When you've got to go, you've got to go!

[local]

I think you're giving Cummings far too much credit. He didn't have to 'outwit the remoaners'. He didn't have to do anything at all. The election was handed to the Tories on a plate.

Let's be honest, it wasn't Johnson's political talent that got him elected. He's hardly got a distinguished record in that regard. Johnson may believe that the loveable buffoon facade he presents is endearing to the electorate, but, to the majority of people it doesn't exactly inspire their confidence in a would be leader.

There's only one person who can claim responsibility for the astounding Conservative win. Take a bow, Mr Jeremy Corbyn. Brexit was the main component of the election. Corbyn's policy on Brexit was totally incoherent. Listening to him from one day to the next, it was impossible to figure out what the policy actually was. Straddling the fence never works. The electorate needs to know what it's voting for. The candidate needs to present a deep commitment to it, and Johnson certainly did that. Not only was Corbyn anathema to leavers, he also managed to alienate a large number of reMAINers.

I don't believe that Corbyn is an anti-Semite, but the Labour party's inherent problem with anti-Semitism is very real. The moment any anti-Semitic acts were brought to their attention, they should have been dealt with immediately. They weren't, and that will forever be a stain on the Labour party.

I never thought that in my lifetime I would witness so many constituencies who have traditionally voted Labour, switch to Conservative. I can't think of a more damning indictment of Corbyn, and how he has let the party and traditional working class voters down. It was a shoo-in in for the Tories.

Johnson has a winning track record and got overwhelming support from his party to be leader, clearly they saw him as an electable leader of the party, they were right.

He won convincingly, orchestrating his campaign was Cummings which is why some label him as the puppet master.

Boris offered people what they voted for in the referendum and the remain side got that so wrong.

There was no groundswell for a second referendum, they did not feel they had been lied to and most importantly most did have a good understanding of the issues despite the appalling campaign to subvert democracy.

Consequently the Conservatives won.

Corbyn had many supporters and also won the leadership convincingly.

He lost the election and in particular many of his "red wall" seats simply because he tried to subvert the referendum result.

Without that the result would have been much closer.

Many former labour voters held their noses and vote Conservative because Labour was trying to fool the voters.

The anti-semite problems were generally not held as determinative in the country.

[local]

Polls indicate the vast majority want a deal.

I'll know if I'm 'spectacularly wrong' if Johnson is still PM in 6 months.

'Reading the will of' is not 'outwitting' anyone. Wetting a finger and sticking it in the air isn't 'outwitting' the wind.

Yes, back on block. It's gone from 'tribal' to 'cult'.

I don't think anyone but you has such faith in the polls.

*You have been predicting Boris's imminent downfall for months have you not ?

Outwitting I stick with the dictionary definition (I accept there are others) of which some will have a different opinion;

to get the better of by superior cleverness.

My blocked status is inevitable as I keep pointing out where you keep getting it wrong as above *

Its like China

[sandGroundZero]

In response to seivad's post #141:
I would say you've attributed far more influence to Corbyn than is warranted. In doing so, you have misrepresented the state of politics in the UK.

Firstly Corbyn, despite a lot of tosh about Momentum and such, did not dominate the Labour party. He achieved the leader's mantle because Labour was already broken. Labour had always been a rather wind-battered marquee; New Labour pulled up a fair share of its pegs.

Corbyn's long backbench career saw him defend unpopular causes. Notably he advocated peace in Ireland favouring the Republican cause. Then of course, there was his backing for Palestinians — an anathema to Israel supporting media, politicians and citizens. Few could really have believed that Jeremy Corbyn had the leadership qualities of any major party leader in my lifetime. Labour's leadership was a poisoned chalice no one, least himself, expected Corbyn to handle.

Fair to say Corbyn did handle badly the most divisive preoccupation of the English electorate for decades leading up to Johnson's 2019 general election victory. That was of course, IN or OUT of the European Union. At that late and unfortunate juncture of his political career, Corbyn waffled. In what was perhaps the defining moment of the UK's contemporary history, the divisions within the Labour party and within the country were too great to hide, much less patch over.

"I don't believe that Corbyn is an anti-Semite …" was a recurring refrain throughout his leadership. In fact, most people either out of malign intent or ignorance chose not to disentangle the threads of distinction between anti-semitism and pro-Palestinian. Looked at from that perspective the UK (and Canadian) residents are riddled with prejudices — anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic, anti-foreign! You name it.

So, how was it that Dominic Cummings "outwitted" local and his ilk? He read the entrails more accurately. Cumming's unflinching focus was impressive in itself.

