3 ms·

I would note that whilst Corbyn does have a few policies that are popular, he still lost despite facing perhaps the weakest Tory candidate in a very long time.

I would note that whilst Corbyn does have a few policies that are popular, he still lost despite facing perhaps the weakest Tory candidate in a very long time. Theresa May: "the naughtiest thing I've ever done was skipping through a field of wheat" wat? The objections to him aren't usually about the specific policies raised in the last manifesto (which I disagree with but reasonable people can differ on things like railway nationalisation). They're more that people don't trust his government would actually stick to the manifesto. The habit he has of surrounding himself with liars who try to hide their extremist views - and yes, in the UK thinking Marxism is great is an extremist view - engender a deep suspicion that if he won on a moderately left wing platform he'd immediately go off the deep end. today, they poll much better than the ruling party The latest polls don't show Labour polling better at all, although this many years into an administration the opposition would normally be polling much better. Actually the Tories are slightly ahead at the moment: http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/ http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/ Of course the polls will drift around all over the place between elections. That doesn't mean much about what would happen if there was another snap election. What this all demonstrates is the sheer power of propaganda to shape people's perceptions - yours included Given that you just made a claim that's provably false, I'd be careful about tossing around accusations that those you disagree with are all brainwashed, although I realise this is a very common belief amongst Corbynites.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>he still lost despite facing perhaps the weakest Tory candidate in a very long time. Or, to look at it another way, he triggered a hung parliament in spite of: * 60% of the PLP openly and covertly sabotaging him. * The entire mainstream print and broadcast media attacking him relentlessly ("left wing" Independent and Guardian included) until the day the election was called. >Given that you just made a claim that's provably false I was talking specifically about the claim made in 2015 that Corbyn was "unelectable" and would "render the Labour party unelectable for a generation" by members of the media and Blairite members of his own party. They were arguing that the UK was going to become essentially a one party state with Labour polling similarly to the Lib Dems in all of the following elections for a generation (~25 years). What followed was the largest vote gain in history by any UK party since 1945. That is not provably false, it is provably true. >I'd be careful about tossing around accusations that those you disagree with are all brainwashed I'm not arguing that people who disagree with me are all brainwashed. I'm arguing that people who agreed with that specific idea were brainwashed. What else do you call people who buy into ideas promoted heavily in the media that are so divergent from reality?

crdoconnor 9y ago

>he still lost despite facing perhaps the weakest Tory candidate in a very long time. Or, to look at it another way, he triggered a hung parliament in spite of: * 60% of the PLP openly and covertly sabotaging him. * The entire mainstream print and broadcast media attacking him relentlessly ("left wing" Independent and Guardian included) until the day the election was called. >Given that you just made a claim that's provably false I was talking specifically about the claim made in 2015 that Corbyn was "unelectable" and would "render the Labour party unelectable for a generation" by members of the media and Blairite members of his own party. They were arguing that the UK was going to become essentially a one party state with Labour polling similarly to the Lib Dems in all of the following elections for a generation (~25 years). What followed was the largest vote gain in history by any UK party since 1945. That is not provably false, it is provably true. >I'd be careful about tossing around accusations that those you disagree with are all brainwashed I'm not arguing that people who disagree with me are all brainwashed. I'm arguing that people who agreed with that specific idea were brainwashed. What else do you call people who buy into ideas promoted heavily in the media that are so divergent from reality?