# Labour leadership



## oryx (May 8, 2015)

So if Miliband has to go.........who next? 

I have rather liked Ed Miliband - think he is quite decent and honest, rare in a politician. 

Given tonight's likely outcome there will be calls for him to stand down.

Who next? I must admit I am struggling to see an obvious front runner.

And it does matter.


----------



## mk12 (May 8, 2015)

Articul8


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

Cooper.

Women shown to be winners.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 8, 2015)

Nicola Sturgeon.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 8, 2015)

Andy Burnham is favourite with bookies - Cooper was but isn't any more.


----------



## oryx (May 8, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Andy Burnham is favourite with bookies - Cooper was but isn't any more.



I have thought Cooper or Burnham - interesting to look at 2011 candidates. One emigrated, one not really an option, one might lose his seat tonight.

While further to the right than I would like Labour are our only realistic chance of kicking out the tories. I fear a repeat of 79 - 97. By which time the NHS, the benefits system and our employment rights etc. will be well and truly fucked. Labour needs a strong leader who will do deals with other parties.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Cooper.
> 
> Women shown to be winners.


Yeah got to be a good choice

EDIT: well not a good choice but a good call


----------



## agricola (May 8, 2015)

None of the Shadow Cabinet


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 8, 2015)

Dan Jarvis?!


----------



## Casually Red (May 8, 2015)

It'll be an anodyne Tory clone whoever . The labour " left " have had their chance and blown it big time . Looks to me like the pundits are deciding for them they went too far left , and they'll be stampeded further right by a media clamour from without and the Blairites from within . Its shaping up to be the "accepted wisdom" and therell be nobody from their "left " with a shred of credibility after tonight to put up any argument against it .
 They're a self serving beaten docket with no ideas , pointless .


----------



## marty21 (May 8, 2015)

Cooper


----------



## stupid kid (May 8, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> Nicola Sturgeon.


SNP have really missed a trick by not standing in the other three UK countries.


----------



## stupid kid (May 8, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> It'll be an anodyne Tory clone whoever . The labour " left " have had their chance and blown it big time . Looks to me like the pundits are deciding for them they went too far left , and they'll be stampeded further right by a media clamour from without and the Blairites from within . Its shaping up to be the "accepted wisdom" and therell be nobody from their "left " with a shred of credibility after tonight to put up any argument against it .
> They're a self serving beaten docket with no ideas , pointless .



The problem is they don't stand for fucking anything, and they do it badly. The blarites stood for nothing with real force and authority. 

They've lost on the left to the SNP, some of their English working class voters to UKIP and to disaffection, they've lost in the center to the tories - basically lost all over.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 8, 2015)

They'll get a caretaker in whilst they sort themselves out for a few weeks/months...


----------



## Flanflinger (May 8, 2015)

Labour has just lost its balls.


----------



## ibilly99 (May 8, 2015)

David M might be tempted back from International Rescue to steal back his brother's broken crown.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 8, 2015)

Who fucking cares who leads the "Labour" party now? All that matters is how long it takes them to go the way of PASOK.


----------



## Silva (May 8, 2015)

Flanflinger said:


> Labour has just lost its balls.


and now, Ed Balls.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 8, 2015)

Silva said:


> and now, Ed Balls.



Surely that was the joke, already.


----------



## Silva (May 8, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Surely that was the joke, already.


I think I should go to bed. The entertainment from the LibDems train wreck is over.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

I'm calling Rachel Reeves for shadow chancellor, unfortunately.

Pairing with Cooper would be interesting, and having two women opposite Cameron's patronising flashman act might show him up for the buffoon he is.

Burnham hasn't really come across well when I've seen him on TV before the election, just argued over his opponents and looked short-tempered.


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2015)

Harman will take a run at it


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I'm calling Rachel Reeves for shadow chancellor, unfortunately.



Fucking sorry state of affairs this if true. Reeves comes across as an unreconstructed tory, and a fairly dim one at that.


----------



## paolo (May 8, 2015)

Chuka is an obvious call.

If I was his tactician, I'd say leave it for it a bit, build support.

He's not universally liked in my constituency, but he's a lot smarter and more literate than most MPs. Would get my support as Labour leader.

All considered: Chuka. He's now got two or three years to build support. Only worry... he's way more centrist than Ed.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

it would be nice to see some labour leadership


----------



## shifting gears (May 8, 2015)

paolo said:


> Chukka is an obvious call.
> 
> If I was his tactician, I'd say leave it for it a bit, build support.
> 
> He's not universally liked in my constituency, but he's a lot smarter and more literate than most MPs. Would get my support as Labour leader.




He'd get mine too....











If the rest of them had been shot at dawn.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

paolo said:


> Chuka is an obvious call.
> 
> If I was his tactician, I'd say leave it for it a bit, build support.
> 
> ...



Chuka's an empty vessel, so he'd be perfect for the right of the party, and he'd play really well with the middle class wiberal vote that Labour cultivate. Plus they could score loads of wiberal points because he's (ruling class) black.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

mk12 said:


> Articul8



articul8 will be too busy moving the party leftward from the inside, for any shenanigans.


----------



## Cerberus (May 8, 2015)

Ed's gone....fallen on his sword at 12:15

Harriet caretaker


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2015)

Yep, Chuka in a few years while a nobody keeps the chair warm.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2015)

Yvette Cooper seems like the only one with anything about her at all.


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yvette Cooper seems like the only one with anything about her at all.



She has a reputation for being rude & clueless among her civil servants


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2015)

Saying that I'd quite like to see Cooper leading Labour as Ed Balls will fucking hate being stuck at home with the kids while his wife leads the party


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2015)

Coopers record as Employment Secretary doesn't bode well, she also felt that housing rights needed tilting a bit more to landlords


----------



## Dan U (May 8, 2015)

Burnham is bookies favourite according to Sky News

they will have learnt nothing if they put the man who was Health Sec when Mid Staffs was kicking off in charge of the party.


----------



## The Pale King (May 8, 2015)

Hilary Benn?


----------



## JimW (May 8, 2015)

The Pale King said:


> Hilary Benn?


Then you get the benefits of a woman's name even with a man leading.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

The Pale King said:


> Hilary Benn?


as much a fantasist as the more famous mr benn


----------



## Idris2002 (May 8, 2015)

The Pale King said:


> Hilary Benn?



Well, they've just had one leader who betrayed everything his dad stood for, why not another?


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

Watson fancies Dep.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

Belushi said:


> She has a reputation for being rude & clueless among her civil servants



That sort of thing hasn't held many senior members of the vermin back.  It's not a barrier.


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> That sort of thing hasn't held many senior members of the vermin back.  It's not a barrier.



Yeah, that's the opinion my mum (recently retired senior civil servant) has of most ministers tbf


----------



## Wilf (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Watson fancies Dep.


Big fucking deal (not aimed at you obvs.). Why the fuck would he think that was even something people needed to know today? Silly self important bastard.


----------



## agricola (May 8, 2015)

None of the Shadow Cabinet are capable of doing it, they are all fatally compromised politically and more than a few of them are just rubbish.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 8, 2015)

It doesn't matter who becomes leader of Labour. They will now be about as relevant as Woolworths. Yvette Cooper is a hard line Tory who just joined Labour by mistake. I wouldn't want her in the job.


----------



## binka (May 8, 2015)

john mann on bbc earlier talking up dan jarvis as the best candidate - apprently he's a real person not part of the westminster bubble and someone the tories fear


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

binka said:


> john mann on bbc earlier talking up dan jarvis as the best candidate - apprently he's a real person not part of the westminster bubble and someone the tories fear


Is your old man still involved - ask him what he thinks of Burnham if you have time please.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

agricola said:


> None of the Shadow Cabinet are capable of doing it, they are all fatally compromised politically and more than a few of them are just rubbish.


they were generally put in the shadow cabinet to have them in the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

Mine is - I'm going round later, will see what he thinks (mind you, he got everything wrong about yesterday. Not sure if we can hold that against him though...  )


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> Mine is - I'm going round later, will see what he thinks (mind you, he got everything wrong about yesterday. Not sure if we can hold that against him though...  )


Who didn't mate, who didn't.


----------



## BandWagon (May 8, 2015)

ibilly99 said:


> David M might be tempted back from International Rescue to steal back his brother's broken crown.


That's a possibility.


----------



## binka (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Is your old man still involved - ask him what he thinks of Burnham if you have time please.


yeah he's still involved but on suspension, sort or, they accused him of uncomradely conduct so he's causing a scene so they have to give him a hearing after the NEC told him to get fucked. I'll prob speak to him on sunday, im sure he will like him because he likes politicans who didnt go to public school


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

A miliband on any leadership ballot is going to get destroyed. No king across the water, the name alone is enough now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

binka said:


> yeah he's still involved but on suspension, sort or, they accused him of uncomradely conduct so he's causing a scene so they have to give him a hearing after the NEC told him to get fucked. I'll prob speak to him on sunday, im sure he will like him because he likes politicans who didnt go to public school


Cheers, ask him as well then if you do see him and feel like it, who he wants and who he thinks will win.


----------



## BandWagon (May 8, 2015)

Get Tony Bliar back! What a masterstroke!


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

People are still talking about David Miliband? Why?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2015)

If chukka manages to take the throne, you owe me a fiver.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> People are still talking about David Miliband? Why?


I've been unable to work out why he was being talked about in the first place. Was there something i couldn't see that others could - or were there other behind the scene stuff that he was the end product of?


----------



## LeMoose (May 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> People are still talking about David Miliband? Why?



Probably because he's a charismatic public speaker who manages to not annoy people when he speaks.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I've been unable to work out why he was being talked about in the first place. Was there something i couldn't see that others could - or were there other behind the scene stuff that he was the end product of?


not sure, he was a worse charisma-free wonk than his brother.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It doesn't matter who becomes leader of Labour. They will now be about as relevant as Woolworths.



Not true, that.  They're still the second-largest parliamentary party by a long way and will lead the official opposition.  Barring something happening which resembles the collapse of PASOK and rise of Syriza in Greece - which, let's face it, is deeply unlikely - they're going to remain so for the foreseeable future.

I can see them going for someone relatively young, and not associated with the last Labour government.  Either that or Burnham, or conceivably Chuka Ummuna.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

LeMoose said:


> Probably because he's a charismatic public speaker who manages to not annoy people when he speaks.


Public speaking eh? Yes that's it it in 2015.

Not annoying people when he does it? What, no matter what he says? Annoying some people is the art a politician must have. Not having it would make a bad bad leader.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Not true, that.  They're still the second-largest parliamentary party by a long way and will lead the official opposition.  Barring something happening which resembles the collapse of PASOK and rise of Syriza in Greece - which, let's face it, is deeply unlikely - they're going to remain so for the foreseeable future.
> 
> I can see them going for someone relatively young, and not associated with the last Labour government.  Either that or Burnham, or conceivably Chuka Ummuna.


I was going to write this earlier - labour have not been knocked out of the game, they have again show they have a rock hard 28% bedrock. To hols onto that is (in the terms of electoral bollocks) pretty good. Not great but shows they ain't going anywhere - even in the age of 5 parties or whatever it is. A 28% bedrock. Signs of UKIP chipping at it, but medium long term,long enough to put down roots and supplant labour in safe solid seats - nah.


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 8, 2015)

Its worth bearing in mind that the election process has changed even from Miliband's election as leader. No election colleges, nomination is 35 MPs, one person one vote across membership, affiliated bodies (i.e. unions etc.) and registered supporters. Could be interesting.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2015)

I've got a fiver on Chuka Umunna if anyone wants it. He seems like just the kind of leader that the PR people and party technocrats would love as he's pretty much a blank slate, but a competent and presentable one.


----------



## LeMoose (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Public speaking eh? Yes that's it it in 2015.
> 
> Not annoying people when he does it? What, no matter what he says? Annoying some people is the art a politician must have. Not having it would make a bad bad leader.



I don't know most of these politicians from Adam. I can judge them based on their public appeal and then, if they become leader, judge them on the manifesto they come up with.

People in this thread are suggesting Chuka. What makes him a good candidate? People probably like the way he talks and think he'd be a good communicator.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I was going to write this earlier - labour have not been knocked out of the game, they have again show they have a rock hard 28% bedrock. To hols onto that is (in the terms of electoral bollocks) pretty good. Not great but shows they ain't going anywhere - even in the age of 5 parties or whatever it is. A 28% bedrock. Signs of UKIP chipping at it, but medium long term,long enough to put down roots and supplant labour in safe solid seats - nah.



Agreed.  I was thinking in terms of them being supplanted from the left, but it's equally unlikely from the likes of the Kippers.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

LeMoose said:


> I don't know most of these politicians from Adam. I can judge them based on their public appeal and then, if they become leader, judge them on the manifesto they come up with.
> 
> People in this thread are suggesting Chuka. What makes him a good candidate? People probably like the way he talks and think he'd be a good communicator.


So what exactly are you going to judge people on here and when? On _what _they say at the end point, but before that, _how _they say it? 

Because they can spot slimey pr dicks when they see it and think slimey pr obsessed dicks who run the labour party and want to see slimey pr dicks leading the party would boost him.


----------



## BigMoaner (May 8, 2015)

give it to hte other miliband, next


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

LeMoose said:


> I don't know most of these politicians from Adam. I can judge them based on their public appeal and then, if they become leader, judge them on the manifesto they come up with.
> 
> People in this thread are suggesting Chuka. What makes him a good candidate? People probably like the way he talks and think he'd be a good communicator.


and he's alive, which is always a good start


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 8, 2015)

BigMoaner said:


> give it to hte other miliband, next



He's manning one of the Thunderbirds now and would need a safe byelection. Seems desperately unlikely.


----------



## Up the junction (May 8, 2015)

Burnham just isn't bright enough, imo.

Yvette Cooper hasn't really got proper leadership qualities.

Chucka could do a reasonable impression of George Osborne as a Labour tough cop.

Probably too soon for Rachael Reeves, plus the baby is due soon anyway.

Very difficult.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Burnham just isn't bright enough, imo.
> 
> Yvette Cooper hasn't really got proper leadership qualities.
> 
> ...


Excellent. 

Jesus.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Is this one of your more _earthy _friends Maurice?


----------



## Up the junction (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent.
> 
> Jesus.


And what are your suggestions?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

Alan johnson out of the picture, too old now?  He always came across as quite human and personable despite being on the right of the party.  I'd imagine he's no longer interested, but reckon he'd draw some back in from UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> And what are your suggestions?


What are my faux insider suggestions? I think i'll skip that one.


----------



## Up the junction (May 8, 2015)

That does seem your style. Bob and weave.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (May 8, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've got a fiver on Chuka Umunna if anyone wants it. He seems like just the kind of leader that the PR people and party technocrats would love as he's pretty much a blank slate, but a competent and presentable one.



I like Chuka a lot, but what was that about bald leaders being unelectable?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1396911.stm


----------



## Up the junction (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I was going to write this earlier - labour have not been knocked out of the game, they have again show they have a rock hard 28% bedrock. To hols onto that is (in the terms of electoral bollocks) pretty good. Not great but shows they ain't going anywhere - even in the age of 5 parties or whatever it is. A 28% bedrock. Signs of UKIP chipping at it, but medium long term,long enough to put down roots and supplant labour in safe solid seats - nah.


Even with Scotland, the Labour vote increased nationally (by 1.5). It also increased more than the Tory vote increased nationally. Labour took almost all their London targets.

Somewhere in there is a partial comparison with the last Mayoral election. Lynton Crosby explains some more, as does Miliband.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Who didn't mate, who didn't.


He reckons both the current front runners are too lightweight and umuna hasn't enough experience either way. He's pretty gloomy tonight, mind...


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> He reckons both the current front runners are too lightweight and umuna hasn't enough experience either way. He's pretty gloomy tonight, mind...


Who isn't mate, who isn't.


----------



## Dandred (May 8, 2015)

LOL, penis vote? 

Sad, bunch.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 8, 2015)

Maybe someone should go and knock on Ruth Kelly's door.
HSBC are going to bugger off overseas anyway.


----------



## Dandred (May 8, 2015)

If you voted penis, tough shit....

I hate tory, but come on U75............. 

Don't complain for the next fives years if you didn't vote...


----------



## Dandred (May 8, 2015)

I was counted, were you?


----------



## belboid (May 8, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Labour took almost all their London targets.


7 out of 12


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

Dandred said:


> If you voted penis, tough shit....
> 
> I hate tory, but come on U75.............
> 
> Don't complain for the next fives years if you didn't vote...


Fuck off with this.


----------



## Dandred (May 8, 2015)




----------



## Dandred (May 8, 2015)

Respect the people!


----------



## Dandred (May 8, 2015)

Working class cunts.


----------



## killer b (May 8, 2015)

What did you do, other than vote?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've got a fiver on Chuka Umunna if anyone wants it. He seems like just the kind of leader that the PR people and party technocrats would love as he's pretty much a blank slate, but a competent and presentable one.



Competence is in the eye of the beholder.
Is he good at schmoozing the City? Yep.
Is he a halfway-decent constituency MP? Is he fuck!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

LeMoose said:


> I don't know most of these politicians from Adam. I can judge them based on their public appeal and then, if they become leader, judge them on the manifesto they come up with.
> 
> People in this thread are suggesting Chuka. What makes him a good candidate? People probably like the way he talks and think he'd be a good communicator.



He *is* a good communicator when it comes to big business.
It's just a pity that apart from being personable to people with power, and being part of the ruling class (daddy was a colonial high court judge), he's fucking useless, and a gobshite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Burnham just isn't bright enough, imo.
> 
> Yvette Cooper hasn't really got proper leadership qualities.
> 
> ...



Any...you know...evidence to support your analyses?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> And what are your suggestions?



That you're an ignorant dick.

HTH HAND


----------



## agricola (May 8, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> they were generally put in the shadow cabinet to have them in the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in.



Sadly though all we are left with now is a tent that reeks of piss.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chuka's an empty vessel, so he'd be perfect for the right of the party, and he'd play really well with the middle class wiberal vote that Labour cultivate. Plus they could score loads of wiberal points because he's (ruling class) black.



This


----------



## Up the junction (May 8, 2015)

Goodness, what an intimidating hive mind. 

Well done everyone for getting so much right about this election. All those months of putting up messages on U75 wasn't wasted.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

jannerboyuk said:


> Its worth bearing in mind that the election process has changed even from Miliband's election as leader. No election colleges, nomination is 35 MPs, one person one vote across membership, affiliated bodies (i.e. unions etc.) and registered supporters. Could be interesting.


How you mean one person one vote across affiliated  bodies? They don't each make up 33% each now? How is one person one vote going to work?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Goodness, what an intimidating hive mind.
> 
> Well done everyone for getting so much right about this election. All those months of putting up messages on U75 wasn't wasted.



Whatevs, knobchops. Whatevs.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

agricola said:


> Sadly though all we are left with now is a tent that reeks of piss.


in a field in the fucking middle of nowhere which is filled with detritus of every sort


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Goodness, what an intimidating hive mind.
> 
> Well done everyone for getting so much right about this election. All those months of putting up messages on U75 wasn't wasted.


for all your sound and fury you er signify nothing


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I was counted, were you?


no. I wasn't counted by any of the parties offered on the sheet. They all think I'm lumpen scum that should fuck off.

Who were you counted by? made you feel special did it? fucking prat


----------



## oryx (May 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Competence is in the eye of the beholder.
> Is he good at schmoozing the City? Yep.
> Is he a halfway-decent constituency MP? Is he fuck!



Sadly while it really should, I'm not sure that being a good constituency counts that much when it comes to the high end.

Can't see it being Ummuna as he's too inexperienced. More likely Cooper or Burnham. So far, I'd like to see Burnham.

Please not fucking Reeves. I saw her speaking the other day and her charisma is such that it makes Miliband look like JFK. Plus her hateful comments about Labour being the party of working people.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've got a fiver on Chuka Umunna if anyone wants it. He seems like just the kind of leader that the PR people and party technocrats would love as he's pretty much a blank slate, but a competent and presentable one.


hold on, I've already claimed the fivers on that front. Because I am a good socialist you can share the winnings with me. But don't go around like the fiver Baron claiming up all the fivers. Its not correct.


----------



## coley (May 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He *is* a good communicator when it comes to big business.
> It's just a pity that apart from being personable to people with power, and being part of the ruling class (daddy was a colonial high court judge), he's fucking useless, and a gobshite.



I honestly thought he was Tory the first few times I saw him on the box, he just so looks and sounds 'the part'


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

oryx said:


> Sadly while it really should, I'm not sure that being a good constituency counts that much when it comes to the high end.
> 
> Can't see it being Ummuna as he's too inexperienced. More likely Cooper or Burnham. So far, I'd like to see Burnham.



Umunna is more malleable IMO. Cooper or Burnham have a fragment more political maturity (although they're equally asideologically-lightweight as Chuckles is)



> Please not fucking Reeves. I saw her speaking the other day and her charisma is such that it makes Miliband look like JFK. Plus her hateful comments about Labour being the party of working people.



The woman has all the charisma of an un-darned sock, doesn't she?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

coley said:


> I honestly thought he was Tory the first few times I saw him on the box, he just so looks and sounds 'the part'



Yup.
The first time someone said "he's like a British Obama", my reply was "because he's black and a politician, not because he's got enough skill to run first a state, then an entire country". 
He's horribly glib too, and always plays to the audience.


----------



## coley (May 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup.
> The first time someone said "he's like a British Obama", my reply was "because he's black and a politician, not because he's got enough skill to run first a state, then an entire country".
> He's horribly glib too, and always plays to the audience.


Think there's any chance he might 'flip' ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

coley said:


> Think there's any chance he might 'flip' ?



Probably not - that'd show him up as an arch-opportunist, and he's desperate for "the right people" to like him.


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> How you mean one person one vote across affiliated  bodies? They don't each make up 33% each now? How is one person one vote going to work?


Sorry to cause confusion, I just mean you qualify for a vote as a member of the party or affiliated body and or registered supporter


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

jannerboyuk said:


> Sorry to cause confusion, I just mean you qualify for a vote as a member of the party or affiliated body and or registered supporter


Same regs as before

Maurice johnson being bothered.


----------



## Corax (May 8, 2015)

For me - Cooper or Burnham, with a pre-planned re-election after 2 years.


----------



## Corax (May 8, 2015)

Dan Jarvis too.  He'd probably be shit for all I know, but he'd win votes...


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Same regs as before
> 
> Maurice johnson being bothered.


Not really as there are no colleges, at least that's how I read this


----------



## coley (May 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Probably not - that'd show him up as an arch-opportunist, and he's desperate for "the right people" to like him.


Whey, " arch opportunism" seems to be a fairly common trait in politics, and the " right people" are now firmly ensconced in Westminster, pardon me while I have a good howk, but your closer to that kind of action and see these people daily,  so we will wait and see.
I would prefer 'wait and shoot'


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

coley said:


> Whey, " arch opportunism" seems to be a fairly common trait in politics, and the " right people" are now firmly ensconced in Westminster, pardon me while I have a good howk, but your closer to that kind of action and see these people daily,  so we will wait and see.
> I would prefer 'wait and shoot'



When I say "arch-opportunist" about a politician, it means "an arch-opportunist *beyond* what we normally expect from a politician".


----------



## oryx (May 9, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32654262

I did suggest Hunt (not that I particularly like him) might be in the running and my partner laughed at me!

Never even heard of Liz Kendall.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 9, 2015)

Chuka.


----------



## Dr. Furface (May 9, 2015)

oryx said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32654262
> 
> Never even heard of Liz Kendall.


She's got no chance - hopefully.


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> no. I wasn't counted by any of the parties offered on the sheet.



So we are going to have to deal with your whining for the next four years? 




DotCommunist said:


> Who were you counted by? made you feel special did it? fucking prat


I voted green, at least the next time their candidate will have a reason. 

Russel brand is a twat, why follow his shitty ideas?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

green. of course you did.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

brand advocated labour or green btw, you muppet


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> What did you do, other than vote?



I told people on a message board I was working class but I refuse to vote, then I told them to draw a big cock on the ballot. Next I will be complaining for fours years because my spunking cock let the Tories back in.


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> brand advocated labour or green btw, you muppet



Last minute. Too late, you were brain washed.


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> green. of course you did.



Spunking cock?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

dan the man voted labour and now he feels sore of backside. Heres a clue fuckwit: some of us have never treated parliamentary politics as anything other than the shadow Capital casts on society.

go chew on that while you cry into your latte, bellend


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> some of us have never treated parliamentary politics as anything other than the shadow Capital casts on society.



Quoting Russel Brand again? He really shouldn't be your idol, he is a twat.





DotCommunist said:


> go chew on that while you cry into your latte, bellend


I'm enjoying tea, with two sugars. In a hot a sunny place, at least my postal ballot did more than yours. Enjoy the next four spunking cock years!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 9, 2015)

Dandred said:


> In a hot a sunny place, at least my postal ballot did more than yours. Enjoy the next four spunking cock years!



Nothing wrong with spoiling your ballot. If you don't agree with any of the options on offer, what use would voting for one or the other serve?


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

Influencing policy; people voted UKIP, so the Tories and Labor changed their policies. Not that hard to work out, is it? 

However, spunking cock does nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

Jesus


----------



## Idris2002 (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus


No that's Russell Brand. Easy mistake to make, mind.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus


Still no opinion of your own?


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2015)

My money's on Burnham (not literally, yet - depends on the odds) - the unions will get behind him as the least worst option.  Right wing will fall behind either Umunna or Jarvis, Cooper will probably stand and pick up some support.  

Can Murphy really hold on in Scotland???


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Still no opinion of your own?


None.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

Enjoy your party btw morris.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

'Jesus'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> My money's on Burnham (not literally, yet - depends on the odds) - the unions will get behind him as the least worst option.  Right wing will fall behind either Umunna or Jarvis, Cooper will probably stand and pick up some support.
> 
> Can Murphy really hold on in Scotland???


I thought no one knew any thing about him? A little upstart not from london.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> 'Jesus'.


_What a smashing blouse._


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Jarvis, Cooper


Almost a decent front man.

How about a centrist coalition poet: Jarvis Cooper Clark


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _What a smashing blouse._


Racist!

At least it's finally an opinion.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Racist!
> 
> At least it's finally an opinion.


Did you score with the man himself at the back of the 100 club? What a life.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

_I'm 54 you know_


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

Jesus wants you for a sunbeam


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

_I voted in the 70s - i know all about everything_


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I thought no one knew any thing about him? A little upstart not from london.


a) I never said that, and b) he's done himself a lot of favours in the last 5 years.   He's 5/2 2nd fav with the bookies - get you bets on him early doors


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

Seriously, Burnham isn't that bright.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> a) I never said that, and b) he's done himself a lot of favours in the last 5 years.   He's 5/2 2nd fav with the bookies - get you bets on him early doors


Early doors like what w/c northern people say?

I think i did didn't i?


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

so, not Burnham then.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 9, 2015)

I rekon it will be chuka. Good on TV, articulate, fresh face, young, will be presented as 'british obama'. And a right winger who wont frighten the establishment horses. 

Racahel Reeves - no chance. She is very smart (regional chess champion) but she is a charisma free, professional politician with a very boring voice. Ive met her and she is not someone who people are going to rally behind - plus she has a sprog on the way.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 9, 2015)

Chess players are not smart. They are merely good at chess.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Chess players are not smart. They are merely good at chess.


Tell that to Nigel Short. Oh...


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Early doors like what w/c northern people say?
> 
> I think i did didn't i?


no, more like what football commentators say.   

You picked him for the previous leadership contest when he was seen as a make-weight.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> no, more like what football commentators say.
> 
> You picked him for the previous leadership contest when he was seen as a make-weight.


Apart from not picking him for a previous leadership contest but saying he was a party fav (you, of course, denied this). that's pretty spot on.

'seen as' - i wonder who is _seeing _here?


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from not picking him for a previous leadership contest but saying he was a party fav (you, of course, denied this). that's pretty spot on.
> 
> 'seen as' - i wonder who is _seeing _here?


If we're talking about predictions, my argument that UKIP would get squeezed into having a negligible overall impact has stood up.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> If we're talking about predictions, my argument that UKIP would get squeezed into having a negligible overall impact has stood up.


You mean you agreed with everyone. Well done.


----------



## articul8 (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You mean you agreed with everyone. Well done.


Ah, hindsight is a wonderful thing.  I distinctly remember you arguing that they were some new insurgent political force going to sweep the labour heartlands...


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Can Murphy really hold on in Scotland???


weepiper posted this useful tool elsewhere: https://hasjimmurphyresignedyet.wordpress.com/


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

they did sweep the labour heartlands.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Ah, hindsight is a wonderful thing.  I distinctly remember you arguing that they were some new insurgent political force going to sweep the labour heartlands...


No i didn't. Can you quote me 'distinctly' saying any such thing?  I presume this is of the same order of memory of me saying the BNP will have many MPs in 2010 despite me explicitly arguing that they wouldn't in your mag at your request? Good stuff. I await your _distinctly_.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> they did sweep the labour heartlands.


2nds all over the shop.


----------



## The Boy (May 9, 2015)

.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> 2nds all over the shop.


I just posted this in the UKIP thread - the biggest numbers are all Labour areas (although the NW is lower than I'd expected - any idea why?)

North E 16.7 
Yorkshire 16.7 
West Mid 16 
East 16.4 
East Mid 15.3 
South E 14.9 
South W 14 
North W 13.7 
London 8.2


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> I just posted this in the UKIP thread - the biggest numbers are all Labour areas (although the NW is lower than I'd expected - any idea why?)
> 
> North E 16.7
> Yorkshire 16.7
> ...


Don't know on NW - will have a think. Those figures do not show the UKIP collapse _when shit gets real _ that many expected. That many means a significant activist base from which to further expand and who will learn how to do this sort of politics...


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

I never knew the north east was such a popular place for colonels to retire to, must say.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> I never knew the north east was such a popular place for colonels to retire to, must say.


First pages of the long running UKIP thread make for good reading now.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> My money's on Burnham (not literally, yet - depends on the odds) - the unions will get behind him as the least worst option.  Right wing will fall behind either Umunna or Jarvis, Cooper will probably stand and pick up some support.
> 
> Can Murphy really hold on in Scotland???



Burnham seems to be a decent guy, but he seems to fall apart when interrogated, and there is Mid Staffs,

Maybe Jarvis or a relatively unknown, not my views though


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> I just posted this in the UKIP thread - the biggest numbers are all Labour areas (although the NW is lower than I'd expected - any idea why?)
> 
> North E 16.7
> Yorkshire 16.7
> ...



Could it be in some places like Birkenhead(got rid of McVile), Wigan, etc, there is still a small but effective working class left.


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Almost a decent front man.
> 
> How about a centrist coalition poet: Jarvis Cooper Clark



Let's have Jarvis Cocker instead


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 9, 2015)

NW is in part a successful metropolis, so not odd that its politics are London-like at times and kippers do less well.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Quoting Russel Brand again? He really shouldn't be your idol, he is a twat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



dan the man postal voted green. Save the fucking whales. ex pat cunt


----------



## Sprocket. (May 9, 2015)

Just heard on the BBC David Lammy is prepared to stand if colleagues would like him too. Sorry cannot link from this clockwork device!


----------



## Belushi (May 9, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Just heard on the BBC David Lammy is prepared to stand if colleagues would like him too. Sorry cannot link from this clockwork device!



It's going to be a battle of the "British Barack Obama's" between him and Chuka!

Lammy is my MP, I thought he had his sight firmly set on the Mayorality


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

Belushi said:


> It's going to be a battle of the "British Barack Obama's" between him and Chuka!
> 
> Lammy is my MP, I thought he had his sight firmly set on the Mayorality


He mentioned precisely that when quizzed Thursday night. With that shit eating smile of his.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 9, 2015)

Belushi said:


> It's going to be a battle of the "British Barack Obama's" between him and Chuka!
> 
> Lammy is my MP, I thought he had his sight firmly set on the Mayorality



I was thinking he would be better at replacing Boz than Ed.
Always impressed with his performances. How is he as a constituency MP?


----------



## Belushi (May 9, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> I was thinking he would be better at replacing Boz than Ed.
> Always impressed with his performances. How is he as a constituency MP?



I haven't been here long enough to tell really (my previous MP was Chuka in Streatham and he's full of himself) he says the right things to appeal to the local electorate, but a donkey in a Labour rosette will get elected in Tottenham. 

Been positioning himself more to the right recently with a view to the Mayors seat.


----------



## Belushi (May 9, 2015)

He's no Bernie Grant sadly


----------



## Belushi (May 9, 2015)

Sadiq Khan (who was my MP in Tooting ) is interested in a run at Mayor, he seemed a pretty decent sort when I lived in his constituency.


----------



## cantsin (May 9, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've got a fiver on Chuka Umunna if anyone wants it. He seems like just the kind of leader that the PR people and party technocrats would love as he's pretty much a blank slate, but a competent and presentable one.



Shiny , charismatic,centrist but too smooth , public school + "lite" ? Remember reading that hes repeatedly shown himself to be not sturdy/resilient  enough re: detail ?


----------



## Sprocket. (May 9, 2015)

I have always lived in the Doncaster and Rotherham area and know too  well how any Labour Party member gets voted in however ineffective they are. 
They once had a conservative mp from Doncaster. So it is still seen as the most right wing town in South Yorkshire!


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Sadiq Khan (who was my MP in Tooting ) is interested in a run at Mayor, he seemed a pretty decent sort when I lived in his constituency.



He seems ok, but does he have the charisma?


----------



## Sprocket. (May 9, 2015)

We currently have, Ed, Caroline Flint and Rosie Winterton at least Rosie went to school here.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 9, 2015)

IMO I see Cooper and Jarvis being front runners.


----------



## Belushi (May 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> He seems ok, but does he have the charisma?



charisma got us Boris..


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> IMO I see Cooper and Jarvis being front runners.




Cooper will be appalling on the welfare issues.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

Get a grip. She hasn't got a leadership bone in her body.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> He seems ok, but does he have the charisma?


fucking charisma. is that what you think went wrong?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Influencing policy; people voted UKIP, so the Tories and Labor changed their policies. Not that hard to work out, is it?



And that influenced policy how? You appear to be mistaking UKIP's quasi-legitimation of the existing anti-immigration debate for "influencing policy". The policy pre-exists UKIP for both main parties.



> However, spunking cock does nothing.



Because the withdrawal of the electorate from the electoral system does nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus



The fact that Picarda "liked" it says it all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2015)

Belushi said:


> He's no Bernie Grant sadly



Few are, unfortunately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2015)

cantsin said:


> Shiny , charismatic,centrist but too smooth , public school + "lite" ? Remember reading that hes repeatedly shown himself to be not sturdy/resilient  enough re: detail ?



He's also a gobshite who put himself forward as "the voice of Brixton" after the "Thatcher's Dead!" party, voicing a pro-Thatcher sentiment very few Brixtonites actually felt.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> fucking charisma. is that what you think went wrong?



of course not, but it plays a part, have a look at the Reddit page, its very instructive.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's also a gobshite who put himself forward as "the voice of Brixton" after the "Thatcher's Dead!" party, voicing a pro-Thatcher sentiment very few Brixtonites actually felt.



isn't he the Hammer of the Squatter too or am I confusing him with some other wank?


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> of course not, but it plays a part, have a look at the Reddit page, its very instructive.


Do you think Cameron is charismatic?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> isn't he the Hammer of the Squatter too or am I confusing him with some other wank?



No, he did put his name to an anti-Squatter press release, and voted for the criminalisation of squatting of residential property.


----------



## cantsin (May 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's also a gobshite who put himself forward as "the voice of Brixton" after the "Thatcher's Dead!" party, voicing a pro-Thatcher sentiment very few Brixtonites actually felt.


Forgot about that


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

now that Galloway is out, is there anyone in parliament with charisma? Cameron's delivery has all the charisma of a finance director addressing the shareholders. With powerpoint slides.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Get a grip. She hasn't got a leadership bone in her body.


Where did I say I endorsed her, just saying what I thought the members would go for, because Ed was obviously a storming choice too was he not!


----------



## billy_bob (May 9, 2015)

Cooper has been known to speak like a normal human, as does Burnham now and then, which would make a nice change. Better than Rachel Reeves - if you were going to make a futuristic thriller about a robot specifically designed to never be capable of developing conscious thought or human emotions she'd be the perfect lead. But I don't hold out much hope for the substance being anything other than reheated New Labour under either of them.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2015)

A new leader should come out robustly against TTIP, its not a bubble issue, it will affect for instance sovereignty in a big way.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Better than Rachel Reeves - if you were going to make a futuristic thriller about a robot specifically designed to never be capable of developing conscious thought or human emotions she'd be the perfect lead.


Well that's Cator Park Girls School for you.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> A new leader should come out robustly against TTIP, its not a bubble issue, it will affect for instance sovereignty in a big way.


No one cares. FFs. 

I've tried with you. But this is beyond.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> now that Galloway is out, is there anyone in parliament with charisma? Cameron's delivery has all the charisma of a finance director addressing the shareholders. With powerpoint slides.



I was going to mention that hague done a funny speech one during the brown era, but on checking the internet says he's retired this year. From politics at least.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 9, 2015)

treelover said:


> A new leader should come out robustly against TTIP, its not a bubble issue, it will affect for instance sovereignty in a big way.



Ok and then leave the EU if TTIP happens, isn't modified sufficiently?


----------



## Mr Moose (May 9, 2015)

We are all going to hate any new Labour Leader. The country will hate the new leader. The Labour Party will hate their new leader. 

So get someone to do it as a purely managerial position. They wouldn't have to believe in it, just do it well. 

Mourinho?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 9, 2015)

How about getting in nicola strugeon on a secondment?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> We are all going to hate any new Labour Leader. The country will hate the new leader. The Labour Party will hate their new leader.
> 
> So get someone to do it as a purely managerial position. They wouldn't have to believe in it, just do it well.
> 
> Mourinho?



you know, often when I look at the make up of the modern PLP thats my first thought. They need more fucking manegerial sorts. lol


----------



## Mr Moose (May 9, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> How about getting in nicola strugeon on a secondment?



Popular choice, but she might get fed up of spending so much time in England - I mean given Labour's showing there wouldn't be much call for her to go North anytime soon. She'd have to just give Scotland an occasional wistful glance over the border.

As will, somewhat ironically, those cock a hoop new SNP MPs. _'What? I have to spend how much time in bloody England?'_


----------



## Mr Moose (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you know, often when I look at the make up of the modern PLP thats my first thought. They need more fucking manegerial sorts. lol



Yeah yeah. Freedom for Tooting.


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you know, often when I look at the make up of the modern PLP thats my first thought. They need more fucking manegerial sorts. lol



How does anyone think this is not already the case? One of the first things that struck me about the posh HR woman at my work that came and 'nicely' laid off people (told them there was nothing to worry about before talking about redundancies) last week was how similar her appearance, cadence and vocabulary was to politicians generally. I struggle to see a huge amount of difference between political parties and consultancies these days.


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2015)

Let's just get the bullshit out of the way. Get rid of the parties - let's vote for Tesco or PwC to run the country.


----------



## susie12 (May 9, 2015)

According to Private Eye the NHS are in talks with Tesco.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

may as well let g4s run the internal policing too just to get the full Robocop dystopian satire effect


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> may as well let g4s run the internal policing too just to get the full Robocop dystopian satire effect



Not satire.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 9, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Let's just get the bullshit out of the way. Get rid of the parties - let's vote for Tesco or PwC to run the country.



Or Next! Sorry they already do!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Yeah yeah. Freedom for Tooting.


nah, you've got to say something about russel brand these days, almost nobody under 30 will get your old mannish references


----------



## Idris2002 (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, you've got to say something about russel brand these days, almost nobody under 30 will get your old mannish references



yeah, the telly never runs repeats or anything does it?


----------



## Belushi (May 9, 2015)

the kids don't watch telly dude, it's all vines this and sexting that..


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 9, 2015)

These new rules for Labour leadership elections are weird. Anyone can sign up as a "registered supporter" and get a vote. I just did. So can any Tory, mischief maker or loonspud - or anyone wih the IT skills and Experian data to manufacture and register fake IDs in bulk.

It really should be tied to membership, set at at least £20, to discourage that sort of thing.


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> dan the man postal voted green. Save the fucking whales. ex pat cunt



Green or red grapes?


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> dan the man postal voted green. Save the fucking whales. ex pat cunt


----------



## cesare (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> dan the man postal voted green. Save the fucking whales. ex pat cunt


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

Where is my rattle?


----------



## Dandred (May 9, 2015)

Oh, it's over there, next to Russle Brand's spunking cock vote....


----------



## DotCommunist (May 9, 2015)

russel told the grateful proleteriat to vote labour or green. We've been over this. However in your desperation to think your postal vote for the malthusians counts for shit you have to pretend other peoples abstentionism is somehow childish and trendy. Its sad really, a grown man reduced to trashing at non-voters using a flawed taunt and wanking along to whalesong tapes


----------



## cesare (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> russel told the grateful proleteriat to vote labour or green. We've been over this. However in your desperation to think your postal vote for the malthusians counts for shit you have to pretend other peoples abstentionism is somehow childish and trendy. Its sad really, a grown man reduced to trashing at non-voters using a flawed taunt and wanking along to whalesong tapes


From the other side of the world.


----------



## laptop (May 9, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Lammy is my MP, I thought he had his sight firmly set on the Mayorality



I've observed before that Lammy seems to me... intellectually challenged. And his civil servants (back in the day) swore that every time they let him in front of an audience he go off piste and make policy up...


----------



## oryx (May 9, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> These new rules for Labour leadership elections are weird. Anyone can sign up as a "registered supporter" and get a vote. I just did. So can any Tory, mischief maker or loonspud - or anyone wih the IT skills and Experian data to manufacture and register fake IDs in bulk.
> 
> It really should be tied to membership, set at at least £20, to discourage that sort of thing.



I got a call today from Unite about this (I'm a member so no paranoia as I'd have given them my number at some point!). I was under the impression it was tied to being a union member - anyone know?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2015)

I thought the 'registered supporter' had a nominal charge attached - a quid or three quid, something like that. Wolmar (who's running a grass roots campaign for the Labour nomination) was pushing it recently. It's an attempt to get people on board cheaply, but more importantly harvest contact details for future spam. 

Tories were trying a similar thing in some seats, having open primaries, because the bonus of doing this is it makes people aware of the candidate, a bit of mass publicity in advance of the election. I'd vote for the most charmless or freakish looking candidate just to hamper their chances.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> wanking along to whalesong tapes


 Whanking?


----------



## oryx (May 9, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I thought the 'registered supporter' had a nominal charge attached - a quid or three quid, something like that. Wolmar (who's running a grass roots campaign for the Labour nomination) was pushing it recently. It's an attempt to get people on board cheaply, but more importantly harvest contact details for future spam.



Interesting - the guy I spoke to today said there wasn't a cost (I did ask).


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Whanking?


you'll have to imagine that I just thought of a brilliant sperm whale gag


----------



## bemused (May 10, 2015)

cantsin said:


> Shiny , charismatic,centrist but too smooth , public school + "lite" ? Remember reading that hes repeatedly shown himself to be not sturdy/resilient  enough re: detail ?



He's undoubtedly very smart and when he's on the media I enjoy watching him. However, I've never found him particularly likeable on the media. I'm sure he's perfectly charming away from the TV and radio.


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> russel told the grateful proleteriat to vote labour or green.



But you had already been brain washed, he only told you at the last minute. Quite an arrogant little fuck aren't you?



DotCommunist said:


> We've been over this.



No, he said last minute. You were with the grateful proleteriat drawing cocks on your ballot. 



DotCommunist said:


> However in your desperation to think your postal vote for the malthusians counts for shit you have to pretend other peoples abstentionism is somehow childish and trendy. Its sad really, a grown man reduced to trashing at non-voters using a flawed taunt and wanking along to whalesong tapes



You didn't vote. Apart from burning your bra you have no influence in anything that happens. 

There will be no revolution, no bourgeoisie uprising, just sad people like you wanking over an internet forum that has nothing to give, even mums net has more influence.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 10, 2015)

Chuka is all over the media setting out his stall.


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

He's on Andrew Marr now.


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

Bigging up the 'wealth creators'


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

'Big tent' it's like playing Blairite bingo.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Let's have Jarvis Cocker instead


Could have made a John Cooper Clarke joke there as well


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I thought the 'registered supporter' had a nominal charge attached - a quid or three quid, something like that. Wolmar (who's running a grass roots campaign for the Labour nomination) was pushing it recently. It's an attempt to get people on board cheaply, but more importantly harvest contact details for future spam.
> 
> Tories were trying a similar thing in some seats, having open primaries, because the bonus of doing this is it makes people aware of the candidate, a bit of mass publicity in advance of the election. I'd vote for the most charmless or freakish looking candidate just to hamper their chances.




I think it was decided that there would be a £3 fee for voting in the mayoral election; perhaps the cost for voting in the leadership one is yet to be established.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> But you had already been brain washed, he only told you at the last minute. Quite an arrogant little fuck aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you don't have the slightest clue you ex pat freak. With your big green vote. By the way, nice line in confused misogyny too- bras were burned for the right to vote not the right to abstain. Aren't you supposed to be an educator of some sort. thick twat. 'bourgeoisie uprising' yeah- don't use words you don't know without googling them first chap cos it makes you look a right bell.


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

The results analysis on the media was bad enough, but this morning's cross-media competition to present as the most right-wing, aspirational leadership candidate is utterly nauseating.


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

Chuka is well out of the traps and positioning himself as the new Blair


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

The left candidates haven't emerged yet, though. You'd expect them to be a bit more squeamish about setting out their stall so early.


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Chuka is well out of the traps and positioning himself as the new Blair


..and 'sounds like' is all over the media like a rash presenting himself as the 'posh as cameron'/UKIP friendly (white) option.


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The *left candidates* haven't emerged yet, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Chuka is well out of the traps and positioning himself as the new Blair


the difference is imo blair had an ounce of political nous, no matter he's a shit of the first water.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The left candidates haven't emerged yet, though. You'd expect them to be a bit more squeamish about setting out their stall so early.


to what left candidates do you refer?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



Well, it's dificult to identify who would try and capture the dinosaur vote until they make themselves known, but I'd be astonished if Andy Burnham is the furthest candidate to the left.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Chuka is well out of the traps and positioning himself as the new Blair


The man who would be king


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> The man who would be king



If only it ends like the novel..


----------



## Libertad (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Bigging up the 'wealth creators'



I heard Tristram Hunt on John Pienaar's show say that he believed that Labour had lost the election "because we failed to appeal to the wealth creators". Fucking arse.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Chuka is well out of the traps and positioning himself as the new Blair



CU has the great misfortune to have been privately educated which blunts the Eton barbs that they like to throw at DC.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2015)

Libertad said:


> I heard Tristram Hunt on John Pienaar's show say that he believed that Labour had lost the election "because we failed to appeal to the wealth creators". Fucking arse.


I wonder, does he inherit the title Baron Hunt?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

this is going to be a fucking wank few years


----------



## Libertad (May 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder, does he inherit the title Baron Hunt?



I couldn't give a flying fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Libertad said:


> I heard Tristram Hunt on John Pienaar's show say that he believed that Labour had lost the election "because we failed to appeal to the wealth creators". Fucking arse.


on the positive side at least he recognises all the wealth is created by the working class. although it is a strange and clumsy way to put it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Libertad said:


> I couldn't give a flying fuck.


good on you


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

So far we appear to have Chuka, Tristram and David Lammy throwing their hats in the ring, anything from Burnham or Cooper yet?


----------



## Libertad (May 10, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> good on you



I do what little that I'm able to.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> So far we appear to have Chuka, Tristram and David Lammy throwing their hats in the ring, anything from Burnham or Cooper yet?



Other than Cooper's mates registering yvetteforgloriousleader.co.uk, you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2015)

Libertad said:


> I couldn't give a flying fuck.


Ok - def no connection between elite ownership of the labour party (including media management and presentation), their _relaxed _attitude to 'wealth creators' and their distance from w/c. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Libertad (May 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Ok - def no connection between elite ownership of the labour party (including media management and presentation), their _relaxed _attitude to 'wealth creators' and their distance from w/c/. Nothing to see here.



This has been the case for quite some time.


----------



## rioted (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> this is going to be a fucking wank few years


Whereas if Labour had won we'd be looking forward to roses.


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2015)

Libertad said:


> I heard Tristram Hunt on John Pienaar's show say that he believed that Labour had lost the election "because we failed to appeal to the wealth creators". Fucking arse.



Fuck me, if this is the way they are going they are going to fall apart over the next couple of general elections.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

rioted said:


> Whereas if Labour had won we'd be looking forward to roses.


_slightly _less posher accents on the tele was the prospect that brought me hope


----------



## frogwoman (May 10, 2015)

Tbh if this is the way they're carrying on they deserved to lose.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder, does he inherit the title Baron Hunt?


not Berkshire Hunt?


----------



## FiFi (May 10, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tbh if this is the way they're carrying on they deserved to lose.


It hasn't been very encouraging so far, has it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2015)

I'd be very surprised if Chukka or THunt have a snowballs chance of getting elected unless the supporter category really is used effectively by the pluralist slime - they're just the biggest opportunists (getting in there early) I would even be surprised if both of them get enough nominations.

I would guess the three current frontrunners haven't even declared yet properly even if one of them has registered a website


----------



## oryx (May 10, 2015)

From The Guardian: '.....there were calls for a brutal far-reaching debate about the direction of the party, including for Labour to reconnect with the aspiring middle class'.

'Kinell. It's like Miliband and co had threatened to send them to the gulags!


----------



## Flanflinger (May 10, 2015)

oryx said:


> From The Guardian: '.....there were calls for a brutal far-reaching debate about the direction of the party, *including for Labour to reconnect with the aspiring middle class'*.
> 
> 'Kinell. It's like Miliband and co had threatened to send them to the gulags!



Never done Blair any harm. And if Labour fail to recognise that then the Tories can look forward to at least two full terms in Government.


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you don't have the slightest clue you ex pat freak. With your big green vote. By the way, nice line in confused misogyny too- bras were burned for the right to vote not the right to abstain. Aren't you supposed to be an educator of some sort. thick twat. 'bourgeoisie uprising' yeah- don't use words you don't know without googling them first chap cos it makes you look a right bell.



Wow, the toys are hitting the floor like rain! 

Enjoy the next five years. 

I will enjoy mine. Keep posting, make a difference!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

says the man crying into his beer about wussel brand wuining his gween vote

so about those two glaring errors- did you have a google to check and realise you'd mugged yourself? probably best not to, you don't seem the sort who takes his own failings well   etc


----------



## oryx (May 10, 2015)

Flanflinger said:


> Never done Blair any harm. And if Labour fail to recognise that then the Tories can look forward to at least two full terms in Government.


So in what way do you feel Miliband alienated aspiring m/c voters?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

oryx said:


> From The Guardian: '.....there were calls for a brutal far-reaching debate about the direction of the party, including for Labour to reconnect with the aspiring middle class'.
> 
> 'Kinell. It's like Miliband and co had threatened to send them to the gulags!




the whole squeezed middle thing comes into it I suppose- how true that phrase is I do not know but the press has peddled it steadily


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> says the man crying into his beer about wussel brand wuining his gween vote
> 
> so about those two glaring errors- did you have a google to check and realise you'd mugged yourself? probably best not to, you don't seem the sort who takes his own failings well   etc



I'm not crying about anything, got a great job, have loads of qualifications, never need to worry about my future.

You?

Wussle's no vote didn't really do anything for you, did it?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I'm not crying about anything, got a great job, have loads of qualifications, never need to worry about my future.




hook, line and sinker. I knew I could get you sneering like a likkle lord fauntleroy if I pressed the right buttons.


----------



## oryx (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the whole squeezed middle thing comes into it I suppose- how true that phrase is I do not know but the press has peddled it steadily


Squeezed middle is downward trend for wages, upwards for cost of living I think - so freezing energy prices should have appealed along with promising to protect NHS.


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

.


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> hook, line and sinker. I knew I could get you sneering like a likkle lord fauntleroy if I pressed the right buttons.



You have serious issues!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> You have serious issues!


 managed to make the whale-savers green mask slip there eh. Behold the true contempt of the middle class green voter. Who doesn't even live in the polity he's voting in. Lol. Jog on dan the man, you lost again.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I'm not crying about anything, got a great job, have loads of qualifications, never need to worry about my future.
> 
> You?



Wow. Covering yourself with shit there mate.


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

If you didn't vote, tough shit!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

oryx said:


> Squeezed middle is downward trend for wages, upwards for cost of living I think - so freezing energy prices should have appealed along with promising to protect NHS.



There's quite a large unsqueezed middle. If your biggest fixed expense is the mortgage and you don't really notice food prices or utility bills, low interest rates mean that the last five years have been pretty good. 

Ed didn't really talk to that tier of people.


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)




----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

So many people voted for the cunts and they won because so many people didn't vote. 

Well......whine whine whine


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> managed to make the whale-savers green mask slip there eh. Behold the true contempt of the middle class green voter. Who doesn't even live in the polity he's voting in. Lol. Jog on dan the man, you lost again.



Father, coal miner, mother, school technician, I'm more working class that you could ever dream. I worked hard and got my qualifications, you could too. But I doubt you can.

Didn't even finish one year of uni, well go on, burn your bra!


----------



## oryx (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> There's quite a large unsqueezed middle. If your biggest fixed expense is the mortgage and you don't really notice food prices or utility bills, low interest rates mean that the last five years have been pretty good.
> 
> Ed didn't really talk to that tier of people.


So what do you think he should have been saying to them?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Father, coal miner, mother, school technician, I'm more working class that you could ever dream. I worked hard and got my qualifications, you could to. But I doubt you can.
> 
> Didn't even finish one year of uni, well go on, burn your bra!


like clockwork, the proud boast of proleterian lineage. Lol.


----------



## bi0boy (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I'm not crying about anything, got a great job, have loads of qualifications, never need to worry about my future.
> 
> You?
> 
> Wussle's no vote didn't really do anything for you, did it?



You don't live in the UK do you?


----------



## emanymton (May 10, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Wow. Covering yourself with shit there mate.


He's been covering himself in shit all along, that was jumping up and down screaming 'hey look at me I'm covered in shit'.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

oryx said:


> So what do you think he should have been saying to them?



Not sure that there was anything substantially wrong with the policy offer. It was really about tone and messaging. The Labour pitch to the middle classes took it as a given that they were anxious.


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Father, coal miner, mother, school technician, I'm more working class that you could ever dream. I worked hard and got my qualifications, you could too. But I doubt you can.
> 
> Didn't even finish one year of uni, well go on, burn your bra!


 You really are an outright cunt with that sort of stuff.  Just fuck off, go away.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

There's a very strong argument to be made against people who spoil their ballot paper and then complain about the election result, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of ad hominem now and again. But Dandred isn't carrying it off with aplomb, I'm afraid.


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the whole squeezed middle thing comes into it I suppose- how true that phrase is I do not know but the press has peddled it steadily



from where i am - and i'll accept entirely that its quite a privileged location - the 'squeezed middle' wasn't the middle at all, it was the working poor. that 'one paycheque away from a foodbank' group. that, in a way, says something about Milibands' perception of 'the middle' when he thinks that people in that position are in the middle.

it probably contributed to his downfall - if people in that position thought that Miliband considered them 'in the middle', then they probably got the shit scared out of them over who would get the bill for the SNP's wish list. 

if you've had a mortgage for the last decade the recession - assuming you didn't lose your job in it - barely affected you. the worth of my (public sector) pension has reduced, and my pay rises haven't exactly been stratospheric or even kept pace with inflation, but my housing costs have only _decreaced_, while the worth of my house has massively increaced. yes, food, energy etc.. has increased over the decade, but not by a sum we find difficult to cope with or that has materially effected our lifestyle. the discounters, Aldi and Lidl, have probably soaked up most of that increace anyway - 10 years ago i would have shopped at an out-of-town supermarket and done two weeks shopping in one go, now i could go into Aldi and fill my trolley for £50, in 2005 the same thing would have cost me £80 in Sainsburys.

Miliband and Labour didn't give me one word - i wasn't looking for freebies - he just ignored, or wasn't aware of, my existance, and the truth is there's lots of people like me.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I'm not crying about anything, got a great job, have loads of qualifications, never need to worry about my future.


i look forward then to you never snivelling into your bedding as you contemplate another night of lying in a soiled bed as no one bothers to visit you and no one cares about you when you're auld and grey.


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

If Caroline Lucas is genuinely embarrassed about her fuck ups with Brighton bin men, she should take a low carbon long hall flight to wherever Dandred is and shove a wind turbine up his arse.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

kebabking said:


> from where i am - and i'll accept entirely that its quite a privileged location - the 'squeezed middle' wasn't the middle at all, it was the working poor. that 'one paycheque away from a foodbank' group. that, in a way, says something about Milibands' perception of 'the middle' when he thinks that people in that position are in the middle.
> 
> it probably contributed to his downfall - if people in that position thought that Miliband considered them 'in the middle', then they probably got the shit scared out of them over who would get the bill for the SNP's wish list.
> 
> ...



I hear what you are saying- thats not the squeezed middle I read about. I've read articles on people moaning that only one kid gets to go to the 20k a year school etc




> (public sector) pension has reduced


Unison? I picketed against those cuts and marched against them, but no joy from the craven unison


----------



## Flavour (May 10, 2015)

The sad thing is it's people like Dandred who run the Labour party.


----------



## rioted (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> bras were burned for the right to vote not the right to abstain


You can't abstain if you haven't got the right to vote.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

Flavour said:


> The sad thing is it's people like Dandred who run the Labour party.



I don't think that's true at all. Which senior Labour figure reminds you of Dandred?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

rioted said:


> You can't abstain if you haven't got the right to vote.


thats correct. I'm glad you noticed.


----------



## Flavour (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I don't think that's true at all. Which senior Labour figure reminds you of Dandred?



Mandelson today going on about reaching out to the aspirant classes.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Unison? I picketed against those cuts and marched against them, but no joy from the craven unison


"unison? they're not that bad"


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

Flavour said:


> Mandelson today going on about reaching out to the aspirant classes.



Did he mock Andrew Marr for not having made it to the House of Lords and for just being a journalist on a pathetic BBC income? Did he then call him "stroke boy" and mime cardiac collapse before pointing at Marr and snickering?


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

Flavour said:


> Mandelson today going on about reaching out to the aspirant classes.


guacamole cunt.


----------



## Flavour (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Did he mock Andrew Marr for not having made it to the House of Lords and for just being a journalist on a pathetic BBC income? Did he then call him "stroke boy" and mime cardiac collapse before pointing at Marr and snickering?



I like the insinuation the Andrew Marr is on some sort of an intellectual par with DotCommunist.


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2015)

Flavour said:


> Mandelson today going on about reaching out to the aspirant classes.



reaching out to the aspirant - achieved? - classes does not require one to speak in a vile and disgusting way to those less fortunate than oneself.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> guacamole cunt.



Never happened.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Flavour said:


> I like the insinuation the Andrew Marr is on some sort of an intellectual par with DotCommunist.


i rather like the insinuation articul8 is on some sort of intellectual par with a gnat


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

Flavour said:


> I like the insinuation the Andrew Marr is on some sort of an intellectual par with DotCommunist.



Dottie won't.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Dottie won't.


why not write a little ditty for dotty


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

a dirty little ditty for dotty


----------



## rioted (May 10, 2015)

a dirty little ditty for dippy dotty


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'd be very surprised if Chukka or THunt have a snowballs chance of getting elected unless the supporter category really is used effectively by the pluralist slime - they're just the biggest opportunists (getting in there early) I would even be surprised if both of them get enough nominations.
> 
> I would guess the three current frontrunners haven't even declared yet properly even if one of them has registered a website



TBF, the membership base is small enough that whoever is chosen, it's not going to look representative of anything except the rump Labour Party's desire for power. It certainly won't look like democracy in action, even allowing "associate members" a vote.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Father, coal miner, mother, school technician, I'm more working class that you could ever dream. I worked hard and got my qualifications, you could too. But I doubt you can.
> 
> Didn't even finish one year of uni, well go on, burn your bra!



You don't inherit your class status.  What sort of pissant has to call on the class status of his parents to lend credibility to his claimed class?
You plum.


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Never happened.


Bigger truth, world in a grain of sand.  Anyway, next you'll be telling me John Major didn't tuck his shirt into his undercrackers.


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I hear what you are saying- thats not the squeezed middle I read about. I've read articles on people moaning that only one kid gets to go to the 20k a year school etc...



people like that were never considered squeezed, certainly not by the 99.999999999999% of the 'middle' who don't write for the Torygraph. i do hear that kind of guff, as do friends and workmates, but they get the same derisive laugh as the kind of idiot (real life example coming up..) who fucks themselves on an interest only mortgate, pays off no capital, buys two new German cars every 3 years, spends £3k on a fucking _dog_, has two US holidays a year, has new - expensive - clothes every time i see them, happily spends several grand to play fucking golf in portugal for a weekend, and then complains endlessly about being skint.

no union i'm afraid - i've done better than many/most PS on the pay and pension front, but its not going to be what i was told it was going to be. do not, however, think that i'm crying like a princess with no sweets. i'm fucking lucky and i know it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2015)

oryx said:


> From The Guardian: '.....there were calls for a brutal far-reaching debate about the direction of the party, including for Labour to reconnect with the aspiring middle class'.
> 
> 'Kinell. It's like Miliband and co had threatened to send them to the gulags!



