Having an interest in British politics, I have been following the run up to the June 8 election. Having read the recent leaked labour party manifesto I thought it must a joke only to find that it was deadly serious a string of Corbynistas including senior academics singing its praises and saying how fabulous the government was in the 70s before the nasty Thatcher.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that Labour has just slipped the noose around its own neck and issued the UK its suicide note, as anyone that remembers the 70s with the near bankruptcy of the UK, the strikes and generally miserable service would struggle find any match with the utopian Image that Corbyn is trying to paint.

Before this suicide note, labour was tipped to lose 50 seats leaving it with about 27% of the seats and the manifesto is just going to make it worse. The question will be whether Corbyn will survive or his rabid supporters will blame the media and keep him on.

Hi SM,

Yes, I agree that Corbynism could obliterate the Labour party in Britain. It's interesting how an ideology can become a religion, none of whose basic principles can ever be questioned, and which assumes that none of the conditions which gave rise to it have changed.

So the working class is still seen as huge, united, and - crazy as it sounds to outsiders - very large in mining and manufacturing, as if that's the way it's always going to be. As Marx and Engels described the economic and political scene inthe1840s, that's the way it's always going to be.

Here in Australia, the numbers of workers in manufacturing reached a peak in about 1966 and are a fraction now of what they were. In fact, what looks like manufacturing when you drive around an Australian city is more likely to be assembly of imported parts, transport and warehousing. Only 10 % of Australian workers are in unions - i.e. 10 % of a much reduced number since 1966.

But believers are oblivious to all that. I'm afraid to bring up the topic of Corbyn-type policies with some relatives, given that they have always embraced 'socialism' with the unquestioning and unreflective fervour and - dare I say it - faith, of religious zealots.

Perhaps that's one reason why the pseudo-Left here are so soft on Islamist extremism - because they recognise and respect its crack-pot zealotry, as fellow zealots, even if Marxism and Wahhabism don't quite mesh. Well, except for their common totalitarian 'Utopianism' of course.

That's enough to get some people going :)

Joe

SM,
Why the hell would you be interested in UK politics and especially the rantings of Corbyn?

Can't you find enough problems with the LNP to fill your time or have you given up on them too, as I have. I could not believe they would elect Turnbull to lead anything.

For Gods sake, try and find some in the LNP that have some practicality and retain some common sense. We will be like Greece if we have to endure another term of Labor.

Think of the future for your own grandkids, it is not looking good at the present.

Banjo,

We are all disappointed in the capitualation in the new budget, but as discussed by Abbott:

"Tony Abbott has blamed the Senate for the fact the budget is a “spending”, rather than a “savings” budget, backing the Coalition’s banking levy as a necessary measure and the budget as “the best that the government can do” under current circumstances."

I find British politics interesting as the analogue of Aus politics without the obstructive Senate.

Just look at Corbyn's fiscal incompetence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/14/jeremy-corbyn-facing-questions-funding-black-hole-unveiling/

It appears that Jeremy Corbyn's credentials as a
leader rather than the party's policy platform
according to The Guardian newspaper remains the
biggest challenge to address between now and
June 8th.

The following links may be of interest:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/13/scary-jeremy-corbyn-not-radical-at-all-labour-manifesto

And -

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/12/labour-party-voters-polls-policies-manifesto-jeremy-corbyn

Foxy,

The Guardian is by far the most left whinge newspaper in the UK and makes the failing Fairfax papers look conservative.

While the manifesto may be popular amongst the young with promises of everything for free, and taxes only on the rich, the majority of Britons realise that it simply doesn't add up.

The conservative austerity reforms, while unpopular have led to a UK recovery that outstripped the rest of the EU, and most of the world.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I did not realise that The Guardian newspaper was
a left-wing source. I don't make those sort of
judgements. I go by the content and - the relative
studies undertaken. What was listed in The
Guardian was apparently taken from
a variety of sources. Also Googling the issues the other
sources supported what The Guardian was saying.

You should in future specific what sources
are unacceptable in your discussions so that we would
know not to waste our time responding.

Dearest Foxy,

You confess that "I did not realise that The Guardian newspaper was a left-wing source."

