Saturday & Sunday, 7th & 8th May.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sat 07 May, 2016 9:36 pm

Please please please let something positive happen from the police investigations.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 May, 2016 9:37 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I missed this from yesterday.

Michael Crick ‏@MichaelLCrick 12h12 hours ago
Leics Tories to complain to Elect Comm about vote pattern in Leicestershire where Lab Lord Willy Bach won PCC. Tories fear postal vote abuse

The best form of defence is attack...Bound to happen. You watch the dirty washing come out now.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 May, 2016 9:42 pm

Julie-Ann
‏@BienSoeur
BBC will censor Baftas if too many stars criticise government
Speeches will be cut if critical of Culture Secretary!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... ise-the-g/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 May, 2016 9:45 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Please please please let something positive happen from the police investigations.

I know it sounds juvenile, but all I can think is that its happening in GB of all places.
We have the mother of parliaments. Our justice and electoral system has been copied all over the world... We send people to oversee elections in other countries.

Dammit, there are some things I've been proud of ... And the Tories have turned it to shit.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 May, 2016 9:53 pm

HuffPost UK ‏@HuffPostUK 2m2 minutes ago
.@KTHopkins says she WILL run naked through London with Halal sausage up her bum http://huff.to/1SX0S1h" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Usual offensive tweets from her following Khan's win.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 May, 2016 9:56 pm

The BBC could be forced to censor some of its leading stars over fears they will breach the broadcaster’s impartiality rules by using speeches at tonight’s Bafta awards to attack the government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... ise-the-g/

I saw this on a couple of Tweets, but thought it was a joke....

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:00 pm

Tories 9% down in London?

If correct, Ouch!!!!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:04 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
The BBC could be forced to censor some of its leading stars over fears they will breach the broadcaster’s impartiality rules by using speeches at tonight’s Bafta awards to attack the government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... ise-the-g/

I saw this on a couple of Tweets, but thought it was a joke....

Has all the makings of censoring Sinn Fein. More people are going to notice the censorship than would have noticed the words broadcast normally.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:06 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Tories 9% down in London?

If correct, Ouch!!!!

Done not very well here since 2006. Personally politics by Boris has covered that up.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:06 pm

An interesting read - as usual from Steve Richards.

Total Politics ‏@TotalPolitics 9m9 minutes ago
New from @steverichards14: Two figures will determine the fate of Jeremy Corbyn https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/ ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:11 pm

I see the usual disaffected are tweeting praise for Sadiq Khan's article on lesson for Labour to learn re winning elections - and it's being cited as him distancing himself from Corbyn.

I haven't read the full article - just seen extracts from which I can't see that he's saying anything other than sensible stuff which most people would agree with - and, I imagine, Corbyn himself. You know, that you need to reach out to lots of groups of people not just rely on core Labour voters and tackle issues that people care about.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:12 pm

It's funny. When Cameron conceived his detoxified brand, he probably thought London would like it. Even in 2010, before they went UKIPpy the Tories didn't do all that well here.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:13 pm

No point in going to bed for a while yet. The annual birthday party of well oiled and loud neighbours across the way is in full swing.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:15 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
HuffPost UK ‏@HuffPostUK 2m2 minutes ago
.@KTHopkins says she WILL run naked through London with Halal sausage up her bum http://huff.to/1SX0S1h" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Usual offensive tweets from her following Khan's win.

This is bad, very bad. Someone's bound to take a photo, and I have a very delicate stomach.

(Can't she stuff the sausage down her gob instead, there's more sh!t comes out that end than her bum?)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:16 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I see the usual disaffected are tweeting praise for Sadiq Khan's article on lesson for Labour to learn re winning elections - and it's being cited as him distancing himself from Corbyn.

I haven't read the full article - just seen extracts from which I can't see that he's saying anything other than sensible stuff which most people would agree with - and, I imagine, Corbyn himself. You know, that you need to reach out to lots of groups of people not just rely on core Labour voters and tackle issues that people care about.

In our euphoria we mustn't forget that Goldsmith did Khan a massive favour by running a racist campaign. It would probably have been a lot closer if Tories had played fair.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:16 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:It's funny. When Cameron conceived his detoxified brand, he probably thought London would like it. Even in 2010, before they went UKIPpy the Tories didn't do all that well here.

Makes me imagine what a dinner party conversation between senior Tory MPs and backers is like when they think there are no outside ears listening and it's no holds barred. If they are prepared to say what they have been saying in public what must they let out when they think it's in private ....

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:28 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Simon Danczuk ‏@SimonDanczuk May 4

Just had an excellent meeting with @JohnMannMP - watch this space, we've got some excellent ideas to put in to action.
Has Danczuk had the Labour whip restored?

No, still suspended.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:30 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I see the usual disaffected are tweeting praise for Sadiq Khan's article on lesson for Labour to learn re winning elections - and it's being cited as him distancing himself from Corbyn.

I haven't read the full article - just seen extracts from which I can't see that he's saying anything other than sensible stuff which most people would agree with - and, I imagine, Corbyn himself. You know, that you need to reach out to lots of groups of people not just rely on core Labour voters and tackle issues that people care about.

I've just been tweeting George Eaton on exactly this. Eaton's attempt to spin Khan's speech as anti-corbyn is risible. I used to quite like him, but he's become a parody.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:30 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:It's funny. When Cameron conceived his detoxified brand, he probably thought London would like it. Even in 2010, before they went UKIPpy the Tories didn't do all that well here.
Makes me imagine what a dinner party conversation between senior Tory MPs and backers is like when they think there are no outside ears listening and it's no holds barred. If they are prepared to say what they have been saying in public what must they let out when they think it's in private ....

I reckon there's not much difference now. My mum always used to say if the mouth blurts something out no matter how much you may deny it, it'll be something you're familiar with and used often. Even if it's just been in your head.

