Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:Sunak speaks for a grand total of 84 seconds and then scuttles away to get his orders.

Crackpot.

mountain man wrote:Shamina Begum citizanship bid rejected again.

Good. She made her bed she can lie in it.

Call me old fashioned but I believe foreign criminals should be deported back to where they came from.

Samo wrote:

mountain man wrote:Shamina Begum citizanship bid rejected again.

Good. She made her bed she can lie in it.

Call me old fashioned but I believe foreign criminals should be deported back to where they came from.

Not quite clear on this. Do you mean Syria should deport her back to the U.K.? Or are you saying we should deport her somewhere?

Tend to agree w/ MM - she made her bed etc. Complicated though. Are we saying that a 15-year old girl can't have been induced to do what she did, and therefore she's entirely to blame and that, in addition, she's forever beyond the pale? We say anyone of 15 years of age isn't old/mature/responsible enough to do anything of significance, legally, don't we? Can't buy booze, marry, join the military etc. No redemption in this case? In her position as it now stands, why not go full terrorist? What's she got to lose?

Also, can't help feeling that Javid was, at least a little, playing to the anti-immigrant sentiment at the time the decision was originally made.

The fact she was only 15 at time of going is a mitigating factor but it seems pretty obvious she only wants to come back to UK as it all went pear shaped over there.
If ISIS had won, by whatever definition that may be, I suspect she'd be there happily married to her terrorist fighter husband(think he was killed but anyway). Even though only 15, what did she and her friends really think would happen to girls who went?

I have zero sympathy.

She was born in Britain, she grew up in Britain, she was educated in Britain and she was groomed in Britain. I think she should have been brought back to face trial in Britain.

I also think revoking her citizenship and leaving her stateless sets a very dangerous precedent, especially when we next want to deport someone. Whats to stop the country we want to deport someone to revoking their citizenship and leaving us stuck with them?

I also find it very interesting that the Tommy Ten-Names and Britain First types constantly bang on about muslims grooming young girls but seem awfully fine with the idea of them grooming a young muslim girl.

I think we should bring her back then prosecute to the fullest extent possible. Don't think we really need to pretend she could've been ignorant of what she was joining, but equally can't get behind effectively just washing our hands of her because it's convenient.

People being radicalised here is on some level a failure we need to understand also imo

Samo wrote:She was born in Britain, she grew up in Britain, she was educated in Britain and she was groomed in Britain. I think she should have been brought back to face trial in Britain.

I also think revoking her citizenship and leaving her stateless sets a very dangerous precedent, especially when we next want to deport someone. Whats to stop the country we want to deport someone to revoking their citizenship and leaving us stuck with them?

I also find it very interesting that the Tommy Ten-Names and Britain First types constantly bang on about muslims grooming young girls but seem awfully fine with the idea of them grooming a young muslim girl.

I originally mis-understood and thought she was Bangladeshi by birth and only acquired British citizenship on immigration, in which case I can see an argument for revoking citizenship. However, her possible Bangladeshi dual nationality (which the Bangladeshi authorities deny she actually has) is only derived from her parents. As such, she's British and it should not be possible to revoke her British citizenship.

Of course, the further part of this is that she gave aid to an enemy and should be prosecuted under whichever Terrorist and/or Treason charges are appropriate (IANAL, and don't know exactly what laws she's broken). Obviously, snetencing has to take into account that she was a minor at the time of committing the offences, and under the influence of others, but she still must take responsibility for her actions.

SNP leadership race seems to be clearly breaking down to:
Yousaf for team Sturgeon
Forbes for team not-Sturgeon
Regan for team so not-Sturgeon they left the SNP

The more and more revelations we get from Matt Hancocks Whatsapp messages the more and more convinced I am he should be jailed.

So your opinion of him has improved

Samo wrote:The more and more revelations we get from Matt Hancocks Whatsapp messages the more and more convinced I am he should be jailed.

Why's that, then? Wait until the inquiry. Stop being triggered by selective publication of private messages. No wonder politics in the UK is a **** hole - MPs probably spend most of their time firefighting some leak/revelation that a journalist has facilitated by offering someone money and who then uses that info to pillory the politicians.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:The more and more revelations we get from Matt Hancocks Whatsapp messages the more and more convinced I am he should be jailed.

Why's that, then? Wait until the inquiry. Stop being triggered by selective publication of private messages. No wonder politics in the UK is a **** hole - MPs probably spend most of their time firefighting some leak/revelation that a journalist has facilitated by offering someone money and who then uses that info to pillory the politicians.

