.

[Andy_W]

Wow, so much inaccuracies to unpick so I'll make it brief:
1. Labour lost for 2 reasons. Brexit and Corbyn.
2. Corbyn's policies were extremely popular but he himself wasn't.
3. This current lot is the same lot as under Boris. Sunak was number 2, he was fined for partying with him. There is no distance between them.
4. Your faith in Starmer is only on his ability to win. We all have faith in that because he is fighting a dead dog. Your faith that he will deliver anything to improve the lives of anyone is more worrying. He is a proven liar so you can't trust any if the promises he makes. Everything in your post is based on assumptions and wishful thinking and is completely at odds with anything Starmer has said or done.

1) Yes, Labours stance on Brexit was ok, but Corbyn was lukewarm at best (historically, and during tenure), but neither did enough for the remain case, same as the Tories who apparently also wanted remain. They both allowed far too much contradictory bull****.
2) Policies should be more important than the person, but yes, some people can't look passed this. Evidently, the policies were not popular enough to overcome this, and win seats, especially from those around the centre, and the red wall which they should dominate. Corbyn is Corbyn, Labour members chose a person who was not going to win an election, for various reasons. One of those reasons is that he was a simple target for the far-right press, and the press won't change. Those who wanted Corbyn have to accept that he's a big reason in why they lost, when they could and should have had a very good chance at winning in 2017. You're all criticising Starmer, when there's no manifesto, and I'll eat my hat if it's the same as the Tory one. Starmer beat RLB easily in the membership vote, and she was basically Cobyn's policies without Corbyn.
3) Sunak is a d*ck, but he's not as daft as Boris, not by a long shot, and not many are. Boris is all about himself, even a lot more than most parties, he goes where the tide goes, where as Sunak is probably more party-oriented. Sunak would have still hammered Corbyn in 2019, but I don't think he would have been anywhere near as far behind as they are now.
4) Yes, like my disappointment in Labour members and Corbyn was because he/ they/ we lost, comfortably on seats twice. Winning is priority 1, and retaining that win is priority 2. Then from there you push what your voters want (what the makeup is who got you there), as much as you can, but you have to get the win first. He's not going to be shooting boats with the navy in Dover, just because some of his voters might want that. He's not going to turn his back on the EU (and the economy), because some of his voters want that. Unfortunately, you need these voters to win though, as the UK is a ****ed up place. He'll work on a balance, probably something in the centre/centre-right of all of his voters (which is probably ending up centre-left politically still), as tactically/ mathermatically it's the best thing to do, once you've won. Corbyn took over in 2015, Remain were meant to be fighting a supposed dead dog in 2016 but underestimated leave, and lost, which was a catastrophe. Corbyn should have been fighting a dead dog in 2017, but lost. Those losses meant he lost 2019 too. Tories were not a dead dog early in 2020 when Starmer took over, and he's done well at not making himself a target, and stuck the boot in enough, whilst the Tories have been trying to set their house on fire. Labour would not have anything like this sort of lead had Corbyn been in charge, or someone to be seen as carrying the Corbyn flame like RLB. They would have had to distance themselves from the loss, as a lot of people just don't like voting for what is losing, or has lost previously. It's daft, but that's how daft people think, and we have a lot of them.

 

[Andy_W]

Well at least this means if the Tories somehow win you’ll be blaming the centre.

Why will it?

You can't move where the centre sit politically, not quickly anyway. People are entitled to sit where they like and they do, and most don't like having other voters views pushed down their throats, when the media is steering them the other way. Unfortunately, where people sit is largely dictated by the media, who sit on the right, it's not a fair fight.
If you don't act well enough as a party or a leader, or give enough policies to attract enough of the centre, to win enough seats, then you lose, it's that simple.

If Labour lose it will be because they've not moved to the centre enough with the manifesto, or what they say in the leadership election, and having more people pulling left isn't going to help that unfortunately, as it just loses more of them.

If Labour lose, which is looking unlikely for the first time in what will be 15 years, then it will be because the Tories have either started to act a lot more responsibly or moved back towards the centre, and Labour don't adapt to this.

 

[The Ruthsayer]

Not everyone who voted for brexit is a xenophobe but it played a significant part in the result. To deny that is delusional. Every survey shows the most important issue to brexiters was immigration. A fear of foreigners (stoked by the likes of Farage) was absolutely key to the result. I know there were other reasons, but that was the Biggie.

