Discussion
JagLover said:
Facing the reality that she will not lead the Tories into the next election.
Means she will see Brexit through and then hand over to someone else and give them time to get ready for the GE.
I think it is more of case of trying to fight off the challenges for her crown. In two years she will either be a hero, having got a fabulous deal from the EU and everything is lovely again or it will be a disaster. In the case of the latter, she'll be off. If the former then she'll, ever so reluctantly, give in to pressure to stay.Means she will see Brexit through and then hand over to someone else and give them time to get ready for the GE.
Derek Smith said:
JagLover said:
Facing the reality that she will not lead the Tories into the next election.
Means she will see Brexit through and then hand over to someone else and give them time to get ready for the GE.
I think it is more of case of trying to fight off the challenges for her crown. In two years she will either be a hero, having got a fabulous deal from the EU and everything is lovely again or it will be a disaster. In the case of the latter, she'll be off. If the former then she'll, ever so reluctantly, give in to pressure to stay.Means she will see Brexit through and then hand over to someone else and give them time to get ready for the GE.
If JC can turn around his approval ratings in short order then anyone can surely do the same, particularly given a couple of years to do so.
Garvin said:
Derek Smith said:
JagLover said:
Facing the reality that she will not lead the Tories into the next election.
Means she will see Brexit through and then hand over to someone else and give them time to get ready for the GE.
I think it is more of case of trying to fight off the challenges for her crown. In two years she will either be a hero, having got a fabulous deal from the EU and everything is lovely again or it will be a disaster. In the case of the latter, she'll be off. If the former then she'll, ever so reluctantly, give in to pressure to stay.Means she will see Brexit through and then hand over to someone else and give them time to get ready for the GE.
If JC can turn around his approval ratings in short order then anyone can surely do the same, particularly given a couple of years to do so.
Dazed and Confused said:
Garvin said:
Derek Smith said:
JagLover said:
Facing the reality that she will not lead the Tories into the next election.
Means she will see Brexit through and then hand over to someone else and give them time to get ready for the GE.
I think it is more of case of trying to fight off the challenges for her crown. In two years she will either be a hero, having got a fabulous deal from the EU and everything is lovely again or it will be a disaster. In the case of the latter, she'll be off. If the former then she'll, ever so reluctantly, give in to pressure to stay.Means she will see Brexit through and then hand over to someone else and give them time to get ready for the GE.
If JC can turn around his approval ratings in short order then anyone can surely do the same, particularly given a couple of years to do so.
The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
don'tbesilly said:
I'm not convinced the people liked Corbyn.
The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
No. He'd been portrayed as some kind of monster by the right wing press when he clearly wasn't. How many votes would Labour have gained simply from pandering to University Students (around 200,000 people go to Uni every year), and certainly not the reason for the Tories recent wipeout.The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
Dazed and Confused said:
Corbyn's turn around came from the more people saw of him, the more they liked him. Clearly not the case with May.
I agree there was a bit of that, but I'm not sure it was the whole story. The Tories ran an absolutely terrible campaign - the worst I have ever seen - and a lot of people wanted to give them a kicking because they thought they were being taken for granted.I wonder how the views will change in a situation where Labour are the favourites to win power and the Tories have a decent manifesto (assuming they can write one).
Dazed and Confused said:
don'tbesilly said:
I'm not convinced the people liked Corbyn.
The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
No. He'd been portrayed as some kind of monster by the right wing press when he clearly wasn't. How many votes would Labour have gained simply from pandering to University Students (around 200,000 people go to Uni every year), and certainly not the reason for the Tories recent wipeout.The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
Both of them were stage managed, May's campaign was more honest to her politics and it was the Tory politics that got the most scrutiny. On presentation, Corbyn is much better at rabble rousing and they played to that - it worked.
Dazed and Confused said:
AmitG said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Corbyn's turn around came from the more people saw of him, the more they liked him. Clearly not the case with May.
. The Tories ran an absolutely terrible campaign - the worst I have ever seen.Dazed and Confused said:
don'tbesilly said:
I'm not convinced the people liked Corbyn.
The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
No. He'd been portrayed as some kind of monster by the right wing press when he clearly wasn't. How many votes would Labour have gained simply from pandering to University Students (around 200,000 people go to Uni every year), and certainly not the reason for the Tories recent wipeout.The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
The nuclear thing was the best example. I am, politically, not knowingly labour, nor conservative, nor liberal or whatever.
