11-AUG 2023 : LAB: 48% / CON: 24% / LDM: 10% / GRN: 6%

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 14, 2023 21:00:38 GMT graham said:

Aug 14, 2023 20:31:49 GMT crossbat11 said:

An interesting holy trinity, but in fairness to the public, they are often dependent on the honesty and clarity of the media and the politicians to help them arrive at the best decisions on matters like EU membership.

I think a lot of politicians, particularly those on the right, and the predominantly right wing press, served the public badly in terms of presenting an accurate representation of our membership of the EU.

They essentially pandered to some people's prejudices and a seeming willingness amongst many to believe half-truths and lies.

I supposed it comes down to a moral judgement. Do you blame the liar or the person who swallows the lie. You can be frustrated by some people's gullibility, but surely the blame must lie with the politicians and journalists who peddled what they knew to be falsehoods?

An issue as technical as EU membership should never have been handed to the electorate in such a simplistic way. At the very least, it should have included provision for a Confirmatory Vote in the event of a Vote to Leave in principle. It is greatly to Cameron's discredit that he failed to make provision for that.

On wider economic issues few voters have an academic grounding even of the most basic kind in such matters. That also applies to many journalists and politicians. How many MPs could comfortably sit a traditional Economics A Level exam? I suspect that several hundred would struggle a fair bit.

 To an extent , that has always been a limitation of democracy - that we invite voters to choose on issues they only vaguely understand, and in respect of which only a few possess the critical analytical skills to arrive at firm judgements and to recognise when they are being fed a tissue of lies or nonsense. Earlier generations were less well educated - how easily were they hoodwinked? Doubtless politicians then relied much more widely on social deference.

To be honest, even people with an academic grounding don’t necessarily do a proper assessment of such matters. Many regarding Brexit take a very polarised view, either selling just the merits, or just the downsides, with not much attempt to look at the pros and the cons together. 

And if you try and reconcile the pros and cons it’s just so difficult. Not just because of the amount but because of the unknowns, of not being sure about what will happen. (To take but one example, the calculus for leaving CPTPP to rejoin EU can become quite a bit different if the US join and if EU do a deal too. But you can’t be sure up front whether it will happen or not).

Some might argue that people don’t take into account potential impact on GDP of a few percent over the long term, but aside from the fact that these forecasts can be rather dodgy, the truth is that under the right-wing economics we have laboured under for decades, a lot of this growth does not filter down to so many people anyway.

Meanwhile, they might have seen their wages suffer from foreign competition, or seen their factory be moved to Eastern Europe or summat because of the right-wing ruling out of capital controls, restrictions on subsidy etc. Some people might have quite rationally deduced that on balance, something like impact on GDP is for them outweighed by other things. 

[steve]

barbara
I think O'Brien has moved on from that a tad to the point where those who still refuse to accept that they were conned despite the overwhelming evidence of their own eyes that they were that compassion isn't the appropriate response any more.

There's none so useful as the wilfully blind.

By the way no evidence as yet that Danny Alexander was behind the 90 criminal charges now faced by the disgraced former president.

[crossbat11]

carfrew

I'd agree with you that May's Tories didn't go into anything like a meltdown in 2017 but they did stall quite abruptly after trouncing Labour in the May local elections and having enjoyed huge long-standing leads over Labour in the polls. May also led Corbyn on personal approval ratings too for most of her time as PM up to the 2017 election.

Was Labour's campaign surge due to voters liking what they saw of Corbyn or suddenly seeing May in a different light as she wilted under the glare of sustained publicity?

I am not sure, to be honest. Maybe a bit of both, and some of Labour's policies on tuition fees and public ownership struck chords.

However, even though the public began to warm to Corbyn, who had the benefit of appearing to be a fully paid up member of the human race compared to the robotic and soulless May, never at any stage of the campaign did I have the remotest sense that Labour were winning.

A sullen but determined voting bloc of the newly united right remained in their way. The Tories biggest popular vote for nearly a quarter of a century.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2023 7:02:13 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Aug 14, 2023 21:00:38 GMT graham said:

T Some people might have quite rationally deduced that on balance, something like impact on GDP is for them outweighed by other things. 

My memory of the Referendum Campaign was of a  parade of  opposing emotions. Lots of flag waving on both sides.

It was a fact free zone 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 15, 2023 7:18:44 GMT crossbat11 said:

carfrew

I'd agree with you that May's Tories didn't go into anything like a meltdown in 2017 but they did stall quite abruptly after trouncing Labour in the May local elections and having enjoyed huge long-standing leads over Labour in the polls. May also led Corbyn on personal approval ratings too for most of her time as PM up to the 2017 election.