That "re-connection with the...middle class" was also touted on the radio this morning by Liz Kendall, who's supposedly a "front runner" in the ruck to replace Miliband.
They really don't have a fucking clue, and are going to see their core vote bleed even more to any party that promises to actually do something for *labour*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I hear what you are saying- thats not the squeezed middle I read about. I've read articles on people moaning that only one kid gets to go to the 20k a year school etc


IIRC that was in _The Guardian_. How the other half fucking lives, eh?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, next you'll be telling me John Major didn't tuck his shirt into his undercrackers.



Alastair Campbell - the author of that particular gem - is probably the figure from the Blair years that the party misses most. He could have invented some brilliant stuff about the Bullingdon mob. I don't even know who was supposed to be chief of spin for Ed.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

kebabking said:


> spends £3k on a fucking _dog_



If my dog was ill and his insurance wouldn't cover treatment, I'd spend £3k on him without thinking about it for a moment. Surely any dog owner would?


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Alastair Campbell - the author of that particular gem - is probably the figure from the Blair years that the party misses most. He could have invented some brilliant stuff about the Bullingdon mob. I don't even know who was supposed to be chief of spin for Ed.


Yes, I loathe the project he undertook and I loathe the tools he used, but I almost admire him.  Having said that, seeing him on the various chat/political progs of late, he seems to have lost his edge slightly. Not quite as vicious and not quite as on the money.


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> That "re-connection with the...middle class" was also touted on the radio this morning by Liz Kendall, who's supposedly a "front runner" in the ruck to replace Miliband.
> They really don't have a fucking clue, and are going to see their core vote bleed even more to any party that promises to actually do something for *labour*.



its not mutually exclusive - in fact i'd say that Labours loss of the 'middle' is as much to do with its lack of ambition for society than anything else.

Labours 'offer' to the middle was 'we won't do anything that will really change the problems of our economy, we'll just skim a bit more off to make life a bit less intolerable for those with the misfortune to be at the shitty end of the stick'. its a shit offer, throw in a couple of episodes of Benefit Street and its nothing at all.

a Labour party that had a _passion_, a real plan for a vastly better society - and this chimes with John Manns' criticism that Miliband had no interest in where societys' money came from, just as long as he could spend it - might have achieved a very different result: where was the clarion call for an HS2 network that went to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Swansea and Penzance by 2030? where was Labours' clarion call for building 750,000 social sector homes by 2025? where was Labours call to reestablish the UK shipbuilding industry by providing the RN with the 35 escorts that _Labour_ said were required (instead of the pitiful 19 that we'll get because Labour were too busy buying off voters to pay for them)?

i've vote for that, _happily_, even though it would cost me a hefty tax rise - but it i'd vote for it because it would help fix problems instead of just putting an expensive sticking plaster over them.


----------



## cesare (May 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Yes, I loathe the project he undertook and I loathe the tools he used, but I almost admire him.  Having said that, seeing him on the various chat/political progs of late, he seems to have lost his edge slightly. Not quite as vicious and not quite as on the money.


A muzzled Malcolm Tucker.


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If my dog was ill and his insurance wouldn't cover treatment, I'd spend £3k on him without thinking about it for a moment. Surely any dog owner would?



buying it, not keeping it well. nasty little shit of thing is is too - they can't have it in the house with their kids. laugh? i nearly shat a kidney.


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

cesare said:


> A muzzled Malcolm Tucker.


----------



## Red Storm (May 10, 2015)

I think the unions will go with Burnham and the right with Dan Jarvis.


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i look forward then to you never snivelling into your bedding as you contemplate another night of lying in a soiled bed as no one bothers to visit you and no one cares about you when you're auld and grey.



You'll be dead far before me. I might go and piss on the paupers grave site. 

Not going to happen to me, at 75 I'm going to coke my head off. With all the money I've made by working hard.


----------



## Dandred (May 10, 2015)

Flavour said:


> The sad thing is it's people like Dandred who run the Labour party.



Green party. 

The sad thing is people complaining about the current government and not actually have even voted.

Twats.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> IIRC that was in _The Guardian_. How the other half fucking lives, eh?


theres been a few others in the mail and telegraph iirc. The mail though was openly ripping the piss, whereas the groan was not


----------



## belboid (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> You'll be dead far before me. I might go and piss on the paupers grave site.
> 
> Not going to happen to me, at 75 I'm going to coke my head off. With all the money I've made by working hard.


typical tory cunt


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I might go and piss on the paupers grave site.


quoted for posterity


----------



## tbtommyb (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Green party.
> 
> The sad thing is people complaining about the current government and not actually have even voted.
> 
> Twats.


oh fuck off.

i'm hoping for less than total derision of the greens here and you're not helping.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

kebabking said:


> no union i'm afraid - i've done better than many/most PS on the pay and pension front, but its not going to be what i was told it was going to be. do not, however, think that i'm crying like a princess with no sweets. i'm fucking lucky and i know it.



ah you are military ennit- had forgotten that. Same as the police then, no unionising allowed but a service peoples association or similar?


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> theres been a few others in the mail and telegraph iirc. The mail though was openly ripping the piss, whereas the groan was not



I've been collecting them in a handy thread format

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/squeezed-middle-watch.316172/


----------



## treelover (May 10, 2015)

oryx said:


> From The Guardian: '.....there were calls for a brutal far-reaching debate about the direction of the party, including for Labour to reconnect with the aspiring middle class'.
> 
> 'Kinell. It's like Miliband and co had threatened to send them to the gulags!



Freedland, guardian big boss has said the 'left approach hasn't worked', 'time for the other one' he will use the resources of the paper to do this, and will lose even more readers.


----------



## Flavour (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Green party.
> 
> The sad thing is people complaining about the current government and not actually have even voted.
> 
> Twats.



You're a nasty piece of work. 

And anyway not voting does not mean not having a right to complain. If anything it's the opposite. Can't believe we still have to go over such basic points.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> *I'd be very surprised if Chukka or THunt have a snowballs chance *of getting elected unless the supporter category really is used effectively by the pluralist slime - they're just the biggest opportunists (getting in there early) I would even be surprised if both of them get enough nominations.
> 
> I would guess the three current frontrunners haven't even declared yet properly even if one of them has registered a website



do you recon they know this and are challenging just to raise profile and so be seen as serious contenders next time the belt is up for grabs?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2015)

Red Storm said:


> I think the unions will go with Burnham and the right with Dan Jarvis.


Jarvis could get Usdaw and Community I would imagine...

I suspect Jarvis would be more able to win the next election than Burnham and certainly all the other contenders including Cooper who will be monstered by the press hungry to drag Balls in


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> do you recon they know this and are challenging just to raise profile and so be seen as serious contenders next time the belt is up for grabs?


Or indeed to get juicy shadow cabinet posts... I dunno Chuka is certainly stupid enough to think he's in contention


----------



## Red Storm (May 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Jarvis could get Usdaw and Community I would imagine...
> 
> I suspect Jarvis would be more able to win the next election than Burnham and certainly all the other contenders including Cooper who will be monstered by the press hungry to drag Balls in



I don't really count Usdaw or Community


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Or indeed to get juicy shadow cabinet posts... I dunno Chuka is certainly stupid enough to think he's in contention



I think he really believes the 'British Barack Obama' tag and thinks this is his moment.


----------



## treelover (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> You'll be dead far before me. I might go and piss on the paupers grave site.
> 
> Not going to happen to me, at 75 I'm going to coke my head off. With all the money I've made by working hard.



Are you sure you are a progressive?


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> Are you sure you are a progressive?



Green, tory on a bike.


----------



## tbtommyb (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Green, tory on a bike.


not all of us are but this dickhead isn't helping


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> not all of us are but this dickhead isn't helping



No you aren't, cheap shot by me but he's a cock.


----------



## tbtommyb (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> No you aren't, cheap shot by me but he's a cock.


i agree. i'm hoping it's a troll, for the sake of the greens...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> You'll be dead far before me. I might go and piss on the paupers grave site.
> 
> Not going to happen to me, at 75 I'm going to coke my head off. With all the money I've made by working hard.


why wait till you're 75?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Green, tory on a bike.


for me, the best of it is him accusing spoilers and abstainers of being brandites when he himself followed the beardy sex pests instructions and voted green. A rich irony indeed.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> ah you are military ennit- had forgotten that. Same as the police then, no unionising allowed but a service peoples association or similar?


nope no equivelant of the Police Federation although there have been various attempts to create one


----------



## rioted (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> With all the money I've made by working hard.


You fucking tosser. Do you not know anybody who works hard but is dirt poor? Its a Tory lie, that the rich worked hard for their money. In fact it's more than a lie it's the ultimate in bollocks.


----------



## Red Storm (May 10, 2015)

I think Tom Watson will get deputy.


----------



## Casually Red (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I might go and piss on the paupers grave site.



Is this fucking bellend for real ?


Wtf ??


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> nope no equivelant of the Police Federation although there have been various attempts to create one



yup, a board is appointed - by the Treas... i mean MOD - of the great and the good to come up with a pay package, with_ guidelines_ provided by the Treas... i mean MOD as to what it should, in general, find. it conducts a thorough review, looks at all the evidence and and vigorously agrees with the Treas... i mean MOD.

again, no handkerchief required here, i do a lot better than many others.


----------



## Casually Red (May 10, 2015)

rioted said:


> You fucking tosser. Do you not know anybody who works hard but is dirt poor? Its a Tory lie, that the rich worked hard for their money. In fact it's more than a lie it's the ultimate in bollocks.



I note he hasn't rebuffed pickmans observation that when he gets old hell be friendless and alone . The despicable attitude tells me that could well be right .


----------



## Casually Red (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If my dog was ill and his insurance wouldn't cover treatment, I'd spend £3k on him without thinking about it for a moment. Surely any dog owner would?






It'd need to be a talking, singing dancing dog that could make fucking paella


----------



## cantsin (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Green party.
> 
> The sad thing is people complaining about the current government and not actually have even voted.
> 
> Twats.



"green " ...lolz .... hopeless


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

Isn't there another Kinnock available now?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2015)

My cat only makes risotto the useless twat


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Isn't there another Kinnock available now?



Stephen, parachuted in to the safe seat of Aberavon.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Stephen, parachuted in to the safe seat of Aberavon.


sadly he landed safely unlike that soldier's wife


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Stephen, parachuted in to the safe seat of Aberavon.


"We're alright!"


----------



## treelover (May 10, 2015)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/after-ballot-box-bloodbath-labour-5670096

That awful woman Carole Malone, saying Labour weren't tough enough on welfare, etc.


----------



## Sue (May 10, 2015)

What about Jim Murphy for Labour leader?


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

Sue said:


> What about Jim Murphy for Labour leader?


What about Denis Healey? He isn't tainted by the turn to neo-liberalism from the 90 onwards. He got in first in and did it in 1976.  Oh, and he was a Major in the army. full fucking package!


----------



## rioted (May 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/after-ballot-box-bloodbath-labour-5670096
> 
> That awful woman Carole Malone, saying Labour weren't tough enough on welfare, etc.





> We need Labour politicians (like Jim Murphy and Alan Johnson) whose brand of socialism doesn’t scare people but makes them feel safe, makes them aspire, makes them want to be part of the larger community – not one that is riven by outdated ideals and class hatred.


Jim Murphy? JIM MURPHY?? The same Jim Murphy?


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

Any blogger or journo using the word Aspire gets 20 Cunt Points.


----------



## tbtommyb (May 10, 2015)

rioted said:


> Jim Murphy? JIM MURPHY?? The same Jim Murphy?


'We need a labour politician whose brand of socialism doesn't involve class'

Fuck sake


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> 'We need a labour politician whose brand of socialism doesn't involve class'
> 
> Fuck sake


politicians whose brand of socialism is er not socialist


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 10, 2015)

I'm trying to find any evidence of where Dan Jarvis stands on anything or whether he's had an independent thought in his life but I'm struggling?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> I'm trying to find any evidence of where Dan Jarvis stands on anything or whether he's had an independent thought in his life but I'm struggling?


why?


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Influencing policy; people voted UKIP, so the Tories and Labor changed their policies. Not that hard to work out, is it?
> 
> However, spunking cock does nothing.


I don't know about that. Parliament's got a lot more pricks in it than anyone expected.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2015)

Umunna has already set out his stall I see. Labour need to focus on 'aspirational' people and stop worrying about the poor. Because the poor don't have aspirations apparently. Mandelson and Blair have chimed in with much the same bullshit.

It's clear where the wind is blowing. No more talk of taking action, even half-arsed window dressing type action, on extortionate rents or zero hour contracts; no more talk of progressive taxation. Only a mad communist would even consider such things. No, Labour needs policies like mumble mumble aspiration mumble mumble pro-business and pro-worker at the same time somehow mumble mumble which definitely won't be exactly the same as tory policies.

It's clearer than ever now why Miliband lost so badly. His entire party has only one idea, to move inexorably rightwards. The working class vote can be taken as a given, all that matters is to steal votes from the tories by imitating them as closely as copyright laws will allow. Miliband didn't lose because he had a handful of vaguely progressive policies but because he didn't have enough, those he had were all half-measures and he didn't mention most of them until a few weeks before the election.


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

Liz Kendall announced to a waiting world that she will stand.


----------



## Roadkill (May 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/after-ballot-box-bloodbath-labour-5670096
> 
> That awful woman Carole Malone, saying Labour weren't tough enough on welfare, etc.



Ugh.  

Just been chatting to my mum about the election result, who made an interesting point, namely that Labour's too focused on its urban support base and doesn't have anything to say to struggling rural communities.  She said that especially in the context of Cornwall, where the Tories wiped out the Lib Dems with Labour pretty much nowhere.  She reckons Labour might have done better - perhaps not to the point of winning seats, but better than it did - if it had something to say about rural public transport, affordable housing (Cornwall AFAIK has the highest disparity between wages and housing costs in the country because of the second-home problem), rural employment, and so on.  Many of those issues are playing out in rural areas all over the country, but Labour just seems to assume that the countryside is true blue and there's nothing they can do about it.  Which is nonsense, given the number of largely rural constituencies that had Liberal MPs until last week and which presumably contain a significant minority who don't vote Tory and might be ripe for the taking now the Lib Dems have imploded.  Obviously it's not and shouldn't be the party's main priority, but I reckon she might have a point that Labour should at least start looking outside the cities and commuter belt.


----------



## gosub (May 10, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Ugh.
> 
> Just been chatting to my mum about the election result, who made an interesting point, namely that Labour's too focused on its urban support base and doesn't have anything to say to struggling rural communities.  She said that especially in the context of Cornwall, where the Tories wiped out the Lib Dems with Labour pretty much nowhere.  She reckons Labour might have done better - perhaps not to the point of winning seats, but better than it did - if it had something to say about rural public transport, affordable housing (Cornwall AFAIK has the highest disparity between wages and housing costs in the country because of the second-home problem), rural employment, and so on.  Many of those issues are playing out in rural areas all over the country, but Labour just seems to assume that the countryside is true blue and there's nothing they can do about it.  Which is nonsense, given the number of largely rural constituencies that had Liberal MPs until last week and which presumably contain a significant minority who don't vote Tory and might be ripe for the taking now the Lib Dems have imploded.  Obviously it's not and shouldn't be the party's main priority, but I reckon she might have a point that Labour should at least start looking outside the cities and commuter belt.



Think thats always been the case, this time not urban/rural per say. I think Labour at present is very London centric.  The only Labour seat in Scotland is the most "Islingston" in Scotland.   I can't see a leader elected from a London constituency turning Labour back into a national force.


----------



## YouSir (May 10, 2015)

RoadKill said:
			
		

> Ugh.
> 
> Just been chatting to my mum about the election result, who made an interesting point, namely that Labour's too focused on its urban support base and doesn't have anything to say to struggling rural communities. She said that especially in the context of Cornwall, where the Tories wiped out the Lib Dems with Labour pretty much nowhere. She reckons Labour might have done better - perhaps not to the point of winning seats, but better than it did - if it had something to say about rural public transport, affordable housing (Cornwall AFAIK has the highest disparity between wages and housing costs in the country because of the second-home problem), rural employment, and so on. Many of those issues are playing out in rural areas all over the country, but Labour just seems to assume that the countryside is true blue and there's nothing they can do about it. Which is nonsense, given the number of largely rural constituencies that had Liberal MPs until last week and which presumably contain a significant minority who don't vote Tory and might be ripe for the taking now the Lib Dems have imploded. Obviously it's not and shouldn't be the party's main priority, but I reckon she might have a point that Labour should at least start looking outside the cities and commuter belt.





gosub said:


> Think thats always been the case, this time not urban/rural per say. I think Labour at present is very London centric.  The only Labour seat in Scotland is the most "Islingston" in Scotland.   I can't see a leader elected from a London constituency turning Labour back into a national force.



In fairness I'm from London and they had fuck all to say about affordable housing, income disparity, un (or under) employment here either.


----------



## Roadkill (May 10, 2015)

gosub said:


> Think thats always been the case, this time not urban/rural per say. I think Labour at present is very London centric.  The only Labour seat in Scotland is the most "Islingston" in Scotland.   I can't see a leader elected from a London constituency turning Labour back into a national force.



Hmm.  It is London-centric, but then British politics is London-centric full stop, and Labour has support in most of the major cities, and some not so major.  If you look at a constituency map the concentrations of red aren't just in London: they're in the West Midlands, the West Yorkshire-Lancashire conurbation, south Wales and the north-east, with red splodges in cities ranging from Exeter and Brighton to Hull and York.  Point is, it is largely urban areas, though, and most of the rest of the country was blue and yellow until last week, and is flat blue now.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> My cat only makes risotto the useless twat


My cat does that, and he keeps it all for himself.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> What about Denis Healey? He isn't tainted by the turn to neo-liberalism from the 90 onwards. He got in first in and did it in 1976.  Oh, and he was a Major in the army. full fucking package!


I had a boss once who was. . .let's just say he was the son of a 70s era Labour MP (no, not DH). I mentioned the IMF deal to him, and he got in a mega-huff.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

maomao said:


> I don't know about that. Parliament's got a lot more pricks in it than anyone expected.


about 647 of the fuckers, only d. skinner, jeremy corbyn and john mcdonnell not on the shitlist.


----------



## Greebo (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If my dog was ill and his insurance wouldn't cover treatment, I'd spend £3k on him without thinking about it for a moment. Surely any dog owner would?


How easily do you think everyone can get hold of £3k?  I'd be paying off that amount for about a decade, if I were lucky enough to be able to borrow it at low interest.  But, as a point of principle, I agree that you do what you can for anyone who matters to you (and that includes animals).


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> What about Denis Healey? He isn't tainted by the turn to neo-liberalism from the 90 onwards. He got in first in and did it in 1976.  Oh, and he was a Major in the army. full fucking package!


my money's on sunny jim callaghan. he's got experience, he won't say anything off-message and he's widely respected. not to mention few people say anything ill of him.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 10, 2015)

I reckon it'll be Chuka. He's like David Miliband mk 2 without the baggage. good on telly and articulate enough to appeal to a wide range of Britain in the same vein as Blair was able to and Ed Milibot wasn't. Can't see anyone else likely to win back govt for Labour at the moment.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> I reckon it'll be Chuka. He's like David Miliband mk 2 without the baggage. good on telly and articulate enough to appeal to a wide range of Britain in the same vein as Blair was able to and Ed Milibot wasn't. Can't see anyone else likely to win back govt for Labour at the moment.


can't see anyone likely to win back govt for labour atm. and not even in five years time, unless they've a young michael foot hiding somewhere in the back.


----------



## Wilf (May 10, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> my money's on sunny jim callaghan. he's got experience, he won't say anything off-message and he's widely respected. not to mention few people say anything ill of him.


Good choice, but I think we need to go a bit further back to get someone the dailymail would approve of
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-decency-duty--stark-contrast-todays-MPs.html


----------



## Sirena (May 10, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> I reckon it'll be Chuka. He's like David Miliband mk 2 without the baggage. good on telly and articulate enough to appeal to a wide range of Britain in the same vein as Blair was able to and Ed Milibot wasn't. Can't see anyone else likely to win back govt for Labour at the moment.


The problem with him is that he is endorsed both by Blair and by Mandelson.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2015)

Chuka's a little cocksucker but so are the rest. It doesn't matter who wins really. They're a centre right party.


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

maomao said:


> Chuka's a little cocksucker but so are the rest. It doesn't matter who wins really. They're a centre right party now.


Now?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 10, 2015)

mandleson endorsing chucka - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/chuka-umunna-peter-mandelson-labour-leadership. Hes been all over the media as well offering his wisdom. 

The blairities and the media are absolutely blatant in their co-ordinated  campaign to reinvent new-labour and set the narrative; Milliband lost because he was 'anti-business' and didn't speak the language of aspiration etc etc etc.

They are right - but not in the way they want to be. The public didn't reject labour policies. They weren't thinking "crack down on non doms! (very mild) rent controls! energy prise freeze! what crazy extremism! "
They lost because they deviated too far from the neo-liberal discourse so they they were monstered by the right wing media, the political establishment and the right of their own party - and didn't have a clear argument to face them down or a leader capable of articulating it.

As a result a large chunk of people who pay very little attention to politics went to the polling booth and thought labour = economic incompetents led by a weirdo weakling, better vote tory (or UKIP).  

I cant see this going well for labour though - this is not the 1990s. There is a naked class war about to let loose on millions of people and the labour party will sit on its hands - how many votes will that win them? It won't win back voters from the greens, the SNP - or UKIP. They will be under a lot of pressure from the unions, their activists and some of their own mps as the effects of full on austerity and the dismantling of the welfare state become impossible to ignore. 

I think this government will get very unpopular very quickly - but i dont think the new model, re-tread blairite/orange booky labour party will be able to capitalise on it - especially if it is at war with itself


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Now?


I have edited my post.


----------



## treelover (May 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> mandleson endorsing chucka - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/chuka-umunna-peter-mandelson-labour-leadership. Hes been all over the media as well offering his wisdom.
> 
> The blairities and the media are absolutely blatant in their co-ordinated  campaign to reinvent new-labour and set the narrative; Milliband lost because he was 'anti-business' and didn't speak the language of aspiration etc etc etc.
> 
> ...




The guardian has completely opened up its site for the Blairite offensive.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 10, 2015)

I don't see how there are enough New Labour PLP members for Umunna, Kendall and Jarvis all to get 15%. But I don't understand the process by which a single candidate from the right of the party emerges. It can't be quite as simple as being anointed by Mandy.


----------



## paolo (May 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> mandleson endorsing chucka - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/chuka-umunna-peter-mandelson-labour-leadership. Hes been all over the media as well offering his wisdom.
> 
> The blairities and the media are absolutely blatant in their co-ordinated  campaign to reinvent new-labour and set the narrative; Milliband lost because he was 'anti-business' and didn't speak the language of aspiration etc etc etc.
> 
> ...



I think you might be right on a lot of that.

The new positioning won't win anything more from the left field, more likely lose it.

The hope will be that return of a new labour style will claw back into the right section of the vote.

The problem might end up being they appeal to neither, and shrink even more - at least under FPTP. :-/


----------



## Casually Red (May 10, 2015)

The sooner they die the better . That well has been too deeply poisoned to be of any future use to anyone outside of the golden circles .


----------



## paolo (May 10, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> The sooner they die the better . That well has been too deeply poisoned to be of any future use to anyone outside of the golden circles .



We need PR for that hope to be, erm, a hope.


----------



## Casually Red (May 10, 2015)

You should all join en masse for a few months and elect Jim Murphy as leader . Job done .


----------



## mauvais (May 10, 2015)

Even the idea that you can return to the Blairite methodology - I won't say values - forgets the small problem that, at least as I recall, he was elected in 1997 by people who thought he & his party were something other than what they turned out to be. It's not much fucking use saying let's do that again once you've already given away the plot.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 10, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I don't see how there are enough New Labour PLP members for Umunna, Kendall and Jarvis all to get 15%. But I don't understand the process by which a single candidate from the right of the party emerges. It can't be quite as simple as being anointed by Mandy.



I guess chuka is setting himself up as _the_ blairite candidate in a fait accompli - getting enough gushy media coverage that the others are compelled to stand aside.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> The guardian has completely opened up its site for the Blairite offensive.


the guardian has completely opened up its site for offensive blairites


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

One thing they need is a leader who appeals to the people. Charismatic, or reliable, or some qualities which will make people like him/her. You may not like Cameron but he does look a bit like a PM. Then work out the policies around the leader. Stop thinking about ideology and start thinking about how to win. Hire a smart operator like the Aussie guy the Tories got. It doesn't matter how you win, just get it done. If you're not in power you can't do anything.


----------



## bi0boy (May 10, 2015)

Jarvis isn't running


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> I guess chuka is setting himself up as _the_ blairite candidate in a fait accompli - getting enough gushy media coverage that the others are compelled to stand aside.


No bald man ever got elected PM.

(I think that's right but I can't be bothered to check.)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> One thing they need is a leader who appeals to the people. Charismatic, or reliable, or some qualities which will make people like him/her. You may not like Cameron but he does look a bit like a PM. Then work out the policies around the leader. Stop thinking about ideology and start thinking about how to win. Hire a smart operator like the Aussie guy the Tories got. It doesn't matter how you win, just get it done. If you're not in power you can't do anything.


No. Please no.


----------



## gosub (May 10, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> I reckon it'll be Chuka. He's like David Miliband mk 2 without the baggage. good on telly and articulate enough to appeal to a wide range of Britain in the same vein as Blair was able to and Ed Milibot wasn't. Can't see anyone else likely to win back govt for Labour at the moment.



he wouldn't even get as far as Supercuts in the St james centre.


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> I'm trying to find any evidence of where Dan Jarvis stands on anything or whether he's had an independent thought in his life but I'm struggling?



A Tory at my work from Barnsley who scabbed during the miners strike thinks he is great. Says all I need to know.


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. Please no.


If you enjoy opposition forever....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> No bald man ever got elected PM.
> 
> (I think that's right but I can't be bothered to check.)


Apart from Attlee, Churchill

This is the appalling school that believes that presentation is all. It's rotten.


----------



## treelover (May 10, 2015)

paolo said:


> I think you might be right on a lot of that.
> 
> The new positioning won't win anything more from the left field, more likely lose it.
> 
> ...



Pasokification beckons that way


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

Jesus


----------



## mauvais (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> If you enjoy opposition forever....


You're thinking like the Labour Party, rather than someone who aspires to being of at least some significance to somebody.


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Apart from Attlee, Churchill
> 
> This is the appalling school that believes that presentation is all. It's rotten.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/3677991/can_bald_men_win_elections/


Again, there are instances of slap-heads beating other slap-heads: Churchill and Attlee, Salisbury and Gladstone. But I genuinely can't think of an occasion when a bald man has defeated an hairy man. Russell was pretty scant of hair, at least by his second ministry: the trouble was he hadn't got there through the ballot box. My great hero, Canning, was as bald as an egg, but he, too, got to Downing Street without being directly elected to it. That takes us as far back as 1827, and leaves me wondering whether it has happened at all.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2015)

If Labour rush into electing a new leader before meaningful analysis and testing of what strategy they need to win next time out, they run the risk of picking a dead duck from whom they will not be able to escape till the next election is gone and lost.


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

mauvais said:


> You're thinking like the Labour Party, rather than someone who aspires to being of at least some significance to somebody.


You can't be of significance to anyone if you're sat on the opposition benches.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2015)

Droids yr looking for.


----------



## mauvais (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> You can't be of significance to anyone if you're sat on the opposition benches.


And you can't be of any import to anyone if you are designed around style over substance, a tale told by an idiot, full of hair and soundbites, signifying nothing.

Is that want you want on your headstone? If you won't even dare, try and quite possibly fail in pursuit of something you believe in, why not just give up and get out of the way instead of wasting everyone's time?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

mauvais said:


> And you can't be of any import to anyone if you are designed around style over substance, a tale told by an idiot, full of hair and soundbites, signifying nothing.
> 
> Is that want you want on your headstone? If you won't even dare, try and quite possibly fail in pursuit of something you believe in, why not just give up and get out of the way instead of wasting everyone's time?


Double-fucking-like


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

mauvais said:


> And you can't be of any import to anyone if you are designed around style over substance, a tale told by an idiot, full of hair and soundbites, signifying nothing.
> 
> Is that want you want on your headstone? If you won't even dare, try and quite possibly fail in pursuit of something you believe in, why not just give up and get out of the way instead of wasting everyone's time?


Give up and walk away is always an option.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Give up and walk away is always an option.


I don't think you quite got mauvais's point.


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think you quite got mauvais's point.


Whatever. If you can't sell what you've got you're wasting your time.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2015)

Prostrate grey men onwards to victory.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Whatever. If you can't sell what you've got you're wasting your time.


If what you've got isn't worth having, you're wasting your customer's time.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> You can't be of significance to anyone if you're sat on the opposition benches.


What absolute crap - you think the election of 56 SNP MPs isn't going to have any significance?

I mean there's a whole load other assumptions in your post but even on the surface level it's just crap.


----------



## mauvais (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Whatever. If you can't sell what you've got you're wasting your time.


I could infer from your posts, perhaps wrongly, that you think using Blairite style over substance to achieve power is OK - the means justifying the ends - because at least power then enables you to deliver that substance.

There are many people out there - and this is the most benevolent take on their approach - who subscribe to the theory that a trojan horse is not only a legitimate way to get into power, but an essential one; that is, that you can't get elected by telling people what you actually intend to do, so you have to appear to be something else, and once in you'll be free to revert to plan A. Aside from the surprisingly regular issue of becoming _accidentally _trapped inside said horse, conveniently forgetting your original intent, the biggest problem with this is it shows utter contempt for the electorate.

It's short termist and weak, and it eventually comes back to haunt you. Nick Clegg is the latest example of this, although his sins are much broader.


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

Well, then give up. Tory government forever.


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

Well, I'm in a minority here. Anyone got any better ideas?


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

Get off them opposition benches and into Iraq!


----------



## mauvais (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Well, then give up. Tory government forever.


It certainly sounds like you - and the Labour Party - should.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

A brief perusal of elected leaders around Europe over the last 50 years reveals lots of bald men.

Or are UK voters uniquely fuckwitted? 

Your kind of attitude shows contempt for people. You've lost before you even begin.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Well, I'm in a minority here. Anyone got any better ideas?


yes


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

Better ideas then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Better ideas then?


Yes.

Ideas.

Put forward ideas. Make a case. Make an argument. Believe in something other than winning and stand on that.

It's the difference between 'doing the vision thing' and actually _having a vision_.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Whatever. If you can't sell what you've got you're wasting your time.


but you're onto a winner if you can sell what you haven't got. for a while anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Better ideas then?


yes.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 10, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Aside from the surprisingly regular issue of becoming _accidentally _trapped inside said horse, conveniently forgetting your original intent, the biggest problem with this is it shows utter contempt for the electorate.


Yes even ignoring your (very valid) other points this is one of things I'm always struck about with this "plan" - are there any examples of a centre-left party throwing off their cloak and moving to the left in government?

It's just rubbish, fantasy stuff from fools who wanted Blair to suddenly reveal his cunning plan of making Britain an social democratic paradise. Mugs.


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

So lay out your better ideas in a coherent fashion and let's see if the electorate buy it.


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> So lay out your better ideas in a coherent fashion and let's see if the electorate buy it.



THE GREAT DEBATE AND THE BATTLE OF IDEAS


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> So lay out your better ideas in a coherent fashion and let's see if the electorate buy it.


So this is my fault now?


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

MR LOGIC VS MR LOGIC

WHO WILL WIN


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So this is my fault now?


Nothing's your fault. Let's see what your ideas are.


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

Get your ideas in fast, the great debate is about to start


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Nothing's your fault. Let's see what your ideas are.


Ah, you're demanding that I lay out my ideas? Like many others on here, I've been doing that on and off for years on these forums.


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

Get your ideas in soon otherwise the electorate won't be able to see what they look like!


----------



## mauvais (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Better ideas then?


Oh I don't know, maybe you could cosh all the lazy, student union-derived, careerist drones of Labour, chuck them into the Thames and replace them with a representative cross section of the population, use that instrument to actually relate to a spectrum of people outside of one specific socio-economic niche, understand and properly illustrate to the people at large the problems that their countrymen face, articulate why it's in everyone's long term interest to resolve them and to build a strong and deeply positive national and even international fabric where social justice is held in high esteem, continuously stick to your principles whilst adapting where necessary to a changing context, and show up your opponents as negative and devious. And then, always taking the electorate to have at least a little sense, see if anyone was interested in that.

Or, Tony Blair again.


----------



## BandWagon (May 10, 2015)

This is going nowhere. I've given my opinions and if people don't like them then that's their option.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2015)

Flavour said:


> I like the insinuation the Andrew Marr is on some sort of an intellectual par with DotCommunist.


If he applies himself and works hard he may well reach the lofty heights of me, someone so slow witted he often struggles with things like the laces on the left boot, and basic imperial-metric conversion when reading recipes


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> This is going nowhere. I've given my opinions and if people don't like them then that's their option.


_find someone with hair _


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

More hashtags and forced memes for the kids


----------



## J Ed (May 10, 2015)

Put Laurie Penny in charge of a twittersectionalista campaigning department to keep everyone tied up in circular logic twitter storms


----------



## Sprocket. (May 10, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Jarvis could get Usdaw and Community I would imagine...



I know Jarvis isn't running, probably got a phone call from his former CO, but all the Usdaw stewards where I work voted TUSC, cos they think labour are a waste of time.
I had the call from Unite today too!


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> This is going nowhere. I've given my opinions and if people don't like them then that's their option.


But where are your ideas marter?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Umunna has already set out his stall I see. Labour need to focus on 'aspirational' people and stop worrying about the poor. Because the poor don't have aspirations apparently. Mandelson and Blair have chimed in with much the same bullshit.
> 
> It's clear where the wind is blowing. No more talk of taking action, even half-arsed window dressing type action, on extortionate rents or zero hour contracts; no more talk of progressive taxation. Only a mad communist would even consider such things. No, Labour needs policies like mumble mumble aspiration mumble mumble pro-business and pro-worker at the same time somehow mumble mumble which definitely won't be exactly the same as tory policies.
> 
> It's clearer than ever now why Miliband lost so badly. His entire party has only one idea, to move inexorably rightwards. The working class vote can be taken as a given, all that matters is to steal votes from the tories by imitating them as closely as copyright laws will allow. Miliband didn't lose because he had a handful of vaguely progressive policies but because he didn't have enough, those he had were all half-measures and he didn't mention most of them until a few weeks before the election.



I'm going to collect some of Chuka's fatuous gassings, then post them to him along with a demographic breakdown of the Labour vote in his constituency, asking him if he'd like to publicly cunt off a significant minority of his electorate a bit more by stopping worrying about them.
The man is a fucking idiot. Thinks he's a man of the people because he grew up in Streatham. Parents sent him to private schooling, though, because the state schools "were failing him". How many times have we heard that one?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> This is going nowhere. I've given my opinions and if people don't like them then that's their option.



Your opinions (make sure they're they're not a slaphead; style over substance) are vapid and fatuous.
You probably also believe that "only losers take the bus".


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> Well, then give up. Tory government forever.


Not the worst thing in the world if Labour are noticeably active in opposition, instead of being as passive as they've been for most of the last five years.


----------



## Casually Red (May 11, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> You can't be of significance to anyone if you're sat on the opposition benches.



Why not just cross over to the other side then ? You'll be in power then .


----------



## DownwardDog (May 11, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> No bald man ever got elected PM.
> 
> (I think that's right but I can't be bothered to check.)



Spencer Perceval. Although I remember from O-level history that he was completely mental and spent his time scouring the old testament to concoct biblical prophecies involving Napoleon and predicting that the world would end in 1926.


----------



## Casually Red (May 11, 2015)

BandWagon said:


> . Stop thinking about ideology and start thinking about how to win.



The problem with new labour is they haven't stopped thinking about ideology, they adopted thatchers neo liberal ideology and have insisted ever since that's how you win . Except they don't like to call it ideology , they refer to it as thins like..".the middle ground ", and "the market ". And because of that rupert Murdoch et al liked them . They got in and the electorate got Thatcherism forever . Now they think it's normal...that there's no alternative to it .

Which brings us back to the point that a choice between 2 neo liberal parties every 5 years is neither a choice or democracy . It's a fucking racket .


----------



## Belushi (May 11, 2015)

I see Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out, which I'm glad of as his main qualification appears to have been that he used to be a para 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-rules-self-out-of-labour-leadership-contest


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 11, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I see Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out, which I'm glad of as his main qualification appears to have been that he used to be a para
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-rules-self-out-of-labour-leadership-contest



He's had a proper job and comes across as a fairly normal person, I agree they're not much but compared to most of the current lot of politicians. If he's out then I would have to say Burnham's chances increase substantially.


----------



## tbtommyb (May 11, 2015)

i was hoping for some reflection from labour but i think we're going to get a swift right-wing leader blaming SNP and green voters for not seeing the light and backing labour.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 11, 2015)

Please not Burnham. He's just another inarticulate parliament bot like Miliband. He's a weak speaker who couldn't even sound sincere when speaking to Liverpool fans about Hillsborough. He's closely aligned to Brown and personally presided (with Alan Johnson) over the Stafford Hospital scandal. If he gets in, it'll be the last five years all over again. For my money only Umunna can get back some serious ground lost to the Tories. Whether or not any Labour government will get back a significant part of Scotland remains to be seen, right now it looks bleak.


----------



## Aspiration1998 (May 11, 2015)

Umunna seems like a solid, intelligent man with a firm conviction to not alienating Labour's core middle-class votes. If Burnham, another trot like Ed, gets the leadership then the party will be in the swamp for a lot longer than 2020.


----------



## tbtommyb (May 11, 2015)

Aspiration1998 said:


> Umunna seems like a solid, intelligent man with a firm conviction to not alienating Labour's core middle-class votes. If Burnham, another trot like Ed, gets the leadership then the party will be in the swamp for a lot longer than 2020.


what will be the chief differences between what Umunna will advocate and what the Tories advocate, do you think?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 11, 2015)

It's a troll.


----------



## Aspiration1998 (May 11, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> what will be the chief differences between what Umunna will advocate and what the Tories advocate, do you think?


There won't be any, and that's why he will be successful. Those who vote Tory in their class interest but feel guilty for their historical association, like me, will be able to make a rational decision and vote for Umunna.


----------



## billy_bob (May 11, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's a troll.



However did you spot that?


----------



## emanymton (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Parents sent him to private schooling, though, because the state schools "were failing him".


I just read that as he's a bit thick.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Aspiration1998 said:


> Umunna seems like a solid, intelligent man with a firm conviction to not alienating Labour's core middle-class votes. If Burnham, another trot like Ed, gets the leadership then the party will be in the swamp for a lot longer than 2020.


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


>


Liked because it's risible that Labour's core votes should be middle-class.  As things stand at the moment, they probably are, and that's Labour's fault, for leaving their original core a long way behind.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 11, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> However did you spot that?


Years of training and experience have enabled me to pick up the subtlest of tiny internet signs, the little slips that people make that give away their intentions.


----------



## pinkychukkles (May 11, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Which brings us back to the point that a choice between 2 neo liberal parties every 5 years is neither a choice or democracy . It's a fucking racket .


as the late great *Bill Hicks* said


> I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Liked because it's risible that Labour's core votes should be middle-class.  As things stand at the moment, they probably are, and that's Labour's fault, for leaving their original core a long way behind.



Tbh labour deserved to lose and maybe now we can get on with something different.


----------



## kebabking (May 11, 2015)

if Labour elect Burnham they can just avoid bothering with the campaign next time, take a months holiday and get the same result - Burnham, for his apparent sincerity over the NHS, was up to his neck in the structural failures in the NHS that lead to Stafford, the scandal over whistleblowers, and PFI which _everyone_ will rake up every. single. time. the letters NHS pass his lips, and as has been seen repeatedly, he's not exactly Mr Detail when it comes to policy.

Labour need to break with the Blair-Brown-Miliband years, electing Burnham is the exact opposite of that - and putting him in a Jimmy Savile suit. its utterly, _spectacularly_ self-defeating.

Chuka Unamma strikes me as a shiny man in a suit who would be equally at home in New Labour or New Tories, and only went Labour because thats where the jobs were.  no passion, no 'big plan', just a sticking plaster manager. 

its a pity that Jarvis has ruled himself out - he can at least connect with people, whether thats 'traditional Labour voters or reluctant tories. with him there'd no snearing about latte-drinking cosmopolitan types with no connection with the world outside of north London.

(and yes, i know him).


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

kebabking said:


> <snip> Chuka Unamma strikes me as a shiny man in a suit who would be equally at home in New Labour or New Tories, and only went Labour because thats where the jobs were.  no passion, no 'big plan', just a sticking plaster manager. <snip>


I concur - that's how he comes across as a local MP - a well groomed personable careerist chancer.  He'll see you right if you could boost him to the next stage, but otherwise forget it.


----------



## Roadkill (May 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> about 647 of the fuckers, only d. skinner, jeremy corbyn and john mcdonnell not on the shitlist.



Tbf there are others on the Labour back benches whose hearts are in roughly the right place.  Karl Turner (Hull East) is a decent sort, for instance.  Problem is, we never hear about these people and they never get anywhere other than the back benches.


----------



## beareis (May 11, 2015)

Mandelson blessed Umunna. Is this very good or very bad?


----------



## Belushi (May 11, 2015)

Hunt thinks Labour need to target aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

beareis said:


> Mandelson blessed Umunna. Is this very good or very bad?


Both are/have been people who'd make Machiavelli proud.


----------



## quiquaquo (May 11, 2015)

beareis said:


> Mandelson blessed Umunna. Is this very good or very bad?



Hopefully it's the kiss of death for Chuka. Was my MP, as Greebo mentions he couldn't give a shit if there's nothing in it for him, his wallet and his ego.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Hunt thinks Labour need to target aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose



What a surprise. Another public schoolboy who also wants Labour to focus on the middle classes 

Is there even a least worst option at this point?


----------



## Belushi (May 11, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Hopefully it's the kiss of death for Chuka. Was my MP, as Greebo mentions he couldn't give a shit if there's nothing in it for him, his wallet and his ego.



Yes, was my MP too and Greebo's description of him is spot on.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> What a surprise. Another public schoolboy who also wants Labour to focus on the middle classes
> 
> Is there even a least worst option at this point?



The one who's married to the teacher out of The Inbetweeners would at least give us a laugh if she wins, becomes PM and then Mr. Gilbert has to greet foreign dignitaries.


----------



## kebabking (May 11, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> The one who's married to the teacher out of The Inbetweeners would at least give us a laugh if she wins, becomes PM and then Mr. Gilbert has to greet foreign dignitaries.



that would be _spectacular_ comedy gold.






'the Prime Ministers Husband, Mr Davies, meeting a Frenchist at a reception at No 10 earlier today...'


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2015)

^^^ that bloke is freakishly big. Like a giant. Thats why he worked in inbetweeners, he made some slitghtly-north-of-GCSE age lads look like the age they wereplaying with his largness.


----------



## YouSir (May 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> ^^^ that bloke is freakishly big. Like a giant. Thats why he worked in inbetweeners, he made some slitghtly-north-of-GCSE age lads look like the age they wereplaying with his largness.



Looks like a giant Rik May all too, could see him pulling a Flashman on Putin. Woof woof.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 11, 2015)

The same bloke who told me about Mr. Gilbert (at a Conservatives Abroad lunch at the weekend) also told me Chuku Umunna is one of the singers on the Mr. Bean theme tune but I'm putting that one down to wikipedia vandalism.


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> The same bloke who told me about Mr. Gilbert (at a Conservatives Abroad lunch at the weekend) also told me Chuku Umunna is one of the singers on the Mr. Bean theme tune but I'm putting that one down to wikipedia vandalism.


probably based on a C4 interview: "On a more personal note, the shadow business secretary revealed that he was a chorister at Southwark Cathedral - "I sang the Mr Bean theme tune""

http://www.channel4.com/news/chuka-umunna-im-fed-up-with-being-in-the-shadows

Quite why he did so in such a venue is left unexplained


----------



## tbtommyb (May 11, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Hunt thinks Labour need to target aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose


Waitrose has 5% market share


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 11, 2015)

From CiF:



> So, in sum thus far:
> 
> Labour lost the election because they were too much like the Tories, and because they were not enough like them. The problem with Ed Miliband was that he was too much of a socialist; and also that he was too much of a Tory.
> 
> ...


----------



## gosub (May 11, 2015)

tbtommyb said:


> Waitrose has 5% market share




there are currently 6 Waitrose stores in Scotland, one of which is in Edinburgh South


----------



## Belushi (May 11, 2015)

gosub said:


> there are currently 6 Waitrose stores in Scotland, one of which is in Edinburgh South



Doesn't appear to be one in Hunt's constituency of Stoke on Trent either..


----------



## Belushi (May 11, 2015)

Apparently Lammy has now ruled himself out for standing for the leadership.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 11, 2015)

Tom Watson going for deputy leadership.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...funding-site-his-deputy-labour-leadership-bid

http://www.gofundme.com/tom_for_deputy


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> ^^^ that bloke is freakishly big. Like a giant. Thats why he worked in inbetweeners, he made some slitghtly-north-of-GCSE age lads look like the age they wereplaying with his largness.




Tallist...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Tallist...


he did a great routine about visiting thailand once and having strangers in the street come to be photoed with the foriegn giant  but he is large. I bet his dinner plate has to be much more filled up than mine


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> Tom Watson going for deputy leadership.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...funding-site-his-deputy-labour-leadership-bid
> 
> http://www.gofundme.com/tom_for_deputy




I would consider him, he would really go for the Tories, not sure about his position on benefit cuts, etc.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 11, 2015)

Umunna and Watson are probably the best Labour have to offer against the Tories if they're serious about getting into govt IMO.


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> he did a great routine about visiting thailand once and having strangers in the street come to be photoed with the foriegn giant


I'm 6'7" and that used to happen to me regularly in China outside of the big cities.


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2015)

Guardian reporting 60,000 new members joined labour, 60% under 35.

but this happened last time, enthusiasm soon waned.


----------



## pinkychukkles (May 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Guardian reporting 60,000 new members joined labour, 60% under 35.


Tomorrow's careerist politicians joining up to take advantage of the increased 'opportunity' further up slimy ladder


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2015)

Not necessarily, but they will get disillusioned.


----------



## cantsin (May 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> What a surprise. Another public schoolboy who also wants Labour to focus on the middle classes
> 
> Is there even a least worst option at this point?



does any know of any precedent re: Labour leaders who send their kids to private schools ( as Hunt looks determined to do ), ie : could there be a credible Lab leader with kids in private education (which not even Blair had the front to do )  or are we beyond anyone giving a fuck ?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2015)

cantsin said:


> does any know of any precedent re: Labour leaders who send their kids to private schools ( as Hunt looks determined to do ), ie : could there be a credible Lab leader with kids in private education (which not even Blair had the front to do )  or are we beyond anyone giving a fuck ?



Labour seem to have decided that the working class is irrelevant so I guess we're probably beyond giving a fuck. It's all about aspirational people now, and aspirational people all aspire to sending their kids to private school. In fact, given that they are an imaginary demographic, they can aspire to whatever it may be convenient for them to aspire to. Maybe they aspire to racial purity and world domination, and if they do who are we to argue? We who are so bereft of aspiration, so content to wallow in our own self-inflicted purgatory, so unworthy of a helping hand to drag us from the muck.


----------



## billy_bob (May 11, 2015)

beareis said:


> Mandelson blessed Umunna. Is this very good or very bad?



It's a bit like being covered in cowshit, but proudly carrying a banner declaring that it came from the biggest, smelliest cow alive.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tbh labour deserved to lose and maybe now we can get on with something different.


you (and anyone else) won't though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 11, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Hopefully it's the kiss of death for Chuka. Was my MP, as Greebo mentions he couldn't give a shit if there's nothing in it for him, his wallet and his ego.


He was my sister's MP and she says he was an excellent constituency MP. She got quite miffed when I said i thought he was a twat and had an inflated sense of his own abilities


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 11, 2015)

The Blairites who say they need another Blairite to win the next election are probably right at this point, but only because they've essentially salted the Earth for any other kind of winning Labour Party.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> The Blairites who say they need another Blairite to win the next election are probably right at this point, but only because they've essentially salted the Earth for any other kind of winning Labour Party.



And because they've filled the party up with careerist lickspittles.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2015)

It is pretty simple. To be elected Labour have to represent a majority of voters. If traditional loyal labour voters (the ones that voted for them this time) don't represent a majority they have to reach out and also represent others.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It is pretty simple. To be elected Labour have to represent a majority of voters. If traditional loyal labour voters (the ones that voted for them this time) don't represent a majority they have to reach out and also represent others.


It really isn't this simple, is it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It is pretty simple. To be elected Labour have to represent a majority of voters. If traditional loyal labour voters (the ones that voted for them this time) don't represent a majority they have to reach out and also represent others.


How many elections do you think have either required or resulted in a party gaining a majority of voters that then put them in power?


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> you (and anyone else) won't though.



What do you mean? Tbh you could be right. I dont hold a lot of hope for tusc etc either. i genuinely dont know where we go from here.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It is pretty simple....



...just kidnap and brain-wash Nicola Sturgeon...


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It is pretty simple. To be elected Labour have to represent a majority of voters. If traditional loyal labour voters (the ones that voted for them this time) don't represent a majority they have to reach out and also represent others.



The real issue is that plenty of "traditional loyal labour voters" have given up voting Labour and now vote for other parties (SNP, UKIP, Green, leftie parties with no chance of ever getting elected) or don't vote at all.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 11, 2015)

andysays said:


> The real issue is that plenty of "traditional loyal labour voters" have given up voting Labour and now vote for other parties (SNP, UKIP, Green, leftie parties with no chance of ever getting elected) or don't vote at all.


And plenty of others didn't vote Labour in this election for contingent reasons which had nothing to do with how Left (or Right) their policies were.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> To be elected Labour have to represent a majority of voters.



The tories have been elected on the strength of a 37% share of a 66% turnout. That's less than a quarter of the electorate, nowhere near a majority.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

simple. uh-huh.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> The tories have been elected on the strength of a 37% share of a 66% turnout. That's less than a quarter of the electorate, nowhere near a majority.


My language was less than perfect, they need to get more votes than their opposition, which may mean representing more types of people than they traditionally do. Wasn't that the deal with New Labour, they poached voters from the tories as well as maintaining lots of core labour support?


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> My language was less than perfect, they need to get more votes than their opposition, which may mean representing more types of people than they traditionally do. Wasn't that the deal with New Labour, they poached voters from the tories as well as maintaining lots of core labour support?



Yes, to some extent that's what NL managed to do, but arguably their short-term success has led to their current failure, because they have since focussed entirely on what they think they need to do to try to retain those non-trad voters and as a result have neglected the interests of the traditional ones, many of whom have drifted away.

And because they haven't retained all the non-trad voters, they are now in the unenviable but totally predictable position of having lost far more voters than they've gained.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> And plenty of others didn't vote Labour in this election for contingent reasons which had nothing to do with how Left (or Right) their policies were.



What do you mean by contingent reasons? Examples might be helpful.


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> The tories have been elected on the strength of a 37% share of a 66% turnout. That's less than a quarter of the electorate, nowhere near a majority.


and only 87% registered to vote at all, so they actually won on barely 20% of the electorate


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 11, 2015)

andysays said:


> What do you mean by contingent reasons? Examples might be helpful.


I mean reasons related to the particular circumstances in this election. For instance, the point in the economic cycle that the last two elections took place in.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2015)

belboid said:


> and only 87% registered to vote at all, so they actually won on barely 20% of the electorate



Meaning Labour won the votes of rather less than 20% of the electorate. They clearly haven't got a majority of working class people voting for them, which as the quote unquote worker's party would be something you'd expect them to aim for. 

Nobody in the party's upper echelons seems to have noticed this. It's all just hand wringing about how they've failed to win the votes of the upper middle class, a pretty small demographic compared to the ordinary working (and indeed non-working) people they've completely abandoned.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I mean reasons related to the particular circumstances in this election. For instance, the point in the economic cycle that the last two elections took place in.



This might be a very important factor. Give it another six months and it may be impossible for the tories to maintain even the illusion of an economic recovery, much less fight an election campaign based on the idea that they were solely responsible for it.


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2015)

andysays said:


> Yes, to some extent that's what NL managed to do, but arguably their short-term success has led to their current failure, because they have since focussed entirely on what they think they need to do to try to retain those non-trad voters and as a result have neglected the interests of the traditional ones, many of whom have drifted away.
> 
> And because they haven't retained all the non-trad voters, they are now in the unenviable but totally predictable position of having lost far more voters than they've gained.



TBH I think it would be very difficult to find that many voters of whatever kind whose interests weren't neglected by New Labour - even down here in sunny London, which had the best of the boom and the least of the recession, far more was done (in far less time, and definately at far less cost) by Livingstone to benefit far more people.


----------



## youngian (May 11, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> The one who's married to the teacher out of The Inbetweeners would at least give us a laugh if she wins, becomes PM and then Mr. Gilbert has to greet foreign dignitaries.


With Ed Miliband as Will McKenzie


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> This might be a very important factor. Give it another six months and it may be impossible for the tories to maintain even the illusion of an economic recovery, much less fight an election campaign based on the idea that they were solely responsible for it.



Yeah, or if they'd been fighting it prior to deflation setting in then Labour's "cost of living crisis"/"squeezed middle" would've had more bite with people in the Midlands and the South.


----------



## youngian (May 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Both are/have been people who'd make Machiavelli proud.


No, Umunna is nowhere near that good at politics.


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

youngian said:


> No, Umunna is nowhere near that good at politics.


True, but he and Mandelson share the thing of all style and no substance.  Mandy did it better though.


----------



## youngian (May 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> True, but he and Mandelson share the thing of all style and no substance.  Mandy did it better though.


Not a always a fan of Mandelson's policies but he's bit too easy as a target. As an operator I'd rather have him in my tent pissing out. Nothing is low enough for the Tories to hang on to their sense of entitlement to wield power and they will not be removed with nerds and vicars organising your campaign strategy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> It's a bit like being covered in cowshit, but proudly carrying a banner declaring that it came from the biggest, smelliest cow alive.



T'other thing is that being "blessed" by Mandelson may have the effect of re-igniting the rumours about Chuka's sexuality that he's spent years trying to gainsay. Some of the local pentecostal churches can be a bit unforgiving.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> T'other thing is that being "blessed" by Mandelson may have the effect of re-igniting the rumours about Chuka's sexuality that he's spent years trying to gainsay. Some of the local pentecostal churches can be a bit unforgiving.


are you referring to the bestiality rumours which i have just invented?


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> T'other thing is that being "blessed" by Mandelson may have the effect of re-igniting the rumours about Chuka's sexuality that he's spent years trying to gainsay.


why?


----------



## YouSir (May 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> are you referring to the bestiality rumours which i have just invented?



It's not the dolphins is it? An appeal to the Left?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

andysays said:


> The real issue is that plenty of "traditional loyal labour voters" have given up voting Labour and now vote for other parties (SNP, UKIP, Green, leftie parties with no chance of ever getting elected) or don't vote at all.



Yep. Labour has been shitting on its' core vote since around 1987, when Pillock & Co first got the idea to not only move centre-ward, but to cultivate the urban middle classes, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> why?



Because Mandelson is "out", and Chuka knows that round here some people would rather vote for Beelzebub or an undead Thatcher, than a homosexual, and I'm not just talking about the BME communities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> are you referring to the bestiality rumours which i have just invented?



Them too.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Labour has been shitting on its' core vote since around 1987, when Pillock & Co first got the idea to not only move centre-ward, but to cultivate the urban middle classes, too.


Irony being, if the Labour Party genuinely could carry what their "traditional base" is supposed to be they'd win every election as a landslide, regardless of the urban middle classes.


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2015)

belboid said:


> and only 87% registered to vote at all, so they actually won on barely 20% of the electorate




87% of the electorate?, and how many voted?, tx


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because Mandelson is "out", and Chuka knows that round here some people would rather vote for Beelzebub or an undead Thatcher, than a homosexual, and I'm not just talking about the BME communities.


I appreciate that, but how would Mandelson's endorsement make anyone think Umunna was gay?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> I appreciate that, but how would Mandelson's endorsement make anyone think Umunna was gay?



Because some people unfortunately believe in that old chestnut "The Gay Mafia". The whole conspiracy theory _schtick_ has been popular for decades with the more "out there" evangelical churches (as DotCommunist can probably confirm), and Chuckles's constituency has more than it's fair share of "out there" evangelical churches.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Irony being, if the Labour Party genuinely could carry what their "traditional base" is supposed to be they'd win every election as a landslide, regardless of the urban middle classes.


Yup, but they're not interested in struggle, or in class, only in power. Today, not tomorrow! Foot may have been a reformist coot, but he at least understood the need to build and maintain a core movement. Kinnock lost sight of that the moment he expelled Militant, which put any dissenting activists in the party on notice that Kinnock was going to purge anyone who who didn't fit to his vision of Labour.


----------



## tbtommyb (May 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Meaning Labour won the votes of rather less than 20% of the electorate. They clearly haven't got a majority of working class people voting for them, which as the quote unquote worker's party would be something you'd expect them to aim for.
> 
> Nobody in the party's upper echelons seems to have noticed this. It's all just hand wringing about how they've failed to win the votes of the upper middle class, a pretty small demographic compared to the ordinary working (and indeed non-working) people they've completely abandoned.


that rests on the assumption that the working class will vote primarily in their own interest (accurately) and that one party can secure the bulk of the working class vote. surely many will be prepared to vote against their own self interest on e.g. social security if they think that it broadly creates more fairness (screwing foreigners). what all the small 'c' conservatives in the working class?

though obviously i completely agree with your last sentence.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because some people unfortunately believe in that old chestnut "The Gay Mafia". The whole conspiracy theory _schtick_ has been popular for decades with the more "out there" evangelical churches (as DotCommunist can probably confirm), and Chuckles's constituency has more than it's fair share of "out there" evangelical churches.


Is there much public consciousness about Mandelson's sexuality? It'd do fuck all either way. Seems a bit off to be helping to circulate these rumours anyway - I'd never heard of them up til now.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2015)

There was an interview with David Milliband in NY on the news, he said Ed and Gordon before him had given up on aspiration required for a progressive political project. I don't understand what he said either!


----------



## paolo (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup, but they're not interested in struggle, or in class, only in power. Today, not tomorrow! Foot may have been a reformist coot, but he at least understood the need to build and maintain a core movement. Kinnock lost sight of that the moment he expelled Militant, which put any dissenting activists in the party on notice that Kinnock was going to purge anyone who who didn't fit to his vision of Labour.



Derek Hatton:

"a former politician, broadcaster, property developer, businessman".

There's as much to have a pop at there as Chuka, but anyway, long time ago.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> Is there much public consciousness about Mandelson's sexuality?



Did you sleep through the noughties? 
Mandelson's sexuality/speculation about his sexuality was a staple of the right-wing press. All the little bits of bitchiness about his young Brazilian "companion"; the sniggering hints about who he was on Oleg Deripaska's yacht with; the sneering about his young political advisors like Benny Wegg-Prosser.



> It'd do fuck all either way. Seems a bit off to be helping to circulate these rumours anyway - I'd never heard of them up til now.



I've heard a fair bit of speculation about Chuckles' sexuality, and I don't get out much!
And why would you have heard them? You leave in Preston, not Streatham!


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> Is there much public consciousness about Mandelson's sexuality? It'd do fuck all either way. Seems a bit off to be helping to circulate these rumours anyway - I'd never heard of them up til now.


He's a crap local MP, more to the point, he's the local MP and has refused to act like one, several times. Furthermore, he ran a smear campaign about the Greens allegedly running a smear campaign against him.  He's hardly somebody who deserves defending.  I don't give a toss about his sexuality, but if he thinks image counts, (and he continues to behave as he has until now) I'll use every fucking thing I can lay my hands on and then some.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And why would you have heard them? You leave in Preston, not Streatham!


He's my brother's MP.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

So what if umuna is gay tbh? I mean who fucking cares, this isnt the 1980s with simon hughes again.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I don't give a toss about his sexuality, but if he thinks image counts, (and he continues to behave as he has until now) I'll use every fucking thing I can lay my hands on and then some.


You'll use homophobic smears against him? What?


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> He's my brother's MP.


I live in that constituency too and he's refused to outright to do anything to stop the regeneration threat, or to ensure that the consultation was at least fair.  He's slick and plays to the BME Christian vote.  Go and preach elsewhere mate.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

How is rumours he is gay gonna damage him? The worlds first black gay labour PM?  People would lap it up. And the idea of using someones (alleged) sexuality against them is disgraceful tbh. It not gonna make people using such tactics look.anything other than homophobic loons.


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> How is rumours he is gay gonna damage him? The worlds first black gay labour PM?  People would lap it up. And the idea of using someones (alleged) sexuality against them is disgraceful tbh. It not gonna make people using such tactics look.anything other than homophobic loons.