The REMAIN side couldn't find a Svengali to simplify its message — REMAIN's messages were all over the place. Cameron & Osborne represented the City's smug banking and finance sector. Assorted personalities represented cosmopolitan Londoners. Labour MPs were straws in the wind prevailing in their respective constituencies. [Tony Blair represented his EGO.] Labour constituencies did not desert — the party dismembered itself before all our eyes!

[Toodles McGinty]

In response to seivad's post #141:
I would say you've attributed far more influence to Corbyn than is warranted. In doing so, you have misrepresented the state of politics in the UK...

...The REMAIN side couldn't find a Svengali to simplify its message — REMAIN's messages were all over the place. Cameron & Osborne represented the City's smug banking and finance sector. Assorted personalities represented cosmopolitan Londoners. Labour MPs were straws in the wind prevailing in their respective constituencies. [Tony Blair represented his EGO.] Labour constituencies did not desert — the party dismembered itself before all our eyes!

Kind of agree and disagree.

I think Seiv is right about Corbyn. I personally think Corbyn's waffling over the EU did a lot of damage. Corbyn himself followed Benn's anti-EU stance, but knew that a full on Leave path would alienate a lot of the party. It left Labour voters in limbo.

I'll give him his due, he was a breath of fresh air after years of new Labour and government austerity. I liked a lot of his manifesto. It really wasn't as radical as most made it to be. For example, the idea of everyone having access to free fast broadband over the past few months would have been welcomed by many as a standard service. OK 'free' was radical, but a nominal fee, definitely. A lot of his 'socialist' ideas are being implemented at the moment by the current chancellor.

On the other hand, I think the antisemitism issue was important. I've said it over and over that he should have stamped that out immediately, before it became a huge issue. Of course there are those who cannot distinguish between being averse to the Israeli government and being against an entire race or religion. But it was a big stick to beat him with, and he did little to stop it.

In the House he came across as weak. He stuck to the script and that isn't a great idea in the frothing bear pit that is the House of Commons. A great speech maker on his own terms, but even Theresa May gave him a run for his money across the aisle.

And again, he had the media on his back for the duration of his leadership. Let's hope Starmer knows how to eat a bacon butty.

I agree with your last paragraph. I'm not sure a Svengali was needed, but they should have firstly had a clear message. I'm guessing they assumed the electorate simply knew the fact that Brexit is an act of self harm, so didn't campaign very much at all. Secondly, they should have seen the well defined tactics of those behind the AV campaign, the seeds of which grew into the Leave campaign. You don't learn from history, you're bound to repeat it. Decent article here. They successfully marketed Brexit as anti-elitist, even though those that stand to gain the most are the elite, and those who stand to lose the most are those in the red wall that fell.

Politics is now personality led, populist and tribal. There is no room for individual thought. No tolerance for criticising your 'team'. Just 'Newspeak'. With Napoleon leading at the trough. Orwell was frighteningly prescient.

[silver fox]

Sure as eggs are eggs Boris is cementing his powerbase, the whinestorm has as usual been over-egged by the media and those who don't approve of either of them.

The constant whining criticism of the government is becoming a background noise.

This is as totally expected, bury and cover, 4 years before they need to consider the electorate so press on regardless and rely on short memories, hoping that conditions will be better come the next election.

The government has a substantial majority and feel untouchable at the moment.

The Cummings saga is like having a stone in your shoe, but told to keep walking, not step for one second to remove the stone, sure the Cummings affair is a distraction, which continues because the distraction has not been dealt with.

If Johnson ever gets round to dealing with this, guess what the story will die, the press will walk away, but as long as the thing is unresolved the story will continue, the answer is in Johnson’s hands if he has the bottle.

[sandGroundZero]

Regarding Toodles McGinty's post #147:

Labour throughout Corbyn's leadership had to contend with party 'insiders' undermining him and his tiny band of reliable supporters not less than the hostile print and broadcast media (Guardian not excluded).

[I believe you, T M, are a party member; perhaps the notion that Labour is "broken" is not something you wish to read.] Corbyn's preferred role was as the campaigning stump speaker. Another leader with a bit of nous about making an impact in the H of C would possibly have fared somewhat better in December's general election. Nevertheless, seivad was wrong to post:

There's only one person who can claim responsibility for the astounding Conservative win.

Corbyn did not "break" the party. He would never have been leader, had NEW LABOUR not seriously damaged it, already!

Notwithstanding many years in parliament, Corbyn may have supposed the "frothing bear pit" could be redeemed. He is not exempt from my belief that by the time 'politicos' are that deeply embedded, they have lost their objectivity on the worthiness of the institutions — not least the House of Commons.

Anti-Semitism, fear and hatred of Islam, and other prejudices exist in British society. Perhaps there is a case for believing Corbyn's handling of the issue put the Labour party in the spotlight unfairly.