I'm still partial to it as a sort of old ex-leftie, and as well I'm not all that bright, but even I would have to agree that The Guardian (and Russia's The Independent as well, not to mention Putin's RT) consistently report with what passes these days for a very left-wing slant. Well, when was the last time they reported anything with a mildly right-wing slant ?

I'm not saying that they report 'fake news' but it's more what they DON'T report. Maybe The Australian goes the other way, so reading both can give a sort of balance. And surely we're grown-up enough to be able to make judgements for ourselves ? Admittedy, one can't say that for many people under, say, twenty five, but hopefully experience will be a great teacher for them too eventually.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Actually as a librarian it's an occupational habit
to research many sources. I've been doing it all
of my life. And, as I stated earlier I do not
divide things up into labels. I go for the content
that is well researched and what makes sense to me.
You're free of course to make your own choices.
I wouldn't dream of preaching to you about what you should
do. Although I must admit I am tempted at times to tell
you what you can do (but I'm fighting that urge). It's
not polite.

Dearest Foxy,

From you, it would be a beautiful balm, no matter how severe. Come on, I'm a big boy, I can take it :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

It's not worth the argument.

Foxy,

Firstly the articles to which you linked are opinion pieces so the claim for superior research is fictitious, and in case you have difficulty interpreting the blindingly obvious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom

The Guardian
Political leaning: Centre-left
Party support in 2015 General election: Labour Party/Green Party, liberal Democrats in marginal non-Labour seats

In a comparison of papers the Public rated the Guardian as the most left winge publication closely followed by the Mirror then the Independent.

The fact that the author of the article to which you linked considered the manifesto to be "not radical enough" in spite of including nationalisation of private businesses, vast tax hikes on businesses and the wealthy and middle classes and a huge budget deficit, should point to a deep bias.

The proof of the pudding is that most Labour candidates make any reference to the manifesto or Corbyn in any of their electioneering material, because both are vote killers.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There's quite a few English websites that one can
access to get a better perspective on Jeremy
Corbyn and his party's policies. It does make for
interesting reading. Of course it's always
difficult not living in the country to be able to
judge fully the mood of the people, especially
the younger voters. The results will prove interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39887997

Paul,

No one will ever admit to supporting terrorism nor paedophilia. However, there are always at least 2 main ways to address these problems along the lines of the carrot and the stick. With respect to ISIS there is very little that can be done with respect to the carrot, as the war in Syria is largely home grown, and unlikely to respond to aid.

The stick approach is to destroy ISIS as far as possible militarily and to pursue and punish those that escape, which appears to be working, though remnants are still causing problems.

Foxy,

In the past years, I can only recall you linking one article from a news organisation that was not left of centre. I quote mostly from conservative sources (as I am clearly conservative), but also technical documents, some left whinge organisations such Fairfax and the ABC, and even very occasionally the guardian.

Bugger, posting in the wrong thread again.

Foxy,

From the economist (widely regarded as centrist)

"The most obvious difference between this manifesto and the 1983 one, which Gerald Kauffman, a Labour moderate, christened “the longest suicide note in history”, is that it’s longer: 20,000 words about renationalising the railways, bus companies and the Royal Mail, taking one energy company in every region into public ownership, scrapping tuition fees for students and increasing the powers of trade unions. The manifesto shows how far the economy has changed since 1983. The Labour Party is setting itself the task of reversing economic changes (such as the privatisation of utilities and the marginalisation of trade unions) that have now become rooted in British life. It also shows how much the culture of the left has changed since Labour was dominated by working-class men."

So far I have been quoting middle of the road media's assessment of Corbyn, a conservative blog is a little more cutting:

"There are lots of things to dislike in the Labour manifesto. No doubt voters will have plenty of opportunity to pore over them, in the coming weeks. But Corbyn’s views are only part of the reason for his unpopularity. Even if you leave them aside – the call to abolish the army, the chumming up with the IRA, the blind repetition of “tenets he’s always held ahead of evidence” (in the words of one Labour MP) – there’s still the issue of his crashing incompetence.

