• HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    Funny how despite great interest among the population that got shot down…

    Literally lost two elections.

    Popular on twitter != electorally viable.

    • Rioting Pacifist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      Popular on twitter != electorally viable.

      He got the largest vote and voteshare of any Labour party leader since Blair in 97.

      He wasn’t just popular on Twitter.

      Starmer lost both votes compared to 2019.

      • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I voted for Corbyn as leader twice.

        We have a stupid af electoral system, the popular vote doesn’t matter, it’s breadth you need. Blair got 418 seats from 13.5m votes, May got 317 from 13.6m, and Johnson got 365 from 13.9m. Then Starmer somehow gets 411 from 9.7m because, again, the system is fucking dumb, but you need to work within it (so you can then change it).

        Corbyn’s popularity was very concentrated, and he was marmite. Yes, he got the most votes for a Labour leader since Blair, but he also motivated the opposition vote too. The main thing May’s 2017 campaign promised was a dementia tax, which was hated, and yet she still got more votes than Blair.

        His platform - especially 2017 - was great. But the only measure that matters for the leader of a main political party is election results. You can only make changes if you’re in power.

        What’s somewhat ironic is how much of that platform has now been put in place by Starmer; nationalised rail, a ban on fracking, 30 hours of free childcare, end 0hrs contracts, putting VAT on private schools fees, removing two child limit.