Tories seem to have dropped all pretense of being decent. They've been allowed to get away with so much, they're now out of control. Unmanageable.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 May, 2016 10:39 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:I see the usual disaffected are tweeting praise for Sadiq Khan's article on lesson for Labour to learn re winning elections - and it's being cited as him distancing himself from Corbyn.

I haven't read the full article - just seen extracts from which I can't see that he's saying anything other than sensible stuff which most people would agree with - and, I imagine, Corbyn himself. You know, that you need to reach out to lots of groups of people not just rely on core Labour voters and tackle issues that people care about.
I've just been tweeting George Eaton on exactly this. Eaton's attempt to spin Khan's speech as anti-corbyn is risible. I used to quite like him, but he's become a parody.

And I see Allegra Stratton is straight in on the act - along with others we would expect it from - and the usual MPs. It's ridiculous. Do they think the majority of the Labour membership that voted for Corbyn are completely brainless and wouldn't agree with most sensible outward looking engagement with voters? I really resent the collective lumping together of this notional 'Corbynites' or Corbynistas as all being completely in thrall to him and unable to question or review policies and strategies on our own terms. I see myself as pretty pragmatic - but at the same time I don't want anymore of what Robert Snozers so eloquently described the other day - the over spun, complicated, endlessly triangulated guff that lacked credibility that we had before and is why so many of us went for Corbyn. Wanting to return to a clearly principled and authentic base and style doesn't mean I jettisoned common sense and ambition.

Rant over.

Sticky99 · Post by **Sticky99** » Sat 07 May, 2016 11:35 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Sticky99 wrote:Indeed, this is where Labour needs to be more ruthless and absolutely not apologise for picking a candidate who can win, even if that results in some internal upsets. Better to be in power with the ability to bring social justice to the masses, rather than sniping in opposition.
Though it is doubtful any Labour other candidate in 2012 would have had a much better chance of beating Boris - the claims you sometimes hear from Blairites that Oona King (Ken's opponent for that nomination) could have done it are little short of risible.

Similarly delusional, of course, are those who claim the other Miliband would have miraculously transformed Labour's prospects last year.

And carrying on this theme, I doubt different leaders could have saved the left behind by history basket case that is SLab either last year or this. There *are* instances when the leader can make a real difference (either way) to a party's prospects, but they are less numerous than many imagine.

I would disagree and agree with you. I would agree that Oona King wouldn’t have beaten Boris Johnson. Saying that, it should have been abundantly clear that when Livingstone lost to Boris the first time, despite London mostly being a Labour city, that was the cue not to stand again against Boris. Livingstone had a good run as mayor, but Labour should have known it was time to pick a new candidate.

The most important result for me is Labour being in power, being able to introduce popular centre-left policies that will be seen as landmark decisions in the future. It is popular for people to bash Tony Blair, but undeniably, he won 3 general elections and introduced measures like the minimum wage and sure start. The left will often talk about injustice, but the biggest injustice of all is to sit in opposition with no power to introduce left-leaning policies. Ed Miliband was a good opposition leader; he constantly held the government to account, made them do things they really didn’t want to like leveson. However, for all the talk of a radical agenda, I was disappointed that big proposed policy announcements never came.

Both Ed’s craved perceived economic credibility, which they never gained, but similarly, they didn’t appeal to the voters who wanted a radical agenda, because there wasn’t one. Miliband had a narrow retail pledge that kept on mentioning zero hour contracts, but that affected only a minority of voters. The Tories made up all sorts of lies and bogus pledges at the last general election, but Miliband’s pledge lacked a focus on core issues like the economy, housing and most importantly, they rarely defended Labour’s spending whilst in office. They let the “Labour crashed the economy” mantra stick in the early years; instead they went around apologising for nothing.

Corbyn isn’t even an effective opposition leader, Cameron and co have no need to take him seriously at PMQ’s. “Jane in Islington says”. Hmm, it’s about time Corbyn started to grill Cameron with his own lines. Corbyn had his “I told you so” moment last Thursday. Labour won back London, won other cities and retained many councils. However, Corbyn will ensure that Labour loses badly at the 2020 general election.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Sat 07 May, 2016 11:43 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
The BBC could be forced to censor some of its leading stars over fears they will breach the broadcaster’s impartiality rules by using speeches at tonight’s Bafta awards to attack the government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... ise-the-g/

I saw this on a couple of Tweets, but thought it was a joke....
Has all the makings of censoring Sinn Fein. More people are going to notice the censorship than would have noticed the words broadcast normally.

Interesting though that back then the BBC had an actor read out the lines which thoroughly undermined the Tory intent in a very effective way.

Nowadays, as with so much else, they'd simply not report the story at all.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sat 07 May, 2016 11:47 pm

Sticky99 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Sticky99 wrote:Indeed, this is where Labour needs to be more ruthless and absolutely not apologise for picking a candidate who can win, even if that results in some internal upsets. Better to be in power with the ability to bring social justice to the masses, rather than sniping in opposition.
Though it is doubtful any Labour other candidate in 2012 would have had a much better chance of beating Boris - the claims you sometimes hear from Blairites that Oona King (Ken's opponent for that nomination) could have done it are little short of risible.

Similarly delusional, of course, are those who claim the other Miliband would have miraculously transformed Labour's prospects last year.

And carrying on this theme, I doubt different leaders could have saved the left behind by history basket case that is SLab either last year or this. There *are* instances when the leader can make a real difference (either way) to a party's prospects, but they are less numerous than many imagine.
I would disagree and agree with you. I would agree that Oona King wouldn’t have beaten Boris Johnson. Saying that, it should have been abundantly clear that when Livingstone lost to Boris the first time, despite London mostly being a Labour city, that was the cue not to stand again against Boris. Livingstone had a good run as mayor, but Labour should have known it was time to pick a new candidate.