His bogus attempt to claim he was forced to sit on the floor of a train when he wasn’t, the delays and dithering in the EU referendum campaign, his inexplicable decision to pose for a photograph in a toilet, his neverending reshuffles, his mismanagement of the Parliamentary Labour Party to the point of mass rebellion, appointing Diane Abbott to a serious job, his back-to-back declarations of admiration for “our SNPs” (instead of MSPs) – you could write all day and still not complete the list of ways in which he has shown himself not to be capable.

The fact that his entire general election manifesto has now been leaked is, of course, the latest instalment in this epic clown car roadtrip. That in itself adds to the narrative of incompetence, but the content of the manifesto also underscores why it matters.

Not only is Corbyn bidding to be the person in charge of the Brexit negotiations, but he is proposing the nationalisation of large swathes of the economy. Putting the government in charge of industry is a bad idea even in the best circumstances, but it’s a particularly bad idea to put an incapable government in charge of industry.

Voters can smell the air of incompetence on Corbyn – by asking them to put someone who can’t even manage an ordered manifesto launch in direct charge of their energy supply, and other major parts of the economy, he’s simply underscored that distrust."

Dear Shadow Minister,

I have quoted from The Economist, The Australian,
The Herald Sun, and many other sources too
numerous to mention. And of course that does not
include the reading that I've done to support the
posts I write.

We can certainly differ in our opinions on this
forum and we should otherwise it would become
very dull and boring. But labelling of people should
be left out. I'm sure that most well reasoned
contributors would agree.

Foxy,

I have no doubt that you have, it is just such a rarity.

But, when you said "I did not realise that The Guardian newspaper was
a left-wing source." I found it difficult to believe considering that the paper makes no secret of whom it supports.

The long and the short of it is that fortunately it looks like Corbyn's Labour is going to get hammered.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Predicting the future in politics is a risky
business at the best of times.

As for what you find hard to believe?

That is something that I have no control over.

There's a great deal that most of us may find
hard to believe so you're not alone in that.

Hi SM,

Yes, I think the British Labour Party will be decimated. Unless the 'moderates' can somehow detach themselves from Corbyn in the run-up to the elections, they will probably be hit even worse.

I suppose there are still some Marxists who - in treating Marxism as a religion in the same way that some Muslims (I hope not too many) consider the Koran as an unchangeable, uncontradictable, document - would assert that every single notion of Marx's is still as relevant today as it was in 1847.

But even Marx and Engels conceded change: I forget which but one wrote to the other in the early 1880s, that not only did England have a bourgeois bourgeoisie and a bourgeois aristocracy, but it was well on the way to creating a bourgeois proletariat. That was barely thirty years after the Communist Manifesto - and a hundred and thirty years ago. Yes, the only certainty is change.

Next year in May will be Marx's bi-centenary. If he were to rise from Highgate and observe the state of left-wing politics in Britain, and its degeneration (in Corbyn's case) into a anachronistic religion, he would flee back to the comfort of his grave and continue arguing with the skeleton of Herbert Spencer across the way. And he may be inclined to take modern socialism' with him.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

It is for that particular reason that I generally refrain from making predictions. However, with FPTP elections Labour is so far behind in the polls, and has been losing by elections in strong labour seats, so I feel safe in making a prediction.

What I find hard to believe is that someone supposedly so well read and politically informed is not aware of the bleeding obvious.

Polls in the UK.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2017-general-election-poll-tracker-10266121

SUMMARY: Con 49%, Lab 34%, Lib 7%, Greens 3%, UKIP 2%

The question is what happens after June the 8th? Corbyn looks like he wants to hang onto power, and it looks increasingly likely that the labour party might split.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You do realise that Corbyn is already well ahead of Miliband's 30.4% result from the last election? The Tory's are of course reaping the benefit from the collapse of UKP's vote but I get the sense that the final result for the two majors will be under double figures.

In a way Corbyn is speaking to a similar demographic as Trump.

Interesting times.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You're not aware of the "bleeding obvious," because
you have a closed mind. (A closed book is just a piece
of wood after all).

Hi Steele,

What I respect, and sometimes love, about reality is that it comes about, no matter what we may wish for.

My prediction is that Labour will lose between thirty and fifty seats. What's yours, that Labour will win by ten seats?

We'll see in a few weeks, won't we :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“What I respect, and sometimes love, about reality is that it comes about, no matter what we may wish for.”

Indeed.