I know it's an uncomfortable truth for some, but tough. It's not like it wasn't highlighted very clearly at the time.

The other stuff you've just put words into my mouth.

If the first and second generation immigrants had voted remain we would still be in the EU.
That is a fact.

 

[Johnny Vincents Motorbike]

the centrists/right wing of the labour party are in the throes of snatching a parliamentary defeat from the jaws of a much need victory, that the people on these islands richly deserve.



absolutely scandalous.

you cant condemn what the tories do (to corbyn for example with mis-truths & smears) and then be accepting of this absolute non-sense off the labour party - sunak wasnt even an MP when those figures started being added up, its a very wrong campaign by labour (in my humble opinion).

 

[Andy_W]

I think I've understood what you're trying to say here but again you are massively contradicting yourself.

If Corbyn had zero power to influence anything how was he "running" the red wall?

If he was "lukewarm" on Remain, why did the red wall abandon him to pursue Leave?

How did 10 pledges to support social change become outdated? Nothing in those pledges is outdated NOW. Can you explain, even for just one of those pledges, why it is no longer relevant or achievable?

There also appears to be a huge amount of projection (not just from yourself) onto the left insofar as there being a messiah complex. I won't (and haven't) voted for Corbyn, just because he's Corbyn. As mentioned in another thread, if Corbyn joined the Green party, I wouldn't vote green because of that. Corbyn has gone. The policies that Corbyn proposed were sensible and necessary. Starmer won the leadership on a promise to continue with them (as the public were on-board it was just Corbyn they didn't like, supposedly).

Starmer pushed the Remain stance that lost the red wall.

Starmer abandoned the policies that had proved popular.

Starmer needs to convince people like me that he will do something to win my vote.


This is just cherry picking a specific metric with no context.

At a minimum, 1118 voters switching from Tory to Labour could have enabled a Corbyn led coalition in 2017.

The numbers aren't disputed. You can argue that realistically you'd need a larger swing across the populace but that 1118 votes would have made all the difference.

When you consider that the centrists were predicting a rout then the idea that even seats weren't close is just political revisionism.

That's the point, Corbyn wasn't "running" the red wall, because he lost it, or didn't win enough of it back. The seats which did vote Labour get their hands tied when the Tories have overall control, we all know this, it happens to Teesside all the time. The area fails and it gets blamed on Labour, when they have no chance. As for influence I mean he had no influence on any policy as he kept losing.

If Corbyn had been a lot more pro-eu, or if someone like Corbyn who wasn't lukewarm on remain and was very much pro-eu, then remain would have got more votes, and it wouldn't have taken many. It was Corbyns job to get the red wall to vote remain. Like I say, I'm not pinning that on Corbyn, but he has partial blame, like the people who chose Corbyn when the Tories were going to offer a referendum, and the Tories who did a terrible job with the remain campaign are even more to blame.

What I mean is the priority is outdated for some of them, people see higher mortgage rates, high energy bills, high inflation, long NHS waiting lists as bigger problems. Supporting social change is par for the course when labour get elected though, but they need to get elected to do it. They will do a lot more for this than the Tories do, saying otherwise has zero foundation with reality.

I know most of you didn't vote for Corbyn, because he's Corbyn, but a lot did want him as leader. A better leader with the same policies would have done better back then, but the problem was because they picked corbyn, it allowed three successive failures, which compounded on top of each other. I voted for Corbyn too, twice, I liked what he had to say, other than what he did for the remain campaign which was nowhere near enough for me. He wasn't a good leader though, and he was cannon fodder for the press, Cameron and BJ etc.

Starmer wasn't in charge from 2015-2019, for the brexit lead up, referendum, or the two election losses. 2019 was a result of the compounding of what came before it. I suppose one good thing was that Corbyn was there for 2019, so that loss could go with him, which allowed the party to move on with a new slate as such. Anyone else would have probably got beat in 2019 also.

Abandoned policies popular with who, the losing side? I don't believe he's abandoned policies either, but the timing and priority of some needs to change, and some have to be diluted to get some votes back.

As for your 1118, it's based on a hell of a lot of assumption, and purely hypothetical.

The 2017 general election: not that close after all - UK in a changing Europe

Anthony B. Masters examines the claim that in the 2017 general election, the Labour Party were just 2,227 votes away from the chance of government.

ukandeu.ac.uk

 

[Andy_W]

Another inconsistency in @Andy_W 's insistence on policies changing because things have changed is that he ignores the biggest change. The Tories have made themselves completely unelectable and so the tactic of abandoning the workers, the left and any socially minded policies in search of Tory voters isn't necessary anymore.