The most important result for me is Labour being in power, being able to introduce popular centre-left policies that will be seen as landmark decisions in the future. It is popular for people to bash Tony Blair, but undeniably, he won 3 general elections and introduced measures like the minimum wage and sure start. The left will often talk about injustice, but the biggest injustice of all is to sit in opposition with no power to introduce left-leaning policies. Ed Miliband was a good opposition leader; he constantly held the government to account, made them do things they really didn’t want to like leveson. However, for all the talk of a radical agenda, I was disappointed that big proposed policy announcements never came.

Both Ed’s craved perceived economic credibility, which they never gained, but similarly, they didn’t appeal to the voters who wanted a radical agenda, because there wasn’t one. Miliband had a narrow retail pledge that kept on mentioning zero hour contracts, but that affected only a minority of voters. The Tories made up all sorts of lies and bogus pledges at the last general election, but Miliband’s pledge lacked a focus on core issues like the economy, housing and most importantly, they rarely defended Labour’s spending whilst in office. They let the “Labour crashed the economy” mantra stick in the early yeats; instead they went around apologising for nothing.

Corbyn isn’t even an effective opposition leader, Cameron and co have no need to take him seriously at PMQ’s. “Jane in Islington says”. Hmm, it’s about time Corbyn started to grill Cameron with his own lines. Corbyn had his “I told you so” moment last Thursday. Labour won back London, won other cities and retained many councils. However, Corbyn will ensure that Labour loses badly at the 2020 general election.

Another one. Whilst you're at it, with your infallibility up there in the future, can you give me the final score in the Cup Final and first scorer? Make yourself useful, y'know?

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Sat 07 May, 2016 11:48 pm

citizenJA wrote:Tories lost 46 council seats in England
Labour lost 23 council seats in England

Labour council seat total = 1,291
Tory council seat total = 828

LibDems (44) & UKIP (26) picked up 70 council seats between them in England

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2016/councils" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You know, it's only when you see the figures starkly laid out like that that it's possible to appreciate just how bad a disaster Thursday was for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn. Labour left with only more councillors than all the others put together. How can the party recover from such a disaster without the leadership of someone with the gravitas and depth of Jess Phillips, Mann or Danczuk?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 07 May, 2016 11:51 pm

Ian McMillan ‏@IMcMillan 11h11 hours ago
Do untoward odours as they would do untoward odours to you.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 07 May, 2016 11:52 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I see the usual disaffected are tweeting praise for Sadiq Khan's article on lesson for Labour to learn re winning elections - and it's being cited as him distancing himself from Corbyn.

I haven't read the full article - just seen extracts from which I can't see that he's saying anything other than sensible stuff which most people would agree with - and, I imagine, Corbyn himself. You know, that you need to reach out to lots of groups of people not just rely on core Labour voters and tackle issues that people care about.

Good lord! Closed for comments after a couple hours. Absolute jackass nightmare! Pay no attention to the victories of Labour
and the abject losses of the Tory party! We're defining reality for you!

Sticky99 · Post by **Sticky99** » Sat 07 May, 2016 11:56 pm

mbc1955 wrote:
Sticky99 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: Though it is doubtful any Labour other candidate in 2012 would have had a much better chance of beating Boris - the claims you sometimes hear from Blairites that Oona King (Ken's opponent for that nomination) could have done it are little short of risible.

Similarly delusional, of course, are those who claim the other Miliband would have miraculously transformed Labour's prospects last year.

And carrying on this theme, I doubt different leaders could have saved the left behind by history basket case that is SLab either last year or this. There *are* instances when the leader can make a real difference (either way) to a party's prospects, but they are less numerous than many imagine.
I would disagree and agree with you. I would agree that Oona King wouldn’t have beaten Boris Johnson. Saying that, it should have been abundantly clear that when Livingstone lost to Boris the first time, despite London mostly being a Labour city, that was the cue not to stand again against Boris. Livingstone had a good run as mayor, but Labour should have known it was time to pick a new candidate.

The most important result for me is Labour being in power, being able to introduce popular centre-left policies that will be seen as landmark decisions in the future. It is popular for people to bash Tony Blair, but undeniably, he won 3 general elections and introduced measures like the minimum wage and sure start. The left will often talk about injustice, but the biggest injustice of all is to sit in opposition with no power to introduce left-leaning policies. Ed Miliband was a good opposition leader; he constantly held the government to account, made them do things they really didn’t want to like leveson. However, for all the talk of a radical agenda, I was disappointed that big proposed policy announcements never came.

Both Ed’s craved perceived economic credibility, which they never gained, but similarly, they didn’t appeal to the voters who wanted a radical agenda, because there wasn’t one. Miliband had a narrow retail pledge that kept on mentioning zero hour contracts, but that affected only a minority of voters. The Tories made up all sorts of lies and bogus pledges at the last general election, but Miliband’s pledge lacked a focus on core issues like the economy, housing and most importantly, they rarely defended Labour’s spending whilst in office. They let the “Labour crashed the economy” mantra stick in the early yeats; instead they went around apologising for nothing.

Corbyn isn’t even an effective opposition leader, Cameron and co have no need to take him seriously at PMQ’s. “Jane in Islington says”. Hmm, it’s about time Corbyn started to grill Cameron with his own lines. Corbyn had his “I told you so” moment last Thursday. Labour won back London, won other cities and retained many councils. However, Corbyn will ensure that Labour loses badly at the 2020 general election.
Another one. Whilst you're at it, with your infallibility up there in the future, can you give me the final score in the Cup Final and first scorer? Make yourself useful, y'know?

If it makes you feel better that Corbyn has a chance of winning in 2020, that's fine. However, I can confidently predict that you will be massively disappointed after the next general election. I will always vote for Labour at a general election, I just wish the party would install a winner - not a candidate who is doomed from the start. I didn't like a lot of what Blair did, but he got Labour into power. Any Labour leader will never be perfect to me, but if that person can mix centre-left policies with a centrist appeal, that would be the most ideal situation.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Sat 07 May, 2016 11:59 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
TR'sGhost wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: I'd class them as old style Tories. It's been hard to understand why so many have kept quiet. It's taken an awful long time for them to speak out.
Goldsmith's campaign was an old-style Tory one.