Labour has 229 seats. You claim they will lose between “thirty and fifty seats” which would leave them between 179 and 199 seats giving them the lowest number since the war.

So why do you wish that for the UK Labour Party?

My prediction is that they will probably gains some seats, certainly not enough to win but I think it unlikely they will go backwards. Still a way to go though.

Hi Steele,

Dear oh dear. I'll repeat: "What I respect, and sometimes love, about reality is that it comes about, no matter what we may wish for.”

I'm not saying that I wish for a devastating Labour loss: I hope, probably vainly, that they come close enough to the Tories to give them a scare. But I don't think that reality will bear my hope out.

Reality is king, wishes are beggars.

Hey, I might patent that.

Joe

SR,

If you read the link I provided, it is clear that support for all the minor parties has collapsed. While labour has benefitted from this by about 4% the conservatives have done more so by about 12%.

While I expect the gap to tighten closer to the polls, the UK election is still first past the post, and with the conservative lead now far greater than the 6.5% lead in 2015, the chances of labour gaining seats is slim.

My best guesstimate (with a fat margin of error) would be for the lead at the election being in the region of 10% and labour losing about 20 seats.

Hi Steele,

You wrote yesterday (at 3.47 pm) that "The Tory's are of course reaping the benefit from the collapse of UKIP's vote .... "

I'm not so sure: much of the UKIP vote might slide over to Corbyn. After all, historically, it's been common for sections of the working-class and more marginalised populations, to devoutly follow one extreme, only to flip over to the other extreme, when their God fails.

Witness Trump's capture of the job-threatened working-class vote, formerly Democrat voters; the support from formerly communist voters in French mining areas to vote for Le Pen; and of course, the support from voters in Germany who went for the Communists in the 1920s, only to vote for the Nazis in the 1930s. And let's not talk about who backs One Nation here.

Those classes are usually pretty desperate, almost praying for a saviour to get them out of economic depression - and if one fails, they switch very quickly to another one. UKIP has effectively gone, so what next ? Who's going to save the put-upon and economically marginalised ? 'Right' or 'left' may no matter much to somebody whose job either has gone or is about to go - as long as somebody can promise them some basic security, salvation from the abyss of unemployment.

In the US, if it becomes clear that Trump will never bring back jobs as they used to be, build a wall, keep out job-competitors, etc., watch for the rapid flip-over of his followers - at some point, they'll be ripping down the White House fences, wanting to rip his head off. The devout and the desperate can be quite volatile.

We'll see :) Wouldn't be dead for quids.

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

A little over a week ago you were saying this;

“Before this suicide note, labour was tipped to lose 50 seats leaving it with about 27% of the seats and the manifesto is just going to make it worse.”

Now this is your message;

“My best guesstimate (with a fat margin of error) would be for the lead at the election being in the region of 10% and labour losing about 20 seats.”

Today there was this;

“Labour have continued to cut the Tories’ lead in the polls after the publication of the party manifestos, as party leader Jeremy Corbyn claimed his message was “getting through” to voters. Survation research gave Theresa May's party a lead of nine percentage points with the Conservatives dropping 5 per cent to 43 per cent in a week while Labour enjoyed a 5 per cent boost to 34 per cent.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-closes-gap-on-tory-lead-with-best-polls-showing-so-far-a7747111.html

Would you now agree that the Corbyn's manifesto has probably been a positive rather than the 'suicide note' you had originally labeled it?

If so why do you think that is?

Steele,

Oy. Most of the rest of us are aware that in the UK, elections are different from here: whoever gets the most votes, first up, no preference system, wins the seat.

So hypothetically, if the Tories won 49 % of the vote in every electorate, they would win every electorate. So first and second preference rubbish. Every seat. Of course that won't happen. I'd better repeat that, since you will throw it back at me, again and again: Of course that won't happen. Of course that won't happen. Of course that won't happen.

So there is no necessary correlation between a 54: 46 preference split between the Tories and Labour, and Labour getting 46 % of all seats. if that distribution was repeated across the country in every electorate,.... well, you now what would happen. In such a system as Britain's, a 54 % lead means much more than getting just 54 % of the seat, it can conceivably mean a complete wipe-out for the minor party. Of course that won't happen. Of course that won't happen. Of course that won't happen.

