Andy_W
Well-known member
1) Yes, Labours stance on Brexit was ok, but Corbyn was lukewarm at best (historically, and during tenure), but neither did enough for the remain case, same as the Tories who apparently also wanted remain. They both allowed far too much contradictory bull****.Wow, so much inaccuracies to unpick so I'll make it brief:
1. Labour lost for 2 reasons. Brexit and Corbyn.
2. Corbyn's policies were extremely popular but he himself wasn't.
3. This current lot is the same lot as under Boris. Sunak was number 2, he was fined for partying with him. There is no distance between them.
4. Your faith in Starmer is only on his ability to win. We all have faith in that because he is fighting a dead dog. Your faith that he will deliver anything to improve the lives of anyone is more worrying. He is a proven liar so you can't trust any if the promises he makes. Everything in your post is based on assumptions and wishful thinking and is completely at odds with anything Starmer has said or done.
2) Policies should be more important than the person, but yes, some people can't look passed this. Evidently, the policies were not popular enough to overcome this, and win seats, especially from those around the centre, and the red wall which they should dominate. Corbyn is Corbyn, Labour members chose a person who was not going to win an election, for various reasons. One of those reasons is that he was a simple target for the far-right press, and the press won't change. Those who wanted Corbyn have to accept that he's a big reason in why they lost, when they could and should have had a very good chance at winning in 2017. You're all criticising Starmer, when there's no manifesto, and I'll eat my hat if it's the same as the Tory one. Starmer beat RLB easily in the membership vote, and she was basically Cobyn's policies without Corbyn.
3) Sunak is a d*ck, but he's not as daft as Boris, not by a long shot, and not many are. Boris is all about himself, even a lot more than most parties, he goes where the tide goes, where as Sunak is probably more party-oriented. Sunak would have still hammered Corbyn in 2019, but I don't think he would have been anywhere near as far behind as they are now.
4) Yes, like my disappointment in Labour members and Corbyn was because he/ they/ we lost, comfortably on seats twice. Winning is priority 1, and retaining that win is priority 2. Then from there you push what your voters want (what the makeup is who got you there), as much as you can, but you have to get the win first. He's not going to be shooting boats with the navy in Dover, just because some of his voters might want that. He's not going to turn his back on the EU (and the economy), because some of his voters want that. Unfortunately, you need these voters to win though, as the UK is a ****ed up place. He'll work on a balance, probably something in the centre/centre-right of all of his voters (which is probably ending up centre-left politically still), as tactically/ mathermatically it's the best thing to do, once you've won. Corbyn took over in 2015, Remain were meant to be fighting a supposed dead dog in 2016 but underestimated leave, and lost, which was a catastrophe. Corbyn should have been fighting a dead dog in 2017, but lost. Those losses meant he lost 2019 too. Tories were not a dead dog early in 2020 when Starmer took over, and he's done well at not making himself a target, and stuck the boot in enough, whilst the Tories have been trying to set their house on fire. Labour would not have anything like this sort of lead had Corbyn been in charge, or someone to be seen as carrying the Corbyn flame like RLB. They would have had to distance themselves from the loss, as a lot of people just don't like voting for what is losing, or has lost previously. It's daft, but that's how daft people think, and we have a lot of them.