"If you want a n****r for a neighbour, vote Labour" Peter Griffiths, Smethwick 1965. He won that election and was an MP until his support for apartheid and general nastiness saw him go off to lecture economics for a few years before returning as a Tory MP in 1979. To pick one example from many.

The Monday Club, until proscribed by Tebbit of all people, was old-style Toryism.

Old-school Tories ran a third of the world, much of it, apart from what they called the "White Dominions" by dictat, and, when they thought it would get their desired results, by force. At home they opposed votes for women and "managed" the depression of the 1930s by ensuring unemployment equalled destitution while insisting laissez faire economics, the trickle-down of its time, "just worked".

Nye Bevan's famous remark was about "old-style" Tories.

Cameron, Osborne and co. are very much in that old-style, men immensely wealthy from birth with all the advantages that brings ruling in a spirit of arrogance while telling the lower orders we simply aren't like them and will never deserve any of what they take for granted.
Agree. When I said old style Tory, you've described them exactly. We ruled the world. Jerusalem. The Union Jack, Rule Brittania, The Colonies. Our armed services.

It looks absolutely ridiculous when it's set out like that. But there are a hell of a lot of older Tories who still think that way.

I was thinking more of - in their eyes - Cameron dragging their view of Toryism through the mud.

If they blame Cameron for dragging Toryism through the mud it's because he's full of politically correct nonsense about gays and women, doesn't support the death penalty and seems to just sit there and accept it when the populations of the former colonies omit to call him, or any white man, Sahib. He's not even a proper Tory, being a Scot.

At least, that's where the Tory/kipper end of my family has always come from. They didn't even like Thatcher much, far too common and there were even disquieting rumours that he might have been a woman.

Not that they themselves are much to write home about as it happens. They also make the common working-class Tory mistake of assuming "all decent people" think like they do and being utterly baffled when someone doesn't find their racist "jokes" funny. Which attitude I think might explain some of the recent Tory electioneering.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 May, 2016 12:03 am

RobertSnozers wrote:If I have to vote for a party that's a bit less shit than the Tories I will, but please god don't make me aspire to it.

(cJA edit)

Beautifully said - I agree.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 May, 2016 12:06 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Simon Danczuk ‏@SimonDanczuk May 4

Just had an excellent meeting with @JohnMannMP - watch this space, we've got some excellent ideas to put in to action.
Does it involve getting teenage girls to send phone pics for them to wank to?

Danczuk got his a** thrown out of the Labour party for his reprobate behaviour. Life's too short to waste it like that.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 May, 2016 12:09 am

ohsocynical wrote:No point in going to bed for a while yet. The annual birthday party of well oiled and loud neighbours across the way is in full swing.

I remember this from last year!

Post by **refitman** » Sun 08 May, 2016 12:32 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: I've just been tweeting George Eaton on exactly this. Eaton's attempt to spin Khan's speech as anti-corbyn is risible. I used to quite like him, but he's become a parody.
And I see Allegra Stratton is straight in on the act - along with others we would expect it from - and the usual MPs. It's ridiculous. Do they think the majority of the Labour membership that voted for Corbyn are completely brainless and wouldn't agree with most sensible outward looking engagement with voters? I really resent the collective lumping together of this notional 'Corbynites' or Corbynistas as all being completely in thrall to him and unable to question or review policies and strategies on our own terms. I see myself as pretty pragmatic - but at the same time I don't want anymore of what Robert Snozers so eloquently described the other day - the over spun, complicated, endlessly triangulated guff that lacked credibility that we had before and is why so many of us went for Corbyn. Wanting to return to a clearly principled and authentic base and style doesn't mean I jettisoned common sense and ambition.

Rant over.
Thanks RR. One of the most depressing things about this episode is how a certain hardcore refuse to open their minds. There are lessons aplenty to be learned from the previous government, the Miliband leadership, and the recent elections etc. The trouble is, the Jamie Reeds and Ben Bradshaws insist on bellowing the same old stuff over and over, preventing any kind of reflection. Labour under Blair won in Scotland ergo it's Corbyn's fault that Labour isn't winning in Scotland. Rinse and repeat. When the hell did any if them last actually go to Scotland and see how dramatically things have changed? Or give some thought to whether their position is indeed the best one for Labour or the country? And then we get the false dichotomy of principles vs winning, which shows that they have learned nothing. They learned nothing from when they did this to Brown, or to Miliband, and they aren't learning it now.

And yes, there is the same problem on the other side - those folk who insist that everything about New Labour was evil, Ed Miliband was no different from Blair etc etc. I just wish both lots would put their relatively minor differences aside and focus on the real enemy.

I've just read A Homage To Catalonia. When it got to the point where the various leftist groups started fighting each other, and the police and government began denouncing groups who had fought on the same side, I was reminded of the current situation. Will the left ever be able to pull together?

Lynton Crosby, for all the frankly very mixed record of his campaigns, always achieves one thing - everyone focussed on the same objective. I'm beginning to think that's why he wins when he does, more than the dreadful dogwhistle stuff - because when the campaign starts, everyone stops knocking lumps out of each other and pulls together. I wish I didn't have the horrible feeling that the Blairites want Labour to lose so they can maintain the illusion that only they can win.

This bit. When it come to elections, the Tories are very much on message (exempting your Nadine Dorries - very much the exception). This is a constant weakness with Labour, there is a refusal to pull together when it really matter.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 08 May, 2016 12:35 am

I'm nicking this post from the latest thread on UK Polling Report and reposting it here because the imagery he uses made me laugh out loud ...