Was Labour's campaign surge due to voters liking what they saw of Corbyn or suddenly seeing May in a different light as she wilted under the glare of sustained publicity?

I am not sure, to be honest. Maybe a bit of both, and some of Labour's policies on tuition fees and public ownership struck chords.

However, even though the public began to warm to Corbyn, who had the benefit of appearing to be a fully paid up member of the human race compared to the robotic and soulless May, I never at any stage of the campaign did I have the remotest sense that Labour winning.

A sullen but determined voting bloc of the newly united right remained in their way. The Tories biggest popular vote for nearly a quarter of a century.

Winning on a centre-left manifesto - despite popularity of the policies - is difficult because of media opposition, because of opposition within the party, and then of course other parties appear to move left at times as well. A right-wing platform might not have these impediments, but still seems to require a meltdown, and then things of course keep moving rightwards! Thus the issue is not necessarily simply about winning, but getting substantially better policies adopted (whether or not you win). 

Especially because when the right in the party win, they may do things to lock out centre-left policies in future and make it easier for Tories to move rightwards.

(Regarding where May’s votes went, not sure, but I think James E  might have said something about that previously?) Corbyn’s rise in polling rather dwarf’s May’s blip. I don’t think many thought Corbyn would win, but he surprised a lot of people. For me though, it’s not about Corbyn, but that it showed centre-left policies are electorally viable in principle. The problem is that opposition from within the party, the media opposition outside, and then other parties affecting to move left. 

The latter afflicted Labour in 2010, with the LDs appearing to be rather more left-wing before the GE than proved to be the case after. 

[domjg]

Aug 15, 2023 7:18:44 GMT crossbat11 said:

carfrew

I'd agree with you that May's Tories didn't go into anything like a meltdown in 2017 but they did stall quite abruptly after trouncing Labour in the May local elections and having enjoyed huge long-standing leads over Labour in the polls. May also led Corbyn on personal approval ratings too for most of her time as PM up to the 2017 election.

Was Labour's campaign surge due to voters liking what they saw of Corbyn or suddenly seeing May in a different light as she wilted under the glare of sustained publicity?

I am not sure, to be honest. Maybe a bit of both, and some of Labour's policies on tuition fees and public ownership struck chords.

However, even though the public began to warm to Corbyn, who had the benefit of appearing to be a fully paid up member of the human race compared to the robotic and soulless May, never at any stage of the campaign did I have the remotest sense that Labour were winning.

A sullen but determined voting bloc of the newly united right remained in their way. The Tories biggest popular vote for nearly a quarter of a century.

I see the high vote shares for the main parties in 2017 as in effect a re-run of the referendum which was by far the dominant issue then. It seems to me it was remain and leave tribes lining up behind the two parties and less to do with Corbyn. A real on-off perhaps. 

[steve]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w
" Some people might have quite rationally deduced that on balance, something like impact on GDP is for them outweighed by other things. "

Indeed the damaging impact on gdp was outweighed for me by our freedoms and franchise being stolen by the brexitanians.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 15, 2023 7:44:12 GMT steve said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w
" Some people might have quite rationally deduced that on balance, something like impact on GDP is for them outweighed by other things. "

Indeed the damaging impact on gdp was outweighed for me by our freedoms and franchise being stolen by the brexitanians.

Sure, that’s a valid issue to consider. I’m not keen on losing free movement myself. But many in the middle-class are relatively protected from some of the economic effects of EU and globalism more generally. (E.g. my partner did not have a queue of East Europeans competing with her when she got her headship). 

[steve]

The real threat of civil war in the US between the christofascists and those who believe in democracy and the rule of law.


youtu.be/MwrFEif7pyU

[Deleted]

A few strands of the story of the cost to governments of the long years of Cheap Money Policy ( aka QE) have emerged recently.

NIESR's recent economic report and the BoE's APF Report cover the situation in UK :-

"From the beginning of the APF’s life up to 28th February 2022, the gilts that it had acquired generally appreciated in price and the APF had made a cumulative profit of £96.9 billion.
Gilt prices have fallen very heavily since February 2022, because of rising inflation and short-term interest rates, and because QE has been replaced by its opposite, known as QT – quantitative tightening. In the year to 28th February 2023, the APF made a loss of £169.1 billion: over its entire life up to 28th February 2023, it had made a cumulative loss of £72.3 billion, or about 2.7% of the GDP of 2023."

