1% of families and Corporations own 48% of the worlds income and they are not content with that. Lob old Rupert in that. They are using politics to achieve their ends. This has ramifications for the world. There was a similar issue in the states where Sanders fought against Clinton for the nomination. He was fiddled out of victory. He is probably the most popular politician in America at the moment. This movement is not just fighting on one front. Those of us that support it were not expecting instant victory, we see it as a battle. But we are on our way to a better world.
Thank you agent May - you played a blinder.
You do realise anyone who earns more than circa £26k is in the top 1% in the world on income....... So that's most Nurses, Teachers, Policeman etc etc. Are you suggesting now they need to have their incoems reduced and some of that given to the 99%
Labour put on nearly 10,000 votes in my constituency. Not nearly enough to win, it's massively Tory of course, but more than doubling their vote. Perhaps my MP will consider showing his face a bit more often than in the run up to elections as a result.
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
1% of families and Corporations own 48% of the worlds income and they are not content with that. Lob old Rupert in that. They are using politics to achieve their ends. This has ramifications for the world. There was a similar issue in the states where Sanders fought against Clinton for the nomination. He was fiddled out of victory. He is probably the most popular politician in America at the moment. This movement is not just fighting on one front. Those of us that support it were not expecting instant victory, we see it as a battle. But we are on our way to a better world.
Thank you agent May - you played a blinder.
You do realise anyone who earns more than circa £26k is in the top 1% in the world on income....... So that's most Nurses, Teachers, Policeman etc etc. Are you suggesting now they need to have their incoems reduced and some of that given to the 99%
The figures are Labour 262, SNP 35, LD 13, Plaid 3 and Greens 1. This gives a total of 314 for the anti Tory vote, with the Tories on 318. So they can block any Labour policy they dislike if Labour try to form a government, and this is without the DUP who dislike Corbyn and his IRA stance of the past.
The argument that always pisses me off, which will doubtless be trotted out imminently by a second or third placed party, is "But 58% of the electorate dont want a conservative government". Might be true, but then so is it that 60% of the electorate don't want a labour government. Or in Scotland, where 63% don't want an SNP government. It's a stupid argument all round unless somebody gets >50% of the vote.
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
Your analysis is good. James O'Brien has been reminding us that May actually won, Andrew Neil asked John MacDonald why Làbour has lost three elections in a row, all valid stuff. However look at the phenomenology. Theresa May called the election seeking a strengthened mandate and completely blew it, she lost seats. Jeremy Corbyn had this spring upon him and won seats. I am a fantasist at the best of times, but for anybody to interpret any aspect of this as being somehow a win for the Tories is kidding themselves aren't they? The two winners are Jeremy Corbyn first, and trailing quite a way behind, but still a winner of sorts is Ruth Davison the Scottish Tory. I was searching for crumbs of comfort yesterday, the Tories are doing it today.
The argument that always pisses me off, which will doubtless be trotted out imminently by a second or third placed party, is "But 58% of the electorate dont want a conservative government". Might be true, but then so is it that 60% of the electorate don't want a labour government. Or in Scotland, where 63% don't want an SNP government. It's a stupid argument all round unless somebody gets >50% of the vote.
The last party to gain more than 50% of the popular vote was the Conservatives with 55.5% - in 1931 !!
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
Your analysis is good. James O'Brien has been reminding us that May actually won, Andrew Neil asked John MacDonald why Làbour has lost three elections in a row, all valid stuff. However look at the phenomenology. Theresa May called the election seeking a strengthened mandate and completely blew it, she lost seats. Jeremy Corbyn had this spring upon him and won seats. I am a fantasist at the best of times, but for anybody to interpret any aspect of this as being somehow a win for the Tories is kidding themselves aren't they? The two winners are Jeremy Corbyn first, and trailing quite a way behind, but still a winner of sorts is Ruth Davison the Scottish Tory. I was searching for crumbs of comfort yesterday, the Tories are doing it today.
Couldn't agree more and I'm no way saying that this was a win for the conservatives in anything other than they got more seats than anyone else, as I say the conservatives royally screwed up. But that's from the point of where they were 2 weeks ago. Labour have still only succeeded in taking broadly their 2nd/3rd lowest seat count in probably the last 10 elections (I only went back 7 as Torie for a while before that).
I don't think any party has secured more than 50% since before we won the FA cup last!
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
A comparison with Bliar is like comparing seaweed to sheep's wee. Anything can, in theory, be compared to anything, but much of it means little, or nothing. Bliar wooed the Tory vote and rewarded it with 'more of the same'. His 'vision' was false and, in time, it foundered. (Rockets and bombs, Bliar, rockets and bombs. And the result of which is.....?)
Corbyn has an agenda that largely rejects what has gone on in recent times, and sets course on a different path. I thoroughly disapprove of those who say 'radical', 'far left', etc. It's 'radical' only when held up to the status quo. Which, in my opinion, is debased, unworthy and discredited. Who is genuinely happy with their 'lot' in recent years? If they are, can they not see that things might be better in doing societal things in a different way?
The 'old system' / status quo is unfit and perverse. A new generation demands better. And some of us older ones, who have been battling for similar for eons, wish to join in. For the betterment not of 'self', but for the many (if not all).
We had a referendum on PR in 2011 and it was rejected
To be fair since 2011 the political scenery has massively shifted.