Yes, very much unelectable against a good leader, who does well at PMQ's, who the press find hard to attack and who knows how to play it tactically. So much so that Labour are predicted over 450 seats.

They were not unelectable when he took over and they had 365 seats V Labours 200.

Those who are switching sides think Starmer is more responsible and will do a better job than the clowns on the other side, and they've been clowns for the last 13 years and still had power, making the UK worse and worse.

 

[Scrote]

That's the point, Corbyn wasn't "running" the red wall, because he lost it, or didn't win enough of it back.

You said he WAS "running" the red wall. Make your mind up.

As for your 1118, it's based on a hell of a lot of assumption, and purely hypothetical.

Of course it's hypothetical. That doesn't make it any less true. The article you've linked to says as much - did you actually read it?

 

[Nano]

1) Yes, Labours stance on Brexit was ok, but Corbyn was lukewarm at best (historically, and during tenure), but neither did enough for the remain case, same as the Tories who apparently also wanted remain. They both allowed far too much contradictory bull****.
2) Policies should be more important than the person, but yes, some people can't look passed this. Evidently, the policies were not popular enough to overcome this, and win seats, especially from those around the centre, and the red wall which they should dominate. Corbyn is Corbyn, Labour members chose a person who was not going to win an election, for various reasons. One of those reasons is that he was a simple target for the far-right press, and the press won't change. Those who wanted Corbyn have to accept that he's a big reason in why they lost, when they could and should have had a very good chance at winning in 2017. You're all criticising Starmer, when there's no manifesto, and I'll eat my hat if it's the same as the Tory one. Starmer beat RLB easily in the membership vote, and she was basically Cobyn's policies without Corbyn.
3) Sunak is a d*ck, but he's not as daft as Boris, not by a long shot, and not many are. Boris is all about himself, even a lot more than most parties, he goes where the tide goes, where as Sunak is probably more party-oriented. Sunak would have still hammered Corbyn in 2019, but I don't think he would have been anywhere near as far behind as they are now.
4) Yes, like my disappointment in Labour members and Corbyn was because he/ they/ we lost, comfortably on seats twice. Winning is priority 1, and retaining that win is priority 2. Then from there you push what your voters want (what the makeup is who got you there), as much as you can, but you have to get the win first. He's not going to be shooting boats with the navy in Dover, just because some of his voters might want that. He's not going to turn his back on the EU (and the economy), because some of his voters want that. Unfortunately, you need these voters to win though, as the UK is a ****ed up place. He'll work on a balance, probably something in the centre/centre-right of all of his voters (which is probably ending up centre-left politically still), as tactically/ mathermatically it's the best thing to do, once you've won. Corbyn took over in 2015, Remain were meant to be fighting a supposed dead dog in 2016 but underestimated leave, and lost, which was a catastrophe. Corbyn should have been fighting a dead dog in 2017, but lost. Those losses meant he lost 2019 too. Tories were not a dead dog early in 2020 when Starmer took over, and he's done well at not making himself a target, and stuck the boot in enough, whilst the Tories have been trying to set their house on fire. Labour would not have anything like this sort of lead had Corbyn been in charge, or someone to be seen as carrying the Corbyn flame like RLB. They would have had to distance themselves from the loss, as a lot of people just don't like voting for what is losing, or has lost previously. It's daft, but that's how daft people think, and we have a lot of them.

Do you not have any memory of actual events? This is all nonsense again.

Labour's Brexit position was not ok. It was the sole reason they were beaten so comprehensibly.

If you accept that policies were all good and the problem was Corbyn them the logical change is to change Corbyn but retain the policies. That is what Starmer campaigned to do but the reason why I, and others, are now anti-Starmer is because he's abandoned them all and lurched right which means he is a liar and can't be trusted. That means we no longer have the policies or a trustworthy leader. It is the worst of both worlds.

Nobody has said Starmer will have the same manifesto as the Tories. We're saying he will have a manifesto that could be legitimately put together by a Tory party. Surely you understand the difference?

Remain weren't fighting a dead dog in 2016. We were having a referendum because there was a huge number of people that wanted one. It was favourite but not massively so.