OBR and others are forecasting total losses of £200bn +. The Treasury is liable for these losses.

NIESR comments on other Central Banks :-

"The Federal Reserve had lost about $900 billion on its QE operations by the end of March 2023. The German national audit office, the Bundesrechnungshof, has warned that the Deutsche Bundesbank may need to be recapitalised on account of losses arising from QE (see Chazan and Arnold 2023)."

Losses on Gilt holdings is just one element of this enormous cost. CB's pay interest on the reserves which Banks hold with them -reserves created in order for the CB to purchase gilts from those banks under the QE program.. The cost of these interest payments has rocketed.

Today the Times describes how ECB is dealing with this problem :-

"Last month, the European Central Bank said that it would be cancelling interest payments worth 3.75 per cent on the minimum reserves held by commercial banks at the ECB. The decision was announced alongside an interest rate increase in July and will kick in from September 20.
Like most central banks, the ECB has been forking out on higher interest payments to banks after nearly a decade of rock-bottom rates. The pace of monetary tightening has racked up tens of billions in losses, with the central bank standing to lose as much as €80 billion next year and the Bank of England estimating losses of £150 billion over the next decade.

Like cash for its squeezed governments, the ECB is raiding banks to fill a financial black hole. The decision to scrap interest payments on reserves at first may seem modest — it will result in an annual hit of about €6 billion to the eurozone’s banks, which have more than €160 billion parked at the ECB — but the political signalling is much more significant. Monetary authorities that have come to the rescue of their banking systems repeatedly since 2009 are now ready to milk banks to prop up their own faltering credibility.
The ECB’s decision has led to follow-up moves by its national central banks, which similarly are scrambling to save money. The Bundesbank said last week that it would no longer pay interest on the €54 billion held by the German government at the central bank. Analysts think the ECB may follow suit and cancel interest rate payments on the €250 billion that eurozone governments have parked at their central banks, saving about €9 billion a year, according to Société Générale.
Interest rate cancellations may look like a prudent way to help to stem escalating central bank losses, but they risk having far more pernicious consequences than the one-off windfall taxes being slapped on banks by governments. By scrapping the “remuneration of reserves”, central banks are ripping up the contract between monetary authorities and their commercial banks for reasons that have little to do with their primary task of controlling inflation.

The ECB’s decision is a nakedly cynical ploy to reduce its financial losses. It tells banks that when times are tough, the central bank will cease to pay out money it owes. Gertjan Vlieghe, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, has warned that a failure to pay out on reserves is tantamount to a “debt default”. "

Chickens flying home to roost.

[steve]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w

But that isn't where the main cohort of leave voters were the majority of people under state retirement age voted remain, those most likely to be competing with European union workers in the 18-30 age cohort overwhelmingly so.

The unemployment rate for much of the last two decades of our membership was historically low ,the fact is as can be seen by the impact on agriculture, hospitality and the care sector that there wasn't actually a indigenous demand for these jobs , if there had been we would see it now and we don't.

[Deleted]

Sometimes a cartoonist just sums it all up in one simple image :-

[steve]

War criminal Putin's regime bringing about the destruction of the Russian economy as the value of the rouble collapses
The Bank of Russia has raised its key rate to 12% from 8.5%. in what I would anticipate the first of many futile attempts to mitigate the damage.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 15, 2023 8:01:30 GMT steve said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w

But that isn't where the main cohort of leave voters were the majority of people under state retirement age voted remain, those most likely to be competing with European union workers in the 18-30 age cohort overwhelmingly so.

The unemployment rate for much of the last two decades of our membership was historically low ,the fact is as can be seen by the impact on agriculture, hospitality and the care sector that there wasn't actually a indigenous demand for these jobs , if there had been we would see it now and we don't.

Well, some might have believed they were taking into account employment prospects of some of those still in employment. 

And indeed, a fair number of younger people might not be that affected by competition from the EU. Or not as bothered because haven’t got to support families yet. 

Some people will benefit from the arrival of more immigration. More need for teachers and accountants etc.

I am just saying that for some, something like GDP might be outweighed by other economic factors. That it isn’t necessarily irrational in their particular situation. I’m not saying this applied to the majority or explains Brexit. 

[crossbat11]

carfrew

The intriguing chicken and egg question implied in your post is this. Is a more centrist Labour, you call it right wing, the factor that tends to precipitate the Tory meltdown or is it, as you suggest, merely a beneficiary of the Tories melting down for other reasons?

