Why would the working class be suspicious of Starmer's social background? It's not like Johnson and Farage grew up in coal mining families?

There must be an academic study available somewhere to explain this phenomenon. I can't get my head around it.

When I heard people say they were suspicious of Corbyn's long-standing social campaigning because he was a 'middle-class Londoner', then in the next sentence, without a hint of irony - "but I like that Jacob Rees-Mogg fella, he's a card".

Some people are happy to follow a leader, regardless of their views, even if said leader is a total T***.
There are plenty of examples in the history books and I believe that the Trump and Johnson premierships are, ironically, largely as a result of austerity, with the masses happy to vote for a change - of any sort.

The writing was on the wall for Labour before the last election and it's just a pity that, during the last election, Corbyn has some bounce in the polls, lulling Labour and many of their supporters that he was actually a credible leader, with credible policies.
Having said that, I believe that Labours utterly inept Brexit policy is the main reason for their antihalation but, most importantly, it was definitely not the reason that they lost.

Corbyn was butchered in the media and press and again , it's important that they have aspiration for success in their new policies and not just protection for the very poorest, commendable as that may be.

I think you're wrong about that - large sections of the big policy stuff were very popular with the public; including the nationalisation of utilities and such.

Where I think you are right, is that the Brexit policy killed us off - Corbyn was forced into a strange and untenable position by people like Keir Starmer, because they are ultra-remainers who insisted on the PV being included; so Corbyn tried to find a grown-up way to include that by saying he'd stay neutral and implement the result, but it was far to ambiguous and easy to attack. And of course this was a Brexit election.

There's also the fact that Corbyn has been the target of an unprecedented and vicious smear campaign, not just from the Tories, but from the RW media, the BBC and a large contingent of his own MP's - the Blairite rump - who hate the members, and yearn for a return to the halcyon days of New Labour, when they could pretend to be socialists and thereby maintain their place on the parliamentary gravy train, because they represented no threat to the established order in this country. It's not a coincidence that Blair is the only Labour leader that the Murdoch evil empire has ever endorsed.

The battleground in 5 years time will be interesting; Brexit will be a wholly Tory mess, and Johnson will have failed to deliver on his key and seemingly made up on the spot promises - and that's quite aside from any new scandal which could emerge at any moment, given the character of the man. He won't represent change, and his tousle-haired posh boy schtick will have worn decidedly thin.

With regards to the Labour leadership - I'd go for Angela Rayner; and I'll do everything I can to resist Keir Starmer or Jess Phillips, both of whom would be a disaster in my view.

Labour's problem is they preach about being the party of the working class yet none of the people running the party come from the working class. Even Milne went to Winchester then Oxford - how can the strategist with that background relate to the working class. Corbyn is another never had a job outside of politics, all those that came through the union route wouldn't have worked in a real job, they will have full time working for the union paid for by either the public sector employer or a private employer. A lot of the main Labour shadow cabinet come from a legal background, Starmer, Thornberry, Long Bailey. Phillips worked in the family quango, Nandy a public quango. Then you add the aforementioned young activits: Jones, Sakar & Blakeley who come from a media background then you add Momentum: Lansman - Cambridge graduate no jobs outside of politics, James Schneider - Winchester then Oxford worked in the media etc. Wherever you look in Labour you see privilege no connection to grass roots.

Much was made of the Brexit situation - the Tories has as many Remainers as Labour - probably more - so why didn't they have the issues Labour had? Possibly because it wasn't really Brexit it was Corbyn and trust in him and the wider Labour party.

see the lefties cannot accept defeat, there was no "smear campaign" against Cringebin, Socialism is NOT WANTED, deal with it.

Angela Rayner - are you serious? Labour can kiss goodbye to ever getting in power - Boris will eat her for breakfast. Next you will be saying Laura Pidcock as deputy.

Labour lost because of Corbyn and a huge credibility issue - the idea that all their give aways' could be funded by a few rich people wasn't credible and could not have been delivered - everyone would have been poorer. The media bias was a complete deflection from the fact that a hard left Labour wasn't attractive and if you look at the arrogance of these people like Corbyn, like McDonald and the anger they showed when questioned it shone through big style. Labour on the left is a party to bring the people together it was quite the opposite policies for a few to hurt the mass. C4 fought tirelessly for Labour - Sky gave them a huge platform as did Marr.

Sadly not - because she lost her seat; and unlike the Tories, Labour don't have the option of sidestepping the electorate by putting non-MP's into the HoL but retaining them in Cabinet positions. Question - given the way that Tory maths works - are there now 2 Nicky Morgan's?



I think Labour did indeed lose partly because of Corbyn - I haven't said otherwise; where I differ is that I don't think this election was won or lost on policy; it was largely based on spin and smear and personalities - and he suffered more of that than even Michael Foot. But the single biggest factor was Brexit - this was effectively a 2nd referendum, and Workington Man has clearly been persuaded that 'getting Brexit done' was more important than any other issue.

I think "Workington Man" was convinced that the result of the referendum should be respected, not dithered over, which is what Labour were doing.

Indeed - we can only hope that it doesn't result in him being Out-of-Work-ington Man; but that will of course be a mess wholly owned by the Tory party, long time champions of the downtrodden masses.