Tories win Copeland b-election.

[Helmet Cole]

Labour's majority in Copeland:

1997 : 11,000
2005 : 7,000
2010 : 4,000
2015 : 2500

Not everything is Corbyn's fault

Something people seem to (conveniently) forget is that due to the collapse of the labour vote in Scotland which pre dates Corbyn they can't win a GE with any leader.

 

[sir baconface]

Although he's the best leader Labour have seen in 70 years (in part because he wasn't very Labour), he still wrecked the economy as Labour always does. It's just he took longer to do it than normal.

He inherited from the Tories an economy that was strong and growing, and instead of using the growth and wealth created to invest in our public services AND pay down our national debt, he did only the former. He allowed the worst Chancellor in living memory - Gordon "evil" Brown - to systematically steal from every pocket he could find, in order to fund this unaffordable spending spree. And when the easy tax increases were all done, he started on the devious and insidious taxes, hoping people might not notice or care ( (on his watch at least). Like ruining our pensions, selling off our gold reserves, taxing our energy and our holiday flights (FFS!) raising national insurance. Basically taxing anything that moves, so long as he could keep the base income tax rate the same and not create public outcry.

And then when the shit finally hit the fan with the crash in 2008, his incompetence was laid bare for all to see: We were completely broke after the decade plus of Labour profligacy.

Tories get back in, spend 10 years trying to sort it out again. Rinse and repeat. The only hope is they may get longer than 10 years this time, courtesy of our Trotskyist friend.

Didn't he and his mate also come up with PFI? A spiffing wheeze to spend even more money, while leaving the bill to future generations.

My abiding impression of Blair, other than Iraq, is his sheer cynicism. It outstripped that of any other leader in modern times in any party. My belief is it grew the longer he was in power.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Something people seem to (conveniently) forget is that due to the collapse of the labour vote in Scotland which pre dates Corbyn they can't win a GE with any leader.

Exactly the point.

No Labour leader has a chance in hell. More so the social media times we live in. Tory voters beating the same old drum 'wish there was a stronger opposistion' would be saying the same about any Labour leader.

 

[bluemoonmatt]

Something people seem to (conveniently) forget is that due to the collapse of the labour vote in Scotland which pre dates Corbyn they can't win a GE with any leader.

It's unlikely yes, however if England's results were similar to that of 1997 in spite of Scotland we would have a labour government furthermore it's not inconceivable that the snp vote could collapse once we have an effective labour leader obviously.

 

[bluemoonmatt]

Exactly the point.

No Labour leader has a chance in hell. More so the social media times we live in. Tory voters beating the same old drum 'wish there was a stronger opposistion' would be saying the same about any Labour leader.

So is this the reason your'e happy with labours position being no more than a movement of protest, seriously?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Could be worse. You could live in a country where Donald Trump was elected

There's a similar argument to be had with the electoral college system.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Errrr you need to check your facts.......it wasn't the labour party that created the 'deficit' it was the fact that they had to bail out the bankers.

You need to check yours. Of course throwing vast amounts of cash at bailing out a banking catastrophe (that Labour presided over), made matters much worse.

However after a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) in the late 1990s, the UK went into budget deficit under Labour of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007. A bloody disgrace considering the economy was growing by between 2% and 3% for much of the period.

Basically they spent more than we could afford, as usual.

 

[AustinBlue]

There's a similar argument to be had with the electoral college system.

Well, it's not "mine." I'm English. I like the electoral college aspect of the USA. I just don't the way parties pick their representative. For Donald and Hillary to be the best their parties can do, you would assume that the process involved a blindfold and a dartboard. Or a "who can drink the most tequila before voting" competition.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Labour's majority in Copeland:

1997 : 11,000
2005 : 7,000
2010 : 4,000
2015 : 2500

Not everything is Corbyn's fault

The fact remains that incumbent governments are almost universally less popular whilst in power than they were when they won the preceding election, and therefore it is almost unheard of for them to win a seat in a by election that they failed to win at the election. All incumbent parties do is retain seats at by elections (if the majority is big enough) or lose them (if not). They never make gains.

I believe the last time this happened was 35 years ago. It shows - as if any proof were needed - that Labour, having lost under Milliband, have moved in the wrong direction and would lose even more heavily now.

What do you do when you are going in the wrong direction? Change direction of course. Until Labour do just that, they will move further and further away from power.

 

[i kne albert davy]

Something people seem to (conveniently) forget is that due to the collapse of the labour vote in Scotland which pre dates Corbyn they can't win a GE with any leader.

Just a made up Myth I'm afraid mate, Labour would have breezed into power in 1945,1997 and 2005 if every seat in Nationalistic Scotland had voted Tory.