He voluntarily sent private WhatsApp messages containing all of these "revelations" to a dodgy journalist so that she could use them to write his book and make him money.

The "inquiry" is also running pathetically (and some may say deliberately) slowly. The people want answers and they have no faith that the inquiry will bring them any soon.

From the little I've read of the Hancock messages, what I find most disappointing is the lvel of schoolboy banter between those who are supposed to be running outr country - the exchange between Hancock and Williamson about teachers just wanting the time off for an easy life for example shows what a bad attitude existed in Government to those on the outside.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:The more and more revelations we get from Matt Hancocks Whatsapp messages the more and more convinced I am he should be jailed.

Why's that, then? Wait until the inquiry. Stop being triggered by selective publication of private messages. No wonder politics in the UK is a **** hole - MPs probably spend most of their time firefighting some leak/revelation that a journalist has facilitated by offering someone money and who then uses that info to pillory the politicians.

He voluntarily sent private WhatsApp messages containing all of these "revelations" to a dodgy journalist so that she could use them to write his book and make him money.

The "inquiry" is also running pathetically (and some may say deliberately) slowly. The people want answers and they have no faith that the inquiry will bring them any soon.

Quick! Arrest that man! Honestly...

The 'people' will just have to have faith in the inquiry, until such faith is proven to be misplaced. I guess they'd rather a rushed, incomplete, rubbish inquiry then? Can you imagine just how much documentation etc there is that has to be collated, annotated and read for this?? Jesus. Just wait. Not everything is about them or is going to reasonably happen to fit those with the attention span of a fruit fly.

dummy_half wrote:From the little I've read of the Hancock messages, what I find most disappointing is the lvel of schoolboy banter between those who are supposed to be running outr country - the exchange between Hancock and Williamson about teachers just wanting the time off for an easy life for example shows what a bad attitude existed in Government to those on the outside.

I know what you mean, but the typical holier than thou attitude of so many (as if they, themselves, don't joke about and say things that're less appropriate off mic) is laughable. Hypocrisy at its finest. I do it. You do it. Labour do it. The nurses do it. The teachers do it. Everyone does it. Why are we surprised that supposed private conversations have these sorts of elements to them? It's not even appropriate, necessarily, to extrapolate anything much from a lot of this into what either of the two you mention would actually do. Surely, it's actions and policies that matter?

Going to miss the next GE out.....The Govt is awful and Labour have no ideas with this vacuous..disingenuous Blair rip off leading it....

So screw the lot of them..

There are many indicators now that conflict between US-UK-allies and China is drawing near and some have said that it has already started with the US allegedly funding terrorist groups and anti-China groups along China's Belt and Road Initiative (One Belt One Road).  Separate to that the US have already begun sanctioning China with threats of more sanctions.   It has been said that the first casualty in any conflict is the truth and this might explain the more or less media silence / limited reporting of a very recent breakthrough peace agreement - which just happened to be brokered by China.   Sunak has been reported as saying "China represents a challenge to the world order which the UK must take seriously".   China's foreign minister said conflict was inevitable if Biden doesn't change course. Japan and Australia are busy militarizing with US and UK support.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64943445
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-22/pakistan-quetta-bombing-chinese-ambassador-ttp-taliban/100086906
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistan-investigates-whether-attack-targeted-chinas-ambassador-11619120462
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonytellez/2023/02/08/here-are-all-the-us-sanctions-against-china/
https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/japan-unveils-record-budget-boost-military-capacity-2022-12-23/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-the-uk-and-us-are-joining-forces-in-the-pacific-but-will-nuclear-subs-arrive-quick-enough-to-counter-china/ar-AA18BqdS
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-s-foreign-minister-warns-of-conflict-unless-u-s-changes-course/ar-AA18lyN1
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/14/world/meanwhile-in-america-june-15-intl/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/30/china-is-a-growing-threat-to-national-security-us-companies-and-american-workers-us-commerce-secretary-raimondo-says.html

navyblueshorts wrote:

dummy_half wrote:From the little I've read of the Hancock messages, what I find most disappointing is the lvel of schoolboy banter between those who are supposed to be running outr country - the exchange between Hancock and Williamson about teachers just wanting the time off for an easy life for example shows what a bad attitude existed in Government to those on the outside.

