the hard brexiters in Westminster are very well organized.

 

if Ruth Davison eventually becomes the new leader of the conservatives, then yes, hard brexit won't happen.

Irrespective of how well they are organised, without the numbers they are ineffective... she doesn't have to do that, with her group, which apparently ran a successful campaign against the instructions of the central party, she now has clout. She can simply declare herself the Scottish conservatives, a separate group and demand that her cooperation in electing a Tory government is contingent on being made deputy prime minister or chancellor or whatever... That is realpolitik. There is apparently little love lost between the centre and the Scots.

respective of how well they are organised, without the numbers they are ineffective.

while we are still in the brexit phase (for the next 10 years, in, out or still negotiating), it is unlikely that any government will command a large majority because of the 48/52 split.

The hard brexiters will continue to leverage on the right wing press to multiply their influence.

No, the public will move to the left

 

And the outcome of what's happening at present will be that they will indeed move to the left.

.

Labour needs to move to right to stand any chance of taking office.

 

Not so. Your mistake is that for years, like so much of the UK public, you've believed the Tory lies that our socialists like Jeremy Corbyn are extreme left wing, almost akin to communists.

 

In mainland Europe Jeremy Corbyn would be viewed as simply a socialist, not at all extreme. He has much in common with Clement Attlee and his 1945 government, and no-one views them as extreme left wing now. Most are very thankful that they were once in power.

.

This election will be remembered as a massive missed opportunity for Labour. A more moderate leader, with a more main stream approach to defence , Trident and Nuclear Power and probably even a more cynical attitude to Brexit would have seen a landslide victory for Labour , not this psuedo win folk are seeing at moment. Its a really big shame.

Tories have as much time as they need to align their policies with public wishes for next time. Even if Brexit fails labour wont benefit, they have neither opposed it or supported it. Does anybody actually know where Corbyn stands on Brexit. I don't think I,ve heard him mention it. Seems he sort of supports it.???

As usual you manage to be utterly wrong, the opportunity was missed by May to make her position fireproof and Corbyn was saved by the bell from suffering from the backlash to come when Brexit goes bottom up.

And then you ramble on as usual about Corbyn's intentions.

What the hell good would a landslide victory have been for Labour? unless Corbyn had simply cancelled Brexit on the spot he would have shared the fate waiting to destroy the Tory party.

 

Of course Labour will benefit from Brexit, it already has otherwise the Tory party would have had their 100 plus majority.

Where and why did so many more people vote for them?

 

There might be more mileage for you to consider this question, Why did May try so hard to lose the election?

She was acting as Boris does in trying to get herself the sack with as poor a campaign as that.

It was in fact so poor, it even made some of your arguments appear to verge on being credible.

By your argument they are waiting to inherit a complete shambles ? We already have one.!

Brother as they say

"You 'aint seen nuthin yet"

There will be hell to pay over this.

while we are still in the brexit phase (for the next 10 years, in, out or still negotiating), it is unlikely that any government will command a large majority because of the 48/52 split.

The hard brexiters will continue to leverage on the right wing press to multiply their influence.

And above the Front door of the Telegraph, Daily Mail and Express the motto

"

Te potest mutare virtutem publica omni tempore

But for how much longer I wonder?

Does anybody actually know where Corbyn stands on Brexit. I don't think I,ve heard him mention it. Seems he sort of supports it.???

 

He has mentioned it. He is pro EU but has said he will abide by the referendum result.

 

No different from Theresa May in fact, since she was also a remainer.

.

Not so. Your mistake is that for years, like so much of the UK public, you've believed the Tory lies that our socialists like Jeremy Corbyn are extreme left wing, almost akin to communists.

 

In mainland Europe Jeremy Corbyn would be viewed as simply a socialist, not at all extreme. He has much in common with Clement Attlee and his 1945 government, and no-one views them as extreme left wing now. Most are very thankful that they were once in power.

.

 

Perhaps flecc but irrespective of how far left he is we will never see him in no10..How he is viewed abroad is irrelevant ,his policies on defence, taxation,social services and especially nuclear deterrent IMO make him well towards left.