ALUN009
I agree that Labour’s results (Scotland aside, which really is another country these days) were much more positive than expected.
I do enjoy the spectacle of right-wing Labour folk attacking Corbyn. It reminds me of a person punching a tree. The more they do it, the more it hurts them, the angrier they get. Corbyn is at his finest when he turns that Zen power on. His most effective moments have been the dignified and silent stare over the glasses at braying Tories. Like the Labour right, they don’t realise that us plebs are watching their behaviour as well as what Corbyn is doing.
I think Corbyn is never going to electrify the world, but I think he can bring people down just be inspiring them to show their true, vicious selves. And we are witnessing the attempted suicide of the Labour right. Before these results there was talk of an attempted coup. That’s the Labour right sick of breaking their fists on the tree trunk and going to fetch the car so they can drive full speed into it. They’ve avoided killing themselves for now, but it’s only a matter of time.
Still, they are entitled to their views, and I can’t begin to imagine what I’d do if I were in Labour and of the the right of that party. Luckily I’ve not got either problem to worry about, so I’m happy enough.

Thank you ALUN009 for the smile.

Editing to add: I get an image of many John Cleese 'Basils' going off to fetch their car.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 08 May, 2016 12:38 am

Goodnight, everyone!
love,
cJA

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 08 May, 2016 12:48 am

I feel the need to counter the idea fed at me endlessly by some sections of the media and Labour that I might be under some strange spell - that I am deluded and believing that the election results are good and we / Labour don't need to worry. I'm certainly not that - I recognise the results as being a very mixed bag - some dire some much more positive than expected and some middling. I'm relieved rather than deluded - there are signs of where things can be built on. And I want to be allowed to enjoy the bits that are good and use that to gather some energy for the hard work and fights to come.

I recognise that London is a very different bag from much of the rest of the country. What works for London isn't necessarily going to work elsewhere. Echoes of Hardman's thoughts on Week in Westminster. I'm glad Corbyn went to Bristol and I hope he goes to many other far flung and not much focussed on parts of the UK. There's mileage to be had in not being and being seen to not to be so London-centric.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sun 08 May, 2016 1:07 am

Sticky99 wrote: Corbyn isn’t even an effective opposition leader, Cameron and co have no need to take him seriously at PMQ’s. “Jane in Islington says”. Hmm, it’s about time Corbyn started to grill Cameron with his own lines. Corbyn had his “I told you so” moment last Thursday. Labour won back London, won other cities and retained many councils. However, Corbyn will ensure that Labour loses badly at the 2020 general election.

First find a plausible alternative candidate, preferably more than one to choose from.

Otherwise, what the hell's the point in moaning about Corbyn?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sun 08 May, 2016 2:31 am

Looks like the Greens are going to do a deal in Worcester to let Labour run a minority administration. Tories booted out.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sun 08 May, 2016 8:02 am

Sticky99 wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
Sticky99 wrote: I would disagree and agree with you. I would agree that Oona King wouldn’t have beaten Boris Johnson. Saying that, it should have been abundantly clear that when Livingstone lost to Boris the first time, despite London mostly being a Labour city, that was the cue not to stand again against Boris. Livingstone had a good run as mayor, but Labour should have known it was time to pick a new candidate.

The most important result for me is Labour being in power, being able to introduce popular centre-left policies that will be seen as landmark decisions in the future. It is popular for people to bash Tony Blair, but undeniably, he won 3 general elections and introduced measures like the minimum wage and sure start. The left will often talk about injustice, but the biggest injustice of all is to sit in opposition with no power to introduce left-leaning policies. Ed Miliband was a good opposition leader; he constantly held the government to account, made them do things they really didn’t want to like leveson. However, for all the talk of a radical agenda, I was disappointed that big proposed policy announcements never came.

Both Ed’s craved perceived economic credibility, which they never gained, but similarly, they didn’t appeal to the voters who wanted a radical agenda, because there wasn’t one. Miliband had a narrow retail pledge that kept on mentioning zero hour contracts, but that affected only a minority of voters. The Tories made up all sorts of lies and bogus pledges at the last general election, but Miliband’s pledge lacked a focus on core issues like the economy, housing and most importantly, they rarely defended Labour’s spending whilst in office. They let the “Labour crashed the economy” mantra stick in the early yeats; instead they went around apologising for nothing.

Corbyn isn’t even an effective opposition leader, Cameron and co have no need to take him seriously at PMQ’s. “Jane in Islington says”. Hmm, it’s about time Corbyn started to grill Cameron with his own lines. Corbyn had his “I told you so” moment last Thursday. Labour won back London, won other cities and retained many councils. However, Corbyn will ensure that Labour loses badly at the 2020 general election.
Another one. Whilst you're at it, with your infallibility up there in the future, can you give me the final score in the Cup Final and first scorer? Make yourself useful, y'know?
If it makes you feel better that Corbyn has a chance of winning in 2020, that's fine. However, I can confidently predict that you will be massively disappointed after the next general election. I will always vote for Labour at a general election, I just wish the party would install a winner - not a candidate who is doomed from the start. I didn't like a lot of what Blair did, but he got Labour into power. Any Labour leader will never be perfect to me, but if that person can mix centre-left policies with a centrist appeal, that would be the most ideal situation.

Apologies for the delay in coming back to you but you have clearly missed my point. I can confidently predict that you don't know what conditions will apply in 2020, nor who the principal characters in any General Election may be, nor what response the country will be displaying towards the ongoing effect of Tory policies enacted between now and then, so your knowledge that Corbyn will be roundly defeated in 2020 is meaningless, especially as he won't even necessarily be Labour leader by then.

Despite protesting that you support and will always vote Labour, you, like other people I could mention, come over as relishing the prospect of your analysis being proved true ('I told you so') rather than Labour actually doing well and God forbid you should face having to explain how you were wrong.

You may indeed be right. I at least know I won't be wrong because it's going to beat least three years before we get any rational idea of where things might be heading and until then I won't be predicting anything. Not even the Cup Final result (though I shall be backing Manchester United).

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 08 May, 2016 8:07 am

1995 - Blair's first local elections as leader - 46% of councillors won. Described by the BBC as "a landslide".

