Labour humiliated in Copeland, but hang on in Stoke, thus basically screwing UKIP and also doing enough to allow Corbyn to limp on as leader of a party doomed to perpetual opposition.
Labour humiliated in Copeland, but hang on in Stoke, thus basically screwing UKIP and also doing enough to allow Corbyn to limp on as leader of a party doomed to perpetual opposition.
Nah, they'll be fine. Their policies are wholeheartedly supported by The Membership, and once the Blairite Red Tories have been de-selected and replaced by proper Socialists, unity will return and they will sweep all before them in the next general election.
Am I doing it right?
I see that Dennis Skinner has blamed it on Labour not being left-wing enough.
Meanwhile, the party line now appears to be to describe Copeland - a seat they've held for 80 years - as 'a marginal' that they've done well to push the tories close in given the disparity between the two in the polls.
Meanwhile, the likes of Owen Jones who were cheerleaders for Corbyn are now saying he needs to go - whilst apparently not acknowledging any blame on their parts.
It's hilarious.
Although the Stoke one was interesting - a 70% vote for leave so they put up a hardline remainer who called Brexit a pile of ****. It's like they are trying to lose. I guess they were helped by a 35% turnout and the poor people of Stoke couldn't cope with writing an x twice in a year
Far from perfect. Farage should have stood in Stoke. He would have won at a canter.
I think UKIP has served its purpose and will see its support dwindle in the years to come. The interesting question is where those votes will go. They won't go back to Labour without it changing course considerably, but a lot of them might go to the Tories if they play their cards right.
What I find incredible is hearing McDonnell this morning describe UKIP as a "stain on British politics" and in the next breath say that Labour have to listen more to ordinary people.
What level of cognitive dissonance is required to think there is no inherent contradiction between the two statements? Does he think the 4 million who voted for ukip in 2015 and the 17 million who voted for Brexit will just not realise he's essentially talking about them as the "stain"?