And BTW flecc your stance on saying right wing press have affected his popularity is conflicting with your opinion labour won this election. You cant have it both ways flecc. Either right wing press destroyed him ( which they tried) or he was successful in this election. The pair are mutually exclusive.

One thing this election has shown is we over estimate power of press. Even Campbell thinks Mail were doing Corbyn a favour. People are not as easily manipulated as its suggested. Had Mail had any real influence nobody would have voted for Corbyn.

Edited June 10, 20178 yr by Zlatan

He has mentioned it. He is pro EU but has said he will abide by the referendum result.

 

No different from Theresa May in fact, since she was also a remainer.

.

 

It was said last night that TM was a secret leaver , only showing her true colours after referendum. But then again successful politicians don't have true colours. They seem to adopt anything to stay in power...so who knows.

But for how much longer I wonder?

 

in the new social networking age?

 

a very long time, better get used to it or like me, ignore them altogether.

He has mentioned it. He is pro EU but has said he will abide by the referendum result.

he could have said 'I abide by the result but I agree that each and every MP in the Labour movement can follow their own conscience'.

That would have made him more acceptable to most.

As usual you manage to be utterly wrong, the opportunity was missed by May to make her position fireproof and Corbyn was saved by the bell from suffering from the backlash to come when Brexit goes bottom up.

And then you ramble on as usual about Corbyn's intentions.

What the hell good would a landslide victory have been for Labour? unless Corbyn had simply cancelled Brexit on the spot he would have shared the fate waiting to destroy the Tory party.

 

Of course Labour will benefit from Brexit, it already has otherwise the Tory party would have had their 100 plus majority.

Where and why did so many more people vote for them?

 

There might be more mileage for you to consider this question, Why did May try so hard to lose the election?

She was acting as Boris does in trying to get herself the sack with as poor a campaign as that.

It was in fact so poor, it even made some of your arguments appear to verge on being credible.

 

Because he could have campaigned on doing exactly that and if possible carried it out. His stance on Brexit has neither helped or hindered. And as normal you tell me I,m wrong....Opinions are opinions OG. Yours and mine may differ but neither are wrong..so stop doing it. Yes , express your OPINIONS but stop being righteous and assuming yours are some how superior.

May attempted to make her position fire proof but in doing ran an awful campaign, weakening her position, but don't underestimate her or Tories.( Labour have done that for 30 years now)

They are still stronger than labour and I suspect will only get stronger ( unfortunately)

Corbyn bribed the young vote which was a big mistake. Folk are already saying he made promises he cant deliver ( Tuition fees for a start). Imagine what next Tory campaign will legitmately be saying..

Labour should sack Corbyn now. It was in reality ab abject failure.

Edited June 10, 20178 yr by Zlatan

Because he could have campaigned on doing exactly that and if possible carried it out. His stance on Brexit has neither helped or hindered. And as normal you tell me I,m wrong....Opinions are opinions OG. Yours and mine may differ but neither are wrong..so stop doing it. Yes , express your OPINIONS but stop being righteous and assuming yours are some how superior.

May attempted to make her position fire proof but in doing ran an awful campaign, weakening her position, but don't underestimate her or Tories.( Labour have done that for 30 years now)

They are still stronger than labour and I suspect will only get stronger ( unfortunately)

Corbyn bribed the young vote which was a big mistake. Folk are already saying he made promises he cant deliver ( Tuition fees for a start). Imagine what next Tory campaign will legitmately be saying..

Labour should sack Corbyn now. It was in reality ab abject failure.

Take your own advice and do try to thoroughly understand that a situation is evolving that is considerably more complex than your Corbyn lost and that's it view.

The real losers are the Tory party and they know it, worse still so do the EU

 

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Edited June 10, 20178 yr by oldgroaner

Take your own advice[emoji1]

 

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

I did weeks ago.

The only reason Labbour and Corbyn are happy about election is expectations. They were expecting to lose by a massive margin and didn't. That tells a story . Any organisation with that mentality never wins anything.