2017 was an election called by the Tories to increase their majority. In no way were they a dead dog, they were miles ahead in the polls. The fact that Corbyn reduced the majority to a minority party was a massive surprise.

2019 was a single issue which Labour were on the wrong side of.

I don't think you know how people think. You don't even seem to consistently know how you think. People are most likely to vote for 2 things: the status quo or a change. All you have to do is convince them that the status quo isn't working and you can get them to vote for anything else. Thanks to the Tories the status quo isn't desirable so it is an open goal. There's no need to become a status quo party with a liar for a leader but that is what Starmer is determined to do.

 

[Andy_W]

the centrists/right wing of the labour party are in the throes of snatching a parliamentary defeat from the jaws of a much need victory, that the people on these islands richly deserve.

View attachment 55816

absolutely scandalous.

you cant condemn what the tories do (to corbyn for example with mis-truths & smears) and then be accepting of this absolute non-sense off the labour party - sunak wasnt even an MP when those figures started being added up, its a very wrong campaign by labour (in my humble opinion).

I don't like that to be honest, they don't need to do it. I don't agree with everything Labour do, nobody should.

Has Sunak changed the policy on that, as in have they got tougher, or are they just carrying on with it?

 

[Nano]

Yes, very much unelectable against a good leader, who does well at PMQ's, who the press find hard to attack and who knows how to play it tactically. So much so that Labour are predicted over 450 seats.

They were not unelectable when he took over and they had 365 seats V Labours 200.

Those who are switching sides think Starmer is more responsible and will do a better job than the clowns on the other side, and they've been clowns for the last 13 years and still had power, making the UK worse and worse.

They have that lead because of Johnson and the Tories, not because of anything Starmer has done. If Vincent Kompany orders Burnley to try and score an own goal every time they get the ball tonight then we will win whether we have Michael Carrick or Keir Starmer managing us.

 

[Andy_W]

You said he WAS "running" the red wall. Make your mind up.


Of course it's hypothetical. That doesn't make it any less true. The article you've linked to says as much - did you actually read it?

Ok, was meant to win the red wall, but didn't. Didn't run the red wall as he was a poor leader.

Yeah, the article was hypothetical too, that's the point. You're trying to claim it was close, but it wasn't, the party with the most seats has always took control.

Who were labour meant to get a coalition with, the lib dems? I thought you didn't want centre/ centre right influence? They sided with the Tories in 2010 and helped wreck the place. If you don't get a majority you rely on votes of those who can hold you to ransom (DUP did it with Tories too), and hence they get far more than what they should proportionally.

 

[Andy_W]

Do you not have any memory of actual events? This is all nonsense again.

Labour's Brexit position was not ok. It was the sole reason they were beaten so comprehensibly.

If you accept that policies were all good and the problem was Corbyn them the logical change is to change Corbyn but retain the policies. That is what Starmer campaigned to do but the reason why I, and others, are now anti-Starmer is because he's abandoned them all and lurched right which means he is a liar and can't be trusted. That means we no longer have the policies or a trustworthy leader. It is the worst of both worlds.

Nobody has said Starmer will have the same manifesto as the Tories. We're saying he will have a manifesto that could be legitimately put together by a Tory party. Surely you understand the difference?

Remain weren't fighting a dead dog in 2016. We were having a referendum because there was a huge number of people that wanted one. It was favourite but not massively so.

2017 was an election called by the Tories to increase their majority. In no way were they a dead dog, they were miles ahead in the polls. The fact that Corbyn reduced the majority to a minority party was a massive surprise.

2019 was a single issue which Labour were on the wrong side of.

I don't think you know how people think. You don't even seem to consistently know how you think. People are most likely to vote for 2 things: the status quo or a change. All you have to do is convince them that the status quo isn't working and you can get them to vote for anything else. Thanks to the Tories the status quo isn't desirable so it is an open goal. There's no need to become a status quo party with a liar for a leader but that is what Starmer is determined to do.

It's difficult to remember as it was so luke warm.

Labour's position was ok, but how they presented that was terrible, and how they fronted that with their choice of leader was poor.

Changing Corbyn for someone with similar policies might have worked for 2015-2017, but that ship sailed, it wouldn't work after the far-right uprising. Someone else might not have invigorated the left as much, but that's hypothetical of course.

I disagree the manifesto will be similar to that of a Tory party, but it will differ to that of Labour parties which have lost, of course it will. It wouldn't be a manifesto similar to the Tory party of 2015-2022 (which moved further right, like the people did).

