BS: electing a new labour leader

Subject: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 04:34 PM

we can take it as read that whoever is elected as next labour leader is going to get loads of abuse and dirty tactics from the press and those with a vested interest in the system (even chukka umunna gave up in anticipation of this and he is probably the most capitalist-friendly of all of them)

but, were jeremy corbyn to succeeed there would be a major difference - he would have the whole-hearted support of many thousands (millions?) of previously disillusioned lefties who have never really got behind their leader in recent years.

and he may get a huge amount of credit from everyone for being the one who noticed that the emperor (free market capitalism) is naked.

cameron? osborne? IDS? bankers' bonuses and bedroom tax? selling off the country's assets?' - what the fuck were we thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 04:43 PM

That's the problem, Ach - most of the ordinary (I.e. Non-millionaire) people who voted for the Self-Servatives weren't thinking. They allowed themselves to be brainwashed by The Daily Liar.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 04:45 PM

And let's have less of the "We" - I, for one, didn't vote for those greedy, arrogant fuckers.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 04:48 PM

Agreed with the above.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 04:56 PM

backwoodsman - of course, i should have prefaced that comment with ' maybe even sometime tory voters and floaters will wake up and think '......'

or just - surely we can do better than this

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 05:54 PM

It is worth noting David Miliband's stance in a letter today: . "The participation of 600,000 people in the leadership election is a significant mobilisation. But the task for the Labour party is to reflect the hopes and win the trust of 60 million people". That's true, of course, but it also seems to be preparing the ground for minimising the attention paid to the 600,000

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 06:15 PM

As I understand what JC has said previously, his first act is to disappoint his followers as he will become a member of the. Privy council.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 01:06 AM

I reel with astonishment yet again at the contempt all you lefty ideologues have for the obvious, frequently professed, preferences of the vast majority of your fellow-countrymen. Can't you bloody-well see that they have not the least desire for your doctrinaire socialism? How many more times do they have to demonstrate that, most manifestly, they don't like it - they don't trust it - they don't want it? But is the day ever going to dawn when all you intolerant know-what's-best-for-the-rest-of-us would-be autocrats who imagine yourselves to believe in 'democracy' are going to take a blind bit of notice of what the people, the δεμος, actually say they want? In our dreams!

Oh wotz da use!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 01:33 AM

The "demos", the participants in a democracy, can only meaningfully do so if they form an informed electorate. Thanks to the activities of our media, controlled by the rich for the benefit of the rich, at present we suffer a determinedly misinformed electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 01:41 AM

All except for the mighty-intellected Bridge.

Patronising booby...

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 02:33 AM

nothing wrong with having an intellect, Mike.

i think we all basically want a middle way. somehow we've got into this mess where no one wants to invest in England in anything except real estate in London.

the reason that real estate is so desirable is that we have a largely stable, law abiding liberal society. God knows how long that will continue to be the case at this rate.

its going to take a genuinely radical set of ideas to break this Satan's spell. I'm not sure left wing doctrinaire thinking holds the key. But what is certain is that we've got to stop throwing industries away, because Mrs Thatcher and her shopping basket says they've made a loss this week.

we need some of this country's wealth circulating in this country rather than flitting off to exotic climes. Or being sat on by stately aristocrats who've been rich for no reason since the 11th century.
When Iworked at British Leyland - I saw men working with 60 year old track. no wonder the the business failed.
of course the tories blamed it on the unions - but I didn't see any trouble making in my division - Aveling Barford in Grantham. We made dumper trucks.

I don't see why Riley and Morris couldn't have been revived like Skoda was, The answer is responsible investment in our own country.