Different folks, different strokes, as someone remarked recently.

Joe

SR,

Given that the trend worldwide is for polls to narrow as the election approaches, and given that there were other polls subsequent to the one you refer to that show a wider margin, it would be courageous call to claim that the labour polling improved after the release of the manifesto. So no I don't agree with you.

Secondly, with respect to my prediction (which I acknowledged as a guesstimate), was based on the quote I posted a week previously (not my prediction), and the trend (mentioned above) for polls to narrow.

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/who-will-win-general-election-2017-latest-polls-odds-tracker/

Foxy,

Again I direct you to:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2017-general-election-poll-tracker-10266121

Here their average of all polls on the 20/5/2017 shows 47.1 to 31.4 or a lead of 15.7

It is probably somewhere in between.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“it would be courageous call to claim that the labour polling improved after the release of the manifesto”

Yet you thought nothing of stridently claiming the polling would get worse because of it.

Hi Steele,

I usually enjoy your posts, you toss them off so easily, with so little thought behind them; it's so much fun to find the holes in them.

Your last: [A] " ..... it would be [a] courageous call to claim that the labour polling improved after the release of the manifesto. ”

and

[B] " ..... yet you thought nothing of stridently claiming the polling would get worse because of it."

[A] suggests that SM believes that polling for Labour would get worse after Corbyn's manifesto.

{B} suggests that SM believes that polling for labour would get worse after Corbyn's manifesto.

Take your time, read passages a few times. Certainly read over before post9ng. Clear language can be such a pain sometimes.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“I usually enjoy your posts, you toss them off so easily, with so little thought behind them; it's so much fun to find the holes in them.”

Lol. This coming from the 'Rabbit Proof Fence' man.

Clear writing may well have its difficulties but never as much as basic comprehension. Perhaps reading both posts again might help. Let me know if you require further assistance.

Kind regards.

Hi Steele,

Try reading it again.

What does Quote [A] suggest ? That it would be courageous to claim that polling will improve after Corbyn's manifesto.

Quote [B] suggests that polling will get worse after Corbyn's manifesto.

It depends which poll you count - opinion polls or the actual election polls.

Wait and see.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Sigh.

Please replace your “will improve” in 'A' with “has improved” as in the original.

So did the polls improve after the release of the manifesto? Yes, quite notably. This is a statement of fact. One which according to SM I could only 'claim' with much 'courage' which is nonsensical. What he was of course attempting to do was dispute a possible correlation which was his opinion.

Does that help?

Hi Steele,

You mean the election poll, or the opinion polls ? Given the British first-past-the-post system, opinion polls this far out from the election and showing such a gap, must worry Labour, but it will be the election poll that counts. A lead in the opinion polls, if that is what you are talking about, of 15.7 %, is massive in such a system.

If I was Corbyn, or someone with a bit more sense, I would be horrified at that gap, manifesto or not. At the last election, the gap was barely 5 %, and Cameron won a majority easily.

Much more so that here, in Britain, the first-past-the-post system means that the election poll is the one that really counts. I'm still suggesting a loss from Labour of around thirty seats, perhaps fifty. We'll see, won't we ?

Joe

SR,

I'll use small words this time.

As I said previously, given that polls almost always get tighter closer to the election, there was no doubt that the vast Tory lead was going to decrease. The question is whether the manifesto gives labour a net boost or a drag.

Notably, before the election was announced, the labour, cons gap was consistently closer to 13%. Looking at the last week, and the average of polls, the gap between labour and the conservatives has changed by about 2% with the gap still being roughly 15%, and all Labour's new votes coming from the collapse of UKIP, the greens and the lib dems. The manifesto has hardly moved the needle, and with 15 days before the election, with all the smaller parties being wiped out, the situation is looking grim for labor.

"This poll continued a new trend of Labour closing the gap. The Tories were still 14 points ahead, but this was down from 20 points the week before. And the 33% Jeremy Corbyn's party had was the highest vote share since June 2016. However, it wasn't by any means good news. ICM predicted this would still allow the Tories to win nearly 400 seats."

