She's in the Tory party, they're all sharks.

Labour's problem, which goes back at least a generation, is whether it is primarily a socialist party or social Democratic Party. Disloyalty to the leader, whether the left's towards Blair or Blairites towards Corbyn is born of a different political philosophy. It remains a huge challenge, as a successful party has to be a broad church, while still setting out a single clear and coherent vision.
They're politicians, so they play the game, brutally sometimes, but winning is, usually at least in part, a means to another end.

Recent and prospective Tory PMs just seem to want the crown for itself. It comes to something when Simon Schama, the David Attenborough of history, questions whether May even has any political convictions. Seriously, I'm struggling to come up with a couple of principles that May or Johnson stand for. Not just an aspiration to something desirable, but a philosophy - or even just a concept or medium-sized idea.
Any advances on 'free market capitalism' and, erm... 'Pragmatism'.
Austerity I'd count as a policy and fiscal responsibility is a behaviour.

And the Labour party is what? Depends which union is paying their wages?

It is difficult to see where the Labour party go from here. They offered everything to everyone, they can up against a shambles of an opponent and they still couldn't win?

What more can they offer as a bribe next time?

This depends on where you see balancing the deficit - is it even important? If you believe it is then you either increase revenue or you cut costs? Their doesn't seem a will to increase personal taxation for the majority so what do you do to balance the books?

I actually think the majority do better under the Tories than under Labour. Capitalism has its faults but it does appear to be the only wealth generating option. Socialism/Marxism/Communism simply do not work so what is the alternative?

Johnson is a typical right winger - support business and that will solve your problems provided the cost of the state is controlled.

Corbyn thinks he can oust May as early as the Queens Speech. If he does, I predict another GE in which Labour get trounced.

Containing the deficit or balancing the budget is just an aspiration. Like providing good healthcare or reducing crime. In terms of how you do it, taking steps to reduce tax avoidance is a minimum first step. That'd require a nuanced approach admittedly, but first of all you need the will, which I believe the Tories lack. Also you can adopt policies to foster growth, as a plausible alternative to austerity. And let's not forget that it was de-regulated market capitalism that caused the global economic crisis.

Johnson is a bright enough guy, but he's a bit of an empty vessel.

On reflection, if Corbyn does defeat May in an early parliamentary vote his one tactic that could work would be to offer to be PM of a coalition including Tories. If he publicly reached out to Tories in the national interest and they rejected him forcing an election that could work against the Tories.

I'd be careful to make sure I knew what I was talking about before calling people imbeciles tbh.

We don't have a shoot to kill policy for the obvious reason that you can't get information from a corpse. The only time that the police will shoot someone dead is if there is an imminent and serious risk to life.

Corbyn said he was against a blanket shoot to kill policy that was being proposed after Paris.

I do know what I am talking about, he's a pacifist terrorism apologist and has admitted he wouldn't have the mettle to press the button if the time came. He's better off pottering in a shed and missing open goals, the guy can't even muster a high five!

It's not a matter of mettle! To be honest if there is a nuclear holocaust heading this way then it doesn't matter 1 jot if we launch our nukes or not because we will all be dead. Only Russia and USA could conceivably attack the UK and either one of them would destroy us with no difficulty at all.

They are there as a deterrent and as soon as someone launches one, the whole system fails.

The difference was Labours offer to remove Uni fee's , priming an increased vote by those it affects , the young voters , their parents and grandparents

The issue is , could/can Labour deliver that , and all the other promises ?

the could offer and say what they liked as they were never going to win enough seats to make them actually have to try do it!

You really do under estimate Johnson - underneath the bluster is a guy with a deep understanding of the issues at hand. One thing is for sure he has a lot more to offer than the likes of Jeremy, John and Emily.

What policies did Labour offer that would foster growth?

All Labour offered was to take more money from the very people who generate the growth and increase the size and cost of the state?

No chance to reduce tax avoidance - this is a global issue - and their will always be loopholes that the clever can exploit. There will also be countries that see the benefit of increasing their tax take via lower rates of taxation. I come back to point that tax avoidance is all about paying the correct tax in line with the law.

It was one element - banking - that caused the global issues - normal businesses even the big ones never changed their behaviour.

Indeed

Interesting use of "never"

The Tories, despite having a 20% lead in the polls when May "changed her mind", again and called an election, couldnt muster an overall majority and had they not jumped in bed with the Unionists, they couldnt form a government.
We will all have another chance to vote within the next 12 months so, we'll see what happens then.
Maybe The Tories will get their act together or, perhaps Labour will gain power.
What we have is a very, very fragile government, a slowing economy and the EU hierarchy laughing at us, I'm sure that Mrs May is very proud of her efforts