I know what you mean, but the typical holier than thou attitude of so many (as if they, themselves, don't joke about and say things that're less appropriate off mic) is laughable. Hypocrisy at its finest. I do it. You do it. Labour do it. The nurses do it. The teachers do it. Everyone does it. Why are we surprised that supposed private conversations have these sorts of elements to them? It's not even appropriate, necessarily, to extrapolate anything much from a lot of this into what either of the two you mention would actually do. Surely, it's actions and policies that matter?

But shouldn't we be holding our politicians to a higher standard? What we might say over a pint in the pub is different to what I would say in a professional setting. Also, if you start with that mindset, your actions and policies are going to be in formed by this.
BTW, I happen to think that Government (of either colour for the last 20 years at least have been awful on education, by trying to micromanage, and make it far too much 'teaching to exams' rather than actually improving teaching practices.

This privileges committee is excrutiating. Johnsons cards are on the table and he’s playing like he’s got a full house, when all he’s actually got is a 2 of diamonds, a green 5 from Uno, a fake shiny Charizard and an expired train ticket.

He’s toast.

Looks like they're going to find that he recklessly misled parliament.

Thats probably his best case scenario.

I'm preparing myself for the possibility that the committee finds that he recklessly misled parliament, but the only punishment they recommend is that he has to apologise to the house. I hope the fact that he wasn't any old minister but prime minister when he said what he said will mean that they go further than that, but I do worry!

Worst that will happen is a by-election, but I'd be very surprised to see that occur. Most likely he'll just get a stern telling off.

Sunak was starting to hit a very minor uptick in the polls, but all this palaver, plus the rise in inflation, is jeopardising that.

Samo wrote:This privileges committee is excrutiating. Johnsons cards are on the table and he’s playing like he’s got a full house, when all he’s actually got is a 2 of diamonds, a green 5 from Uno, a fake shiny Charizard and an expired train ticket.

He’s toast.

He is a bit like that, isn't he?

The thing that makes me boil, is the apparent assumption that because no-one told him explicitly (whether anyone believes that or not is another thing) whether a party was actually a party, or not, and within the rules, or not, at that point in time, how was he meant to know? Seriously? ****ing seriously?
We had the same rubbish excuses with the expenses scandal (remember the duck houses etc?) - it was all "How were we meant to know that such-and-such a purchase was dodgy?". If MPs need that level of hand-holding re. what is 'right' and 'wrong', or lack any sort of moral compass (it appears that many have no idea what one is) God help us because they're complete Poopie.

I hope they throw whatever book they have at him, but I won't hold my breath...

Oh, and another thing. The fact that he still (still!) doesn't really accept that he's done anything wrong deserves as much derision as can be piled on him.

Agree with you on that, Navy. The only two scenarios that I see here are that we knowingly and deliberately misled parliament, or he's an incompetent moron.

Pr4wn wrote:Agree with you on that, Navy. The only two scenarios that I see here are that he knowingly and deliberately misled parliament, or he's an incompetent moron.

I'm not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Also, I know several people who are very highly qualified and intellectual but who are also quite capable of being moronic outside of their area of expertise.

I will throw a third option in, which is the Donald Trump option - BoJo is so detacched from the concept of the truth that he actually doesn't know or care if what he says is true or not, as long as it benefits him at the time. By this, I mean he didn't bother to understand the rules or whether they apply to him. As such, he didn't deliberately mislead parliament, more had a reckless disregard for the truth.

He's a classic narcissist. Given his history and conduct theres no doubt in my mind he knowingly and deliberately lied about what happened, but we cant prove that.

I really hope I'm wrong but I can't get rid of this nagging feeling he'll get away with a slap on the wrist.

Key thing for me is that Johnson threw everybody else under a bus (including 'accidentally on purpose' naming a couple of people who were supposed to stay anonymous).

His survival depends on the Tories rallying behind him, and I am not sure enough of them give a 'poopie' any more

Big fan of Dorries and JRM openly showing contempt of Parliament - Dorries on her ridiculous TalkTV show and Mogg on Twitter. Both of them need the book flung at them aswell.

Oh dear, the SNP have voted in Humza Yousaf.

Wasn't following it closely, but looks like there were three terrible choices, and the SNP are now in danger of splitting.

Humza very much the continuation candidate. I think talks of a split are slightly misplaced but time will tell.

I think its time to put independence on the back burner for the time being, but he appears to be jumping in with both feet. Depending on the outcome of the investigation into Nicola Sturgeons husband he might want to think about distancing himself from the previous regime as best he can.