I don't see any party advocating it.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 02:40 AM

of those who expressed a preference 24% backed the tories in the last election and the government are acting in the interests of a group much smaller than that -many of whom do not live here or do all they can to avoid paying tax here.
if we had a government that insisted on providing a free, well-financed health service; support for workers' rights and for those out of work; affordable housing; no tuition fees ; support for our young people ; properly funded education system etc etc then would you say this was not acting in the interests of the majority of the population?

yes, we 'lefties' have been banging on about this for decades but we never meet any coherent argument to dissuade us. probably because they are just basic middle of the road, conservative even, politics.

yes it is exasperating, we probably are patronising but if you look at the press and the bbc government broadcasts then it is hard to understand how people can fall for the same old nonsense and bias over and over again.

those of you supporting the government do have a role to play here too - get out and sell your support of bigger bonuses for bankers, more privatisation for the NHS, more debt for students, less tax for the wealthy, higher rents on scabby flats for your kids, less job security and more war. you may find that your views are not as popular as you think -and represent far less than 24% of your community.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 03:00 AM

'nothing wrong with having an intellect, Mike'

.,.,

Who said there was, Al. It's just that I don't think much of the one belonging to the self-opinionated Mr R Bridge, an expert & resolute point-misser.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 03:08 AM

That's the problem with democracy. Not that there is any viable alternative.

Every person who votes is an ideologue. We all have our own "if I were in charge" ideas, and most of us accept that as much as we crave them for either ourselves or some weird notion that others would wish them too, politicians have to work for all.

DMcG above pointed out that when David Milliband spoke of the 60 million that he was forgetting the few out of that number who might want Corbyn's take on the world.

If anyone hasn't noticed, there is no difference between a government that patronises its supporters and a government that patronises its supporters.

Red or blue.

Just because you associate with one, doesn't make it better than the other. It just patronises you and eases the pain whilst it shafts you as eagerly and with as much lust as the other lot.

Government is for all. The present government don't seem to appreciate this, which is why they are a bad government. Replacing it with another bad government solves fuck all. Ideology is a bit like religious faith. Use it as a moral compass by all means but don't throw it in the face of rational people or try to impose the letter of it.

On balance? If Alan Johnson isn't ever going to lead them, the wilderness awaits and they are letting down 60 million people by their trek, made harder by the fucking great chips they must carry on their shoulder.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 03:13 AM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 03:39 AM

What (rather wryly) amuses me is the current, smug, autocratic, right-of-centre, Labour leadership telling us that if Corbyn is elected as leader, Labour will lose the next election! Perhaps it should be pointed out to them that THEY lost the last two elections! And they lost 40 MPs in Scotland because the Scots wouldn't put up with their smug, London-centric assholery any longer.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 03:41 AM

"Can't you bloody-well see that they have not the least desire for your doctrinaire socialism?"
It is extremely patronining for a Thatcherite to presume to speak on behalf of the British people, especially with the track-record of that particular of that particular dictatorship, which stripped Britain of its industries and its employment.
Thatcher did more than any single leader to strip the British worker of a voice in their lives - now, it appears, her supporters would decide which ideas should be put before the electorate and which should not.
You would do far better explaining the damage done to Britain by your particular school of thought before you start blocking others.
"Doctrinaire Socialism" as you put it, brought some of the greatest improvements to the lives of the British people in the 20th century; your hero systematically and deliberately destroyed those improvements.
Don't presume to speak for the British people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 03:46 AM

Well, good old Abe* had it right didn't he? Democracy -- the worst possible system of government except for all the others.

≈M≈

If it was -- he is one of those like Wilde & Shaw & Dorothy Parker to whom quotations get attributed whether they actually were the originator or not.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 03:56 AM

I don't "presume to speak for the British people", Jim. It is the bits of paper they put in the ballot box that do that. Can you really not get into your head that it is their votes that demonstrate beyond argument that it is they, not just me, who don't want the doctrinaire bullying of all you lefty lot?

And it's a bit behind the fair to go on parroting "ThatcherThatcherThatcher" as if that were any sort of useful contribution to any sort of debate at this time of day. In case you hadn't noticed, she is as dead as Queen Anne.