Dear Loudmouth,

Being deliberately obtuse is funny for about 1 second. By the way the gap in the 'percentage of the popular' at the last election was 6.5% not 5%. I think Corbyn will better that notwithstanding the tragedy in Manchester.

Dear Shadow minister,

The small words are for your own benefit mate. Here is an opinion/prediction for you, Corbyn has an excellent chance of doing a Trump taking this thing out. The harder the media and the establishment go after him the more support he seems to be getting. He is talking about radical change just like Trump did. If you think the Brexit crowd have any kind of allegiance to the Tories then you are just plain stupid.

SR,

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/forget-52-rise-re-leavers-mean-pro-brexit-electora/

So who's stupid now. This is why I called it the new delusion.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes I've seen that graphic and many others which why I expressly said;

“If you think the Brexit crowd have any kind of allegiance to the Tories then you are just plain stupid.”

Your side of politics has been counting on the Brexit voters as cementing a win for the Tories. This is idiocy. People didn't suddenly change their values and become rusted on conservative voters. They may well have supported leaving the EU but it only takes a quick look at the Tories most popular policies to show how hard May is trying to cater to the disaffection that got Brexit over the line.

Her most popular is increasing NHS funding by 8 billion pounds. Also in the top 3 is increasing the living wage to 60% of the median wage.

Plus she is flagging means testing the universal winter fuel payments for pensioners.

This is her version of Turnbull's Labour Light.

You seem to wallow in the delusion that disaffection equals conservative votes. May and Turnbull are smart enough to realise their grip on these voters is very tenuous. Why aren't you?

Hi Steele,

Yes,sorry, I got my wires crossed, brain's not fully engaged: opinion polls and the actual election. I was trying to tease out why opinion polling may have less relevance in Britain than here, since elections there - the 'real' poll - are not won on the same basis as here; and they certainly aren't run in the same way that opinion polls are, on some sort of proportional basis, but on a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all, basis. A candidate who gets the most (first-preference) votes, wins. End.

Opinion polls can't measure that, it seems. A 54-46 % split would mean little, if it was(hypothetically) translated into every electorate: in such a hypothetical situation, a 54-46 % split would mean 100 % victory for first-past-the-post Tories, with (hypothetically) 54 % of every electorate vote. So opinion polls are not much of a guide.

Perhaps if they were carried out electorate by electorate, then we would see a much more realistic summary across the country, seat by seat, and what sort of majority the Tories might have after the election. That would make more sense.

For all that, the gap seems to be much wider now than at the last election, which Cameron won strongly enough to tell the LibDems to piss off. But other issues might stand out: Labour may win NO seats in Scotland, and lose many in Wales and Nthn Ireland, not to mention in England's North.

I still think Labour's loss might be around 20-30 seats. What's your best guess ?

Joe

SR,

Given that it is clear that the support for Brexit has increased, and those supporting it are largely changing their vote to Conservative, probably due to Corbyn's wishy washy approach. Allegiances may be fickle, but it looks like they will support May at least until the general election.

It's also funny how all people do better under a conservative government, (the income of the lowest 25% of workers increased more under Howard that in any comparative time in Aus history). looking after the economy helps everyone. However, but I fail to see how a 6.7% increase in funding to the NHS over 5 years is labor light.

Shadow, what a crack up! Another 'Egg of Face' award coming your way, Add this one to your "Turnballs will win in a landslide" claim. How do you manage to get so many predictions so wrong! You jumped out of the blocks to claim an easy Tory victory in Britain, Labour to lose 50 seats you said. All based on the fact Labour were running with a silly old fuddy duddy up front, unfortunately you didn't allow for the fact The Tories had an even bigger silly old fuddy duddy leading them!

Wow, did I get that wrong ? The Tories will still form government, they'll have the Nthn Irish and maybe the Scottish Nats, but they'll have to make all sorts of deals to empower the peripheries, perhaps even the welsh, I hope.

The poor bloody Labour Party is now stuck with Corbyn for maybe another five years, prattling his idiotic 120-150-year-old agenda, as if there is still a huge proletariat and no immigration, which brings us to .....

..... who got the Muslim vote ? Labour ? No ! I don believe it. Really ? I wonder how that squares with the 19th century-socialist message ? Surely, as conservatives, the imams were instructing their flocks to vote tory ? No ? labour ? Gosh, maybe Islamists are progressive ? Maybe Shari'a is a harbinger of true socialism ?