Asked another way, do centrist and moderate Tory voters take electoral flight, not polling flight, only when a palatable Labour alternative is on offer?

[domjg]

Aug 15, 2023 7:33:21 GMT colin said:

Aug 15, 2023 7:02:13 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

T Some people might have quite rationally deduced that on balance, something like impact on GDP is for them outweighed by other things. 

My memory of the Referendum Campaign was of a  parade of  opposing emotions. Lots of flag waving on both sides.

It was a fact free zone 

I can't disagree. For voting on such an important, potentially systemic change it was treated unseriously and flippantly by all. I volunteered for the 'better together' campaign and it was depressingly complacent, ill-prepared and half-hearted. Despite the poll warnings it seems many people thought it was just going through the motions and that nothing would actually change. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 15, 2023 8:10:55 GMT crossbat11 said:

carfrew

The intriguing chicken and egg question implied in your post is this. Is a more centrist Labour, you call it right wing, the factor that tends to precipitate the Tory meltdown or is it, as you suggest, merely a beneficiary of the Tories melting down for other reasons?

Asked another way, do centrist and moderate Tory voters take electoral flight, not polling flight, only when a palatable Labour alternative is on offer?

The collapse in polling prior to Blair followed Black Wednesday. It wasn’t summat Blair did, who wasn’t even leader at the time. You can see the impact of Truss in polling too, it wasn’t what Starmer did. Tories got rid of Boris in significant part because of partygate, which also wasn’t precipitated by Starmer. 

(Unless Starmer was actually leading a double life pretending to be Cummings or something and got access to all the cam footage, organised the cake etc.)

Regarding right-wing Labour being centrist, not really when for example they are so against privatisations. Only 8% are against now, many Tories are in favour now! Blair increased workfare, PFI etc. beyond Thatcher. Ramped up house prices after Major saw them pulled down again. Even Thatcher didn’t do tuition fees Etc.

And in trying to expunge the left in the party, may make it harder to offer anything but more right wing policies in future. This is the thing: the right claim the left are the purists, but really it’s the right who are more the purists. 

[Danny]

Aug 14, 2023 20:10:57 GMT jib said:

It's far too early to make any sort of judgement on the Brexit + or -.

It really isnt. Northern Irish politicians moaning about brexit again this morning.

[steve]

A couple of days ago the Express as it often did led with the " Brexit benefit " of business reshoring.
The problem was the article was total bollocks.
The source of their claims actually made it abundantly clear that Brexit rather than assisting restoring was a major hindrance because of the trade barriers it imposed.

The Express where the truth goes to die.


youtu.be/kJrOTqEl4F0

[Danny]

Aug 14, 2023 20:15:55 GMT birdseye said:

I doubt that is Brexit related so much as a function of the much higher valuations put on businesses in the USA. Why do you think that ARM was listed in the USA despite government efforts.

If people used to like being here but now do not, then obviously the standign of Britain is dropping. England is getting less pwerful, less sovereign all the time. And the latest clear step in that self destruction was Brexit.

[Deleted]

An idea has been brewing in my head.

The Tory Party needs to go back to the drawing board and decide what it is. So a period in opposition is prescribed.

It is no duty of a roc voter to provide the reluctant and self-conscious "centrism" of a Starmer manifesto with a thumping majority in Parliament.

So-a no vote is called for in the ballot box.



Needs further thought.

[Danny]

Aug 15, 2023 0:30:00 GMT mercian said:

Aug 14, 2023 20:14:39 GMT Danny said:

And therefore brexit will be undone, because it has to be.

You really do live in la-la land. We are where we are. It won't change at all for at least the next parliament even if Starmer does one of his u-turns on day one because it will take years of negotiations even if the EU were interested. 

Rejoining the market is easy, they would love us back in ASAP. Becoming a member again is trickier. The problem leavers will have to face is the UK needs back into the market, and they will be forced to accept the Uk becoming a vasssal state of the EU, because its not so easy to become a member again.

[steve]

colin
"The Tory Party needs to go back to the drawing board and decide what it is. So a period in opposition is prescribed."

Fifty years or so would probably do it.

[pjw1961]

Aug 15, 2023 4:16:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Aug 15, 2023 1:15:11 GMT pjw1961 said:

Corbyn was gifted a meltdown by May running the worst campaign in living memory in 2017 and still finished 55 seats behind her. As has been pointed out many times on this site, Johnson was not personally popular in 2019, with much of the public doubtful about him, but still got an 80 seat majority. Thatcher and the Conservatives were never wildly popular throughout the 1980s but they kept walloping Labour. 