Regards as ever

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 04:11 AM

No Michael, you know perfectly well that it's the structure of our voting system and constituencies, together with an election campaign by the Self-Servatives that offered no policies, but relied simply on lies about the cause of the recession and scare-mongering about the relationship of Labour and the SNP, that permitted them to obtain a majority in the H of C with just 24% of total votes cast. 76% of voters didn't want a Self-Servative government.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 04:26 AM

"I don't "presume to speak for the British people", Jim"
In telling us what the British people want and don't want, you do exactly that.
The damage that thatcher did to Britain tore down all the advances made in working life in Britain, and removed rights that it too centuries to win - they have never been replaced, on the contrary, her twisted philosophy has been built on by those who came after her.
As usual, her supporters avoid responding to the damage she did to our lives - I think the only one offered by you is on the level of her 'making the trains run on time' ("she did some good" as a response to her support for Pinochet).
She may be dead but her legacy still thrives.
Regards back
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 05:20 AM

And what are you telling us they want Jim? Who are you to speak for the British people.

Margaret Thatcher left office in 1990 - one quarter of a centry ago - since she left office there have been governments come and governments go for only 7 of those years did Britain have a Conservative Government. But for all the "left" rile and rant about her policies none of those governments reversed a single thing - why? Because what she did was required and it was effective - it worked.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 05:26 AM

BWM -- But [oh no not again] that's how our first past the post constituency system works. There has never [or not within living memory certainly] been a majority government according to total votes cast; and a very recent referendum of the entire electorate(2011) overwhelmingly rejected any of the proposed changes to the system.

You lot over there might not like it; but it IS, SO, the way the British people want it.

Live with it for crying out loud, and stop your bloody boring whingeing which nobody is going to listen to.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 05:30 AM

How was any government going to re-open pits that had been derelict, flooded, ruined, and the infrastructure demolished? Where would the skilled labour come from?

Her destruction of the TU movement was so deep that no government would have been able to revive it - the Self-Servatives and their big-business/financial cronies would never countenance it, and would stop at nothing to prevent it.

No, the damage wrought on the UK by the Beast of Grantham was so complete that much of it was, and is, irreparable.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 05:31 AM

Is that bloody boring whingeing any different to your bloody boring whingeing about bloody boring whingeing, Michael?

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 05:46 AM

Backwoodsman take a look at who did close the pits - more shut down under Labour than ever there were under the Conservatives. The NCB and a "nationalised coal industry" was great as long as you could afford to pay £250 million a day to subsidise it and keep it running. The cost of their coal was prohibitively expensive and it just did not make any economic sense for our industries to pay it in order to get power. Neither could we as a nation afford to have Trades Union Officials think and act as if they were a law unto themselves and feel that they could use their muscle to dictate to the elected government of the country.

Oh and by the way Backwoodsman if you want examples of leaders being elected on absolute minimalist turn outs look no further than the Trades Union movement (a 15% turn out is considered high!!!!).

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 05:48 AM

No Dave.

But they started the bbwhigeing tht I was bbwhingeing back at ...

& so ad ∞

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 06:17 AM

No wonder these threads get closed...

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 06:46 AM

"And what are you telling us they want Jim?"
Wouldn't presume to , unlike some here
"Who are you to speak for the British people."
Where have I? (don't expect a response to this - not your thing!)
"Margaret Thatcher left office in 1990 - one quarter of a centry ago"
Seems like only yesterday to those of us who bore the brunt of her policies.
"Because what she did was required and it was effective - it worked"
Or didn't work, depending on where you are living
I seem to remember your suggesting that your answer to unemployment was for us all to get on our bikes (or mini-buses for those of us with families) - ample enough proof that she bit enough adherents to have left an army of her undead behind her - including you and the member for leafy Cambridgeshire.
"You lot over there might not like it; but it IS, SO, the way the British people want it."
And parliamentary democracy affords us the opportunity to debate things and, in doing so, perhaps change what we don't like (albeit in a very limited fashion), so why not "stop your bloody boring whingeing" which we have listened to for long enough"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 06:50 AM

By the way Mike "Over" where exactly
I may now live in Ireland but the bulk of my family don't
Happy to show my passport to prove where I was born (and my parent')
You people - really !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 07:29 AM

Nothing so literal as where you happen to be placed geographically or territorially, Jim. By "you over there" in this context, I always mean "over there on the left wing": the other side of this virtual debating-chamber within which we are putatively operating.

Thassall.