2006 - Cameron's first local elections as leader - 41%. BBC: "The best Tory result for years".

2012 - Miliband's first local elections as leader - 2,159 councillors, control of 23 more councils. BBC: "a mixed bag".

2016 - Corbyn's first local elections as leader - 47%. BBC: "Disaster for Corbyn".

2016 - All 4 elected mayors, 2 holds, 2 gains, Labour. Tories Lose 2.
2016 - Tories lose twice as many council seats as Labour.
2016 - Tories have 828 council seats, Labour has 1.291.
2016 - Tories lose 46 seats, Labour loses 23.

BBC political hacks simply will not accept that UK politics is changing in ways they either cannot understand or refuse to contemplate.
Kuenssberg and Pienaar in particular have been very obviously biased in both their reporting and questioning.
Rather than say that Labour has done well in the prevailing conditions, it's now all about how Labour should have done better.

And most of all, it's all about how useless Corbyn is.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sun 08 May, 2016 8:18 am

Morning all. Just caught up with the Khan piece and the Toby Helm accompanying piece. There seems to be an omission from the latter about Khan's call for unity in the party. Funny that.

Hoping the weather is as good as yesterday, half the house painted, half to go. Fingers crossed gravity and the ladders are on my side.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sun 08 May, 2016 8:38 am

ephemerid wrote:1995 - Blair's first local elections as leader - 46% of councillors won. Described by the BBC as "a landslide".

2006 - Cameron's first local elections as leader - 41%. BBC: "The best Tory result for years".

2012 - Miliband's first local elections as leader - 2,159 councillors, control of 23 more councils. BBC: "a mixed bag".

2016 - Corbyn's first local elections as leader - 47%. BBC: "Disaster for Corbyn".

2016 - All 4 elected mayors, 2 holds, 2 gains, Labour. Tories Lose 2.
2016 - Tories lose twice as many council seats as Labour.
2016 - Tories have 828 council seats, Labour has 1.291.
2016 - Tories lose 46 seats, Labour loses 23.

BBC political hacks simply will not accept that UK politics is changing in ways they either cannot understand or refuse to contemplate.
Kuenssberg and Pienaar in particular have been very obviously biased in both their reporting and questioning.
Rather than say that Labour has done well in the prevailing conditions, it's now all about how Labour should have done better.

And most of all, it's all about how useless Corbyn is.

Case in point, Andrew Rawnsley: http://www.theguardian.com/global/comme ... leadership" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. 'Dr Corbyn’s elixir for electoral success will kill only the patient'.

Would that I could be so disastrous on the EuroMillions Lottery.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 08 May, 2016 8:56 am

Good morning all

I see Rawnsley has come up with another pile of rancid shite in the Grauniad this morning

I never try to say that I am particularly intelligent, or insightful, but when compared to people who get paid a lot for prediction and comment I bask in a felling of superiority!

I heard a Freakonomics (or was it TED?) podcast recently on prediction and how the people who are paid to do are usually appallingly bad, and if they were actually doing the job of the 'predicted' and were so bad then they would be sacked! I take the 2016 football predictions as being another example

Some of these idiots were predicting that Labour should win hundreds of seats! Did they look at the number of seats available...it would have mean the Tories going down to around 500 seats and Labour 1500!!!!

Was this ever going to happen?

Are they incompetent or liars?

Also the comparison with 2012 and 'point in the electoral cycle' - do they know 2012 was 2 years after the GE whereas 2016 is only 1 year? Incompetent or lie?

I have a couple of reflections on the result....

i. Scotland was bad but it is likely that Labour are down to core vote now. They are perceived as too right-wing by the SNP voters (perceived as SNP are quite right wing as we know but the party establishment up there is rotten as we all know) and not unionist enough by the pro-unionists (there are people who vote unionist before left/right - as in Ireland). If you want to flirt with being less committed to the union (as Dugdale tried) you have to then be seen as left-wing enough by those who have moved across to the SNP......

ii. Labour did pretty well in terms of seats even though the vote was high.......I do not think there is a surge towards Labour at the moment and not sure if there will be.....the interesting thing is the softness of the Tory vote.....and LD resurgence in certain areas can perhaps be something to watch - despite my feelings about them I think they are more likely to take Tory votes than Labour

iii. Corbyn made the right choice to go to Bristol as it is a place where Labour has not fulfilled its potential, especially the SW region in general. It shows a lot about the media that is was almost considered a joke that he was going out of the capital...and he was then off the radar. Wankers!

iv. Finally, Khan won in London thanks to the hard work over a number of years by the activists and has been a consistent trend for a number of years. Khan may be a good candidate but to say it was all about him was nonsense. I hope Khan doesn't get too hubristic and try to become a rallying point for all the non-entities and intellectual vacuums from the right of the party

2015 was an odd election and 202 will be the same...the referendum, new party leaders etc so anyone making predictions now is foolish

Oh, and finally the nail in the coffin for the medai. A blown-up out of all proportion anti-semitism furore about Labour in the press but blatant racism from the Tory campaign, slander from cabinet ministers about people just to try and concretise a lie (and I use this word because we have to start doing so...they are lairs) is brushed under the carpet.

Despicable!!!!!

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 08 May, 2016 9:13 am

and here we go

Marr is just reinforcing my comments from above.

Ruth Davidson as a heroine? She only just pipped ahead of Labour on vote and 20% is really not much to talk about.....it is the collapse of Labour that has made things as they are and the fact is that the SNP are still dominate

oh and Fraser Nelson is a twat

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 08 May, 2016 9:17 am

mbc1955 - well, yes....