Froggie I'm not looking for a fight about this,these rumours have been floating around (locally) since forever and he's big on image.  Want me to lie and say that he's squeaky clean and a saint instead?  He capitalises on the vote of homophobic people FFS!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> He's my brother's MP.



So you have in-depth conversations with your bro about his MP?
Not unless the pair of you are utter political spods.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Yeah but Im not looking for a fight, just stating my opinion. using gay rumours about someone is a cunts trick. Whats wrong with being gay, by speading rumours he is your making it into an issue that should be made an issue of, your stigmatising homosexuality. Find something else to get him on. There must be something. His Blairism, his past political record. his love of gentrification and wealth creators. Hes been an MP for ages there must be loads of stuff. Aside from anything consider how it makes you look. 

_Black labour forerunner subjected to homophobic smear campaign by loony-left constituents_


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

We talk about all sorts of shit. I lived in Streatham for a bit too. Either way, I'm not sure how this justifies spreading homophobic smears about him. There's plenty you can gut the fucker on without heading down that route.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> How is rumours he is gay gonna damage him? The worlds first black gay labour PM?  People would lap it up. And the idea of using someones (alleged) sexuality against them is disgraceful tbh. It not gonna make people using such tactics look.anything other than homophobic loons.



You're missing the point, which is that his standing in his constituency and the size of his vote would suffer from such rumours. It's bad enough that back when he was selected in 2008/09 some churchy CLP members abstained because of rumours about him being gay. Extrapolate that to a consituency with, as I've said, more than its' share of evangelical Christians, and being "blessed" by Mandelson doesn't look like such a gift after all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> So what if umuna is gay tbh? I mean who fucking cares, this isnt the 1980s with simon hughes again.



It's not about whether he's gay. it's about how, in a political world where presentation is king, things can look like or be made to look like. He's a single sermon away from some disgruntled pastor stirring the pot, and if that happens it gives ammo to the right-wing press, just like it did with Mandelson himself.


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but Im not looking for a fight, just stating my opinion. <snip>


If you love him  so much, live here with him as a fucking useless careerist MP.

Then, and only then can you lecture me, missy!


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

a 13000 majority says he probably wouldn't be much worried about the ramifications of a gay bloke endorsing him among some homophobes in Streatham.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're missing the point, which is that his standing in his constituency and the size of his vote would suffer from such rumours. It's bad enough that back when he was selected in 2008/09 some churchy CLP members abstained because of rumours about him being gay. Extrapolate that to a consituency with, as I've said, more than its' share of evangelical Christians, and being "blessed" by Mandelson doesn't look like such a gift after all.



I've heard he has some black ancestry. Why not plug that one to capitalise on the racist vote?


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2015)

> An obituary for a Labour party that abandoned its roots – from the year 2025
> 
> Aditya Chakrabortty
> 
> ...



A depressing 'what if' by one of the best G writers.


----------



## paolo (May 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> If you love him  so much, live here with him as a fucking useless careerist MP.
> 
> Then, and only then can you lecture me, missy!



"If you like it so much, why don't you live there"

Nooooo Greebo - never ever say that


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I've heard he has some black ancestry. Why not plug that one to capitalise on the racist vote?


Because there aren't enough racists of the type who'd have it in for him, whose vote he's courted?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> We talk about all sorts of shit. I lived in Streatham for a bit too. Either way, I'm not sure how this justifies spreading homophobic smears about him. There's plenty you can gut the fucker on without heading down that route.



Who's spreading smears? If you read my original post, you'll notice that I'm expressing worry about a possibility.
If that's a "smear" to you, then go polish your knob.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Its like when people call thatcher a bitch with a shrivelled up vagina or whatever, totally counter productive, how do young women that dont remember the thatcher years look at shit like that. im bisexual and nearly killed myself over being outed among people due to my sexuality. There is loads of actual things he has done you can get him on, gentrification, wealth creators, love of right wing christian homophobes etc etc, all of which without reference to his sexuality. Do you want to say i bet he hasnt got a correct birth certificate and therefore right to be PM as well (hint hint)? Spreading rumours someone is gay or making an issue of their sexuality to gain political capital is a cunts trick ive got no respect for people who do it. 

hes a blairite wanker, and a shit MP so get him on that.


----------



## Belushi (May 11, 2015)

I lived in Streatham I never heard anything about him being gay


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> If you love him  so much, live here with him as a fucking useless careerist MP.
> 
> Then, and only then can you lecture me, missy!



Its got nothing to do with loving him. its about homosexuality not being made into a stigma, you know how his mates the right wing christians want to do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I've heard he has some black ancestry. Why not plug that one to capitalise on the racist vote?



Because it's harder for the rightwing media to play colour than it is sexuality.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because it's harder for the rightwing media to play colour than it is sexuality.



Call him a jippo then, or a muslim. That will teach him.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2015)

Any idea when Labour plan to elect the new leader?

I would give it at least 6 months to rethink and examine possible strategies if I were them.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because it's harder for the rightwing media to play colour than it is sexuality.



Thats all right then. You know its ordinary gay people these 'gay rumours' will damage not him. Hes got enough political.and social capital. Its not about him its about making homosexuality a stigma to attack politicians on. A bit like challenging birthers going on about obamas birth certificate isnt about thinking obama is a good guy its about challenging the idea that being black makes you viewed as a threat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Its got nothing to do with loving him. its about homosexuality not being made into a stigma, you know how his mates the right wing christians want to do.


Has she made his putative homosexuality into a stigma?
Just because killer b throws claims about smears around,doesn't mean he's not chatting shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2015)

Mandlesons defining feature is not who he chooses to fuck, its his venal mememe hey look at me i recon i am running tings on the sly blad politics


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Spreading rumours that a person is gay in order to damage them politically is doing exactly that.


----------



## J Ed (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Spreading rumours that a person is gay in order to damage them politically is doing exactly that.



Doesn't apply here but what do you think about when other gay people expose closeted homophobic politicians rather than just politicians who court the votes of some homophobes? I don't know if I think that it is always wrong.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Doesn't apply here but what do you think about when other gay people expose closeted homophobic politicians rather than just politicians who court the votes of some homophobes? I don't know if I think that it is always wrong.



Is he actually gay though?


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Doesn't apply here but what do you think about when other gay people expose closeted homophobic politicians rather than just politicians who court the votes of some homophobes? I don't know if I think that it is always wrong.



Depends on the situation but this isnt whats being suggested here as far as i can see.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Is he actually gay though?



Well yeah exactly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Its like when people call thatcher a bitch with a shrivelled up vagina or whatever, totally counter productive, how do young women that dont remember the thatcher years look at shit like that. im bisexual and nearly killed myself over being outed among people due to my sexuality. There is loads of actual things he has done you can get him on, gentrification, wealth creators, love of right wing christian homophobes etc etc, all of which without reference to his sexuality. Do you want to say i bet he hasnt got a correct birth certificate and therefore right to be PM as well (hint hint)? Spreading rumours someone is gay or making an issue of their sexuality to gain political capital is a cunts trick ive got no respect for people who do it.
> 
> hes a blairite wanker, and a shit MP so get him on that.



You're personalising something that isn't personal. That's not usually a sensible move. It limits clarity.
As I've said, it's not about smearing Chuka, it's about him leaving hostages to fortune for his enemies (and fairweather friends) to use. Mandelson's blessing is a great boon in terms of getting Chuckles more contacts among the movers and shakers in the media, but it may have a price that Chuka won't like paying.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 11, 2015)

Politics is a shitty game, isn't it?


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Has she made his putative homosexuality into a stigma?
> Just because killer b throws claims about smears around,doesn't mean he's not chatting shit.


You don't know what 'putative' means.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

What hostages to fortune has Umunna left by having nudge-nudge rumours about his sexuality spread about?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I lived in Streatham I never heard anything about him being gay



Were you a member of/did you have contacts in the Streatham CLP? I heard rumours because a gay former councillor I kept up a correspondence with from my time in the party, was also a CLP functionary who was incredibly pissed off at some CLP members abstaining on the selection based on rumours about Chuckles' sexuality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> What hostages to fortune has Umunna left by having nudge-nudge rumours about his sexuality spread about?



The ones I've mentioned several times.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're personalising something that isn't personal. That's not usually a sensible move. It limits clarity.
> As I've said, it's not about smearing Chuka, it's about him leaving hostages to fortune for his enemies (and fairweather friends) to use. Mandelson's blessing is a great boon in terms of getting Chuckles more contacts among the movers and shakers in the media, but it may have a price that Chuka won't like paying.



No im not. Where have i personalised anything? this is my usual posting style, i havent called anyone a cunt or anything like that all i've done is pointed out why it's bad to start a rumour over someones sexuality. Just like its bad to say thatcher is an old dead bitch with a shrivveled up old vagina, it doesnt accomplish anything, is a political misjudgement thats gonna make you look a prick, and backfire massively on you. In PR terms its a total and utter disaster, and will have a lot of unintended consequences in terms of introducing the acceptableness of that sort of stuff back into the public discourse. 

Oh look obamas birth certificate has a few out of place dots on it that must mean he wasnt really born in the country!!


----------



## paolo (May 11, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Is he actually gay though?



I'm in his constituency. Never heard that before.

Then again nobody I know would give a shit enough to repeat such irrelevant speculation, never mind post on and on about it on a public forum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Santino said:


> You don't know what 'putative' means.



So his possible homosexuality isn't reputed, then?


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So his possible homosexuality isn't reputed, then?


It is not commonly accepted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> No im not. Where have i personalised anything? this is my usual posting style, i havent called anyone a cunt or anything like that all i've done is pointed out why it's bad to start a rumour over someones sexuality.



Try again. You're reading something, then reacting to it personally because of your own experiences. In other words you're personalising the subject because it chimes with your own experience.



> Just like its bad to say thatcher is an old dead bitch with a shrivveled up old vagina, it doesnt accomplish anything, is a political misjudgement thats gonna make you look a prick, and backfire massively on you. In PR terms its a total and utter disaster, and will have a lot of unintended consequences in terms of introducing the acceptableness of that sort of stuff back into the public discourse.
> 
> Oh look obamas birth certificate has a few out of place dots on it that must mean he wasnt really born in the country!!



Right, so I'm a conspiracy theorist akin with the worst scum in America because I've mentioned this?


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2015)

Stop being a dick, VP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

paolo said:


> I'm in his constituency. Never heard that before.
> 
> Then again nobody I know would give a shit enough to repeat such irrelevant speculation, never mind post on and on about it on a public forum.



I made one post, everything after that has been in reply to replies to that post.


----------



## Belushi (May 11, 2015)

I understand you and greebo are angry VP, but this is coming across as pretty repellent tbh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Santino said:


> Stop being a dick, VP.



It's being a dick to defend yourself when someone insinuates that you're smearing someone, *after* you've explained (at their request) what you're talking about?
Wow, the world must have changed more last Friday than I thought!


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

No insinuation.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

the posts are all still there, people can read.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Try again. You're reading something, then reacting to it personally because of your own experiences. In other words you're personalising the subject because it chimes with your own experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so I'm a conspiracy theorist akin with the worst scum in America because I've mentioned this?



no, i am saying that in PR terms, that is how you will look.


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's being a dick to defend yourself when someone insinuates that you're smearing someone, *after* you've explained (at their request) what you're talking about?
> Wow, the world must have changed more last Friday than I thought!


No, it's being a dick to throw your weight around and respond aggressively in the way you are.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

saying that being gay is something to encourage a rumour over is implying that homosexuality is bad. 

If you wanted to attack someone politically you would not start a rumour that he helped old ladies with their shopping, was nice to dogs, that sort of thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I understand you and greebo are angry VP, but this is coming across as pretty repellent tbh.



Right. I think I see.
I mention a possible difficulty for Chuka with some of his constituents.
Because neither Greebo nor I have much time for the man, this is being taken as smearing him.

Here's the thing. I don't give a fuck whether he fucks women, men, cats or dogs. I do give a fuck that even if he hasn't been a friend to the estate that I live on, that small-minded people might use the issue I mentioned to give him a hard time. Why? Because he's my MP and, dislike his treatment of my estate as I do, he's still a better prospect than some Tory, Lib-Dem or nu-nu-Labour twat that we might have ended up with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> saying that being gay is something to encourage a rumour over is implying that homosexuality is bad.
> 
> If you wanted to attack someone politically you would not start a rumour that he helped old ladies with their shopping, was nice to dogs, that sort of thing.



Who's encouraging a rumour?
I mean, if you're saying that I'm disingenuously spreading a rumour, please come out and say it plainly.


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who's encouraging a rumour?
> I mean, if you're saying that I'm disingenuously spreading a rumour, please come out and say it plainly.


You're personalising something that isn't personal.
That's not usually a sensible move. It limits clarity.


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I understand you and greebo are angry VP, but this is coming across as pretty repellent tbh.


FWIW I've put frogwoman on ignore for a week and killer b on ignore for the foreseeable future.  All of us are better fighting out own battles than each other.

Not only has Umunna failed to help or support this estate, he's insulted hthose who live here by implying that the campaign to save it was a nasty smear against him run by the Greens.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

You imagined a difficulty for Umunna in order for you to post a rumour you've heard through your Labour Party mates.


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

Santino said:


> You're personalising something that isn't personal.
> That's not usually a sensible move. It limits clarity.


And you never have, Santino?  Buzz off, please.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who's encouraging a rumour?
> I mean, if you're saying that I'm disingenuously spreading a rumour, please come out and say it plainly.





Greebo said:


> I don't give a toss about his sexuality, but if he thinks image counts, (and he continues to behave as he has until now) *I'll use every fucking thing I can lay my hands on and then some*.


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> And you never have, Santino?  Buzz off, please.


Not my words, sweetie.


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

cynicaleconomy 
We're not one person, and not even in the same room while online.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> the posts are all still there, people can read.


I don't delete or edit my posts when someone takes exception to them.

My original post on page 17:
"T'other thing is that being "blessed" by Mandelson may have the effect of re-igniting the rumours about Chuka's sexuality that he's spent years trying to gainsay. Some of the local pentecostal churches can be a bit unforgiving."
There's no insinuation there, just the mention of rumours.
Rumours which, because you haven't heard them, obviously can't exist.

You're right though, people *can* read. it's whether they can be arsed to think about what they read, rather than just reacting, that seems to be in doubt.

E2A: My original post on page 18.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Spreading rumours that a person is gay in order to damage them politically is doing exactly that.


theres people alive who remember when homosexuality would have killed his career stone dead but nowadays[question mark here-fucked keyboard]

edit, i've lost the thread of the thread, I thought w were discussing mandleson. Ignore me I'm too tired to follow a simple thread of discussion properly


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> You imagined a difficulty for Umunna in order for you to post a rumour you've heard through your Labour Party mates.



That may be how your mind works. it's not how mine does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Santino said:


> You're personalising something that isn't personal.
> That's not usually a sensible move. It limits clarity.



Which is why I was asking for clarity.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Well talking about how im lecturing you and if i love him so much i should go and live with him and that its all right to use what you can get your hands on kind of implies you dont object to it too much. Why post it on here? Why should people care where he puts his cock? And putting me on ignore? grow up. All ive done is say what my opinion is of such tactics, how it poisons the public discourse, how theres other stuff to get the bloke on, how bad it will look as a PR move, etc etc. These are all reasonable replies to give, its a discussion board. People make posts and others reply. Ive made some fairly stupid statements on here in the heat of the moment and been pulled up for it. Im shocked that you're having such a bad reaction when all ive done is disagree rather than say you're a cunt or a homophobe or any the shit that gets flung around on here on a daily basis.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Well talking about how im lecturing you and if i love him so much i should go and live with him and that its all right to use what you can get your hands on kind of implies you dont object to it too much. Why post it on here? Why should people care where he puts his cock? And putting me on ignore? grow up. All ive done is say what my opinion is of such tactics, how it poisons the public discourse, how theres other stuff to get the bloke on, how bad it will look as a PR move, etc etc. These are all reasonable replies to give, its a discussion board. People make posts and others reply. Ive made some fairly stupid statements on here in the heat of the moment and been pulled up for it. Im shocked that you're having such a bad reaction when all ive done is disagree rather than say you're a cunt or a homophobe or any the shit that gets flung around on here on a daily basis.



Quoted because it is a good post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> no, i am saying that in PR terms, that is how you will look.



Like a "birther"? Like a demented racist fishing around for any reason to sow doubt about a politician?
I think I could have constructed something a *bit* more effective than that, if I wanted to bring Chucky down.


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Labour has been shitting on its' core vote since around 1987, when Pillock & Co first got the idea to not only move centre-ward, but to cultivate the urban middle classes, too.



I stand to be corrected but in urban areas, that has still largely worked for them this time though. ALl those red islands in sea of blue. As variously noted and seems to make sense to me, they lost in practicle terms because previous Labour voters from 97, switched to Libdem in 2010. 2015, Lthat body of voters save SNP, went Green UKIP, Tory TUSC or abstained. They're the seats they lost, many urban MC types still voted Labour this time.


----------



## oryx (May 11, 2015)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iend-as-he-sets-out-stall-for-leadership.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Well talking about how im lecturing you and if i love him so much i should go and live with him and that its all right to use what you can get your hands on kind of implies you dont object to it too much. Why post it on here?



Anger, perhaps?



> Why should people care where he puts his cock?



They shouldn't.
And yet some of them, for whatever misguided reasons, do. Whether that's down to religion or ideology or just plain prejudice, they do.



> And putting me on ignore? grow up. All ive done is say what my opinion is of such tactics, how it poisons the public discourse, how theres other stuff to get the bloke on, how bad it will look as a PR move, etc etc.



On my original post, the sort of people with the motivation to *use* rumours about Chuck aren't affected by concerns about PR. They're part of the media. They can tilt a story any way they choose, and they do.


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> There was an interview with David Milliband in NY on the news, he said Ed and Gordon before him had given up on aspiration required for a progressive political project. I don't understand what he said either!



Dave Miliband was one of those Blairite clones. A grey business wanker. If Labour members still think they voted for the wrong brother, fuck 'em all. I'm no great fan of Ed Milliband but craven beyond belief these whiners are.


----------



## frogwoman (May 11, 2015)

Anger isnt an excuse. And 'Yeah I wont use it but some un-named right wingers' will isnt either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

xenon said:


> I stand to be corrected but in urban areas, that has still largely worked for them this time though. ALl those red islands in sea of blue.



I dunno - I think that they're still pretty dependent in many urban areas on their core vote - those of us living on council estates or the arse end of various boroughs - coming through for them as well as their more recent middle class friends. I think part of the reason they've also held on to some urban areas is that the working class and middle class demographic is multicultural, which gives the right (whether Tory or 'Kipper) a harder time getting a foot in the door.



> As variously noted and seems to make sense to me, they lost in practicle terms because previous Labour voters from 97, switched to Libdem in 2010. 2015, Lthat body of voters save SNP, went Green UKIP, Tory TUSC or abstained. They're the seats they lost, many urban MC types still voted Labour this time.



What you've written above also clearly indicates why they should stop taking their core w/c for granted - they can't depend on floaters, and if they do, they alienate their core vote through ignoring them.


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2015)

I don't agree with VP's speculation but all he was doing was trying to second guess how enermies of a new Labour leader might try and leverage anything no matter how low, they can against him. Homophobes vote to. Allbeit doesn't make sense to me. Would seem to be slightly counter productive in any case because aren't there a few "out" Tories anyway?

Anyway leaving that aspect, just saying how I saw the exchange in what, page 19 now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Anger isnt an excuse. And 'Yeah I wont use it but some un-named right wingers' will isnt either.



It's not meant to be an excuse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

xenon said:


> I don't agree with VP's speculation but all he was doing was trying to second guess how enermies of a new Labour leader might try and leverage anything no matter how low, they can against him.



We only need look at the subtext of some of the shit written and broadcast about Miliband to know that they'll go pretty low.



> Homophobes vote to. Allbeit doesn't make sense to me. Would seem to be slightly counter productive in any case because aren't there a few "out" Tories anyway?



Sure. A few. Doesn't stop the sneering in the media, though, whether you're an MP for the party of government, or for the opposition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

xenon said:


> Dave Miliband was one of those Blairite clones. A grey business wanker. If Labour members still think they voted for the wrong brother, fuck 'em all. I'm no great fan of Ed Milliband but craven beyond belief these whiners are.



As I said on another thread on here, David Miliband as leader of the Labour Party 2010-2015 would have been 5 years of nu-Blairism, and if elected the outcome would be exactly the same as what the Tories will do, just served with a teaspoon of sugar to help the shit sandwich go down. 
Labour and the Tories sing substantially from the same hymn-sheet on TTIP; for privatising and/or "Academising" schools; for the marketisation of tertiary education; the same hymn-sheet for bringing the private sector into the NHS and the Civil Service...the list goes on.


----------



## Casually Red (May 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> I appreciate that, but how would Mandelson's endorsement make anyone think Umunna was gay?



He endorsed Blair , and a lot of people think he's a "double adaptor " of sorts . Ambiguous kind of chap .  Definitely would have let dubya have a bash .


Mind you he didn't endorse Brown .


That wasn't a pun btw .


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I dunno - I think that they're still pretty dependent in many urban areas on their core vote - those of us living on council estates or the arse end of various boroughs - coming through for them as well as their more recent middle class friends. I think part of the reason they've also held on to some urban areas is that the working class and middle class demographic is multicultural, which gives the right (whether Tory or 'Kipper) a harder time getting a foot in the door.
> 
> 
> 
> What you've written above also clearly indicates why they should stop taking their core w/c for granted - they can't depend on floaters, and if they do, they alienate their core vote through ignoring them.



OH absolutely dependant on the urban WC and MC urban voters. I live in a Labour safe seat. Working class and sizeable middle class section these days. But they lost the hinterlands, rural areas Blaire appealed to. Scotland a bit of a separate issue, no pun intended.

Now they want to revert to that. Chasing yesterdays fashion. I predict a much lower turn out in 2020 as people, the aspirational, who ever the fuck they are, see the effects of 5 more years of this shit and look at Labour, see the same. With no illusions.

Of course I'm just guessing ffrom my sofa, I'm not well connected enough with a range of people IRL. I think kabbes made some very incisive observations re his constituency earlier.


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> He endorsed Blair , and a lot of people think he's a "double adaptor " of sorts . Ambiguous kind of chap .  Definitely would have let dubya have a bash .
> 
> 
> Mind you he didn't endorse Brown .
> ...



OH FFS stop this shit.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> He endorsed Blair , and a lot of people think he's a "double adaptor " of sorts . Ambiguous kind of chap .  Definitely would have let dubya have a bash .
> 
> 
> Mind you he didn't endorse Brown .
> ...


grow up.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> What do you mean? Tbh you could be right. I dont hold a lot of hope for tusc etc either. i genuinely dont know where we go from here.


I mean no one is going to do anything else at the moment whether it's time or not


----------



## Roadkill (May 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> He endorsed Blair , and a lot of people think he's a "double adaptor " of sorts . Ambiguous kind of chap .  Definitely would have let dubya have a bash .
> 
> 
> Mind you he didn't endorse Brown .
> ...



Oh fuck off.  

Interesting, though, that the right-wing press have been carrying stories about Umunna being seen out with his girlfriend for the last couple of days.  It's almost as if he's trying to send a message of some sort.  I wonder what that could be...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> He endorsed Blair , and a lot of people think he's a "double adaptor " of sorts . Ambiguous kind of chap .  Definitely would have let dubya have a bash .
> 
> 
> Mind you he didn't endorse Brown .
> ...


Please don't post any more of this sort of casual homophobic crap.


----------



## Coolfonz (May 12, 2015)

Charlotte Church looks the best candidate. And she could get concessions at Brussels/PMQs/Cabinet through the power of song.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I dunno - I think that they're still pretty dependent in many urban areas on their core vote - those of us living on council estates or the arse end of various boroughs - coming through for them as well as their more recent middle class friends. I think part of the reason they've also held on to some urban areas is that the working class and middle class demographic is multicultural, which gives the right (whether Tory or 'Kipper) a harder time getting a foot in the door.
> 
> 
> 
> What you've written above also clearly indicates why they should stop taking their core w/c for granted - they can't depend on floaters, and if they do, they alienate their core vote through ignoring them.



Any stats yet on how ethnic minorities voted, I sense they will be becoming less homogenous in terms of voting patterns, unlike the U.S


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2015)

xenon said:


> I stand to be corrected but in urban areas, that has still largely worked for them this time though. ALl those red islands in sea of blue. As variously noted and seems to make sense to me, they lost in practicle terms because previous Labour voters from 97, switched to Libdem in 2010. 2015, Lthat body of voters save SNP, went Green UKIP, Tory TUSC or abstained. They're the seats they lost, many urban MC types still voted Labour this time.



Hundreds of posters for the LP MP's in leafy parts here, though he is a good constituency MP, and of course for Coppard in Cleggs seat, the, the LP are not going away.


----------



## Belushi (May 12, 2015)

I see Chuka has formally announced he is standing


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2015)

Ridiculous to have a leadership election so soon.
They have yet to decide what went wrong this time.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 12, 2015)

they've already decided that, its because ed was to lenninist so now they have to swing further to the right (but nudge, wink, once they are in power it'll be full communism)


----------



## Wilf (May 12, 2015)

Fucking hell, Casually Red, fucking hell.  In a discussion about whether someone's sexuality might be used against them... just astonishing.


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Fucking hell, Casually Red, fucking hell.  In a discussion about whether someone's sexuality might be used against them... just astonishing.


haven't you met him before?  He does it in yer actual equal rights threads too!


----------



## Wilf (May 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> haven't you met him before?  He does it in yer actual equal rights threads too!


Oh yes, I'm aware of his work. Must have been unusual for CR to find himself on the winning side in the Clapton Ultras thread, but he's back on track here.


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

there were no winners in the Clapton Ultras thread(s)


----------



## emanymton (May 12, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> Charlotte Church looks the best candidate. And she could get concessions at Brussels/PMQs/Cabinet through the power of song.


As celebrity lefties go I prefer her to Brand.


----------



## rekil (May 12, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Oh yes, I'm aware of his work. Must have been unusual for CR to find himself on the winning side in the Clapton Ultras thread, but he's back on track here.


He's even more into the ol' identity politics than the clapton people, just from a scummy right wing position. See for example his claim that frogwoman "hates the Russians as a race and breed" because of "some jewish beef".


----------



## Wilf (May 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> there were no winners in the Clapton Ultras thread(s)


Well yes, it was like a tour de france where everybody's bike got mangled up in a big pile on the Champs Elysees. There were though a few King of the Mountains en route.


----------



## frogwoman (May 12, 2015)

oh ffs whas he said now? I have him on ignore. He's basically fash.


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> oh ffs whas he said now? I have him on ignore. He's basically fash.


usual homophobic crap, of the kind you'd expect from a backward 13 year old


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I see Chuka has formally announced he is standing




Power grab in a time of crisis, just like his guru.


----------



## frogwoman (May 12, 2015)

Not exactly a 'grab' if they want him to stand is it? Hes blatantly gonna get it.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2015)

Opportunism, in a time of crisis.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Not exactly a 'grab' if they want him to stand is it? Hes blatantly gonna get it.


No he blatantly won't


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No he blatantly won't


That's _blates_ in St Reatham


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Not exactly a 'grab' if they want him to stand is it? Hes blatantly gonna get it.


Why do you think that frogwoman?

Because there are others who could stand. Andy Burnham has been mentioned for example though I don't see him as being exactly Mr Charisma!


----------



## frogwoman (May 12, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No he blatantly won't



Probably not tbh. After last week i have to stop making predictions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Any stats yet on how ethnic minorities voted, I sense they will be becoming less homogenous in terms of voting patterns, unlike the U.S



I don't have any stats by constituency, but smaller-scale research has shown that some middle class elements of ethnic minority communities have been migrating rightwards for a while. Unsurprisingly really, as for anyone with something to lose, there's the appeal of "stability" a rightwing government is supposed to trail in its' wake.


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

Umunna's the bookies favourite.  Not surprisingly. And he'll get it, 6-4 imo.  Burnham could just beat him, but will more likely be passed over as far too Edlike, and even Edlite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No he blatantly won't



That's exactly what I said to Greebo.
She asked why.
I said "because he's black".
I could have said "because he only has 5 years of experience of parliamentary politics", but I reckon any final analysis of how his vote stacks up will show institutional racism was in the mix.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That's _blates_ in St Reatham


Only in the south of St Reatham. Those of us in the north of the constituency totes don't say blates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> Umunna's the bookies favourite.  Not surprisingly. And he'll get it, 6-4 imo.  Burnham could just beat him, but will more likely be passed over as far too Edlike, and even Edlite.



You don't reckon the dead hand of racism will swat him? I mean, I'm aware that Umunna is superficially more appealing to the right-wing media than Miliband E. ever was, but institutional racism in the labour Party isn't exactly extinct, even if it's nowhere near as prevalent as 30, 40 or 50 years ago.


----------



## laptop (May 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> Edlite.



A _vol-au-vent_?


(I've forgotten. What is the French for _vol-au-vent_?)


----------



## laptop (May 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't reckon the dead hand of racism will swat him? I mean, I'm aware that Umunna is superficially more appealing to the right-wing media than Miliband E. ever was, but institutional racism in the labour Party isn't exactly extinct, even if it's nowhere near as prevalent as 30, 40 or 50 years ago.



Here you accidentally reproduce the kind of thinking that led to Milliband E being selected.

You don't need an intellectually-sound leader with a fine eye for the pithy amendment in Committee, you wallies.

You need a visually-appealing Gonk who looks credible in a tank and makes the halfwits who actually decide elections while sucking on the pencil in the booth feel warm, safe, fathered and wealthy. 

And who doesn't frighten those of the halfwits who are scared of skin colour not their own.

And, being Labour, you need an intellectually-sound committee with its hand firmly up the Gonk's bottom.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

laptop said:


> A _vol-au-vent_?
> 
> 
> (I've forgotten. What is the French for _vol-au-vent_?)


I don't know that one, but I did learn from "_Phoneshop" _that _Cava _is french for Champagne.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

laptop said:


> Here you accidentally reproduce the kind of thinking that led to Milliband E being selected.
> 
> You don't need an intellectually-sound leader with a fine eye for the pithy amendment in Committee, you wallies.
> 
> ...


..and let's not overlook the scope for shaming the electorate that such a choice affords. "_Not voting Labour? Yer racist"_


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't reckon the dead hand of racism will swat him? I mean, I'm aware that Umunna is superficially more appealing to the right-wing media than Miliband E. ever was, but institutional racism in the labour Party isn't exactly extinct, even if it's nowhere near as prevalent as 30, 40 or 50 years ago.


it's alive and kicking indeed, but it's mainly muslims they have a problem with.

And Cameron had only been an MP for four years when he became leader, so that's no issue.


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

laptop said:


> (I've forgotten. What is the French for _vol-au-vent_?)


pelucheux Anglais ordures


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> it's alive and kicking indeed, but it's mainly muslims they have a problem with.
> 
> And Cameron had only been an MP for four years when he became leader, so that's no issue.



Yeah, but he (hamface) had been part of the _milieu_ since the early '90s. I'm not sure Chuck has put in as much time ascending "the greasy pole", or glad-handing the right people (although Mandelson's _imprimatur_ will help there).


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, but he (hamface) had been part of the _milieu_ since the early '90s. I'm not sure Chuck has put in as much time ascending "the greasy pole", or glad-handing the right people (although Mandelson's _imprimatur_ will help there).


longstanding and prominent Compass member.  

None of which matters tho, the only thing that does in his current electorates eyes, is is he electable?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> longstanding and prominent Compass member.
> 
> None of which matters tho, the only thing that does in his current electorates eyes, is is he electable?


Progress not Compass


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Progress not Compass


maybe both, he is (or was) on Compass' management committee


----------



## SaskiaJayne (May 12, 2015)

If they don't make Chuka leader they don't deserve to win in 2020. He is so fuckin perfect, he can talk the talk & he is sharp as a tack. The only thing he has to watch is that he don't come over as too slick. Chuka as leader has cheered me right up, onward to victory in 2020, we are almost there.


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2015)

Jon Trickett and Ian Lavery set to be the 'left' candidates - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labour-left-seek-run-candidate-leadership-election


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> Jon Trickett and Ian Lavery set to be the 'left' candidates - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labour-left-seek-run-candidate-leadership-election


I think Lavery would attract the wrong sort of attention, don't think he will go for it


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

Christ...


> It has been agreed that the result should not be announced at the party’s annual conference starting on 27 or 28 September but at a special conference a fortnight before or after.



Could be October, then. FFS


----------



## shifting gears (May 12, 2015)

SaskiaJayne said:


> If they don't make Chuka leader they don't deserve to win in 2020. He is so fuckin perfect, he can talk the talk & he is sharp as a tack. The only thing he has to watch is that he don't come over as too slick. Chuka as leader has cheered me right up, onward to victory in 2020, we are almost there.



"I'll have whatever she's having"


----------



## Belushi (May 12, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Christ...
> 
> 
> Could be October, then. FFS



That's a ludicrously long time scale.


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> That's a ludicrously long time scale.


I don't think so, they need time to properly cogitate 

Marry in haste, repent at leisure.


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I don't think so, they need time to properly cogitate
> 
> Marry in haste, repent at leisure.


They presume to call themselves the opposition FFS, and they can't even sort out electing their own leader. Joke party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> That's a ludicrously long time scale.


I think it's interesting, a good opportunity to have a proper discussion


----------



## brogdale (May 12, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think it's interesting, a good opportunity to have a proper discussion


It's nothing to do with discussion at all; it's purely to allow the unions to actually register their electorate. Not a great advert for the party's organisational ability tbh. And gives the vermin a free run over their first 100 days.


----------



## rioted (May 12, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think it's interesting, a good opportunity to have a proper discussion


The Labour Party has lost the ability to have a "proper" discussion.


----------



## cesare (May 12, 2015)

I doubt they'd have opposed much anyway, will it make any real difference how long they take?


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2015)

rioted said:


> The Labour Party has lost the ability to have a "proper" discussion.


When did they lost that ability?


----------



## laptop (May 12, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> When did they lost that ability?



Not sure _exactly_ when, but I think it's down the back of Ramsay MacDonald's sofa.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2015)

laptop said:


> Not sure _exactly_ when, but I think it's down the back of Ramsay MacDonald's sofa.


But your mans argument is they never had it - isn't it rioted? And so he can cast out witches who think diff.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> The Labour Party has lost the ability to have a "proper" discussion.


No it hasn't - since Blair went it's had hundreds of proper discussions on a range of issues, you may not like what they were discussing and how they were discussing it, but they've had more wide ranging series than many on the far-left for example.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (May 13, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> "I'll have whatever she's having"


Yes, I'm definitely a fan.


----------



## rioted (May 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> But your mans argument is they never had it - isn't it rioted? And so he can cast out witches who think diff.


No clue, have you? Once upon a time proper discussions in the Labour Party could lead to change of policy. Since the Blair years the neutering of conference, the suspension of local branches, the imposition of candidate lists and the parachuting in of on-message candidates has negated any discussion that the grass roots can have. You, as a Labour apologist obviously disagree - no surprise there.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> No clue, have you? Once upon a time proper discussions in the Labour Party could lead to change of policy. Since the Blair years the neutering of conference, the suspension of local branches, the imposition of candidate lists and the parachuting in of on-message candidates has negated any discussion that the grass roots can have. You, as a Labour apologist obviously disagree - no surprise there.


Astonishing, Labour was great until Blair. You've spent the last twenty years burning people for saying this. All sell outs. All idiots. This fantasy world where the leaders didn't decide policy, when did it exist?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> No clue, have you? Once upon a time proper discussions in the Labour Party could lead to change of policy. Since the Blair years the neutering of conference, the suspension of local branches, the imposition of candidate lists and the parachuting in of on-message candidates has negated any discussion that the grass roots can have. You, as a Labour apologist obviously disagree - no surprise there.


I think you'll find that branches have just as much (or as little) influence on policy now as they ever did, it's just done through different structures.


----------



## belboid (May 13, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think you'll find that branches have just as much (or as little) influence on policy now as they ever did, it's just done through different structures.


eh?  They've had their power greatly reduced. No influence over manifesto. Less ability to get things on the agenda at conference. They're there for picking councillors and, if they're lucky, MP's.


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It's nothing to do with discussion at all; it's purely to allow the unions to actually register their electorate. Not a great advert for the party's organisational ability tbh. And gives the vermin a free run over their first 100 days.



SNP may make interventions though


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2015)

laptop said:


> Not sure _exactly_ when, but I think it's down the back of Ramsay MacDonald's sofa.




They were invisible for four years, and when they weren't it was to vote for things like Smiths retrospective welfare legislation


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> No clue, have you? Once upon a time proper discussions in the Labour Party could lead to change of policy. Since the Blair years the neutering of conference, the suspension of local branches, the imposition of candidate lists and the parachuting in of on-message candidates has negated any discussion that the grass roots can have. You, as a Labour apologist obviously disagree - no surprise there.




Sometimes the 'parachutee' can be very good, Sarah Champion, though mostly not so good, Luciana Berger


----------



## rioted (May 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing, Labour was great until Blair. You've spent the last twenty years burning people for saying this. All sell outs. All idiots. This fantasy world where the leaders didn't decide policy, when did it exist?


You really do talk bollocks. So desperate to make a point but no point to make. Yes I have disagreed with LabourParty policy but nowhere have I said that proper discussion was not behind it. I might disagree with the conclusions, with the people making the arguements but I have always accepted that they (including most members of my family) had some chance of influencing policy. Not anymore! You still cling to the tribal loyalty, the misplaced belief that the Labour Party is the party of the working class, that it can be reclaimed from the anti-democrats. You are wrong. Get over yourself. 

You seem to believe that the rank and file NEVER had a say, it was NEVER a democratic party and yet you have the gall to call me for thinking it's got a lot worse over the past 20 years. Have you got ANY point to make or are you just demonstrating windbaggery?


----------



## rioted (May 13, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think you'll find that branches have just as much (or as little) influence on policy now as they ever did, it's just done through different structures.


Which structures are they?


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2015)

The idea of butchers as a Labour loyalist is a new one on me.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> You really do talk bollocks. So desperate to make a point but no point to make. Yes I have disagreed with LabourParty policy but nowhere have I said that proper discussion was not behind it. I might disagree with the conclusions, with the people making the arguements but I have always accepted that they (including most members of my family) had some chance of influencing policy. Not anymore! You still cling to the tribal loyalty, the misplaced belief that the Labour Party is the party of the working class, that it can be reclaimed from the anti-democrats. You are wrong. Get over yourself.
> 
> You seem to believe that the rank and file NEVER had a say, it was NEVER a democratic party and yet you have the gall to call me for thinking it's got a lot worse over the past 20 years. Have you got ANY point to make or are you just demonstrating windbaggery?


Astonishing post. An actual outright lie. I invite anyone to look at this clowns posts under this name or really old hippy and agree the above summation is an accurate account of his views. Total fabrication.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> SNP may make interventions though


I'm sure that they will, after all they have a leader, a mandate and a clear policy programme with which to oppose the vermin. All of which will highlight the inertia and ineffectiveness of HML opposition.

It is clear that the vermin coalition were able to construct their narrative, that ultimately undid Miliband, in the first 100 days of that administration. It is absurd that Labour should allow them to do the same again with added ammunition.


----------



## rioted (May 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> The idea of butchers as a Labour loyalist is a new one on me.


He blows with the wind. Will use any arguement if he thinks he can score a point.


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> The idea of butchers as a Labour loyalist is a new one on me.


Are we Blair yet?


----------



## rioted (May 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing post. An actual outright lie. I invite anyone to look at this clowns posts under this name or really old hippy and agree the above summation is an accurate account of his views. Total fabrication.


Astonishing post. More fabrication. More lies. More distortion. Just like always.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> Astonishing post. More fabrication. More lies. More distortion. Just like always.


I don't have a a long series of articles from you from the eighties arguing the Labour party was never under the memberships control then? How interesting to find that you know think it was.


----------



## rioted (May 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I don't have a a long series of articles from you from the eighties arguing the Labour party was never under the memberships control then? How interesting to find that you know think it was.


LOL! Go on then, post them up! As far as I know the internet wasn't invented back then, and if it was I wasn't posting on it. 

Interesting though that you keep records on everyone. Or is it just those you perceive as a threat? Worse than GCHQ. 
ETA: did I misread that or did you edit it. So what you're saying is that you've got NO evidence for your pathetic accusations.


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> ...You seem to believe that the rank and file NEVER had a say, it was NEVER a democratic party and yet you have the gall to call me for thinking it's got a lot worse over the past 20 years...



Whatever you say anyone else may or may not believe, can you point to any significant examples where the rank and file of the Labour party were ever able to have a genuine influence on party policy as it was actually exercised, ie when they weren't either over-ruled or ignored by party or union leadership?

All that's happened in the past 20 years (if not before) is that it's become impossible for rank and file hopefuls (except for the utterly deluded) to have any further illusions about where the power really lies.


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2015)

How does this:



rioted said:


> You still cling to the tribal loyalty, the misplaced belief that the Labour Party is the party of the working class, that it can be reclaimed from the anti-democrats. You are wrong. Get over yourself.



suggest this?


rioted said:


> He blows with the wind. Will use any arguement if he thinks he can score a point.



so full of shit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> LOL! Go on then, post them up! As far as I know the internet wasn't invented back then, and if it was I wasn't posting on it.
> 
> Interesting though that you keep records on everyone. Or is it just those you perceive as a threat? Worse than GCHQ.


Who mentioned the internet? Reading the anarchist press in the past, and remembering things. State! 

Again, Labour and your name in the search box shows the self serving lies you've just came out with.


----------



## Santino (May 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> The idea of butchers as a Labour loyalist is a new one on me.


 I haven't heard him condemn them for a while.


----------



## rioted (May 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Who mentioned the internet? Reading the anarchist press in the past, and remembering things. State!
> 
> Again, Labour and your name in the search box shows the self serving lies you've just came out with.


I've just done that. Here's one of my posts from 2013: 





rioted said:


> TBF Labour introduced tuition fees. At the time I was in protracted correspondence with Labour MPs who, like me, were grammar school educated working class kids who had grants to get to university. Now pulling up the ladder behind them. They all voted for a measure that would deny kids like them the chances they had. Arseholes. But did I really expect any different?


Protracted dicussion. But being only two years ago.  Now you find one that proves your point. If you have one. I don't think you actually know what "proper discussion" is.


----------



## rioted (May 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> How does this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't think Labour Loyalists will use any means to score a point if it suits their purpose? How odd.


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2015)

so we're back on butchers being a labour loyalist? 

what an odd fantasy world you live in.


----------



## Blagsta (May 13, 2015)

rioted said:


> You don't think Labour Loyalists will use any means to score a point if it suits their purpose? How odd.



Butchers a Labour loyalist? Are you on crack?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2015)

What the fuck is going on here?


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> What the fuck is going on here?


Fucknose

But...


> 29m ago11:47
> 
> *Labour will announce new leader on 12 September, reports say*
> *The Press Association is reporting that Labour’s national executive committee will choose a shorter leadership campaign, meaning the winner would be in place by the party conference at the end of September*.
> ...



That's *127 days* after the result of the GE were known.


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...
> 
> That's *127 days* after the result of the GE were known.



Looks like this thread could go on for a while...


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2015)

We're getting the oddball digressions in early so we can focus more later in the campaign.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2015)

i'm going on a coastal path walk from crantock to the bowgie inn. rioted may scan through his old copes of NAN at his leisure.


----------



## belboid (May 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Fucknose
> 
> But...
> 
> ...


yeah, but what's the point in rushing? They were never going to get it done in less than three months, in reality, not if they have a proper discussion about where it all went wrong. So, an extra month?  Not perfect, but hardly a massive disaster. Not until they elect Umunna, anyway


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> The idea of butchers as a Labour loyalist is a new one on me.


I knew he'd come round


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2015)

You finally turned him. The country must surely follow now.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> You finally turned him. The country must surely follow now.


A week too late.


----------



## articul8 (May 13, 2015)




----------



## killer b (May 13, 2015)

Have faith - only five short years before we lift John Mcdonnell on our shoulders and march him into Downing Street.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2015)

With no illusions


----------



## campanula (May 13, 2015)

holding our noses


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2015)

Take a look at this fuckery, if you like a bit of timetravel to 1950s opinions and can't wait until the UKIP party conference.  Chuka can't be trusted because he isn't married yet, apparently.

http://conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-stylish-chuka-is-too-old-to-have-a-girlfriend/


----------



## redsquirrel (May 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing post. An actual outright lie. I invite anyone to look at this clowns posts under this name or really old hippy and agree the above summation is an accurate account of his views. Total fabrication.


Fuck! He's ROH? I'm rubbish at spotting these people.


----------



## kebabking (May 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> i'm going on a coastal path walk from crantock to the bowgie inn. rioted may scan through his old copes of NAN at his leisure.



not jealous at all.

if you find yourself a few miles north, at Watergate Bay, there's an excellent pub/resteraunt called the Pheonix. food was excellent two weeks ago, and prices were very good.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 13, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> i'm going on a coastal path walk from crantock to the bowgie inn. rioted may scan through his old copes of NAN at his leisure.


 
Not a fan of the Bowgie, but really love the area; we've camped very near there every summer for the past 11 years...and will be back this summer for another three weeks!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2015)

kebabking said:


> not jealous at all.
> 
> if you find yourself a few miles north, at Watergate Bay, there's an excellent pub/resteraunt called the Pheonix. food was excellent two weeks ago, and prices were very good.


We walked the path that way yesterday. Didn't quite make it to watergate bay due to bad timing issues (i.e were meeting mate in Newquay). Ta for tip though.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not a fan of the Bowgie, but really love the area; we've camped very near there every summer for the past 11 years...and will be back this summer for another three weeks!
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


It's a bit odd,  in there now and it's a bit like a chain pub in the middle of a really nice walk. Still, grolsch for under 4 quid... 

Enough of this stuff from me though... Back to the issues.


----------



## weltweit (May 13, 2015)

Andy Burnham has formally thrown his hat into the ring for Labour leader.

I am sure he is a nice guy, thoughtful even, but a charismatic leader? I don't think so.


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2015)

maybe you could volunteer to give him lessons.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2015)

I think Burnham is too tainted with connections with the previous government to lead Labour to a victory, no doubt the big 3 unions will back him, not that it will be as important this time...


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2015)

Andy would make a fine deputy leader of the LP.


----------



## magneze (May 13, 2015)

I heard part of his video on the radio. Good god he sounded dull. Or bored.


----------



## oryx (May 13, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Take a look at this fuckery, if you like a bit of timetravel to 1950s opinions and can't wait until the UKIP party conference.  Chuka can't be trusted because he isn't married yet, apparently.
> 
> http://conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-stylish-chuka-is-too-old-to-have-a-girlfriend/



Holy shit!

It reads like a parody, but isn't. She blames feminism, PC, the metropolitan elite - all the usual suspects.

It's quite a fun read - you could turn her into a Viz character and do cartoons of her!!


----------



## mather (May 13, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Take a look at this fuckery, if you like a bit of timetravel to 1950s opinions and can't wait until the UKIP party conference.  Chuka can't be trusted because he isn't married yet, apparently.
> 
> http://conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-stylish-chuka-is-too-old-to-have-a-girlfriend/



The page does not work now, 404 error (what does that mean btw)? The rest of the website works so I'm guessing they took it down.


----------



## Blagsta (May 13, 2015)

mather said:


> The page does not work now, 404 error (what does that mean btw)? The rest of the website works so I'm guessing they took it down.



It means they deleted or moved the page. Probably saw all the referrals from here and felt embarrassed.


----------



## mather (May 13, 2015)

Strange, it's now working again. Maybe they re-edited it?


----------



## oryx (May 13, 2015)

> Chuka Umunna has thrown his stylish cap into the ring for the Labour Leadership. I will probably not follow this bloodbath too closely but one thing did catch my eye, namely Mr Umunna’s girlfriend, Alice Sullivan.
> 
> It is not so much Ms Sullivan who caught my eye. I am sure she is a perfectly nice woman and, as is now mandatory in Labour circles for wives or girlfriends, she is a lawyer. It is more the fact that Umunna has a girlfriend – and not a wife. How odd.
> 
> ...



Links works for me, welcome to this world of idiotic and judgemental shite!!!


----------



## brogdale (May 13, 2015)

Liz Kendall on Newsnight. Pisspoor.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 13, 2015)

oryx said:


> Links works for me, welcome to this world of idiotic and judgemental shite!!!



Didn't we have all this with Milipede? And indeed Brown before him. It's incredibly boring.

e2a: I just thought, what if Cooper gets the leadership and Ed Balls has to play arm candy and keep his gob shut? And he thought he was gonna be chancellor. That would be funny.


----------



## Sirena (May 13, 2015)

magneze said:


> I heard part of his video on the radio. Good god he sounded dull. Or bored.


I think this is his problem.  He may be a nice man but he's so dull!

And you just can't see him as a charismatic leader, rallying his followers....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 13, 2015)

Sirena said:


> I think this is his problem.  He may be a nice man but he's so dull!
> 
> And you just can't see him as a charismatic leader, rallying his followers....


I kind of hate myself for remembering this, but the candidates last time round were all asked what their favourite music was. The Millibands both produced lists that were clearly by people who don't have any favourite music so have made some stuff up that they think sounds right to answer the question. Burnham's was the only credible list - he's about the same age as me and it all made sense for someone who grew up in the 80s.

This, of course, has the square root of fuck all to do with his abilities as a leader, but if you're talking about charisma, surely a prerequisite for that is an ability to answer simple questions simply, without having to try to second-guess what you think your questioner wants to hear.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I kind of hate myself for remembering this, but the candidates last time round were all asked what their favourite music was. The Millibands both produced lists that were clearly by people who don't have any favourite music so have made some stuff up that they think sounds right to answer the question. Burnham's was the only credible list - he's about the same age as me and it all made sense for someone who grew up in the 80s.



If you're going for musical taste then it's got to be Creasy for deputy. She wrote the cover notes for a Wedding Present album.


----------



## xenon (May 13, 2015)

pfft

Or meh, if you will.


----------



## ska invita (May 13, 2015)

Oddschecker

Chuka Umunna 7/4

Andy Burnham 11/4

Yvette Cooper 6

Liz Kendall 6

Tristram Hunt 12


Are they all New Labour?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 13, 2015)

xenon said:


> pfft
> 
> Or meh, if you will.


My prejudices are showing. Writing sleeve notes for the Weddoes is actually a bit . If she'd written them for, say, Deacon Blue, I'd have a very different impression of her.

And yes, I know.  @ self.


----------



## belboid (May 13, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If you're going for musical taste then it's got to be Creasy for deputy. She wrote the cover notes for a Wedding Present album.


Creasy is actually all right, as far as Labour Party possibles go, best of the bunch. It'll be Tom Watson tho


----------



## ska invita (May 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Creasy is actually all right, as far as Labour Party possibles go, best of the bunch. It'll be Tom Watson tho


66/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader


----------



## belboid (May 13, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Oddschecker
> 
> Chuka Umunna 7/4
> 
> ...


not exactly. Only Umunna & Kendall are whole heartedly. The others are more Post-New-Labour

e2a: Post-New-Labour_New-Labour, I should say


----------



## belboid (May 13, 2015)

ska invita said:


> 66/1
> http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader


I'm talking Deputy here, Umunna will be the next leader.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 13, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Are they all New Labour?


tbh choosing by favourite bands is probably as good a way to do it as any.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Creasy is actually all right, as far as Labour Party possibles go, best of the bunch. It'll be Tom Watson tho


She's a great constituency MP much to the despair and hatred of Nancy Taafe lol


----------



## editor (May 14, 2015)

Amen. 





> Chuka Umunna is the last thing Labour needs – a pro-austerity MP who calls people 'trash'
> 
> He’s been touted as the “British Obama”, (although it’s allegedly a tagline that came from his own office) but in reality, he’s the last thing Labour needs. Situated to the right of Ed Miliband, Umunna –  who describes himself as “Blue Labour” – is seen by Blairites as the man to bring back all the Tory voters who didn’t trust Labour this time round. However, this genius plan of simply becoming more like the Tories just won’t work, as there’s already a party that does this expertly: the Tories.
> 
> Instead of trying to engage with the voters Labour is meant to represent, Umunna says he wants to be “on the side of those who are doing well". Seeing as the richest are probably only going to get richer over the next five years, it’s clear who he means. It’s who Blairites call the “aspirational voter”. But what about those who aspire to live in a much fairer society?



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s=10153326146349190&fb_action_types=og.shares


----------



## SE25 (May 14, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Oddschecker
> 
> Chuka Umunna 7/4
> 
> ...


What a sad state of affairs when that lot are the best Labour can come up with. There's a reason why I've stayed the fuck away from the news and politics in the past week (with the exception of a few things such as the vermin's planned devastation to our civil liberties lead by Theresa May)

Tories with red rosettes. How are the working classes supposed to get behind these? How will all those who voted Ukip be turned back by the likes of Umunna? Maybe it's time to move away from counting on Labour to defend those effected by our gov't


----------



## Santino (May 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Didn't we have all this with Milipede? And indeed Brown before him. It's incredibly boring.
> 
> e2a: I just thought, what if Cooper gets the leadership and Ed Balls has to play arm candy and keep his gob shut? And he thought he was gonna be chancellor. That would be funny.


The Leader of the Opposition's husband looked resplendent in a dark suit and red tie.


----------



## Wilf (May 14, 2015)

Santino said:


> The Leader of the Opposition's husband looked resplendent in a dark suit and red tie.


WAG.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 14, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Oddschecker
> 
> Chuka Umunna 7/4
> 
> ...



I have literally no idea what any of those numbers mean.


----------



## Wilf (May 14, 2015)

A sub plot to all this is how far do Labour have to before they alienate the handful of deluded fools who think there's a left future for the party.  Umunna wants to continue the attack on the working class (in practice, they all would, but he makes a virtue of it).  Do you want to be part of that? Haven't got a clue if he's going to win, but do you really want to be hanging on till 2020, hoping some Umunna + 4/5 Libdems + Caroline Lucas thing is going to improve things?


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2015)

Burnham may be the only one who could keep the show on the road - it might not implode under Cooper/Umunna/Kendall but it would start to lose across the north, as well as Scotland, and lose out in the south/east to UKIP.  Tristram Hunt would trigger this in spades.  

I'm feeling a bit ambivalent - Burnham would limit the right wing drift but not reverse it.  Maybe it needs a right wing leader to force a section of the unions to split, and I'd certainly be out with them.


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I have literally no idea what any of those numbers mean.



Betting odds. 7/4 means bet £4 and get £7 (plus your £4 stake) back. They're just fractions. Turn them into decimal numbers and the lowest number is the most likely.

Umunna at 7/4 = 1.75
Burnham at 11/4 = 2.75

He left "/1" off the end of the others

Cooper at 6/1 = 6
and so on

The bookies think Chuka will win.


EDIT: painfully corrected by butchers there!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 14, 2015)

Is Jon Trickett only standing in a parallel universe run by the New Statesman?


----------



## Wilf (May 14, 2015)

Tristram, fucking hell!


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Betting odds. 7/4 means bet £7 and get £4 (plus your £7 stake) back. They're just fractions. Turn them into decimal numbers and the lowest number is the most likely.
> 
> Umunna at 7/4 = 1.75
> Burnham at 11/4 = 2.75
> ...


Other way round, 4 quid stake gets you 7 back (plus stake).


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Other way round, 4 quid stake gets you 7 back (plus stake).


oops. yes.

*shame*


----------



## bi0boy (May 14, 2015)

I don't see Burnham as a PM tbh. Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Brown, and never had a proper job like Milliband.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 14, 2015)

Tristrum Hunt would get mauled at PMQs and on serious head to head interviews, he's really weak like Ed Miliband. Burnham too, but slightly less so.

Umunna and Cooper are the only ones I could see. And at the moment I see Umunna being a stronger contender with Cooper not far behind but would also be a decent Shadow Chancellor. Burnham for Health Sec/Home Sec and Hunt as Education or Shadow Foreign sec if I had to choose. You could slot them anywhere though TBH.


----------



## comrade spurski (May 14, 2015)

On election night Tristram Hunt referred to a losing labour candidate  somewhere as being 'a great wealth provider' on the bbc...
... rhyming slang was invented for him


----------



## Indeliblelink (May 14, 2015)

*Labour leadership: Mary Creagh enters race*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32742236

Never heard of her


> the Wakefield MP will announce her bid to succeed Ed Miliband via an article for the Daily Mail.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081985/Mary-Creagh-launches-Labour-leadership-bid.html


----------



## Wilf (May 14, 2015)

It's not so much a Who's Who of the Labour Party, more a 'who the fuck?'


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 14, 2015)

For most of them it's about putting forward their strategy for victory rather than a serious bid.


----------



## belboid (May 14, 2015)

McCluskey says on newsnight that he'll be opposing any attempts to disaffiliate from labour in Unite julys conference


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

Wilf said:


> It's not so much a Who's Who of the Labour Party, more a 'who the fuck?'



I caught her BBC news interview about five times over the course of yesterday evening and I still don't think I could pick her out of a line-up. And she's been in the shadow cabinet - shows you what a pointless bunch _they've_ been over the past five years.


----------



## emanymton (May 15, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> *Labour leadership: Mary Creagh enters race*
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32742236
> 
> Never heard of her
> ...



'After announcing a bid to succeed Ed Miliband via a Daily Mail article,'

Tells me all I need to know.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 15, 2015)

emanymton said:


> 'After announcing a bid to succeed Ed Miliband via a Daily Mail article,'
> 
> Tells me all I need to know.



yeah that she wants to get her message out in one of the most widely read papers in the country.


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> yeah that she wants to get her message out in one of the most widely read papers in the country.



I can hear the LPHQ focus group now: 'So guys, we really feel we didn't capture the Scared Bigot vote effectively enough last week, yeah?'


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 15, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I can hear the LPHQ focus group now: 'So guys, we really feel we didn't capture the Scared Bigot vote effectively enough last week, yeah?'


If you want to write off the millions of people who didn't vote for something even vaguely progressive last week that's up to you


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If you want to write off the millions of people who didn't vote for something even vaguely progressive last week that's up to you



Fuck off. The DM is a disgusting rag and would itself 'write me off' on at least half a dozen different levels. I completely agree with emanymton that it reflects badly on someone if it's their announcement vessel of choice.


----------



## emanymton (May 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If you want to write off the millions of people who didn't vote for something even vaguely progressive last week that's up to you


That would be fine if she was trying to engage in an argument with them. But she isn't she is trying to get their support by appealing to them.


----------



## newbie (May 15, 2015)

which goes back to electoral realities.  If Labour alienates the Scared Bigots they lose, if they appeal to them they might stand a chance.  Some sort of alternative strategy- nakedly leftist social cohesion and solidarity- is an act of faith that hasn't been tried in generations because none of the strategists think it would be successful. The mild stuff Red Ed managed, was savaged for and then failed with, tends to give credence to that. 

No inspirational leftist is going to appear, win the ballot and then lead Labour to victory in the next election. Trying to re-establish credibility with the Scared Bigot vote is about the only thing the candidates can aspire to.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2015)

Most valid thing Blair ever said (yes I know!) was something along the lines that 90% of the time 90% of people simply don't think about politics at all. And that most professional politicians hugely underestimate the extent of that disengagement.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 15, 2015)

If there is one thing that Labour have failed most at, it is in setting the direction of debate. All they seem to do is attempt to reflect what they see as the political mood at any given time, not realising that as a national political party they have the power to influence what the mood is. The result is that the narrative is shaped by the right, who understand fully the need to mould political opinion. That is why their next leader will just be a nodding donkey for middle England.


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> If there is one thing that Labour have failed most at, it is in setting the direction of debate. All they seem to do is attempt to reflect what they see as the political mood at any given time, not realising that as a national political party they have the power to influence what the mood is. The result is that the narrative is shaped by the right, who understand fully the need to mould political opinion. That is why their next leader will just be a nodding donkey for middle England.



Blair and Campbell and Mandelson understood it well enough, I think, and it showed: the only time [e2a: meant this in reference to late 90s] in my memory when the people in charge of Labour (and of course govt) actually _looked like_ they were in charge and knew it.  If you took that and allied it to a few, you know, principles, it could be pretty persuasive stuff.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

This is an interesting development....

23m ago10:10

Here is the complete text of the letter from first-time Labour MPs setting out their hopes for the Labour leadership (see 9.51)

_Having arrived in Westminster as newly-elected Labour MPs after speaking to tens of thousands of voters during our election campaigns, we know how important it is for the future of our Party to move forward with an agenda that best serves the everyday needs of people, families and communities and that is prepared to challenge the notion of austerity and invest in public services.

Labour must now reach out to the five million voters lost since 1997, and those who moved away from Labour in Scotland and elsewhere on 7 May, renewing their hope that politics does matter and Labour is on their side.

