Or are we going to see Cameron in there for the next twenty years?
>>51182941
Most Brits are too centred and/or conservative to elect Corbyn (although I probably would).
Also I see pic related in the labour rose.
>>51182941
>Or are we going to see Cameron in there for the next twenty years?
You're not going to see Cameron after 2020. Before the last election, he said 10 years in power is enough for him, he's going to stand down as leader before the next election. The Conservative party will elect a new leader, probably George Osborne, Boris Johnson or Theresa May.
>Can Labour make a comeback in the UK?
Wow it's going to be hard for them. They need to get rid of Corbyn ASAP but that's not going to happen as he has support of the utterly deluded Labour membership
Every single Labour government we've had, has been moderate and centrist overall. The British public do not elect true left wingers, people like Corbyn. Just like how they don't like true right wingers or the extreme right.
It's not happening.
>>51182941
Every time there isn't a coalition government people are going to be shocked
>>51183474
Also SNP will continue to take more Labour seats in Scotland, No way do Labour come any were close to a majority in the next election
>>51183576
There's only one more Labour seat in Scotland to take, m8
>>51183388
I mean, Thatcher was as right wing as Corbyn is left wing, and was elected.
Is in unreasonable to suggest that Corbyn may become the PM?
>>51183747
He's been getting a lot of shit over his limp-wristed stance on ISIS. He still has some supporters but he's turning into a running joke among politicians. I seriously doubt he'll get elected unless there's some HUGE scandal involving the Tories.
>>51183747
>Thatcher was as right wing as Corbyn is left wing, and was elected.
Not really. She got gradually more radical as time went on, and when she finally went too far her own party took her down, for the reasons I described: Brits want someone moderate.
Anyway, Thatcher's privatisations and cutting of taxes were a reversion to the mean. The post-war settlement (nationalisation and all that) was a result of extraordinary circumstances of going through a period of total war
>Is in unreasonable to suggest that Corbyn may become the PM?
Yes
At a fundamental level he is at odds with the average Brit. The man is unelectable. He's the most unelectable leader in Labour's entire history. Atlee would be appalled.
>>51183644
its 3 actually, 56/59 seats, but yeah Scotland basically belongs to the SNP at the moment, if labour can't pick up more seats in Scotland they'll continue to be a distant second to the conservatives.
>>51182941
>"labour"
>destroys the working class
wew lads
>>51183887
You said the Labour seats in Scotland but there's only one. The other two are Conservative and Lib Dem.
It's not only Scotland they need to do well in though, Labour can't win without the Midlands and Middle England
>>51183976
>daily mail
>believing a single word
top kek
Not a chance
>>51182941
Labour need to get over their idea that they're morally right about everything and that those who disagree with them either can't think for themselves or have been indoctrinated by the nasty right wing media.
Looking at labour supporting sites, it seems that many have not learnt
>>51185703
What's wrong with it? Labour arse-raped the British working class, mate. They'd rather pleasure Ahmed and Iqbal for muh votes than actually function as a viable political party for the people.
>>51188008
>Labour supporters need to stop beating me in arguments
Okay lad.
>>51189267
It's nothing to do with the immigrants lads. Even if it was, it's be fucking dumb, they're a tiny percentage of total voters.
The problem with Labour is a lot of the leadership, and a fair few of the supporters are Blairite Neo-Liberal who are utterly keked towards the City. That is to say, they are Tories.
>>51182941
Sure when the pakis and niggers make up the majority labour will become the only party.
>>51189620
We have barely any pakis and niggers though in comparison
It's different for you though because none of your people are white anyway, and there's barely people any in your wasteland country to begin with
>>51189354
Cheap immigrants drives down wages and hurts job availability for native lower classes. They also invade traditional worker class neighborhood
This is common knowledge bruh
>>51190016
>we have barely any pakis and niggers though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom
They make "only" a little over 10% of the population but remember that they easily make 30% or even more of newborns.
>>51189354
>NUFFIN 2 DO WIV IMMIGRUNTS
Fuck off you stupid cunt. You honestly think the arrival of 4,000,000 largely unskilled arrivals in the space of a decade has a negligible effect? I'm sure the fact that around 90% of Pakis vote for the party that secured them their free handouts is purely co-incidence. Are you a liberal arts student by any chance?
Spastic.
hopefully not
>>51190223
This.
Why does it take a Finn to explain a very simple numerical concept to the average British pleb?