Though I realize no one on Q Local's Southport forum are likely to take a blind bit of notice, I assert the institutions are equivocal about DEMOCRACY! It is dismaying that Jeremy Corbyn & Co. did not, at least, begin to expound that. If not J C, then who?

[susanb]

When you've got to go, you've got to go.

I always thought this was saying, you had to go to the toilet!

[Toodles McGinty]

Regarding Toodles McGinty's post #147:

Labour throughout Corbyn's leadership had to contend with party 'insiders' undermining him and his tiny band of reliable supporters not less than the hostile print and broadcast media (Guardian not excluded).

[I believe you, T M, are a party member; perhaps the notion that Labour is "broken" is not something you wish to read.] Corbyn's preferred role was as the campaigning stump speaker. Another leader with a bit of nous about making an impact in the H of C would possibly have fared somewhat better in December's general election. Nevertheless, seivad was wrong to post: Corbyn did not "break" the party. He would never have been leader, had NEW LABOUR not seriously damaged it, already!

Notwithstanding many years in parliament, Corbyn may have supposed the "frothing bear pit" could be redeemed. He is not exempt from my belief that by the time 'politicos' are that deeply embedded, they have lost their objectivity on the worthiness of the institutions — not least the House of Commons.

Anti-Semitism, fear and hatred of Islam, and other prejudices exist in British society. Perhaps there is a case for believing Corbyn's handling of the issue put the Labour party in the spotlight unfairly.

Though I realize no one on Q Local's Southport forum are likely to take a blind bit of notice, I assert the institutions are equivocal about DEMOCRACY! It is dismaying that Jeremy Corbyn & Co. did not, at least, begin to expound that. If not J C, then who?

I wouldn't say Labour is broken. It's cracked in parts. There are some whose particular interests are served by someone they see on the far left, some by more central figures like Starmer. Personally I see the benefit of both. I was behind Corbyn, I liked him. You are right, he was and is a campaigner. He fights for the underdog. He inspired strong feelings, certainly. He had his faults. He didn't do enough to stamp out prejudice. Or wasn't seen to.

I voted for Starmer and Rayner. Time for a change. The electorate have spoken, regardless of being influenced by Brexit or not. They turned down Corbyn twice. If the two elections were reversed, and he was soundly beaten, then came quite close it would be different. As things stand, we move on. For me, Starmer represents a form of Social Democracy closer to my own ideals.

As for 'New' Labour breaking it, I'd disagree. It was unfortunate that Gordon Brown and the government of the time landed slap bang in the middle of a global crash. For those less informed, it was Labour's fault. Labour left the country in a state. Whereas if you look at the figures, Brown did one hell of a lot to drag the country back on course. I maintain he was a good Chancellor and a good PM. I'd also say the government from 1997 to 2010 did a pretty good job. Pros and cons, the 'pro' list is longer. I also maintain there is room in the party for the Corbyns and McDonnells along with the Coopers, Burnhams and Starmers. Just as there is room in the Tory party for the ERG and one-nation Tories. I wish there were more of the latter, but I've been impressed just how many Tory MPs have found a backbone over the past few days. I'll say again, I applaud them roundly.

Starmer will play the long game. He's deliberate. Whether he can bring home democracy as you perceive it, I don't know. Getting Labour back in power is my priority. The current government is only there for one reason. After Brexit, what then? I hope Starmer will bring most of the 'red wall' back. He may appeal to more centrist Tories who've been dismayed by the strong swing to the right by Johnson's government, and the removal of the old guard. It will be tricky, although if all the right wing media have on him is a donkey sanctuary and a knighthood for services to human rights, I doubt he'll worry.

Your democracy, from what I can tell, starts with root and branch reform. I'm all for that. It's a pipe dream with our government of the moment. Not even sure a Labour government would deliver it either. Maybe Corbyn could have, but we'll never know.

[Toodles McGinty]

Speaking of going, that well know lefty loser remoaner rag 'The Spectator' is calling for Johnson's head.

He 'isn't fit to lead' apparently:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-t-fit-to-lead

[local]

This morning brought Keir Starmer to our TV's trying to look, well ready I suppose.

"Boris Johnson should have sacked Dominic Cummings"

This judgement gem is from the man who thought Jeremy Corbyn would make a good Prime Minister.

So sack the man who took his child to his parents but make Jeremy Prime Minister.

Did anyone say lefty loser

[sandGroundZero]

Regarding Toodles McGinty's post #151:

As for 'New' Labour breaking it, I'd disagree. It was unfortunate that Gordon Brown and the government of the time landed slap bang in the middle of a global crash. For those less informed, it was Labour's fault. Labour left the country in a state. Whereas if you look at the figures, Brown did one hell of a lot to drag the country back on course. I maintain he was a good Chancellor and a good PM. I'd also say the government from 1997 to 2010 did a pretty good job. Pros and cons, the 'pro' list is longer.