Given the state of the British political class, I am prepared to reexamine my view of Jeremy Corbyn given a lot of it was based on British media reporting. Anyway he wants to stand for re-election as an MP I believe but the Labour Party are having none of it so it looks like he will run as an independent candidate. Maybe this is just another distraction away from the parlous state of British politics.

I've reexamined my view

He's still the biggest gift the Tories have received since they took office

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Samo wrote:8 years is a long time, so I dont blame her for wanting to step back. Especially with the rumours of Rishi Sunak planning on stoking a full blown culture war during the election campaign to distract from Tory economic failings.

Think this more likely to be an internal SNP conflict boiling up to the surface myself. Perhaps even some backers threatening to stay on the sidelines if she didn't go, given the talk of a police investigation into their finances.

Yes, the real reason was always the legal walls closing in. Her husband has been arrested and their home searched.

No name Bertie wrote:Given the state of the British political class, I am prepared to reexamine my view of Jeremy Corbyn given a lot of it was based on British media reporting.   Anyway he wants to stand for re-election as an MP I believe but the Labour Party are having none of it so it looks like he will run as an independent candidate.   Maybe this is just another distraction away from the parlous state of British politics.

If he does stand and doesnt get reelected then I think that finally puts to bed the argument of people voting for a candidate rather than the party.

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1643973886311297028?cxt=HHwWiMDTmcPiyNAtAAAA

What do we think of this attack ad? Seems to have gone down very badly with the left-wingers on Twitter, and is similar (but reversed) to Johnson's attacks on Starmer.

Labour still up by 15-20%, a month out from the local elections, which could be very painful for the Tories. They're defending 3,365 council seats and, according to the usually good analysis from Rallings and Thrasher, a 6% swing since 2019 (which is just under current polling) would see Tory losses in the four figures, with Labour's gains around 700.

Duty281 wrote:https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1643973886311297028?cxt=HHwWiMDTmcPiyNAtAAAA

What do we think of this attack ad? Seems to have gone down very badly with the left-wingers on Twitter, and is similar (but reversed) to Johnson's attacks on Starmer.

Labour still up by 15-20%, a month out from the local elections, which could be very painful for the Tories. They're defending 3,365 council seats and, according to the usually good analysis from Rallings and Thrasher, a 6% swing since 2019 (which is just under current polling) would see Tory losses in the four figures, with Labour's gains around 700.

Personally, I think it's an own goal, but then I'm a floating voter and fed up of this sort of BS whomever it comes from. Goes against the image of Starmer being portrayed to-date IMO.

Duty281 wrote:https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1643973886311297028?cxt=HHwWiMDTmcPiyNAtAAAA

What do we think of this attack ad? Seems to have gone down very badly with the left-wingers on Twitter, and is similar (but reversed) to Johnson's attacks on Starmer.

Labour still up by 15-20%, a month out from the local elections, which could be very painful for the Tories. They're defending 3,365 council seats and, according to the usually good analysis from Rallings and Thrasher, a 6% swing since 2019 (which is just under current polling) would see Tory losses in the four figures, with Labour's gains around 700.

Embarassing to be fair. Attack the Tory party record by all means, but dont stoop to their level to do it. Bit of an own goal but ultimately I dont think it'll have any long lasting impact.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1643973886311297028?cxt=HHwWiMDTmcPiyNAtAAAA

What do we think of this attack ad? Seems to have gone down very badly with the left-wingers on Twitter, and is similar (but reversed) to Johnson's attacks on Starmer.

Labour still up by 15-20%, a month out from the local elections, which could be very painful for the Tories. They're defending 3,365 council seats and, according to the usually good analysis from Rallings and Thrasher, a 6% swing since 2019 (which is just under current polling) would see Tory losses in the four figures, with Labour's gains around 700.

Personally, I think it's an own goal, but then I'm a floating voter and fed up of this sort of BS whomever it comes from. Goes against the image of Starmer being portrayed to-date IMO.

Agreed. It was a needless dig.

The state of things is such that Scott Benton lost the whip over offering help for money and really almost nobody cares.

Plus the Conservative MP for Romford who hasn't been seen in Parliament for a year, and I don't think he's the only one.

Just another day in the office for the Tories these days.