Nowt to do with the RoI or anything o' that.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 07:54 AM

"Nowt to do with the RoI or anything o' that."
Good - thank you.
I always take as confirmation that what I believe might have some foundation by the fact that "you over there on the right" are not prepared to defend the policies, past or present, of your own lot, but would much rather snide at those of us who firmly believe them to be reactionary and harmful.
Any chance of breaking the mold - Mr Oakhampton has has dipped his toe in the water by suggesting that Thatcher's policies worked.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 08:31 AM

Typical con-servative, Myer. No rational answer to the refutation of his poncy assertion complete with classical Greek, so resorts to abuse. Maybe he really believes what he reads in the Daily Mail. Oh, apart, of course, for its antisemitism.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 09:34 AM

Notwithstanding the irreversible damage the ideology inspired policies that those behind Th*tcher did, such as shattering manufacturing industry and for some unfathomable reason thinking the service sector could prop up the stock market... Her reign was marked by divisive incompetency of the worst kind, and that has nothing to do with right or left, but pure pragmatic incompetence.

The huge rises in interest rates and emerging trade tariffs that marked her demise wiped out many of those companies she sought to help.

Mind you, Jim and Bridge, with their tiresome taunt of "Th*tcher!" to anyone who doesn't agree with their spartist bullshit don't help matters. All they do is invite the likes of Terribulus to misinform us with his warped view of a world there never was.

Hey ho.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 09:43 AM

You're throwing stones from afar again Muskie - if you think Thatcher's policies, her respectibalisation of greed and her dog-eat-dog philosophy is no longer relevant, please show where it is not rather that sniping from the undergrowth.
Which side are you on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 09:48 AM

No point in changing the labels, the whole of society has become infected....there is no idealism, no inspiration, skewed education and has actually made the populace dumber.

Jesus, when we were young we were going to make a better more peaceful world, eradicate poverty etc.
What have we achieved that is of any REAL value? The world is as corrupt as ever, more so....wealth differentials are obscenely wide....traditional society is being demolished
The guts have been knocked out of almost everyone...it's always someone else's fault....the Tories....the Labour party... Our moral fibre and sense of personal responsibility have been gnawed away by a virulent media and successive cowardly governments who NEED to be "electable"

What does it matter if Jeremy is not elected to government, at least someone will be saying the "unsayable".....the debate can go forward, the guilty can be exposed.

Time to tell society that "what they want" makes them sick, that a good society cannot be bought.....and will never be given, it will require work and sacrifice.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 09:59 AM

Happen to be a Times reader, Mr Bridgie-Fatgob; the crosswords in the Mail which I see occasionally in the Cambridge University Combination Room, are useless. Not that my choice of newspaper is any bizniz of yours, you pathetic Prodnose.

& how charming of you to throw up my origins in a faith & a demographic which I haven't considered myself as belonging to for approx the past 60 or so years. You are an antisemite, Richard Bridge. You'd have been a great asset to the SS or the Gestapo with your compulsive hatreds which you can't leave alone but keep on scratching at like a pimple. People who aren't antisemitic don't go on about it in the compulsive way you do; don't you know that, Mr Late-On-Hitlerite? It just sticks out a mile. You think you are not, but you are. Racist scumhole.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 10:10 AM

I used to wonder why these threads always degenerate into a combination of unmitigated twaddle and childish abuse. I once came to the conclusion that it is just a mechanism to get them closed down but I wonder if I am giving some people too much credit.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 10:46 AM

.. + maybe a bit of selfrighteous better·than·the·rest·of·us pomposity, eh, you funny little Gnome?

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 10:55 AM

No, not at all, Michael. I am no better or worse than anyone else. Just different.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 10:57 AM

The debate here is about whether the election of Jeremy to leadership of the labour Party, is a good thing or a bad thing.
I think it would be good, as the Party would be forced to split, we could listen to the socialist view and the "liberal" view....we would have a debate that has been missing for thirty years.

Electing a "Blairite" party will prove nothing it will simply be a case of changing the labels. What does electability matter if the party membership disagrees with the policies?

The job of the Party is to reflect the views of its membership, it is then up to the country to accept or reject.

