Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2026 11:59 pm Meanwhile in Hackney.

In the face of the backlash, they've now changed the deadline to October the 5th.

As expected by every thinking person in the world

Police take no further action over Polanski sharing Farage guillotine image


Scotland Yard says threshold not met for criminal action against Green leader, who has refused to apologise to his Reform rival

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ring-image

Though I don't suppose the pearl-clutchers on Daily Mail Island will be very happy. Fuck 'em.

Well, this aged well.

Like when old Benito declared the Mediterranean would be decided between the navies of Italy and France?

I did like how one person on Facebook said “well the opinion polls were wrong”. No the polls were pretty decent, the Greens made up data off bar charts and party data were wrong.

The Horseshoe effect there in it's full glory. At least when they were Jez's three quiders they only blamed Centrists and the media.

The Green party may be close to overtaking Labour’s membership figures, after Labour suffered a 20% drop in 2025, according to its latest accounts.

They seem to be stuck some way below Labour in the various polls. Who'd have guessed that people who joined political parties were deeply unrepresentative?

One of the grown-ups should have a word:

Zack Polanski defends Cambridge professor

https://news.sky.com/story/zack-polansk ... w-13570302

This includes both Polanski's comments and an interview with the journalist who uncovered the story.

Not the only figure he's been defending.

Can you be arsed to explain to Greens why this isn't a win?

If I remember correctly, Labour had the highest membership in Europe at the time of our biggest electoral defeat.
Meanwhile, at the time of their 2019 landslide, the Tories had a very small membership.

Given I suspect the Greens have attracted all the disillusioned Jezzerati, they were firmly of the opinion that the number of members/votes were more important than the number of parliamentary seats...

Boiler wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 3:17 pm Given I suspect the Greens have attracted all the disillusioned Jezzerati, they were firmly of the opinion that the number of members/votes were more important than the number of parliamentary seats...

Winning the argument is all that matters

davidjay wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 4:34 pm

Boiler wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 3:17 pm Given I suspect the Greens have attracted all the disillusioned Jezzerati, they were firmly of the opinion that the number of members/votes were more important than the number of parliamentary seats...

Winning the argument is all that matters

Winning power so that you can actually do something to help people (rather than merely demand others do it and organise protests when they don't) is Blairite Neoliberalism.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 5:14 pm Winning power so that you can actually do something to help people (rather than merely demand others do it and organise protests when they don't) is Blairite Neoliberalism.

I think that was the thing that pissed me off more than anything else during the Corbyn years: being quite happy to shout from the sidelines but not really do much to be electable.

However... given how dreadful the Tories had become by 2024, would it have been possible for a Corbyn-led Labour Party to have won a GE simply on the basis of not being the Tories - something readily attributed to Starmer? It's just a thought.

Boiler wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 6:20 pm However... given how dreadful the Tories had become by 2024, would it have been possible for a Corbyn-led Labour Party to have won a GE simply on the basis of not being the Tories - something readily attributed to Starmer? It's just a thought.

We'll never know for sure, but I say no. Pre-election, Starmer was an unknown quantity to much of the electorate, he certainly wasn't repellent to vast swathes in the way Corbyn was. Plenty of people who'd never voted Labour before, were prepared to give Starmer the benefit of the doubt in order to get rid of the Tories. If Corbyn was still leader that number would have been far lower.

In fact, if Corbyn had not resigned in 2019, I think Labour would have split and (presumably) the Tories would have won again in 2024.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2026 2:56 pm If I remember correctly, Labour had the highest membership in Europe at the time of our biggest electoral defeat.
Meanwhile, at the time of their 2019 landslide, the Tories had a very small membership.

Jez Labour had lots of members because it hadn't done any proper work on what was affordable and who'd have had to pay for it- everything, and someone else.

Free tuition was the big giveaway. That's policy setting by knocking about with cool people like us. I really liked that Angela Rayner in opposition clearly said that early years was the priority.

I can't imagine any leader losing two elections in a row, the second being an absolute humiliation, and not resigning, but if one ever did it would be Corbyn. Had that happened I can imagine the party splitting and even if they somehow did survive intact Corbyn would have been so unpopular that the Tories would have called another election well before 2024.