GSC wrote:I've reexamined my view

He's still the biggest gift the Tories have received since they took office

2019.....Corbyn's Labour 33%
2017.....Corbyn 40%
2015.....Miliband 30%
2010.....Brown..29%
2005.....Blair.....35%

Polls show that Brexit and the desire to get it over with was the main reason Labour was voted out in red wall seats...(Oldham..Stoke etc)

Starmer and his mates with the People's vote screwed Corbyn......Labour wanted a soft Brexit in 2017....

Yes Corbyn was a weak leader but him being the greatest gift doesn't hold up with the Stats.....Commendable performance seeing as his own Party did most of the attacking......

Nice to see a guy that believed in something.........Though I prefer more Centrist policies.

The sheer volume of full stops doesn't address the massive current Tory majority.

The reason for Corbyn's spike in vote share was because of the collapse of the third (and in one case fourth) party vote, nothing to do with Corbyn.

2005 - Lib Dems 22%
2010 - Lib Dems 23%
2015 - UKIP and Lib Dems 20.5%

Now the collapse
2017 - Lib Dems 7.4%
2019 - Lib Dems 11.5%

That 9-16% of the vote that deserted the Lib Dems inflated the tallies of the Con and Lab parties in 2017 and 2019...hence why Theresa May in 2017 won 5.5% more votes than Cameron in 2015, but May didn't win a majority and Cameron did. Also, related to this third party collapse, Johnson won 43.6% of the vote in 2019, which is actually more than Blair got in 1997, but Johnson's Tories won around 50 fewer seats. Such is the vagaries of FPTP.

Corbyn lost to the dreadful May in 2017 - an embarrassing defeat, even Ed Miliband would have defeated her -  and then led Labour to their worst defeat since the 1930s in 2019. So the stats do bear it out. Although I'm not sure Johnson was able to be defeated in 2019, a better Labour leader could have made the margin smaller.

Humza Yousafs rocky start as First Minister continues as SNP treasurer Colin Beattie is arrested and questioned by police about his role in these missing funds.

If this investigation uncovers top level embezzlement from within the SNP I dont see how they can come back from it, especially because these were funds gathered from members to help fund the independence campaign.

Duty281 wrote:The reason for Corbyn's spike in vote share was because of the collapse of the third (and in one case fourth) party vote, nothing to do with Corbyn.

2005 - Lib Dems 22%
2010 - Lib Dems 23%
2015 - UKIP and Lib Dems 20.5%

Now the collapse
2017 - Lib Dems 7.4%
2019 - Lib Dems 11.5%

That 9-16% of the vote that deserted the Lib Dems inflated the tallies of the Con and Lab parties in 2017 and 2019...hence why Theresa May in 2017 won 5.5% more votes than Cameron in 2015, but May didn't win a majority and Cameron did. Also, related to this third party collapse, Johnson won 43.6% of the vote in 2019, which is actually more than Blair got in 1997, but Johnson's Tories won around 50 fewer seats. Such is the vagaries of FPTP.

Corbyn lost to the dreadful May in 2017 - an embarrassing defeat, even Ed Miliband would have defeated her -  and then led Labour to their worst defeat since the 1930s in 2019. So the stats do bear it out. Although I'm not sure Johnson was able to be defeated in 2019, a better Labour leader could have made the margin smaller.

A more skillful leader would not have pushed an election at the time when Corbyn did. There was an opportunity do something different

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The reason for Corbyn's spike in vote share was because of the collapse of the third (and in one case fourth) party vote, nothing to do with Corbyn.

2005 - Lib Dems 22%
2010 - Lib Dems 23%
2015 - UKIP and Lib Dems 20.5%

Now the collapse
2017 - Lib Dems 7.4%
2019 - Lib Dems 11.5%

That 9-16% of the vote that deserted the Lib Dems inflated the tallies of the Con and Lab parties in 2017 and 2019...hence why Theresa May in 2017 won 5.5% more votes than Cameron in 2015, but May didn't win a majority and Cameron did. Also, related to this third party collapse, Johnson won 43.6% of the vote in 2019, which is actually more than Blair got in 1997, but Johnson's Tories won around 50 fewer seats. Such is the vagaries of FPTP.

Corbyn lost to the dreadful May in 2017 - an embarrassing defeat, even Ed Miliband would have defeated her -  and then led Labour to their worst defeat since the 1930s in 2019. So the stats do bear it out. Although I'm not sure Johnson was able to be defeated in 2019, a better Labour leader could have made the margin smaller.