Remain should have had it in the bag, but they absolutely blew it, and leave used every trick in the book to win, and it worked. It's probably the worst thing overall which has happened to the UK (or will be), and moved us politically in a terrible direction, but it happened.

Yeah, ok 2017 not a dead dog, but Tories had to call an election then as they knew they were fading, it was their only way to lock in more time and it was the best chance Labour had, probably more than 2010 and 2015.

In 2019 Labour were on the wrong side then, but could have been on the right side of it, if they had done more to make that side win from 2015-2016, or had won in 2017. It was compounding earlier failures.

I know how I think, more than anyone, I'm centre left but realise that we have to give some things up to get anything, what these things are changes, as does time and world events. I know how a lot of the centre and centre left think, as that makes up most of my friends and colleagues. I have also worked in industries which are quite weighted to the right, from what I experience, like in the forces or construction etc. Yes, people vote for change, and they're going to vote for labour as they're going to be different to how the Tories have been from 2010-2025. Of course everyone has had enough of the Tories, but they wouldn't be switching sides if they thought labour would do the same thing.

 

[Andy_W]

If Vincent Kompany orders Burnley to try and score an own goal every time they get the ball tonight then we will win whether we have Michael Carrick or Keir Starmer managing us.

Here's hoping, but I don't think the players would do that, if he asked them to.

 

[Scrote]

Ok, was meant to win the red wall, but didn't. Didn't run the red wall as he was a poor leader.

He was in control of the red wall according to your original post (the one I was responding to).

Yeah, the article was hypothetical too, that's the point. You're trying to claim it was close, but it wasn't, the party with the most seats has always took control.

1118 votes nationally isn't close? Okay.

And that wasn't the point anyway. The point was that Corbyn was expected to be trounced in 2017. You're now trying to reframe his gains as him not getting close to winning, just because he lost. It's revisionism or political naivety.

Who were labour meant to get a coalition with, the lib dems? I thought you didn't want centre/ centre right influence? They sided with the Tories in 2010 and helped wreck the place. If you don't get a majority you rely on votes of those who can hold you to ransom (DUP did it with Tories too), and hence they get far more than what they should proportionally.

Again, not the point.

I honestly think that had Corbyn won 325 seats* the rest would have banded together in a coalition against him (and him personally). The whole movement against the left was predicated on keeping Corbyn out of Number 10.

The Lib Dems showed in their attempted coalition with the Tories that they weren't able to hold the larger party to ransom. They spectacularly failed to get the PR vote that they wanted (Cameron was able to offer something that no-one wanted to kill it). They also failed to keep any promises they'd made on e.g. student loans. The DUP deal was different in that it was tied closely to Brexit and the Good Friday Agreement re. borders inside the UK.



*keeping the numbers simple so lets ignore Sinn Fein etc.

 

[Scrote]

Yeah, ok 2017 not a dead dog, but Tories had to call an election then as they knew they were fading, it was their only way to lock in more time and it was the best chance Labour had, probably more than 2010 and 2015.

Seriously?

The Tories called an election because they thought they were in a very strong position. The whole point was to reinforce their dominance. Corbyn was expected to lose badly (as in have fewer seats than he started with). Do you really not understand this?

In hindsight it was Labours best chance due to the internal interference from the right of the party (your sensible centrists) intensifying after the scare of Corbyn coming so close to winning outright.

 

[Andy_W]

He was in control of the red wall according to your original post (the one I was responding to).


1118 votes nationally isn't close? Okay.

And that wasn't the point anyway. The point was that Corbyn was expected to be trounced in 2017. You're now trying to reframe his gains as him not getting close to winning, just because he lost. It's revisionism or political naivety.


Again, not the point.

I honestly think that had Corbyn won 325 seats* the rest would have banded together in a coalition against him (and him personally). The whole movement against the left was predicated on keeping Corbyn out of Number 10.

The Lib Dems showed in their attempted coalition with the Tories that they weren't able to hold the larger party to ransom. They spectacularly failed to get the PR vote that they wanted (Cameron was able to offer something that no-one wanted to kill it). They also failed to keep any promises they'd made on e.g. student loans. The DUP deal was different in that it was tied closely to Brexit and the Good Friday Agreement re. borders inside the UK.



*keeping the numbers simple so lets ignore Sinn Fein etc.

