Corbyn only has one policy priority - disarm the country - its been his main priority for 40 years. His economic policy is that of a 5 year old who doesn't understand that Daddy and Mummy only have limited resources. Printing and borrowing 500 billion isn't a policy its a wishlist - that already adds up to more than 500 billion. His long term aim is a marxist revolution- hence his lack of interest in serious politics, in the short term.

Ridiculous.

But, perhaps unsurprising given that you've been on the wrong side of just about every debate and argument over the past 12 months.

Diane Abbott on The Marr Show proving that Labour have no chance as long as they want to stay in the Single market even if it means having to have freedom of movement.

What don't they understand? People don't want freedom of movement. They want controlled immigration.

Lots of people want freedom of movement, lots don't want it and a lot of other people probably don't care one way or the other. Leavers often claim that most people who voted Out were against free movement, well if that is true then most Labour voters were Remain so they should be in favour of it. Diane Abbott (for all her faults) is just expressing party policy.

"Controlled immigration" is a meaningless phrase anyway unless you define how it would work.

Lots of people want freedom of movement, lots don't want it and a lot of other people probably don't care one way or the other. Leavers often claim that most people who voted Out were against free movement, well if that is true then most Labour voters were Remain so they should be in favour of it. Diane Abbott (for all her faults) is just expressing party policy.

"Controlled immigration" is a meaningless phrase anyway unless you define how it would work, who would do the controlling and what the limits would be. Some people who be happy with a high limit while others a much, much lower one.

No, they will come back. I think 2020 is already lost for them, but after Corbyn is gone they stand more of a chance. Who is going to replace them? The 3rd largest party in parliament have just about the maximum seats it is possible for them to ever get, the Lib Dems never seem to meet expectations on election night and UKIP have just one seat and have lost percentage points in every by-election they have contested since Brexit.

Though there is a niggling feeling in the back of my head that we may be speaking out of turn about Corbyn's chances. We are 3 and a half years away from the election, by which time we will have had the Tories for a decade. A glance over to the USA proves that you can't write the opposition off, even when all of the polls and pundits suggest that we should. The election will definitely not give the Conservatives the 15% or so lead the polls are predicting, though only a fool believes polls now anyway.

Freedom of movement is NOT controlled immigration, by definition.

How immigration is controlled is not something voters can say, it will be up to the government to do something and prove that immigration is going down.

Staying in the Single market and accepting freedom of movement is against what leavers want.

The reduction of seats to 600 is a Tory party policy opposed by the boundaries commission. Boundary changes will have to take place to reflect this.

A case in point is Diane Abbott. She does not represent her local constituents. They voted to remain in the EU but she voted to trigger Article 50 out of respect for the public vote. What about her local constituents' vote?

http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/


Perhaps she is seeing the bigger picture

Then all you need to do is control your free-for-all benefits system. The fact that you haven't has got you into the mess you're in. Don't blame anybody else!

Its not as simple as that - When successive governments (of all flavours) have ignored national instructure including roads, houses, doctors, schools - It shouldnt be a surprise that when they are full - the people voted to control the flow of immigration.

Currently immigration is one new mid sized city every year. yes thats right - a new city the size of Cardiff or Bristol is arriving (net) in the country every year.

How many years can we withstand that level of immigration before the real problems begin?

If the governments havent been preparing the country for the influx of new people -then they should manage immigration to an appropriate level that we can cope with.

I would say that it's irrelevant, as the vote was a nationwide one. She did the right thing.

I voted Remain btw.

Good grief is someone paying you to post this rubbish?

15 to 18 years is the max that the same political party is in office in the UK.

I can't see any change this time around.

It was a worldwide recession that was unavoidable.

All economies around the world were badly affected by that recession that was not caused by any government anywhere.

Labour must be finished - even Charlotte Church has given up on Jezza: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-white-men-are

Jezza is one thing - but he is not the party.