Blair and Starmer have benefited from Tory meltdowns, but you still have to be positioned to take advantage. Who seriously, genuinely and honestly believes a Corbyn led Labour would be 20 points ahead in the polls now? (If anyone does, I would advise getting out more and talking to some ordinary, not very political, voters). 

It’s a nonsense to say TM had a meltdown, the campaign might not have been perfect but she got 42% of the vote! Six percent more than Cameron even, who nonetheless secured an overall majority against your favourite leader! (You haven’t attempted an excuse for why Miliband doesn’t count re: “loser” yet). 

Whether or not Johnson was personally popular might be interesting but not very relevant to the point: regardless of popularity, Tory polling turned around quite a lot with him standing for leader, having been behind Corbyn shortly before the change, to becoming substantially ahead. (For example, even if some may not have cared for him much they might have liked the policy pitch, whether it was “get Brexit done”, “Levelling up” or summat else) 

I don’t think Corbyn would be anything like 20 points ahead now, because he has been trashed a lot by the media etc. (and even Blair has been below Corbyn in some polling in more recent times) but if it were 2017 he might be somewhat closer and might improve rather in the six week campaign proper. (As you know from our prior exchange, I think Corbyn should maybe have stood aside before the 2019 election so they had a new leader relatively untarnished. Of course changing leader doesn’t always work, as Tories found out with the Trussterf*ck). 

Miliband does count as a loser, along with Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock and Brown - that was my point. I wish that they had all won, but they didn't - only Blair managed that. I don't like the fact most of the English electorate are well to my right, but there is no point in pretending that isn't the case. 

As to May: 
www.politico.eu/article/how-theresa-may-lost-it-uk-election-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-jim-messina-lynton-crosby-uk-sarah-palin-campaign/
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40237833

And most famously: 
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/22/theresa-may-u-turn-on-dementia-tax-cap-social-care-conservative-manifesto

All these accounts give Corbyn some credit, but boy did May hand him a big target to shoot at. A more able Tory leader - even someone as mediocre as Cameron for example - would undoubtedly have won a majority in 2017.  

[Danny]

Aug 15, 2023 1:15:11 GMT pjw1961 said:

Corbyn was gifted a meltdown by May running the worst campaign in living memory in 2017 and still finished 55 seats behind her. As has been pointed out many times on this site, Johnson was not personally popular in 2019, with much of the public doubtful about him, but still got an 80 seat majority. Thatcher and the Conservatives were never wildly popular throughout the 1980s but they kept walloping Labour. 

because those elections were all about brexit. Johnson won in 19 by being clear he would immediately implement brexit (immediately was it two years later, but hey...)May fought on brexit means brexit, and in 2017 labour was still the credible remain party. Sure, if a party had campaigned to vivisect cats in public then it could have influenced the results, but otherwise it was same old same old.

It was about brexit, and its still about brexit even now. Con will campaign they are the only party to guaranteed hard brexit continues and thats why starmer is afraid to offer rejoin now. But its a dwindling band of believers, and thats why con will lose this time round. Not because they are incompetent, but because they do not have this draw of a magic brexit to solve all our problems.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2023 8:15:00 GMT domjg said:

Aug 15, 2023 7:33:21 GMT colin said:

My memory of the Referendum Campaign was of a  parade of  opposing emotions. Lots of flag waving on both sides.

It was a fact free zone 

I can't disagree. For voting on such an important, potentially systemic change it was treated unseriously and flippantly by all. I volunteered for the 'better together' campaign and it was depressingly complacent, ill-prepared and half-hearted. Despite the poll warnings it seems many people thought it was just going through the motions and that nothing would actually change. 

The thing which was missed by Remain , in my view , was a reminder of the deep integration which had ocurred over 45 years. That this would not be like pulling a plug from a socket-more like pulling a sweater apart. Lots of loose ends  with an awful lot of repair work to do.


This of course was unsayable because it would have explained explicitly  what had happened , almost by stealth, to  people who resented it and felt that they never voted for it.

And it would have said-It is impossible to Leave now.

[Danny]

Aug 15, 2023 6:55:17 GMT alec said:

For those interested, here's some more on what is being termed variant BA.X - "The variants we've seen since 2022 each only have a few S mutations at a time, so their potential was limited."

Thats a deeply flawed statement. All a disease needs is one spectacular mutation to become very infectious. Its true thats hard to do because most of the possible routes have already been tried and countered. And indeed thats why we are seeing lots of little tweaks. because no single one is available to make it a winner. Its entirely possible a rise in mutations, if that is waht is happening, is precisely because covid is now being very well controlled by humans who have had repeat exposures to many different strains. There is no longer a clear winner to become dangerous.