It certainly is a strange new world.

Joe

Hi Joe, Shadow is a political newbe, still wet behind the ears, so he can claim total ignorance for the silly predictions he makes. But what is your excuse?

Paul,

You can always be relied on to cock it up and end up looking like an idiot.

While I freely admit that my first political projection was wrong, and I seriously underestimated May's ability to shoot herself in the foot, you deliberately misrepresenting what I said makes you look like a complete pratt. I made no prediction on Labour losing 50 seats or that Turnbull would win in a landslide.

The real lesson is that if a leader promises everything for free and bugger the consequences he will get votes. One has only to remember Venezuela and Greece's socialist experiments that doomed their people to penury.

Hi Shadow, you are getting it totally wrong with Aussie and Pommy politics, so please, please, please don't venture into Venezuelan and Greek politics. I don't want to see you with souvlaki and a bit of criollo (national dish of Venezuela) all over your face, egg is enough.

Your slings and arrows are too much for me, I am a very sensitive person, you know I only ever post the truth!

Dear Shadow minister,

You wrote;

“I made no prediction on Labour losing 50 seats.”

Well no you actually predicted they would lose by more though I suspect you will squirm your way out of it.

“Before this suicide note, labour was tipped to lose 50 seats leaving it with about 27% of the seats and the manifesto is just going to make it worse.”

But you still don't get it do you. People are voting against establishment politicians. It isn't about budgets or political correctness or even about Muslim terrorism though for some these elements do matter. It is more a reaction to the political elite, the kind you toady up to.

Trump could well have been a Saunders instead. A little while ago I asked who had more to fear with the Trump victory, Liberal or Labour. I still firmly think it is the former.

The sooner you figure out that a large number of Trump and Brexit voters did so because of a disaffection rather than support the more lucid your predictions might become.

Wow, I certainly miscalculated there. But, on the other hand, both Labour and the Tories gained more votes than at the last election. Labour seems to have picked up 24 seats, when it needed about 100 to form government. AND labour is now stuck With Corbyn for five years. You win some, you lose some.

So will the Tories dump may ? Probably. Will the Tories then make nice with the Scottish national Party, which seems to badly need a boost at the moment, and being part of the national government might do it. I hope the Tories don't cosy up to the Paisleyites.

Joe

SR,

I am well aware of what I posted, but if you had any decent command of English you would realise that commenting on someone else's prediction is not a prediction by myself.

Considering you tipped a labour win, you are hardly in any position to comment.

Paul,

Given that most of your posts are almost exclusively gibberish, you holding your self out as the elder statesman is a joke.

Shadow. with my knowledge of British politics being at about the same levels as yours is for the Aussie varsity, zero, I did not think it wise to comment earlier when you kicked the tread off.
I could see that with the Tories being a sure bet, and having all the pundits predicting an outcome that suited your mantra; the superiority of Conservatism over all other, you couldn't lose. well so you thought.
Here was a golden opportunity for you to put the boot into Labor, even if it was only the British Labour Party, they would have to do for now. The script read; British election, Tories big winners. Labour a bunch of mugs. All goes to script, you could then do your Rumpelstiltskin act, dancing around the fire (the burning carious of The British Labour Party) whilst trumpeting "I told you so". Unfortunately the British public didn't follow the script, making you look a complete tosser on the subject.

All I can say is in your case you lose some, and you lose some more. BTW, when has your complete ignorance of a subject ever prevented you from pontificating your "expert" opinion, which always turns out to be gibberish, just like your predictions in this thread. I forgot, you see yourself as a person of superior intersect, a man of letters, claiming to have more degrees than the average thermometer, did you get them out of the Cornflakes packet?

Dear Shadow minister,

Thought so.

Come on mate. This isn't all that hard. There were many predictions and you landed on the one you thought had the most currency; a loss of 50 seats, which you then predicted would only increase as a result of the manifesto.

Even late in the piece you were predicting a 20 seat loss. Turns out they gained 30 and got within 2.4% of beating the Conservative overall vote. You were out by a neat 50 seats.