*As we seek a new leader of the Labour Party, we are needing one who looks forward and will challenge an agenda of cuts, take on the powerful vested interests of big business and will set out an alternative to austerity – not one who will draw back to the ‘New Labour’ creed of the past.*

Now is the time Labour needs a leader who’s in tune with *the collective aspiration of ordinary people and communities across Britain, meeting the need for secure employment paying decent wages, homes that people can call their own, strong public services back in public hands again and the guarantee of a real apprenticeship or university course with a job at the end of it. From restoring Sure Start to providing dignity and a good standard of living in retirement, these are the aspirations key to real Labour values today and will re-engage people across our country in the years to come.*

We look forward to engaging in the debate surrounding the Labour leadership in the weeks ahead to secure our Party as being best able to meet the challenges faced by ordinary people at this time._

Signed:


Richard Burgon (Leeds East)
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley)
Harry Harpham (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough)
Imran Hussain (Bradford East)
Clive Lewis (Norwich South)
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles)
Rachael Maskell (York Central)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central)
Well done newbies.​


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

Chucky's out!


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2015)

well, that was unexpected.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 15, 2015)

So whats his game then? Perhaps he's weighing up the possibility of him not pulling it off in 5 years and deciding the long game may be better now he's got the score on what the bookies reckon to his leadership chances.

I was kinda of hoping for a Umunna, Watson and Cooper as shadow chancellor setup. Not sure who I'd favour between Cooper or Burnham now TBH.


----------



## D'wards (May 15, 2015)

On LBC they speculated maybe a Sunday-tabloid-skeleton-in-the-closet type deal


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

D'wards said:


> On LBC they speculated maybe a Sunday-tabloid-skeleton-in-the-closet type deal


That would be quite Lol


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 15, 2015)

They found out he was briefly in the So Solid Crew?


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

Could be an anti-irish thing?


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

D'wards said:


> On LBC they speculated maybe a Sunday-tabloid-skeleton-in-the-closet type deal


Sounds like it...


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Could be an anti-irish thing?


Nah. It's just that he said Jim Murphy was "doing a good job".


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Chucky's out!



Perhaps his judgement is that the next election isn't winnable (as a majority?).



skyscraper101 said:


> So whats his game then? Perhaps he's weighing up the possibility of him not pulling it off in 5 years and deciding the long game may be better now he's got the score on what the bookies reckon to his leadership chances.
> 
> I was kinda of hoping for a Umunna, Watson and Cooper as shadow chancellor setup. Not sure who I'd favour between Cooper or Burnham now TBH.




From the man himself; after talking about the pressure and scrutiny of being a leadership candidate:

_I had always wondered whether it was all too soon for me to launch this leadership bid...
_​Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Perhaps his judgement is that the next election isn't winnable (as a majority?).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds like code for some bad shit somewhere


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 15, 2015)

Maybe he had a DJ epiphany last night and decided against it. I always thought he was a little too fragile for the tough leadership post.


----------



## gawkrodger (May 15, 2015)

my money is on vast quantities of drugs taken in ibiza


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sounds like code for some bad shit somewhere



Yep I am now undecided whether it's skeleton in closet or letting someone else fail next time out...or a bit of both.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 15, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Fuck off. The DM is a disgusting rag and would itself 'write me off' on at least half a dozen different levels. I completely agree with emanymton that it reflects badly on someone if it's their announcement vessel of choice.


My parents are Daily Mail readers and disillusioned Labour supporters who have voted socialist before and UKIP at different times, they're not scared bigots.

I talk to Daily Mail and Sun readers most days who don't seem to have very different opinions to Mirror readers and definitely are nicer people than the sort of wankers who comment on Guardian articles - would you think more of her of she did a CIF piece?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Sounds like code for some bad shit somewhere


Turns out he puts beans on first then cheese on top.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Turns out he puts beans on first then cheese on top.


Consider using **trigger** warnings for such vile shit.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 15, 2015)

Got to be some sunday paper scandal - i.e behavior the Daily mail does not approve of. In some ways i hope its something properly wrong then we can enjoy his departure without being associated with biblical morality bullshit.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Got to be some sunday paper scandal - i.e behavior the Daily mail does not approve of. In some ways i hope its something properly wrong then we can enjoy his departure without being associated with biblical morality bullshit.


tbh I think we can just enjoy the departure of another tory presuming to lead 'the people's party'.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2015)

twitter is suggesting financial issues - tax perhaps. which seems quite specific.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> twitter is suggesting financial issues - tax perhaps. which seems quite specific.


tory crimes


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 15, 2015)

I can't believe a former garage DJ would have done anything the tabloids would be interested in


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> twitter is suggesting financial issues - tax perhaps. which seems quite specific.


But shurely, the 'aspirational' don't pay tax?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 15, 2015)

so we may hear this Sunday

N.B. that is not "the" John Simpson, despite being called thejohnsimpson, it is "a" John Simpson, but he is a Times journalist. This Twitter is very confusing.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 15, 2015)

He has realised he cannot get the support from the party for leadership so going to stand for Mayor of London instead!


----------



## Diamond (May 15, 2015)

Apparently going to be a big scandal revealed over the weekend...


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2015)

I vaguely remember an excruciating Saturday night tv prog, something like 'confessions', where audience members won a prize if they owned up to the right secret crime (that the host already knew about): 'errr... errrr... was it that shedload of coke I did?' - No!   'Okay, erm, could have been that oranges, tights and kettle flex thing?' - No, not that one.  'Oh, SHIT, so that means you know about the £300,000 of undeclared income!' - No, not that one, it was the much worse one...


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

I'm guessing that's "*bad"* in a bad way, not a good way.


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2015)

whatever the story is im more interested in who pulled the trigger and fed the story out now ~ chuka could quite easily have been the next PM ~ the story no doubt has been in the air for years ~ feels like the establishment acting as gatekeeper ~ if it was just someone with a grudge theres no reason why not to have released the story earlier... have to wait and see what its all about...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> whatever the story is im more interested in who pulled the trigger and fed the story out now ~ chuka could quite easily have been the next PM ~ the story no doubt has been in the air for years ~ feels like the establishment acting as gatekeeper ~ if it was just someone with a grudge theres no reason why not to have released the story earlier... have to wait and see what its all about...



It's a difficult one. The Labour Party is generally speaking a close-knit and collegiate family. Comrades. All for one and one for all. Who could possibly want to scupper a plausible and rightish leadership candidate?


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> My parents are Daily Mail readers and disillusioned Labour supporters who have voted socialist before and UKIP at different times, they're not scared bigots.
> 
> I talk to Daily Mail and Sun readers most days who don't seem to have very different opinions to Mirror readers and definitely are nicer people than the sort of wankers who comment on Guardian articles - would you think more of her of she did a CIF piece?



No, probably not.

I wasn't slaggin your ma and da.  Both my nans read the Mail and as a pretty direct result both had a share of daft, ill-informed views about things/people/groups of people they had no real experience of, but they were, of course, otherwise lovely people. None of that stops me from recognising that that's fairly obviously the way the DM sees it's own demographic and the best way to appeal to them. The fact that a prospective leader of the Labour party chooses that outlet rather than another does say something - it reinforces the fact that the modern Labour leadership and those who aspire to be in it would rather pander to narratives of fear and bigotry, and right wing media in general, than challenge them.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> whatever the story is im more interested in who pulled the trigger and fed the story out now ~ chuka could quite easily have been the next PM ~ the story no doubt has been in the air for years ~ feels like the establishment acting as gatekeeper ~ if it was just someone with a grudge theres no reason why not to have released the story earlier... have to wait and see what its all about...



It'd be potentially more damaging to Labour if the story came out in a year rather than now, so I'd suspect a source within the party rather than a competent opponent.  Either that or the tabloids all knew and one wanted to get in there first.


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2015)

I hope it is a coke story so we can again post picture of Gideon charged dancing to ABCs Gold  whilst at his doms flat

fuck it, lets do it either way


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> McCluskey says on newsnight that he'll be opposing any attempts to disaffiliate from labour in Unite julys conference



So, posters on here were right, Len was bluffing when he said they may set up a new party if labour 'failed' in the election, when is it failure for Len?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> tory crimes



He played drums on the first Clash album, didn't he?


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

newbie said:


> which goes back to electoral realities.  If Labour alienates the Scared Bigots they lose, if they appeal to them they might stand a chance.  Some sort of alternative strategy- nakedly leftist social cohesion and solidarity- is an act of faith that hasn't been tried in generations because none of the strategists think it would be successful. The mild stuff Red Ed managed, was savaged for and then failed with, tends to give credence to that.
> 
> No inspirational leftist is going to appear, win the ballot and then lead Labour to victory in the next election. Trying to re-establish credibility with the Scared Bigot vote is about the only thing the candidates can aspire to.



I know what you're saying, but I don't agree that Milliband's failure does demonstrate that there's no point trying an alternative strategy. His 'alternative' was piss-weak and unconvincing, and not enough to paper over the 'we'd be _slightly _less mean than them' reality of what they were offering. So it was the worst of all worlds, which is presumably why they lost votes in both directions.

Appealing beyond the core vote is obviously necessary to win elections but doesn't have to revolve around pandering to people's worst natures - not on either side of the political spectrum in my view, unless left vs right is nothing more than good vs evil.


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I caught her BBC news interview about five times over the course of yesterday evening and I still don't think I could pick her out of a line-up. And she's been in the shadow cabinet - shows you what a pointless bunch _they've_ been over the past five years.



Absolutely, 'The Invisibles'


----------



## agricola (May 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> whatever the story is im more interested in who pulled the trigger and fed the story out now ~ chuka could quite easily have been the next PM ~ the story no doubt has been in the air for years ~ feels like the establishment acting as gatekeeper ~ if it was just someone with a grudge theres no reason why not to have released the story earlier... have to wait and see what its all about...



I suppose it depends what this scandal is (and which paper it appears in), but I doubt that this is the establishment playing at being gatekeeper - Umunna was probably intended to be the establishment candidate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> I hope it is a coke story so we can again post picture of Gideon charged dancing to ABCs Gold  whilst at his doms flat
> 
> fuck it, lets do it either way



Spandau Ballet's "Gold", you drongo!


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> If there is one thing that Labour have failed most at, it is in setting the direction of debate. All they seem to do is attempt to reflect what they see as the political mood at any given time, not realising that as a national political party they have the power to influence what the mood is. The result is that the narrative is shaped by the right, who understand fully the need to mould political opinion. That is why their next leader will just be a nodding donkey for middle England.




Blair and New Labour certainly shaped the debate around social security/welfare, with all the baleful consequences we are now seeing.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 15, 2015)

Just saw this on the Guardian feed 

"Plus if Chuka does run for the mayoralty against Sadiq it will provide the press with endless Chuka/Khan headlines."


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> This is an interesting development....
> 
> 23m ago10:10
> 
> ...



Surprised Naz Shah(Bradford West) didn't sign that, not too many names really, but positive stuff.


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

Chuka Umunna said:
			
		

> However since the night of our defeat last week I have been subject to the added level of pressure that comes with being a leadership candidate.
> 
> I have not found it to be a comfortable experience



Wouldn't you have more respect for him if he'd just out and admitted "I caught that Jan Moir going through me bins last night. Fuck this!"


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He played drums on the first Clash album, didn't he?


Indeed. Terrence Chimes.


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

Now LP M.P's are putting forward Keir Starmer as a possible leadership candidate, the man who brought in the ten year tariff for benefit fraud.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Now LP M.P's are putting forward Keir Starmer as a possible leadership candidate, the man who brought in the ten year tariff for benefit fraud.


I saw the Bankers' Baron Myners saying that on Newsnight, but seriously...are real MPs actually saying that? He's only been an MP for 1 week.


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Now LP M.P's are putting forward Keir Starmer as a possible leadership candidate, the man who brought in the ten year tariff for benefit fraud.



Link?


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

Another public schoolboy as well

though ex Socialist Organiser


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

> My colleague *Matthew Weaver* has this story on Labour activists already calling for Keir Starmer to run for leader in the wake of Chuka Umunna’s decision to step down.
> 
> He writes:
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Link?


It's "activists", not MPs.

Yet.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It's "activists", not MPs.
> 
> Yet.


aye, and he only joined the party relatively recently, it seems.  Was he barred from doing so as DPP?


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Just saw this on the Guardian feed
> 
> "Plus if Chuka does run for the mayoralty against Sadiq it will provide the press with endless Chuka/Khan headlines."




That's from up and coming Mark Wallace, see our Libertarians thread.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 15, 2015)

There's plenty of muck on Keir Starmer out there


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> That's from up and coming Mark Wallace, see our Libertarians thread.


It's Ch*a*ka anyway...so how could such a headline be remotely funny?


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's plenty of muck on Keir Starmer out there


But sources close to Murdoch are 'letting it be known' that they have absolutely nothing on Abbott. She's clear to go.


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's plenty of muck on Keir Starmer out there




Do expound.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)




----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




Why the ?


----------



## rekil (May 15, 2015)

They're in the same party but don't have the same politics (at all).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It's "activists", not MPs.
> 
> Yet.





> "It went crazy last night on Facebook after we launched – 180 or so joined in a matter of hours"



OMG ABSOLUTELY INSANE


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Why the ?


Looks like a bit of hint?


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

There's the Ed Stone!


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Do expound.



On his watch lots of activists were convicted unlawfully because undercover pigs were allowed to withhold key evidence. Starmer's inquiry found no grounds for disciplinary action against anyone involved in the stitch-up.

e2a: Although I guess being in charge of a corrupt organisation doesn't really count as 'dirt' these days. If he'd had a spliff at his cousin's wedding reception though, that would be a different matter altogether.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2015)

This isn't just silly season stuff, it's flies on shit shaking their heads in disbelief:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1616165061959015/members/

"I have to say I had no idea that a men with such credentials was part of the Labour Party. I would join the Labour Party if he were leader. Now I see why he was put to stand against Natalie Bennet. Amazing, please run!
"


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2015)

> The Blairites are back. But if Labour falls to them, the party may as well give up
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/blairites-new-labour-aspiration




Owen's counsel of despair, wonder what he would do in the event of another Blairite Coup?


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

treelover said:


>



Benefit scroungers! Get the long-range rifle out, chaps!


----------



## Idris2002 (May 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Owen's counsel of despair, wonder what he would do in the event of another Blairite Coup?


Vote labour without illusions. _As you know fine well. _


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2015)

gawkrodger said:


> my money is on vast quantities of drugs taken in ibiza



Was he one of the naked dancers on the M41?


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2015)

agricola said:


> I suppose it depends what this scandal is (and which paper it appears in), but I doubt that this is the establishment playing at being gatekeeper - Umunna was probably intended to be the establishment candidate.


yeah lets wait and see - the story could come from a labour candidate competitor, from a worried tory source, but it could just as easily have come from a spooks file ~ whatever it is, im just saying that is more interesting than the story itself


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> yeah lets wait and see - the story could come from a labour candidate competitor, from a worried tory source, but it could just as easily have come from a spooks file ~ whatever it is, im just saying that is more interesting than the story itself


It would be, but probably the bit we're least likely to find out about.


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It would be, but probably the bit we're least likely to find out about.


depends on the story though ~ sometimes there's a clear source to them ~ especially so in kiss and tells


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> depends on the story though ~ sometimes there's a clear source to them ~ especially so in kiss and tells


maybe...but this already has a very murky feel to it...just a hunch, mind.


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> maybe...but this already has a very murky feel to it...just a hunch, mind.


agreed
dirty


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2015)

This leaves the as-yet undeclared T. Hunt as the odds-on "_Him_? He's in the _Labour _Party??" candidate.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> yeah lets wait and see - the story could come from a labour candidate competitor, from a worried tory source, but it could just as easily have come from a spooks file ~ whatever it is, im just saying that is more interesting than the story itself




Thing is, if there was a Tory agenda at work this would have happened pre-election. It can only be internecine.


----------



## brogdale (May 15, 2015)

"Break clause" leader; that's a new one on me. Sounds a bit like 'caretaker' really? Seems to have quite a few pitfalls, and only really one advantage. What a pickle.



> ...an idea is rapidly gaining ground in the party of having a “break clause” in 2017 or 2018, after the EU Referendum. All it would take right, now, according to a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet, is for one of the leadership contenders to offer right now, that if he or she is elected, to put themselves up for a genuine re-election in two or three years time – a review moment, an opportunity for the party to renew their contract as it were, or to seek an alternative.


Hmmm


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2015)

Andy Burnham.

Sounds slightly Northern, *appears* not too Metropolitan Elite-like, sometimes even sounds a bit normal humanoidish!

Plus will sound massively boring and even more bland as a leadership candidate.

Got to be a win win Shirley?


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2015)

Oh yes and as for his policies ...


----------



## Sirena (May 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> "Break clause" leader; that's a new one on me. Sounds a bit like 'caretaker' really? Seems to have quite a few pitfalls, and only really one advantage. What a pickle.
> 
> ​Hmmm


Maybe that's the reason Chuka Umunna withdrew his candidacy....

Who wants to be short-term stand-in?


----------



## weepiper (May 15, 2015)

You can have Jim Murphy if you like, we don't need him anymore


----------



## RedDragon (May 15, 2015)

Ben Bradshaw announces he's standing for deputy; like annoncing you'er prepared to come second in an egg and spoon race.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2015)

weepiper said:


> You can have Jim Murphy if you like, we don't need him anymore




I've seen some absolutely brilliant odds on him becoming next (UK wide) Labour leader. I'll definitely be down the bookies tomorrow.


----------



## andysays (May 15, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I've seen some absolutely brilliant odds on him becoming next (UK wide) Labour leader. I'll definitely be down the bookies tomorrow.



Before you part with any money, check the eligibility criteria - I'm pretty sure the UK Labour leader has to be an MP, which Murphy obviously isn't anymore.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2015)

Check my own pisstaking criteria?


----------



## JHE (May 15, 2015)

RedDragon said:


> Ben Bradshaw announces he's standing for deputy; like annoncing you'er prepared to come second in an egg and spoon race.



I don't think that's fair.  It seems to me more like saying he's willing to play Prescott to someone else's Blair.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 16, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> This leaves the as-yet undeclared T. Hunt as the odds-on "_Him_? He's in the _Labour _Party??" candidate.



I find it amusing there could be a race between a knight and someone called Tristram.

In other news, tonight Mr Hunt announced at his constituency party meeting that he has nothing to announce. He's still taking counsel on it, apparently.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 16, 2015)

Christ - what a gallery of dismality. If the labour party had anyone who could come across as a normal person with the  ability to articulate arguments in a half convincing way, they'd wipe the field.


----------



## Belushi (May 16, 2015)

Fairly good article by John Harris who has at least been thinking about the task Labour face http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/labour-history-leadership


----------



## William of Walworth (May 16, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Christ - what a gallery of dismality. If the labour party had anyone who could come across as a normal person with the  ability to articulate arguments in a half convincing way, they'd wipe the field.




Are you including Burnham in that dismality spectrum? 

(Not disagreeing with you generally, just not sure about Burnham because I don't know much about him. He sounds  a bit Northern for what that's worth).


----------



## weepiper (May 16, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Are you including Burnham in that dismality spectrum?
> 
> (Not disagreeing with you generally, just not sure about Burnham because I don't know much about him. He sounds  a bit Northern for what that's worth).


Cambridge graduate.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 16, 2015)

Oh noes!


----------



## kebabking (May 16, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Oh noes!



more importantly, Health Secretary when the wheels started coming off the NHS - Stafford, gagging clauses for whistleblowers, PFI etc...

if Labour thinks that having a northern accent trumps being a conspicuoius failure as a Secretary of State, then thats up to them. disenchanted northerners might flock to his whippet and flat-cap manifesto (i rather doubt it, but i won't pretend to speak for them..), but those southern/midlands marginals Labour needs to win in order to, err... win, won't.

if he does get elected leader, then you can expect a story every single day for the next five years in the Daily Hate/Scum/Times/Torygraph about Burnhams failures while in office.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 16, 2015)

kebabking  -- Thanks for that, useful.


----------



## Libertad (May 16, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> (Not disagreeing with you generally, just not sure about Burnham because I don't know much about him. He sounds  a bit Northern for what that's worth).





kebabking said:


> disenchanted northerners might flock to his whippet and flat-cap manifesto



What the fuck is going on here?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 16, 2015)

weepiper said:


> You can have Jim Murphy if you like, we don't need him anymore


what did we do to deserve him?


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2015)

Caroline Flint is now standing for Deputy Leader, its a Gadarene rush to the Blairites, and she is one of the worst


----------



## danny la rouge (May 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> what did we do to deserve him?


What did we what did we what did we do to deserve him?


----------



## billy_bob (May 16, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Cambridge graduate.



Well, decent edumacation notwithstanding, he does seem and sound more 'normal' than some of the options. It's barely more than window-dressing of course, and kebabking is obviously right that he's too allied to the previous regime. He and Cooper seem to be the least biggest cunts of the lot so far but both are in this position where the papers will never let up for a moment on their past inadequacies in office and it'll just be 'clearing up the mess the last lot left' all over again.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Caroline Flint is now standing for Deputy Leader, its a Gadarene rush to the Blairites, and she is one of the worst



Didn't her and Purnell jump ship from Brown's cabinet as part of a failed coup?


----------



## billy_bob (May 16, 2015)

Anyone who can appear in a sentence with Purnell without an intervening verb involving physical violence is scum.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Didn't her and Purnell jump ship from Brown's cabinet as part of a failed coup?



I thought Purnell went on his own?


----------



## belboid (May 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I thought Purnell went on his own?


she went the day after him, and for the same stated reasons


----------



## kebabking (May 16, 2015)

Libertad said:


> What the fuck is going on here?



you don't think that - were Burnham to win - Labour wouldn't desperately campaign on his 'northernness' in contrast to both the Tories 'southern poshness' and the previous Labour metropolitan, latte-drinking, Islington-living image?

it'd be like Monty-Pythons 'Four Yorkshiremen' sketch, tales of Burhams family being so poor he couldn't afford friends, that he didn't know that telly had colours before 1997, that he and his 87 brothers and sisters lived in a matchbox at the bottom of a pond...

its an everyday story of living amongst the Dark Satanic Mills: leaving town to seek his fortune at Cambridge University, as an MP's researcher, a SPAD, an MP and then a Secretary of State who couldn't find his arse with both hands - every school must have dozens of such stories every year. (if you listen carefully, you can hear the Hovis music playing in the background...)


----------



## cesare (May 16, 2015)

I've got no idea about Burnham's specific background, but it is possible for working class people from the north to go to a top university and keep their accent before, during and after. Kinell.

kebabking Not sure how you were meaning to come across but you sound like a right fucking snob.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 16, 2015)

Maybe Labour needs to split. Liz Kendall can run Southern Labour, Burnham can run Northern Labour, and some poor sod can have the thankless task of wooing the Picts away from nationalism. Each of the three parties can determine their own policy agenda and, with enough seats, they could govern in coalition. At least it would mean that each party could have a coherent message which would knock out Tories in one patch, maintain the core and defend against Kippers in another, and perhaps reclaim a couple of seats in Scotland.


----------



## cesare (May 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Maybe Labour needs to split. Liz Kendall can run Southern Labour, Burnham can run Northern Labour, and some poor sod can have the thankless task of wooing the Picts away from nationalism. Each of the three parties can determine their own policy agenda and, with enough seats, they could govern in coalition. At least it would mean that each party could have a coherent message which would knock out Tories in one patch, maintain the core and defend against Kippers in another, and perhaps reclaim a couple of seats in Scotland.


I still reckon you're Guido Fawkes ... are you?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 16, 2015)

cesare said:


> I still reckon you're Guido Fawkes ... are you?



There are enormous differences between me and Staines. For a start, he used to promote raves. I would have had them suppressed.

What's wrong with my suggestion, though?


----------



## cesare (May 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> There are enormous differences between me and Staines. For a start, he used to promote raves. I would have had them suppressed.
> 
> What's wrong with my suggestion, though?


This talk of raves is pure camouflage, dust thrown in our eyes


----------



## Mr Moose (May 16, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Christ - what a gallery of dismality. If the labour party had anyone who could come across as a normal person with the  ability to articulate arguments in a half convincing way, they'd wipe the field.



Coming across as 'normal' takes quite a lot of doing. Cameron can't even remember which team he supports when he tries it. Ed seems ridiculous in retrospect.

The leader needs a lot of positive attributes, the ability to strategise and convince others of the effectiveness of their strategy. They must be charming and charismatic. Only exceptionally charismatic people look 'normal' under such scrutiny.

Above all he or she cannot be pug ugly. I am and therefore I know my limitations. Some of those putting themselves forward clearly don't.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 16, 2015)

Burnham can have Wales and the South West. Kendall's mandate would stop at Chippenham.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 16, 2015)

Southern Labour gets the business cash, Northern Labour the union cash.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 16, 2015)

It might be that the Northern party keeps the name and goes to the polls as  Traditional Labour, while the London mob can get in branding consultancies and end up with something like #redAspire.


----------



## Crispy (May 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> #redAspire.


----------



## billy_bob (May 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It might be that the Northern party keeps the name and goes to the polls as  Traditional Labour, while the London mob can get in branding consultancies and end up with something like #redAspire.



#blueAspire would surely be more accurate.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 16, 2015)

A real branding consultancy would come up with something much more impressively revolting, anyway.

So, no-one likes the strategic schism idea?


----------



## kebabking (May 16, 2015)

cesare said:


> I've got no idea about Burnham's specific background, but it is possible for working class people from the north to go to a top university and keep their accent before, during and after. Kinell.
> 
> kebabking Not sure how you were meaning to come across but you sound like a right fucking snob.



do you work for Labour HQ? i ask because no-one who had been north of Edgeware could believe anything other than i was taking the piss not out of the North, but out of the cretins who poulate Labour HQ, and their understanding of the North - which is none whatsoever.


----------



## Favelado (May 16, 2015)

Death to Southerners.

Thanks, I feel better now.


----------



## ska invita (May 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Death to Southerners.
> 
> Thanks, I feel better now.


im about to read this thread backwards but i think i can guess whats coming...


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2015)

Son of Pinochet's mate and failed parliamentary candidate, young Will offers some clear advice to the aspirant leaders of his party...


> If we want a majority again, we will need to think hard about *how to win back the working-class voters*...


So far so good, but...


> From what I heard on the doorstep, *I think there are four challenges.*


Now those can be read in full in the linked article, but if you're after a summary...

Stop calling UKIP nasty tories
Cut welfare
Adopt a pro EU ref position
Embrace EVEL and ditch Barnett
 Are we Cameron yet?


----------



## billy_bob (May 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Son of Pinochet's mate and failed parliamentary candidate, young Will offers some clear advice to the aspirant leaders of his party...
> ​So far so good, but...
> ​Now those can be read in full in the linked article, but if you're after a summary...
> 
> ...



Go on, son - the right to determine the direction of the party of working people is a sacred honour handed down from generation to generation to a select few chosen ones.


----------



## articul8 (May 17, 2015)

looks like being the spunking cock option....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> looks like being the spunking cock option....



Euan Blair, then.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Son of Pinochet's mate and failed parliamentary candidate, young Will offers some clear advice to the aspirant leaders of his party...
> ​So far so good, but...
> ​Now those can be read in full in the linked article, but if you're after a summary...
> 
> ...



and this one in particular shows how clueless. The cunts decided, well 3 mill are racists now father so we best appease them by.... parts 2 3 and 4 which excacerbate the fuck you vote into the arms of falange

its as clueless in mirror image as shapps with his beer and bingo concessions.

These people don't live on the same planet I do.


----------



## billy_bob (May 17, 2015)

articul8 said:


> looks like being the spunking cock option....



I saw somewhere (HIGNFY?) that supposedly at least one ballot paper spunking cock was counted as a valid vote because it was drawn neatly within the box.


----------



## Favelado (May 17, 2015)

Are there stats out there on historical turnout by class at general elections?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 17, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I saw somewhere (HIGNFY?) that supposedly at least one ballot paper spunking cock was counted as a valid vote because it was drawn neatly within the box.


I saw a series of ballot papers when i was at the count that had "he's a fucking wanker" or words to that affect written next to the name of the UKIP guy, and crosses in the Green party box which were accepted.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 17, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I saw somewhere (HIGNFY?) that supposedly at least one ballot paper spunking cock was counted as a valid vote because it was drawn neatly within the box.




To fit within the box, it would have to have been the smallest cock and shortest trajectory of spunk ever, surely?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 17, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> To fit within the box, it would have to have been the smallest cock and shortest trajectory of spunk ever, surely?


----------



## billy_bob (May 18, 2015)

See, I thought (thanks to Richard Herring) that the spunking cocks system was about identifying any candidate who gets more cocks than votes so that they can be barred from ever again standing for public office.

But if cocks count as votes too, maybe we need a separate category of representatives who've been elected this way: a tricameral system - House of Lords, House of Commons and House of Cocks. 

Imagine how much time and effort the actual Govt could save if there was a separate chamber of people specifically appointed to be cocks.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 18, 2015)

So apparently anyone can sign up to vote for the next leader, regardless of whether or not they are in the party. Surely that's just asking to be trolled by the loyal footsoldiers of Proletarian Democracy.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> So apparently anyone can sign up to vote for the next leader, regardless of whether or not they are in the party. Surely that's just asking to be trolled by the loyal footsoldiers of Proletarian Democracy.


£3 for the privilege. I'd have thought that the loyal foot-soldiers of the vermin would be more interested in supporting the most vulnerable candidate?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> £3 for the privilege. I'd have thought that the loyal foot-soldiers of the vermin would be more interested in supporting the most vulnerable candidate?



Well yes, that was kind of the point I was making in a round-about way.


----------



## brogdale (May 18, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Well yes, that was kind of the point I was making in a round-about way.


Here you go!


----------



## billy_bob (May 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here you go!



Can I nominate him on the left in the leather waistcoat? He seems to really have the rapt attention of the bloke in sunglasses.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I saw somewhere (HIGNFY?) that supposedly at least one ballot paper spunking cock was counted as a valid vote because it was drawn neatly within the box.


Genito-détournement.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I saw somewhere (HIGNFY?) that supposedly at least one ballot paper spunking cock was counted as a valid vote because it was drawn neatly within the box.


A few years ago I wrote 'Anyone but XXX' in XXX's box, just cos I wanted her to try and argue that it was a positive vote, despite it bloody obviously not being.


----------



## billy_bob (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> A few years ago I wrote 'Anyone but XXX' in XXX's box, just cos I wanted her to try and argue that it was a positive vote, despite it bloody obviously not being.



I've been a vote-counter at many elections and I can assure you that she would have done so without hesitation or embarrassment.


----------



## Wilf (May 18, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I've been a vote-counter at many elections and I can assure you that she would have done so without hesitation or embarrassment.


This is at least a measure of why our political culture is ahead of that of Florida. They had parties claiming hanging chads, we at least have candidates declaiming loudly 'put that spunker on my pile!'


----------



## gosub (May 18, 2015)

interim leader Harman has effectively turned the leadership contest into a ballot stuffing contest between Unite and CCHQ - presumably Burnham vs Hunt.  Think Labour would be better served if Alan Johnson threw his hat into the ring standing on a platform of only being there 2 years, using the time to normalise the internal working of the party.


----------



## co-op (May 18, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> #blueAspire would surely be more accurate.



You may be lagging behind reality. In 2010 I saw some blue election leaflets hanging out of some letter boxes a street or two away from where I lived in Stockwell and I was so curious about why the tories would bother leaflet such a safe Labour ward that pulled one out to have a look and see what their pitch was. It was from Labour, and to be fair had a purple-ish tinge to it. Interestingly they were popping the blue/purple ones through letterboxes on a Georgian terrace and using red ones on the council estate where I lived.


----------



## billy_bob (May 18, 2015)

co-op said:


> You may be lagging behind reality. In 2010 I saw some blue election leaflets hanging out of some letter boxes a street or two away from where I lived in Stockwell and I was so curious about why the tories would bother leaflet such a safe Labour ward that pulled one out to have a look and see what their pitch was. It was from Labour, and to be fair had a purple-ish tinge to it. Interestingly they were popping the blue/purple ones through letterboxes on a Georgian terrace and using red ones on the council estate where I lived.



'Like' seems an inappropriate response. Can we have a 'grim nod of recognition' button please editor ?


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2015)

> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-hunt-leadership-welfare-childcare-devolution




Tristam makes his play, and its firmly from the Blairite right, including higher rates of benefits for 'contributers'

btw, Wintour is loving all this, you can see the glee in every sentence


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2015)

> The introduction of a universal right to free childcare for working parents of children aged two or over by freezing or reducing child benefit



So, if you don't work, you won't benefit but will still have less CB.


----------



## belboid (May 20, 2015)

Hunt drops out, backs Kendall

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32800602


----------



## billy_bob (May 20, 2015)

belboid said:


> Hunt drops out, backs Kendall
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32800602



Thank god.

The others may be little better in any _really _important way, but just imagine how teeth-grinding it would've been to have to watch Hunt and Cameron go head to massive posh swollen head at PMQs for 4 1/2 years, never mind the excruciating 2020 election run-up...


----------



## billy_bob (May 20, 2015)

BBC said:
			
		

> Mr Hunt said Labour needed a "100% strategy" that was "broad-based" and "forward-looking".



= "as watered down as possible" and "devoid of the slightest grasp of its founding principles".


----------



## nino_savatte (May 20, 2015)

First, Chucky, now Tristy. They're dropping like flies.

This is from The [nominally] Independent.


> Tristram Hunt has decided not to enter the race to replace Ed Miliband as Labour leader and has thrown his support behind fellow moderniser Liz Kendall.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...the-race-to-replace-ed-miliband-10262784.html



Tristy may have declined to stand for leader, but will continue to cross picket lines.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2015)

The cupboard is bare, isn't it?  

Can they transfer someone from another party for a fee, like in the football?


----------



## laptop (May 20, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Can they transfer someone from another party for a fee, like in the football?





 ?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 20, 2015)

laptop said:


> ?



I'm still undecided if Varoufakis is adorable or creepy.


----------



## Libertad (May 20, 2015)

I think there's something of Herbert Lom about him.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2015)

modeniser

twats. Regressive buzzword shouting echo chamber bubble world twats.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 20, 2015)

I fucking hate the fact that the term 'modernising' has been appropriated by those seeking a return to the workhouses, soup kitchens and destitution of times past.  Call it out for the backwards shite that it is.


----------



## belboid (May 20, 2015)

I guess they'll all be desperate to avoid having Richard Burgon nominate them - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/20/labour-mp-richard-burgon-oath_n_7341252.html


----------



## Idris2002 (May 20, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I'm still undecided if Varoufakis is adorable or creepy.



Why not both?


----------



## laptop (May 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Why not both?



Goth.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 20, 2015)

laptop said:


> Goth.



Hun.


----------



## laptop (May 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Hun.



Visigoth.


----------



## frogwoman (May 20, 2015)

I hope jim murphy stands.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2015)

the dearth of talent means that if he did he might win (in lalala land)

either way it'd be bare funny


----------



## weltweit (May 20, 2015)

I know nothing about Kendall.
Would she be a leader or a manager?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 21, 2015)

*Tristram Hunt ducks out of leadership race after discovering he's a Tory*

TRISTRAM Hunt will not stand in the Labour leadership contest after finding out he was actually a Conservative all along.

The shadow education secretary made the discovery after some basic research on Wikipedia to find out his weaknesses as a candidate.

He said: “I knew I was a Blairite, but when I found out my father is a life peer in the House of Lords and that I went to Westminster School I thought ‘how odd’.

“I then discovered that my cousin is Virginia Bottomley, the former Tory cabinet minister. That is deeply suspicious.

“And, of course, my name is ‘Tristram’.

_“Tristram_.”

On checking his beliefs, Hunt found that he supported low taxes on wealth creators, cutting benefits for low-income households and tighter immigration controls.

He added: “Also, apparently I’m the MP for Stoke-on-Trent. I don’t know where that is.”


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 21, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I know nothing about Kendall.
> Would she be a leader or a manager?




I have no idea what she is. She is a fan of free schools now. I never thought I'd back a Brownite over a Blairite but Cooper seems appreciably saner than Kendall.


----------



## billy_bob (May 21, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> *Tristram Hunt ducks out of leadership race after discovering he's a Tory*
> 
> TRISTRAM Hunt will not stand in the Labour leadership contest after finding out he was actually a Conservative all along.
> 
> ...



The man's full name sounds like what you'd hear posh parents shouting exasperatedly at their posh kids.


----------



## emanymton (May 21, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I fucking hate the fact that the term 'modernising' has been appropriated by those seeking a return to the workhouses, soup kitchens and destitution of times past.  Call it out for the backwards shite that it is.


See also reform.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2015)

emanymton said:


> See also reform.



And "radical", which often now means "incredibly reactionary".


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 21, 2015)

emanymton said:


> See also reform.





> She said she was firmly on the side of wealth creation and public service reform





> “When it comes to public services, I am firmly on the side of the public,” Kendall said. “Services should revolve around those who use them and be fit for the future, not stuck in the past. There is no point saying you believe in economic responsbility and being careful with taxpayers money if public services are a reform-free zone.”


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/21/liz-kendall-labour-leadership-election


----------



## DotCommunist (May 21, 2015)

reform. Modernise. They cry as they take an oath to the queen then get led into a 300 year old palace by a man dressed as baldrick walking backwards


----------



## gosub (May 21, 2015)

HoP is less than 200 years old


----------



## oryx (May 21, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I fucking hate the fact that the term 'modernising' has been appropriated by those seeking a return to the workhouses, soup kitchens and destitution of times past.  Call it out for the backwards shite that it is.



Indeed. Given the success of the SNP on an anti-austerity ticket, and the growth in membership of the Greens on the same, surely 'modernising' is the wrong word - isn't that looking back to a Blairite version of 'electability''?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 21, 2015)

gosub said:


> HoP is less than 200 years old


I can never remember when it burned down. Should be more frequent imo


----------



## binka (May 22, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers, ask him as well then if you do see him and feel like it, who he wants and who he thinks will win.



He doesn't like any of them, thinks they're all right wing and anti union and he is really annoyed at the way the defeat is being blamed on the party being too left wing when prior to the election old labour union members like him were being fucked over. 

After 30 years active membership he's pretty much done with Labour, all he's interested in doing now is using his position in the co-op party to force a proper investigation into what happed in his clp with the blacklisting and vote rigging and hopefully embarass a few people.


----------



## billy_bob (May 22, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And "radical", which often now means "incredibly reactionary".



See also: 'a politician who speaks his/her own mind'.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And "radical", which often now means "incredibly reactionary".


Feminists were way ahead of the game on that one


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> See also: 'a politician who speaks his/her own mind'.



We both seem to unconsciously have been talking about Eric Pickles!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2015)

belboid said:


> Feminists were way ahead of the game on that one



A fair point. Some feminists definitely were!


----------



## billy_bob (May 22, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> We both seem to unconsciously have been talking about Eric Pickles!



I had a dispute with Pickles in a meeting once, where his response to incontrovertible evidence that I and two other people were holding directly in front of his face was "Don't try and confuse me with facts - I find it's more simple to make snap judgements based on my own blind prejudice and unfounded assumptions." More or less word for word.

The man doesn't have much 'mind' to speak.  Who knows which overworked organ of his all the rubbish he talks actually emanates from....


----------



## treelover (May 25, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/25/john-healey-labour-deputy-leadership-bid

John Healey is standing for Deputy Leader, done some good stuff on housing, I thinks that it.


----------



## shifting gears (May 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I had a dispute with Pickles in a meeting once, where his response to incontrovertible evidence that I and two other people were holding directly in front of his face was "Don't try and confuse me with facts - I find it's more simple to make snap judgements based on my own blind prejudice and unfounded assumptions." More or less word for word.
> 
> The man doesn't have much 'mind' to speak.  Who knows which overworked organ of his all the rubbish he talks actually emanates from....



Not an organ as such but I'll have a cheeky fiver on his sphincter, overworked though it is.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2015)

This might just breath _some _life into the 'contest'?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 3, 2015)

I suppose the most you can hope for is it will give some short respite from the wall-to-wall bullshit about aspirations and white working class, etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2015)

Where's Diane Abbot when you need her? Probably busy with all those PTA meetings at the Toffington Academy for Tomorrow's Tyrants


----------



## andysays (Jun 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> This might just breath _some _life into the 'contest'?




Will be interesting to see if Corbyn manages to get 35 MPs to back his nomination.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> Will be interesting to see if Corbyn manages to get 35 MPs to back his nomination.


Got to, otherwise the loyal legitimisation of the 'left' would be pointless, no?


----------



## andysays (Jun 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Got to, otherwise the loyal legitimisation of the 'left' would be pointless, no?



I don't understand what you mean 

I read somewhere that Burnham (and maybe one of the others?) has so many MPs committed to him already that it may be a struggle for others to get enough to back them.

From what I remember, Diane Abbott was the "left" candidate last time round, and she only just got the necessary number of MPs to support her nomination.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jun 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> I don't understand what you mean
> 
> I read somewhere that Burnham (and maybe one of the others?) has so many MPs committed to him already that it may be a struggle for others to get enough to back them.
> 
> From what I remember, Diane Abbott was the "left" candidate last time round, and she only just got the necessary number of MPs to support her nomination.


Burnham gives away 20, Corbyn picks up a few more...and hey presto...there really is a 'left'. Geddit? Now get out and campaign for the tory we choose.


----------



## andysays (Jun 3, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Burnham gives away 20, Corbyn picks up a few more...and hey presto...there really is a 'left'. Geddit? Now get out and campaign for the tory we choose.



You mean they will cynically engineer him getting enough just so it looks good and keeps the Labour lefties from kicking up too much?

I'm shocked that you would suggest such a thing


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2015)

one thing that keeps coming back to me is the words of some labour right twonk in the aftermath of the GE 'you can't win an election from the left'

How the fuck would they know, they've never tried in my living memory


----------



## J Ed (Jun 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> one thing that keeps coming back to me is the words of some labour right twonk in the aftermath of the GE 'you can't win an election from the left'
> 
> How the fuck would they know, they've never tried in my living memory



It's the first line of the neoliberal playbook - never let a good crisis go to waste


----------



## brogdale (Jun 12, 2015)

Sorry to resurrect such a moribund thread, but....there's "news"! Mary Who has been evicted leaving just 4 housemates.


----------



## oryx (Jun 12, 2015)

Creagh has mentioned being pro-business, and 'criticised Ed Miliband's stance on business'.

cf Alan Sugar leaving the Labour Party due to 'negative business policies'. What is this 'anti-business' thing - does it mean they're a bit too cosy with workers' rights like the proposed minimum wage increase etc.?


----------



## laptop (Jun 13, 2015)

oryx said:


> What is this 'anti-business' thing - does it mean they're a bit too cosy with workers' rights like the proposed minimum wage increase etc.?



That.

But mostly it's *code* for challenging the interests of the rich:

may like progressive taxation (rather than VAT, which business in effect doesn't pay and is deeply regressive - the poorest pay most)
may try to close tax loopholes for the rich
may regulate - breaking management's sacred right to fuck up as it pleases (and then be bailed out if it's a bank)

may not carry on setting up scams and deals for the boys with privatisation


----------



## brogdale (Jun 13, 2015)

Here's the pearls before swine that the ex Cranfield "school of management" lecturer penned for the Guradian...

*Picking fights with business doomed Labour to defeat*
Mary Creagh


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 14, 2015)

brogdale said:
			
		

> Burnham gives away 20, Corbyn picks up a few more...and hey presto...there really is a 'left'. Geddit? Now get out and campaign for the tory we choose.





andysays said:


> You mean they will cynically engineer him getting enough just so it looks good and keeps the Labour lefties from kicking up too much?
> 
> I'm shocked that you would suggest such a thing





I may well have missed something, but is there an actual possibility that the above will happen? -- the Burnham reassigning 20 or so nominations to Corbyn thing I mean.

(Not disputing these posts as analysis -- just adding a factual question though)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I may well have missed something, but is there an actual possibility that the above will happen? -- the Burnham reassigning 20 or so nominations to Corbyn thing I mean.
> 
> (Not disputing these posts as analysis -- just adding a factual question though)


Happening


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 14, 2015)

Thanks. That's interesting, but those two appear? to be switching of their own accord (?) -- and I suppose a few more could easily follow. I was more interested though in whether Burnham was ever going to _engineer_ some transfers ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Thanks. That's interesting, but those two appear? to be switching of their own accord (?) -- and I suppose a few more could easily follow. I was more interested though in whether Burnham was ever going to _engineer_ some transfers ...


They're not going to openly say that  they are part of an engineered plan by the labour party to make it look like there is a real existing left within it and that Burnham is part of it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> one thing that keeps coming back to me is the words of some labour right twonk in the aftermath of the GE 'you can't win an election from the left'
> 
> How the fuck would they know, they've never tried in my living memory



Well they can't and you'd be insane to think they could. I would challenge you to log off for a moment and divine how staggeringly unpopular the classic labour left is.

But as the Scot Nats show you can win with progressive policies and as UKIP show there is an appetite for something more toothy and oppositional. 

All of which indicates it's not a step to the right that is required either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Well they can't and you'd be insane to think they could. I would challenge you to log off for a moment and divine how staggeringly unpopular the classic labour left is.
> 
> But as the Scot Nats show you can win with progressive policies and as UKIP show there is an appetite for something more toothy and oppositional.
> 
> All of which indicates it's not a step to the right that is required either.


You've just said they can't win from the left but they can win from the left. And that thinking they can win from the left is insane.

It's the labour part not the left part that's the problem.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 14, 2015)

The majority of the British public – including the majority of Conservative voters – support nationalising the energy and rail companies


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You've just said they can't win from the left but they can win from the left. And that thinking they can win from the left is insane.
> 
> It's the labour part not the left part that's the problem.



If you mean better distribution of wealth, better regulation and better services, yes, people will vote for that. 

They are mistrustful of anything further that appears like an ideology or a project. A progressive party would need to let the demand for a more radical reshaping of the world grow itself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> If you mean better distribution of wealth, better regulation and better services, yes, people will vote for that.
> 
> They are mistrustful of anything further that appears like an ideology or a project. A progressive party would need to let the demand for a more radical reshaping of the world grow itself.


You're just using _progressive _for _left_. So labour _can _win from the left if the leftism is packaged differently?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 14, 2015)

Stop p












butchersapron said:


> You're just using _progressive _for _left_. So labour _can _win from the left if the leftism is packaged differently?


"Stop picking on business, start picking on benefits scum" leftism.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> "Stop picking on business, start picking on benefits scum" leftism.



Also: I vote Labour and have bigoted and right-wing views about the working-class and support an aggressive foreign policy but I'm sick of EXTREMISTS being mean to me and calling me right-wing. I have lost invites to DINNER PARTIES over this.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Also: I vote Labour and have bigoted and right-wing views about the working-class and support an aggressive foreign policy but I'm sick of EXTREMISTS being mean to me and calling me right-wing. I have lost invites to DINNER PARTIES over this.



Hmm queasy self regarding satire, but indicative. You can't characterise every disagreement as hysterically reactionary or elite.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Hmm queasy self regarding satire, but indicative. You can't characterise every disagreement as hysterically reactionary or elite.



I don't, but that's basically what a lot of the Graunid narrative is at the moment.


----------



## treelover (Jun 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> If you mean better distribution of wealth, better regulation and better services, yes, people will vote for that.
> 
> They are mistrustful of anything further that appears like an ideology or a project. A progressive party would need to let the demand for a more radical reshaping of the world grow itself.



So, the Tories don't have an ideology?, when they appear to using direct the 'Chicago Boys' Chile economics handbook, you remind me of the saying, "my family aren't political, we always vote Conservative"


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> So, the Tories don't have an ideology?, when they appear to using direct the 'Chicago Boys' Chile economics handbook, you remind me of the saying, "my family aren't political, we always vote Conservative"



Der, of course they do. What a daft post. 

It seems the electorate don't care for Labour aping the Tories ideology either.


----------



## andysays (Jun 14, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I may well have missed something, but is there an actual possibility that the above will happen? -- the Burnham reassigning 20 or so nominations to Corbyn thing I mean.
> 
> (Not disputing these posts as analysis -- just adding a factual question though)



Wouldn't be the first time something similar has happened


> On 20 May 2010 [Diane] Abbott announced her intention to stand in the Labour leadership contest. She secured the necessary 33 nominations by 9 June, assisted by the withdrawal of fellow left-wing candidate John McDonnell and unexpected support from fellow candidate David Miliband.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

How left is left enough to make electoral catnip for you all? Leave NATO? Abolish the Royal Family and private education? Stop all arms sales? Renationalise BT? Wealth tax at 80%? Twin more councils with Havana?

There are lots of things many of us believe in, but this about getting elected. What left wing ideas will capture the imagination of a hawkish and disillusioned electorate?


----------



## andysays (Jun 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> How left is left enough to make electoral catnip for you all? Leave NATO? Abolish the Royal Family and private education? Stop all arms sales? Renationalise BT? Wealth tax at 80%? Twin more councils with Havana?
> 
> There are lots of things many of us believe in, but this about getting elected. What left wing ideas will capture the imagination of a hawkish and disillusioned electorate?



Simply not going any further than they already have along the road of neo-liberal austerity, demonising of the poor and needy, tearing the guts out of the welfare state so that the already-rich can become even richer etc etc would be better than what they are doing ATM.

Not sure I would describe it as "left-wing", although it's apparently too left wing for those at the top of the party with genuine aspirations to be leader.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 14, 2015)

well I'm glad mr moose has a coherent message


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> well I'm glad mr moose has a coherent message



I'm just sorry you can't keep up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> well I'm glad mr moose has a coherent message



As coherent as drivel can be!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> well I'm glad mr moose has a coherent message



As coherent as drivel can be!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 14, 2015)

Worth saying twice!


----------



## killer b (Jun 14, 2015)

Maybe try countering what he's saying instead of dismissing it - its what loads of people think.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Worth saying twice!



My god you are a tedious old bore.

Hang on, let me post it twice with an exclamation mark!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm just sorry you can't keep up.



well, I pointed out that claiming you can't win an election from the left by people haven't tried in my lifetime was bit wtf- you responded that it can't be done then went on to point to the snp success with its anti austerity ticket. So I'm confused. Again


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> well, I pointed out that claiming you can't win an election from the left by people haven't tried in my lifetime was bit wtf- you responded that it can't be done then went on to point to the snp success with its anti austerity ticket. So I'm confused. Again



The SNP are progressive in many ways, but they are not left. All I'm saying is that whilst people will vote for more fair distribution, a tight rein on the financial sector and better services (and less aggressive foreign policy) they won't in droves vote for a bigger leftist agenda any more than they would in the 1980's with Kinnock's manifestos. Doesn't mean there isn't good work for a Labour Govt to do and certainly doesn't mean they should go markedly to the right.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 14, 2015)

And it doesn't mean the left can't progress outside of this (limited) sphere.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 14, 2015)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Thanks. That's interesting, but those two [NE Lab MPs] appear? to be switching of their own accord (?) -- and I suppose a few more could easily follow. I was more interested though in whether Burnham was ever going to _engineer_ some transfers ...





butchersapron said:


> They're not going to openly say that  they are part of an engineered plan by the labour party to make it look like there is a real existing left within it and that Burnham is part of it.



True -- I nearly added a sentence roughly to that effect this morning -- such a thing couldn't be a publicly advertised project. Had just been wondering what was really happening.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Here's the pearls before swine that the ex Cranfield "school of management" lecturer penned for the Guradian...
> 
> *Picking fights with business doomed Labour to defeat*
> Mary Creagh



When did they pick any fights with business? I must've missed that. Maybe they're talking about the zero hour contract thing, but even with that they were careful to come up with a policy riddled with loopholes you could drive a bus through. I can't think of any other issue where they've even remotely stood up to business. They weren't even threatening a token rise in the minimum wage.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 14, 2015)

Miliband said he wasn't scared of Murdoch once, tiny temporary freeze on household bills, resistance to zero-hours contracts - FULL COMMUNISM.

That was literally everything wasn't it?


----------



## oryx (Jun 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> When did they pick any fights with business? I must've missed that. Maybe they're talking about the zero hour contract thing, but even with that they were careful to come up with a policy riddled with loopholes you could drive a bus through. I can't think of any other issue where they've even remotely stood up to business. They weren't even threatening a token rise in the minimum wage.



I read that and thought the same.

It's like Miliband had threatened to reintroduce Clause 4!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 14, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Miliband said he wasn't scared of Murdoch once, tiny temporary freeze on household bills, resistance to zero-hours contracts - FULL COMMUNISM.
> 
> That was literally everything wasn't it?



There was also talk of closing the non-dom loophole but that's not so much affecting business in general as a handful of tycoons. Although I'm sure the tycoons would like to spin it otherwise.

Oddly enough, all the newspapers owned by non-doms came out in support of the tories at the GE, even the quote unquote Independent.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> As coherent as drivel can be!



Labour party's new slogan right there.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 15, 2015)

Despite everything, I still think the Labour Party is the only game in town if you think parliamentary politics is worth bothering with at all (I can sympathise with those who say it isn't, tbf. And certainly, either way, it is not the be all and end all). There was obviously some shifts in local parties over the last few years when you look at some of the candidates that got selected and then won, ie Kate Osamor replacing arch Blarite Andy Love in Edmonton. And most of the Japanese holdouts aka McDonnell, Hopkins and Corbyn retained their seats. Often with increased majorities that bucked the national and even local trend. As for the left of Labour alternatives, there is either nothing to stop them going the same way as Labour under the same pressure (the Greens, Left Unity) or just ending up being tightly controlled by democratic centralist parties who still take their cue from the 1917 failed experiment. The only thing that might work would be the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell leading a parliamentary split taking the trade unions with them etc. The arguments against that are fairly well worn though. From a parliamentary perspective, it is bleak outside, it is bleak inside... take your pick!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 15, 2015)

Corbyn's got his 35 nominations. Now the hard work begins.


----------



## treelover (Jun 15, 2015)

How do he do that?, John McDonnell never did, because of Abbot being on the list?


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2015)

Right-wingers who recognised the need for a 'real debate.'  Frank bloody Field nominated him!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 15, 2015)

Abbott was enthusiastically campaigning for nominations for Corbyn on twitter.

I imagine some of this is about wanting a "real debate" but some must also be self interest - splitting the vote for opponents or making right wing candidates seem more electable in comparison.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> Right-wingers who recognised the need for a 'real debate.'  Frank bloody Field nominated him!



Surely: who recognised the need to split the Burnham vote?

E2A - As FB said first.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Abbott was enthusiastically campaigning for nominations for Corbyn on twitter.
> 
> I imagine some of this is about wanting a "real debate" but some must also be self interest - splitting the vote for opponents or making right wing candidates seem more electable in comparison.


Not sure if it really helps split any vote, considering the electoral system. Corbyn will probably be the first out, so his votes will go straight to Burnham anyway. 

Agree that it will make the right wingers look 'sensible' in comparison


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 15, 2015)

Also this makes a bit more sense - Abbott trying to portray herself as the radical Lab candidate for Mayor:


----------



## killer b (Jun 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> Agree that it will make the right wingers look 'sensible' in comparison


You think? Why? He's hasn't come across as a frothing trot in the interviews I've seen - quite the opposite.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> Not sure if it really helps split any vote, considering the electoral system. Corbyn will probably be the first out, so his votes will go straight to Burnham anyway.
> 
> Agree that it will make the right wingers look 'sensible' in comparison



I think he'll actually make it out of the first round. Abbot would have done so in 2010 if it had been one member, one vote then. She actually beat both Ed Balls and Burnham on first preferences.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 15, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> I think he'll actually make it out of the first round. Abbot would have done so in 2010 if it had been one member, one vote then. She actually beat both Ed Balls and Burnham on first preferences.


Im not certain on the new voting mechanics, but i understand its now an AV system, so if he makes it through he could be a lot of peoples #2 vote...i'm not familiar enough with the system to know how it could play out


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Looking like it is Burnham's to lose. I think that's a shame.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> You think? Why? He's hasn't come across as a frothing trot in the interviews I've seen - quite the opposite.


frothing trot 

He's a radical left winger, who will propose radical left wing solutions. _They _will make the others seem 'sensible' even tho he sounds nothing like Wolfie Smith.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> I think he'll actually make it out of the first round. Abbot would have done so in 2010 if it had been one member, one vote then. She actually beat both Ed Balls and Burnham on first preferences.


He might just beat Kendall, tho I doubt it, no chance of him outdoing Burnham or Cooper.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> He might just beat Kendall, tho I doubt it, no chance of him outdoing Burnham or Cooper.



I think Kendall will beat Cooper. You seem to think the opposite.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> Agree that it will make the right wingers look 'sensible' in comparison



Look compromised in comparison.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Im not certain on the new voting mechanics, but i understand its now an AV system, so if he makes it through he could be a lot of peoples #2 vote...i'm not familiar enough with the system to know how it could play out


It was an AV system then. 

Abbott's great first pref than burnham and balls was only in the affiliated groups section - which has 1/3 of the vote. She was miles behind them in the other sections - and even further behind the milibands in all sections.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

tim said:


> Look compromised in comparison.


To who though?


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I think Kendall will beat Cooper. You seem to think the opposite.


I do.  Tho looking at the odds - Kendall is 5-2 v 3-1 for Cooper.  How the fuck can the truly vile Kendall be doing so well?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> How the fuck can the truly vile Kendall be doing so well?



She said that everyone needs someone to love. This is what political debate has come to now.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




It may be a small part of the parliamentary party but not of those who support/vote Labour.

As to calling him a "stooge", I assume that he wouldn't see himself in that light. I've always seen the concept as involving a degree of complicity.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2015)

Confusion between edit and reply. See post above


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It was an AV system then.
> 
> Abbott's great first pref than burnham and balls was only in the affiliated groups section - which has 1/3 of the vote. She was miles behind them in the other sections - and even further behind the milibands in all sections.



It is not 1/3 of the vote anymore though. It has been changed to one member, one vote. The 2010 first round on that basis would have been:

Ed M - 125,649
David M - 114,205
Abbott - 35,259
Balls - 34,489
Burnham - 28,772

Either way though, Corbyn gets smashed in the 2nd round when he needs 2nd preferences from Kendall or Cooper 1st preference voters... which won't be forthcoming.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> It is not 1/3 of the vote anymore though. It has been changed to one member, one vote. The 2010 first round on that basis would have been:
> 
> Ed M - 125,649
> David M - 114,205
> ...


That's assuming all those affiliated votes would have bothered to register as labour supporters in order to vote. Not something i am at all convinced of.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> I do.  Tho looking at the odds - Kendall is 5-2 v 3-1 for Cooper.  How the fuck can the truly vile Kendall be doing so well?



Of all the candidates, she's probably the leader the Conservatives would least like to face in 2020. I don't think the prospect of fighting a GE campaign against the Butcher of Stafford is causing too many palpitations at 30 Millbank.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

Token Labour candidate makes it. Who'd have thunk it, eh? Almost like it's staged.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That's assuming all those affiliated votes would have bothered to register as labour supporters in order to vote. Not something i am at all convinced off.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That's assuming all those affiliated votes would have bothered to register as labour supporters in order to vote. Not something i am at all convinced off.



This is fair comment. It is hard to see at the moment how this section will work out under the new system. It might possibly benefit Corbyn though as you'd have to be fairly enthused for a particular candidate to pay your £3 or whatever it is. I don't see the other 3 stirring up much of that!


----------



## J Ed (Jun 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Token Labour candidate makes it. Who'd have thunk it, eh? Almost like it's staged.


 
He seems a bit surprised about it himself. The 'Labour' 'Left' is a sick, cynical joke


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

So 28 Labour MPs voted NOTA ?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

Taking out all the whips, chairs etc who, by convention don't vote, that's still probably more than 20 who couldn't bring themselves to back any of them.


----------



## andysays (Jun 15, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> She said that everyone needs someone to love. This is what political debate has come to now.



Has she picked her campaign song yet...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> Has she picked her campaign song yet...




or maybe:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> How do he do that?, John McDonnell never did, because of Abbot being on the list?



McDonnell had baggage. Lots of people forget his time at the GLC, but some of his generation of Labour MPs haven't, and John doesn't have the sort of "don't give a fuck"ness that Livingstone carried off so well.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Taking out all the whips, chairs etc who, by convention don't vote, that's still probably more than 20 who couldn't bring themselves to back any of them.


some of the deputy leadership candidates deliberately abstained


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> some of the deputy leadership candidates deliberately abstained



They'd be mad to nail their colours to anyone at this stage.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> some of the deputy leadership candidates deliberately abstained


28?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> 28?


I am obviously just pointing out you can add them to the whips etc figures


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I am obviously just pointing out you can add them to the whips etc figures


Yeah, yeah...but up to 20 not backing anyone don't bode too well IMO.


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 15, 2015)

Dan Hodges has just laid this malodorous log of an article in the _Torygraph_.



> *Jeremy Corbyn proves the lunatic wing of the Labour Party is still calling the shots*
> * It might be good for Labour if he wins. Maybe then the Left will finally get it *


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Dan Hodges has just laid this malodorous log of an article in the _Torygraph_.


Clicky, clicky clickbait. It's the Tele innit?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 15, 2015)

Hodges...PMSL. What a fucking sad cunt.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 15, 2015)

Uninspiring bunch aren't they .....


----------



## killer b (Jun 15, 2015)

Nominations for Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet, please.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Stella Creasy's campaign are saying they've nailed 35 nominations - something that looked unlikely a day ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Stella Creasy's campaign are saying they've nailed 35 nominations - something that looked unlikely a day ago.