This refrain consoles determined supporters. However, I must say the financial crash was not GB's bad luck; it was largely a consequence of his policy choices. Brown and Blair chose to adopt the new, deregulating received wisdom bequeathed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It is true deregulation was the zeitgeist. It is perhaps also true NEW LABOUR needed to shake-off a popular perception that Labour was beholden to greedy union bosses. But that is not the full story.

A heritable pro-Labour party bias that was supposed to account for the party's safe constituencies was breaking down progressively as northern heavy industry and coal mining communities suffered decline. This too, was part of Mrs. Thatcher's legacy. All the while, the electorate was becoming more sophisticated at least to the extent of questioning old verities. A metaphor of the "big tent" encompassing diverse views is cliché:

I also maintain there is room in the party for the Corbyns and McDonnells along with the Coopers, Burnhams and Starmers. Just as there is room in the Tory party for the ERG and one-nation Tories. I wish there were more of the latter, but I've been impressed just how many Tory MPs have found a backbone over the past few days. I'll say again, I applaud them roundly.

However, the parties themselves are a relic. The political institutions, parties included, are legacies of a passing era. The presumptions that sustained them are proving to be less than eternal truths. Some new verities are in order!

[Alikado]

Regarding Toodles McGinty's post #151:
This refrain consoles determined supporters. However, I must say the financial crash was not GB's bad luck; it was largely a consequence of his judgments. Brown and Blair chose to adopt the new, deregulating received wisdom bequeathed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It is true deregulation was the zeitgeist. It is perhaps also true NEW LABOUR needed to shake-off a popular perception that Labour was beholden to greedy union bosses. But that is not the full story.

A heritable pro-Labour party bias that was supposed to account for the party's safe constituencies was breaking down progressively as northern heavy industry and coal mining communities suffered decline. This too, was part of Mrs. Thatcher's legacy. All the while, the electorate was becoming more sophisticated at least to the extent of questioning old verities. A metaphor of the "big tent" encompassing diverse views is cliché:

However, the parties themselves are a relic. The political institutions, parties included, are legacies of a passing era. The presumptions that sustained them are proving to be less than eternal truths. Some new verities are in order!

The Financial crash was caused by the American Banks lending which when they got into difficulties had a domino effect around the World Banking System, Gordon Brown should have tightened up / reversed the abolition of the controls that were relaxed by Thatcher / Parkinson but wanted to retain the 'New Labour' image rather than the 'same old Labour' label. My personal opinion is the Banks should have been allowed to go bust, too much of the money was used to protect Foreign investors.

[sandGroundZero]

Regarding Alikado's post #155: You're right to point out that the 2008 crisis in banking and financial services had US sub-prime lending as its proximate cause. Gordon Brown had no hand in that. It is true, too, that repercussions spread well beyond the USA and GB; especially Europe, but ultimately globally.

As I had indicated in my post #154 banking deregulation was the economic spirit of the times. It reversed what post-war economists Ronald McKinnon and Edward Shaw had labelled Financial Repression — a reaction to the constraints upon banks and other financial institutions in the immediate post-war economic recovery. There are indications that such restrictions are coming back into fashion.
Still, a retrospective of Gordon Brown and NEW LABOUR in office must not neglect Brown's dalliance with the City of London.

[Toodles McGinty]

Regarding Alikado's post #155: You're right to point out that the 2008 crisis in banking and financial services had US sub-prime lending as its proximate cause. Gordon Brown had no hand in that. It is true, too, that repercussions spread well beyond the USA and GB; especially Europe, but ultimately globally.

As I had indicated in my post #154 banking deregulation was the economic spirit of the times. It reversed what post-war economists Ronald McKinnon and Edward Shaw had labelled Financial Repression — a reaction to the constraints upon banks and other financial institutions in the immediate post-war economic recovery. There are indications that such restrictions are coming back into fashion.
Still, a retrospective of Gordon Brown and NEW LABOUR in office must not neglect Brown's dalliance with the City of London.

It suits a lot of people's agenda to blame the crash on Brown and the government of the time. I've even read it over and over again on here. Mervyn King (whom isn't entirely blameless for the UK's reaction to the emerging crisis) absolves the government of the day.

Regardless of 'that bigoted woman' and his dour countenance, I maintain he was a good PM. I'd agree none are perfect, and he certainly had his faults, but IMO he was one of our better PMs.

[Hamble]

Speaking of going, that well know lefty loser remoaner rag 'The Spectator' is calling for Johnson's head.

He 'isn't fit to lead' apparently:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-t-fit-to-lead

Good balance on views then.

Cummings wife works for the Spectator.