What the commentariat is not saying (and I do not believe for a nanosecond that they're too thick to realise it) is that if Labour had won 400 more seats as that eejit Kendall suggested, most of those would have had to come from the Tories - which would effectively have wiped them out. That was never going to happen.
Ed Miliband's Labour improved on and consolidated council seats in 2012; at the time, it was reported as OK but the "could do better" thing was going on then too; the idea being that he should have done much more given it was mid-cycle for the coalition government. Despite Scotland, there was an overall small swing to Labour.
It was not just unrealistic to expect Labour (under any leader, and in almost all circumstances) to increase their council seats by 25% or more; what it has succeeded in doing is keeping pretty much most of the seats Ed Milband gained and retained - that's the same sort of consolidation, plus the new mayors.

Isabel Hardman was saying the other day that the hacks and politicos in the Westminster bubble have no idea about what people are thinking outside it; the results prove that, in spades.
For the likes of Pienaar to predict a loss of Labour seats of 150 - 190 was just stupid, and shows how far removed from the electorate as a whole they really are. Hardman is right.

I don't think any reasonable person was seriously expecting Labour under Corbyn (or anyone else, for that matter) to totally take over all local government everywhere - yet this is pretty much what some hacks and some Bitterites were saying; others were predicting a loss on a scale that has never ever happened in UK local elections.

Labour did OK, in some places more than OK. While the hacks prat about trying to find ways to make this not so, they are ignoring just how badly the Tories have done. One year in to a new government, not even mid-term yet, and they have lost more local seats than Labour and they have lost 2 city mayoralities and with London out of their hands possibly the most important of them all.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 08 May, 2016 9:27 am

Morning.

Huw Irranca-Davies Retweeted
BBC Radio Wales ‏@BBCRadioWales 1h1 hour ago
.@huw4ogmore tells #SundaySupplement: It's quite feasible that Labour could decide to go on its own as a minority government #Wales2016

That's what the Riots are hoping. We had a rare (Mr Riots doesn't often discuss politics with me) discussion about it whilst out and about yesterday. We were trying to weigh up whether they would try for a coalition with Plaid - not good in our book. We thought they probably wouldn't - and even if they did certainly not on the terms they had last time where Plaid demanded control of whole departments such as Rural Affairs which is how the badger cull came about. We also thought that Plaid may well not want to go into coalition - doesn't suit their current narrative of bashing Labour and they came out of the last one deeply unpopular (partly because of their awful tenure at Rural Affairs). Their recently returned hero in waiting, Adam Price, has been very vociferous in his insistence that Plaid shouldn't go into coalition with Labour. So - could be interesting times ahead. If it's confidence and supply arrangements I'd expect Plaid do make some very public arguments with Labour to keep raising their profile and show their negotiating prowess.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sun 08 May, 2016 9:34 am

The irony of the calls for a big tent strategy from Streeting etc that want to ignore the Labour membership.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 08 May, 2016 9:35 am

Why doesn't Khan say that the campaign was border-line racist?

And that the Tories need to look at themselves as much as Labour has been challenged to do?

By being nice and inclusive may seem the right thing to do on paper but we have seen how attack has worked for the Tories...we need to do the same on occasion - the racism of the Tory Party is there to be seen but then anti-muslim is an acceptable racism now, just like anti-semitism was before the holocaust!

But no, the focus is on Corbyn and Labour but the bloody Tory party and their incompetence is never mentioned.

I am getting a bit fed up of all this - 'we need to talk to everybody, not just ourselves but I will spend all the time I can speaking about Jeremy Corbyn rather than pointing out the incompetence of this Government' - not once was the incompetence of BoJo mentioned, not once was the fact that the problems Khan is facing are direct consequences of the neoliberal - London is a Labour city and Corbyn has been a London MP for 30 years - and a very good one!

Labour's problem isn't London but the areas outside it...like the SW where Corbyn went to yesterday but still we have little snide comments from Marr, which Khan should have responded to

I have got a horrible feeling Mr Khan is going to try to set himself up as a separate power centre to the leadership and the media will be happy to do that.....him and Corbyn need to be close and have an agreement on how to prevent this happening

Oh, and this personal vote mandate thing.....since when is this relevant?

ScarletGas · Post by **ScarletGas** » Sun 08 May, 2016 9:48 am

yahyah wrote:Here's some of the hard workers who helped Marvin, give them a clap.

Gosh that's St.Cuthbert's Brislington. This is where I was a choirboy and alter server in my formative years and also the church where we married in 1972.
Interesting I had the privilege when I first got the vote to be able to put my X by the name of Tony Benn. All downhill from then living now in rural Oxfordshire where its said they weigh the tory vote.

On the subject of Bristol once again the political pundits have it wrong. Jeremy Corbyn did not visit to congratulate Marvin Rees on his stunning victory. More he came to celebrate promotion (in the 92ndminute!) with Bristol Rovers to the first division. Successive promotions after relegation to the National League, a new rich owner, a new state of the art ground. Great progress. Watch out Leicester we are coming after you! Up the Gas!

Lastly on a more serious point. I note a conversation above trying to foretell the result of the 2020 general election. Frankly its useless trying to predict, now, something that may happen 4 years hence. Our "esteemed" political punditry cannot,as has been proved over the past couple of years forecast what will happen tomorrow let alone in 2020 so lets get away from the wasting our time on useless supposition and concentrate on 2016.That has got to be the constructive and sensible way forward. Look what the tories and the orange bookers did in 2010.They were not so much worried about 2015 as to constructing the false narrative about the Labour government.That,in my view is why they won in 2015 not in wishing their time away speculating on what in political terms is eons away.

Wasn't it Macmillan that talked about events, dear boy,events.That holds as true today as in the 50s and we will judge the labour parties success or failure on how they can manage the narrative until 2020.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 08 May, 2016 9:49 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
Sticky99 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: Though it is doubtful any Labour other candidate in 2012 would have had a much better chance of beating Boris - the claims you sometimes hear from Blairites that Oona King (Ken's opponent for that nomination) could have done it are little short of risible.

Similarly delusional, of course, are those who claim the other Miliband would have miraculously transformed Labour's prospects last year.