I disagreed with his decision to say publicly, that he could never press the red button (nuclear, not BBC iplayer).The reality is everyone has nukes, and even if you don't believe in using them, the only thing to say in the global arena is that you would use them. I'm sure he knows that, but he still felt it more important to air his beliefs about their ultimate futility. And in that, he was logically correct but unpopular.
So to me, and many other I expect, he came across as a bit of an untidy throwback, but believable. Believability is almost non-existent in politics. None of Corbyn's other policies were so awful as to outweigh this quality; even his ideas to return the NHS to full state control, which really grates. It is a toxic failing monopoly as a result of state ownership, in my view.
But he is believable, not infallible, and appears to place good of his nation, and his sincerity therein, above that of his popularity- to far greater extent than his rivals, at least.
Granted, he may turn out to be a total vicious snake, just more talented in conveying sincerity than his rivals. He hasn't done enough proper snaking to show that yet, so for now, my impression/ delusion is intact.
Dazed and Confused said:
No. He'd been portrayed as some kind of monster by the right wing press when he clearly wasn't. How many votes would Labour have gained simply from pandering to University Students (around 200,000 people go to Uni every year), and certainly not the reason for the Tories recent wipeout.
Hardly portrayed as a monster. They just highlighted his previous actions/words. People will always see things differently.200k each year, so that's 200k votes from the 17-18 year students he promised free tuition. Then how many voters who were having a year out etc and were planning on going in the next academic year, probably all of them!! So that's 400k.
Then how many millions that he implied would have their debt wiped?
Combined with a manipulative social media campaign targeting the white knight/social justice warrior/virtue signaling mob who are so desperate to show/tell everyone how much they care about everyone and hate the evil Tories who are ruining the world etc, that swept up the majority of the young/fickle votes.
That's a huge impact. And it still wasn't enough!
PurpleMoonlight said:
Only the Mail ?Dazed and Confused said:
No. He'd been portrayed as some kind of monster by the right wing press when he clearly wasn't. How many votes would Labour have gained simply from pandering to University Students (around 200,000 people go to Uni every year), and certainly not the reason for the Tories recent wipeout.
Does your definition of 'wipeout' mean 'an increased share of the vote'?If not, you might need to review your vocabulary!
sidicks said:
Dazed and Confused said:
No. He'd been portrayed as some kind of monster by the right wing press when he clearly wasn't. How many votes would Labour have gained simply from pandering to University Students (around 200,000 people go to Uni every year), and certainly not the reason for the Tories recent wipeout.
Does your definition of 'wipeout' mean 'an increased share of the vote'?If not, you might need to review your vocabulary!
Hope that helps.
Edited by Dazed and Confused on Sunday 27th August 13:58
Dazed and Confused said:
No, the massive reduction in the number of Tory MPs, the lost majority and even people like Boris coming close to losing their seats.
Hope that helps.
Corbyn's endgame would be Venezuela 2.0. All that free stuff you want so much would soon be consumed and disappear forever.Hope that helps.
I don't like May (or the current Tory Party) at all, but compared to Corbyn and his version of Labour, she is the lesser of two evils, as he is more aligned to Venezuelan politics than a modern Western democracy. If you cannot see this, I urge you to study history from a completely unbiased standpoint.
Dazed and Confused said:
don'tbesilly said:
I'm not convinced the people liked Corbyn.
The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
No. He'd been portrayed as some kind of monster by the right wing press when he clearly wasn't. How many votes would Labour have gained simply from pandering to University Students (around 200,000 people go to Uni every year), and certainly not the reason for the Tories recent wipeout.The people liked him for what he suggested he could give them, in particular the young with the free student fees and the talk of wiping out debt for those who'd been (to Uni) and moved on, now that myth has largely been busted, the flush has been busted with it.
The Tory's ran a dire GE campaign, and Corbyn promised lots of free stuff paid for by someone else. That was enough to swing some seats.
Corbyn and his cronies would be a disaster for the country. Not even his own MP's have any faith in him. Labour government have generally left the countries finances bin a state (and higher unemployment) so just think how bad a Maxist leader would be.
sidicks said:
Dazed and Confused said:
No. He'd been portrayed as some kind of monster by the right wing press when he clearly wasn't. How many votes would Labour have gained simply from pandering to University Students (around 200,000 people go to Uni every year), and certainly not the reason for the Tories recent wipeout.
Does your definition of 'wipeout' mean 'an increased share of the vote'?If not, you might need to review your vocabulary!
Hope that helps.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff