I agree with Neville about the reasons (if not his assessment of government policies).
Corbyn did much better than expected for 4 reasons:
1. The staggering ineptitude of Theresa May and her manifesto, put off huge numbers of would-be Tory voters from voting Tory. My wife for one; lifetime Tory voter, point blank refused to vote for her.
2. A Labour social media campaign that gained momentum with the young, greatly helped by a £28,000 incentive for the 50% of young people who go to university.
3. The terrorist attacks, given that May was Home Secretary for the last several years, played well into the hands of those moaning about Tory cuts.
4. Corbyn acquitted himself better than expected in the debates and interviews. He wasn't as bad as people thought, and starkly contrasted May, who was miles worse than everyone thought.
If anyone wants to argue that none of the above came into play, then they are deluded. Plainly those four things were factors.
Having concluded that, what is also therefore logically undeniable, is that were any of those factors not to have been in play, then the gap between the Tories and Labour would have been even bigger. Had the Tories not fumbled with the care cost proposals, more of the elderly would have voted for them. Had Theresa May not be dismal, more people would have voted for them. in my estimation, they'd have a comfortable majority now, irrespective of what Corbyn did or said. They lost because they fucked it up.
Let's boil down a part of that history you have issues with:
Two lads are scrapping on the bus every day cos they don't like each other and the passengers feel increasingly less safe and they're afraid to get involved. One day a geezer decides 'enough of this sh*t and separates the two idiots, asking "WTF is up with you two and why are you always fighting?"! This geezer has 'links' now cos he tried to talk some sense into the little cnuts, but through 'Chinese whispers' it now transpires that he was now chummy with one of the fookers and they have jolly japes together.
Patently untrue, yet the stigma is now with him.
Undeterred he carries on talking to other idiots with sh*tty issues and he doesn't regret it as he's trying to make a difference, yet the worslyweb's of this world think he's a cnut for a even trying!
I happened to be the cnut that actually separated two little tw@s scrapping on the bus, so I know how it is to try and broker peace, but can't be there all the time.
I feel sorry for Corbyn for even trying to find a solution of peace cos people like you think he's vermin, but I feel proud that he had the courage to try and make a difference in this sh*tty world.
As for his immigration policy? Lol!
Don't get me started on the audacity of him having some Humanity...
Maybe they could call it "Not The Labour Party"You state that a decent opposition would have won by a landslide, what you mean, I assume, is a Labour Party run by someone like Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Owen Smith would have won by a landslide, but where's your evidence for this?
What you are really saying is not that Corbyn is unfit to lead the opposition, but the Labour Party is unfit, because the Labour Party, on two separate occasion over the last two years elected Corbyn with a stonking majority. So clearly it is the party itself that is the problem. We know from the experiences of the SDP that starting a new party from scratch is a recipe for disaster, so what you're advocating, presumably, is that the party must change, re-brand itself and start again, perhaps with a fresh name, perhaps New Labour?
Why is wanting a cap on immigration LOL - most of the country want it?
You state that a decent opposition would have won by a landslide, what you mean, I assume, is a Labour Party run by someone like Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Owen Smith would have won by a landslide, but where's your evidence for this?
What you are really saying is not that Corbyn is unfit to lead the opposition, but the Labour Party is unfit, because the Labour Party, on two separate occasion over the last two years elected Corbyn with a stonking majority. So clearly it is the party itself that is the problem. We know from the experiences of the SDP that starting a new party from scratch is a recipe for disaster, so what you're advocating, presumably, is that the party must change, re-brand itself and start again, perhaps with a fresh name, perhaps New Labour?
you still havent said what we do about those 2.5 million who we cant transition to high skilled jobs, you are just ignoring it.
Fookin' depends on what you mean by a 'cap'!
Are you, for example, wanting no more than 30 000 through and the 30 001st person is the unlucky cnut with a hand in their face with the word 'full' written on it?
Or are you thinking 'well, those people that come to help us get work filled and pay taxes, it's okay if their families become a unit again'?
Cos that's the 'Human' side of it.
Corbyn hasn't said 'no cap', has he?
You will have to show me where he said that, if you don't mind...?
Cos to me, he's being realistic, which you can't seem to understand.
The actual analysis of the election shows that the defining change was the enormous swing to Labour in the 30-50 age group, even more than the young vote.
Maybe they could call it "Not The Labour Party"
Deputy leader of Kensington says it could take up to two years to rehouse Grenfall Tower residents.
So that's OK.