Labour will eventually elect someone who chimes with the public just as they did in 1997 - they will do so again. Apart from the fact oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them - it just takes the government to make an balls up and they will get elected.

We were in Liverpool at an event in the Adelphi and the hotel was full of Labour members at the conference.. Blimmin pain as check-in took ages. Anyway, Liverpool, I thought was not a good choice which would bring back memories of Hatton and Millitant.

Labour seem to want to take credit for the boom that preceded the bust. They cannot deny responsibility when it suits them. They were in power, they were responsible. Economies around the world were not all affected to the same degree, and we suffered more than most due to Labour relying so much on the revenue from the financial sector to pay for increased public spending, and also the overinflated housing market.

It's not far from the truth, and the wider public know it. The reason why the hard left (like my clueless muppet of an MP) were either Brexiters, or very half hearted Remainers is because they see the EU as a stumbling block to their desire of a true socialist revolution.

As Simon Evans so eloquently puts it, the UK is about as far from revolution as any country in history has been.

It's not a matter of Corbyn being assassinated by the media, or not getting his message across. The more he does get heard the less votes he'll get. Just wait until the GE campaign. He will be comprehensively mauled.

I think that it'll be longer than 15 to 18 years if Labour keeps messing up.

Its what Corbyn has done for the last 40 years .His voting record is clear - he's always voted against western intervention , and for unilateral disarmament- whether the enemy, or potential enemy, was communist , fascist or genocidal . its what he prioritises, and talks about. Its no coincidence he's still going to Stop the War parties , and walking out of PLP ones. Nor is it coincidence he's ruled himself out of ever being Prime Minster - by rejecting his own party's policy on the deterrent. if thats not his core policy priority, I don't know what could be. Its what he will sacrifice all his hopes of getting into power, and doing everything else, for.

The PLP's own economists think his great economic plan is economic nonsense..... so its hardly surprising Labour has no economic credibility. He's also been clear saying he wants to build a movement, and doesn't care much about seats in Parliament Its what his MPs think he's about. And his view of himself as a revolutionary- leading an extra parliamentary movement - is also what his backers in his inner circle, Momentum, in the Morning Star, Socialist worker,and the more militant unions, say he is about.

Even the Corbyn cult members , see him as someone above parliamentary politics.. You would have to look hard to find anyone who seriously believes that Corbyn is someone who engages in real world politics , has had a new idea in 40 years, or really thinks he can, or wants to, carry the workload of being PM. There may be one or two in the shadow cabinet, but even the leftwing remnants , who now sit in that, seem to include few who think he's up to the job. its hardly surprising if the voters think the same.

Except Corbyn stands on the opposite side on all the key issues that Brexit or Trump prioritised . He doesn't believe in nationalism , immigration control, strong defences, more robust anti-terrorism policie, or lowering corporate taxes, or reducing benefits.

He can claim he would do something about the poor, and just managing, and would throw money at benefits, and NHS spending. But theres no sign that fantasy economics - printing, borrowing , high taxes, and a planned economy - will win favour with those paying the taxes, risking losing their jobs, or worried about borrowing too much, Nor will voters be that keen on benefit rises, or fail to notice that his spending promises already exceed what he says he will print. . And Corbyn can't copy either the brexit or Trump econnomic approach. Trump offered protectionism - but supported by a supposed reinvigoration of the economy -through tax cuts on the rich. Brexit offered freer trade, less regulation and interference from above, and , quietly, lower taxes on business. Corbyn doesn't believe in any of those - he believes in a more controlled economy, with higher taxes, and business taxes, and more union power, - which will look suicidal- as business seeks incentives to stay, as brexit bites.

It would be possible for Labour to do better - with a credible, non hard left, leader, and a more realistic economic policy - plus with what Burnham is suggesting on immigration. Competence could then become the election issue. But even that still leaves the SNP sitting on 40 labour seats, and, probably, requires a Balir type leader ,and warring Conservative party ,to get it to a maority