Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
28. It should be noted that Labour held the seat in 1983 and 1987
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 12:58 AM
Jan 2017

The last two elections it fought with a manifesto that even mildly questioned nuclear power, and with leaders who were under at least as much attack as Corbyn is now.

And in those elections, the SDP-Liberal Alliance existed and receive heavy corporate funding for that primary purpose: making it impossible for Labour to win a general election(I seriously doubt anyone ever really thought the Alliance could actually beat the Tories themselves).

I hope Labour does better than expected in both by-elections, since it is the only electable anti-racist party that will be standing and because if it does surpass expectations, that might finally cause the anti-Corbyn plotters to stop doing damage.

Is Hunt hoping to embarrass Corbyn by causing a by-election in which Labour loses ground? Ken Burch Jan 2017 #1
Hunt & Reed could hurt Corbyn more by staying on and fighting. T_i_B Jan 2017 #2
Well, you've got me a little confused here. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #4
Had he campaigned harder for Remain RogueTrooper Jan 2017 #7
In the case of Stoke... T_i_B Jan 2017 #8
Looks like the Tories are throwing in the anvil in Stoke RogueTrooper Jan 2017 #9
If Copeland's going to be lost under Corbyn, it would be lost under any leader. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #10
And when was the last time you were in Keswick? T_i_B Jan 2017 #11
Never claimed I had been. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #12
It's traditionally a safe Labour seat T_i_B Jan 2017 #14
Labour should be offering policies(Corbyn probably will)to retrain these people in non-lethal work. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #17
Danger can be averted. T_i_B Jan 2017 #18
I think we need a bit of realism about the timeline here muriel_volestrangler Jan 2017 #21
I stand corrected on chronology. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #23
Anti-Corbyn feeling seems to be the exact problem muriel_volestrangler Jan 2017 #25
As your link indicates, an anti-Corbyn (therefore presumably right-wing)candidate was selected. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #26
Yes, she was selected last Thursday evening, 24 hours before the Telegraph story was published muriel_volestrangler Jan 2017 #27
It should be noted that Labour held the seat in 1983 and 1987 Ken Burch Jan 2017 #28
Jamie Reed wasn't yet born when the Windscale fire took place, so he couldn't have helped to cover LeftishBrit Jan 2017 #22
Ok, Jamie didn't personally cover up Windscale. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #24
No; I think he is taking a good job that was offered to him LeftishBrit Jan 2017 #3
I think the proposed boundary chages have played their part. T_i_B Jan 2017 #5
You make it sound as if it would be intrinsically unjust to deny him a nomination. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #13
Wrong T_i_B Jan 2017 #15
If it's the Tories doing the boundary reductions, why bring "Corbyn loyalists" into it, then? Ken Burch Jan 2017 #16
Because Momentum are going to be very active in the selection process T_i_B Jan 2017 #19
Isn't it at least as legitimate for Momentum to try and get people it supports nominated... Ken Burch Jan 2017 #20
The seat is due to go with the boundary review RogueTrooper Jan 2017 #6
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»United Kingdom»Labour's Tristram Hunt qu...»Reply #28