EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

See total votes and vote share here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_general_election

Corbynistas point to Corbyn winning more total votes than Labour did in their election victories of 2001 or 2005 as a rationale for his ongoing leadership.

Sort of overlooks the fact that Theresa May, percevied to be a great loser, garnered 13.6m votes in 2017, more than the 13.5m that the great winner Tony Blair achieved in his high watermark of 1997, and 20% more than the 11.3m that delivered a majority for Cameron in 2015.

I think the only point proven here is that people selectively choose their data to back their argument!

and on the whole received a popular vote

But not The popular vote (the most votes - which was won by the tories, just).

Labour surged +30 % in that election, no other party came close to that. Which is why Corbin was safe.

Corbynistas point to Corbyn winning more total votes than Labour did in their election victories of 2001 or 2005 as a rationale for his ongoing leadership.

My point wasn't about Corbynistas. It was about the Labour party. It was a historical point, rather than a normative point as to why he should be leader now.

Sorry, I was using Corbynistas tongue in cheek, and wasn't directed at you in particular.

yep! thats the point of data, to back up 'an argument' rather than 'the argument'!

And in this case, again, the argument was not about who was the loser and who was the the winner between May and Corbyn - the point was that Corbyn did not resign/was not forced out because from Labour's perspective (including Corbyn's critics), the election results did not necessitate it/make it opportune. I.e., the results were a mandate for his leadership rather than evidence of his lack thereof.

You’ve cherry picked to show that cherry picking is a thing. Ok.

May was a loser. She just lost slowly.

She had the considerable advantage of being able to call an election when it suited her and her judgment was shown to be way off. She lost some respect, she lost her majority and had to pay into a relationship with the DUP that’d bleed her of power. Because she had to espouse Austerity whilst buying power she lost a fair bit of credibility with the electorate.

Direction of travel? Loser.

Corbyn’s gone the other way.

Can you explain what you mean by, on the whole received a popular vote?

Broad, not just Labour core or the even more specific Corbyn core that many people predicted would be his only vote.

People are making broader points than your uncharitable assumptions, which is ironic given your shouty accusations of blinkered bias.

I've joined this conversation at exactly the right moment I see.

Remember Theresa's election winning policies?

All you can eat Fox Hunting and cuts for pensioners. Electorate cat nip, if ever there was!

Avoids the question somewhat like most of the responses.

I don’t take particular issue with Corbyn staying as leader. It just seems odd that his supporters can’t accept and state that he and Labour lost

a subdued bercow is a pitiful thing to hear, his bellow is sorely missed

Perhaps a general election isn't quite as simple as win or lose, especially for the underdogs.

Of course direction of travel is significant but not greater than the overall result.

There are many objective facts people don't make a point of stating. I'm not sure what you are looking for?

The Tories under May didn’t loose an election.

No, but they did lose one.

HahaHa I was getting frustrated before the dyslexia check kicked in

I had to go back to try to workout what you were on about. AndyP obviously recognizes that the Tories won the most seats. His point, with regards to May losing, was obviously relative - that is, relative to their previous majority and relative to the perceived weakness of Labour. No one is claiming that Theresa May actually illegally formed a government without having the legal right to it.

I’d define winning as having a majority in the House of Commons.

And if you called an early election, when you already had a majority, and ended up without one, then you lost.

That entirely proves my narrative point.

I answered the very specific question that I quoted, for clarity, since it was a question you had asked, you moron. I wasn't trying to avoid wider issues or blur the issue, I was answering your fucking question.