Jesus, way to split hairs over the overall main point, but to clarify:
Corbyn was a bad leader of Labour, easily targeted and did little for the red wall seats that Labour MP's did win, as he didn't have overall control. Net loss of red wall seats, and the red wall seats largely voted against remaining which was meant to be a labour priority. It's mad how you chose to split hairs, and give this more weight over the absolute failures.

1118 specific vote swings, in specific areas, without giving any thought to what winning those votes would have taken and what it would lose elsewhere. Also that in that hypothetical scenario, it would mean still being ~40 seats behind, and having to rely on ceding power to others who are certainly right of centre. The biggest party has always formed a government, since I've been alive, they get first bite at the cherry and they can offer more to those who who they can bribe to support them.
Plus, if Labour were acting like they were going to side with actual the party of remain, the Tories would have probably called another election and the leavers had a melt down and all voted tory, like they did in 2019. It could have got their crap over and done with earlier mind, so there could have been that I suppose.

Corbyn wasn't winning 325, he might have hypothetically won 275, plus the hypothetical ~40 seats of parties, who are further right of the votes I'm saying Labour need to target. You also seem to forget that it's not just people who are Corbyn supporters who actually did vote for him, loads of people more "centre left" than Corbyn voted for him too, and even some remainers who were centre/ centre right did too, as a last hope.

Yup, LD did struggle, but they still got some of what they wanted. They paid a heavy price though, as it cost them in voters, as loads of their voters didn't even want the Tory coalition, they just voted lib dem as the papers had been telling them that labour caused the worldwide recession, or Blair was a war monger etc. They didn't even think that LD could join the tories. I have loads of mates who were students, who voted LD, and who were absolutely furious that LD went with the tories, and none of them have voted against labour since. They got suckered in big time, but was a quick and early lesson, which they did learn from.

Yup, the DUP had tories over a barrel, it can happen when you don't have a majority.

 

[Scrote]

the DUP had tories over a barrel

And yet the DUP feel that the Tories well and truly shafted them.

It's funny how the reality according to the people involved is vastly different to the revisionist nonsense you keep posting.

 

[Andy_W]

Seriously?

The Tories called an election because they thought they were in a very strong position. The whole point was to reinforce their dominance. Corbyn was expected to lose badly (as in have fewer seats than he started with). Do you really not understand this?

In hindsight it was Labours best chance due to the internal interference from the right of the party (your sensible centrists) intensifying after the scare of Corbyn coming so close to winning outright.

Yes, seriously.

There's a difference in knowing you're going to get the most seats against the particular opposition/ leader, than thinking you're dominant and it's going to last. The additional election was just to prolong that time. It didn't quite work out for them as expected, but it did still work, they're still in power now. Had we not had that election and labour took a more central stance in what would have been a 2022 election, then labour would be in power now. Had labour had a more central leader in 2017 they probably could have won, but the Tories wouldn't have called an election in that scenario, as they would have seen it as a risk not worth the reward.

 

[Andy_W]

And yet the DUP feel that the Tories well and truly shafted them.

It's funny how the reality according to the people involved is vastly different to the revisionist nonsense you keep posting.

They still got £1bn more than they would have got had they not sided with them.

It also proves that coalitions generally don't work, other than the main function being to stop the opposition. This is partially why a labour lib-dem coalition probably wouldn't have worked in 2017, as someone else was going on about.

 

[Scrote]

Jesus, way to split hairs over the overall main point, but to clarify:
Corbyn was a bad leader of Labour, easily targeted and did little for the red wall seats that Labour MP's did win, as he didn't have overall control. Net loss of red wall seats, and the red wall seats largely voted against remaining which was meant to be a labour priority. It's mad how you chose to split hairs, and give this more weight over the absolute failures.

You had (and somehow still have) faith in Corbyn, who lost two elections and who was "running" the supposed red wall when loads of them voted leave

Do you even pay attention to the things that YOU write?

The "overall main point" was that Corbyn (according to you) was "running" the red wall and was therefore responsible for Brexit (or the leave vote in those areas). At the same time you say that Corbyn had zero power or influence over those red wall seats because he wasn't able to form a government and therefore placate the residents. One of these points must, by your own logic, be wrong. Which is it?

Your other main argument as to why Starmer had to abandon his pledges is BECAUSE Corbyn lost. You've equated that with the poitical argument being lost despite also posting that it was Corbyn, the person, that was the problem. Again, logically inconsistent.