As to me predicting a Corbyn win I did not such thing. Rather I said;

“Here is an opinion/prediction for you, Corbyn has an excellent chance of doing a Trump taking this thing out.”

And if a dozen or so seats had fallen the other way it would be very interesting.

And all you can do in response it seems is to turn on your own side of politics. How about some reflection on why Corbyn did so well, Particularly with the young. If you are as versed in UK politics as you claim then you must have some idea.

Hi Stale Reflux,

I'm a bit thick, even for an old bloke, but I can't quite follow your reasoning here:

"As to me predicting a Corbyn win I did not such thing. Rather I said;

" “Here is an opinion/prediction for you, Corbyn has an excellent chance of doing a Trump taking this thing out.” "

That Corbyn 'had an excellent chance of winning unexpectedly, like Trump did' ? Is that what you meant ?

I think Corbyn would need a few more than a dozen extra seats to scare anybody. Did you say something about that ? Or did you mean the opposite ?

Keep learning,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

What is this? “Stale Reflux”

Are you imbibing the Sunday sherry with a little too much vigor?

I meant exactly what I said, Trump came from well behind to snatch an election and I felt Corbyn was in the running to do the same. Hardly an inconceivable event given the result.

A dozen seats falling the other way would have put the conservatives on 306 and Labour on 274. Add to Labour's total the SNP and LibDem's figures and you get 321. Certainly worth a visit to the Queen.

Hi Joe,

I am taking on Usain Bolt over 100 meters in a two horse match race, I have an "excellent chance of winning". In fact the bookies have me 10's on favorite. So get on early and clean up! In the unlikely event that the impossible should happen and I should lose, I will do a Shadow Minister and return with a half baked excuse and deny the lot.
To say "excellent chance of winning" is not saying "will win". In fact in a two horse race you cant finish worse than second, so obviously you have an "excellent chance of winning".

MAY is behind us, we are into JUNE now.

Hi Paul,

Wow, that got up your nose, didn't it ? I was just asking if that was what Stale Reflux meant by his comparison of Corbyn with Trump.

Obviously, Stale didn't mean that they were alike, or that their experiences were alike - and clearly while an incompetent bonehead like Trump could win, Corbyn couldn't. I understand that. Chill.

Cheers,

Joe

SR,

You predicted a Labour win and failed miserably, then confused my commentary (common amongst the illiterate) for a prediction.

PS. Labour failed miserably, and if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

Corbyn and his group of delusionals will have to wait at least another 5 yrs for an attempt at power.

Hi Joe,

Nah, nothing gets up my nose. Probably if British Labour had, had someone with a bit of charisma, a Tony Blair type, instead of some old fart that came across with the charm of Ebenezer Scrooge, he would have most likely knocked the old duck off! Figuratively not literally.

Hi Paul,

Well, what SM said about his auntie. I wonder if yours would have.

Corbyn lost. He'll never be Prime Minister. The Labour Party is stuck with him until at least the next election. Byooooooodiful !

So perhaps promises of free education for all forever, no taxes, free re-nationalised transport, and publicly-funded Christmas baskets for every Labour voter, didn't cut it. Maybe too many British people have principles. Never mind, the Gramscians can keep working on that.

Did someone mention albatrosses ?

Joe

Hi Joe, remember a week is a long time in politics, and no ones job is guaranteed. Loyalty will always be out done by self preservation.

Hi Paul,

Yes indeed, and the Labour Party is stuck with Corbyn for 260 of them.

As you say, "Loyalty will always be out done by self preservation." They might have to take Corbyn down the back of his allotment, to avoid ten years of irrelevance. We'll see: so much for loyalty.

More important things: will Johnson take the top job ? Will the Tories bring about a sort of de jure Brexit but a de facto Bremain ?

After all, the election of Drumpf changes the entire dynamics of a Brexit, it potentially fragments all of Europe, so Tusk, Merkel, Macron etc. realise how crucial it is to keep Britain within the orbit of Europe.

I'm puzzled why the Tories don't do a deal with the SNP ? Why with the Paisleyites ? They would still barely have a majority, while if they worked with Sturgeon's SNP, just when it has been badly wounded and needs a morale booster, plus is favourable towards Europe, the Tories would be on a winner, with a very comfortable majority.

Joe