DBlow

Partly Obama's fault by making it very easy for the pro-Brexit media to reduce his visit down to the soundbite that post-Brexit UK would be "back of the queue" for any future US trade deal, which would've immediately turned off the nationalist Right. Then there's the matter that a privileged foreigner talking about the benefits of the EU would have nothing to say to the anti-immigration working-class Labour voter, nor to the Eurosceptic socialists who regard him at best a useless liberal.

Yes, because for the first time in decades the parliamentary hard-left is no longer marginalised - the loss of the referendum caused the far more numerous parliamentary soft left (social democratic wing) of the Labour party to lose faith in Corbyn and spark mass resignations from cabinet, so to fill those vacancies Corbyn's shadow cabinet was dominated by the hard-left (socialist wing) and they've set the agenda since Corbyn comfortably won re-election as leader, especially so after he outperformed in the election. As detailed above, the hard-left is just as anti-EU as the hard-right, and whilst Corbyn was willing to sideline his Euroscepticism to gain leadership, focusing his battles on steering the party Left and democratising it, and reflected the program he won on by campaigning for a Remain vote, the loss of the referendum has changed everything. The soft left and Blairite right desperately want to reverse or at least ensure a soft Brexit, whereas the hard-left can't believe their luck and are quite content to see the government's Brexit plans through.

The Lefts opposition to the EU stemmed from the belief the EU would shackle any incoming socialist government to market economics / rules, and over the past decades (particularly after the 1992 defeat, and subsequent rebranding) this has looked to be increasingly unobtainable anyway. The marginalising of the hard-left following the heavy loss of the 1975 referendum and more importantly the 1983 election, helped by a leadership openly hostile to them, has whittled down their representation to a tiny minority. With the hard-left being so marginalised, the Leave campaign was overwhelmingly dominated by the Tory Right and UKIP, whose ambitions for Britain were to stop immigration, scrap the Human Rights Act and turn the UK economically into Switzerland, it was very easy for the Left to see this as a vote for right-wing nationalism.

Hard-left is term that's nearly forty years old in the UK for the reformist Marxist (class struggle) wing of the Labour movement (by their definition being involved within Labour seperated them from the revolutionary far-left). You'd certainly be the first to describe, say, Dennis Skinner and the rest of the NUM as soft and sensitive.

Tory infighting, Labour infighting.

Except the Tory-supporting generation of pensioners are those that inherited the proceeds of post-war Britain at its peak and have left nothing but debt and obligations to the young. Have you heard of the Tories triple-lock? Where the government reassures pensioners they will see index-linked rises and won't, in any way, be touched by modern troubles, whilst young people are being asked to work longer, for significantly less pay, fund their significantly smaller pension to a greater degree, all in order to pay off the debt from the final-salary pensions that are offered nowhere nowadays as they're deemed unaffordable? So the net effect is today's pensioners are now earning more weekly than those in full-time work! These were also the generation that had cheap houses in ready supply, and watched as the housing bubble grew and grew and locked out successive generations from the property ladder, leaving them with a property quadrupled in value that they can sell and downsize to live a very comfortable retirement. Or let to the young who can't afford a mortgage at extortionate rates because they don't have rent caps like they did. We won't mention the £30K tuition debt they never faced or the high-interest rates they enjoyed, either. So: Money to feather wealthy pensioners nests for 7 years. Money to lower corporation tax substantially to the lowest in G20. Money for tax cuts for the wealthy. Money for a costly nuclear deterrent. Money to substantially reorganise the NHS in a manner that makes it easier to privatise. Money to sell off state assets at below market value. Money for more interventions in the Middle East. No money for police or the NHS care. Also, again: Labour won every working-age bracket.

Which the public support:

In the PR battle May has definitely hurt herself by reportedly visiting Grenfell without talking to any of the victims - a stark contrast to Corbyn's visit. Labour are proposing requisition of nearby vacant properties (owned as holiday homes by the wealthy) for the victims.

No, and your stats don't bear that out below (ignoring the fact that income tax is just one tax, and the gradual movement away in recent decades towards indirect taxation); you've just quoted that 56% of working-age adults pay income tax. If all of those ~29m who pay tax supported austerity then the Tories would not have had any issues. In fact the Tories trailed Labour in every working-age bracket. Conversely holding a sizeable lead amongst retirees. Significant frontline cuts to the public sector workforce has left the NHS and policing in disarray, and this concerned the vast majority of the voting public away from further austerity. It's also worth noting that the burden on the richest 1 per cent has naturally risen as their share of the entire UK wealth has risen (grown from 44% to 49% in less than 5 years). Anyway, current polling from YouGov has leadership approval (subtracting disapproval from approval) at: +6% Labour (0% Corbyn) -21% Conservative (-34% May) Who would make a better PM? 39% Corbyn 39% May Support for another General Election in Autumn? 43% Support 38% Oppose

You're mistaken if you think nationalisations only have support from the young - back when UKIP were riding high their voter base was overwhelmingly old, white, working-class men and you found they supported nationalisation as much as Labour voters - many of whom have seemingly returned to voting Labour in support for that. I think it was much more simpler than that - her opportunistic manoeuvre in calling the election at the peak of her popularity enabled to feel so sure about winning that she never bothered to offer anything in their manifesto (beyond the tiny minority of wealthy people who want more austerity and fox hunting). I completely agree with your points about the stupidity of FPTP and the Fixed Term act, but they failed to get a majority because their main opposition managed to cut their lead from 7% down to 2%. The pollster who got the closest to the general election results has produced the first post-election poll:- Lab 45% (+5) Con 39% (-4) Lib 7% (nc) UKIP 3% (+1) Others 6% (-3)