Nominations closed 7 hours+ ago.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

I took a while to post.


----------



## killer b (Jun 15, 2015)

creasy is standing for deputy isn't she? I thought they had another couple of days?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nominations closed 7 hours+ ago.



Not actually true by the way.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Not actually true by the way.


Yes it is.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it is.



OK. Wonder why they're still campaigning for nominations for Deputy Leader then and continue to until June 17th. Still, you know best.


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2015)

Deputy nominations close 12 on Wednesday


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> Deputy nominations close 12 on Wednesday


Excellent. Meanwhile...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> OK. Wonder why they're still campaigning for nominations for Deputy Leader then and continue to until June 17th. Still, you know best.


The labour party - this clown and maurice. You're welcome to it.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

Has Corbyn arranged his audience with Russell Brand yet?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> Nominations for Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet, please.


Not really, but let's face facts... Corbyn won't be in any shadow cabinet put together by the winning candidate. They'll bang on about debate and inclusion etc, but there'll be no room for someone holding vaguely socialist views on their front-bench.


----------



## killer b (Jun 15, 2015)

No, of course not. I was just wondering if there were enough Labour MPs holding vaguely socialist views left in the party for Corbyn to put together a front bench from...


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> No, of course not. I was just wondering if there were enough Labour MPs holding vaguely socialist views left in the party for Corbyn to put together a front bench from...


Yeah exactly...for all this manufactured twaddle about 'debate' and 'breadth' there's obviously no room for socialists in their ducking apology of a party.


----------



## killer b (Jun 15, 2015)

Lots of friend actually seem genuinely excited about Corbyn being on the ballot, that he might actually win. I'm not sure if I can be bothered to piss on their chips (and TBH after the recent election I'm giving up making definitive predictions about the outcome of upcoming polls), but even if he did by some minor miracle win what then? There's no significant group of energetic left wing MPs for him to lead against the Tories - it'd be a disaster.


----------



## killer b (Jun 15, 2015)

That said, I'm still glad he got his 35. He's an eloquent and persuasive speaker, and the platform this could give him to get some left wing ideas more of an airing can only be a good thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The labour party - this clown and maurice. You're welcome to it.



So articul8 doesn't provide an antidote to the maunderings of Picarda and AC14?


----------



## treelover (Jun 15, 2015)

The guardian was reporting a poll by Policy Exchange(yes them), that C1, C2's, think the L/P is 'for welfare and the unions'

if correct, quite disturbing, is there this sort of hostility in other parts of the EU?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 15, 2015)

If


killer b said:


> Lots of friend actually seem genuinely excited about Corbyn being on the ballot, that he might actually win. I'm not sure if I can be bothered to piss on their chips (and TBH after the recent election I'm giving up making definitive predictions about the outcome of upcoming polls), but even if he did by some minor miracle win what then? There's no significant group of energetic left wing MPs for him to lead against the Tories - it'd be a disaster.


If Corbyn did win...the 230 anti-socialist MPs would presumably have to leave the people's party and form some sort of social democratic party...and maybe even join forces with the Liberals....oh, hang on.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The labour party - this clown and maurice. You're welcome to it.



Why didn't you just admit to being wrong?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Why didn't you just admit to being wrong?



You must be new here. Unlikely as that is.


----------



## JTG (Jun 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> The guardian was reporting a poll by Policy Exchange(yes them), that C1, C2's, think the L/P is 'for welfare and the unions'
> 
> if correct, quite disturbing, is there this sort of hostility in other parts of the EU?


Disturbing indeed. Clearly the Labour Party need to work on their message if people think they're still pro-union/welfare


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 15, 2015)

JTG said:


> people think they're still pro-union/welfare



It shouldn't happen to Yvette.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> Lots of friend actually seem genuinely excited about Corbyn being on the ballot, that he might actually win. I'm not sure if I can be bothered to piss on their chips (and TBH after the recent election I'm giving up making definitive predictions about the outcome of upcoming polls), but even if he did by some minor miracle win what then? There's no significant group of energetic left wing MPs for him to lead against the Tories - it'd be a disaster.


Well, perhaps discussed above (I haven't read the thread), but Labour seem to have set up a leadership election system that can be rigged by online campaigns. Seems loads of people are signing up as supporter members (£3) to vote for Jeremy. Meanwhile there are rumours that Tories are encouraging each other to sign up and vote Jeremy cos they know it would tear the Labour Party apart. Were the party really thick enough to set up a one person one vote system where you could get a vote online for £3? Or am I missing something?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> The guardian was reporting a poll by Policy Exchange(yes them), that C1, C2's, think the L/P is 'for welfare and the unions'
> 
> if correct, quite disturbing, is there this sort of hostility in other parts of the EU?


Policy Exchange doesn't conduct research as we know it: they throw shit together and claim it's been researched by their 'scholars'.

I seriously doubt the validity of their poll.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Stella Creasy's campaign are saying they've nailed 35 nominations - something that looked unlikely a day ago.


Yep


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yep


You mean I'm not wrong? Surprise!
Are you one of them?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Well, perhaps discussed above (I haven't read the thread), but Labour seem to have set up a leadership election system that can be rigged by online campaigns. Seems loads of people are signing up as supporter members (£3) to vote for Jeremy. Meanwhile there are rumours that Tories are encouraging each other to sign up and vote Jeremy cos they know it would tear the Labour Party apart. Were the party really thick enough to set up a one person one vote system where you could get a vote online for £3? Or am I missing something?


I've been trying to sus that out as well.

Might be worth £3 to find out, being as I already get bombarded with labour supporters emails anyway for some reason.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I've been trying to sus that out as well.
> 
> Might be worth £3 to find out, being as I already get bombarded with labour supporters emails anyway for some reason.



It would need too many people: won't happen. He'd withdraw if it was a Tory plan.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

For what it's worth, I want Kendall to win. She'll win the next General Election, particularly if Creasy is her foil. 

I know this will stick in some people's throats, but so did Blair - and as I said earlier he did a lot of good despite his horrific failings.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> For what it's worth, I want Kendall to win. She'll win the next General Election, particularly if Creasy is her foil.
> 
> I know this will stick in some people's throats, but so did Blair - and as I said earlier he did a lot of good despite his horrific failings.



There's no point Kendall winning the next election if you're on the left. It's more or less the same as The Tories winning if she's going to demonise benefits claimants, cut spending on services and suck up to business.

You forget that a leader to the left of Blair would have won in 1997, as the public were utterly sick and tired of 18 years of Tory rule. Moving that far to the right was unecessary and paranoid and has ultimately started to destroy Labour. Once they abandoned the last vestiges of their principles, they couldn't go back to them without hysterical press screaming and accusations of Marxism.

Blair gave Labour short-term government in exchange for long-term decline. They don't mean anything anymore and they never will again. They have maneouvered themselves into a corner. UKIP have taken many of their core voters in England, the SNP has wiped them out in Scotland. A socially democratic Labour Party could have kept them and won the last election if Blairism's subservience to Thatcherism hadn't given us the poisonous political narrative that  has dominated Westminster and the media for 20 years.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 15, 2015)

Favelado said:


> if Blairism's subservience to Thatcherism hadn't given us the poisonous political narrative that has dominated Westminster and the media for 20 years.



which some of the labour leadership hopefuls seem to be continuing

is anyone seriously going to vote labour for a line of "ok, we're shit, all the lies the tories and the press have been spreading about us which we didn't have the balls to call bullshit on, was true all along.  we're shit.  i mean we were.  the tories are right and we're going to be just like them from now on"


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Favelado said:


> There's no point Kendall winning the next election if you're on the left. It's more or less the same as The Tories winning if she's going to demonise benefits claimants, cut spending on services and suck up to business.
> 
> You forget that a leader to the left of Blair would have won in 1997, as the public were utterly sick and tired of 18 years of Tory rule. Moving that far to the right was unecessary and paranoid and has ultimately started to destroy Labour. Once they abandoned the last vestiges of their principles, they couldn't go back to them without hysterical press screaming and accusations of Marxism.
> 
> Blair gave Labour short-term government in exchange for long-term decline. They don't mean anything anymore and they never will again. They have maneouvered themselves into a corner. UKIP have taken many of their core voters in England, the SNP has wiped them out in Scotland. A socially democratic Labour Party could have kept them and won the last election if Blairism's subservience to Thatcherism hadn't given us the poisonous political narrative that  has dominated Westminster and the media for 20 years.



Of course. All those leaders to the left of Blair that have won in the last 40 years. 
In seriousness, you might be right, but they would not have won like he did. I think you know that. 
Interesting that you think that the longest rule Labour have had for what I think is ever you call 'short term government'. 
You're utterly delusional.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 15, 2015)

Well, people have tried engaging with you today and it's a waste of time. Maybe get another hobby because you're shit at this one.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Well, people have tried engaging with you today and it's a waste of time. Maybe get another hobby because you're shit at this one.


What, the one where I point out you're wrong.
Tell me, how many leaders to the left of Blair have won a GE in 40 years?
And how is the longest unbroken period of Labour power 'short term'?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 15, 2015)

Nah fuck off.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

So AC14, assuming the tories manage to fuck the economy up again with their austerity policies, your recommendation is that going into the next election with another leader who's also signed up to austerity is the best strategy for winning it?

That worked really well last time.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Nah fuck off.



I guess that's a no.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

free spirit said:


> So AC14, assuming the tories manage to fuck the economy up again with their austerity policies, your recommendation is that going into the next election with another leader who's also signed up to austerity is the best strategy for winning it?
> 
> That worked really well last time.


What, Ed - who was backed by the unions. I agree. Stupid move. We all knew it as well. He wasn't backed by the party but was backed by a few bureaucrats - and you lot loved it. Now you pretend you criticised him.
I obviously don't mean 'you' - but I do mean the left.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Putting it another way, don't you think David would have done better? Genuinely?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> What, Ed - who was backed by the unions. I agree. Stupid move. We all knew it as well. He wasn't backed by the party but was backed by a few bureaucrats - and you lot loved it. Now you pretend you criticised him.
> I obviously don't mean 'you' - but I do mean the left.


Ed who ran an election campaign based on them continuing tory austerity policies after the election, just not quite as much as the tories.

How the fuck anyone can come to the conclusion that they lost due to being too left wing is beyond me - you lost the whole of scotland to a party standing on an explicitly anti-austerity ticket ffs.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Ed who ran an election campaign based on them continuing tory austerity policies after the election, just not quite as much as the tories.
> 
> How the fuck anyone can come to the conclusion that they lost due to being too left wing is beyond me - you lost the whole of scotland to a party standing on an explicitly anti-austerity ticket ffs.



Because he was the left candidate. Who was clueless. And you're wrong, as he pointed out over and over again.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> To who though?





AC14 said:


> What, the one where I point out you're wrong.
> Tell me, how many leaders to the left of Blair have won a GE in 40 years?
> And how is the longest unbroken period of Labour power 'short term'?



John Major for a start.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

tim said:


> John Major for a start.



You'd have preferred Major to Blair.
OK. I wouldn't. Interesting to know where your vote lay though.
Anyone else think Major was left of Blair indicating it might need empirical evidence to show it's nonsense?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Because he was the left candidate. Who was clueless. And you're wrong, as he pointed out over and over again.


wrong about what?

he was clueless I'd agree, but he and his campaign weren't even slightly left wing, their entire economic policy was basically do what the tory's are panning to do, just not quite as much.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

free spirit said:


> wrong about what?
> 
> he was clueless I'd agree, but he and his campaign weren't even slightly left wing, their entire economic policy was basically do what the tory's are panning to do, just not quite as much.



So apart from the annoying apostrophe, how do you suggest Labour might have won given the choice in the last election? I suggest David. You suggest, errrr... losing with Ed.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

free spirit said:


> wrong about what?
> 
> he was clueless I'd agree, but he and his campaign weren't even slightly left wing, their entire economic policy was basically do what the tory's are panning to do, just not quite as much.


If we had won every seat in Scotland, we'd have lost. That's how anti-austerity hit us.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 15, 2015)

Blair won elections and there were cuts to services, a wage freeze, bankers were bailed out, taxes for the rich were cut, hospitals shut, fire stations closed down, pensions attacked and wars started.
My pension is predicted to be worth £2800 per yr after paying in since 1994. My wages were still shit as a council worker, I faced job insecurity every year and those on  benefits were treated in a disgraceful manner. I am now expected to work until I am 65 or 67 before i can get my pension...all from a Blair labour government. 
They told that there was not enough money for my generous pension or better wages yet they threw money at wars and bank bailouts...seriously. .. what's the difference between that and what the tories do?
There is no such thing as a kind cut...they all damage us and Labour seriously damaged us
You suggest things were better under labour but for a huge amount of people that was not true...imo they won 3 elections cos the tories were so hated and were in a fucking mess. The tories won less votes in the last 2 elections than they did in the 1992 election which suggests labour has lost the last 2 elections cos labour voters have given up on them.
The few good things they did were drowned by the shit they threw around as they continued from where the tories ended


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

OK, so you got Ed - the most left of the credible candidates. And what happened - as we all predicted in our constituencies?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

And things were better under Labour. If you don't believe that you haven't lived through the coalition years. 
Oh, you did, and you know I'm right. Still, a left labour feels good even if not in power.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> You'd have preferred Major to Blair.
> OK. I wouldn't. Interesting to know where your vote lay though.
> Anyone else think Major was left of Blair indicating it might need empirical evidence to show it's nonsense?



I didn't like either, but of the two Blair is the most reactionary. Look at his willingness to connive with American neo-cons and their destruction of Iraq. Or his current antics squalid deals with squalid potentates world-wide.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> So apart from the annoying apostrophe, how do you suggest Labour might have won given the choice in the last election? I suggest David. You suggest, errrr... losing with Ed.


by attacking the tories economic policies from the left, pointing out that they'd caused the recovery to fail and be delayed for 3 years, pointing out that on a GDP per capita basis we were still 5% below the pre-crash levels, that the recovery in GDP itself was almost entirely down to the immigration the tories were trying to stop, that the austerity had caused the debt to GDP ratio position to get worse not better etc. that they'd presided over the longest period to recover from recession in living memory and that this recovery only happened after they eased off on the austerity policies... etc

The tory economic policy was an open goal that Labour spectacularly failed to even attempt to score in, no wonder the SNP wiped the floor with you.

Which milliband was in charge was pretty irrelevant while the supposedly left wing one was following such a shit strategy - tbh David might have had a bit more confidence about him to have argued that position, it's not even a particularly left wing position, fair basic mainstream economics for much of the 20th century, and pretty much with new labour economic policies. Ed seemed to be so desperate to lose the red Ed tag, and ditch all association with new labour that he allowed the tories to get off entirely with their incompetence.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> OK, so you got Ed - the most left of the credible candidates. And what happened - as we all predicted in our constituencies?



The man was neither left nor credible abd I certainly never wanted him. Labour lost because of their faliure to mount a campaign of any kind


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

tim said:


> I didn't like either, but of the two Blair is the most reactionary. Look at his willingness to connive with American neo-cons and their destruction of Iraq. Or his current antics squalid deals with squalid potentates world-wide.



So  you're using something he didn't do in government to argue about his record in government. Idealogical at best.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

tim said:


> The man was neither left nor credible abd I certainly never wanted him. Labour lost because of their faliure to mount a campaign of any kind


Who would you have voted for?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

free spirit said:


> by attacking the tories economic policies from the left, pointing out that they'd caused the recovery to fail and be delayed for 3 years, pointing out that on a GDP per capita basis we were still 5% below the pre-crash levels, that the recovery in GDP itself was almost entirely down to the immigration the tories were trying to stop, that the austerity had caused the debt to GDP ratio position to get worse not better etc. that they'd presided over the longest period to recover from recession in living memory and that this recovery only happened after they eased off on the austerity policies... etc
> 
> The tory economic policy was an open goal that Labour spectacularly failed to even attempt to score in, no wonder the SNP wiped the floor with you.
> 
> Which milliband was in charge was pretty irrelevant while the supposedly left wing one was following such a shit strategy - tbh David might have had a bit more confidence about him to have argued that position, it's not even a particularly left wing position, fair basic mainstream economics for much of the 20th century, and pretty much with new labour economic policies. Ed seemed to be so desperate to lose the red Ed tag, and ditch all association with new labour that he allowed the tories to get off entirely with their incompetence.



Who would you have voted for in the leadership election?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> If we had won every seat in Scotland, we'd have lost. That's how anti-austerity hit us.


you weren't anti-austerity, you campaigned as a pro-austerty party against another pro-austerity party - how the fuck did you expect to win on that strategy?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 15, 2015)

Labour move further to the right this time. Then anything further to the left of this newly conceded ground becomes "Loony Left" and impossible for Labour to recover.

This creep to the right has being going on for 30 years now and doesn't seem to ever end. It's not working, we're getting nastier and ever more right-wing governments. Labour's victories are pyrrhic. They should have stood their ground but they were too weak.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

free spirit said:


> you weren't anti-austerity, you campaigned as a pro-austerty party against another pro-austerity party - how the fuck did you expect to win on that strategy?



What? I don't accept the premise of the Tories like you do. They won because you accept that to oppose them you have to engage in rhetoric like 'anti' or 'pro' austerity. They were clear - we weren't. I didn't campaign as an anything-austerity. In my constituency I spent hours on the doors and the swing to Labour was remarkable. What about you?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Labour move further to the right this time. Then anything further to the left of this newly conceded ground becomes "Loony Left" and impossible for Labour to recover.
> 
> This creep to the right has being going on for 30 years now and doesn't seem to ever end. It's not working, we're getting nastier and ever more right-wing governments. Labour's victories are phyrric. They should have stood their ground but they were too weak.



It sounds like you are 'loony left' and don't realise it. You will never be in power on that programme. You cannot deal with anything without being in power. But some people (maybe not you) like shouting from the sidelines. I'd like to be in power.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 15, 2015)

The Tories are desperate for us to be lefties not even in touch with our own party.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 15, 2015)

AC14 said:


> It sounds like you are 'loony left' and don't realise it. You will never be in power on that programme. You cannot deal with anything without being in power. But some people (maybe not you) like shouting from the sidelines. I'd like to be in power.



What programme?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 16, 2015)

Favelado said:


> What programme?


Program. But given your abuse of me earlier, you're not interested in discussion.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 16, 2015)

Are you a returning banned poster?


----------



## tim (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> So  you're using something he didn't do in government to argue about his record in government. Idealogical at best.



I was highlighting the fact that he was to the right of Major,the statement that you were challenging me on. But it is of course true that there were many things that he didn't do whilst in government that reflect how right-wing he was.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I didn't campaign as an anything-austerity.


and that right there is why you lost.

what about me?

Doing the same but for the Green Party on an anti-austerity ticket, and the amount of labour supporters who said they wished Labour were standing on that platform.... and Labour activists who couldn't explain their economic position at all, wanted to be anti-austerity, wanted to be making those arguments, but couldn't because your shadow chancellor had committed to sticking with tory borrowing / spending plans.

Basically there was no point to you at all at that election. You lost by being shit, having no clear ideas, standing for nothing, allowing the tories to set the agenda, accepting their line about labour spending being to blame for the debt levels and crash etc. not by being too left wing.

eta ps yes I'm aware of the Green Party failings, but they were the only option vaguely significant option that was campaigning against austerity and challenging the crap about immigration, benefits claimants etc.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 16, 2015)

free spirit said:


> and that right there is why you lost.
> 
> what about me?
> 
> ...


Why didn't the Green's win then, if that was such a great ticket? Oh - because it does not encompass 37% of the population.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 16, 2015)

tim said:


> I was highlighting the fact that he was to the right of Major,the statement that you were challenging me on. But it is of course true that there were many things that he didn't do whilst in government that reflect how right-wing he was.



He was right wing. He also remains the only Labour leader to win an election in 40 years. Every other leader has been to the left of him and lost.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 16, 2015)

Campaign? It campaigned? What as?


----------



## treelover (Jun 16, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Are you a returning banned poster?




He sounds like that full on Blairite who used to post on here.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 16, 2015)

Another nasty ad hominem.


----------



## tim (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> The Tories are desperate for us to be lefties not even in touch with our own party.



If you don't think the Labour party should be on the left, where abouts on the political spectrum would you like to see them?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Another nasty ad hominem.



Are you a returning banned poster?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Why didn't the Green's win then, if that was such a great ticket? Oh - because it does not encompass 37% of the population.


because we started on 1%, had a much lower budget, had 3/4 of the membership join in the year prior to the election, mostly in the last few months, were in no way capable of mounting a full national campaign, and had local parties that were almost entirely used to only campaigning on local issues for local council seats and hadn't been expecting to be mounting any sort of significant campaign for the national elections.

Plus the impact of tactical voting, which halved our vote in our constituency compared to the local election results.

and some missed opportunities in the national media, and a few daft policies that came back to bite us / conflicted with the core anti-austerity / pro growth economic policies (ie having a zero growth underlying dogma trying to sit alongside a pro-growth anti-austerity set of policies).

Which is why the SNP vote is the fairer comparison.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 16, 2015)

free spirit said:


> because we started on 1%, had a much lower budget, had 3/4 of the membership join in the year prior to the election, mostly in the last few months, were in no way capable of mounting a full national campaign, and had local parties that were almost entirely used to only campaigning on local issues for local council seats and hadn't been expecting to be mounting any sort of significant campaign for the national elections.
> 
> Plus the impact of tactical voting, which halved our vote in our constituency compared to the local election results.
> 
> ...



Oh, well you'll be in power in 3/4 elections then. Or something.

What's most interesting is that when asked why you didn't get power you reference tactical voting. Loo-Lah land.

Fucking fairy story. People don't agree with you but you surround yourself with people who do and think it represents the public. Same with Marxists and anarchists. You're a rump.

You stupidly really think you might win an election but can never explain how you'll win over Tory voters. Idiots.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Oh, well you'll be in power in 3/4 elections then. Or something.
> 
> You stupidly really think you might win an election but can never explain how you'll win over Tory voters. Idiots.



Lost Scottish voters plus voters lost to UKIP would have delivered victory in May. This could have been achieved with genuinely socially democratic polices. True right? The combination of both of those groups would have done it because those UKIP voters were in marginals.

Also, are you a returning banned user?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Oh, well you'll be in power in 3/4 elections then. Or something.
> 
> What's most interesting is that when asked why you didn't get power you reference tactical voting. Loo-Lah land.
> 
> ...


ffs - you do not need to win over tory voters to win the election, can you really not see how many of your natural voters you lose / have lost by that strategy?

More people didn't vote this election than voted tory, most of them are natural labour voters.

This strategy the labour party has followed is the reason those voters have disengaged entirely from the electoral process, it's why the likes of the SNP, Greens, Plaid, and even UKIP have taken big chunks out of you this election, and why the lib dems could previously from a left of labour position.

If you want to support tory policies why not join the tory party, if you want even vaguely left of centre policies then campaign on them or they'll never ever happen.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I'd like to be in power.


Nuff said.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> And things were better under Labour. If you don't believe that you haven't lived through the coalition years.
> Oh, you did, and you know I'm right. Still, a left labour feels good even if not in power.



we got a minimum wage set lower than what McDonalds paid, we got the ema grant for 6th form students while university tuition fees were raised, they did repeal section 28 but left all the anti union laws intact, our pensions were slaughtered, we had an ongoing pay freeze, unions did nothing for fear of damaging a labour government, billions were slashed from benefits which were then dished out to the banks...I could go on and on.
what they gave with one hand they more than took with the other.

during those years labour continuously told public sector workers that we were over paid and that the private sector pay ethos needed to be brought in - yet millions of us in the public sector were paid so little that we were entitled to claim working families tax credit (wftc)...(both me and my partner were council workers yet we still qualified for the wftc) so in effect they used benefits to help encourage low pay and to save employers money -they then complained that too many people were claiming benefits!

You can believe what you want...if the labour government was good for you then you are either a boss, rich, lucky or delusional.
If you think miliband was left wing then you are either a right winger, a liar or an idiot...there was NOTHING left wing about him or his leadership.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I'd like to be in power.



Just join the Tories then


----------



## AC14 (Jun 16, 2015)

free spirit said:


> ffs - you do not need to win over tory voters to win the election, can you really not see how many of your natural voters you lose / have lost by that strategy?
> 
> More people didn't vote this election than voted tory, most of them are natural labour voters.
> 
> ...



How many elections have been won on the strategy you promote?


comrade spurski said:


> we got a minimum wage set lower than what McDonalds paid, we got the ema grant for 6th form students while university tuition fees were raised, they did repeal section 28 but left all the anti union laws intact, our pensions were slaughtered, we had an ongoing pay freeze, unions did nothing for fear of damaging a labour government, billions were slashed from benefits which were then dished out to the banks...I could go on and on.
> what they gave with one hand they more than took with the other.
> 
> during those years labour continuously told public sector workers that we were over paid and that the private sector pay ethos needed to be brought in - yet millions of us in the public sector were paid so little that we were entitled to claim working families tax credit (wftc)...(both me and my partner were council workers yet we still qualified for the wftc) so in effect they used benefits to help encourage low pay and to save employers money -they then complained that too many people were claiming benefits!
> ...



Personally, I'm angry at a Tory victory because of how much worse and unequal the country has become under the coalition. I would prefer a Labour government. 

But if you see no difference, don't worry about it.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 16, 2015)

free spirit said:


> ffs - you do not need to win over tory voters to win the election, can you really not see how many of your natural voters you lose / have lost by that strategy?
> 
> More people didn't vote this election than voted tory, most of them are natural labour voters.
> 
> ...



I oppose the Tories. That's why I actually want them out - not from some pure position but from an electable one that means we can actually do something to make working people's lives better rather than rant and rave about it.

If we'd have won every liberal, SNP, Green, UKIP etc seat, we'd have lost.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I oppose the Tories. That's why I actually want them out - not from some pure position but from an electable one that means we can actually do something to make working people's lives better rather than rant and rave about it.
> 
> Tories and UKIP = 51% of votes cast.



If you want Kendall to win then what actual policies do you envisage her implementing or not implementing that would distinguish a Labour government with her as PM from a Tory government?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If you want Kendall to win then what actual policies do you envisage her implementing or not implementing that would distinguish a Labour government with her as PM from a Tory government?


Does she like Badgers?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I oppose the Tories. That's why I actually want them out - not from some pure position but from an electable one that means we can actually do something to make working people's lives better rather than rant and rave about it.



Do you only care about working people? What about people on benefits? What's your opinion of them and the size of the social security bill? Also, who did you used to be on Urban?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> For what it's worth, I want Kendall to win. She'll win the next General Election, particularly if Creasy is her foil.
> 
> I know this will stick in some people's throats, but so did Blair - and as I said earlier he did a lot of good despite his horrific failings.


Why accept an ersatz Tory when you can have the real thing?

What "good things" did Blair do? The minimum wage (that no one can live on)?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I oppose the Tories. That's why I actually want them out - not from some pure position but from an electable one that means we can actually do something to make working people's lives better rather than rant and rave about it.



Since the election all the candidates have seemingly been banned from even mentioning working people. All the talk is of businesses, entrepreneurs, the 'aspirational' and various other ways of saying, 'we don't give a fuck about the working poor'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2015)

tim said:


> John Major for a start.


Right, John major is deciding the internal labour party election. Or if not his views should the ones people who have a vote line up with. Thanks tim. Glad that's been cleared up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> What, the one where I point out you're wrong.
> Tell me, how many leaders to the left of Blair have won a GE in 40 years?
> And how is the longest unbroken period of Labour power 'short term'?


People like you are why labour didn't win a majority in the general election. You so alienated them that _fuck it we're staying home or at least the tory seems like a normal._


----------



## J Ed (Jun 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Why accept an ersatz Tory when you can have the real thing?
> 
> What "good things" did Blair do? The minimum wage (that no one can live on)?


 
I have heard quite a few variations on 'they're all liars and thieves so I voted for the competent liars and thieves'.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 16, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I have heard quite a few variations on 'they're all liars and thieves so I voted for the competent liars and thieves'.


Vote for the Tories you can trust.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Vote for the Tories you can trust.


Ask people about 1979 - i've heard the same logic over and over from tory voting labour supporters in that election.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Ask people about 1979 - i've heard the same logic over and over from tory voting labour supporters in that election.


I've heard the same at work this time.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)

All those disingenuous, arsehole Lab MPs who tweeted their backing for Corbyn whilst simultaneously covering their career arses with the "but I won't be voting for him" caveat. Sickening.
In ditching what was part of their core ideology, it's like they've reduced the notion of any meaningful socialist input to the level of the "Golden Buzzer" enabling the "joke" contestant to get through to the next round...to keep the punters happy.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> How many elections have been won on the strategy you promote?
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm angry at a Tory victory because of how much worse and unequal the country has become under the coalition. I would prefer a Labour government.
> ...



You manage to answer nothing i raised ... just like the labour party and their supporters.
Millions were worse off under labour because they failed us yet you single mindedly refuse to acknowledge this fact.
Instead you continue to preach that kind cuts are ok. What is the point of a labour government if the rich continue to get rich while everyone else has less?


----------



## tim (Jun 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Right, John major is deciding the internal labour party election. Or if not his views should the ones people who have a vote line up with. Thanks tim. Glad that's been cleared up.



John Major was merely meant to be my answer to ACT14's question



> Tell me, how many leaders to the left of Blair have won a GE in 40 years?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2015)

tim said:


> John Major was merely meant to be my answer to ACT14's question


I see, apols. Still a daft answer mind.


----------



## belboid (Jun 16, 2015)

AC14 said:


> If we'd have won every liberal, SNP, Green, UKIP etc seat, we'd have lost.


but if you'd won their _votes_, you'd have won!

You dont seem to have noticed, but the people who have abandoned Labour weren't the AB, C1's (the beloved 'aspirational' voters).  Labours share actually went _up _amongst that lot.  It was the poor and the 'ordinary' working class that couldn't be arsed to turn out for this pathetic shower, for their austerity with a smile.  If the appalling, so right-wing she makes Blair look like Lenin, Kendall wins, there is no way any of those millions will vote for her or her party.  If they follow you, Labour will be completely dead.

Blairisms over, and not coming back, get over it.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 16, 2015)

> "Moreover the changes introduced by Ed Miliband to the Labour leadership elections have unlocked the possibility of a people’s campaign for Corbyn. Previously Labour party members only counted for one third of the vote in the leadership election with the trades unions and MPs and MEPs commanding the rest. Miliband introduced a new category of membership – you can become a registered supporter of the party for £3 and vote in the leadership election."



i'm tempted to spend £3 to vote for him - would be interesting to see what would happen if he won

i wonder how many people it would take to sign up and vote for him to swing it?


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Nominations for Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet, please.



Kelvin Hopkins for shadow chancellor. John McDonnell for chief whip.


AC14 said:


> I oppose the Tories. That's why I actually want them out - not from some pure position but from an electable one that means we can actually do something to make working people's lives better rather than rant and rave about it.
> 
> If we'd have won every liberal, SNP, Green, UKIP etc seat, we'd have lost.



What about winning over some of their voters instead? Ed Balls lost by 422 votes. The Greens got 1,264 from a standing start. UKIP were up 13.4%. The Tories? A whole 3.5%.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 16, 2015)

ska invita said:


> i'm tempted to spend £3 to vote for him - would be interesting to see what would happen if he won
> 
> i wonder how many people it would take to sign up and vote for him to swing it?


Could you really stand one of that bunch of fucks more likely to win having an extra £3 in the coffers?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 16, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Could you really stand one of that bunch of fucks more likely to win having an extra £3 in the coffers?


hah yeah i did think that, but on balance Id still be tempted. Anything to stir things up a little


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)

ska invita said:


> hah yeah i did think that, but on balance Id still be tempted. Anything to stir things up a little


Vermin high command must be sorely tempted to 'encourage' their members to join this process.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 16, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Could you really stand one of that bunch of fucks more likely to win having an extra £3 in the coffers?



You'd need at least 200,000 people lined up and committed with their £3 ready to go in the pot. How many bought that Rage Against the Machine record for Christmas Number 1? Half a million wasn't it?


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 16, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> You'd need at least 200,000 people lined up and committed with their £3 ready to go in the pot. How many bought that Rage Against the Machine record for Christmas Number 1? Half a million wasn't it?


Yeah, but that was something people were passionate about.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 16, 2015)

I doubt a vote Corbyn campaign would get half the radio 1 airtime.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## ska invita (Jun 16, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> You'd need at least 200,000 people lined up and committed with their £3 ready to go in the pot.


how did you arrive at that figure sb?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 16, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Could you really stand one of that bunch of fucks more likely to win having an extra £3 in the coffers?


Is may or may not be the case that you can vote as a Unite Community member? If so that would be a better way to go about it. Can anyone confirm?


----------



## belboid (Jun 16, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Is may or may not be the case that you can vote as a Unite Community member? If so that would be a better way to go about it. Can anyone confirm?


No, you have to explicitly sign up


----------



## ska invita (Jun 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> No, you have to explicitly sign up


Are you sure? There is a UNITE option here: http://support.labour.org.uk - it doesnt seem to distinguish between Unite and Unite Community membership


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 16, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Are you sure? There is a UNITE option here: http://support.labour.org.uk - it doesnt seem to distinguish between Unite and Unite Community membership


You have to sign up as a Labour Party supporter


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Hodges...PMSL. What a fucking sad cunt.



I think his heart is in the right place, and I am not a fan of Owen Jones, but "the katie Hopkins of the Blairite right" is a pretty good dig.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jun 16, 2015)

ska invita said:


> how did you arrive at that figure sb?



Just a rough and very liberal estimate. Turnout last time was circa 70% in the members section. Apparently around 210,000 members now - I doubt the turnout will be much higher this time. So that'll mean 150,000 or so returning a ballot. Corbyn is perhaps a bit more credible than Abbott 5 years ago, has a bit more momentum behind him... possibly takes 20% of 1st preferences at best (being very generous here - DA got about half that in a 5 candidate field) Gives him 30,000 in the first round members section. That leaves the other 3 with 120,000 combined. To make up the vast deficit he'd face on the others after the 1st round and in the following rounds (you'd expect the 2nd preferences from supporters of the other 3 to be limited at best - especially if they fear he might actually do quite well) he'd probably need to be ahead by at least 100,000 in 1st preferences in the 'registered supporters' section. 150,000 ahead would more or less guarantee the win in the 1st round with as the others probably wouldn't have that combined and therefore guaranteed not to make up the deficit. But you'd probably need at least 200k pledging allowing for the folk who wouldn't bother to vote when the crunch came.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 16, 2015)

The Labour leadership election is an oasis of boredom

Frankie Boyle just


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)

Jezus


----------



## ska invita (Jun 16, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> Just a rough and very liberal estimate. Turnout last time was circa 70% in the members section. Apparently around 210,000 members now - I doubt the turnout will be much higher this time. So that'll mean 150,000 or so returning a ballot. Corbyn is perhaps a bit more credible than Abbott 5 years ago, has a bit more momentum behind him... possibly takes 20% of 1st preferences at best (being very generous here - DA got about half that in a 5 candidate field) Gives him 30,000 in the first round members section. That leaves the other 3 with 120,000 combined. To make up the vast deficit he'd face on the others after the 1st round and in the following rounds (you'd expect the 2nd preferences from supporters of the other 3 to be limited at best - especially if they fear he might actually do quite well) he'd probably need to be ahead by at least 100,000 in 1st preferences in the 'registered supporters' section. 150,000 ahead would more or less guarantee the win in the 1st round with as the others probably wouldn't have that combined and therefore guaranteed not to make up the deficit. But you'd probably need at least 200k pledging allowing for the folk who wouldn't bother to vote when the crunch came.


sounds reasonable...and also a large figure...cant see it happening without a euphoric viral campaign...which i cant see happening...


----------



## andysays (Jun 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Jezus




Looks like GG has at least one London Mayoral vote in the bag


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I think his heart is in the right place, and I am not a fan of Owen Jones, but "the katie Hopkins of the Blairite right" is a pretty good dig.


Yeah, you would say Hodges has "his heart is in the right place". I think he's a bitter bastard tbh.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Vermin high command must be sorely tempted to 'encourage' their members to join this process.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 16, 2015)

Lol. This could backfire.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Lol. This could backfire.


(R)Ed's legacy of OMOV...it's just that quite a few of the "M" might well be vermin. 
Lol


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## teqniq (Jun 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



That's in the article I linked to along with 






			
				Frankie Boyle said:
			
		

> Yvette Cooper has a broken, downbeat delivery that could make Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah sound like a cancer diagnosis.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 17, 2015)

The Tories are all over this at below £4 a vote. I can't see enough of them actually doing it to make a difference, but we certainly need to learn the lessons. I'm in favour of OMOV, but they should be members rather than supporters.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> The Tories are all over this at below £4 a vote. I can't see enough of them actually doing it to make a difference, but we certainly need to learn the lessons. I'm in favour of OMOV, but they should be members rather than supporters.


William Hill has him at 14/1.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> The Tories are all over this at below £4 a vote. I can't see enough of them actually doing it to make a difference, but we certainly need to learn the lessons. I'm in favour of OMOV, but they should be members rather than supporters.


No comment on all the points showing why your arguments have been crap?  Funny that.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

Rushanara Ali withdrew last minute, apparently, meaning her votes could be redistributed, so Stella Creasy, Ben Bradshaw, Angela Eagle have made it onto the ballot, along with Caroline Flint and (the winner) Tom Watson.

Apparently


----------



## AC14 (Jun 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> No comment on all the points showing why your arguments have been crap?  Funny that.



I didn't see any valid points. I saw a straw man or two and some ad hominems - which is some achievement considering people don't know me.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I didn't see any valid points.



You didn't see any which support your position, that's a different thing entirely. Something can be valid even if you disagree with it.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> You didn't see any which support your position, that's a different thing entirely. Something can be valid even if you disagree with it.



I saw nothing worth arguing with because I saw no points worthy of the name.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I didn't see any valid points. I saw a straw man or two and some ad hominems - which is some achievement considering people don't know me.


You'er a dishonest prat then. talk drivel and then refuse to respond to criticisms. Are you treelover in disguise?


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I saw nothing worth arguing with because I saw no points worthy of the name.


Fuck off then.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> You'er a dishonest prat then. talk drivel and then refuse to respond to criticisms. Are you treelover in disguise?



Another ad hominem.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> Fuck off then.



No need for this.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Another ad hominem.


your arguments are shown to be fallacious, you refuse to respond, and YOU try and claim the high ground?  Please, we're not stupid.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> You stupidly really think you might win an election but can never explain how you'll win over Tory voters. Idiots.



Tory voters (going by the last election) make up roughly a quarter of the electorate. That leaves three quarters of the population up for grabs without any need to pander to tories. 

And for every vote you claw back from the tories or UKIP, you will probably alienate three of the people your party is actually supposed to represent.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I saw nothing worth arguing with because I saw no points worthy of the name.



Sometimes, when people call you an idiot, it's not them trying to discredit your arguments. Sometimes they're just doing it because you're an idiot.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> And things were better under Labour. If you don't believe that you haven't lived through the coalition years.
> Oh, you did, and you know I'm right. Still, a left labour feels good even if not in power.



I was poor and treated like a cunt then and I am now, so guess again. Thats the thing with labour supporters in the post-thatcher years, they assume that everyone did hunky dory under that nice mr blair- bollocks.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

Who nominated whom:


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was poor and treated like a cunt then and I am now, so guess again. Thats the thing with labour supporters in the post-thatcher years, they assume that everyone did hunky dory under that nice mr blair- bollocks.



It's as if we need to be _so_ grateful that hospitals weren't in total and utter crisis for a few years, as well as a few other tokens. That should be normal, a minimum. Even then the PFI deals screwed the taxpayer completely and they'll take decades to pay off.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> Who nominated whom:



No surprises in the content nor colour of the blue column. Lots of real enemies in there.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> No surprises in the content nor colour of the blue column. Lots of real enemies in there.


Yes, quite handy, knowing who to shoot first


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> It's as if we need to be _so_ grateful that hospitals weren't in total and utter crisis for a few years, as well as a few other tokens. That should be normal, a minimum. Even then the PFI deals screwed the taxpayer completely and they'll take decades to pay off.



what gets me with PFI is the political use that debt will be put to in order to get rid of the NHS. Theres going to be some mighty big numbers to put on headlines, and they'll be minus ones.


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> No surprises in the content nor colour of the blue column. Lots of real enemies in there.




Paul Flynn, former campaign group member?, but I do remember an attack on 'scroungers' by him in the past.


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2015)

I think Naz Shah is someone to watch out for in the future, for what its worth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> I think Naz Shah is someone to watch out for in the future, for what its worth.


why? does she have a vicious streak?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I saw nothing worth arguing with because I saw no points worthy of the name.


Your arrogance sums up everything thats wrong with the labour party.
I raised many issues concerning poverty, attacks on pensions, low wages, cuts to benefits etc but you deem that irrelevant. ..all that matters is getting labour elected.
If you beloved labour government  had shown that level of contempt for the rich instead of handing out tax cuts out to them  like confetti, if they'd shown the incompetent, greedy bankers that level of contempt instead of bailing them out at our expense, if they'd shown Bush that level of contempt when he wanted to finish daddy's project in Iraq then millions of us would have continued voting labour, they'd have been in power, you'd have been happy, we would not be screwed over and millions would not be dead.
But in your arrogance you see nothing to discuss...like the labour party you simply act like a tory who joined the wrong party


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Another ad hominem.


Do they mass produce these cunts in a factory somewhere? Gamer oppression and a dozen others have been the same: Bust out some Latin when someone calls them a name and ignore a large proportion of substantive points.


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> Your arrogance sums up everything thats wrong with the labour party.


It's not even arrogance, it's just plain dishonesty and stupidity


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

Leader candidate debate on BBC2 now.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 17, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Do they mass produce these cunts in a factory somewhere?



Yeah it's called the NUS.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

'I chose ukip because I didn't see any sign of help from labour' pretty hard question for the panel

ah jesus now its all business and wealth creation and shit- fuck off you know nothing cunts. I would actually personally sign the order sending you to the god damned salt mines


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

fairness fairness, benefits

these fucking labour robots


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

you marks and sparks cunts


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST JUST CALL A DRONE STRIKE NOW


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> JESUS FUCKING CHRIST JUST CALL A DRONE STRIKE NOW



I presume by 'drone strike' you just mean nobody in the Labour party showing up for work tomorrow?


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

Sick of hearing about aspiration, getting on or whatever they want to call it like it was the most important issue in the country.

Production quality of programme is terrible.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

corbyns alright but he's giving it the job-job-no-claim chat. 

general strike now. And drone strikes. And burning of things- seriously, is this one half decent sounding bloke and a bunch of useless soundbite twats. Bring the pasokification. Bring it soon.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2015)

"I am a woman"


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

Kendall is shocking.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

Cooper talks like a primary school teacher trying to explain in the nicest possible way why you're not allowed to do a poo in the art supplies cupbaord.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

I'm a woman. \this is politics now.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 17, 2015)

I am glad I am not watching/listening to this. Mind the blood pressure eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

Jesus fucking christ on rubber crutches having a wank- they have swallowed it whole haven't they. I'm hearing some pricks gwannin on here


----------



## J Ed (Jun 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm a woman. \this is politics now.



If you like this, you'll love the US election. The primaries are becoming amazing - weird US liberals accusing Bernie of being a misogynist and a racist already because he focuses on class.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

Corbyn talks sense. He doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

Interviewer asking corbyn if he thinks he's a chance - totally out of order to ask him.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Bring the pasokification. Bring it soon.


I think we're seeing/hearing an important part of the beginnings of that process.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

good chat from corbyn here


----------



## J Ed (Jun 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I think we're seeing/hearing an important part of the beginnings of that process.



Yes, it's obviously already happened or is happening in much of the UK.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2015)

oryx said:


> Kendall is shocking.


So bad...she'll probably win.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

corbyn, I like. He's got a snowballs chance in hell hasn't he.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2015)

Kendall channelling fatch.


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So bad...she'll probably win.



Corbyn talking about people sleeping on the street while Kendall talks about the deficit....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

fuck businesses.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

Kendall makes me want to kill myself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

your debt. Not mine.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

Burnham at least gets some points for repeatedly cunting off the insufferable host person.


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Burnham at least gets some points for repeatedly cunting off the insufferable host person.


She's unspeakably crap, isn't she? Especially the continuous interrupting.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

If this audience is representative of the whole country then I'm moving to North Korea.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

benefits culture. Compulsory jobs, work is great. You've never struggled in your life yvette.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

met a woman


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

check out this cunts 5 oclock shadow.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

My god, a real human in the audience. Someone at the BBC will be shot for letting that happen.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

I'm voting jeremy. Oh wait I don't get to. I was thinking the other day about how to weaponise ebola and tailor it to a specific persons individual genes SpookyFrank you know about genetics- is it doable


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

tremble tories


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

power is all. Just power. Onceyou get their its full communism right. cunts


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was thinking the other day about how to weaponise ebola and tailor it to a specific persons individual genes SpookyFrank you know about genetics- is it doable



Long story short, no it's not. Not to that level of specificity. There'd be no way to do it without massive and unpredictable collateral damage.

Yes, I have looked into it.

e2a: You'd also need a good sample of your target's DNA to even begin tailoring a virus. If you're getting close enough to extract blood with a hypodermic, you might as well just poison the fucker.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 17, 2015)

There's something new we learnt...Andy supports Everton....who'd have thunk it?


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Yeah it's called the NUS.



Absolutely bang on.


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

Continuing on news24.


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2015)

> *Burnham *says the perception articulated by the questioner is widely felt. People feel claimants are getting too much. But there is a campaign to demonise people on benefits. And the disabled are being penalised. That is cruel. In the end, the best answer to this is more jobs, and more good jobs.




great to see Andy mention  the demonisation of claimants, etc.


----------



## Theisticle (Jun 17, 2015)

What a surprise:


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Long story short, no it's not. Not to that level of specificity. There'd be no way to do it without massive and unpredictable collateral damage.
> 
> Yes, I have looked into it.
> 
> e2a: You'd also need a good sample of your target's DNA to even begin tailoring a virus. If you're getting close enough to extract blood with a hypodermic, you might as well just poison the fucker.


 and it was such a cool plan. Guess we'll just have to back to the old school


christ that was a depressing prog. Not too bothered aout the plants and the other shit questions but the panel- outside of corbyn it was carbon-copy newspaper rhetoric from plastic politicians. Such a bunch of cunts- especially yvette 'I was ill for a bit 20 years ago' cooper. Just fuck off. Burnhams just a nulabdrone by the look. Fuck the labour party. Its got what for anyone if you have wealth and would like to keep getting more, tory party. If you are not doing so well and wish to do better.......who

not the business fellating, wealth creator bumming set of twats who layed out a thorough me-too to capital tonight. A plague, a fire, and a nuclear strike on both their houses. The fucking assured arrogance as they delivered those lines. Die in a fire.


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2015)

> *Kendall *says there is a problem for Labour. She met someone in Wales yesterday who said the party did not believe in work.



Ah the same as Ed who met the guy whose neighbour could work but didn't.

labour were not soft on benefits, so where is that woman in Wales getting her information from, the tabloids?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I think we're seeing/hearing an important part of the beginnings of that process.


after enduring that shower, I just hope you are right


----------



## teqniq (Jun 17, 2015)

Theisticle said:


> What a surprise:




_What???_

Far better to ask about the sense of entitlement of those who consider themselves the 'ruling classes'.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ah the same as Ed who met the guy whose neighbour could work but didn't.
> 
> labour were not soft on benefits, so where is that woman in Wales getting her information from, the tabloids?




Not that there ever would be from the mainstream candidates, or from almost any Labour people really, but there's not enough challenging of stupid popular perceptions/malign media propaganda that fuels them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 17, 2015)

teqniq -- where's that question coming from? Was that one of the audience questions on Newsnight, or did it come from the presenter?

(Not watching this prog, personally)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Yeah, you would say Hodges has "his heart is in the right place". I think he's a bitter bastard tbh.



Hodges' heart *is* in the right place.

In a canopic jar in the safe where Peter Mandelson keeps the hearts (and souls) of Blairites.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 17, 2015)

I suspect you're asking the wrong person William, but it looks to me to be a question from the audience


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2015)

oryx said:


> She's unspeakably crap, isn't she? Especially the continuous interrupting.


Kuenssberg is appalling and deeply unpleasant. It's all about her ego and not the person she's supposed to be interviewing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was poor and treated like a cunt then and I am now, so guess again. Thats the thing with labour supporters in the post-thatcher years, they assume that everyone did hunky dory under that nice mr blair- bollocks.



First thing Cuntlugs Bug-eye Blair did was fuck over single mothers. Then his government attempted to fuck over disabled people with the Orwellian "Benefits Integrity Project" -caused 30-something known suicides of people who had their benefits stopped, and was eventually scrapped because it hadn't managed to realise the projected savings (i.e. there were far fewer Incapacity Benefit and Disability Living Allowance claimants "on the take" than their own research and rhetoric had convinced them existed).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2015)

Corbyn was the only one who spoke with any conviction and the audience responded to that. The others sounded exactly like careerists. They used the language of Westminster. But Kendall, fuck me, what a disaster. "I'm the leader the Tories are afraid of". The election hasn't happened and she's already claiming victory.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 17, 2015)

Christ that was depressing.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 17, 2015)

AC14 said:


> How many elections have been won on the strategy you promote.


The SNP won almost every seat in Scotland with that position, Syriza have taken greece with that position, Podemos are on their way to winning in Spain from that position, and you lost badly by attempting to beat the tories with tory light policies.



> Personally, I'm angry at a Tory victory because of how much worse and unequal the country has become under the coalition. I would prefer a Labour government.
> 
> But if you see no difference, don't worry about it


I'm angry at Labour for being so utterly shit they couldn't win an election against a government with such an appalling economic record, and worse, for somehow allowing them to portray themselves as having been economically competent when the complete opposite was the case.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 17, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I suspect you're asking the wrong person William, but it looks to me to be a question from the audience




As I suspected. Depressing.


----------



## Fingers (Jun 17, 2015)

free spirit said:


> The SNP won almost every seat in Scotland with that position, Syriza have taken greece with that position, Podemos are on their way to winning in Spain from that position, and you lost badly by attempting to beat the tories with tory light policies.



This ^^^^


----------



## free spirit (Jun 17, 2015)

Fingers said:


> This ^^^^


more than that, an online poll of something like 5 million 2010 voters had something like 70% of labour and lib dem voters at the 2010 election being opposed to austerity, yet both parties went into this election supporting austerity.

no wonder labour failed to mop up the ex lib dem vote in the way they'd hoped, when they'd signed up to the main policy that was making them dump the lib dems.


----------



## Fingers (Jun 17, 2015)

free spirit said:


> more than that, an online poll of something like 5 million 2010 voters had something like 70% of labour and lib dem voters at the 2010 election being opposed to austerity, yet both parties went into this election supporting austerity.
> 
> no wonder labour failed to mop up the ex lib dem vote in the way they'd hoped, when they'd signed up to the main policy that was making them dump the lib dems.



Had so many England based friends who did not have a clue who to vote for because there was so few anti austerity candidates to vote for. Many went for the Greens, some stuck with Labour, some could just not be fucked full stop.


----------



## treelover (Jun 17, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I suspect you're asking the wrong person William, but it looks to me to be a question from the audience




yes it was, she was aggrieved because of tapers, etc she wasn't entitled to anything when she needed benefits, which is fair enough, but overall she was pretty nasty.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Corbyn was the only one who spoke with any conviction and the audience responded to that. The others sounded exactly like careerists. They used the language of Westminster. But Kendall, fuck me, what a disaster. "I'm the leader the Tories are afraid of". The election hasn't happened and she's already claiming victory.



Not even the lib dems would be scared of Kendall. She's just awful.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not even the lib dems would be scared of Kendall. She's just awful.


I had a discussion with some Tory about this earlier and he claimed that the Tories would be scared of Kendall. Not on this performance.


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not even the lib dems would be scared of Kendall. She's just awful.


She manages to combine being right-wing with being patronising, hesitant and banal. Ugh.

I'd never heard her speak much before and expected her to be the right-wing option obviously but not such an awful speaker.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2015)

oryx said:


> She manages to combine being right-wing with being patronising, hesitant and banal. Ugh.
> 
> I'd never heard her speak much before and expected her to be the right-wing option obviously but not such an awful speaker.


Her pitch reminded me of a parent lecturing a toddler.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 17, 2015)

Re Kendall :



oryx said:


> She manages to combine being right-wing with being patronising, hesitant and banal. Ugh.
> 
> I'd never heard her speak much before and expected her to be the right-wing option obviously but not such an awful speaker.




She's pretty unlikely to win though. Surely!


----------



## Fingers (Jun 17, 2015)

*Labour leadership hustings: Jeremy Corbyn wows audience with Left-wing agenda*
*Fears of centrist Labour MPs and aides appear to be realised as far-Left candidate helped onto ballot gets most positive reaction during TV debate*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rbyn-wows-audience-with-Left-wing-agenda.html

Far left or just left wing compared to the Tory stooges that are our alternative?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not even the lib dems would be scared of Kendall. She's just awful.



I've not seen much of her before this election. I hate her politics but is she useless as well? i thought she might be an evil, efficient monster of the Blair-mould.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 17, 2015)

Fingers said:


> *Labour leadership hustings: Jeremy Corbyn wows audience with Left-wing agenda*
> *Fears of centrist Labour MPs and aides appear to be realised as far-Left candidate helped onto ballot gets most positive reaction during TV debate*
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rbyn-wows-audience-with-Left-wing-agenda.html
> ...



advocating mildly social democratic policies. You know what I want, I want to burn their palace down and make them eat the fucking ashes mixed up with the slurry I've shat out after a big indian feast.

corbyn will do though. Making some attempt at combating austerity narratives could have won labour an election. Instead we got eds heaviest suicide note in history menhir of fail.

watching them tonight was like looking at creatures from another planet. They just have no idea.


----------



## oryx (Jun 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I've not seen much of her before this election. I hate her politics but is she useless as well? i thought she might be an evil, efficient monster of the Blair-mould.



That's what I thought too but I really wasn't impressed with her.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I've not seen much of her before this election. I hate her politics but is she useless as well? i thought she might be an evil, efficient monster of the Blair-mould.



I can't remember anything she actually said in that debate, partly beause her plan seems to be to say as little as possible about actual policies or ideology but mostly because the way she talks on camera is somehow blood-curdlingly horrid. Worse than Ed Miliband even.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 17, 2015)

......


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2015)

That's from last week, Tim.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 17, 2015)

was it worth watching?

i'm staying at mum-tat's and didn't think she would want to watch it, or that it was worth the risk of me shouting rude words at the telly...


----------



## belboid (Jun 17, 2015)

The bookies odds are interesting...

Corbyn's moved in - to as little as 9-1!

Burnhams has drifted a little to roughly evens (slightly odds on), Kendall has slipped to neck and neck with Cooper.

Seems like Corbyn won, but had no chance, and everyone else is as inspiring as a moist kangaroo


----------



## Fingers (Jun 18, 2015)

I know these online polls are not scientific in the slightest (we saw UKIP rigging them with their social media presence before GE2015) but...


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jun 18, 2015)

It seems that people think Corbyn can't win the leadership and if he does it would be a gift for the tories.
A gift for the tories is Cooper (married to Ed Balls), the same with Burnham (mid staffs ) and Kendall, well you know.
Should it be started again?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 18, 2015)

Speaking as one who has already declared a funeral for the Labour Party, I would be delighted for Jeremy Corbyn to lead its Second Coming. It could do no harm and if it gained popular support I would rally round.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 18, 2015)

They'll need someone like Corbyn for when the economy tanks next year due to resumed cuts. Parroting Tory economic policy can only work as a strategy so long as the public are under the illusion that the Tories are economically competent. Quite a few people are in for a shock.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 18, 2015)

Fingers said:


> *Labour leadership hustings: Jeremy Corbyn wows audience with Left-wing agenda*
> *Fears of centrist Labour MPs and aides appear to be realised as far-Left candidate helped onto ballot gets most positive reaction during TV debate*
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rbyn-wows-audience-with-Left-wing-agenda.html
> ...



I don't have a horse in the race but the way the highbrow media goons are wandering around with faces like slapped arses tonight has been very funny stuff. The Guardian's currently doing its best to downplay how things went with a grudging admission that the audience liked Corbyn _slightly _more than the three little robots before offering extensive quotes from Kendall. Bally terrible idea to give the great unwashed a social democrat option, what what!


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jun 18, 2015)

Left wing agenda and aspiration.
Selling council houses:- A tory election winner (like it or not ) until the fine print was read.
Labourites bought them in droves but I often wonder whether Labour could have ever have done this, using the money gained of course to buy more.
Could Labour come out with an ideas such as this or even contemplate them?  Will they change?  Have they changed but don't shout it enough? hmm


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 18, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Left wing agenda and aspiration.
> Selling council houses:- A tory election winner (like it or not ) until the fine print was read.
> Labourites bought them in droves but I often wonder whether Labour could have ever have done this, using the money gained of course to buy more.
> Could Labour come out with an ideas such as this or even contemplate them?  Will they change?  Have they changed but don't shout it enough? hmm


No they couldn't. I lived in a Labour controlled council area and asked one of the senior, very experienced councillors at the time if the money from the sales could be diverted to building new ones. She informed me that under what she described as Treaury Rules, this would have been illegal. The Tories knew this and were happy about it.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jun 18, 2015)

I must have explained my point badly (sorry). I was thinking about ideas not laws. Laws can be changed with a mandate if you have an idea in the first place.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 18, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> No they couldn't. I lived in a Labour controlled council area and asked one of the senior, very experienced councillors at the time if the money from the sales could be diverted to building new ones. She informed me that under what she described as Treaury Rules, this would have been illegal. The Tories knew this and were happy about it.


 
The Tories couldn't let the income from council house sales be spent on building new stock since it would have depressed the very private ownership market they were encouraging people to enter. Also the attack on council housing was a direct attack on councils, in particular those whose voters voted the wrong way; by undermining their role as housing providers you disempower and marginalise the councils themsleves.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'm angry at Labour for being so utterly shit they couldn't win an election against a government with such an appalling economic record, and worse, for somehow allowing them to portray themselves as having been economically competent when the complete opposite was the case.



Me too.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> Your arrogance sums up everything thats wrong with the labour party.
> I raised many issues concerning poverty, attacks on pensions, low wages, cuts to benefits etc but you deem that irrelevant. ..all that matters is getting labour elected.
> If you beloved labour government  had shown that level of contempt for the rich instead of handing out tax cuts out to them  like confetti, if they'd shown the incompetent, greedy bankers that level of contempt instead of bailing them out at our expense, if they'd shown Bush that level of contempt when he wanted to finish daddy's project in Iraq then millions of us would have continued voting labour, they'd have been in power, you'd have been happy, we would not be screwed over and millions would not be dead.
> But in your arrogance you see nothing to discuss...like the labour party you simply act like a tory who joined the wrong party



They wouldn't have been in power. That's a fantasy world.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 18, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The Tories couldn't let the income from council house sales be spent on building new stock since it would have depressed the very private ownership market they were encouraging people to enter. Also the attack on council housing was a direct attack on councils, in particular those whose voters voted the wrong way; by undermining their role as housing providers you disempower and marginalise the councils themsleves.
> By
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Absolutely, another attack on councils was the creation of Grant Maintained Schools. These were the forerunner to the modern Academies. By trying to eliminate councils - particularly  the LEAs (Local Education Authorities) the Tories could get rid of the highest spending councils and in one move get rid of some of the activist base of the Labour Party. This was an attack on local democracy. This took away the power of people to vote for for example Comprehensive schools in their LEA. The Tories have been conistent and devious on these issues.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

Liz Kendall did not do well last night, which is a bit of a disaster.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

MPs in marginal seats favour Kendall. In safe seats they favour Corbyn. Says it all.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

This place is like North London middle class politics... there was a Guardian piece where they had only discovered how abnormal that is at 10pm on election night.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> That's a fantasy world.




Not the part of comrade spurski 's post about Iraq. Iraq did an insane amount of damage.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

The risk of getting Cooper, the third Brownite in a row, by virtue of her not being the others, is increasing. 

Burnham cannot win a general election. 

All are representing factions in the party at the moment - and it will be a long way back to win a general election. Kendall is disappointed in that she's playing up to the faction that her opposition have given her.

Corbyn's inclusion has narrowed, rather than broadened the debate - though there is no debate with the hard left. They say the same things every single time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

droning blair cunt- note you answered the points of others but not mine. Why might that be, mr power-at-all-costs


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> droning blair cunt



This is why I won't be.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

yep, like your precious party you stopped listening a long time ago


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> This place is like North London middle class politics... there was a Guardian piece where they had only discovered how abnormal that is at 10pm on election night.


 
Can you answer my previous question please? If you want Liz Kendall to win the leadership contest, and become PM, which policies do you see her either implementing or not implementing which would distinguish her from the Tories?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> The risk of getting Cooper, the third Brownite in a row, by virtue of her not being the others, is increasing.
> 
> *Burnham cannot win a general election. *
> 
> ...



Who's to say not? Five years before next time, with all sorts of Tory shit possible of hitting the fan before 2020 (not least their utterly bonkers obsession with Europe and all the related splits).

