[Youngian]

Corbyn’s effectively taking a bullet for the party by triggering his own expulsion. That’s a first.

[Arrowhead]

I think Corbyn will probably win this, but I suspect the Labour leadership won't be especially bothered overall. Losing Islington North but regaining, say, Mansfield, Hartlepool, Bassetlaw etc from the Tories isn't a bad trade in the long run.

Same as Reform winning in their Boston & Skegness comfort zone, or the Greens likewise winning Bristol Central tells us very little overall.

[Abernathy]

Personal votes for MPs standing as independents are nearly always over-estimated. Corbyn's personal vote in Islington North is no different. He might run Prafun Nargul fairly close, but I don't think he can win. Voters in Islington North want a Labour government and the Tories out. Voting for Corbyn isn't going to help get that.

[Youngian]

The hopeless hope candidate

[Abernathy]

Forever shouting into the darkness.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm not sure this stuff goes down that well at the moment, even in Islington North. At least, I hope it doesn't. He might reasonably ask some Ukrainians about it.

[Crabcakes]

The hopeless hope candidate

Specifically, “I hope I’m as personally popular as I’ve been told I am, or this is going to get a bit awkward…”

[Youngian]

Putin is the existential threat and somewhat concerned as to how much the construction of four nuclear subs announced by Starmer would eat into the defence budget. I’m assuming Russia can detect and track subs in the Baltic so it’s a lot of money for questionable effectiveness just to reassure the public you’re not Michael Foot.

[Youngian]

Don’t get it. Something to do with hedge funds because Starmer’s a neoliberal?

[Abernathy]

Me neither. Praful Nargund is the official Labour candidate. If it is some reference to hedge funds, it’s fucking obscure.

[Youngian]

Farage fans keep asking what other politician can draw crowds as big as Nigel. I know someone and his national approvals ratings stank as well.

[safe_timber_man]

Just need to vent...!

I liked Jeremy as a person, on the whole. Had flaws like everyone but generally just a good man with ideas. He tried and it didn't work. I wish him nothing but the best. But Jesus Christ, his more devoted supporters are absolutely fucking infuriating. It really comes across as if they would happily welcome another Tory government if it means spiting Starmer. The way they behave is literally no different to Trump supporters. Fed up with them. I get it. Starmer's knifed Corbyn. But sit the fuck down and let's get the Tories out the way first.

[Oboogie]

Don’t get it. Something to do with hedge funds because Starmer’s a neoliberal?

Why would Praful Nargund be having a pop at Starmer?

[Crabcakes]

Just need to vent...!

I liked Jeremy as a person, on the whole. Had flaws like everyone but generally just a good man with ideas. He tried and it didn't work. I wish him nothing but the best. But Jesus Christ, his more devoted supporters are absolutely fucking infuriating. It really comes across as if they would happily welcome another Tory government if it means spiting Starmer. The way they behave is literally no different to Trump supporters. Fed up with them. I get it. Starmer's knifed Corbyn. But sit the fuck down and let's get the Tories out the way first.

Thing is, whoever came after Corbyn would have had to knife him in some way or other or they may as well have just kept him on. Which really, is exactly what his supporters wanted - had by some chance Long-Bailey won the leadership gig, they'd have been coming for her as well for anything she had done that was considered not Corbynite enough.

As it is, Starmer's approach of making Labour entirely palatable and electable (the trots may loathe 'slightly dull but safe', but also seem wholly oblivious to the huge appeal of that given the last 5 years of insanity), coupled with the Tory implosion, might deliver something Jez and his fans have always dreamed of - the complete wipeout of the Tories. The fact they're so furious about it still tells you one thing: it was never about the end result. It was about who got it. A huge Labour majority allows for a more radical programme because of the genuine mandate - and that's even if they are anti-Tory votes, because they're still votes for a legislative slate that's not the Tory one. But I think many Jez fans would be happier with a very tight vote but someone they liked in charge, because - much like Trump and his acolytes - part of it is forcing people to live to your rules and rub their noses in it.

[Youngian]

If Starmer had remained a backbench critic, Labour would now be neck and neck at best on a good day with the Tories up against a Long Bailey/Burgon ‘dream ticket.’ With Rishi waving outside No 10 on 5 July.

[davidjay]

To recover from the 1983 debacle took 14 years, 3 elections and three leaders, two of whom in their own ways were amongst the best we've ever had. To do the same after 2019 has taken 5, 1 and 1 respectively. That shows Starmer's quality and it's also the reason why they hate him.

[Abernathy]

I liked Jeremy as a person, on the whole. Had flaws like everyone but generally just a good man with ideas.

I disagree. His refusal to step down when he overwhelmingly lost a vote of confidence by his parliamentary party revealed a stubborn, vain individual, who seemed prepared to place his personal ambition before the good of the Labour Party. I could perhaps have gone along with your “nice guy Jez” assessment had he done what was obviously required of him, but he instead insisted on remaining in post, effectively condemning the UK to a disastrous hard Brexit followed by a further 5 years of disastrous, destructive Tory government that few of us could afford.

He tried and it didn't work.

And again, that he did so displayed a quite astonishing lack of tactical political nous, or any kind of strategic approach. Remember that the very morning after the hiding of GE2019, none other than Len McCluskey himself described Corbyn’s manifesto as “an incontinent mess”. He was right. At best, Corbyn’s approach could be described as naive. In reality, it was very obviously doomed to failure.

I wish him nothing but the best.

I cannot agree. His stubbornness and naievty almost resulted in the extinction of the party he professed to love, but never did, other than as a vehicle for his own very particular personal political outlook. He bears a considerable share of the blame for the disaster that is Brexit being inflicted on the people of the UK. I’m afraid I can never forgive him for those things. I am quite exceptionally happy that he is no longer in our party.

[safe_timber_man]

Fair. I can't disagree with anything you've said. His Brexit stance was diabolical, in fact I think I said at the time that I believed he was a full blown Brexiter in some ways. He did considerable damage with his stubbornness and he does have an ego. Politically, he's not for me. But just on a base human level, I think he is a kind man that wanted to help people, how ever unrealistic that was. Should never, and will never, have any position of political power but not a man I look at and think "you're a cunt". Especially when looking around at some of the genuinely fucking nasty people in politics.

[Andy McDandy]

For me, he's summed up by the photo of him being escorted away from the South African consulate.

Just a reminder: this wasn't the fascist pigs clamping down. It was the ANC in actually finally productive talks with the RSA government and not needing captain twatbasket with his fucking megaphone outside.

[Abernathy]

Well, we know he’s a kind man that wants to help people, because he keeps telling us so.