Corbyn's made his first real fuck-up of this campaign in tonight's debates. Despite his earlier Paxman appearance where he acquiesced and concluded with assurances if ever called to do so he'd write the appropriate letters, in tonight's debate he got himself in a bit of a hole by refusing to dispel the notion he'd never use our nuclear weapons in any situation. He failed to answer the audiences concerns nor employed the charm and humour he is normally capable of, and was left on the back foot ever since then. Important since this was his best opportunity to gain on the Tories weakness. Instead the Tories now have an attack angle and the non too favourable clips will be disseminated through the public. We'll have to see how this effects the polls (these programmes tend to have low salience, but clips and soundbites from them are seen far and wide). Sounds like a non-issue but continuation of Labour's unilateral disarmament policy in 1987 was used effectively to again defeat Labour, and was consequently dropped by Kinnock before 1992.

The Tories, believing themselves unassailable at this point (despite the fact their poll lead has halved in two weeks) have unveiled a very unpopular policy, labelled the 'Dementia Tax' - basically everyone with assets in the UK exceeding 100K (basically any homeowner outside of a council estate) will now be losing that should they need (the horribly unregulated, rip-off) elderly care. Housing is in crisis in the UK, so most families look to leave their house to their children as the only way they can realistically get on the property ladder. Early reports are it has gone down like a cup of cold sick. Interesting to see how this plays out.

One of the main reasons Corbyn was elected was because the policies he espoused had long been purposely kept off the table for Labour members/voters for decades (non-interventionist foreign policy, high-taxes for rich, a raft of nationalisations, interventionist economic policy) - if he can ensure he passes the McDonnell amendment (that stops the liberal-dominated PLP from screening out socialist parliamentarians standing for leadership) at the next conference I think the Labour movement will be happy to go along with the above, but if that fails I wouldn't bet on it. Labour is a product of its history and its recent history entailed a number of lessons:- 1) to stand on an undiluted socialist platform (Foot/Benn) is not a vote winner 2) to stand on a thoroughly diluted socdem platform (Blair) is a vote winner but is not worth winning 3) to stand on a somewhat diluted socdem platform (Miliband) is not a vote winner So Labour have chose a diluted socialist platform (Corbyn) armed with polling to hand most of Corbyn's policies enjoy popular support. Their main concern post-defeat will be to ensure the liberals/PLP can't bar them from influence for another two decades, if not indefinitely. Corbyn has signalled himself - unusually - he won't be stepping down (likely until the amendment's passed) and will likely step-down of free will once September conference has been voted upon, and aid his successor (Clive Lewis?) to push for the same policies but with less baggage/hostility towards the media. The other reason for Corbyn's landslide is the 2015 election had laid bare Labour's dire predictament in terms of electability:- 1) SNP's rise has effectively snookered Labour - the 50+ seats they had previously taken for granted were now remote possibilities, and the seats Labour would need to win in their place from the Tories were more remote than ever (demographic trends), even with a fairly milquetoast platform. 2) The dearth of charismatic politicians with acceptable views for the wider membership meant a former policy-wonk with no business being Labour's leader won it. 3) The acceptance of free-market capitalism and the blame for its unravelling (financial crash) and the effects of that had been laid entirely at their doorstep. 4) The level of immigration from the EU had focused the UK electorate away from traditional topics they were strong on to matters they - like many of our continential social democrats are facing - are very weak on. With little chance of winning in 2020 (see the Conservatives had enacted the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act when it was convenient (unstable coalition) only to immediately disown it when it was expedient) I think Labour collectively felt this was the best time for a civil war.

See below reply on the claim that it was rigged. If anything the party machinery purging members for little to no reason seemed far more suspect. You say it's wholesale his fault, in which case any replacement would surely lead to better fortunes, right? Except today's poll has Con 45%, Lab 32%, and it's not an outlier, so let's put it into context: 32% Corbyn (recently polled) 30% Miliband (2015 GE, actual - turnout accounted for) 29% Brown (2010 GE, actual - turnout accounted for) 25% Khan (recently polled) 24% Cooper (recently polled) 23% Blair (recently polled) Your point about Labour voting for a general election is entirely misplaced - no opposition could live down the idea they were afraid to go to the electorate. The PLP have rebelled significantly in the past, but this is not even a case of that, and therefore holds zero implications as to Corbyn's leadership qualities. Corbyn started off with over 75% of the PLP rejecting him, because as a part of the Socialist Campaign Group faction, in a party grown to be steadily dominated by liberals during the New Labour period, his views had been well and truly marginalised. Your friends/relatives are misinformed. Even removing everyone but those members that were there before Corbyn was in contention, post election analysis shown he won that bracket (albeit much less decisively, but then these were those members who were happy when Labour had disowned their leftist platform - very much expected). The registered supporters (which incidentally was a scheme implemented by the Blairites hoping to dilute the (leftist) membership/union's influence only served to make was a victory into a landslide.