I'm no particular fan of Burnham, but he's as likely to win the _Labour leadership_ as Cooper, and IMO quite probably more likely. Plus he must surely be more astute strategically/tactically against the Tories than Miliband -- he could hardly do worse anyway.

And in England at least, he could well come over as more 'normal'.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Who's to say not? Five years before next time, with all sorts of Tory shit possible of hitting the pan before 2020 (not least their utterly bonkers obsession with Europe and all the related splits).
> 
> I'm no particular fan of Burnham, but he's as likely to win the _Labour leadership_ as Cooper, and IMO quite probably more likely. Plus he must surely be more astute strategically/tactically against the Tories than Miliband -- he could hardly do worse anyway.
> 
> And in England at least, he could well come over as more 'normal'.



He can't do worse than Miliband, I agree. He is infinitely preferable to Cooper who is utterly vanilla in pronouncement and a continuation of Miliband. 

I'm depressed at the way the leadership campaign is going though. It's hardly going to unite the sensible wings of the party.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2015)

Just join the fucking Tories, plenty of 'sensible' (if sensible = extreme neoliberals) people there


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Can you answer my previous question please? If you want Liz Kendall to win the leadership contest, and become PM, which policies do you see her either implementing or not implementing which would distinguish her from the Tories?



Do you really believe that Liz Kendall is the same as the Tories? I didn't answer this because it just seems a strange attack that I thought was a hyperbolic way of saying "she's not as left wing as me".


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Just join the fucking Tories



OK, you're rather impolite as well and I was right. I won't bother with the reply.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Do you really believe that Liz Kendall is the same as the Tories? I didn't answer this because it just seems a strange attack that I thought was a hyperbolic way of saying "she's not as left wing as me".


 
Yes. I want answers from you, which policies distinguish her from the Tory party? What things would she do that they won't? What things won't she do that they would? What would she repeal in 2020?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

just ducking out of an argument you know you can't have cos the nawty boys said nawty words.

What a pathetic shill


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> just ducking out of an argument you know you can't have cos the nawty boys said nawty words.
> 
> What a pathetic shill


 
I bet he doesn't mind when his [red/blue/yellow] Tory mates swear about left-wingers, I bet he doesn't say anything when they casually talk about 'chavs'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

Even if Corbyn does win he'll still be saddled with a parliamentary party that's at least 75% airhead twats.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

> Kendall used the toughest language by highlighting the “anger and concern” people were feeling. “They are angry about people trying to get into this country illegally, scrambling on to lorries in Calais,” she said. “If you come here legally from Europe, you should come to work and not claim benefits. You should respect the community you live in and our culture, and for people outside Europe we need a strict points-based system like they have in Australia.”



What a cunt. Using the plight of refugees as a scare tactic. Fucking shame on you.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 18, 2015)

Liz


> I believe in strong public finances because unless we balance the books, live within our means and get the deficit and debt down, we can’t do all the things we are passionate about – like tackling inequality or homelessness.


Dave


> If we as a nation carried on spending, borrowing, piling up more debt then down the line we would see the health budget under threat, social services shrinking the life-lines people rely on being squeezed one by one.



Barely a nut hair between 'em.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

_Unless we stop investing in projects which will combat inequality and homelessness, we won't be able to do the things we are passionate about - like tackling inequality and homelessness._

OK, let me stop you there...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> What a cunt. Using the plight of refugees as a scare tactic. Fucking shame on you.


they were all bang at it last night. Benefits, immigrants, benefits, immigrants. Thats your party AC14- nice company you keep.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

The bloke in the audience who asked why there was so much focus on benefit fraud when corporate tax dodging costs vastly more money, Burnham answered him by talking more about benefits. It was like he just made the tax-dodging issue disappear, simply by ignoring it.

That's the kind of leadership we need.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I bet he doesn't mind when his [red/blue/yellow] Tory mates swear about left-wingers, I bet he doesn't say anything when they casually talk about 'chavs'.



You don't get answers with this kind of ad hominem. It indicates you're not that interested in the actual answers in any case.
Why would I use the word 'chavs'? Disgraceful word.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 Everyone would agree that Labour's trajectory is rightwards over the past thirty years. If Kendall got in, do you think that would be the end of it? That's as far right as Labour would then ever go? Or do you think, as all the evidence suggests, that the trend would continue?

At what point would you be concerned? Would you be happy for a Labour government to bring in some charging for NHS services that are currently free? Would you support a break from the unions if it made Labour more electable?

When do we stop?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> You don't get answers with this kind of ad hominem. It indicates you're not that interested in the actual answers in any case.
> Why would I use the word 'chavs'? Disgraceful word.


 
Like to pick and choose what you respond to, don't you?


----------



## Libertad (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> You don't get answers with this kind of ad hominem.



The answers that we do get from you sunshine are not worth the effort of reading.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> You don't get answers with this kind of *ad hominem*. It indicates you're not that interested in the actual answers in any case.
> Why would I use the word 'chavs'? Disgraceful word.


Another one. I'm starting a list.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> The bloke in the audience who asked why there was so much focus on benefit fraud when corporate tax dodging costs vastly more money, Burnham answered him by talking more about benefits. It was like he just made the tax-dodging issue disappear, simply by ignoring it.


 
Reminds me of the posting style of a particular individual here...


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

So, if _everyone _calls him a cunt he stops replying. Worth considering.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 18, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Another one. I'm starting a list.



Here, feel free to use mine.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

debate club chat because you can't address the points ac14.

it's funny really, this is the sort of nose-in-air arrogance that lost your party Scotland


----------



## teqniq (Jun 18, 2015)

@AC!4 Your party is a busted flush and has been for quite some time. If they had actually presented a real credible alternative to the vermin, they might have been in with a chance.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Like to pick and choose what you respond to, don't you?





Libertad said:


> The answers that we do get from you sunshine are not worth the effort of reading.





CNT36 said:


> Another one. I'm starting a list.



This is why the left is a state. But it'll be someone else's fault for not being left wing enough. 



Favelado said:


> AC14 Everyone would agree that Labour's trajectory is rightwards over the past thirty years. If Kendall got in, do you think that would be the end of it? That's as far right as Labour would then ever go? Or do you think, as all the evidence suggests, that the trend would continue?
> 
> At what point would you be concerned? Would you be happy for a Labour government to bring in some charging for NHS services that are currently free? Would you support a break from the unions if it made Labour more electable?
> 
> When do we stop?



I can't see into the future. I know at the moment that we should deal with the issues we have here and now while planning for the future. Not shouting the same tired slogans of, correct, 30 years ago.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

teqniq said:


> @AC!4 Your party is a busted flush and has been for quite some time. If they had actually presented a real credible alternative to the vermin, they might have been in with a chance.



"It's because Miliband wasn't left wing enough".

Despite the evidence.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> This is why the left is a state. But it'll be someone else's fault for not being left wing enough.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see into the future. I know at the moment that we should deal with the issues we have here and now while planning for the future. Not shouting the same tired slogans of, correct, 30 years ago.


Why am I quoted here?


----------



## teqniq (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 Please provide the 'evidence'


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> "It's because Miliband wasn't left wing enough".
> 
> Despite the evidence.



The evidence is there. Labour lost 56* MPs in Scotland because it wasn't left-wing enough and it lost out in the marginals in England because of disaffected Labour voters staying at home or voting UKIP.++

Tell me that's wrong.


*from memory


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

I wouldn't bother if I were you mate.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 18, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Why am I quoted here?


Not sure. I can't use this website well.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Not sure. I can't use this website well.



We agree on something.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 didn't reply to me and I didn't call him/her a cunt. Fucking weird that.

Are you a returning poster, AC14? Oh, hang on, you're not going to answer that.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> This is why the left is a state. But it'll be someone else's fault for not being left wing enough.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see into the future. I know at the moment that we should deal with the issues we have here and now while planning for the future. Not shouting the same tired slogans of, correct, 30 years ago.


 
You have no reason for your position other than the acquisition of power, when confronted with this rather than explain why that isn't the case you accuse anyone who has principles and the desire for anything beyond the acquisition of power of being 'too left-wing'. It's a pretty transparent schtick to be honest.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

Favelado said:


> The evidence is there. Labour lost 56* MPs in Scotland because it wasn't left-wing enough and it lost out in the marginals in England because of disaffected Labour voters staying at home or voting UKIP.++
> 
> Tell me that's wrong.
> 
> ...



Labour only lost 40-odd Scottish seats IIRC. The SNP ended up with 56 overall.

e2a: Your point still stands though. Labour lost every Scots seat bar one, that's a knecapping alright.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 would you call yourself a socialist? Genuine question.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 I asked you three times if you are a returning poster. Pretty please with sugar on top and a kiss from Rihanna, can we have the answer?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> This is why the left is a state


yeah, a few people mocking your debate club evasion tactics you've used to avoid answering some pretty fundamental questions about the future of the labour party- thats evidence of why the left is fucked.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I can't see into the future. I know at the moment that we should deal with the issues we have here and now while planning for the future. Not shouting the same tired slogans of, correct, 30 years ago.



Can you give me an example of one of these slogans of thirty years ago? Which ones do you mean?

"Save the NHS"

Stuff like that?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

Favelado said:


> AC14 I asked you three times if you are a returning poster. Pretty please with sugar on top and a kiss from Rihanna, can we have the answer?



'I can neither confirm nor deny...'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Can you give me an example of one of these slogans of thirty years ago? Which ones do you mean?
> 
> "Save the NHS"
> 
> Stuff like that?




gotta wheel out the classics

Build a bonfire, build a bonfire
put the tories on the top
put the lib dems in the middle
and burn the fucking lot


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Burnham cannot win a general election.





AC14 said:


> I can't see into the future.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 18, 2015)

So, no 'evidence' then?


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> This is why the left is a state. But it'll be someone else's fault for not being left wing enough.


Even though neither of is sure why I'm quoted here I'll give it a bash. I don't think it is as simple as more. I think Labour needs to offer a clear alternative. The SNP did, so did UKIP and they did relatively well. Just being seen as an incompetent Tories isn't going to do them many favours and if they manage to get elected on that platform what is the point?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Corbyn's inclusion has narrowed, rather than broadened the debate - though there is no debate with the hard left. They say the same things every single time.



Sometimes people say the same things over and over again because that's what they believe. I dunno why it's better to change your mind every time the papers print a new story about what everyone in the country thinks this week. You've got to put your foot down somewhere and then actually make an argument for that position, explain to people why you think they should agree with you; not just run around endlessly trying to agree with everyone at once.

The speed with which most of the Labour party have turned their backs on half the policies they pretended to support at the GE is pretty shameful really. It's not like there were any remotely radical policies there, just a handful of stuff designed to appeal to the left to counteract the stuff designed to appeal to the right.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

There's no answer to the question "What's Labour for?" now. It's as simple as that. The Lib Dems are in a similar position.

I know why the SNP, UKIP, Greens and Tories exist. Labour - it's all a bit vague.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 18, 2015)

Corbin's position is anti-austerity. That is it basically. He has not changed his politics to follow fashion. It is the Labour Party that is in a state, not the left. Jeremy Corbin will not become Prime Minister, he wouldn't want to be I think. He likes to work from the back benches. He has only been put up to remind the party that it once had some values and to show up the shower who are standing. In the end they will get some middle of the road person to do the job for a while and then dislodge them nearer to the election in favour of someone trained up in the background by Mandleson.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2015)

I have just put a tenner on Yvette Cooper


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 18, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> I have just put a tenner on Yvette Cooper


What odds did they give her?


----------



## andysays (Jun 18, 2015)

Favelado said:


> There's no answer to the question *"What's Labour for?" now*. It's as simple as that. The Lib Dems are in a similar position.
> 
> I know why the SNP, UKIP, Greens and Tories exist. Labour - it's all a bit vague.



"Aspiration, aspiration, aspiration..."


----------



## killer b (Jun 18, 2015)

andysays said:


> "Aspiration, aspiration, aspiration..."


to this tune


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> to this tune




Tories play this one better. Check the guy's track record....


----------



## andysays (Jun 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> to this tune



Funnily enough, that's exactly what I was thinking


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Speaking as one who has already declared a funeral for the Labour Party, I would be delighted for Jeremy Corbyn to lead its Second Coming. It could do no harm and if it gained popular support I would rally round.



If Corbyn were leader, I might consider becoming a member of the party again, purely on the basis of providing some ballast against the Labour right.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 18, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> I have just put a tenner on Yvette Cooper


It will be between her and Burnham and I think that Burnham will feel pressured to distance himself from Corbyn which will reduce the effects of transfers from Corbyn to Burnham.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 18, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It will be between her and Burnham and I think that Burnham will feel pressured to distance himself from Corbyn which will reduce the effects of transfers from Corbyn to Burnham.



Thereby leading to a Cooper win?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 18, 2015)

The cretinous Iain Martin tells his followers that his numpty mates are going to launch a legal challenge. Good luck with that, pal.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 18, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Thereby leading to a Cooper win?


If it alienates enough people yes - I think it's too early to tell yet. The unions will mostly back Burnham but that matters a lot less now.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> If Corbyn were leader, I might consider becoming a member of the party again, purely on the basis of providing some ballast against the Labour right.



need to get on a diet pal


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 18, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What odds did they give her?



11/4 but now in to 9/4


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2015)

Landin considers Corbyn's chances under Derer's OMOV...
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/06/17/conrad-landin/jeremy4leader/


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> They wouldn't have been in power. That's a fantasy world.



So taxing the rich more instead of paying the poor more is so left wing it's a fantasy?

Refusing to bail out incompetent, greedy bankers while protecting the pension rights off millions of low paid workers is now so left wing it is a fantasy?

Refusing to bomb several countries back into the stone age to satisfy the blood lust of a few nutters and the greed of corporations who wanted to get their hands on the resources in those countries is so left wing its a fantasy?

Your reality is making life a misery for millions of us and is killing millions around the world ... and you continuously defend the indefensible by claiming we are North london types and not living in the real world...you sound like every politician on question time...it matters not which party they are in cos they are all ignorant and arrogant while dismissing our concerns and problems.

I earn £9.15 per hour...I have had constant low or no pay rises over the last 15 years...I teach children to read, write and how to do maths. I paid into my pension since 1994 and in 2009 (approx)  they changed the rules so I now pay more in, get less out and will have to work an extra 6 years to get my full work pension, currently worth a massive £2,800 per year.

My partner has been made redundant and I was given a 4 year pay freeze (costing me around £3500 before tax over the 4 years...a missive amount as I only earn £12,000 per yr as a teaching assistant) by a labour council under the coalition...the same Labour council spent hundreds of thousands on the olympics, becoming a royal borough and hundreds of thousands more on increasing allowances for themselves and massive pay hikes on their chief officers)...so do not accuse me of not understanding life under the coalition.

Labour was supposed to defend us against the worst excesses of the bosses greed. Now they use us to get elected only to expose us to the excesses that they should be stopping.

You don't care or understand what life is like for millions of working people who suffered under the Tories, New Labour and the Coalition.
You preach that Labour cuts are necessary, that people like me are living in a fantasy world cos we challenge your narrative.
You accuse us of being part of a part of the chattering North London class because we disagree with you (like any of those middle class lefties live on the London Living Wage if they are as lucky as me or the National Minimum Wage if they are unlucky).
You blithely dismiss any and every alternative view with a hate filled, patronising condescension and wonder why people are rude to you on here.

You sound like every labour politician I see and hear...they want power for powers sake and do not give a shit about who they tread on or destroy to get and remain there.

I am 48 years old, have worked for the past 30 years, have been made redundant 3 times, my partner has been made redundant, my kids want to go to university so we will have to remortgage our house to help them pay their rent and live so instead of my mortgage ending when I am 52 yrs old I will probably be 64...and I can not retire on a full pension until I am at least 65 yrs old.
I live in se london...I bought a house in 1994 (during the housing slump) cos it was cheaper than renting...it cost 54k...now houses in our street go for 300k ... I have lived here all my life, my kids will not be able to buy or rent here cos it is so fucking expensive now...this is not some middle class suburbia...it is a solid working class area which always has a labour council and MP...and Labour was set up to care for people like us.
I hate everything that Labour is...because they me hate me and mine and have done fuck all except make my life harder.
I am angry ... god know how those not as lucky as we are (the unemployed, the sick, minimum waged etc.) feel.

Sorry for boring others stupid with this post


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

You haven't bored me with that. Well said.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

needed saying- I doubt you'll get an answer from the arrogant tosser though


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 18, 2015)

Favelado said:


> You haven't bored me with that. Well said.


Thank you...I find AC14 and his ilks views so worrying for my children's futures (and every kid i work with).


----------



## Favelado (Jun 18, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> Thank you...I find AC14 and his ilks views so worrying for my children's futures (and every kid i work with).



It is a complete misrepresentation of mildly social democratic politics. Things that neatly fitted into the post-war consensus _even under Thatcher _are now intentionally being portrayed as radical. This constant drip of negative messages to the majority, by a minority with interests to protect is malicious yet undeniably effective. The battle for control of the political narrative has been lost and it is Labour's fault more than anyone else's. They are potentially the biggest opposition voice to the war being waged on the vulnerable, but they're too scared to stand up for it. Worse than the Tories in some ways (some) just for their sheer cowardice.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 18, 2015)

Comrade Spurski thank you for your well directed post. This is why do many of us gave up on the so-called Labour Party. It deserted its post in a time of war.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 18, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> If Corbyn were leader, I might consider becoming a member of the party again, purely on the basis of providing some ballast against the Labour right.


So why not pay £3 a vote for him?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2015)

articul8 said:


> So why not pay £3 a vote for him?



Why would I want to put money into the coffers of a party whose current leadership cadre is overwhelmingly of the Blairite right?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2015)

articul8 said:


> So why not pay £3 a vote for him?


I'd feel gutted if I paid 3 quid and Cooper, Burnham or Kendall won.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> Thank you...I find AC14 and his ilks views so worrying for my children's futures (and every kid i work with).



It's too long to reply to this morning, and I empathise with a lot of what you say. However, the plural of anecdote is not data, and we have to govern for all.
There are also a number of assertions you make which are not backed up - more driven by emotion. It's not that emotion isn't necessary or commendable, just that it doesn't make good policy.
I will come back to it in good time.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 19, 2015)

So pay £3 and help build a campaign to make sure they don't (and VP - to change th composition of that leadership cadre).


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I'd feel gutted if I paid 3 quid and Cooper, Burnham or Kendall won.


Even #ifCorbynwins...them's his shad-cab ministers...leading a party of neo-lib, austerity believing shysters.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 19, 2015)

Libertad said:


> AC14 would you call yourself a socialist? Genuine question.



Do you consider yourself to be a socialist AC14 ?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> It's too long to reply to this morning, and I empathise with a lot of what you say. However, the plural of anecdote is not data, and *we have to govern for all.*
> There are also a number of assertions you make which are not backed up - more driven by emotion. It's not that emotion isn't necessary or commendable, just that it doesn't make good policy.
> I will come back to it in good time.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Do you consider yourself to be a socialist AC14 ?


Yes.

I now expect to be attacked for not being your type of socialist or not having the correct line on whatever - i.e. for how we achieve social justice and greater equality rather than if we achieve it at all.


----------



## killer b (Jun 19, 2015)

'governing for all', is that what you call it?


----------



## killer b (Jun 19, 2015)

governing for all (the rich people)


----------



## J Ed (Jun 19, 2015)

He's a socialist like Hillary Clinton is a socialist

edit: he loves Blair so he may actually believe that the Clinton plutocrats are socialists.

Note how he still has NO answer as to what distinguishes Kendall from your bog standard Tory.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Yes.
> 
> I now expect to be attacked for not being your type of socialist or not having the correct line on whatever - i.e. for how we achieve social justice and greater equality rather than if we achieve it at all.



I think you'll be attacked (mildly rebuked and abused over the internet actually) for your arrogance, your sense of entitlement and your lack of any underpinning values beyond the desire to 'win' (where winning is defined so narrowly that the contest is becoming irrelevant to an increasing number of people).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Libertad (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Yes.
> 
> I now expect to be attacked for not being your type of socialist or not having the correct line on whatever - i.e. for how we achieve social justice and greater equality rather than if we achieve it at all.



What do you consider to be my type of socialist?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2015)

It is a weird frickin world where you get accused of being a "north london middle class" type for _not being a Blairite_.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> It's too long to reply to this morning, and I empathise with a lot of what you say. However, the plural of anecdote is not data, and we have to govern for all.
> There are also a number of assertions you make which are not backed up - more driven by emotion. It's not that emotion isn't necessary or commendable, just that it doesn't make good policy.
> I will come back to it in good time.



'I understand your concerns but what you've got to bear in mind is that you're wrong, we're right, and we're not going to do anything about them because that would be unrealistic. Now vote for us because Tories.'


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 19, 2015)

Libertad said:


> What do you consider to be my type of socialist?



Surely the question is what he thinks "socialist" means. How much of this do you agree with AC14?


----------



## red & green (Jun 19, 2015)

I watched that newsnight labour leadership programme .

I respect Jeremy Corbyn because he is a v good MP and his politics are real because he takes the experiences of his constituents seriously - the other 3 too conscious of their media training which made them all seem patronising and contrived and unreal -

Labour Party is a farce - it's all about media promotion and these people don't know anyone ordinary -
And it's no longer 'the party of labour 'but the party of bleeding middle management -
In bed with the bosses


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 'I understand your concerns but what you've got to bear in mind is that you're wrong, we're right, and we're not going to do anything about them because that would be unrealistic. Now vote for us because Tories.'



Why do you do this?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Surely the question is what he thinks "socialist" means. How much of this do you agree with AC14?


 
You will not be able to extricate any kind of thought from him beyond name calling, pouting about others calling him names and other similar tantrums. There is no actual ideology here beyond the acquistion of power on the backs of people who are principled while denouncing and punishing them for being so naive as to have principles in the first place.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Why do you do this?



Do what? What do you think I'm doing there?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Do what? What do you think I'm doing there?


Talking nonsense and setting up straw men.


----------



## red & green (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Talking nonsense and setting up straw men.



So what is your reply to Comrade Spursky's post - a real life situation?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Talking nonsense and setting up straw men.



To be a straw man it would need to be a representation of your argument. I'm sure what I said isn't what you think you're saying and I'm not trying to say it is. 

It wasn't that though - it was about your attitude and the party's attitude which absolutely reeks of 'we're right, you're wrong and we're not listening to you.'


----------



## J Ed (Jun 19, 2015)

I think he's just discovered this site or something


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 19, 2015)

He certainly seems to be running the gammut of A level critical thinking terminology doesn't he? And getting most of them wrong, I hope he's not got his exams coming up


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 19, 2015)

Ad twatinim.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> It's too long to reply to this morning, and I empathise with a lot of what you say. However, the plural of anecdote is not data, and we have to govern for all.
> There are also a number of assertions you make which are not backed up - more driven by emotion. It's not that emotion isn't necessary or commendable, just that it doesn't make good policy.
> I will come back to it in good time.



Sure you will.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 19, 2015)

articul8 said:


> So pay £3 and help build a campaign to make sure they don't (and VP - to change th composition of that leadership cadre).



Except that such a thing can't be done until the membership rules have been revised, and the party's internal "democracy" has been democratised.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You will not be able to extricate any kind of thought from him... there is no actual ideology here



He's certainly dodged every effort to get him to express a view beyond "Labour needs to be less left-wing" so far, but everyone has an ideology, and he says his is socialism, so I'm curious to see what he thinks that means. It'd go a long way to furthering the discussion he claims to be asking for if he makes it clear what he wants to achieve.


----------



## andysays (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> ...I empathise with a lot of what you say. However, the plural of anecdote is not data, and we have to govern for all...



This sums up the modern-day Labour party to a tee. Trite, smug, pompous and patronising all in a couple of short sentences.

Have you considered standing for the leadership yourself?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> It's too long to reply to this morning, and I empathise with a lot of what you say. However, the plural of anecdote is not data, and we have to govern for all.
> There are also a number of assertions you make which are not backed up - more driven by emotion. It's not that emotion isn't necessary or commendable, just that it doesn't make good policy.
> I will come back to it in good time.



typical lab-bot response


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Surely the question is what he thinks "socialist" means. How much of this do you agree with AC14?



Maybe you could reply to this, AC14.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 You have been asked a lot of very specific, reasonable and salient questions in your absence. There were a lot of them and it would take some time to reply to them all. However, could you at least have a go because you haven't contributed anything specific to the debate so far. You've just called people names and said very vague stuff about it being important to be in power.

People as wrong-minded and outmoded as us are surely sitting targets to be picked apart with reason and evidence. Why don't you have a go?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Even #ifCorbynwins...them's his shad-cab ministers...leading a party of neo-lib, austerity believing shysters.


There aren't many like-minded people in the party, and because of the shallow pool of talent he's got to draw from, he'd end up with a cabinet of backstabbing filth. That said, some of the new intake is supposed to be the most left-wing in years. Richard Burgon, Cat Smith and Clive Lewis look interesting. But then I see the numbers of MPs that have nominated the 'modernisers' and I despair.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2015)

Ralph Miliband, thou shouldst be living at this hour.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2015)

articul8 said:


> So pay £3 and help build a campaign to make sure they don't (and VP - to change th composition of that leadership cadre).


I salute your optimism but I don't share it. Labour is in its death throes. The best thing that can happen is for what remains of the Labour left to split and leave the Blairite filth to merge with the Lib Dems.

The Tories would be well advised not to celebrate Labour's demise, because they're next.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 19, 2015)

For those with faceache, this is great https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liz-Kendall-for-Conservative-Leader/785674451530108?fref=ts


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> AC14 You have been asked a lot of very specific, reasonable and salient questions in your absence. There were a lot of them and it would take some time to reply to them all. However, could you at least have a go because you haven't contributed anything specific to the debate so far. You've just called people names and said very vague stuff about it being important to be in power.
> 
> People as wrong-minded and outmoded as us are surely sitting targets to be picked apart with reason and evidence. Why don't you have a go?



I've been called a lot of names as well, but good point. Happy to wade through  few tonight.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Maybe you could reply to this, AC14.



I think this says it better than I could (and I think this person should be one of our candidates v soon): http://noramulready.com/2015/06/15/575/


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> typical lab-bot response


 
I have decided to ignore people who post adhominems or abuse so please understand why I don't reply to nonsense like this (this excepted)


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> He's certainly dodged every effort to get him to express a view beyond "Labour needs to be less left-wing" so far, but everyone has an ideology, and he says his is socialism, so I'm curious to see what he thinks that means. It'd go a long way to furthering the discussion he claims to be asking for if he makes it clear what he wants to achieve.



See the link I just posted. Why the 'he'?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> For those with faceache, this is great https://www.facebook.com/pages/Liz-Kendall-for-Conservative-Leader/785674451530108?fref=ts


\

Just embarrassing.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is a weird frickin world where you get accused of being a "north london middle class" type for _not being a Blairite_.



Like Corbyn?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I think this says it better than I could (and I think this person should be one of our candidates v soon): http://noramulready.com/2015/06/15/575/


Who wrote that shite?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Like Corbyn?


Never met him.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Who wrote that shite?


It's really not hard to find out, but that's not a powerful argument against it.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> See the link I just posted. Why the 'he'?



Because I was replying to someone else about you? 



brogdale said:


> Who wrote that shite?



+1 for that, whoever wrote it sounds like the kind of wanker who'd look at a burning house and say "I'd dearly love to put that fire out but grilling some sausages on the ashes is the best I can manage."


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 19, 2015)

We need to look beyond traditional left wing ideas like not kicking old ladies to death in the street and welcome the old-lady-kickers-to-death of this nation into a new political consensus based on a shared vision of fairness, decency and kicking old ladies to death in the street. The radical left would have you believe that fairness and arbitrary violence against the elderly are fundamentally incompatible ideas, but that's just because they're silly and childish and they don't understand the need for compromise.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> It's really not hard to find out, but that's not a powerful argument against it.


So you're not prepared to say who authored a piece that you linked to? Strange.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So you're not prepared to say who authored a piece that you linked to? Strange.



Are you serious? Her name is in the link.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Are you serious? Her name is in the link.



It's her blog.

You need me to tell you her name given she says it herself?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> It's really not hard to find out, but that's not a powerful argument against it.


i was hoping nora mulready was a pseudonym because i thought no one could possibly publish such vapid wank under their own name brogdale


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i was hoping nora mulready was a pseudonym because i thought no one could possibly publish such vapid wank under their own name brogdale



OK, can't be bothered with you either.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2015)

Nora Mulready. Haringey Labour apparently? Awful Tory shite either way.

eta: she doesn't seem to have a Guardian column but I'm not sure why not


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Nora Mulready. Haringey Labour apparently? Awful Tory shite either way.



Apart from the blog, which is not Tory. And makes sense.

Screaming 'Tory' is an easy riposte, but a poor one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> OK, can't be bothered with you either.


grand


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Apart from the blog, which is not Tory. And makes sense.


it's an opinion i suppose.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Apart from the blog, which is not Tory. And makes sense.


It is very very Tory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is very very Tory.


not in a good way either i'm sure


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It is very very Tory.


Apart from being angry that the Tories are in power, disgusted with their moves, and utterly committed to opportunities for working class people - on top of so much else. 
As I said. Easy riposte without substance.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 19, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> We need to look beyond traditional left wing ideas like not kicking old ladies to death in the street and welcome the old-lady-kickers-to-death of this nation into a new political consensus based on a shared vision of fairness, decency and kicking old ladies to death in the street. The radical left would have you believe that fairness and arbitrary violence against the elderly are fundamentally incompatible ideas, but that's just because they're silly and childish and they don't understand the need for compromise.



_Kicking_ to death? Outside of Islington I think we can all acknowledge the elderly can't expect anything that soft.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 19, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> We need to look beyond traditional left wing ideas like not kicking old ladies to death in the street and welcome the old-lady-kickers-to-death of this nation into a new political consensus based on a shared vision of fairness, decency and kicking old ladies to death in the street. The radical left would have you believe that fairness and arbitrary violence against the elderly are fundamentally incompatible ideas, but that's just because they're silly and childish and they don't understand the need for compromise.



 Beautifully done, I salute you cmbbe.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 19, 2015)

> And on international relations, war and peace, well I would dearly love to be a pacifist in a peaceful world, in a world where no-one ever had to fight for the right to be who they were, in a world where there were no oppressed minorities, no Boko Haram, no Assads, no Al Queda, no Taliban, no totalitarian or theocratic dictatorships, a world where the Kurds hadn’t been gassed, where they weren’t being forced to kill or be killed by ISIS, where American airstrikes were not needed to defend women against mass rape, the removal of breasts, the gauging out of eyes.



This is all one sentence. And not a sentence written by a person in a good state of mental health. It seems to me that this person would actually hate to live in a world without all those dreadful things, because then she might have to make actual points instead of just insinuating that Jeremy Corbym is in favour of people getting their breasts cut off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Apart from being angry that the Tories are in power, disgusted with their moves, and utterly committed to opportunities for working class people - on top of so much else.
> As I said. Easy riposte without substance.


what your blog says is let's go round killing for peace. that's surely not a good idea. if only the last labour government hadn't been so bloodthirsty, precipitating pogroms in kosovo for example.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> We need to look beyond traditional left wing ideas like not kicking old ladies to death in the street and welcome the old-lady-kickers-to-death of this nation into a new political consensus based on a shared vision of fairness, decency and kicking old ladies to death in the street. The radical left would have you believe that fairness and arbitrary violence against the elderly are fundamentally incompatible ideas, but that's just because they're silly and childish and they don't understand the need for compromise.


now and again you produce a post of utter, sublime genius. i salute you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Ralph Miliband, thou shouldst be living at this hour.


he wouldn't be living for long, he'd run  of out air in the coffin.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is all one sentence. And *not a sentence written by a person in a good state of mental health*.



Jesus Christ.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Apart from being angry that the Tories are in power, disgusted with their moves, and utterly committed to opportunities for working class people - on top of so much else.
> As I said. Easy riposte without substance.


The whole thing is Question Time Tory talking point drivel. "we do far more justice to the principles of the left if we look beyond our conventional ideas" i.e. if we abandon our principles. Workfare because stuff! Forced academisation! More wars please! Get in the fucking sea.

Not a single thing there would Cameron not support.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The whole thing is Question Time Tory talking point drivel. "we do far more justice to the principles of the left if we look beyond our conventional ideas" i.e. if we abandon our principles. Workfare because stuff! Forced academisation! More wars please! Get in the fucking sea.


I'll put you down as a Green Party voter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Jesus Christ.


another sufferer from the messiah complex


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I'll put you down as a Green Party voter.


you seem very keen on putting people down.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Apart from being angry that the Tories are in power, disgusted with their moves, and utterly committed to opportunities for working class people - on top of so much else.
> As I said. Easy riposte without substance.



See what you're doing there is mixing up cheering for a team with having significant political differences. Given that her solution to having the Tories in power is "be more like the Tories, including their meaningless rhetoric about working class aspiration" (protip: everyone aspires to something, saying you're pro-aspiration is like saying you're pro-world peace) she's fairly clearly the former, not the latter. Go Red Team!


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> See what you're doing there is mixing cheering for a team with having significant political differences. Given that her solution to having the Tories in power is "be more like the Tories, including their meaningless rhetoric about working class aspiration" (protip: everyone aspires to something, saying you're pro-aspiration is like saying you're pro-world peace) she's fairly clearly the former, not the latter. Go Red Team!


No, she's saying working class people have aspirations, including to not be working class. Labour shouldn't fetishise the working class and embrace those.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No, she's saying working class people have aspirations, including to not be working class. Labour shouldn't fetishise the working class and embrace those.


yeh. labour should abandon their core support. it worked so well in scotland.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No, she's saying working class people have aspirations, including to not be working class. Labour shouldn't fetishise the working class and embrace those.



She will never ever say the two words "working" and "class" together as no-one in the Labour leadership dares utter them anymore. It's the opposite of fetishising them. They've become unmentionable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> She will never ever say the two words "working" and "class" together as no-one in the Labour leadership dares utter them anymore. It's the opposite of fetishising them. They've become unmentionable.


yes. but if they stopped being unmentionable working class and became lovely middle class then i suppose the labour leadership attitude would change.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 19, 2015)

All this "working people" shit. Terrified of the very concept of class now because the Daily Mail might call them Marxist. Cowards.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> She will never ever say the two words "working" and "class" together as no-one in the Labour leadership dares utter them anymore. It's the opposite of fetishising them. They've become unmentionable.



This is untrue. I know we disagree, but honestly, this is untrue.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I think this says it better than I could (and I think this person should be one of our candidates v soon): http://noramulready.com/2015/06/15/575/


Tripe... and I'm being kind. I saw something similar in one of the Tory-supporting rags. Are you sure you're not a Tory?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> All this "working people" shit. Terrified of the very concept of class now because the Daily Mail might call them Marxist. Cowards.



I can honestly say this is not true.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No, she's saying working class people have aspirations, including to not be working class. Labour shouldn't fetishise the working class and embrace those.



You're not listening. _Everyone_ has aspirations, you don't need to say you're in favour of this, it's implied unless otherwise stated (eg. were I to actively say "I want to strip the rich of their wealth"). The only thing that matters is what you actually advocate doing about it.

In this case, what's being proposed is to take away support for the poor through welfare cuts and attacks on working rights, actively disabling the ability of millions to aspire to much more than a square meal, in order to support the aspirations of rich people looking to keep them down. This is a Tory viewpoint.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Tripe... and I'm being kind. I saw something similar in one of the Tory-supporting rags. Are you sure you're not a Tory?



Why are you asking me something you know the answer to? Are you calling me a Tory?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> \
> 
> Just embarrassing.


No, true _and_ funny.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Why are you asking me something you know the answer to? Are you calling me a Tory?


if nino won't i will.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 19, 2015)

Is it just me then? I can't remember seeing a prominent Labour politician say "working class" on TV recently. It's always the more palatable "working people" and it's not an accident.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Why are you asking me something you know the answer to? Are you calling me a Tory?



Take your first question and use it as the answer to your second.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Why are you asking me something you know the answer to? Are you calling me a Tory?



Here's a small sample of the blog you linked to.


> the answers we rightly seek to poverty, alienation and war do not lie in 2015 in anti-capitalism, cultural relativism and pacifism.



Tripe.

Yes, I'm calling you a Tory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Is it just me then? I can't remember seeing a prominent Labour politician say "working class" on TV recently. It's always the more palatable "working people" and it's not an accident.


it's not even 'working people', it's 'hardworking people'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 19, 2015)

And 'aspirational people' as distinct from those who love scraping by on minimum wage and will be delighted to continue doing so indefinitely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Is it just me then? I can't remember seeing a prominent Labour politician say "working class" on TV recently. It's always the more palatable "working people" and it's not an accident.


a search of the labour party website shows 8 results for working class: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:www.labour.org.uk+"working+class"

oops - 15 once you include the similar ones.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Is it just me then? I can't remember seeing a prominent Labour politician say "working class" on TV recently. It's always the more palatable "working people" and it's not an accident.


I'm not prominent, but I use it. However, 'working people' means the same. Why are you bothered?


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's a small sample of the blog you linked to.
> 
> 
> Tripe.
> ...


No point debating with you then. Never voted Tory. Never will.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jun 19, 2015)

Seems to me Corbyn has compromised by just staying up to date. He has not abandond the basics and leant to the right looking for some holy grail of winning. Can basic principals be watered down?   
Maybe I have it wrong, but I can remember Blair marching with ban the bomb. _spit. _I may be old fashioned but I think that sort of stance still matters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No point debating with you then. Never voted Tory. Never will.


yes, why should you when the labour party's going to have the same policies anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I'm not prominent, but I use it. However, 'working people' means the same. Why are you bothered?


do you think the people who WORK in the city on vast salaries are WORKING PEOPLE?

what about people who aren't working people, people like children or pensioners or housewives or the unemployed or the unable to work?


----------



## Favelado (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I'm not prominent, but I use it. However, 'working people' means the same. Why are you bothered?



As I've explained in a previous post, it's symbolic of the Labour leadership's fear of the word class. They're so scared of being portrayed as champions of the working class, that they can't use the word, and have to find a more anodyne substitute.

Once the party of the Labour movement has a policy of not using the word class, it's in all kinds of identity crisis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No point debating with you then. Never voted Tory. Never will.



Explain three ways in which Liz Kendall differs from David Cameron.

And I mean politically, not anatomically.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> 'working people' means the same



It really doesn't. The working class is talking about, well, the class of people who must work in order to survive. It includes the unemployed, for example. Whereas the implication of "working people" in all instances of its use in modern times is that the people being spoken about are _in _work, and usually that they are in full-time work supporting themselves without state aid.



AC14 said:


> Never voted Tory. Never will.



Why? Avoid opinining about how vile they are please, and instead name actual practical differences that drive you to Labour rather than the Tories.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No point debating with you then.


i can't help thinking that this is because you don't do debating.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 19, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No point debating with you then. Never voted Tory. Never will.


It's ok. You'll never have to.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 19, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> It's ok. You'll never have to.



I'll never have to vote Tory?
I know. Thanks though.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 19, 2015)

Go Liz.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No point debating with you then. Never voted Tory. Never will.


"Debating"... is that what you were doing?


----------



## xenon (Jun 20, 2015)

Labour is dead.

That is all.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> No point debating with you then. Never voted Tory. Never will.





CNT36 said:


> It's ok. You'll never have to.





AC14 said:


> I'll never have to vote Tory?
> I know. Thanks though.



Funny as fuck.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 20, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Funny as fuck.


I don't find it funny.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I don't find it funny.



That's probably because you cannot see the humour in the absurdity of your position.


----------



## AC14 (Jun 20, 2015)

Libertad said:


> That's probably because you cannot see the humour in the absurdity of your position.



OK. This is ridiculous.
It appears that someone with my views is not welcome round here and few people want to debate.
I'll disappear with enough likes (how many do you think is reasonable?).
To be fair, it's been all one sided since I revealed my Labour bias.


----------



## Libertad (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> OK. This is ridiculous.
> It appears that someone with my views is not welcome round here and few people want to debate.
> I'll disappear with enough likes (how many do you think is reasonable?).
> To be fair, it's been all one sided since I revealed my Labour bias.



Off you go then. Here, have a like for the journey.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I'm not prominent, but I use it. However, 'working people' means the same. Why are you bothered?



Working people and working class do not mean the same; they are not used in the same way and they do not carry the same resonances. Moreover I suspect that you know this.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> OK. This is ridiculous.
> It appears that someone with my views is not welcome round here and few people want to debate.
> I'll disappear with enough likes (how many do you think is reasonable?).
> To be fair, it's been all one sided since I revealed my Labour bias.



I've agreed with everything you've said and I hope you don't leave.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I've agreed with everything you've said and I hope you don't leave.



Maybe you can answer some of the questions that he has failed to in that case.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Maybe you can answer some of the questions that he has failed to in that case.



I'm happy to explain why I admire Blair's legacy and why - although I'm leaning to Cooper - I don't think it's weird for Kendall to be in the Labour party, whch is a broadly social democratic collective. Can't speak for AC though. Why has he or she attracted such opprobrium?


----------



## J Ed (Jun 20, 2015)

Can you explain which of the policies of Liz Kendall are 'social democratic'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I'm happy to explain why I admire Blair's legacy and why - although I'm leaning to Cooper - I don't think it's weird for Kendall to be in the Labour party, whch is a broadly social democratic collective. Can't speak for AC though. Why has he or she attracted such opprobrium?


so why do you admire isis?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> so why do you admire isis?



Eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Eh?


isis is part of blair's legacy.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> isis is part of blair's legacy.



Go on, then, give us a counterfactual account of 21st century middle eastern history where Saddam ensured peace and stability, Sunnis and Shias led the way in ecumenical harmony and Wahabism was utterly discredited, all because Blair chose not to add a small amount of extra capability to the US war machine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2015)

Nothing to do with me guv.  Pathetic.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 20, 2015)

I see that Maurice Picarda, like AC14, is incapable of telling me what distinguishes Liz Kendall from your average Tory minister. I couldn't either but then again I would not have made the claims that they have made. What a party.

Calling themelves socialists, but denouncing anti-capitalism and championing neoliberalism. It's all a bit post-modern really. The sooner this party dies the better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Go on, then, give us a counterfactual account of 21st century middle eastern history where Saddam ensured peace and stability, Sunnis and Shias led the way in ecumenical harmony and Wahabism was utterly discredited, all because Blair chose not to add a small amount of extra capability to the US war machine.


like e h carr i don't play parlour games with history. but you're, apparently, a mealy mouthed twat who lauds blair's legacy while sweeping the war crimes under the carpet and denying the consequences, the foreseeable consequences, of those actions.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I see that Maurice Picarda, like AC14, is incapable of telling me what distinguishes Liz Kendall from your average Tory minister. I couldn't either but then again I would not have made the claims that they have made. What a party.
> 
> Calling themelves socialists, but denouncing anti-capitalism and championing neoliberalism. It's all a bit post-modern really. The sooner this party dies the better.



I missed your post - which was less than an hour ago - and I had children to wrangle. 

Kendall's  consistent championing of early years intervention is eminently social democratic. I'm not a fan of what she says on subsidiarity and localism, and I think that accepting free schools is taking outcomes-based neutrality too far, but it's clear that she has far more in common with Burnham or Cooper than she does with Cameron or Osborne. 

Thinking hard about public service delivery and long-term deficit reduction isn't just about pleasing the electorate, or appeasing stove-hatted capitalist monsters, it's what the job should be for pragmatic progressives.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2015)

Note the new lie - it's no longer, _yes it was right, saddam was a tyrant and had to go - _it's now, _well our part wasn't hat bad. My role in all that stuff was tiny. In fact, it's pretty much over.
_
Cunts


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2015)

Are you a labour party member maurice?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Are you a labour party member maurice?



They seem to think so, because of a glitch in their supporter and member registration and management software, so I think I get a free vote. I haven't actually paid any money for membership since 1987 or so when I was in the LPYS.


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I'm not prominent, but I use it. However, 'working people' means the same. Why are you bothered?



"Working people" doesn't mean the same as "working class"

Apart from the fact that the former doesn't include many non-working people who are nevertheless working class, there is a subtle (too subtle for you at least) but very significant difference between the two.

"Working class" suggests a class of people with shared interests as a result of their need to sell their labour, and even hints at the possibility of them acting as a class to further those interests. "Working people" is merely descriptive, and has none of the suggestion of shared interests or collective action.

Using the latter term, people are reduced to individuals with no connection to their fellow workers. Remember this?


> There is no such thing as society, just individuals and their families



This ideology seems to have been swallowed 100% by the Labour party, who are now happily regurgitating it at every opportunity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I've been called a lot of names as well, but good point. Happy to wade through  few tonight.



If you've any background in Labour activism or local politics, you should have a thick enough skin to shrug off name-calling. You're using it as an excuse to dodge hard questions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Apart from the blog, which is not Tory. And makes sense.



It evinces sentiments more traditionally identified as "Tory" than as Labour. It may not be a Tory blog, but it's a blog whose writer holds Tory sentiments. 



> Screaming 'Tory' is an easy riposte, but a poor one.



Almost as easy, and as poor, as avoiding answering questions on the grounds of people name-calling.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think the people who WORK in the city on vast salaries are WORKING PEOPLE?



At what level of salary is one's job no longer work, and at what point does it become instead the voluntary and gleeful participation in oppression and exploitation? £50k? £150k? £1m? And I get that there's no such things as work in EC4, but what about Farringdon or Shoreditch?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Apart from being angry that the Tories are in power, disgusted with their moves, and utterly committed to opportunities for working class people - on top of so much else.
> As I said. Easy riposte without substance.



...and apart from proffering a "Labour can't win with Corbyn", then offering a load of specious, opinion-heavy unsubstantiated crap in _lieu_ of having anything meaningful to add to the debate.
She's not "utterly committed to opportunities for working class people", she's utterly in favour of maintaining the same broken systems that have already served the working class so badly. This is the same vein of rhetoric that Blair tapped when he lied and said "tough on crime, *tough on the causes of crime*"(my emphasis) - the only bit that got fulfilled was the punitive bit.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> This is the same vein of rhetoric that Blair tapped when he lied and said "tough on crime, *tough on the causes of crime*"(my emphasis) - the only bit that got fulfilled was the punitive bit.



You mean, apart from Sure Start centres, the minimum wage, tax credits and the EMA?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Is it just me then? I can't remember seeing a prominent Labour politician say "working class" on TV recently. It's always the more palatable "working people" and it's not an accident.



"Working people" meaning something signally different than "working class", too, as well the utterer(s) know.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jun 20, 2015)

Burnham is a no, no, a leave the door open privatiser, tainted with patients having to drink from flower vases, private hospital cleaners who used the same cloth for tables and toilets and MRSA. (tories can't miss )
Cooper is balls'd up, bleeding bilderberg meetings, come on.
Kendal I don't know but I'm dam sure she is blairite, _spit. Blair was/is a friend of Murdoch for oozits sake._ She supports some of Osbornes shit plans.

Maybe I have things arse upward but it's an impression from an ordinary punter.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Working people" meaning something signally different than "working class", too, as well the utterer(s) know.



See later posts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You mean, apart from Sure Start centres, the minimum wage, tax credits and the EMA?



Poor Maurice, so upset by my post that he obviously lost the ability to read.
Or, less generously, he had to refer to things I hadn't mentioned in order to boost his ideological hero.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

Talking of Corbyn, would you invite Raed Salah to tea, VP? Just out of interest.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Poor Maurice, so upset by my post that he obviously lost the ability to read.
> Or, less generously, he had to refer to things I hadn't mentioned in order to boost his ideological hero.



I like to think that when TB talked of the causes of crime he was referring to poverty, poor education and so on. There is, I admit, a slight worry that he was talking about original sin. But most Blairites part company with Blair on god.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

AC14 said:


> I'm not prominent, but I use it. However, 'working people' means the same. Why are you bothered?



It doesn't "mean the same". "Working people" refers to anyone who works (and invalidates those who are unable to), among other things. "Working class" refers to your relationship to the means of production.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Talking of Corbyn, would you invite Raed Salah to tea, VP? Just out of interest.


What are you on about? Apologise for the Israeli state much, do you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

Favelado said:


> As I've explained in a previous post, it's symbolic of the Labour leadership's fear of the word class. They're so scared of being portrayed as champions of the working class, that they can't use the word, and have to find a more anodyne substitute.
> 
> Once the party of the Labour movement has a policy of not using the word class, it's in all kinds of identity crisis.



TBF, it's harder to be "champions of the working class" when you're actually a privileged elite, and when the majority of those MPs that "came up the hard way" are ignored by the Oxbridgers


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> What are you on about? Apologise for the Israeli state much, do you?



From time to time.

But most pro-Palestinians get slightly embarrassed by Hamas folk when they are on record repeating blood libels. Corbyn, not so much.

Just wondered where VP stood on Salah.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> At what level of salary is one's job no longer work, and at what point does it become instead the voluntary and gleeful participation in oppression and exploitation? £50k? £150k? £1m? And I get that there's no such things as work in EC4, but what about Farringdon or Shoreditch?


potentislly £25k or so, however much cops start on.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> From time to time.
> 
> .


Yeah, I figured as much. Did you get a kick out of thousands of Palestinians and Gazans being killed?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> potentislly £25k or so, however much cops start on.



Wow. And, to be clear, you're not defining the working class here, you're defining working people?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You mean, apart from Sure Start centres, the minimum wage, tax credits and the EMA?



Sure start centres have been closing all over the place, the minimum wage has been allowed to fall way behind the cost of living, tax credits are mostly just a subsidy for low-paying employers and EMA is long gone. All of which is a result either of Blairite policies or of Tory policies the blairites wholeheartedly support.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Tory policies the blairites wholeheartedly support.



That's quite straightforwardly not true. It's beyond even being a lie. I'd call it a smear.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 20, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Maybe I have things arse upward but it's an impression from an ordinary punter.



No I think you've got the idea. Kendall's hook is that she's not tainted by the mistakes of the previous labour government, as if she'd have done anything differently had she been involved.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I like to think that when TB talked of the causes of crime he was referring to poverty, poor education and so on. There is, I admit, a slight worry that he was talking about original sin. But most Blairites part company with Blair on god.



Let's take just one of the things you mentioned - surestart centres - and see what links there are to "the causes of crime" (there are a few, but they're weak unless you believe party position papers of 10-20 years ago):
1) The link between hunger/malnourishment and cognitive development.
2) The link (or lack thereof) between poverty, surestart centre use, and crime.
3) The link between poor education and crime.   

1) While surestart centres make some difference in terms of providing nutritious food for a single meal, that has a weak effect on maximising cognitive development. Providing the means to access nutritious food in every meal has a much stronger effect, and yet your heroes never tackled "food deserts".
2 and 3) There's no extant evidence that surestart manifested *any* effect on the causes of crime. Most positive evidence is in regard to the effect on classroom disruption, but there's been little positive research showing that better classroom behaviour led to better educational attainment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Talking of Corbyn, would you invite Raed Salah to tea, VP? Just out of interest.



I'd invite Salah and/or Netanyahu to tea if I thought it would help solve even a fraction of the problems of Israel/Palestine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Wow. And, to be clear, you're not defining the working class here, you're defining working people?


no, i'm not defining anything. now returning to your admiration for blair's legacy, do you think your admiration widely shared by those on the recieving end in eg iraq and afghanistan?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's quite straightforwardly not true. It's beyond even being a lie. I'd call it a smear.



Labour are overtly pro-austerity. They've never allowed themselves to be drawn on which cuts they would have made or not made relative to Osbourne, but they certainly weren't planning to raise the minimum wage. Balls hilariously promised to raise it to 8 quid an hour by 2020, which would amount to a real terms _cut_ in the minimum wage.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd invite Salah and/or Netanyahu to tea if I thought it would help solve even a fraction of the problems of Israel/Palestine.



Noble of you. And would you say to Bibi, as Corbyn did to Saleh: "I look forward to giving you tea, because you deserve it"?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It doesn't "mean the same". "Working people" refers to anyone who works (and invalidates those who are unable to), among other things. "Working class" refers to your relationship to the means of production.



Although jim Murphy started using the term "working class" up here  as synonym for what labour elsewhere were using the term "working people"... Obviously a cynical move to give those politics a more socialist clothing but clearly did not work


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Noble of you. And would you say to Bibi, as Corbyn did to Saleh: "I look forward to giving you tea, because you deserve it"?



I'm unaware of the context of Corbyn's utterance, but I believe that most people, even Tony Blair, deserve a cup of tea.


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm unaware of the context of Corbyn's utterance, but *I believe that most people, even Tony Blair, deserve a cup of tea*.



Only as an alternative to a pre-execution last cigarette I hope, in his case


----------



## J Ed (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Talking of Corbyn, would you invite Raed Salah to tea, VP? Just out of interest.



Raed Salah is a saint compared to most of the tyrants Tony Blair has shilled on behalf while in and out of office.

Raed Salah has _said _bigoted, racist things and Corbyn has met with him.
Islam Karimov executes pro-democracy protesters by boiling them alive and freezing them to death, in power Blair ensured that his regime received weapons and since then he has been its cheerleader.

Do you agree with boiling people alive or is that another bit of Blair's legacy (and present) that you'd like to opt out of?


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Raed Salah is a saint compared to most of the tyrants Tony Blair has shilled on behalf while in and out of office.
> 
> Raed Salah has _said _bigoted, racist things and Corbyn has met with him.
> Islam Karimov executes pro-democracy protesters by boiling them alive and freezing them to death, in power Blair ensured that his regime received weapons and since then he has been its cheerleader.
> ...


 none of them are in touch with the people


----------



## Favelado (Jun 20, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> none of them are in touch with the people



Yes I know what a parking meters are.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Raed Salah is a saint compared to most of the tyrants Tony Blair has shilled on behalf while in and out of office.
> 
> Raed Salah has _said _bigoted, racist things and Corbyn has met with him.
> Islam Karimov executes pro-democracy protesters by boiling them alive and freezing them to death, in power Blair ensured that his regime received weapons and since then he has been its cheerleader.
> ...



I can't find any links to Blair working with Karimov since stepping down, could you oblige?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 20, 2015)

I was 16 when clause 4 was changed... At that time my knowledge of party politics was of watching the news and question time with my parents and what I understood as 'socialist' was social democratic old labour in a very fuzzy kinda way. Compared to what I know now was the square root of fuck all and even more so in comparison to average posters on here. Yet I knew that when clause 4 was changed and when Blair got into power that the Labour Party as a socialist party was over/dead/finished... It was pretty self evident..

It amazes me that there are people on here with the knowledge and socialist values that they have could maintain - 20 years later when all that has been said and done by labour subsequent to 1995 -  a position of some fidelity to the Labour Party that there is something worth fighting for there

wtf man!!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I can't find any links to Blair working with Karimov since stepping down, could you oblige?


Nazarbayev?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/24/tony-blair-advice-kazakh-president-protesters

Karimov
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/oct/28/foreignpolicy.usa

Kagame
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/31/tony-blair-rwanda-paul-kagame

You're lazy or ignorant, maybe both.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2015)

**


----------



## J Ed (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I can't find any links to Blair working with Karimov since stepping down, could you oblige?



You are right actually, his support for Karimov was limited to his time in power, he moved on to the other murderous autocrat Kurmanbek Bakiyev to keep his hand in.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Nazarbayev?
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/24/tony-blair-advice-kazakh-president-protesters
> 
> Karimov
> ...



Or, perhaps, precise.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You mean, apart from Sure Start centres, the minimum wage, tax credits and the EMA?


Sure start centres opened but no free nursery place past 3 yrs old...i had 2 kids in nursery under labour and it cost £35 per day for each child to go to nursery...my kids went 3 days a week each and cos of the 5 yr age difference it cost us £105 per week  for 50 weeks a year for 7 years ... we had a joint income of less than £35,0000 per year. ... before tax. Millions were in the same or worse positions than us...but guess you, like AC14 think this is merely an anecdote so not worth listening to.

The minimum wage...why was is set lower than what McDonalds pay? Why do under 21yr olds get less...are they charged less for food, rent etc.

EMA....great, but then university charges were introduced, so they simply stole from one set of students to help another.

Tax credit...why did millions get paid so little  that we had to claim a fucking benefit even though we worked? Oh yeah, I remember...cos labour put a pay freeze on public sector workers and set the minimum wage so low.

even the positives you cling to are tainted. ..and at the same time you and AC14 refuse to comment on my previous posts...instead you play the victims of nasty dinosaur socialists. 

You embarrass the concept of social justice by defending a 13 yr labour government which left us with a greater gap between rich than poor than under the tories.
now you tell us that it is worse under the tories so we must vote labour. .. if our living standards went up then you would have a point but they dont ...they got worse but just at a slower rate.

its like telling someone that is weighted down in an empty pool that is filling up with water from 2 taps that you have made things better cos you have turned 1 tap off...they will still drown unless you turn the both off and drain the water...anything else is simply bollocks and that is how millions of people feel.

but you carry on with your 'well how much is too much pay...50k, 110k or £1m' rubbish... the vast majority of people would kill to be on 25k a year yet you and the other labour defenders refuse to acknowledge how bad thing were for us under your beloved party.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 20, 2015)

xslavearcx said:


> I was 16 when clause 4 was changed... At that time my knowledge of party politics was of watching the news and question time with my parents and what I understood as 'socialist' was social democratic old labour in a very fuzzy kinda way. Compared to what I know now was the square root of fuck all and even more so in comparison to average posters on here. Yet I knew that when clause 4 was changed and when Blair got into power that the Labour Party as a socialist party was over/dead/finished... It was pretty self evident..
> 
> It amazes me that there are people on here with the knowledge and socialist values that they have could maintain - 20 years later when all that has been said and done by labour subsequent to 1995 -  a position of some fidelity to the Labour Party that there is something worth fighting for there
> 
> wtf man!!



I'm the same generation as you and have the same experience as you. The idea of common ownership of the means of production was alien to most of us who only had memories of Thatcher as PM: but while the death of Clause 4 didn't upset me for what it stood for in itself, I understood it's broader symbolism and that the party (which I then liked) was about to consign much of what I liked about it to history.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> At what level of salary is one's job no longer work, and at what point does it become instead the voluntary and gleeful participation in oppression and exploitation? £50k? £150k? £1m? And I get that there's no such things as work in EC4, but what about Farringdon or Shoreditch?


My boss is the owner of the business. He owns it takes the profits for himself and does very well for himself. He also works fucking hard, considerably harder than me but probably less hard than some of the other employees. He is definitely a workng person even a hard working person and part of a hard working family but in no way is he working class. Other than limits placed on him by government legislation he is able to decide what the rest of us are paid. Despite working harder than most of us his extra income far outstrips any extra effort he puts in. Where does the rest of that money come from? The work the rest of us do that we are underpaid for. If we were to divide up the business into chunks based on effort and sell it he would be able to buy backs his efforts plus a portion of mine and everyone else's where as the rest of us cannot even buy back our own efforts. It is in his interest to get as much of our efforts turned into profits as he can and lose as little as possible to our wages. That is why no matter how hard he works he cannot be working class.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Or, perhaps, precise.


No, not precise. You delude yourself.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> My boss is the owner of the business. He owns it takes the profits for himself and does very well for himself. He also works fucking hard, considerably harder than me but probably less hard than some of the other employees. He is definitely a workng person even a hard working person and part of a hard working family but in no way is he working class. Other than limits placed on him by government legislation he is able to decide what the rest of us are paid. Despite working harder than most of us his extra income far outstrips any extra effort he puts in. Where does the rest of that money come from? The work the rest of us do that we are underpaid for. If we were to divide up the business into chunks based on effort and sell it he would be able to buy backs his efforts plus a portion of mine and everyone else's where as the rest of us cannot even buy back our own efforts. It is in his interest to get as much of our efforts turned into profits as he can and lose as little as possible to our wages. That is why no matter how hard he works he cannot be working class.



Quite - Pickmans was claiming that City folk weren't working people, though, which is what I was arguing against.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> No, not precise. You delude yourself.



Can't you simply admit, as J Ed did with perfectly good grace, that the point about Karimov was wrong? No? Oh well.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jun 20, 2015)

Surely the point is that City workers work as agents of Captal insofar as their remit is to ensure the smooth circulation of capital and thus realisation of surplus value in production. Thus their interests are inherently at odds with the working class...


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Quite - Pickmans was claiming that City folk weren't working people, though, which is what I was arguing against.


I thought you said 'working people' meant the same as working class people after posters criticised the cretins wanting to run labour cos they kept talking about working people...so if i understood pickman correctly that means he was saying that 'city folk' were not working class.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> I thought you said 'working people' meant the same as working class people after posters criticised the cretins wanting to run labour cos they kept talking about working people...so if i understood pickman correctly that means he was saying that 'city folk' were not working class.



I have never said that the two terms meant the same. I didn't even address the question. And Pickmans quoted the term "working people" in his post.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I have never said that the two terms meant the same. I didn't even address the question. And Pickmans quoted the term "working people" in his post.