Have you ever seen Lewis Hamilton or MUFC or Murray happy at not winning. Only loosers rejoice at not loosing badly.

That mentality must change in labour.

Perhaps the election was only advisory.

And BTW flecc your stance on saying right wing press have affected his popularity is conflicting with your opinion labour won this election. You cant have it both ways flecc.

 

Why not? do explain your very odd logic, it really doesn't make ny sense does it? the two things are entirely different and unrelated

The only reason Labbour and Corbyn are happy about election is expectations. They were expecting to lose by a massive margin and didn't. That tells a story . Any organisation with that mentality never wins anything.

Have you ever seen Lewis Hamilton or MUFC or Murray happy at not winning. Only loosers rejoice at not loosing badly.

That mentality must change in labour.

And only idiots rejoice if they win an election only to face long term damage when they prove unable to undo the damage caused by a combination of foolish voters opting for Brexit and the stupid Tories for setting the whole fiasco in motion in an attempt to sort out internal party conflicts.

The Tory party made the mess, let them take the flak when they cant put it right again.

The Labour Party won because the Tory party has undermined itself very badly and the EU will take advantage of that.

So a hard damaging Brexit is no longer an option

If the Tories had gained a big majority the EU would have known the country was behind them, now they know that isn't the case, and May and co really can't threaten them with a walk out any more.

Your view of Politics is far too simplistic.

I did weeks ago.

It didn't work did it? here you are again rambling and ranting as usual about what if situations no one cares about.

And BTW flecc your stance on saying right wing press have affected his popularity is conflicting with your opinion labour won this election. You cant have it both ways flecc. Either right wing press destroyed him ( which they tried) or he was successful in this election. The pair are mutually exclusive.

 

I've said nothing about destroying him and my complaints have been directed against the Tories, rather than the press reporting of what they've said.

 

There's nothing mutually exclusive here. The anti-Corbyn propaganda did have a huge effect on large numbers of the electorate as we know from their comments when interviewed, and that no doubt depressed his vote. But on the other hand the constant insistence of the Tory propaganda rebounded against them, as those of the the electorate who are able to think for themselves reacted against it and voted accordingly.

 

It was the latter who brought about the unexpected recovery of the Labour vote, aided by Corbyn's performance in the campaign.

.

Perhaps the election was only advisory.

A closer fit would be "ill advised" don't you reckon?

I've said nothing about destroying him and my complaints have been directed against the Tories, rather than the press reporting of what they've said.

 

There's nothing mutually exclusive here. The anti-Corbyn propaganda did have a huge effect on large numbers of the electorate as we know from their comments when interviewed, and that no doubt depressed his vote. But on the other hand the constant insistence of the Tory propaganda rebounded against them, as those of the the electorate who are able to think for themselves reacted against it and voted accordingly.

 

It was the latter who brought about the unexpected recovery of the Labour vote, aided by Corbyn's performance in the campaign.

.

... According to the tally's of those who do these things , had labour achieved 2500 extra votes in specific key constituancies, they would have had an over all majority, similarly had the Tories achieved an extra 250 votes in others they would have had their majority. So making absurd claims of overall victories winners and losers is a bit rich. Both major parties were neck and neck.

Other democracies can operate with a proportional representation system whereby the final representative assembly reflects how people voted. The advantage of that system is that it forces a more consultive assembly as coalitions are more likely.

... According to the tally's of those who do these things , had labour achieved 2500 extra votes in specific key constituancies, they would have had an over all majority, similarly had the Tories achieved an extra 250 votes in others they would have had their majority. So making absurd claims of overall victories winners and losers is a bit rich. Both major parties were neck and neck.

Other democracies can operate with a proportional representation system whereby the final representative assembly reflects how people voted. The advantage of that system is that it forces a more consultive assembly as coalitions are more likely.

 

But ends up with only ever a minority ,and potentially weak, government.

For an argument against PR look at Italy.

Why not? do explain your very odd logic, it really doesn't make ny sense does it? the two things are entirely different and unrelated

 

Ofcourse they are not. Just have a think OG.Thought my view was simplistic.?