3 ms·
One has to be completely ignorant of reality or an absolute tankie to make this sort of statement. Labour will be mildly hamstrung by the costs of a decade and
by evgen 2y ago
One has to be completely ignorant of reality or an absolute tankie to make this sort of statement. Labour will be mildly hamstrung by the costs of a decade and a half of Tory failure, but to claim some sort of false equivalence between the two is foolish. The Corbynistas were rightly pushed aside because they, and the tiny leftist rump the represent, have no chance to get elected. Hopefully, now they can disappear into the irrelevance from which they sprang and let the rest of us get down to repairing the damage caused by the previous five years of pain their incompetent campaigning brought about.
- mike_hearn 2y agoWell, they had no chance to get elected except that Labour got fewer votes this time than they did under Corbyn in 2017. So Corbyn apparently could have won an election. He drummed up more support. He didn't win because back then conservative voters were still willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to their party, but the Tories chose to betray their voters and the voters withdrew their support as a consequence. To put this in perspective, never in British history has a party won so many seats on the back of so few votes.
- thorin 2y agoBut you need to get the right people in the right constituency. Reform got 4 million votes.
- rsynnott 2y agoOne likely reason for the voter apathy is that this outcome was seen as such a sure thing; in a more competitive election, like Corbyn's, you naturally expect higher turnout. (This isn't great, but unfortunately it's the way it goes; if the outcome is essentially inevitable, a lot of people on all sides just don't bother voting. This is particularly the case in FPTP systems, where the outcomes for most constituencies are essentially predetermined.)
- cholantesh 2y agoIt's quite easy to be a tankie since the word has no inherent meaning.