And carrying on this theme, I doubt different leaders could have saved the left behind by history basket case that is SLab either last year or this. There *are* instances when the leader can make a real difference (either way) to a party's prospects, but they are less numerous than many imagine.
I would disagree and agree with you. I would agree that Oona King wouldn’t have beaten Boris Johnson. Saying that, it should have been abundantly clear that when Livingstone lost to Boris the first time, despite London mostly being a Labour city, that was the cue not to stand again against Boris. Livingstone had a good run as mayor, but Labour should have known it was time to pick a new candidate.

The most important result for me is Labour being in power, being able to introduce popular centre-left policies that will be seen as landmark decisions in the future. It is popular for people to bash Tony Blair, but undeniably, he won 3 general elections and introduced measures like the minimum wage and sure start. The left will often talk about injustice, but the biggest injustice of all is to sit in opposition with no power to introduce left-leaning policies. Ed Miliband was a good opposition leader; he constantly held the government to account, made them do things they really didn’t want to like leveson. However, for all the talk of a radical agenda, I was disappointed that big proposed policy announcements never came.

Both Ed’s craved perceived economic credibility, which they never gained, but similarly, they didn’t appeal to the voters who wanted a radical agenda, because there wasn’t one. Miliband had a narrow retail pledge that kept on mentioning zero hour contracts, but that affected only a minority of voters. The Tories made up all sorts of lies and bogus pledges at the last general election, but Miliband’s pledge lacked a focus on core issues like the economy, housing and most importantly, they rarely defended Labour’s spending whilst in office. They let the “Labour crashed the economy” mantra stick in the early yeats; instead they went around apologising for nothing.

Corbyn isn’t even an effective opposition leader, Cameron and co have no need to take him seriously at PMQ’s. “Jane in Islington says”. Hmm, it’s about time Corbyn started to grill Cameron with his own lines. Corbyn had his “I told you so” moment last Thursday. Labour won back London, won other cities and retained many councils. However, Corbyn will ensure that Labour loses badly at the 2020 general election.
Who are these 'candidates who can win' though? Chuka Umunna? Bottled it in the leadership race. Dan Jarvis? Bottled it and now rather obviously wishing he hadn't. Liz Kendall? Lol.

At the moment I'd say Corbyn is pushing more reversals on the government than Ed Miliband did. He kept the pressure up on steel, and now an ultra Thatcherite government is part privatising the industry. He kept the pressure up on academies and now they the plans have been dropped. Corbyn had a bad week this week at PMQs, largely because Livingstone had dropped him in it and Cameron could rant at him about Hamas, but the previous week it was generally reckoned that he'd torn chunks out of Cameron. In fact he'd had a very good spell, which was why all the forces arrayed against him united to blow up the antisemitism thing (ably enabled by Livingstone, who doesn't seem capable of basic judgement any more).

As far as 'justice to the masses' is concerned, let's not forget much of the 'strivers versus scroungers' rhetoric could be heard from New Labour politicians prior to 2010, the 10p rate of income tax was abolished and a lot of the regressive anti-union legislation was kept in place. For all the good New Labour did, it's not a binary issue where Labour in power is an unalloyed good. If I have to vote for a party that's a bit less shit than the Tories I will, but please god don't make me aspire to it.

Edit: I think a Blairite in 2015 would have done worse than Ed Miliband did

Agree. Much of what Ed said at the GE has turned out to be true. The problems he pointed out haven't gone away and are getting worse.

Incredibly, progress are still using the same language. What did I see in their prospectus? Aspiring. Tory speak. They can stuff it.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sun 08 May, 2016 9:49 am

ephemerid wrote:mbc1955 - well, yes....

What the commentariat is not saying (and I do not believe for a nanosecond that they're too thick to realise it) is that if Labour had won 400 more seats as that eejit Kendall suggested, most of those would have had to come from the Tories - which would effectively have wiped them out. That was never going to happen.
Ed Miliband's Labour improved on and consolidated council seats in 2012; at the time, it was reported as OK but the "could do better" thing was going on then too; the idea being that he should have done much more given it was mid-cycle for the coalition government. Despite Scotland, there was an overall small swing to Labour.
It was not just unrealistic to expect Labour (under any leader, and in almost all circumstances) to increase their council seats by 25% or more; what it has succeeded in doing is keeping pretty much most of the seats Ed Milband gained and retained - that's the same sort of consolidation, plus the new mayors.

Isabel Hardman was saying the other day that the hacks and politicos in the Westminster bubble have no idea about what people are thinking outside it; the results prove that, in spades.
For the likes of Pienaar to predict a loss of Labour seats of 150 - 190 was just stupid, and shows how far removed from the electorate as a whole they really are. Hardman is right.

I don't think any reasonable person was seriously expecting Labour under Corbyn (or anyone else, for that matter) to totally take over all local government everywhere - yet this is pretty much what some hacks and some Bitterites were saying; others were predicting a loss on a scale that has never ever happened in UK local elections.

Labour did OK, in some places more than OK. While the hacks prat about trying to find ways to make this not so, they are ignoring just how badly the Tories have done. One year in to a new government, not even mid-term yet, and they have lost more local seats than Labour and they have lost 2 city mayoralities and with London out of their hands possibly the most important of them all.

None of which I disagree with. Given the overall circumstances - a year after Electoral disaster, the sh1tstorm daily whipped up by the media, Blairite determination to drag the party down - what Labour under Corbyn has achieved is admirable. It could have been better but not, I suggest, realistically much better. Yet despite this, Rawnsley and his pals slate Corbyn and claim the results support their prefabricated thesis that he will doom them for ever. Labour lost seats: well, pardon me but, across the country I don't see an overall loss of 23 seats to be overwhelmingly bad, whilst basic logic has me seething that this article doesn't go on about the Tory party's even greater disaster. They lost seats too. In fact, they lost twice as many as Labour did. As I said, if that's disaster, applying it to me weekly lottery ticket should make me more money than I've ever managed before.