My mistake...it was AC14 that said they were the same but i think you are playing a game because I assume that,as you said "I agree with everything you said' to AC14 in post #1487, it included his or her view that working class and working people meant the same thing.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 20, 2015)

I remember Cameron in one speech talking about looking after the "blue collar workers". There is only one place where he can have got that phrase, and that is America. In the UK we don't use that expression. He is trying to cosy up to technical workers, plumbers, electricians and skilled factory workers. Perhaps he is wanting some work done on his house.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 20, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> My mistake...it was AC14 that said they were the same and I assume that,as you said "I agree with everything you said' to AC14 in post #1487, it included his or her view that working class and working people meant the same thing.



No, I wanted to give AC14 some support as he or she was brand new, engaging in a friendly and non-combative way, posting perfectly sensible stuff and getting treated like shit. So perhaps I offered too much of a blanket endorsement.

I don't think that there's a homogeneous working class with homogeneous interests. It's an overly crude label, as useless for market research as it is for political insight. The term "working people" or "hard working families" is even less helpful, though, if that is meant to be an interest group. I think that there are sensible things that can be said individually about the precariat, about the long-term unemployed in areas of high unemployment, about low-income earners and about, say, middle-income earners with multiple dependents. All of these groups should expect that a Labour government is thinking about their interests, which are not by any means aligned. 

So, as I'm deeply suspicious of both terms, I'm hardly likely to say that they are synonyms. They are loaded political weapons, overdue for decommissioning.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> No, I wanted to give AC14 some support as he or she was brand new, engaging in a friendly and non-combative way, posting perfectly sensible stuff and getting treated like shit. So perhaps I offered too much of a blanket endorsement.
> 
> I don't think that there's a homogeneous working class with homogeneous interests. It's an overly crude label, as useless for market research as it is for political insight. The term "working people" or "hard working families" is even less helpful, though, if that is meant to be an interest group. I think that there are sensible things that can be said individually about the precariat, about the long-term unemployed in areas of high unemployment, about low-income earners and about, say, middle-income earners with multiple dependents. All of these groups should expect that a Labour government is thinking about their interests, which are not by any means aligned.
> 
> So, as I'm deeply suspicious of both terms, I'm hardly likely to say that they are synonyms. They are loaded political weapons, overdue for decommissioning.


That is a very strange post. I don't think there is any point in trying to deconstruct it. I will leave it alone without further comment.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 20, 2015)

Not true re AC14...at no point was I aggressive or rude but they were happy enough to patronise me, dismiss my views or simply ignore them and generally act arrogantly towards me.
They did the same to others.
And imo they treated me like shit.
As for your support of them...if you write "I agree with everything you said" then people are reasonable when they take you at your word.
you and AC14 have cherry picked what you will respond to ... and that is disingenuous at best.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 21, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Can't you simply admit, as J Ed did with perfectly good grace, that the point about Karimov was wrong? No? Oh well.


What you can't wrap your head around is the fact that Blair whores himself to authoritarians and dictators.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> Only as an alternative to a pre-execution last cigarette I hope, in his case



And only if I get to throw it in his face.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 22, 2015)

Desperate.


http://m.youtube.com/?gl=GB&hl=en-GB#/watch?v=plPyIBdD09E


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Desperate.
> 
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/?gl=GB&hl=en-GB#/watch?v=plPyIBdD09E




That's not "desperate", it's full-on fucking pathetic.


----------



## treelover (Jun 22, 2015)

just about to post that, wadical..


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Desperate.
> 
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/?gl=GB&hl=en-GB#/watch?v=plPyIBdD09E


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> just about to post that, wadical..


rancour


----------



## Rob Ray (Jun 22, 2015)




----------



## Favelado (Jun 22, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> rancour


 
Roy Jenkins left without it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Roy Jenkins left without it.


i thought treelover might be transposing his r's and w's today tho.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 22, 2015)

Who are Shed Seven backing?


----------



## MochaSoul (Jun 22, 2015)

AC14 said:


> It's too long to reply to this morning, and I empathise with a lot of what you say. However, the plural of anecdote is not data, and we have to govern for all.



Labour lost Scotland this last GE because it kept treating people's stories as anecdotes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2015)

MochaSoul said:


> Labour lost Scotland this last GE because it kept treating people's stories as anecdotes.


yeh, they lost scotland because they were very rude to the scots and took them for granted.


----------



## red & green (Jun 22, 2015)

And the labour sour grapes ever since is amusing


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2015)

red & green said:


> And the labour sour grapes ever since is amusing


they'll be out of power for a generation. again.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 25, 2015)

Lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

Hilariously, Alan "useless right-wing fuck" Milburn waded into Miliband and the perception of a turn to the left in today's "i". Like anything that privatising, PFI-loving dog-bummer has to say has validity, Fuckbag went from Health Secretary to part of a private health concern in a whiplash-inducingly fast time.


----------



## gosub (Jun 25, 2015)

red & green said:


> And the labour sour grapes ever since is amusing


Read an article this week that Labour members found to have said anything favourable about the SNP on social media, are being expelled from the party.   How to ensure they stay buried


----------



## killer b (Jun 25, 2015)

gosub said:


> Read an article this week that Labour members found to have said anything favourable about the SNP on social media, are being expelled from the party.   How to ensure they stay buried


We covered this elsewhere - that particular case (unless there's others come to light) was a SNP supporter who'd joined specifically to troll.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2015)

Corbyn winning (supposedly)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...yn-course-come-top-labour-leadership-election


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2015)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/labours-week-crisis-inside-story

New Statesman really is a Blairite rag these days, see this article


----------



## articul8 (Jul 15, 2015)

i think that they think putting out "Corbyn in the lead" articles will scare people back into "sense".  It could backfire, big time.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/labours-week-crisis-inside-story
> 
> New Statesman really is a Blairite rag these days, see this article



Yep, neoliberal elitism with a smattering of identitarian politics to give it a radical veneer without actually throwing up anything that could cause friction between Helen Lewis and Andrew Neil when she goes on his shit programme on the BBC


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 15, 2015)

Tristy claims Corbyn is "politically and economically bankrupt". This from a man who crosses a picket line to deliver a lecture about Marx. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...y-bankrupt-warns-tristram-hunt_n_7800036.html

The more popular with the voters Corbyn becomes, the more shrill and hysterical the speech of the Blairite 'modernisers' becomes.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 15, 2015)

It's clear who Iain Martin and other Tories want to lead the Labour Party.


----------



## oryx (Jul 15, 2015)

Did anyone see the disgraceful Channel 4 News interview with Corbyn earlier this week?

He is ostensibly given an interview slot on C4 News as a result of Harman backing some of the more dubious benefit reforms and Krishnan Guru-Murthy asks him about 'being a friend of Hamas', then doesn't let him get a word in edgeways when Corbyn tries to describe what he meant. Understandably Corbyn got a bit irate. Totally unrelated and obviously designed to show Corbyn as a friend of 'terrorists' etc.

My OH reckons Guru-Murthy is a failed Paxman wanabee.


----------



## JHE (Jul 15, 2015)

Corbyn was made uncomfortable by his difficulty in explaining why he called Hamas and Hezbollah "friends".  He used the word in "a collective way", he says.  Ah, right, a collective way.  OK, then.

The thing that bothered me most about Corbyn's performance was not his having talked to Islamists (his point about having to talk to all sides, including people you disagree with, in the search for peace, is fair enough, as far as it goes), nor his having addressed them as friends (the simple truth is that leftists and others address all sorts of people at political meetings in that way, sometimes very obviously insincerely - if he'd called the Islamists comrades I'd have been more bothered), but his apparent scepticism about the Islamists' objective being the elimination of Israel.  Either Corbyn is extraordinarily naive or he was being disingenuous.  I think it was the second.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 15, 2015)

oryx said:


> My OH reckons Guru-Murthy is a failed Paxman wanabee.



He's barely a wannabe Piers Morgan. Much as Paxo's liberal-right schtick was prone to falling apart in front of unknown quantities he could at least string together questions that actually picked at holes in people's arguments rather than jabbing ineptly at hot topics nicked from simplistic press columns. Tbh Corbyn should have destroyed that nonsense, the fact he lost his rag says bad things about what'll happen if he's put up against the full might of the right as leader.


----------



## oryx (Jul 15, 2015)

JHE said:


> Corbyn was made uncomfortable by his difficulty in explaining why he called Hamas and Hezbollah "friends".  He used the word in "a collective way", he says.  Ah, right, a collective way.  OK, then.
> 
> The thing that bothered me most about Corbyn's performance was not his having talked to Islamists (his point about having to talk to all sides, including people you disagree with, in the search for peace, is fair enough, as far as it goes), nor his having addressed them as friends (the simple truth is that leftists and others address all sorts of people at political meetings in that way, sometimes very obviously insincerely - if he'd called the Islamists comrades I'd have been more bothered), but his apparent scepticism about the Islamists' objective being the elimination of Israel.  Either Corbyn is extraordinary naive or he was being disingenuous.  I think it was the second.



The point I was making was that he shouldn't have even been asked about this in the first place in this particular interview.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2015)

JHE said:


> Corbyn was made uncomfortable by his difficulty in explaining why he called Hamas and Hezbollah "friends"...  his apparent scepticism about the [their] objective being the elimination of Israel.  Either Corbyn is extraordinary naive or he was being disingenuous.  I think it was the second.



That meme's so *old*. Hamas and Hezbollah may have the elimination of the state of Israel in their charters, but it's well-known they've rowed back from it in their policies.

As is calling Hamas and Hezbollah "islamists" in 2015. Technically, maybe; but they're hardly Daesh, are they? In the real world, that is, rather than in the world of professional Zionist fear-mongers.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 15, 2015)

laptop said:


> That meme's so *old*. Hamas and Hezbollah may have the elimination of the state of Israel in their charters, but it's well-known they've rowed back from it in their policies.
> 
> As is calling Hamas and Hezbollah "islamists" in 2015. Technically, maybe; but they're hardly Daesh, are they? In the real world, that is, rather than in the world of professional Zionist fear-mongers.



Agree on the Hamas charter but I don't really see how the existence of ISIS means that Hamas and Hezbollah are not groups based on political Islam, they explicitly state that they are.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Agree on the Hamas charter but I don't really see how the existence of ISIS means that Hamas and Hezbollah are not groups based on political Islam, they explicitly state that they are.



I wrote:



> calling [then] "islamists" *in 2015*. Technically, maybe;



In 1928, calling German President Hindenburg "a Nationalist" was technically correct. In 1938 it was a smear, because of those other Nationalists.


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2015)

A race to the bottom, someone being more extreme, doesn't mean their predecessors are still not a threat.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 15, 2015)

Bring back ed miliband?...... The party needs your gravitas !


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 16, 2015)

laptop said:


> In 1928, calling German President Hindenburg "a Nationalist" was technically correct. In 1938 it was a smear, because of those other Nationalists.


Calling one the set of pricks that help hand power to the Nazi's a nationalist is a smear. You've a very strange definition of smear.

Hindenburg wasn't a fascist but he was quite clearly a Nationalist both in 28 and 38.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 16, 2015)

so - if how does the process work? 

Is it the candidate that comes last drops out and their second preferences go into the next round? 

If so - im guessing corbyn could  win the most first preferences but it will eventually be burnham or cooper who end up as leader?


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 16, 2015)

I don't think it likely but i'm wondering if it's at least possible, now, Corbyn might win.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> I don't think it likely but i'm wondering if it's at least possible, now, Corbyn might win.


Of course not.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Of course not.



since he's on the ballot it's not _impossible_; anything else is conspiracy theory


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> since he's on the ballot it's not _impossible_; anything else is conspiracy theory


Yes, it is possible, but the Labour 'left's dreaming of such a leader demonstrates their delusion/denial about the reality of the party. As Paul @ TCF puts it...


> _....by investing hope and energy in a campaign to get Jeremy into the contest, and then presumably win it, the Labour left is both fetishing leadership and getting distracted from the more important task ahead: creating the proper conditions for the re-emergence of democratic socialist government in Britain._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> since he's on the ballot it's not _impossible_; anything else is conspiracy theory


If all you mean was that is it, in principle, possible for someone on a ballot paper to win an election then why did you even bother asking such a banal question? You were clearly asking if it was politically possible for a specific candidate to win a specific election - and the answer is no.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> If all you mean was that is it, in principle, possible for someone on a ballot paper to win an election then why did you even bother asking such a banal question? You were clearly asking if it was politically possible for a specific candidate to win a specific election - and the answer is no.


As that was what I was  clearly asking all the silly posturing wasn't necessary, was it. You can see the future?


----------



## killer b (Jul 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, it is possible, but the Labour 'left's dreaming of such a leader demonstrates their delusion/denial about the reality of the party. As Paul @ TCF puts it...
> ​


Agreed, but _re_ emergence?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> You can see the future?


I can make a safe analysis based on evidence and historical precedent. It's called indeductive reasoning.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> You can see the future?


In the sense that, if he 'won'...the LP would actually have managed to look even more absurd than it does presently. A 'lefty' "leader" of a neo-liberal party.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Agreed, but _re_ emergence?


He's Labour.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> In the sense that, if he 'won'...the LP would actually have managed to look even more absurd than it does presently. A 'lefty' "leader" of a neo-liberal party.


Then that's how they will look. That's not an explanation as to why he cannot and will not win, which is what is being asserted.


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I can make a safe analysis based on evidence and historical precedent. It's called deductive reasoning.


You made an assertion, not a deduction.


----------



## killer b (Jul 16, 2015)

this never goes well lads, remember?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

The only question is whether Steptoe comes second or third in the first round before being knocked out, and it's muddied by the Twittersphere taking Tory mischief campaigns more seriously than it should, and by Unite lying about the number of voters it can muster (which is perfectly sensible when they need to get the other three candidates to position against Javid's new legislation).

But his candidacy is doing real damage to Labour and it's all Burnham's fault for trying to be too clever and game the positioning.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> You made an assertion, not a deduction.


Don't do this to yourself wells.

As it goes i have used inductive (not deductive as i first said) reasoning to make  a fairly safe analysis - that is, the membership of the labour party and the unions voters do not support corbyn or politics of his type to lead the labour party and never have, and that the NS article that the current phaffing is about is quite frankly a joke that simply projects CLP nominations onto total vote share - a ridiculous way of doing things. It actually amounts to either just printing (or manufacturing) corbyn PR or whipping up an anti-corbyn scare story. And the fact that he _may _do well in the first round almost ensures that there will be another winner as all his support will have been used up at first go.

And btw, none of this should need typing out.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

The NS claimed to have private polling. Leaked by one of the other three, sure, and probably fallible polls even if true, but they had more than the projections from nominations.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2015)

Reading the three updates, i think it's pretty clear what camp this has come from - and it looks like the NS did exactly as they were expected to.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

Cooper?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The only question is whether *Steptoe* comes second or third in the first round before being knocked out, and it's muddied by the Twittersphere taking Tory mischief campaigns more seriously than it should, and by Unite lying about the number of voters it can muster (which is perfectly sensible when they need to get the other three candidates to position against Javid's new legislation).
> 
> But his candidacy is doing real damage to Labour and it's all Burnham's fault for trying to be too clever and game the positioning.



Pragmatic caricature...or immoral ageism?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Pragmatic caricature...or immoral ageism?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Their haircuts, beards and tight, vengeful little eyes are identical.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Pragmatic caricature...or immoral ageism?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


tbf there was that DM story about Jezza bathing in the sink, eating pickled onions from the jar.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> But his candidacy is doing real damage to Labour and it's all Burnham's fault for trying to be too clever and game the positioning.


Like anyone will remember any of this by 2020...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Their haircuts, beards and tight, vengeful little eyes are identical.


You un-funny tool


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Their haircuts, beards and tight, vengeful little eyes are identical.



Just goes to show that far from occupying the moral high ground as you'd like to claim, you're actually rolling around in the gutter...enjoy.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## zxspectrum (Jul 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Don't do this to yourself wells.
> 
> As it goes i have used inductive (not deductive as i first said) reasoning to make  a fairly safe analysis - that is, the membership of the labour party and the unions voters do not support corbyn or politics of his type to lead the labour party and never have, and that the NS article that the current phaffing is about is quite frankly a joke that simply projects CLP nominations onto total vote share - a ridiculous way of doing things. It actually amounts to either just printing (or manufacturing) corbyn PR or whipping up an anti-corbyn scare story. And the fact that he _may _do well in the first round almost ensures that there will be another winner as all his support will have been used up at first go.
> 
> And btw, none of this should need typing out.


You arrogantly made an assertion and you seek to cover it up with this nonsense about someone else. 

All i see here is an arrogant class warrior with no solutions just a lot of bluster. You have nothing to offer.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Like anyone will remember any of this by 2020...



True. There are mayoral elections, by-elections, local elections and European elections before then, though.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2015)

oryx said:


> Did anyone see the disgraceful Channel 4 News interview with Corbyn earlier this week?
> 
> He is ostensibly given an interview slot on C4 News as a result of Harman backing some of the more dubious benefit reforms and Krishnan Guru-Murthy asks him about 'being a friend of Hamas', then doesn't let him get a word in edgeways when Corbyn tries to describe what he meant. Understandably Corbyn got a bit irate. Totally unrelated and obviously designed to show Corbyn as a friend of 'terrorists' etc.
> 
> My OH reckons Guru-Murthy is a failed Paxman wanabee.


Of course, there's no mention of Labour (or Conservative) Friends of Israel, which offers unqualified support for the racist government of Israel.

KGM could have easily been asking the question "do you still beat your wife". What a repellent piece of shite he is.


----------



## youngian (Jul 16, 2015)

I was disappointed rising star and former army officer Dan Jarvis didn't stand. Purely for the campaign slogan: Vote for Dan Jarvis- because he's shot better men than David Cameron.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Of course, there's no mention of Labour (or Conservative) Friends of Israel, which offers unqualified support for the racist government of Israel.
> 
> KGM could have easily been asking the question "do you still beat your wife". What a repellent piece of shite he is.



I agree with Corbyn about Hamas, but Guru-Murthy was right to question him on his calling them 'friends' and his angry reaction showed up his inability to deal with the media. 

I like Corbyn a lot, but if he was to become leader then the press would simply destroy both him and Labour. 2020 would be worse than 1983.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> tbf there was that DM story about Jezza bathing in the sink, eating pickled onions from the jar.


But then he does have a bonkers weatherman climate change denying sibling. For the DM a second case of Labour electing the wrong brother.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

Wilf said:


> But then he does have a bonkers weatherman climate change denying sibling. For the DM a second case of Labour electing the wrong brother.





> FACT*  The world - using real data - is not warming


* in blue, block bold


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I agree with Corbyn about Hamas, but Guru-Murthy was right to question him on his calling them 'friends' and his angry reaction showed up his inability to deal with the media.
> 
> I like Corbyn a lot, but if he was to become leader then the press would simply destroy both him and Labour. 2020 would be worse than 1983.



If that were actually the case, I'd pay my £3 and vote for him, because the media destruction of Corbyn and Labour would actually show the hand of power in a way that's rarely done.
And frankly, there isn't much "Labour" to destroy. It's not been the party of working people for a long time.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> If that were actually the case, I'd pay my £3 and vote for him, because the media destruction of Corbyn and Labour would actually show the hand of power in a way that's rarely done.
> And frankly, there isn't much "Labour" to destroy. It's not been the party of working people for a long time.



Well there's any chance they might have had of winning the next election. That would be destroyed if Corbyn won.


----------



## killer b (Jul 16, 2015)

why?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Well there's any chance they might have had of winning the next election. That would be destroyed if Corbyn won.



You think that with any of the other three in the saddle, there's any chance of Labour winning the next election? All three are mini-mes who'll parrot support for 95% of the policies the Tories legislate over the next 5 years. That's not opposition, and none of them will make an opposition, because they and the Tories are too ideologically-similar for that to happen beyond making booing noises at them in the Commons.


----------



## killer b (Jul 16, 2015)

(not that I think he'll win the leadership - but the idea that parties with left wing leaders can't win elections is a pretty shaky one IMO)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Well there's any chance they might have had of winning the next election. That would be destroyed if Corbyn won.



Apart from the fact that Corbyn's opponents keep telling everyone this, what evidence is there of it? 

And Corbyn's opponents would say we're all doomed if he wins the leadership, because it's easier for them to say that than to actually defend their own red tory politics or to counter Corbyn's arguments.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

Let's see how the dirty old man does on Monday; the hustings circus fetches up at a Jewish cultural centre on the Finchley Road for an event organised by Labour Friends of Israel. It'll be interesting to see what he says about his various friends.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Apart from the fact that Corbyn's opponents keep telling everyone this, what evidence is there of it?
> 
> And Corbyn's opponents would say we're all doomed if he wins the leadership, because it's easier for them to say that than to actually defend their own red tory politics or to counter Corbyn's arguments.



If Corbyn won the leadership election, Labour would definitely lose the 2020 election. Not because left wing ideas are unpopular but because the PLP would make damn sure they lost it and blame it on Corbyn.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> If Corbyn won the leadership election, Labour would definitely lose the 2020 election. Not because left wing ideas are unpopular but because the PLP would make damn sure they lost it and blame it on Corbyn.


Yep. The right wing of the Labour Party would rather lose than support someone like Corbyn.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 16, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Yep. The right wing of the Labour Party would rather lose than support someone like Corbyn.



Yes, for both professional and personal financial reasons, not that the two aren't totally intertwined.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Let's see how the dirty old man does on Monday; the hustings circus fetches up at a Jewish cultural centre on the Finchley Road for an event organised by Labour Friends of Israel. It'll be interesting to see what he says about his various friends.



Why are you so scared of a 'dirty old man' who can't win? It makes you look really weird, rolling about in the gutter shouting insults.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Why are you so scared of a 'dirty old man' who can't win? It makes you look really weird, rolling about in the gutter shouting insults.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


if you think that's weird you should see what he looks like when you really see him rolling in a gutter shouting insults


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

Labour lulz...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Why are you so scared of a 'dirty old man' who can't win?



I'm irked rather than scared; his candidacy is definitely damaging even though he can't win.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I'm irked rather than scared; his candidacy is definitely damaging even though he can't win.


So what's your opinion of 'Labour Friends of Israel', then?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what's your opinion of 'Labour Friends of Israel', then?



I'd be happy to be a friend of Labour friends of Israel, if not actually a friend of Israel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I'd be happy to be a friend of Labour friends of Israel, if not actually a friend of Israel.


Ok. Just to be clear, what's happening is that Corbyn is turning up to a debate organised by them? 

Isn't that a good thing? And I don't get the idea that a candidate you don't want elected standing for the leadership is damaging. Is it the debate that's damaging? If so, how?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. Just to be clear, what's happening is that Corbyn is turning up to a debate organised by them?
> 
> Isn't that a good thing? And I don't get the idea that a candidate you don't want elected standing for the leadership is damaging. Is it the debate that's damaging? If so, how?



It's the speculation that he might win that's damaging, even though it's fuelled by ill-informed speculation and mischievous Jedi/RATM-style campaigns.

It's a good thing that LFI (et al) have organised a hustings, mainly because it is an elephant trap for Corbyn, as he will presumably need to present his position on the likes of Raed Salah in depth.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. Just to be clear, what's happening is that Corbyn is turning up to a debate organised by them?
> 
> Isn't that a good thing? And I don't get the idea that a candidate you don't want elected standing for the leadership is damaging. Is it the debate that's damaging? If so, how?



Corbyn is the wrong sort of candidate; he looks like a dirty old man and is friends with arabs. Maurice finds these things objectionable and knows that everybody else will too. Maurice thinks he's a moral pragmatist, but actually he's an amoral coward.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. Just to be clear, what's happening is that Corbyn is turning up to a debate organised by them?
> 
> Isn't that a good thing? And I don't get the idea that a candidate you don't want elected standing for the leadership is damaging. Is it the debate that's damaging? If so, how?


Perhaps he thinks it's 'damaging' to remind voters of a time when the party had some ideological connection to socialism, principles, purpose and aspiration to represent the working class. Maybe?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's a good thing that LFI (et al) have organised a hustings, mainly because it is an elephant trap for Corbyn, as he will presumably need to present his position on the likes of Raed Salah in depth.


That would be the Raed Salah who took part in the flotilla of aid ships to the Gaza Strip? That one?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That would be the Raed Salah who took part in the flotilla of aid ships to the Gaza Strip? That one?



Yeah, that's the one. Blood libel chap.


----------



## agricola (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's a good thing that LFI (et al) have organised a hustings, mainly because it is an elephant trap for Corbyn, as he will presumably need to present his position on the likes of Raed Salah in depth.



A bit odd that a group which supports a side which, in their last war, killed 499 children can be seen to set a trap for a candidate who is claimed to support the side that killed one.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

I don't believe there is such a thing as Labour Friends of Likud.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Yeah, that's the one. Blood libel chap.


 
Has an Israeli court found him guilty of this...or any court? 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## agricola (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I don't believe there is such a thing as Labour Friends of Likud.



Really?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 16, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Has an Israeli court found him guilty of this...or any court?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/ait-decision-mahajna/



> _“We are not a nation that is based on values of envy.  We are not a nation that is based on values of vengeance.  We have never allowed ourselves, and listen carefully; we have never allowed ourselves to knead the bread for the breaking [of] fasting during the blessed month of Ramadan with the blood of the children.  And if someone wants a wider explanation, then he should ask what used to happen to some of the children of Europe, when their blood used to be mixed in the dough of the holy bread.  God almighty, is this religion?  Is this what God wants?  Allah’s curse be on you: how you are deluded away from the Truth.  How dare you to lie to God? How dare you to fabricate things on God? “_
> 
> 
> Nevertheless we do not find this comment could be taken to be anything other than a reference to the blood libel against Jews and nothing said by the appellant or Professor Pappe explains why it would be interpreted otherwise from the original Arabic text or in the English text before us.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/ait-decision-mahajna/


 
Have you actually read the judgement; it provides an interesting example of the lack of democracy that Corbyn was highlighting in his support for Raed Salah's presence in the UK. The sections dealing with the question of judicial deference to the wishes of the secretary of state are particularly, if unintentionally, illuminating.  Oh and just remind me again how the blood libel thing went for him in Israel?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's the speculation that he might win that's damaging, even though it's fuelled by ill-informed speculation and mischievous Jedi/RATM-style campaigns.



Tbh, I'd worry more about the damage that another 5 years of a nothingy offer-no-real-opposition centrist leader will do to Labour's base than I would about whether or not people will even remember Corbyn's leadership campaign this time next year.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2015)

(oh, and obviously Burnham's going to win, because every ballot that doesn't have him first pref will have a 2 next to his name)


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 16, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> (oh, and obviously Burnham's going to win, because every ballot that doesn't have him first pref will have a 2 next to his name)



Yep, confirming that being the aim of both the spreading of "he's in front" polling and right-wing "I'm voting Corbyn" chatter. Burnham's played a blinder imo, totally destroyed Kendall by scaring her potential vote.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I agree with Corbyn about Hamas, but Guru-Murthy was right to question him on his calling them 'friends' and his angry reaction showed up his inability to deal with the media.
> 
> I like Corbyn a lot, but if he was to become leader then the press would simply destroy both him and Labour. 2020 would be worse than 1983.


I don't think Corbyn was having a "meltdown". I think he had every right to be impatient and angry. I also think Corbyn wanted to put his point across but KGM wasn't going to let him. The words "do you still beat your wife" apply to KGM's interviewing style.

As for harking back to to 1983, there's one thing that people continue to forget: Foot was ahead in the polls until Thatcher manufactured a conflict with the Argentines over the Malvinas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't think Corbyn was having a "meltdown". I think he had every right to be impatient and angry. I also think Corbyn wanted to put his point across but KGM wasn't going to let him. The words "do you still beat your wife" apply to KGM's interviewing style.
> 
> As for harking back to to 1983, there's one thing that people continue to forget: Foot was ahead in the polls until Thatcher manufactured a conflict with the Argentines over the Malvinas.


yeh. but the conflict was in 1982. foot therefore behind thatcher throughout the important period.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Well there's any chance they might have had of winning the next election. That would be destroyed if Corbyn won.


Nonsense. You've internalised the Tory and Blairite propaganda, which claims that even the mild socialism of Corbyn is "old fashioned". Tell me, what is so fresh and modern about the Tories and Blairites?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I'd be happy to be a friend of Labour friends of Israel, if not actually a friend of Israel.


I bet you would.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't think Corbyn was having a "meltdown". I think he had every right to be impatient and angry. I also think Corbyn wanted to put his point across but KGM wasn't going to let him. The words "do you still beat your wife" apply to KGM's interviewing style.
> 
> As for harking back to to 1983, there's one thing that people continue to forget: Foot was ahead in the polls until Thatcher manufactured a conflict with the Argentines over the Malvinas.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> If Corbyn won the leadership election, Labour would definitely lose the 2020 election. Not because left wing ideas are unpopular but because the PLP would make damn sure they lost it and blame it on Corbyn.


Or there's a possibility they'll fuck off and do an SDP Mk II or join the Lib Dems... which would be seriously fucked.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Or there's a possibility they'll fuck off and do an SDP Mk II or join the Lib Dems... which would be seriously fucked.


Given that only 10% of the parliamentary party actually support Corbyn's politics, it would be absolutely guaranteed.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 16, 2015)

That Chukka's a fucker.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> That Chukka's a fucker.


chukka not pukka


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2015)

tristram hunt's a cunt


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 16, 2015)

Surely it'll be quicker to list members of the PLP that aren't cunts?


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 16, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tristram hunt's a cunt


He was just on the telly. Really is.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You think that with any of the other three in the saddle, there's any chance of Labour winning the next election? All three are mini-mes who'll parrot support for 95% of the policies the Tories legislate over the next 5 years. That's not opposition, and none of them will make an opposition, because they and the Tories are too ideologically-similar for that to happen beyond making booing noises at them in the Commons.



I’m not much impressed by any of them either, but at least Labour would have a reasonable chance of winning with one of the other three as leader. Why bother with a leader who couldn’t possibly win? Any Labour government is better than any tory one.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Apart from the fact that Corbyn's opponents keep telling everyone this, what evidence is there of it?
> 
> And Corbyn's opponents would say we're all doomed if he wins the leadership, because it's easier for them to say that than to actually defend their own red tory politics or to counter Corbyn's arguments.



Labour would be doomed, it’s fantasy to believe that a dour and uncharismatic 71 year old from the old Labour left will appeal to British voters. Why do you think the Telegraph for are trying to get their readers to pay £3 and vote for him?

It’s a shame that personality is a major factor in democratic politics, but there you go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I’m not much impressed by any of them either, but at least Labour would have a reasonable chance of winning with one of the other three as leader. Why bother with a leader who couldn’t possibly win? Any Labour government is better than any tory one.



Even a Labour government whose guiding ideology is almost identical to that of the Tories? I know we like to fondly see Labour as the defenders of the NHS and the rest of the Welfare State, but most of the shit the Coalition pulled, and the Tories are pulling, is stuff that New Labour set in train.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't think Corbyn was having a "meltdown". I think he had every right to be impatient and angry. I also think Corbyn wanted to put his point across but KGM wasn't going to let him. The words "do you still beat your wife" apply to KGM's interviewing style.
> 
> As for harking back to to 1983, there's one thing that people continue to forget: Foot was ahead in the polls until Thatcher manufactured a conflict with the Argentines over the Malvinas.



The Falklands war was indeed a factor in Thatcher's 1983 win, but bigger factors which worked against Labour were their commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the EEC, their disastrous handling of the economy in the 70s, higher personal taxes, union ties, (the winter of discontent and massively high inflation were still fresh in everyone’s minds) and importantly, Foot himself. 

Most voters simply don’t want strange looking old men leading the country, especially when they’re perceived to be rooted in the far left or far right as Foot was and Corbyn is.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour would be doomed, it’s fantasy to believe that a dour and uncharismatic 71 year old from the old Labour left will appeal to British voters. Why do you think the Telegraph for are trying to get their readers to pay £3 and vote for him?
> 
> It’s a shame that personality is a major factor in democratic politics, but there you go.



He's 66 not 71.


----------



## Santino (Jul 16, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tristram hunt's a cunt


What about Ian  Fothermucker?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even a Labour government whose guiding ideology is almost identical to that of the Tories? I know we like to fondly see Labour as the defenders of the NHS and the rest of the Welfare State, but most of the shit the Coalition pulled, and the Tories are pulling, is stuff that New Labour set in train.



Yep, even New Labour were better than the tory alternative. Can you imagine what Hague or Howard would have done to the State sector?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2015)

Libertad said:


> He's 66 not 71.



Er... he'd be 71 by the time of the next election and 76 at the end of his first term.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Most voters simply don’t want strange looking old men



Is ageism against Corbyn now part of a coordinated campaign of dickheads for dickheads?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Is ageism against Corbyn now part of a coordinated campaign of dickheads for dickheads?



I'm no spring chicken myself, but sadly his age is something that will put voters off.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 16, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tristram hunt's a cunt


...but always so well turned out...and youngish. And Chuka's skin...he obviously follows quite a grooming regime....not like that dirty old tramp one.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...but always so well turned out...and youngish. And Chuka's skin...he obviously follows quite a grooming regime....not like that dirty old tramp one.



Cameron and Osborne are both obviously beautiful as well


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Cameron and Osborne are both obviously beautiful as well


As beautiful, yes.


----------



## panpete (Jul 17, 2015)

I like Corbyn's views, but New Labour are moving more to the centre, and I think Corbyn is a bit leftie.
I prefer the old labour and MP's like Skinner, Benn and Glenda Jackson, but again these MP's are too leftie for new labour.
I don't really know why we have a new labour party, maybe the whole labour party should just dissolve, as they have views too similar to tories. Any of the old-skool leftie labour MP's could join with the SNP.


----------



## SE25 (Jul 17, 2015)

I'll be honest, since the election I've swerved politics like a Liberal with the truth. I don't really have a clue who the candidates are but reading the Graun etc it seems the actual leftist candidate is 1-0 up. As much as I'd love Corbyn to get it (again, from what I've seen of him) is this how we get the Tories out? The public seemed to think Ed was too lefty (lol) which was one of the reasons he lost. Could Labour really get in with a non-Blairite leader?

not that I particularly have much faith in the party


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2015)

'the public' dont believe anything of the sort


----------



## Supine (Jul 17, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> That Chukka's a fucker.



He'd win a dj'ing contest though!


----------



## Supine (Jul 17, 2015)

I've met Corbyn a few times, decent bloke. Not a cat in hells chance he will win though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I'm no spring chicken myself, but sadly his age is something that will put voters off.


it's your fuckwittery i find repellent


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

Supine said:


> He'd win a dj'ing contest though!


hang the blessed dj


----------



## panpete (Jul 17, 2015)

Corbyn's age should not be a factor in the leadership.
I mean, the public are that brainwashed, that by the time the tories get out of power, David Cameron will be 138 years old lol


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why do you think the Telegraph for are trying to get their readers to pay £3 and vote for him?



To make everyone think that Labour will be doomed if he wins. They don't know what is gonna happen at an election in five years' time any more than you do.

e2a: It seems pretty perverse that people are openly bragging about their cunning plan to stitch up the democratic process in favour of their side.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> To make everyone think that Labour will be doomed if he wins. They don't know what is gonna happen at an election in five years' time any more than you do.



Doesn't Walder Frey just pile up votes where Labour don't need them? Who do you think the Conservatives would rather fight in the key English marginals that will actually decide the 2020 GE: Kendall or Corbyn?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 17, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Doesn't Walder Frey just pile up votes where Labour don't need them? Who do you think the Conservatives would rather fight in the key English marginals that will actually decide the 2020 GE: Kendall or Corbyn?



If I was Cameron, I'd be delighted to run against Kendall. She couldn't win an election in which nobody else was standing. She couldn't win a brass clock at her own retirement party.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 17, 2015)

when we get the result in a couple of months, with Corbyn in 3rd or so, we'll have an (imperfect) picture of what Labour members and supporters think about the future.  I do hope that those who think there's a chance of some kind of leftward shift in or around Labour take note.


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Jul 17, 2015)

zxspectrum said:


> I don't think it likely but i'm wondering if it's at least possible, now, Corbyn might win.



The folks paid to have an opinion reckon:

Andy Burnham 5/6
Yvette Cooper 11/4
Jeremy Corbyn 10/3
Liz Kendall 10/1

So they certainly think it is more than possible. I thought he'd need an avalanche of affiliated member votes to make up for 4th place in the members poll but that looks increasingly likely not to be the case.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> The folks paid to have an opinion reckon:
> 
> Andy Burnham 5/6
> Yvette Cooper 11/4
> ...


Not how betting odds work. Odds are set largely by volume of money bet and potential loss to bookie. Those odds clearly reflects people looking for an upset to make some money. So the people saying corbyn has a chance there are not the bookies, the ones who make the money, but _the punters_, the ones they take all the money from. The ones who lose their money.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it's your fuckwittery i find repellent


If Corbyn wore a donkey jacket to the Cenotaph I'd vote for him myself.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 17, 2015)

On personality politics front I'd rather vote for the energetic old man with a sense of humour than one of the other non entities. It'll be like when the one Simon hates wins X factor.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 17, 2015)

Supine said:


> He'd win a dj'ing contest though!


Yes, the biggest knobhead usually does quite well.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The Falklands war was indeed a factor in Thatcher's 1983 win, but bigger factors which worked against Labour were their commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the EEC, their disastrous handling of the economy in the 70s, higher personal taxes, union ties, (the winter of discontent and massively high inflation were still fresh in everyone’s minds) and importantly, Foot himself.


Strange how all those 1970s issues weren't reflected in pre-Falklands polling, isn't it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Most voters simply don’t want strange looking old men leading the country, especially when they’re perceived to be rooted in the far left or far right as Foot was and Corbyn is.


Corbyn isn't "far left". Stop repeating the drivel of the Tory press and Blairite fuckwits.

I don't suppose you have a figure for your assertion that "_Most_ voters simply don’t want strange looking old men"? Funnily enough, Corbyn's actually popular among young people. That sort of pisses on your chips somewhat. You've clearly bought into the postmodern idea of politics (appearance/presentation is everything).

People like you are part of the problem.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 17, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Doesn't Walder Frey just pile up votes where Labour don't need them? Who do you think the Conservatives would rather fight in the key English marginals that will actually decide the 2020 GE: Kendall or Corbyn?



Labour's main problem in 2015 was getting their supporters out to vote, so I suspect the Tories would be just fine facing off with Kendall in the marginals. (Wouldn't fancy Corbyn's chances much either but for different reasons).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I'm no spring chicken myself, but sadly his age is something that will put voters off.


Utter rubbish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The Falklands war was indeed a factor in Thatcher's 1983 win, but bigger factors which worked against Labour were their commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the EEC, their disastrous handling of the economy in the 70s, higher personal taxes, union ties, (the winter of discontent and massively high inflation were still fresh in everyone’s minds) and importantly, Foot himself.
> 
> Most voters simply don’t want strange looking old men leading the country, especially when they’re perceived to be rooted in the far left or far right as Foot was and Corbyn is.


you do talk some shit


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 17, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> It'll be like when the one Simon hates wins X factor.



It would be precisely like that, yes.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 17, 2015)

Boost for Watson's dep. candidature?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yep, even New Labour were better than the tory alternative. Can you imagine what Hague or Howard would have done to the State sector?



They weren't "better". The difference was presentational - it boiled down to them feeding us a shit sandwich with some garnish on it, rather than a plain shit sandwich. The policies are mostly the same.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...but always so well turned out...and youngish. And Chuka's skin...he obviously follows quite a grooming regime....not like that dirty old tramp one.



Like Dorian Gray, Chuka has a portrait locked in his attic,with his image riddled with the stamp of depravity, hubris and falsehood.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2015)

SE25 said:


> I'll be honest, since the election I've swerved politics like a Liberal with the truth. I don't really have a clue who the candidates are but reading the Graun etc it seems the actual leftist candidate is 1-0 up. As much as I'd love Corbyn to get it (again, from what I've seen of him) is this how we get the Tories out? The public seemed to think Ed was too lefty (lol) which was one of the reasons he lost. Could Labour really get in with a non-Blairite leader?
> 
> not that I particularly have much faith in the party



You're mistaking the media discourse about Miliband being "too left", with what people actually thought, which tended more to the "he's nowhere near left enough".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Strange how all those 1970s issues weren't reflected in pre-Falklands polling, isn't it?



The "Winter of Discontent" didn't become a meme until the mid-'80s, when it became handy to beat the miners, dockers and printers with anti-union bullshit.


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're mistaking the media discourse about Miliband being "too left", with what people actually thought, which tended more to the "he's nowhere near left enough".


Really? Where did you get this from?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> Really? Where did you get this from?


For my part, this is pretty much what I was thinking and the few people who I discuss politics with irl considered them to be tory lite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> Really? Where did you get this from?



Former party members, neighbours, relatives out in the sticks of East Anglia who say they'd have voted for Labour if Ed had grown a pair and stood up for social housing and rail re-nationalisation. Surprised me, as I'm far more used to hearing the old "they're all the same nowadays" refrain from all the above groups.


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2015)

Ah, ok. I had a few people say he was too left wing, a few say he was as left wing as he was able to be in the current labour party, but most just said he was useless. 

I don't think that many people still think in the terms of left and right tbh - the policies you mention above are popular across the board (rail nationalisation has majority support in polls iirc?)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> Really? Where did you get this from?





teqniq said:


> For my part, this is pretty much what I was thinking and the few people who I discuss politics with irl considered them to be tory lite.


Me too - Labour certainly didn't miss out on my vote because they were too far to the left...


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2015)

yeah, but you're on urban. people on urban aren't 'people' as referred to in VP's post. Of course he wasn't left enough for us.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The "Winter of Discontent" didn't become a meme until the mid-'80s, when it became handy to beat the miners, dockers and printers with anti-union bullshit.


Exactly. It was also a media-driven event. Where I lived, there were no unburied corpses nor piles of uncollected rubbish.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> yeah, but you're on urban. people on urban aren't 'people' as referred to in VP's post. Of course he wasn't left enough for us.


This is true, but I think the point is also that the media's portrayal is just as unreliable as urban's


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour would be doomed, it’s fantasy to believe that a dour and uncharismatic 71 year old from the old Labour left will appeal to British voters. Why do you think the Telegraph for are trying to get their readers to pay £3 and vote for him?
> 
> It’s a shame that personality is a major factor in democratic politics, but there you go.




Plenty of dour and uncharismatic leaders across the world, we do seem to be like the U.S though where image is important(most of the time, read GW Bush)


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2015)

Btw, Chuka launched a vicious attack on the left/Corbyn supporters, etc in the L/P on Newsnight last night, calling them childish, etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 17, 2015)

Throwing your toys out the pram and calling other people childish at the same time. Superb.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 17, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why bother with a leader who couldn’t possibly win? Any Labour government is better than any tory one.



This logic doesn't work for the simple reason that _none_ of the lead candidates has a cat in hell's chance of beating the Tories on current trends. 


Kendall's right-wing chatter can't get the Labour base out, ensuring a fight based on Tory voters which she can't hope to win in the face of both tribal loyalties and a frankly far superior Tory political machine.
Cooper and Burnham are basically variations of the "neither fish nor fowl" Ed Miliband model, with the same result looming.
Corbyn would either have to totally destroy Labour's upper echelons (including all-out war against the vast majority of his own MPs) or go down under an avalanche of internal betrayals and withering external attacks within months of taking office. He'd never make it to the next election.

So if you are a Labour supporter whose only interest is winning, you probably need to start thinking not in terms of who can win now, but in terms of how to spend the next five years rebuilding the party from the ground up to make it electable. 

And tbh to do that, you'd probably need to oust a large number of the most Blairite MPs (who have been a massive liability ever since Cameron and Osborne worked out that stealing their spiel of fairness/discipline while rhetorically hacking away at the Blair legacy basically neuters them) without splitting the party. 

You'd then need to replace them with a) working class and b) intelligent/charismatic leftists who can provide plausible lines capable pulling out its vanished voters. Otherwise it's Labour competing on Tory ground without a left base - fine if the Tories are divided with utterly pants leaders and a press corps looking to push the broad agenda rightwards, electoral suicide against this lot. 

I mean don't get me wrong, it's a massive waste of time trying to do anything useful with Labour, but if I _were_ a party loyalist that'd be the obvious path, anything else just plays directly into Tory hands over the long term and offers bog all electorally in the short term.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jul 17, 2015)

It seems Chukka is only interested in winning, I don't know about you, but i'd settle for 5 yrs of battering at the Tory gates.
The cons started out as the omnishambles then Labour (lack of fight) allowed them to shut the door.

Box clever and smart Chukka says and they let any tom, dick and harry with £3 a vote on who they want as leader.( brilliant thinking ). Flokin el Tristram, another labour MP afraid to be seen as such, by bully tories, who he see as his betters.
Why are labour doing the Conservatives job.
Hey! Labour join us and kick the unions in the bollocks, what! you are picking a leader, you have one, it's us stupid.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2015)

**


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jul 17, 2015)

Oh great one sends me a sign.
I do see the sign oh great one but fk you.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Btw, Chuka launched a vicious attack on the left/Corbyn supporters, etc in the L/P on Newsnight last night, calling them childish, etc.


I've said it before and I'll say it again; when all you have left is calling the other side names, you're losing the debate.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 17, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again; when all you have left is calling the other side names, you're losing the debate.


Yep and without realising it, Chucky was projecting when he claimed the Labour left was "stamping its feet".


----------



## Greebo (Jul 17, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Yep and without realising it, Chucky was projecting when he claimed the Labour left was "stamping its feet".


See also when he accused the local Green party of running "a very nasty smear campaign" against him, in the run up to the general election.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 17, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> This logic doesn't work for the simple reason that _none_ of the lead candidates has a cat in hell's chance of beating the Tories on current trends.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, Labour needs to think in terms of who can lead them to victory in 2020 and it certainly won't be Jeremy. I don't agree that none of the other candidates stand a cat in hell's chance of appealing to voters and beating the tories. I don’t see why Labour can’t win in 2020, especially if the tories fuck up. But not with Corbyn.

And I don't see why Labour should be obliged to fill its ranks with MPs who are exclusively 'working class', if that’s what you meant.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 17, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Corbyn isn't "far left". Stop repeating the drivel of the Tory press and Blairite fuckwits.
> 
> 
> I don't suppose you have a figure for your assertion that "_Most_ voters simply don’t want strange looking old men"? Funnily enough, Corbyn's actually popular among young people. That sort of pisses on your chips somewhat. You've clearly bought into the postmodern idea of politics (appearance/presentation is everything).
> ...




Read what I said: I didn't say Corbyn is far left, I said he is _perceived_ to be far left (which isn’t all that surprising considering he describes himself as being on the left of the Labour Party).

Corbyn actually reflects my own views more than the other candidates, but unfortunately I’m not particularly representative of the British electorate. Are you?

I won't reciprocate by calling you part of ‘the problem’, you're not that significant.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2015)

one or two might be nice, unless being run by chinless jumped up spads is your idea of a good government


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 18, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don’t see why Labour can’t win in 2020, especially if the tories fuck up.



Because it needs more votes than can be garnered from turncoat Tories, and couldn't get those by shifting further onto conservative territory even if it wanted to. I mean if you've accepted the logic of the right that Britain overspent and needs to cut back why on earth would you drop the Tories for Labour - the party which has gone down in the popular imagination as having massively overspent while in power? Especially when this message is constantly bashed into the public consciousness by a dominant rightwing press? What does a Burnham or Kendall Labour actually offer a 2015 Tory voter that the Tories themselves don't, other than the name?

This is the thing your brand of essentialist analysis falls down on - "capturing the south" can't happen using prior logics, because they are out of date. Clapping the Tories along in an effort to look "fiscally responsible" to the likes of Murdoch doesn't make Labour MPs seem sensible, it just makes them look like Fredo Corleone to the Tories' Michael. It makes them look weak - and weak is unelectable.

As for your "wait until the Tories fuck up" plan... I have no words. Just _genius_. Why didn't I think of that?



> And I don't see why Labour should be obliged to fill its ranks with MPs who are exclusively 'working class', if that’s what you meant.



I said if I was going to be a cynical Labour loyalist simply out to win then plausible left MPs should replace some of the Blairites. If you don't understand why that is, or why the background of those MPs is important for a party looking for such plausibility to mobilise working class voters then you're not as clued up as you think you are.


----------



## oryx (Jul 18, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Most voters simply don’t want strange looking old men leading the country,



I appreciate it was some time ago, but conforming to your description didn't do Churchill any harm. And while it was some time ago that he led the country, isn't he regularly voted in media polls as one of the greatest leaders of all time?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an admirer of Churchill's politics. But the obsession with style over content really pisses me off.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 18, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Corbyn actually reflects my own views more than the other candidates,


Which is why you've voted LibDem.

You're a fucking liberal, you've spent nearly all your time on here arguing for liberal bullshit (including a lib-lab coalition), I know it's hard for your type to show some backbone but just have the guts to admit it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 18, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Read what I said: I didn't say Corbyn is far left, I said he is _perceived_ to be far left (which isn’t all that surprising considering he describes himself as being on the left of the Labour Party).
> 
> Corbyn actually reflects my own views more than the other candidates, but unfortunately I’m not particularly representative of the British electorate. Are you?
> 
> I won't reciprocate by calling you part of ‘the problem’, you're not that significant.


You're all over the place.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Read what I said: I didn't say Corbyn is far left, I said he is _perceived_ to be far left (which isn’t all that surprising considering he describes himself as being on the left of the Labour Party).
> 
> Corbyn actually reflects my own views more than the other candidates, but unfortunately I’m not particularly representative of the British electorate. Are you?
> 
> I won't reciprocate by calling you part of ‘the problem’, you're not that significant.


Luckily, the amount of heroin I use is harmless, I inject about once a month on a purely recreational basis. Fine. But what about other people less stable, less educated, less middle-class than me? Builders or blacks for example. If you're one of those, my advice is leave well alone. Good luck.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 18, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No, Labour needs to think in terms of who can lead them to victory in 2020 and it certainly won't be Jeremy.



Which is why the party is in such a state: it still thinks in terms of winning elections rather than being a popular movement. One (being a movement) should come before the other (winning elections). The current leadership thinks it's better to chase after Tory voters than to build a movement. How about you?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 19, 2015)

Or praps one for the 'Why Labour is Scum' thread.

Jeremy Corbyn: Labour MPs are plotting a coup against the potential leader if he is elected
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tential-leader-if-he-is-elected-10399272.html



			
				Indie said:
			
		

> Although this result is still seen as a long shot, MPs said in the event of a Corbyn victory they would immediately start gathering the 47 names needed to trigger a coup. One said: "We cannot just allow our party, a credible party of government, to be hijacked in this summer of madness. There would be no problem in getting names. We could do this before Christmas."



 

How that's 'changing Labour from within' working out @articul8?


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/19/labour-leader-party-election

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/18/labour-party-voters-desertion-election

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...view-labour-leadership-election-jeremy-corbyn

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...iz-kendall-for-labour-leader-alistair-darling


Full on barrage against Corbyn and the 'labour left' in the Observer/Guardian, four different stories with plenty of unattributed comments/leaks from Blairites,


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2015)

Flicked onto Sunday Politics to see they've got a leaders debate on.

Three seconds of squawking over each other and I flicked away again...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 19, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Flicked onto Sunday Politics to see they've got a leaders debate on.
> 
> Three seconds of squawking over each other and I flicked away again...


Yep watching a bit of it ..

The 4 candidates may have a number of qualities but charisma is not one of them!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2015)

these cunts


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2015)

liz fucking kendall does not listen to public enemy


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2015)

Kendall: "I know Labour members want us to win so we can put our values into action"

WHAT FUCKING VALUES?!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2015)

andrew niel is a dick


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2015)

burnham mentions the politics of envy.

oh great benefits and immigration


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2015)

> Ian Austin, Labour MP for Dudley North and former adviser to Gordon Brown, believes the party is in a far worse place than it was even under Miliband
> 
> "The Miliband experiment, he says, led too many in the party to think its future should be on the left."



I vaguely recall Austin making leftish noises in the past, must have been mistaken.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2015)

burnham migrant bashing like a cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2015)

liz kendall is shit- proper shit


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2015)

andrew niel giving it the terrorism angle. Corbyn on the ropes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2015)

he's a shitehawk but Burnhams polished. Cooper too.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 19, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33585056?post_id=10152502535257537_10152600137492537#_=_

Dearie fucking me.....


----------



## ska invita (Jul 20, 2015)

funny photo


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2015)

ska invita said:


> funny photo



Glum and glummer.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 20, 2015)

That non stop campaigning is bound to take its toll after a while . Even that normally dynamic Keith Vaz chap has had to a break from Burnhams campaign . Bound to take its toll .

https://mobile.twitter.com/keith_vaz

Is Burnham really likely to offer Corbyn a shadow ministerial post ? That was surprising news for me .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

A link to Keith Vaz on twitter. Thank you so much for that.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> liz fucking kendall does not listen to public enemy



No, she is the public enemy.
Along with the rest of em!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Or praps one for the 'Why Labour is Scum' thread.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn: Labour MPs are plotting a coup against the potential leader if he is elected
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tential-leader-if-he-is-elected-10399272.html
> ...



How utterly unsurprising that most of the dicks appear to be putting their careers before what might benefit their constituents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Kendall: "I know Labour members want us to win so we can put our values into action"
> 
> WHAT FUCKING VALUES?!



Shonky centre-right floating voter-chasing values, that's what!


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2015)

I watched them on was it Sunday Politics.

As a group they seemed to lack the charisma a good leader needs.

I wondered if it was the setting, which seemed more like making a presentation in a living room than for example making on at a political rally. No idea how they would translate into a rally type situation but I think that would be a better test as to whether they have charisma or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2015)

ska invita said:


> funny photo



From the left: Cunt,cunter and cuntest.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I watched them on was it Sunday Politics.
> 
> As a group they seemed to lack the charisma a good leader needs.
> 
> I wondered if it was the setting, which seemed more like making a presentation in a living room than for example making on at a political rally. No idea how they would translate into a rally type situation but I think that would be a better test as to whether they have charisma or not.



Hard to have any kind of rally when the public doesn't give a fuck one way or the other I suppose.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Or praps one for the 'Why Labour is Scum' thread.
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn: Labour MPs are plotting a coup against the potential leader if he is elected
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tential-leader-if-he-is-elected-10399272.html



Illustrates nicely just how much respect these people have for the democratic process. It's like that kid who would always flip over the monopoly board and scatter all the pieces everywhere as soon as he started losing, because if I can't win then the game is wrong and nobody gets to play it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

> “We cannot just allow our party, a credible party of government, to be hijacked in this summer of madness. There would be no problem in getting names. We could do this before Christmas.”



...err, what part of losing an election against the most incompetent government in living memory makes you think you're a credible party of government? Fucking petulant little children the lot of them, it's embarassing.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

I'm putting my non-existent money on Burnham.

Although Cooper might just do it.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

Also, why have I never heard of Corbyn before?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 20, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...flip over the monopoly board and scatter all the pieces everywhere



Revolution!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> Also, why have I never heard of Corbyn before?



He doesn't strike me as one to draw attention to himself. He certainly wouldn't have been in any danger of getting picked for a cabinet/shadow cabinet seat under Blair, Brown or Milipede.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> Also, why have I never heard of Corbyn before?


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


>


I'm some kind of Blairite who couldn't handle the truth?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> I'm some kind of Blairite who couldn't handle the truth?


no, i wouldn't go so far as to say  blairite.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> He doesn't strike me as one to draw attention to himself. He certainly wouldn't have been in any danger of getting picked for a cabinet/shadow cabinet seat under Blair, Brown or Milipede.


Yeah, also I guess it makes you realise how unhealthy the left wing of the Labour party - and by extension the party itself are when the left wing candidate is unknown.

Was Ed Miliband the most left wing candidate last time?


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i wouldn't go so far as to say  blairite.


Thanks, I don't mind if you just mean I'm stupid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> Thanks, I don't mind if you just mean I'm stupid.


more wilfully not paying attention


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> Yeah, also I guess it makes you realise how unhealthy the left wing of the Labour party - and by extension the party itself are when the left wing candidate is unknown.
> 
> Was Ed Miliband the most left wing candidate last time?



That was probably Diane Abbott. The dozen or so relative leftwingers (Diane "private schooling my kids" Abbott included) tend to stump up a candidate to "broaden the conversation" - it was Meacher in 2007 but he didn't get enough nominations.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 20, 2015)

edited out.. already linked to above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Talk of an instant vote by labour MPs to oust jezza should he end up as leader.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...abour-rivals-against-panic-over-jeremy-corbyn


how very democratick of them


----------



## teqniq (Jul 20, 2015)

Undemocratic? Quite possibly, but definitely unprincipled scum.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

apols if this has already been posted, i think it's a good article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/jeremy-corbyn-labour-hope

"Labour doesn’t win with a message of caution, simply because the Conservatives do it so much better; Labour wins with a message of hope."


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

_When _do they win with a message of hope?

What does this winning look like for me?


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _When _do they win with a message of hope?
> 
> What does this winning look like for me?


maybe i've been swept along in corbyn-fever but i guess "When" would be "the next election"and "What would it look like" would be "the traditional socialist labour party renationalising, rebuilding the NHS and the welfare system, taxing the rich more... all those good things.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> maybe i've been swept along in corbyn-fever but i guess "When" would be "the next election"and "What would it look like" would be "the traditional socialist labour party renationalising, rebuilding the NHS and the welfare system, taxing the rich more... all those good things.


So it hasn't happened? This stuff from Corbyn is like some shitty tesco birthday card,.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

what hasn't happened? the leadership election? no it hasn't happened yet so it is early days. what would you like to happen??

oops forgot to quote. butchersapron


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> what hasn't happened? the leadership election? no it hasn't happened yet so it is early days. what would you like to happen??
> 
> oops forgot to quote. butchersapron


Corbyn said that labour wins with hope or some nonsense - i asked when that had actually happened.  And the answer seemed to be at some point in the future.

Seriously, that banality from him is as bad as any blairite guff soundbite - in fact, it's the same model isn't it?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> maybe i've been swept along in corbyn-fever but i guess "When" would be "the next election"and "What would it look like" would be "the traditional socialist labour party renationalising, rebuilding the NHS and the welfare system, taxing the rich more... all those good things.



If you think that Corbyn could win and survive to the next GE, then you are living in a fantasy world; if you want free needs based health care, social owned industries and people's  livelihoods protected  from the demands of capital, then nice as he is (and I've met him and he's more than ok) Jeremy is not the answer.

Cheers -Louis MacNeie


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Corbyn said that labour wins with hope or some nonsense - i asked when that had actually happened.  And the answer seemed to be at some point in the future.


no he didn't say that. the person who wrote the article that i posted said it; it was a comment piece on his unexpectedly popular leadership campaign, not an interview.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, that banality from him is as bad as any blairite guff soundbite - in fact, it's the same model isn't it?


the article kind of makes this point, but not from a negative perspective, more kind of saying "this could actually work and get votes".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> no he didn't say that. the person who wrote the article that i posted said it; it was a comment piece on his unexpectedly popular leadership campaign, not an interview.


Same thing - same people - same greeting card guff.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

You should read the article I posted maybe.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Same thing - same people - same greeting card guff.


hmm you could just admit you got the wrong end of the stick and misquoted because you didn't read the link.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

Fuck that, latymer oxbridge guardian jouro wagging her finger at me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> hmm you could just admit you got the wrong end of the stick and misquoted because you didn't read the link.


I have read the article - and it really is just cynical greeting card guff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

andrew niel hammered him on 'talking to the ira two days after they'd tried to blow up the government'. His response that you don't make peace by ignoring the other side was valid but I can see that one being a millstone round his neck.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

_Corbyn fever - catch it. 

Don't you like hope?_


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I have read the article - and it really is just cynical greeting card guff.


ok i just thought you hadn't because you said that corbyn had said the quote about "hope winning the election", when in fact it was a direct quote from the article and he hasn't said anything of the kind as far as I know?

I still don't know what you want! as far as i can see the fact that a fairly left wing candidate has evoked such support can only be a good thing whether he wins or not.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 20, 2015)

Only just discovered I have a vote through my union. 

I'm not particulary interested in party politics (not since Blair ignored 2 million people and went to war anyway) Haven't read anything about the candidates or seen them on tv. I heard a lack lustre speach from Corbyn at the Anti Austerity rally and have his a flyer. I know nothing of the other candiates, other than theres 3 women and 3 blokes and Corbyn is the most left wing of the lot - is that right? gawd help us. 

Would anyone care to say anything about them to help me in my choice?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

all cunts except corbyn who seems vaugely alright but hasn't got a cat made of ice's chance in hell. Might as well vote for him I suppose.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> andrew niel hammered him on 'talking to the ira two days after they'd tried to blow up the government'. His response that you don't make peace by ignoring the other side was valid but I can see that one being a millstone round his neck.



Is that in relation to the 1991 mortar attack on Downing street? Because the obvious response to that one is that the Tory government had been talking behind the scenes to the Provies from 1987 onwards.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Is that in relation to the 1991 mortar attack on Downing street? Because the obvious response to that one is that the Tory government had been talking behind the scenes to the Provies from 1987 onwards.


brighton hotel

e2a

and he did mention that the gov. had been in talks with the ira behind the scenes anyway- mediated through priests wsn't it?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> brighton hotel
> 
> e2a
> 
> and he did mention that the gov. had been in talks with the ira behind the scenes anyway- mediated through priests wsn't it?



