asked to condemn the activities of the IRA. He said "all terror is bad".
He was asked to condemn the antisemitism in his party and his own past. He said "all dolphin rape is bad".

That's absolutely, indisputably an "all lives matter" argument.

>>88564
>the Black Lives Matter movement is centered around the fact that black people are killed at a much higher rate than other groups in the U.S
13!
50!
That's numberwang!

>>88565

Only if you totally disregard context, both in terms in real world events and everything else that was said, as you have done in your post.

>>88568
Here is Corbyn responding to a request to condemn IRA violence by saying "all bombing is wrong" (11:20). What context is being disregarded here?

So is some bombing less wrong? Or fine? I don't get it.

>>88571

>Did you kill your wife?
>All murder is wrong.

Corbyn's refusal to be specific makes him look guilty by association. It reeks of evasiveness and whataboutery. It's one of the many, many reasons why he ended up with the worst net approval rating of any leader of a major party since the dawn of polling.

Even if Corbyn was entirely justified in refusing to specifically condemn Hamas or the IRA or anti-Semites in the Labour party, he burned an enormous amount of political capital for no reason other than ego. He refused to do things that weren't in his nature but would obviously make him more electable; in doing so, he chose the adulation of Momentum supporters over the chance of actually delivering change for the people he purports to represent.

Would it have killed him to buy a proper suit back in 2016? Would it have killed him to pretend to like the Queen? Would it have killed him to say "Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism, it's completely unacceptable, I apologise unreservedly to the Jewish community and I will keep apologising until we have driven this cancer out of our party once and for all"?

People say that Boris is narcissistic, but he's more than willing to utterly humiliate himself if he thinks that there might be a few votes in it. Corbyn didn't even have the defence of sticking to his principles - on countless occasions, he eventually bent to the whim of the electorate but only after a petulant display of resistance that clearly telegraphed his insincerity.

>>88572

I think it's very likely he would have been condemned either way, and regardless of the speed or sincerity with which he capitulated.

>>88573
But then again any cultist would think that.

>>88572

>He refused to do things that weren't in his nature

What a terrible fucking PM that would have made him - having principles.

>>88575

Yes. We live in a democracy. That means more than just getting to pick a demagogue once every five years, but having a leadership that responds to public opinion. A good Prime Minister shouldn't be a will-o-the-wisp, but nor should they be an inflexible ideologue. A Prime Minister that refuses to compromise is a crisis waiting to happen, whether that's the Poll Tax or the Iraq war. More than anything, they need to know how to pick their battles.

As I said in my final sentence, Corbyn has equivocated or u-turned on so many occasions that he can't legitimately claim to be principled rather than merely obstinate. He was an outspoken Eurosceptic for his entire career as a back-bencher, before becoming remarkably mute on the issue as party leader. He refused to apologise to Jewish people until ceding to the unbearable pressure of Holly Willoughby. He u-turned on the "all bombing is wrong" comment and eventually made a specific condemnation of the IRA.

>>88572

The problem is, and what a lot of critics refused to grant Corbyn, that he simply couldn't weasel out of things like an ordinary politician would have. That's the entire reason he ended up as the leader in the first place. I liked him for that reason- I might not agree with every one of his wooly liberal social views, but I liked his economic policy and I respected his willingness to actually stand up for what he believed in. That's a rare thing in a politician.

Of course he was never going to be prime minister in a million years but the shit that has been flung at him has demonstrated how scared the establishment are of such an individual. This time next year they'll be right back to criticising whoever replaces him for being a weathervane and lying through their teeth just to say the right thing, but Corbyn was one of the only politicians not to do that.

Within that context it changes a lot of those answers. It might very well have killed him to do any of those things, because when he was already struggling against the centrists who hated him, he couldn't lose the support of the people who actually did.

>>88576

Having personal integrity is not the same thing as ignoring the electorate.

>>88577
The famous straight talking honest politics which didn't really materialise as he was often paralysed by indecisive dithering. What you mean is that you liked his authenticity and how he wasn't PR savvy, even if in reality it just meant he was authentically a bit shit.

>>88579

He was paralysed because he kept earnestly trying to win the centrists and critics over. He was completely trapped, damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

I'm not pretending he was perfect, and you're reading a lot into what had been my first post thus far on the matter. He represented something that would definitely have been good for the state of politics in general if it had caught on. A return to a time before politics was about policies, not PR.

I'm one of the people who have been saying for years that Labour only stand a chance if they can get away from the liberal, PC identity politics, which is electoral poison in the current climate. But I still had hope for Corbyn to bring a bit of integrity to the table- That turned out to be his greatest weakness.

Why do the young not turn out to vote? Same thing happened with the EU Referendum.

The crossover in 2017 was 47.