A more skillful leader would not have pushed an election at the time when Corbyn did. There was an opportunity do something different

The third party vote collapse also had something to do with more kids voting in 2017 than in decades.........Do your homework.

Corbyn offered to cut tuition fees and got huge turnout in University districts...Cambridge was won for the first time in a hundred years.......Minimum wage hike policy brought out the Public sector..,..Apprentice schemes etc........Zero hour contract scrapping etc..

The Lib Dems had no policies.....Give Corbyn some credit.

Losing to May was embarrassing because he came from 24 points down to 2 in four weeks and got 40% of the vote and the greatest rise in vote share since Attlee in 45.....Okay !!

December Elections aren't good for the less right wing parties for sure...GOP has always got the vote out better in November as the haves are always more motivated to keep the Status Quo than the have not whingers who tend to be less motivated.

But Corbyn had a fictional AS crisis whipped up by a left hating media and bitter Blair types out of power (There wasn't any AS in 2017 when Corbyn surprised everybody)....Bigger problem was the plank leading Labour now who screwed him with the Peoples vote......Labour's red wall was Brexiteer dominated....Which Starmer and the rest knew.......The red wall North was Brexiteer Country !!

Corbyn I imagine knew he didn't have much time left and went for it...

Corbyn wasn't a good leader for sure....Too left for me but Stats are stats.......and they don't always lie.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Do your homework...

The art of winning arguments and finding friends.

Anyway the policies, at least the publicly stated ones, were never the problem with Corbyn. It was the history, the political naivete, the indifference over Brexit, the ability to do anything except stick the knife into the Tories when it really mattered, the inability to deal with the media, the dodgy friends in Labour (whatever you say about his personal views those of allies such as Chris Williamson were clear) the dodgy friends abroad etc...

It was always amazing that he had Starmer in his shadow cabinet, given in general he followed a similar path to Johnson in surrounding himself with idiots and yes men.

Anyway my thoroughly subjective view, having lived a few years, is that the only opposition leader who comes near to Corbyn in all round unsuitability and incompetence in my lifetime was IDS, and he didn't cause anything like the damage that JC did. Even Foot had achieved things before becoming Labour leader, although he was way past his best when he did.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The reason for Corbyn's spike in vote share was because of the collapse of the third (and in one case fourth) party vote, nothing to do with Corbyn.

2005 - Lib Dems 22%
2010 - Lib Dems 23%
2015 - UKIP and Lib Dems 20.5%

Now the collapse
2017 - Lib Dems 7.4%
2019 - Lib Dems 11.5%

That 9-16% of the vote that deserted the Lib Dems inflated the tallies of the Con and Lab parties in 2017 and 2019...hence why Theresa May in 2017 won 5.5% more votes than Cameron in 2015, but May didn't win a majority and Cameron did. Also, related to this third party collapse, Johnson won 43.6% of the vote in 2019, which is actually more than Blair got in 1997, but Johnson's Tories won around 50 fewer seats. Such is the vagaries of FPTP.

Corbyn lost to the dreadful May in 2017 - an embarrassing defeat, even Ed Miliband would have defeated her -  and then led Labour to their worst defeat since the 1930s in 2019. So the stats do bear it out. Although I'm not sure Johnson was able to be defeated in 2019, a better Labour leader could have made the margin smaller.

A more skillful leader would not have pushed an election at the time when Corbyn did. There was an opportunity do something different

The third party vote collapse also had something to do with more kids voting in 2017 than in decades.........Do your homework.

The Lib Dems had no policies

Losing to May was embarrassing because he came from 24 points down to 2 in four weeks and got 40% of the vote and the greatest rise in vote share since Attlee in 45.....Okay !!

But Corbyn had a fictional AS crisis

1) Yes, my homework is complete, thank you. Those 'kids' you allude to used to vote Lib Dem, but they left the Lib Dems after the tuition fee debacle. Whatever caused the collapse is irrelevant, however - it collapsed, and Con/Lab got boosted as a result. Would have happened under Corbyn, Jarvis, Cooper or Sheerman.

2) Well, they obviously did.

3) Vote share increase was previously explained. The gap between Lab/Con closed because of May's disastrous manifesto launch and, as I said at the time, people were impressed with Corbyn delivering a bad result because expectations were on the floor, which was the worst outcome for Labour because they were stuck with him going into the next election.

4) It obviously wasn't fictional as the EHRC found that Labour broke the law.