GRcade

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I think it all lies of the initial result of Brexit. If the deal goes badly I think Corbyn could get in. If the Tories manage to get even a slightly acceptable deal I could see them scraping a majority.

If Brexit goes badly and the economy is in ruins, then all we will hear from the right wing is all about how terrible Labour are with money, how Corbyn wants to raise taxes, how he is going to borrow to pay for things etc. The Remain side will also be pointing out how Corbyn did nothing to stop it.

If Brexit means a slightly acceptable deal, then the right wing will be pointing out how well the Tories did against the bullies of the EU. She fulfilled the will of the people! Vote for 5 more years of Tory power to stop those Europeans undermining us! Whereas the Remain side will still curse Corbyn for capitulating.

If the Tories tank the Brexit negotiations I don't see their PR cutting through at all. Nothing they can say about Corbyn would be good enough to save them.

It also depends on who is leading the Tories by that point as I don't think it will be May, but I don't really see anyone else viable at this point.

captain red dog wrote:If the Tories tank the Brexit negotiations I don't see their PR cutting through at all. Nothing they can say about Corbyn would be good enough to save them.

The trouble with Corbyn is just how easy he has made it for them to do exactly that. What's Corbyn going to do? Criticise the Tory Brexit policy that he has either been agreeing with or ignoring? The Tories can easily just point and say "Corbyn agreed with us all the way" and that argument for Corbyn is then dead. The Tories will also say that they were defending Britain and that the EU was bullying us but that they refused to give in etc etc.

Then add on the "Labour debt" and "increased taxes" propaganda on top of the distrust people already have for Corbyn and he is not guaranteed a victory even if the Tories collapse everything. And that's appalling, a decent leader should have trounced the Tories last year, we can't even be too sure that he'll manage it if the Tories tank the Brexit negations.

It also depends on who is leading the Tories by that point as I don't think it will be May, but I don't really see anyone else viable at this point.

I don't think it'll be May either. But 4 years is a hell of a long time in politics, a viable candidate can easily rise up in that time.

We are a bit buggered either way. I'd go with Labour despite both parties being crap for different reasons.

I don't think we could weather another 7 years of Tory austerity.

What revisionism is this that a 'decent leader' would have trounced the Tories?

Moggy wrote:I don't think it'll be May either. But 4 years is a hell of a long time in politics, a viable candidate can easily rise up in that time.

Who is our equivalent of Donald Trump? Best have them locked up for the good of the nation just in case.

Hyperion wrote:What revisionism is this that a 'decent leader' would have trounced the Tories?

It's not a stretch of the imagination given the shambolic Tory campaign. A decent Labour leader who put out a clear, consistent message and didn't have the Labour party infighting in public could have very likely swept in with a 1997 style majority.

Labour under Corbyn can't even beat the Conservatives in Scotland for strawberry floats sake.

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:I don't think it'll be May either. But 4 years is a hell of a long time in politics, a viable candidate can easily rise up in that time.

Who is our equivalent of Donald Trump? Best have them locked up for the good of the nation just in case.

Farage probably is. But luckily he is nowhere near popular enough to actually gain significant support if he did even come back.

Tory wise, Boris or Fox are idiots.

Hyperion wrote:What revisionism is this that a 'decent leader' would have trounced the Tories?

It’s hardly revisionism to believe that a decent leader would have defeated the utter shambles of a Tory government that we currently have.

The biggest stumbling block to Labour’s election campaign was Corbyn (along with McDonnel and Abbott). Too many people mistrust or dislike him.

Squinty wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:I don't think it'll be May either. But 4 years is a hell of a long time in politics, a viable candidate can easily rise up in that time.

Who is our equivalent of Donald Trump? Best have them locked up for the good of the nation just in case.

Farage probably is. But luckily he is nowhere near popular enough to actually gain significant support if he did even come back.

Tory wise, Boris or Fox are idiots.

Farage is probably our equivalent, but for all his faults (and they are many) he is not as stupid as Trump.

Trump is kind of his own thing.

Lagamorph wrote:

Hyperion wrote:What revisionism is this that a 'decent leader' would have trounced the Tories?

It's not a stretch of the imagination given the shambolic Tory campaign. A decent Labour leader who put out a clear, consistent message and didn't have the Labour party infighting in public could have very likely swept in with a 1997 style majority.

Labour under Corbyn can't even beat the Conservatives in Scotland for strawberry floats sake.

To what extent is Scotland Corbyn's fault? Labour's problem has been the rise of the SNP. Also Scottish Labour had their own leader who must be credited with a major role in their performance, much like Ruth Davidson with the Tories.

Imagining a 1997 style victory for Labour at the last election is ridiculous. That followed decreasing Conservative majorities in previous elections, a discontent with the Tories and a desire for change that had built up over 18 years, and large media backing.

Hyperion wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Hyperion wrote:What revisionism is this that a 'decent leader' would have trounced the Tories?

It's not a stretch of the imagination given the shambolic Tory campaign. A decent Labour leader who put out a clear, consistent message and didn't have the Labour party infighting in public could have very likely swept in with a 1997 style majority.

