I'm at work so I haven't seen the latest figures but Labour should really be giving the Tories a complete hiding in these elections if they hope to be in government. Given how long the Tories have been in power and the fact we've had austerity imposed on us throughout that time then Labour should be out of sight.

Many of the public have swallowed the line that the austerity measures are imperative and a necessary punishment for over indulgence.

The same happened in the 1980s, and I think it's wrong to assume that Labour should be way ahead in the polls simply because of austerity measures.

I really don't know the validity of your point. We tend to look at the way things worked in the past but I think things have fundamentally changed now we're firmly in the internet era. Plus brexit is sitting above normal party politics for some %age. This all leave me confused as to what the result means rather than any view that labour is doing better/worse than it conventionally appears.

It's not entirely convincing that there has been any 'austerity', at least by any measure that any other country or period in time would recognise, so it is understandable that some are sceptical about its negatives.

The number one reason that people concerned about austerity have got that way is because the media keeps saying it. The same non-reason some were hyper-concerned about forex for the past 2-3 years.

It's not solely because of that but there does come a point where the electorate tire of the same old same old. We've not even had the pre-election bribes that parties traditionally offer and the last Tory manifesto was the most downbeat and depressing I can remember. I think they had so much arrogance about winning the election that they felt able to just put the truth out there rather than making any promises they were unlikely to keep.

Brexit is definitely playing a part but I don't buy your point about the internet fundamentally changing things. That's completely irrelevant in terms of Labours failure to give the Tories a bit of a kicking at this point.

The problem with tis proposal is it still leaves a significant amount of Leave voters feeling like their preferred option isn't on the ballot paper.

Two of my contemporaries from my political philosophy class at uni (both under 25) have been elected councillors. Class was only about 15 students. Quite impressive

Maybe. I'm not so sure

For an example of what I mean, and mostly as pure conjecture: There used to be a lot of protest voting i.e. someone who voted tory at the previous general election, then votes against the tories in local elections as a protest but was a near cert to return to the tories for the next general election when 'it mattered'. This phenomena seems to me to have almost disappeared - nearly everyone who voted labour this time is a serious potential labour voter in the next GE.

Evidence for this?

Minimal. not even confident it's true.

I'm far more confident that politics has changed dramatically since social media has taken off. I can't show evidence of anything specific in regards to voting patterns. I'd bet it's significant but I don't know in which ways.

Even if we leave without a 2nd referendum, there's going to be a lot of leave voters thinking 'this isn't what we voted for'

I can think of anything that every sizable group will think is more or less fair and reasonable.

That's fair enough.

I disagree with your point about social media and believe that it's impact on voting patterns is less than most people believe it to be. Similar to yourself though I don't have any evidence for this (I haven't gone looking for any either). I just believe it's easy to get caught up in social media echo-chambers and over state things based on a large minority who make a lot of noise there. I've been involved in various political discussions on social media and it took a while to realise that all that was actually happening was people who already had their 'side' arguing with those on the other 'side' with no one actually swapping sides after these discussions. Everyone was just so entrenched. Of course there will be more subtle methods involved in targetting people there and we're seeing this more and more lately.

In saying the above though, all this is pretty irrelevant in terms of Labour's poor performance in the local elections.

Sad!

Was it poor though, given that that just about everybody, including half his own party, are virulently anti Jeremy Corbyn?

From todays Irish Times - 'Labour won more seats than all other parties combined in Thursday’s local elections, recording its best result since 1971 in London, where the Conservatives came within a handful of votes of losing control of their flagship council, in Wandsworth. So why was Theresa May on a victory tour on Friday, while Jeremy Corbyn faced questions about his party’s failure to do better?'

This really is incredibly superficial analysis and I see it all the time from momentum slappies on social media. I honestly don't know if it's disingenuous or delusional. When was the last time a government in waiting didn't give the party in power an absolute twatting at the locals. Expectations are incredibly important, that's why nobody thinks Theresa May had a good election last June.

Not since 1971 for a Labour government in waiting, in London at least.

The 1971 local elections took place under a Tory government, one year after a general election. In 1974's general election Labour lost the popular vote and didn't win a parliamentary majority.

In the area Labour performed best last Thursday, they did worse than in 1971. That's what is being spun as a great result for Labour?

My contention is that Jeremy Corbyn is doing quite well to be still standing let alone holding his own considering the biased campaign been waged against him by the media and the great and the good of English politics, including most of the MP's in his own party. He has been accused of everything from being a Czech spy, a Russian stooge to a IRA terrorist and according to conventional wisdom is totally unelectable on account of being a loonie leftie throwback from the 70's but yet in 3 out of 4 of the elections he has fought the Labour vote has increased.

Maybe if all the Labour party threw their weight behind him Labour would be getting the landslide victories that they should be getting against the current government.

Do you think Labour MPs who thinks he's a travesty should publicly praise him?

Jeremy Corbyn has won 2 leadership elections, and won them well, whether the MP's like it or not he is the leader of the party they are members of. They tried getting rid of him and it did not succeed so maybe they should try supporting him more than they are. It might succeed in getting Labour into government where they would have a lot more influence on policy than they do now. Its not like Corbyn would have presidential powers if he was elected as the prime minister.

Maybe some of them have a problem with someone who considers Hugo Chavez an economic maestro? Or someone who venerates Hamas? Or someone who thinks there's 'very strong indeed' evidence Syrian gassed themselves, despite their being no evidence?

Maybe they think Brexit is everything they're against & don't want to support a hardcore brexiter who they feel (intentionality aside) threw the referendum? Or someone who states as a fact that "tuition fees" have reduced the number of C2DE attending university despite the opposite being true? Maybe they don't like that he wouldn't correct that alternative fact and are embarrassed that Labour had to send the Education secretary to set the record straight?

You seem to think that MPs with concerns about any of the above should keep quiet. Perhaps you felt the same way when C****n spent 28 years criticising Labour's leadership. If so you are imo wrong, but consistent. If you had no problem with the hard left criticising Blair, Brown etc. (because that was principled!) but think MPs should never criticise C****n then you just want to see C****n elected and the rest is motivated reasoning.

One of the most important factors in being a political leader is persuading politicians to support you. His failure to do so rests on him.

A heckler shouted at Ruth Smeeth, a Jewish Labour MP, during a press conference about anti-Semitism. Smeeth left the press conference. She was crying. C****n thought this was a good time to text with Smeeth's heckler and laughingly apologised to the heckler.

Those are both have nothing to do with politics. They are just ****ty leadership. Perhaps, despite these examples, Debbonaire or Smeeth or their friends should show C****n "loyalty" for the "greater good". You may think they should. But his abysmal managerial practices and refusal to admit fault of apologise for anything, ever reduce the PLP's goodwill towards him. And that's on C****n.

orby

hmm, isn't censored for me

orby isn't for me too but **** is.

Corbyn
Corbyn
Corbyn
Corbyn
Corbyn
Corbyn
Corbyn

Take that, PartyGirlUK.