No chance of a second run at PR any time soon but perhaps as an earlier poster suggested election after election producing a hung parliament might change people's views.
We had a referendum on PR in 2011 and it was rejected
I don't think it was, we were offered the Alternative Vote in the referendum.
My understanding is that the Alternative Vote is not actually Proportional Representation; the latter requires multiple representatives in constituencies, while AV is about redistributing voting preferences until one candidate gets a majority of the valid votes available.
Funnily enough, AV is more first past the post than first past the post is!
FPTP (in actuality, most votes wins) is objectively the worst voting system and least democratic out of any voting system used today. The fact we still use it for our national government when regional assemblies use another much better system is quite frankly an embarrassment.
Rob, I don't think you can just look at this result in terms of absolute number of seats. There's so much subtext to this. From the start I said anything but an increase in their majority would be a failure for the Tories, a loss of seats would be a disaster but what we actually got was verging on one of the biggest fuck ups in political history. Sure, they're still in power, just but for me it's all about momentum.
When this election was announced how many honestly thought it would end up like this? Corbyn was so far behind that Labour not being wiped off the political map altogether was being seen by some as doing well.
Labour still lost the election, that can't be ignored but it isn't what was important here. We all felt that the Tories would win but in losing the election Labour still won. I guess you could say lost the battle to win the war but we will have to wait and see how the war pans out.
So what do the Conservative voters in here think of the DUP? Surely can't support them.
As of yesterday I am no longer a Tory voter, but they're nutters. Like the tories out of the 1970s.. which is fitting since labour has crawled out of some 1970s time warp.
Rob, I don't think you can just look at this result in terms of absolute number of seats. There's so much subtext to this. From the start I said anything but an increase in their majority would be a failure for the Tories, a loss of seats would be a disaster but what we actually got was verging on one of the biggest fuck ups in political history. Sure, they're still in power, just but for me it's all about momentum.
When this election was announced how many honestly thought it would end up like this? Corbyn was so far behind that Labour not being wiped off the political map altogether was being seen by some as doing well.
Labour still lost the election, that can't be ignored but it isn't what was important here. We all felt that the Tories would win but in losing the election Labour still won. I guess you could say lost the battle to win the war but we will have to wait and see how the war pans out.
Yes, the war hasn't been won yet. But two battles were won yesterday when we really hoped for the one which was to do well enough to win the battle for the party - and Corbyn has positioned his party in a strong position to win the war. But still lots of work to be done.
Comments
Scotland - how many available from there?
There were plenty of really close fought battles - and from memory most of the close battles went Labours way.
I wonder what the route through will be to stop us getting a succession of hung parliaments?
Well, it is one option.
What I was referring to was that 48% of the world's worth is owned by 1% and they want more of it.
Similarly in the neighbouring constituencies.
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
Look at the seat count for the main two:
Labour
1992 271
1997 418
2001 413
2005 356
2010 258
2015 232
2017 261
Conservative
1992 336
1997 165
2001 166
2005 198
2010 306
2015 331
2017 318
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
Might be true, but then so is it that 60% of the electorate don't want a labour government. Or in Scotland, where 63% don't want an SNP government. It's a stupid argument all round unless somebody gets >50% of the vote.
However look at the phenomenology. Theresa May called the election seeking a strengthened mandate and completely blew it, she lost seats. Jeremy Corbyn had this spring upon him and won seats.
I am a fantasist at the best of times, but for anybody to interpret any aspect of this as being somehow a win for the Tories is kidding themselves aren't they?
The two winners are Jeremy Corbyn first, and trailing quite a way behind, but still a winner of sorts is Ruth Davison the Scottish Tory.
I was searching for crumbs of comfort yesterday, the Tories are doing it today.
I don't think any party has secured more than 50% since before we won the FA cup last!
Bliar wooed the Tory vote and rewarded it with 'more of the same'. His 'vision' was false and, in time, it foundered. (Rockets and bombs, Bliar, rockets and bombs. And the result of which is.....?)
Corbyn has an agenda that largely rejects what has gone on in recent times, and sets course on a different path.
I thoroughly disapprove of those who say 'radical', 'far left', etc. It's 'radical' only when held up to the status quo. Which, in my opinion, is debased, unworthy and discredited.
Who is genuinely happy with their 'lot' in recent years? If they are, can they not see that things might be better in doing societal things in a different way?
The 'old system' / status quo is unfit and perverse. A new generation demands better. And some of us older ones, who have been battling for similar for eons, wish to join in. For the betterment not of 'self', but for the many (if not all).
No chance of a second run at PR any time soon but perhaps as an earlier poster suggested election after election producing a hung parliament might change people's views.
I hear that fields of wheat are rather lovely...if a little daring.
My understanding is that the Alternative Vote is not actually Proportional Representation; the latter requires multiple representatives in constituencies, while AV is about redistributing voting preferences until one candidate gets a majority of the valid votes available.
FPTP (in actuality, most votes wins) is objectively the worst voting system and least democratic out of any voting system used today. The fact we still use it for our national government when regional assemblies use another much better system is quite frankly an embarrassment.
When this election was announced how many honestly thought it would end up like this? Corbyn was so far behind that Labour not being wiped off the political map altogether was being seen by some as doing well.
Labour still lost the election, that can't be ignored but it isn't what was important here. We all felt that the Tories would win but in losing the election Labour still won. I guess you could say lost the battle to win the war but we will have to wait and see how the war pans out.
Loving that!