[steve]

@danny

Unfortunately single market membership isn't easy, but it is achievable well within a parliament, given good will and placing the national interests first.
While I am confident that European union membership will be achieved it requires vanilla extract Brexit Starmer to understand the political benefits of catching up with public sentiment, any moves on the Labour leadership part towards becoming a pro rejoin party are likely to not be seen until the end of the next parliament (2029) and realistically rejoin couldn't be achieved without an overwhelming mandate at that election ( which would mitigate the need for another referendum) much before 2032/5.

I would dearly love it to be more rapid but short of the Labour party being dependent on my parties support post election I can't see how it could happen any earlier.

[domjg]

Aug 15, 2023 8:34:29 GMT colin said:

Aug 15, 2023 8:15:00 GMT domjg said:

I can't disagree. For voting on such an important, potentially systemic change it was treated unseriously and flippantly by all. I volunteered for the 'better together' campaign and it was depressingly complacent, ill-prepared and half-hearted. Despite the poll warnings it seems many people thought it was just going through the motions and that nothing would actually change. 

The thing which was missed by Remain , in my view , was a reminder of the deep integration which had ocurred over 45 years. That this would not be like pulling a plug from a socket-more like pulling a sweater apart. Lots of loose ends  with an awful lot of repair work to do.


This of course was unsayable because it would have explained explicitly  what had happened , almost by stealth, to  people who resented it and felt that they never voted for it.

And it would have said-It is impossible to Leave now.

But they had voted for it because we live in a representative democracy not a direct democracy and elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. Many voted for Thatcher's govt because they saw that as furthering the cause of their own prosperity and she, rhetoric aside, was instrumental in enmeshing this country into the European single market in pursuit of the end she saw that her voters sought. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Aug 15, 2023 8:29:05 GMT pjw1961 said:

Aug 15, 2023 4:16:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

It’s a nonsense to say TM had a meltdown, the campaign might not have been perfect but she got 42% of the vote! Six percent more than Cameron even, who nonetheless secured an overall majority against your favourite leader! (You haven’t attempted an excuse for why Miliband doesn’t count re: “loser” yet). 

Whether or not Johnson was personally popular might be interesting but not very relevant to the point: regardless of popularity, Tory polling turned around quite a lot with him standing for leader, having been behind Corbyn shortly before the change, to becoming substantially ahead. (For example, even if some may not have cared for him much they might have liked the policy pitch, whether it was “get Brexit done”, “Levelling up” or summat else) 

I don’t think Corbyn would be anything like 20 points ahead now, because he has been trashed a lot by the media etc. (and even Blair has been below Corbyn in some polling in more recent times) but if it were 2017 he might be somewhat closer and might improve rather in the six week campaign proper. (As you know from our prior exchange, I think Corbyn should maybe have stood aside before the 2019 election so they had a new leader relatively untarnished. Of course changing leader doesn’t always work, as Tories found out with the Trussterf*ck). 

Miliband does count as a loser, along with Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock and Brown - that was my point. I wish that they had all won, but they didn't - only Blair managed that. I don't like the fact most of the English electorate are well to my right, but there is no point in pretending that isn't the case. 

As to May: 
www.politico.eu/article/how-theresa-may-lost-it-uk-election-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-jim-messina-lynton-crosby-uk-sarah-palin-campaign/
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40237833

And most famously: 
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/22/theresa-may-u-turn-on-dementia-tax-cap-social-care-conservative-manifesto

All these accounts give Corbyn some credit, but boy did May hand him a big target to shoot at. A more able Tory leader - even someone as mediocre as Cameron for example - would undoubtedly have won a majority in 2017.  

But while it may not have been a perfect campaign, it was hardly a meltdown was it! It’s not like her polling had collapsed to circa 25% after some economic disaster.

And you can’t just go by whether someone wins, because they may have been handed a very stacked deck.

Like, equally, as you note, it’s not fair to just dismiss you as a loser, because after all you were dealing with a deck stacked against you.

Blair inherited an effed-up Tory party. And it was effed-up before Blair, you can’t just disregard that.

Otherwise it’s like saying Accrington Stanley are a brilliant football team of winners after they beat the Prem champions 457-nil, when half their opponents’ squad had been unable to play because caught a bug, and the remainder were sent off by half-time for no good reason by a dodgy ref.