Hah!

Anything that annoys the snp ****asses works for me!

I'd love Pete Wishart to lose his seat but it's unlikely to happen. This would be damn good though.

I notice it's gone a little under the radar but I see the 2 Snp MPs who are under investigation by plod for financial irregularities won't be standing again.

^ election fraud Tories don't share their humility.

This post makes no sense on any level

Not sure that Corbyn will resign on the 9th - however badly he loses.

I agree with your last 3 words anyway

Razor sharp aren't you?

Whereas the factual information I provided is up for debate...?


More schmolls news which may have been missed:

"Labour is solidly ahead of the Conservatives with voters under 40 years old despite being more than 20 points behind in the polls overall, according to a significant new poll.
The mega-poll of nearly 13,000 voters by YouGov conducted over a two and a half week period found Jeremy Corbyn would be heading to Downing Street were the election decided by 18-40 year olds.
Labour is particular popular with women under 40, who split 42 per cent in favour of Mr Corbyn’s party and 27 per cent for Theresa May’s. 12 per cent support the Lib Dems. Men under 40 also back Labour by 32 per cent to 31 per cent for the Conservatives, with 18 per cent backing the Lib Dems." (Indy)

I predict a smooth transition to socialism as the old farts die off.

your personal politics is now starting to descend into the gutter

its nothing new btw for Labour to lead with younger voters but unfortunately elections take place in the real world where over 40s still have the vote. So successful politicians need to build a coalition that gives them a chance of getting enough votes to succeed. Serious politicians like Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper understand this and so would have had a chance to succeed. They might not have succeeded, but they would have been in the race. Corbyn never stood a chance and this was always obvious to anyone who allowed themselves to think.

Though to be fair to Corbyn, unless we had a once in a generation leader of the Labour party, who ever was in charge would be about to preside over a big defeat, we are quite deep into a tory cycle. Obviously because of Corbyn its going to be absolute worst loss possible, but to pull a victory from present circumstances would take the GOAT politician.

What is the point of winning if you abuse that power to kill a million Iraqis on a pack of lies, which Yvette Cooper voted for. And also voted against investigations into that conflict. There's a reason only 17% of Labour members backed her.

It wouldn't have been easy - but the complete ineffectiveness of the opposition over the last two years has been part of what has shaped the current position.

I notice you have stopped arguing that Corbyn has or even had a chance - I think you've answered my original question - You know he can't win but don't really care as long as he is ideologically pure. Think on this when it comes to choosing the next one.

You are talking like these people care. They really don't. They have no conception of anything other than winning power for its own sake. It is a beta male thing-try to succeed by selling out your own principles and integrity rather than making them an asset.

Here's what a chance is: a greater than zero probability of something. You are like the archetypal mug punter who thinks a horse "can't lose".

I really would lose that patronizing and superior tone unless you want people alluding to the fact that you are statistically illiterate. On a poker forum no less.

Didn't the right wing of the Labour Party run a ****ing Pharmacy lobbyist against Corbyn last year ?

That was like the worse possible type of candidate to run against him in a leadership contest. It always amuses me that people complain about Corbyn but they never discuss the underlying issues.

The thing is I can agree with Corbyn on lots of issues. He seems a nice guy on a personal level too. His problem is that he just terribly ineffective as a communicator and as a leader - which is unfortunately his job.

What he is saying about housing for instance is great - but has no significance because he has no chance of winning power. (Or for the very literally minded has almost no significance because he has almost no chance of winning power.)

My honest view is that it's unlikely, but I don't believe a landslide is as likely as what the media is saying.
I don't think you appreciate the wider political context, the condition of social democracy, the transition of Labour. If you think it's about ideological purity then you're wrong, I am well to the left of Corbyn for instance. For most working people they agree with most of Labour's programme, the issue is what is possible, what is believable, will people turn out in the belief that change is truly afoot. There is a saying, 'pessimism of the will, optimisim of the intellect' - the tendency to believe that change isn't achievable because of general apathy; yet the dominant ideas, however ridiculous, are to be believed without question. This election puts this question well - strong and stable leadership, or 'real change' which you know can't happen. A Labour victory depends on the extent to which they offer a believable alternative, as has happened elsewhere in recent history (Chavez, Syriza). It can happen here too, it's just more difficult.

No, it is not for the very literal-minded. It is elementary probability theory, cognitively equivalent to not being able to read or add up single numbers. Don't backtrack out of it because you got caught with your pants down.

Unfortunately this line of reasoning assumes that people currently under 40 will remain under 40, which based on our current knowledge of physics and biology is unlikely to happen.

Unfortunately I think that a landslide is very likely

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ta-looks-bleak

I kind of agree that it is possible for public opinion to shift, but the not until the left starts to win arguments.
People are getting poorer - particularly younger people - but the blame for this is getting put onto the EU and immigrants rather than the real reason which is that corporations and their shareholders are siphoning off more of the national wealth. It’s not a criticism of Corbyn and his allies that they don’t understand this because I think they do, but paradoxically they are in a better position to try to win the argument about this as the left wing of a broad –church Labour party than as the leadership - where they are lambs to the slaughter of mainstream opinion (It’s not just about the media) over stuff like the IRA, Trident, apparent economic coherence.
Concentrating on winning internal battles in unions and the Labour Party is futile in that it just helps the Tories stay in power, which has immediate negative effects on things that are important to people like schools, the NHS, benefits. ( It’s an interesting question as to when and how they will eventually lose power.) It also gives the impression of a very machine-like political group which again takes away from any chance of winning arguments

The alpha male is back in town

He's taking the piss, genius.

Labour is going to lose heavily because of the inclusiveness of the progressive/humanist project.

We live in a time of othering by ethnicity and nationality.

Whilst Labour might support the working classes, they also support universality of compassion and respect to all humans regardless of demarcation.

The working classes in this country at the moment don't give a **** about that though, they don't want progressive politics because in short they don't want humanist ideals applied to immigrants and muslims etc.