A Party which tailors its views simply to make itself electable is not worth voting for.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 11:08 AM

so i take it that no -one is able to give any coherent defence of the current government's policies then. you would think their supporters would be happy to bother with insulting opponents. a

anyway, i think i'll just pop back to the gaughan forum - sadly fewer contributions, but none of the sort of rubbish we find too often on here

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 12:04 PM

Grammatical correction to the last post but one.

It is either "socialist" or "liberal" or it is socialist or liberal. It isn't socialist or "liberal."

Dick Gaughan eh? Fine guitarist and wonderful singer but daft as a brush when it comes to politics. Mind you, a few years ago when arguing the toss with him over a drink when we booked him, he made my day by saying "If the English want their independence, let them have it."

Achmelvich, it isn't a case of insulting opponents of any camp, it's the blind bollocks from either side. Bridge and Terribulus are poles apart but exuding the same level of intelligence in their posts, which if nothing else is entertaining, but take either of the buggers seriously?

Corbyn is, in my opinion, a useful wake up for politics and cracks the consensus in Westminster down the middle, so a few years with him at the despatch box might be a good thing for the country, but if the reason for the Parliamentary Labour Party existing is to convince the electorate they are fit to govern, they're buggered. Cooper acknowledges aspiration, Burnham can be pragmatic but neither are statesmen, neither have a clear vision, and through curiosity, I have read their stances.

Corbyn has nothing to offer the twenty first century and globalisation of economies. The thing is, most on here are too old to recognise that. They think government is something to do with Westminster and parochialism. Fine, have social policies for spending GDP within The UK, but thinking you can dictate national wealth? Err.. In case you didn't notice, it is our international standing that prevents us being Greece, not our stewardship of The Elgin Marbles. We don't have an empire, we have trade and cooperation.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Frankenstein's Dad
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 12:47 PM

MGM·Lion. Why don't you go your doctor and ask him to change your course of pills? The ones you are on at the moment are obviously doing you no good at all.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 12:48 PM

You see? There you go again, Myer. Holding Murdoch's "serious" paper as if it were free of bias shows your blindness. It is an irrefutable fact that the Mail has historically been antisemitic, and I don't expect you to agree with that - since you have previously told us that you are Jewish although no longer religious. Your problem is what (apart, apparently, from entering your second childhood)?

It is also obvious (save to those wilfully blind) that the vast majority of the UK media pump right-wing propaganda. Survey after survey has shown that (as a result) the man or woman in the street vastly overestimates the cost of unemployment benefit, the rate of fraud in benefits claims, the number of Muslims in the country. You ought, given your huge conceit, to be an opponent of press bias, but it seems you are not. I suppose given your history here I am not surprised, but it is inconsistent with your own view that your ideals are lofty.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 01:32 PM

MR Myer to you, Bridgibumz. Didn't read the rest of it, as have given up reading your posts. Not enough of my life remains to make doing so the least bit worthwhile.

☹☹☹☹☹☹

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 02:13 PM

Is there anything quite so pathetically contemptible, incidentally, as nonentities who post meaninglessly offensive entries hiding behind fatuous pseudonyms like Dracula's Father or whatever it was? Mods should surely delete their piddling little anonymous posts forthwith. Still, perhaps it provides some excitement to their poor circumscribed little existences, so maybe we should be charitable if that's the way they choose to get their kicks.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 02:49 PM

Read and learn, Myer.

https://www.facebook.com/414021102034635/photos/a.426000677503344.1073741826.414021102034635/620662544703822/?type=1&theater

Oh, sorry, you don't want to learn do you?

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 04:55 PM

☞☹☜

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Aug 15 - 07:42 PM

I wouldn't call MGM Lion isn't a particularly ridiculous pseudonym, but it is, for all that, a pseudonym.
.......
I wish people would stop talking about the Tory victory as if it had been an overwhelming landslide. They scraped a narrow majority by picking up seats made available by a LibDem collapse, which had been brought about by entangling them in a coalition.

The only part of the UK where there was a landskide was Scotland, where a party significantly to the left of the current Labour Party took nearly every seat.

In England, though Labour did badly, their actual vote rose rather more than the Tory vote did.