Hubris. They expected to increase their majority significantly - and were very confident that Labour was in disarray and would take a beating. They were also confident enough in their manifesto and leader, to call a snap election.

If that's the case, how come the Conservatives gained seats. Of course they're playing up the positives, just like Conservatives are. That's politics and PR.

People don't just vote for the other side because the Conservatives f**ked up. Usually protest votes go to smaller parties. Corbyn ran a very good campaign, and motivated a very significant support basis, that also contributed to turning around a position where he was 'f**ked in the polls, to achieving a turn around'.

I thought he was a dead man walking, who'd be battered into ridicule at the first national election - but he did remarkably well, and won over a lot of people who aren't set voters - Locally, they demolished a 12 year sitting Tory Rob Wilson and their campaign was very focused and tight in Reading, which I'm assuming was the case elsewhere.

The problem for the Conservatives isn't just that May and the Manifesto was poor. Its that Corbyn might very well be far more popular than expected.

Absolutely right.

I loved May's factually incorrect retort about Corbyn saying one thing to the many and another to the few in realtion to Trident !!!!

Anyway off my 'Soapbox' for now !!!!
Got things to do.

Absolutely right.

I loved May's retort about Corbyn saying one thing to the many and another to the few in realtion to Trident !!!!

Anyway off my 'Soapbox' for now !!!!
Got things to do.

Wasn't his statement on Trident that he would not fire first. Whilst I don't agree with his views on a nuclear deterrent, I would regard anyone who actually knows anything about Trident, who would fire first, to be a raving psychopath.

The whole point of trident is that its a guaranteed last strike, that irrespective of the status of the UK, ensures massive retaliation with horrific casualties.

Its not something you can fire first, or 'just a little bit of'. When you order Trident to fire, it fires every single missile at their preprogramed targets (and deploying the multiple warheads).

Its not a first strike weapon. Also, its technically supposed to be a state secret for the Prime Minister to not reveal their intentions regarding the use of the Nuclear deterrent (or for that matter a potential nuclear deputy or shadow leader).

All very nice but do you think Jeremy was eluding to the technical or practical aspects of Trident or just speaking as the loony deputy chairman of CND?

I'm going with the latter.

There would be no point having Trident if we had a PM that would not use it. And who is so open about not using it.

It'll be a waste of money, and resources.

But then if it was scrapped we'd have to find jobs for all those supporting it, and help with the Clyde's economy.

That's the bottom line.
It's called a deterrent. He cannot make such views public and expect to be seen as a credible Prime Minister. He cannot be Deputy Chair of CND either for that matter.
It's just too farcical to contemplate.

Hrolf, you are bleeding credibility at an alarming rate. You have essentially said "I don't care about the facts on what Trident actually is, as I am desperate to get a dig at Corbyn in."

Your glib dismissal of actuality in pursuit of ideology (as opposed to a fact based rebuttal arguement, which is always fair enough regardless of your stance) puts you at the very least on par with all those on here you spend your online life railing against for their indoctrinated ways.

Those kind hearted souls in the government have just voted down a motion to give public servants a "fair pay rise" good on 'em

Do they deserve it more than the rest of us then?

Because immigration has been keeping wages down for everyone.
Thanks Tony Blair.

Seems that Labour don't have enough seats after all.