Labour under Corbyn can't even beat the Conservatives in Scotland for strawberry floats sake.

To what extent is Scotland Corbyn's fault? Labour's problem has been the rise of the SNP. Also Scottish Labour had their own leader who must be credited with a major role in their performance, much like Ruth Davidson with the Tories.

He didn't mention the SNP though. He said Labour did worse than the Conservatives. Labour doing worse than the Conservatives in Scotland is unbelievable.

I agree that in Scotland is it not completely Corbyn's fault though. Labour have been sliding down in Scotland for a long time, it is not purely Corbyn's fault (although he obviously did little to stop the slide).

Imagining a 1997 style victory for Labour at the last election is ridiculous. That followed decreasing Conservative majorities in previous elections, a discontent with the Tories and a desire for change that had built up over 18 years, and large media backing.

You accuse me of revisionism but then post that people were imagining a 1997 style victory?

Nobody expects Labour to win on that scale any time soon (although in 2022 the Tories will only be 6 years off that 18 year record) no matter who is in charge. The point is that Corbyn is unable to beat Theresa May. Which is appalling.

Did Scottish labour have a different leader that basically said the opposite to Corbyn at every single turn.

Errkal wrote:Did Scottish labour have a different leader that basically said the opposite to Corbyn at every single turn.

I think she was too busy planning to eat kangaroo bollocks to concentrate on the election.

Moggy wrote:

Hyperion wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Hyperion wrote:What revisionism is this that a 'decent leader' would have trounced the Tories?

It's not a stretch of the imagination given the shambolic Tory campaign. A decent Labour leader who put out a clear, consistent message and didn't have the Labour party infighting in public could have very likely swept in with a 1997 style majority.

Labour under Corbyn can't even beat the Conservatives in Scotland for strawberry floats sake.

To what extent is Scotland Corbyn's fault? Labour's problem has been the rise of the SNP. Also Scottish Labour had their own leader who must be credited with a major role in their performance, much like Ruth Davidson with the Tories.

He didn't mention the SNP though. He said Labour did worse than the Conservatives. Labour doing worse than the Conservatives in Scotland is unbelievable.

I agree that in Scotland is it not completely Corbyn's fault though. Labour have been sliding down in Scotland for a long time, it is not purely Corbyn's fault (although he obviously did little to stop the slide).

Imagining a 1997 style victory for Labour at the last election is ridiculous. That followed decreasing Conservative majorities in previous elections, a discontent with the Tories and a desire for change that had built up over 18 years, and large media backing.

You accuse me of revisionism but then post that people were imagining a 1997 style victory?

Laga, literally just posted that which is what I was replying to.

Problem with Scotland is that, to an extent, Labour and the SNP are taking eachother's votes in a way that doesn't affect the Tories as much

Hyperion wrote:Laga, literally just posted that which is what I was replying to.

Laga doesn't count as a person.



Still, nobody sensible imagined that Labour could have (or will any time soon!) won in a 1997 style victory. I think Labour would have won last year with a better leader, but it would have taken Jesus Christ himself in coalition with Buddha to win by 1997 numbers.

The Jeddah/Bujesus coalition would never win anyway because of all the Muslims/immigrants [/Farage]

twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/950702831589347328

You mean like trying to ban immigrants, Nige?

When I walk into my dentist waiting room and he has Stuff magazine rather than T3, should I also complain?

I didn't realise British Airways and Virgin Trains were newsagents.

I'm sure Dacre will rant and rave about it tomorrow. Branson's always been a canny PR operator most of the time though; there wasn't really any need to actually publicise this (there are after all loads of newspapers/publications not provided on his trains, or anywhere else for that matter). And as it apparently wasn't selling anyway, this is an easy PR win against the Mail.

Regardless of what we think of the Daily Mail - and I'm conscious that many folk here are not exactly fans of it - it doesn't quite feel right that Virgin Trains should be making choices on behalf of customers as to what they should (or shouldn't) read in terms of national newspapers.

Drew McMillan, head of colleague communication and engagement at Virgin wrote:Thousands of people choose to read the Daily Mail every day. But they will no longer be reading it courtesy of VT.

"There's been considerable concern raised by colleagues about the Mail's editorial position on issues such as immigration, LGBT rights and unemployment.

I wonder if Virgin Trains will be taking an equally stringent view of political matters in the papers that they do choose to make available to customers? Would they change the paper availablility again if one reports something that they (i.e. Richard Branson) takes exception to?

KK, I agree with your point that Virgin are not newsagents. However, I wonder if Branson has an axe to grind and - probably quite cleverly - is striking a double whammy of making a paper he dislikes look bad whilst gaining a lot of free publiclity?

jawafour wrote:it doesn't quite feel right that Virgin Trains should be making choices on behalf of customers as to what they should (or shouldn't) read in terms of national newspapers

They aren’t.

If Virgin trains banned possession of the DM then you’d have a point. All they have done is stop supplying it.