Yep, I think priests played a role at least some of the time.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 20, 2015)

GO ON JEREMY


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Is that in relation to the 1991 mortar attack on Downing street? Because the obvious response to that one is that the Tory government had been talking behind the scenes to the Provies from 1987 onwards.


Corbyn actually made that point but was drowned out by Brilllo talking over him.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

BBC News reporting that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall, will back Harriet position on abstaining from tonights Welfare vote, though some(a few) LP MP will vote against


so, the LP is voting for a form of state eugenics, cuts in disability benefits, a cap down to 13,000 for a single person.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...m-not-vote-against-unsupportable-welfare-bill

Burnham really is a shape shifter, turner


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

> In his letter, Burnham admitted that he had led calls for the party to change its position, but sought to reassure Labour MPs that it was “only the beginning of a major fight with the Tories”.
> 
> “I am determined that we will fight this regressive bill line by line, word by word in committee,” he added.



FFS, fighting it by supporting it!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> BBC News reporting that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall, will back Harriet position on abstaining from tonights Welfare vote, though some(a few) LP MP will vote against
> 
> 
> so, the LP is voting for a form of state eugenics, cuts in disability benefits, a cap down to 13,000 for a single person.
> ...



You would think that people who are apparently so enamoured of business and business people would be familiar with the importance of having a 'unique selling point' to flog your brand.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 20, 2015)

..


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

DP


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

> While history does not exactly repeat itself, I was struck by the similarity of the language used by George Osborne and that of the reformers who introduced the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. They both express a strange concern for the poor, as both worry that wage support, provided by the Speenhamland system and tax credits, encourages idleness. The Benthamite politicians of that period believed that people’s preference for pleasure would encourage them to idleness, as they knew the parish would always make up their wages to prevent them from going hungry. Not so very different from today’s welfare reformers who see state benefits acting as a similar disincentive to work.
> 
> Both Lord Grey’s reformers and George Osborne and his colleagues believe that only by treating the poor harshly will they have an incentive to work. In 1834 it was the workhouse, whereas today it is the cruel benefits system, with its many sanctions, which – like the workhouse – is intended to discourage all but the most desperate from applying for help. What they also have in common is a need to dress up a cruel policy designed primarily to provide relief for the rate-/tax-payer as a policy of compassion towards the poor. Do these politicians in some Freudian sense need to lie to themselves to avoid having to admit the reality of their policies?
> *Derrick Joad*
> _Leeds_



Excellent letter in the G, likening all this to 1834 Poor Laws.


----------



## youngian (Jul 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> BBC News reporting that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall, will back Harriet position on abstaining from tonights Welfare vote, though some(a few) LP MP will vote against
> 
> 
> so, the LP is voting for a form of state eugenics, cuts in disability benefits, a cap down to 13,000 for a single person.
> ...



Who is that going to impress? Those three candidates can certainly triangulate: fail to capture swing voters because they don't look anything like a PM while traditional supporters turn their back at the same time. And they show their lack of gravitas in the way they deal with Corbyn; the more personal attacks they make the more Corbyn looks like the elder statesman who debates the issues instead reciprocating the mud slinging. Negative politics might work in real life but not in Labour Party elections. 

In an attempt to invent hinterlands Yvette Cooper informed us that she once drove a tractor. This is the most interesting fact I've heard about Yvette Cooper and might even get her elected if she was a US Mid-West candidate for Congress.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

Pasokification awaits?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2015)

I was reading this earlier about the vote, and I think I was both chuckling and contemplating banging my head against something at the same time. What a load of shit. Just fuck 'em.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

> Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has dismissed claims that the welfare bill will push more children into poverty. He started his speech at the opening of the debate a few minutes ago, and was challenged by *Jeremy Corbyn*, the leftwing Labour leadership candidate who asked him if he had considered the impact the bill would have on child poverty. Duncan Smith said he had, but that he thought the measures in the bill intended to focus attention on “life chances” would be a better way of tackling child poverty



Corbyn on the attack already and the debate has just opened.

btw, I wonder how many LP MP's are actually in the chamber?


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

> That this House, whilst affirming its belief that there should be controls on and reforms to the overall costs of social security, that reporting obligations on full employment, apprenticeships and troubled families are welcome, and that a benefits cap *and loans for mortgage interest support are necessary changes to the welfare system*, declines to give a Second Reading to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill because the Bill will prevent the Government from continuing to pursue an ambition to reduce child poverty in both absolute and relative terms, it effectively repeals the Child Poverty Act 2010 which provides important measures and accountability of government policy in relation to child poverty, and it includes a proposal for the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance which is an unfair approach to people who are sick and disabled.



That wasn't mentioned in the media and LP are backing it.

FFS, even the DUP are voting against the Bill, and the LD's, what are Labour for?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I was reading this earlier about the vote, and I think I was both chuckling and contemplating banging my head against something at the same time. What a load of shit. Just fuck 'em.



Lest we forget, this is the Harriet Harman who charged her husbands access to wanking fodder at a hotel to the taxpayer. Principles of a snake and the morals of...I dunno, whats a really amoral thing that just desires power at all costs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> That wasn't mentioned in the media and LP are backing it.
> 
> FFS, even the DUP are voting against the Bill, and the LD's, what are Labour for?



Yes it was. And yes, they are supporting the amendment that they tabled.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Lest we forget, this is the Harriet Harman who charged her husbands access to wanking fodder at a hotel to the taxpayer. Principles of a snake and the morals of...I dunno, whats a really amoral thing that just desires power at all costs.


That was jaqui smith.

Keep saying it and they'll sue you.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2015)

Harman vs backbench Labour MPs who plan to vote against vs three of the leadership candidates oh wait Burnham's a liar vs Kendall all out Tory vs backstabbers to get Corbyn out before he's even in vs… *breathes in*

What a load of tosspots.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That was jaqui smith.


bollocks, I always get labour people confused. A long with a great many other things...


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 20, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Only just discovered I have a vote through my union.
> 
> I'm not particulary interested in party politics (not since Blair ignored 2 million people and went to war anyway) Haven't read anything about the candidates or seen them on tv. I heard a lack lustre speach from Corbyn at the Anti Austerity rally and have his a flyer. I know nothing of the other candiates, other than theres 3 women and 3 blokes and Corbyn is the most left wing of the lot - is that right? gawd help us.
> 
> Would anyone care to say anything about them to help me in my choice?





DotCommunist said:


> all cunts except corbyn who seems vaugely alright but hasn't got a cat made of ice's chance in hell. Might as well vote for him I suppose.


Well I'm already underwhelmed by him so thats not as helpful as I hoped for. 



youngian said:


> snip>
> In an attempt to invent hinterlands Yvette Cooper informed us that she once drove a tractor. This is the most interesting fact I've heard about Yvette Cooper and might even get her elected if she was a US Mid-West candidate for Congress.


I now have an image of her as Debbie from the Archers.

Has nobody got anything to say about the other (5?) candidates at all? or useful links? 
perhaps a three word summary of any of them? I don't even know their names yet.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 20, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Well I'm already underwhelmed by him so thats not as helpful as I hoped for.
> 
> 
> I now have an image of her as Debbie from the Archers.
> ...



'They're all cunts'. Seriously, there's very little else to be said about them. They were presumably aiming to join the Tory party and missed.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

Is Harman on some kind of kamikaze mission to finally take out the Labour party for good? Or maybe she's using reverse psychology to make sure that the Labour party take a serious swerve to the left.

I just don't understand how the party who set up the NHS can struggle at the moment.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

Triple post, soz.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

Triple post.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> Is Harman on some kind of kamikaze mission to finally take out the Labour party for good? Or maybe she's using reverse psychology to make sure that the Labour party take a serious swerve to the left.
> 
> I just don't understand how the party who set up the NHS can struggle at the moment.


sounds like she trying to turn it into the conservative party. Perhaps she is trying to reposition it to the right of the Torys.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Lest we forget, this is the Harriet Harman who charged her husbands access to wanking fodder at a hotel to the taxpayer. Principles of a snake and the morals of...I dunno, whats a really amoral thing that just desires power at all costs.



"Morals of a Blairite", then.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Keep saying it and they'll sue you.



well, not me I aint got nothing to be sued for unless you count old socks


friendofdorothy said:


> Well I'm already underwhelmed by him so thats not as helpful as I hoped for.
> 
> 
> I now have an image of her as Debbie from the Archers.
> ...


yvette cooper
Liz Kendal
Andy Burnham
Jeremy Corbyn

If you want to subject yourself to a rundown of what they stand for go take a look at this weeks 'Sunday Politics' on BBC Iplayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b061svpx

basically the other three are incredibly right wing and Corbyn looks like he wonders what the suffering fuck he's doing there and speaks words you expect to hear from labour politicians if they were real. Check out both Kendall and Burnham trying to link migrants and benefits. Shower of shit. Vote Jez. He won't win but its the only conscionable choice


----------



## YouSir (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> Triple post, soz.





8115 said:


> Is Harman on some kind of kamikaze mission to finally take out the Labour party for good? Or maybe she's using reverse psychology to make sure that the Labour party take a serious swerve to the left.
> 
> I just don't understand how the party who set up the NHS can struggle at the moment.



Keep saying it, maybe someone from the Labour Party will finally get the message.


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> Triple post.




Something wrong with posting at the moment


----------



## treelover (Jul 20, 2015)

Apparently Labour have just issued a whip for tonights vote.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2015)

Lol.

(If it wasn't all so depressing re. welfare).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> Apparently Labour have just issued a whip for tonights vote.


The one they issued a few days ago and that there's been a massive debate about?


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> Apparently Labour have just issued a whip for tonights vote.


What, a whip, to vote with the Tories on "welfare". I think they actually mean, a whipround for the headstone.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2015)

8115 said:


> I think they actually mean, a whipround for the headstone.



Is it still in a South London lock-up, might be use for it yet.


----------



## youngian (Jul 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> Apparently Labour have just issued a whip for tonights vote.


That'll include the three Labour candidates who even a political anorak like me has no idea after listening to them what their plans are for public spending. Agree with Corbyn or not he's presented a credible pitch in plain English on the deficit and welfare spending.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 20, 2015)

Dp.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 20, 2015)

Anyone done this?

Owen Jones retweeted


*Jon Stone* ‏@joncstone  9m9 minutes ago
Liz Kendall tells Jewish Chronicle hustings that a “responsible opposition” would not vote to recognise Palestine, as Labour did in 2014


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 20, 2015)

Thanks for the link DotCommunist. There was grumbles in my household just listening to their opening speeches. Couldn't bear to watch the whole debate. What I've learned so far:

Yvette Cooper - ernest, dull and wants to 'reach out'
Liz kendal - doesn't want Labour to be an unelectable party of Protest - she wants a really well paid job
Andy Burnham - doesn't want to speak in sound bites - but did, when he wasn't speaking in cliches

arrgh, arrggh, arrggghhh! gawd save us!  and they were younger than me, or perhaps that is another sign of getting old when politicians look like youths.



youngian said:


> That'll include the three Labour candidates who even a political anorak like me has no idea after listening to them what their plans are for public spending. Agree with Corbyn or not he's presented a credible pitch in plain English on the deficit and welfare spending.


 Corbyn was the only one who didn't sound like he had been to some blairite on-message finishing school. He sounded human.



DotCommunist said:


> all cunts except corbyn who seems vaugely alright but hasn't got a cat made of ice's chance in hell. Might as well vote for him I suppose.


 Has he really got no chance?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Has he really got no chance?



You know there's a plan being hatched that even if he does, he'll probably get ousted?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

yeah the labour right would murder him before christmas.


friendofdorothy said:


> they were younger than me


they are all, save corbyn (who must have 25 or more on me), about ten years north of me and I fucking despise them all. All in thrall to the idea that you can't win an election from the left. The sooner this shit car hits a brick wall and gets sennered the better. How can you out-cunt the tories on benefits and immigration and austerity. You can't, stop trying. Bunch of mugs. They should all die in a fire except corbyn who should just go back to being the constituency worker he is and look after the affairs of the people who voted him in to do so.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> You know there's a plan being hatched that even if he does, he'll probably get ousted?


The legendary internal democracy of the Labour Party.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> You know there's a plan being hatched that even if he does, he'll probably get ousted?


I read that story and shook my head- lets have no illusions of what the labour party is. A kickback european wide against fiscal austerity is just 'summer of madness' 

absolute wankers. Lube, thats all labour is and has ever been, fucking lube

You know during cable street the wankers held a rally elsewhere a long way away from moselyites and had to be persuaded to support it post hoc


they never change, the guardian reading fabian shits. They lost scotland and I pray to god they lose england and wales too


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2015)

Decent speech by John McDonnell just now during the debate (FWIW).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2015)

Followed by the truly dire Marcus Fysh, who's reading his speech from what looks like an exercise book.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

DexterTCN said:


> Anyone done this?
> 
> Owen Jones retweeted
> 
> ...



She says the way to peace is through a two state solution, but she feels uncomfortable about recognising that one of those two states even exists?

Here it is in full:







Notice she says a lot about anti-semitism without at any point explaining why recognising Palestine would be an anti-semitic thing to do. She doesn't even mention Palestine in fact, it's all about Israel. This all confirms my suspicions that Kendall is a particularly dangerous kind of idiot.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 20, 2015)

In Scotland...we call them the red tories


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 20, 2015)

SpookyFrank  : She has the smallest chance of winning the Lab leadership though, thank fuck.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

> Andy Burnham says “every school in the country” should teach how "British values" shaped Israel in order to "re-educate a generation”.



Err, what?



> Andy Burnham says Israel has "a long tradition of supporting minorities and civil rights” and that boycotts would be wrong



Are we talking about the same Israel?

https://news.vice.com/article/if-yo...abusing-child-prisoners?utm_source=vicenewsfb


----------



## youngian (Jul 20, 2015)

Not only does Red Ed Miliband hate Britain but is he also an anti-semite, if I understand Liz Kendall correctly.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> .. Are we talking about the same Israel?


Just watched part of a program about Israel, am tempted to say the wrong thing which might get me branded as an anti semite! But seriously some of the people in the program, just hateful really.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Just watched part of a program about Israel, am tempted to say the wrong thing which might get me branded as an anti semite! But seriously some of the people in the program, just hateful really.



Remember that the state of Israel and Jewish people in general are two very different things. Criticism of the actions of the former does not amount to persecution of the latter. Only those who defend Israeli atrocities would have you believe otherwise. And Liz Kendall seems to be one of them.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Remember that the state of Israel and Jewish people in general are two very different things. Criticism of the actions of the former does not amount to persecution of the latter. Only those who defend Israeli atrocities would have you believe otherwise. And Liz Kendall seems to be one of them.


But the program was about Jewish people of Jerusalem, including the mayor, all of whom in the program believed in their god given right to build wherever they chose and hang the consequences for others.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> But the program was about Jewish people of Jerusalem, including the mayor, all of whom in the program believed in their god given right to build wherever they chose and hang the consequences for others.



Do you think it was Jewishness that made them believe this, or the culture they live in? People can be made to believe wrong things if those in power have something to gain from it. How many British people have seriously warped ideas about immigration, or the welfare state? Do you think simly being British fucked their heads up, or do you think somebody planted those ideas in their heads on purpose?

And did they show interviews with every Jew in the city on your TV show? Or just a handful of them?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2015)

Sure it was a small number of people, not necessarily representative, they also interviewed some Palestinians, the only thing the two small non representative groups had in common was that they pretty much hated each other! The key thing I got from the program was immense gratitude that I didn't live or grow up there!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

But there's other threads for all this stuff.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> The key thing I got from the program was immense gratitude that I didn't live or grow up there!



La haine attire la haine.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2015)

Back to the labour leadership, I am worried for Labour, these 4 don't stand for me out as future prime ministers and that implies that labour might not beat the tories next time which worries me because it could be very bad for people on lower incomes or on benefits if the tories continue to do more of the same.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Back to the labour leadership, I am worried for Labour, these 4 don't stand for me out as future prime ministers and that implies that labour might not beat the tories next time which worries me because it could be very bad for people on lower incomes or on benefits if the tories continue to do more of the same.



To be honest asides from long shot Corbyn I'd be just about as worried by the prospect of this incarnation of Labour winning as the Tories doing it. 

If anyone can point out what the difference would be I'm all ears.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Back to the labour leadership, I am worried for Labour, these 4 don't stand for me out as future prime ministers and that implies that labour might not beat the tories next time which worries me because it could be very bad for people on lower incomes or on benefits if the tories continue to do more of the same.


yes, but with a labour backing, instead of a labour opposition. I don't ever remember the opposition forgetting its role to challenge, block and alter govt proposal. It's rolling over and playing dead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> yes, but with a labour backing, instead of a labour opposition. I don't ever remember the opposition forgetting its role to challenge, block and alter govt proposal. It's rolling over and playing dead.



There have always been instances of the opposition voting with the govt, but it's usually been related to "national security", or been a genuinely cross-bench subject. This farrago where both main parties attempt to outbid each other on socially-destructive neoliberal policies is a creation of the Blair years, and arguably started pretty much as soon as he became Labour leader in '94. His "third way" was merely an avoidance of the second way (leftism) by copying much of the first way (rightism) but pretending it was something shiny and new.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2015)

Labour’s capitulation on welfare reveals the vacuum in its soul
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tulation-welfare-vacuum-leadership?CMP=twt_gu


> The leadership’s failure to oppose benefit cuts is a misreading of the electoral runes and a damaging revelation that the party has nothing positive to say


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

Blimey, Gould, a blast from the past.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

> What confidence can anyone, let alone the party’s supporters, have in politicians who have so little stomach for the fight? Are we to be governed entirely by opinion polls? Are even the most fundamental of Labour values to be abandoned if “triangulation” does not support them? These failings could just about be tolerated by a party of the right, since their goal is simply the maintenance of power, but they are entirely destructive of any pretension from a party of the left that professes to have an analysis and a programme that will produce a change for the better.



But this has been the M.O of N/L since its inception, even when Gould was around.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> But this has been the M.O of N/L since its inception, even when Gould was around.



Are you confusing him with Philip Gould?


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

> "Politicians should be signposts not weathervanes."
> 
> Tony Benn


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

Buckaroo said:


> Are you confusing him with Philip Gould?



No, wasn't Bryan Gould part of the genesis of NL?


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> No, wasn't Bryan Gould part of the genesis of NL?



Don't know but if he was he fucked off sharpish, he resigned in 94 when New bullshit started.

Philip Gould was a big part of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Gould,_Baron_Gould_of_Brookwood


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> No, wasn't Bryan Gould part of the genesis of NL?


not especially. He was the leftish candidate against Brown, resigned due to Labour's support for the ERM, had left the country by the time Blair got in.


----------



## treelover (Jul 21, 2015)

Ok, noted.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 21, 2015)

Yes Bryan Gould was associated with the Full Employment Forum which apart from its title aim was against EMU. Goulding went back to New Zealand and gave up politics when  the Mandelson Blair coup took place.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 21, 2015)

What's the timetable of votes etc for this please if anyone knows.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 21, 2015)

Bryan Gould's blog had a lot of old school social democratic stuff on it the last time I looked.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 21, 2015)

If anyone fancies a bit of a laugh..... https://m.facebook.com/andy4leader?ref=m_notif&notif_t=like


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2015)

Bryan Gould and George Tait Edwards wrote this article about the general election and the effect of the Tory Electoral Registration and Administration Act (2013). It's fair to say they suspect gerrymandering.
https://medium.com/@georgetaitedwards/a-gerrymandered-election-and-a-flawed-mandate-6164fb125950


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2015)




----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2015)

YouGov: First preference votes amongst Labour members/supporters
11%: Kendall
20%: Cooper
26% Burnham
43%: Corbyn

*taken before last nights vote i expect, so Corbyns vote might be higher than that


----------



## J Ed (Jul 21, 2015)

I want him to win but what's the point really, the rest of the Labour Party couldn't deal with how 'left wing' Ed Miliband was. The media have it the wrong way round, Corbyn isn't too left-wing for the country but he is too left-wing for his party and they will go after him at every opportunity. I suspect even some non-Blairites in Labour would rather that Labour lose than have Corbyn as PM.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 21, 2015)

Fedayn said:


> If anyone fancies a bit of a laugh..... https://m.facebook.com/andy4leader?ref=m_notif&notif_t=like


wow, 100% of people in the first few dozen posts are disagreeing with him abstaining on the welfare bill and pretty much all saying they'll vote for corbyn now.

and that's on his page, so most of the people who saw the post will have been people who'd previously liked his leadership bid page.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 22, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> There have always been instances of the opposition voting with the govt, but it's usually been related to "national security", or been a genuinely cross-bench subject. This farrago where both main parties attempt to outbid each other on socially-destructive neoliberal policies is a creation of the Blair years, and arguably started pretty much as soon as he became Labour leader in '94. His "third way" was merely an avoidance of the second way (leftism) by copying much of the first way (rightism) but pretending it was something shiny and new.


Off the top of my head - and I'll happily stand corrected if wrong - I think there's a parliamentary convention whereby the opposition votes with the government (or at least doesn't oppose it) if the vote relates to a manifesto commitment.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2015)

Honour amongst thieves


----------



## JHE (Jul 22, 2015)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Off the top of my head - and I'll happily stand corrected if wrong - I think there's a parliamentary convention whereby the opposition votes with the government (or at least doesn't oppose it) if the vote relates to a manifesto commitment.



No, of course there isn't.  Oppositions oppose.  On losing an election a party does not suddenly become committed to its opponents' manifesto.  (Though, come to think of it, some current Labour leaders may need reminding of this.)

There is a convention that the House of Lords does not reject a measure passed by the House of Commons if that measure was a manifesto commitment.


----------



## youngian (Jul 22, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I suspect even some non-Blairites in Labour would rather that Labour lose than have Corbyn as PM.


 As is clear from this forum that politicians are all unscrupulous immoral opportunists lining their pockets wouldn't they be likely to back anyone who will get them into power?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 22, 2015)

All this talk of Corbyn wining is just based on first preferences isn't it? So he has no chance as very few of the second preferences from the other three will go to him.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2015)

emanymton said:


> All this talk of Corbyn wining is just based on first preferences isn't it? So he has no chance as very few of the second preferences from the other three will go to him.


 
This is from the Telegraph and being reported on radio 4:

The study also forecast that after Ms Kendall and Mrs Cooper had been eliminated and second preferences redistributed under the Alternative Vote system, Mr Corbyn would beat Mr Burnham 53 per cent to 47 per cent in the final round.​If true the there will be many Labour MPs having kittens...not least Corbyn!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## FiFi (Jul 22, 2015)

In the old days, the PLP at least pretended to listen to the membership and the NEC.

Now they don't even make the pretence


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2015)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Off the top of my head - and I'll happily stand corrected if wrong - I think there's a parliamentary convention whereby the opposition votes with the government (or at least doesn't oppose it) if the vote relates to a manifesto commitment.


that is, or was, true about the House of Lords, they'd never absolutely reject a manifesto commitment


----------



## Indeliblelink (Jul 22, 2015)

Text of Blair's speech
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/07/22/in-conversation-with-tony-blair-opening-remarks/



> So let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 22, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Text of Blair's speech
> http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/07/22/in-conversation-with-tony-blair-opening-remarks/


So there it is from the horse's mouth.


----------



## FiFi (Jul 22, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Text of Blair's speech
> http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/07/22/in-conversation-with-tony-blair-opening-remarks/


So who the hell is going to represent us "old fashioned leftists " if the Labour Party won't.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 22, 2015)

FiFi said:


> So who the hell is going to represent us "old fashioned leftists " if the Labour Party won't.



there must have been several hundred candidates (enough to complete replace Labour as the main opposition grouping) of various 'proper' left flavours - its just that only a very tiny number of people voted for any of them. 

in my constituancy, 22,000 voted tory, 16,000 voted Labour, and a mighty 153 people voted for TUSC, who i'm pretty sure was the only left candidate.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Text of Blair's speech
> http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/07/22/in-conversation-with-tony-blair-opening-remarks/



It's an ahistorical and dishonest attempt to gut social democratic politics of any class content beyond the desire for upward mobility, and in doing so to place an unbridgeable gulf between social democracy and socialism. It is a neo-liberal reworking of social democracy, which seeks to reinforce the message provided by the dumping of Clause Four; the Labour Party is no place for socialism or socialists.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## FiFi (Jul 22, 2015)

kebabking said:


> there must have been several hundred candidates (enough to complete replace Labour as the main opposition grouping) of various 'proper' left flavours - its just that only a very tiny number of people voted for any of them.
> 
> in my constituancy, 22,000 voted tory, 16,000 voted Labour, and a mighty 153 people voted for TUSC, who i'm pretty sure was the only left candidate.


Fairly similar in my constituency. 
TBH I was bemoaning the lack of representation in the PLP, although I should know better by now


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Bryan Gould and George Tait Edwards wrote this article about the general election and the effect of the Tory Electoral Registration and Administration Act (2013). It's fair to say they suspect gerrymandering.
> https://medium.com/@georgetaitedwards/a-gerrymandered-election-and-a-flawed-mandate-6164fb125950


Whole thing rests on the truism that poorer, more transient populations are more likely to vote Labour (which, like most truisms has a fair bit of truth to it).  With regard to offering this as a reason why the pollsters got it so badly wrong, I'm less convinced (partly, but less so).  It would require the pollsters not be asking whether respondents were registered to vote - or those respondents thinking they were registered when they weren't.  I'm sure gould and tait are right to focus on the importance of non-registration as a piece of intended gerrymandering. However it will need some actual studies and research to really quantify the effects.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

Neo-Lib's favourite son speaks ...


> ....this was certainly an intervention in the leadership contest. With the “Blairite” candidate, Liz Kendall, expected to come last, Blair may well have felt that speaking could not make her position any worse. He did not seem to be positively backing her, or any of the other candidates, but his speech and Q&A amounted to *an hour-long argument about why Jeremy Corbyn would have been a disaster*.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 22, 2015)

happy to finally be vindicated in my continuing labour support... I Knew the grassroots would rise up at some point.


----------



## JHE (Jul 22, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> happy to finally be vindicated in my continuing labour support... I Knew the grassroots would rise up at some point.



If its roots rise up, doesn't the grass die?

Anyway, it's a for lawn hope.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 22, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> happy to finally be vindicated in my continuing labour support... I Knew the grassroots would rise up at some point.


I would like to share your optimism but I fear it may be misplaced.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2015)

Polly and Rentoul both ganging up on Corbyn on BBC News, Polly saying the other candidates "should go in hard on him", her SDP colours showing.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 22, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Whole thing rests on the truism that poorer, more transient populations are more likely to vote Labour (which, like most truisms has a fair bit of truth to it).  With regard to offering this as a reason why the pollsters got it so badly wrong, I'm less convinced (partly, but less so).  It would require the pollsters not be asking whether respondents were registered to vote - or those respondents thinking they were registered when they weren't.  I'm sure gould and tait are right to focus on the importance of non-registration as a piece of intended gerrymandering. However it will need some actual studies and research to really quantify the effects.


That kind of research will take time. As for the polls, I have my own issues with them, namely the evident lack of self-reflexivity and the rigid nature of quantitative surveys.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2015)

FiFi said:


> In the old days, the PLP at least pretended to listen to the membership and the NEC.
> 
> Now they don't even make the pretence



Nowadays they don't have to. "In the old days" we (the membership back then) had the power to at least partly bring the PLP to heel, as did the NEC. Now both the membership and the NEC are toothless, thanks to Mandelson and Blair's "reforms".


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2015)

kebabking said:


> there must have been several hundred candidates (enough to complete replace Labour as the main opposition grouping) of various 'proper' left flavours - its just that only a very tiny number of people voted for any of them.
> 
> in my constituancy, 22,000 voted tory, 16,000 voted Labour, and a mighty 153 people voted for TUSC, who i'm pretty sure was the only left candidate.




Disingenuous nonsense, plenty of very left wing people voted labour in the election, just look at the comments on Andy Burnhams F/B page, from LP members, etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 22, 2015)

Its not nonsense to say hardly anyone voted tusc tho.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 22, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> This is from the Telegraph and being reported on radio 4:
> 
> The study also forecast that after Ms Kendall and Mrs Cooper had been eliminated and second preferences redistributed under the Alternative Vote system, Mr Corbyn would beat Mr Burnham 53 per cent to 47 per cent in the final round.​If true the there will be many Labour MPs having kittens...not least Corbyn!
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Ineresting and not what I expected. My money would still be on Burnham though.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Neo-Lib's favourite son speaks ...
> ​


'would have been' not will be?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> Disingenuous nonsense, plenty of very left wing people voted labour in the election, just look at the comments on Andy Burnhams F/B page, from LP members, etc.



Yeah but they (mostly) didn't vote for left wing candidates, did they? They voted for Labour.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Its not nonsense to say hardly anyone voted tusc tho.



fighting for bagsy not last place with the local far right loons and mr Single Issue mainly it seems


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

emanymton said:


> 'would have been' not will be?


Guardian report.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Guardian report.


Guardian journalist can't write shocker.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 22, 2015)

2nd preference stats

Burham's: 52% to Cooper, 26% to Corbyn, 10% to Kendall
Cooper's: 44% to Burnham, 22% to Corbyn, 15% to Kendall
Kendall's: 55% to Cooper, 22% to Burnham, 6% to Corbyn 
Corbyn's: 26% to Cooper, 40% to Burnham, 5% to Kendall


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Its not nonsense to say hardly anyone voted tusc tho.





DotCommunist said:


> fighting for bagsy not last place with the local far right loons and mr Single Issue mainly it seems



Said it a few times at the election and to be honest I'm not sure things would have been much different otherwise but TUSC was left a wad of cash with the expressed requirement that it be spent on electoral activity. Without that I doubt they'd have stood in as many places and might have focused their efforts more. Also would have handed fewer candidacies to whoever turned up and fancied it perhaps. If they last we'll find out next time though I guess.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 22, 2015)

ska invita said:


> 2nd preference stats
> 
> Burham's: 52% to Cooper, 26% to Corbyn, 10% to Kendall
> Cooper's: 44% to Burnham, 22% to Corbyn, 15% to Kendall
> ...



Kendall comfortably bringing up the rear, thank the good lord.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

ska invita said:


> 2nd preference stats
> 
> Burham's: 52% to Cooper, 26% to Corbyn, 10% to Kendall
> Cooper's: 44% to Burnham, 22% to Corbyn, 15% to Kendall
> ...


Kendall's supporters 6% 2nd pref for Corbyn! Lol


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Kendall's supporters 6% 2nd pref for Corbyn! Lol



I was wondering whether, if you wanted Corbyn, a 2nd pref for Liz might be the way to go in order to deny it to Burnham - and even Cooper. I know very little about how the system works, though.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 22, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> I was wondering whether, if you wanted Corbyn, a 2nd pref for Liz might be the way to go in order to deny it to Burnham - and even Cooper. I know very little about how the system works, though.


Probably some truth in that, but a blank 2nd pref would seem to be more effective, if that's what they're up to.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Probably some truth in that, but a blank 2nd pref would seem to be more effective, if that's what they're up to.



Actually, I think your second pref is only counted should your first pref drop out. Seeing as though Corbyn will make it through the first round, your second pref would never be counted, only those of voters whose first pref candidate didn't make it through.

So probably no point in a tactical second pref at all in that case.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Actually, I think your second pref is only counted should your first pref drop out. Seeing as though Corbyn will make it through the first round, your second pref would never be counted, only those of voters whose first pref candidate didn't make it through.
> 
> So probably no point in a tactical second pref at all in that case.


Yeah, but there is a point for the no-hoper's 1st preferencers.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

Out of absolute perversity I'm tempted to pay £3 and vote for Kendall.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 22, 2015)

Well, that's sewn it up for Corbyn: apparently mumsnet have declared their support for trying to get into his pants as they declare "phwoar."  I thought they'd be all about Burnham's eyelashes (they are very pretty). I guess we do live in the age of beards, though (and rightly so).

On the flipside, Icke has come out in support of him too.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> That kind of research will take time. As for the polls, I have my own issues with them, namely the evident lack of self-reflexivity and the rigid nature of quantitative surveys.


 I heard part of a R4 discussion 3 or 4 days after the election, with various pollsters trying to get at why they'd fucked up so badly.  From what I remember they came close to saying their data was correct, but they had put the wrong interpretation on it.  That sort of statement could mean all sorts, methodologically, but they were hinting that the data said Tory victory whilst they were feeding the newspapers a Labour/SNP victory.  Astonishing stuff really. They also hinted at a herding effect, where they were seeing signs of a tory victory but were too scared to say so as the other polling organisations were clustered around the Labour/hung parliament outcome.

I'm sure there will be more substantial analysis of how they fucked up, but that immediate stuff really highlighted how the pollsters saw their own image and reputation as far more important than having any confidence in their analysis. A case of being haunted by their previous fuck ups, to the point where they made an even greater fuck up in 2015.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I heard part of a R4 discussion 3 or 4 days after the election, with various pollsters trying to get at why they'd fucked up so badly.  From what I remember they came close to saying their data was correct, but they had put the wrong interpretation on it.  That sort of statement could mean a lot, methodologically, but they were hinting that the data said Tory victory whilst they were feeding the newspapers a Labour/SNP victory.  Astonishing stuff really. They also hinted at a herding effect, where they were seeing signs of a tory victory but were too scared to say so as the other polling organisations were clustered around the Labour/hung parliament outcome.
> 
> I'm sure there will be more substantial analysis of how they fucked up, but that immediate stuff really highlighted how the pollsters saw their own image and reputation as far more important than having any confidence in their analysis. A case of being haunted by their previous fuck ups, to the point where they made an even greater fuck ups in 2015.


Anthony Wells' (YG) blog is providing a useful commentary on the unfolding polling post-mortem.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9460


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2015)

Just heard Margaret Beckett saying she regretted nominating Corbyn. Apparently she didn't want people to feel that their opinions weren't being heard, right up to the point where they started giving them - at which point they should shut their dirty peasant mouths.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Just heard Margaret Beckett saying she regretted nominating Corbyn. Apparently she didn't want people to feel that their opinions weren't being heard, right up to the point where they started giving them - at which point they should shut their dirty peasant mouths.


Not only regretted, but (along with McTernan) chose to describe her decision as one made by a _*moron. *_Nice touch; the use of an antiquated, eugenicist term denoting (mild) intellectual disability.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Just heard Margaret Beckett saying she regretted nominating Corbyn. Apparently she didn't want people to feel that their opinions weren't being heard, right up to the point where they started giving them - at which point they should shut their dirty peasant mouths.



That's exactly what this is, they're showing themselves up for having the contempt for people we know they've always had. Where do they think this support for Corbyn is coming from? A select bunch of 'radical' union members? 

Chatting to my taxi driver yesterday, he said him and all the muslims he knows pretty much hate labour, but since Corbyn is in the race they're suddenly perking up and getting behind him, and want him to win. And it's not just going to be the anti-war aspect -- especially around here (average wage is £16k) poverty is rife, it's solid labour (MP-wise, not so much the local council), but apart from old allegiances and a sense of not having much other choice, there's not much of a reason to vote labour or feel hopeful or enthusiastic about them. They did fuck all for a place like Stoke when they were in, but the idea that the Tories would do even less doesn't really come as much of a consolation. But as cheesy and idealistic as it might be, it's damn refreshing to hear someone breaking ranks and saying things we've been conditioned to not say anymore, and I dare say it gives a glimmer of hope to a lot of people who've traditionally been labour and don't look anywhere else. It's hardly surprising he'll garner support from people who'd all but dropped out of engaging altogether.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's hardly surprising he'll garner support from people who'd all but dropped out of engaging altogether.



Exactly this. It bemuses me that people think Labour need to chase the Tory swing voters to win an election when there are far more people don't vote at all than are swingers. And out of those people that don't vote, the biggest reasons cited are that all the parties are the same, or that none of the mainstream parties represent their views. The biggest concerns of disengaged voters are things like poverty and job insecurity, i.e. all those things that are traditional labour issues.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Just heard Margaret Beckett saying she regretted nominating Corbyn. Apparently she didn't want people to feel that their opinions weren't being heard, right up to the point where they started giving them - at which point they should shut their dirty peasant mouths.


Brilliant logic - 'I deeply regret allowing people to express a choice.  My defence is that when I gave them permission to vote for other candidates it was an empty gesture and I didn't think they'd actually do it'.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2015)

I'm really enjoying the way that the Labour right-wingers are obviously shitting themselves at this. I don't think that the Corbyn project is at all viable even if he does get elected but the fact that he seems to be getting the war criminals to come out of the woodwork to slag him off is enough for me, I'm going to sign up as a union affiliate and encourage my OH and friends to do the same in the hope that it will at least give Blairites a few nights lost sleep.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2015)

Wonder how bad it would get if Corbyn wins? If the ones whining defect, who'd have them? Most of them only exist because of the party name anyway. Just undermining and backstabbing? Wouldn't look good but they clearly don't give a fuck about what most people think anyway. Vague support? That'd be fun, watching them have to choke down some even vaguely Socialist ideas with a rictus grin on their faces. Unlikely though. A split would do too, they could start a new centre right party and marvel as it turns out that neither Labour nor Tory voters will give them the time of day.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

> [He appeals to] young people who haven’t thought about it, _*I don’t want to patronise them, but they have not gone through the difficulties that we have gone through in the last 30, 40 years.*_ He is a lively candidate, *he seems to be offering an easy prescription*, and he is not facing the reality or the difficulties that a new Labour government would have to face.



Now Hattersley. These old-timers haven't lost their touch, have they?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2015)

Mhairi Black sticks it to the war criminal



> "Tony Blair must still be smarting from Labour losing the Scottish Parliament election to the SNP in 2007 when he was Prime Minister, and had dragged Labour so far to the right that it was barely recognisable.
> 
> "And Tony Blair's legacy still haunts and damages Labour today, and led them into the sorry position of not even voting against the Tories' welfare cuts and budget bills this week - leaving the SNP as the real and effective opposition to the Tory government.
> 
> "On any reading of his record, Tony Blair was the one with the primitive policy - dragging the country into an illegal war in Iraq, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and causing massive instability to the region, the ramifications of which we continue to live with.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Now Hattersley. These old-timers haven't lost their touch, have they?



Does he mean young people in general because if so that is absolutely incredible. Wow.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Wonder how bad it would get if Corbyn wins? If the ones whining defect, who'd have them? Most of them only exist because of the party name anyway. Just undermining and backstabbing? Wouldn't look good but they clearly don't give a fuck about what most people think anyway. Vague support? That'd be fun, watching them have to choke down some even vaguely Socialist ideas with a rictus grin on their faces. Unlikely though. A split would do too, they could start a new centre right party and marvel as it turns out that neither Labour nor Tory voters will give them the time of day.


And if Corbyn loses is there enough of a frenzy in the left to try persuade him to lead some alternative.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

I don't think for a minute that Corbyn will win and I haven't got much time for his politics. He has after all remained in and supported the party of the Irag war and neo-liberalism, atos and the like. However if he did it would produce a pretty strange (and amusing) situation - a party leader with drastically different views to most mps and pretty much every centre of power in his party.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Does he mean young people in general because if so that is absolutely incredible. Wow.


Corbyn's 'team' must be thumbing through their old filofaxs looking for more of these dinosaurs to come back and open their traps.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 22, 2015)

...back in my day we never had all these great traineeships where we were forced to work for free for six months and then got paid the princely sum of under half the minimum wage in order to work as an apprentice cashier in a cinema... young people these days truly are blessed.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

Now Mary (I'm so shit I couldn't even get on the ballot paper) Creagh....



> Labour is not yet in the place where we can say with confidence: “The only way is up.” Early findings from the “lessons learned” report commissioned by Harriet suggest that voters think that Labour simply does not understand their lives. *We are in danger of becoming the political equivalent of Millwall Football Club. Their chant? “No one likes us, we don’t care.*”



​


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

Ironically, the ones who might slightly worry about Corbyn being elected are the snp.  Probably too late for Labour in Scotland, but he'd have more of a chance than the kendalburhnamcooper creature.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Now Mary (I'm so shit I couldn't even get on the ballot paper) Creagh....
> 
> Labour is not yet in the place where we can say with confidence: “The only way is up.” Early findings from the “lessons learned” report commissioned by Harriet suggest that voters think that Labour simply does not understand their lives. *We are in danger of becoming the political equivalent of Millwall Football Club. Their chant? “No one likes us, we don’t care.*”
> 
> ​



Won't be like Millwall though will it? At least Millwall fans like them, even Labour members seem to think they're a shower of cunts at the moment.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Won't be like Millwall though will it? At least Millwall fans like them, even Labour members seem to think they're a shower of cunts at the moment.


I'd imagine she might be getting some 'feedback' as result of this quote.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2015)

May God have mercy on my soul, I'm sure portions of Urban won't. I've just become a registered member. I have no faith in anything here but under the barrage of cunts telling me how stupid, pointless, misled and deluded I am for being even vaguely left of centre I've decided to vote for Corbyn to piss them off. Add it to the files of my shame.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> May God have mercy on my soul, I'm sure portions of Urban won't. I've just become a registered member. I have no faith in anything here but under the barrage of cunts telling me how stupid, pointless, misled and deluded I am for being even vaguely left of centre I've decided to vote for Corbyn to piss them off. Add it to the files of my shame.


If the £3 went to charity... and I could do it anonymously..... and they provided a false beard and specs, just to be sure....


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2015)

Given that there are a lot more workers than bosses, it stands to reason that a party for the workers should always win in a general election. If Labour truly were a party for the workers, well could they be, perhaps with someone like Corbyn?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 22, 2015)

I get the feeling a lot of workers want to be bosses, particularly after the 80s.

e2a: gross oversimplification, I appreciate.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 22, 2015)

I cant get that excited. I dont share corbyns politics at all but i hope he wins to shit up those tossers at the guardian


----------



## teqniq (Jul 22, 2015)

Yes the Grauniad is not exactly covering itself in glory atm


----------



## Crispy (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> May God have mercy on my soul, I'm sure portions of Urban won't. I've just become a registered member. I have no faith in anything here but under the barrage of cunts telling me how stupid, pointless, misled and deluded I am for being even vaguely left of centre I've decided to vote for Corbyn to piss them off. Add it to the files of my shame.


Member or Supporter? You only need to be a supporter. https://supporters.labour.org.uk/leadership/1


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2015)

Who do NuLabour types want to win then? Andy Burnham, Mr probably very nice but unfortunately had a charisma bypass!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 22, 2015)

He looks like a muppet. Not that image should be a factor of course, but he does look like someone from the Jim Henson workshop.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2015)

And Yvette Cooper, similar I am sure she is a nice person but I don't see her as leader material and certainly don't see her as prime minster material. Mind you, what did people think of Thatcher when she was starting out?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Member or Supporter? You only need to be a supporter. https://supporters.labour.org.uk/leadership/1



My bad, supporter. Even my soul won't stand up to more than a one off £3.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> My bad, supporter. Even my soul won't stand up to more than a one off £3.


Phew


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

YouSir said:


> My bad, supporter. Even my soul won't stand up to more than a one off £3.


"supporter", surely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2015)

this will have jumped the shark by the end of the week


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2015)

weltweit said:


> And Yvette Cooper, similar I am sure she is a nice person but I don't see her as leader material and certainly don't see her as prime minster material. Mind you, what did people think of Thatcher when she was starting out?


didn't care too much for her ice cream


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> didn't care too much for her ice cream


Depends on what constitutes "starting out", but I'm of an age to remember school-playground chanting of "thatcher, thatcher, milk snatcher"


----------



## YouSir (Jul 22, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> this will have jumped the shark by the end of the week



Jeremy Corbyn, his detractors or The Fonz?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 22, 2015)

Big gun time lol. Tony B in the house

http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...burnham-chuka-umunna-tony-blair-yvette-cooper


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 22, 2015)

JHE said:


> No, of course there isn't.  Oppositions oppose.  On losing an election a party does not suddenly become committed to its opponents' manifesto.  (Though, come to think of it, some current Labour leaders may need reminding of this.)
> 
> There is a convention that the House of Lords does not reject a measure passed by the House of Commons if that measure was a manifesto commitment.


Ah, right. That thing about the Lords must be what I was misremembering, thanks for clarifying, I had a hazy memory of something to do with parliamentary convention and manifesto commitments getting a free pass, as it were, but it was late, I was tired, and I wasn't inclined to research and confirm the details, which I should've done really, although I did say it was off the top of my head and I'd happily stand corrected if wrong. So fair enough, thank you.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 22, 2015)

Wilf said:


> If the £3 went to charity... and I could do it anonymously..... and they provided a false beard and specs, just to be sure....


If you feel you can't hold your nose and hand over £3 to become a Labour supporter, you could always join a union and get a vote that way. And for those who aren't in employment/don't have a relevant union to join, there's Unite community section, which is open to unemployed, claimants etc.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 22, 2015)

S☼I said:


> Big gun time lol. Tony B in the house
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...burnham-chuka-umunna-tony-blair-yvette-cooper





> I wouldn't want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn't take it.


There it is, in two sentences.

Pillock.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2015)

Tony Blair said:
			
		

> People who say their heart is with Corbyn, get a transplant. It's like going back to Star Trek or something. Back to the old days.



Umm... but Star Trek is in the future.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 22, 2015)

Noodling around on the PCs here at the community library where I run a film club, and found these two image files on the desktop


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 22, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Noodling around on the PCs here at the community library where I run a film club, and found these two image files on the desktop
> 
> View attachment 74386 View attachment 74385



Aww bless. They look in love.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> And if Corbyn loses is there enough of a frenzy in the left to try persuade him to lead some alternative.



Corbyn is Labour through and through, unlike the majority of his Parliamentary party. He'd never leave the party, even though the party left *him* long ago.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Corbyn's 'team' must be thumbing through their old filofaxs looking for more of these dinosaurs to come back and open their traps.



What they really need is Healy to open his cavernous gob...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2015)

Blair to potential Corbyn supporters; 'people who say their heart is with Corbyn, get a transplant'. Or more bluntly just rip it out! There must be a good poster opportunity there somewhere.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 22, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> What they really need is Healy to open his cavernous gob...


No, not Healy the man who went to the IMF for a loan, acting on false information from the Treasury - we didn't need it it turns out. He gave a weapon to the Tory press with that and unwittingly became the first monetarist chancellor by so doing. Callaghan made things worse by saying "you can't spend your way out of a recession" but of course that is the very thing you need to do. This is where the Labour Party lost its way.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2015)

I've just been washing up and thinking about Blair's heart transplant comment...and it says so much. This is his aspiration - a society that cannot trust its own emotions, a society that must not respond to the tug of its own heart strings - because that is what he has done in and to his life; he has studiously expunged real feelings and replaced them with acting...performing emotion for the camera, the interviewer, the press conference. So his attack on Corbyn and his supporters is in part at least, the very thing that the old, hard, trad left is accused of; its the politics of envy...a very personal and bitter envy.

Better dry up now - Louis MacNeice


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 22, 2015)

Jones may be a liberal bubble dick but he does do a decent job pointing out the weird situation of Blair and his fellows are dismantling one of the very policies they always trumpeted


> But tax credits are a lifeline for millions of low-paid workers, helping to bridge the gap between low wages and the reality of existence. Many of the self-employed entrepreneurs championed by New Labour are affected too. This month the Tories introduced a budget that scaled them back. Labour’s response? To abstain, and back withdrawing tax credits from any supermarket worker’s child who might have two siblings rather than one. This is an act of vandalism perpetrated on New Labour’s legacy: and it was the left that opposed it.



Whenever they were criticised for increasing inequality New Labourites would also bring out the reduction in child poverty, now they don't even want to defend that.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 22, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I've just been washing up and thinking about Blair's heart transplant comment...and it says so much. This is his aspiration - a society that cannot trust its own emotions, a society that must not respond to the tug of its own heart strings - because that is what he has done in and to his life; he has studiously expunged real feelings and replaced them with acting...performing emotion for the camera, the interviewer, the press conference. So his attack on Corbyn and his supporters is in part at least, the very thing that the old, hard, trad left is accused of; its the politics of envy...a very personal and bitter envy.
> 
> Better dry up now - Louis MacNeice


Whereas Blair's politics is the politics of entry, entry into Tory values and taking his party with him.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

Kendall, chuka and cooper say they won't serve in a corbyn shadow cabinet:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...d-lose-frontbenchers-if-elected-labour-leader
Well, that will give him pause for thought....  Fucking hell, you can imagine the feverish networking that's going on between the blairites and last remnants of alistair campbell's little black book.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 22, 2015)

I had this thought this evening - it might not be true, but it could be: maybe what we're seeing here is a generational political shift.

Neoliberal policies of the last however many decades have been slowly pulling the ladder away from the young, to the benefit of the old, and that process has seriously accelerated post 2008 crash. The Tories have been wooing older voters effortlessly, and fucking over younger voters without much of a care. There's an aging population out there, and particularly the property owning parts of that population are understood as key to winning elections.

Obviously many of the Blair generation Labour Party politicians are utterly down with the logic of Tory policies and see no problem in aping that strategy. But this next generation - lets say 30 and under, though it could be older than that even - are the ones who are most fucked over by the current state of affairs in the UK, and they're the ones who when they look to see what the rest of their lives might hold, dont see much of anything to look forward to. Maybe that is starting to bed in and become a cultural force.

What I wonder is if we're seeing something that looks like the breaking of the arctic ice shelf, with the richer, older generation breaking off (tories and blairites in tow), leaving behind a new generation with no one to represent them, and crucially with a growing consciousness of just how shit their lot is.

In regards to the Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon there are some impressive stats out there that show that there are significant proportion of young voters who have singed up recently and are supporting him, and that likewise younger MPs are also more likely to support him than that Blair generation. (I cant link to those stats now, but Ive definitely seen things written along those lines).

Just maybe we are seeing a generational shift to the left here! The fact is the current global economic post-crash mainstream concensus cannot deal with giving young people the living standards that their parents might have had - one thing I think is correct from the Paul Mason book exert floating about is this:

"Even now many people fail to grasp the true meaning of the word “austerity”. Austerity is not eight years of spending cuts, as in the UK, or even the social catastrophe inflicted on Greece. It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China and India on the way up."

The younger generation may or may not grasp it - but they're certainly feeling it. And maybe Jeremy C is genuinely appealing to them, with no baggage, and no reason to doubt.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Mhairi Black sticks it to the war criminal




J, how are your peers responding to all this, if at all?

not saying you and froggie are our token youngsters though


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2015)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> If you feel you can't hold your nose and hand over £3 to become a Labour supporter, you could always join a union and get a vote that way. And for those who aren't in employment/don't have a relevant union to join, there's Unite community section, which is open to unemployed, claimants etc.



Unite Community members get a vote, are you sure?


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I've just been washing up and thinking about Blair's heart transplant comment...and it says so much. This is his aspiration - a society that cannot trust its own emotions, a society that must not respond to the tug of its own heart strings - because that is what he has done in and to his life; he has studiously expunged real feelings and replaced them with acting...performing emotion for the camera, the interviewer, the press conference. So his attack on Corbyn and his supporters is in part at least, the very thing that the old, hard, trad left is accused of; its the politics of envy...a very personal and bitter envy.
> 
> Better dry up now - Louis MacNeice




You should write an essay on Blair, you have nailed him there.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 22, 2015)

fuck it, £3 in the tin. It's got to be worth it just to witness the howls of outrage if he won. The other 3 have shown their true colours with their abstentions in the finance and welfare votes so fuck them.


----------



## treelover (Jul 22, 2015)

ska invita said:


> I had this thought this evening - it might not be true, but it could be: maybe what we're seeing here is a generational political shift.
> 
> Neoliberal policies of the last however many decades have been slowly pulling the ladder away from the young, to the benefit of the old, and that process has seriously accelerated post 2008 crash. The Tories have been wooing older voters effortlessly, and fucking over younger voters without much of a care. There's an aging population out there, and particularly the property owning parts of that population are understood as key to winning elections.
> 
> ...




Most of the new members who are joining labour are under 30, I do hope its not the 30 year cycle though and they end up Blairites or disillusioned.

I was also talking tonight to a guy who has two politically minded offspring, he said they were nervous about getting on the streets after what happened to the student movement and worried whether their minimum wage jobs would be at risk if there bosses found out!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> Unite Community members get a vote, are you sure?


Dunno. A quick google didn't help.  I suspect it rests on whether unite's community members are included in the union's affiliation to labour.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2015)

> Burnham said he would serve under Corbyn, arguing: “It was really important that the party came out of the election united. We are not going to get anywhere by running factional politics



fair do's.




> Blair had provoked Corbyn by telling the Progress centre-left thinktank that people whose heart was with the leftwing candidate should “get a transplant”. In his first intervention in the Labour leadership election, the former prime minister said the party will never win with a traditional left platform, saying it will instead endure four election defeats in a row.
> 
> Blair had provoked Corbyn by telling the Progress centre-left thinktank that people whose heart was with the leftwing candidate should “get a transplant”. In his first intervention in the Labour leadership election, the former prime minister said the party will never win with a traditional left platform, saying it will instead endure four election defeats in a row.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...d-lose-frontbenchers-if-elected-labour-leader



Wintour in the Guardian, in what world is Progress 'centre left', this is what Corbyn is challenging, Journos like Wintour and Rentoul are also part of the problem, we need another Orwell, Nick Cohen can't do it anymore..


----------



## free spirit (Jul 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> 2nd preference stats
> 
> Burham's: 52% to Cooper, 26% to Corbyn, 10% to Kendall
> Cooper's: 44% to Burnham, 22% to Corbyn, 15% to Kendall
> ...


interesting to see that none of the above is 2nd choice for corbyn's supporters on 2nd preference votes.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2015)

I see John Mcdonnell is a key figure in Jeremy's team, wonder how he feels, he could easily have been the contender.


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> I had this thought this evening - it might not be true, but it could be: maybe what we're seeing here is a generational political shift.
> 
> Neoliberal policies of the last however many decades have been slowly pulling the ladder away from the young, to the benefit of the old, and that process has seriously accelerated post 2008 crash. The Tories have been wooing older voters effortlessly, and fucking over younger voters without much of a care. There's an aging population out there, and particularly the property owning parts of that population are understood as key to winning elections.
> 
> ...


The young (and the poor) vote overwhelmingly for labour (or not at all - There was an 8% drop in turnout between 2010 and 2015 for male 18-24s). If the labour party were able to convince those who've dropped out that they've something to offer them then there's little need to chase the swing votes too hard. Plus, theyre all voting tory now anyway...


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> I had this thought this evening - it might not be true, but it could be: maybe what we're seeing here is a generational political shift.
> 
> Neoliberal policies of the last however many decades have been slowly pulling the ladder away from the young, to the benefit of the old, and that process has seriously accelerated post 2008 crash. The Tories have been wooing older voters effortlessly, and fucking over younger voters without much of a care. There's an aging population out there, and particularly the property owning parts of that population are understood as key to winning elections.
> 
> ...






> What Tony Blair never seems to understand is how devastating his term of office was to Generation Y. Most of my generation, even those in professional jobs, cannot afford to buy a house; they are saddled with student debt and most of the available work is low paid and insecure. For someone I remember in my youth as the most astute politician of his age, he has become unrealistic about the extent to which Labour can take votes from 'lefties' for granted and reactionary to criticism of his social democratic place on the political spectrum which ended in failure in 1979 and 2010. He talks about values but there were scant evidence of those by the time he lied to Parliament and supported the invasion of Iraq and the standard of living for ordinary working people, especially the young, entered a decline as early as 2003.
> 
> Labour doesn't have the luxury that Blair did of being able to move the party to the centre ground without losing much support from the left. The drift of the left to other parties began in 2001 but only really gathered pace in 2015 with the SNP and the Green surge. Any attempt by Labour now to occupy the same ground as Osborne will lose more votes from the left than they can hope to gain from the right. Kendall, in my view, is far less electable than Corbyn for this reason.
> 
> ...



Someone on CIF has replied to your post, its uncanny


----------



## gosub (Jul 23, 2015)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-MPs-who-backed-Jeremy-Corbyn-desert-him.html

One aide to a rival candidate said: “This is too little too late. These Labour MPs don’t realise they are were supposed to be gate keepers.
“Their role was to determine the candidate selection – their vote is now just one of over 300,000 members and supporters.”


Mr Corbyn's 43% seems to have gone down like cold sick with the Parliamentary Labour party


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jul 23, 2015)

Is Mr Corbyn extreme left?
I have only felt relief that he is in the running.

If he is in front what exactly does that mean to them?

Do the other members in the party think the Tories need help pulling the front runner to bits?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Is Mr Corbyn extreme left?


mildly social democratic leanings from what I can see. So old school Labour. I still think burnham will take the belt though, him or yvette cooper


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Brilliant logic - 'I deeply regret allowing people to express a choice.  My defence is that when I gave them permission to vote for other candidates it was an empty gesture and I didn't think they'd actually do it'.



And she's happy to say all this in public. Astonishing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Given that there are a lot more workers than bosses, it stands to reason that a party for the workers should always win in a general election. If Labour truly were a party for the workers, well could they be, perhaps with someone like Corbyn?



He doesn't have enough support from the Labour benches, even if he wins the leadership the rest of the parliamentary party would sooner sabotage the party completely than let Corbyn stand as leader in a general election. Any kind of popular victory for the left would invalidate the entire blairite project and the blairites know this all too well.

Still, at least this leadership election is giving the blairites plenty of rope with which to hang themselves. Openly threatening to defy the results of a democratic election, encouraging everyone to gang up on Corbyn and other such school playground tactics.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

S☼I said:


> Big gun time lol. Tony B in the house
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...burnham-chuka-umunna-tony-blair-yvette-cooper



Presmuably he made his statement during one of those rare moments when his mouth was not filled with some dictator's balls.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> He doesn't have enough support from the Labour benches, even if he wins the leadership the rest of the parliamentary party would sooner sabotage the party completely than let Corbyn stand as leader in a general election. Any kind of popular victory for the left would invalidate the entire blairite project and the blairites know this all too well.
> ...


You are saying that even if Corbyn wins the leadership election he won't be permitted to serve as leader?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> You are saying that even if Corbyn wins the leadership election he won't be permitted to serve as leader?



Plenty of people in the Labour party are already bragging about how they'd have him out before christmas if he won.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Plenty of people in the Labour party are already bragging about how they'd have him out before christmas if he won.


Meaning presumably that there would have to be another leadership election?


----------



## Looby (Jul 23, 2015)

treelover said:


> I see John Mcdonnell is a key figure in Jeremy's team, wonder how he feels, he could easily have been the contender.


He tried last time and didn't get the nominations iirc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Meaning presumably that there would have to be another leadership election?



Yes. Although it's not clear why the public should be expected to bother voting in a second leadership election if the results of the first one were cast aside so readily.


----------



## youngian (Jul 23, 2015)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...emy-corbyn-labour-hustings-lbc_n_7851474.html
Labour leadership candidates were asked in this LBC debate if they'd taken drugs, Liz Kendall claims she last had a toke at uni but not since. Judging by her squirming body language she's not a skilled liar. Which is not a good trait for a prime minister. Corbyn however has never taken drugs, which is more than you can say for anyone who thinks he'll be PM one day.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes. Although it's not clear why the public should be expected to bother voting in a second leadership election if the results of the first one were cast aside so readily.


I think it is silly. If Corbyn is elected, that is that, he has been elected and they should live with it!


----------



## gimesumtruf (Jul 23, 2015)

I can't cope with this, there are to many Tories in the Labour party.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 23, 2015)

So Cooper and Kendall will refuse a place in the Shadow Cabinet if Corbyn wins the leadership!
So what was all the abstaining about the other day?
I understood all those who abstained did so to show how united the party was, guess that was pants too!
''I'll do this for the party, I'll do that for the party, as long Corbyn isn't in charge!''

How will Unite feel now, back Corbyn and get no support from the rest of the parliamentary labour party?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 23, 2015)

Hmmm


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> So Cooper and Kendall will refuse a place in the Shadow Cabinet if Corbyn wins the leadership!
> So what was all the abstaining about the other day?
> I understood all those who abstained did so to show how united the party was, guess that was pants too!
> ''I'll do this for the party, I'll do that for the party, as long Corbyn isn't in charge!''
> ...



Corbyn was meant to be a joke candidate and proof positive that Labour was safe...safe for capital. He has shown himself to be resonant rather than risible; agreed with not laughed at. But the imperative for Labour to show itself as an absolutely trustworthy (i.e. capital friendly) potential party of government remains. So social democrat Corbyn cannot be allowed success, let alone allowed to succeed. This is why Blair traduces social democracy and demands that any 'socialist heart' left in the Labour party is ripped out. This is why Cooper and Kendall publicly state they won't serve in a Corbyn cabinet. This is why a humiliated Beckett admits to being a 'moron'. They are all shouting 'it's ok...we get it...we'll behave and we'll make sure the party does to'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

Just occasionally the right can produce something quite amusing...


----------



## ska invita (Jul 23, 2015)

whats the yellow star thing?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> whats the yellow star thing?


D/K


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Corbyn was meant to be a joke candidate and proof positive that Labour was safe...safe for capital. He has shown himself to be resonant rather than risible; agreed with not laughed at. But the imperative for Labour to show itself as an absolutely trustworthy (i.e. capital friendly) potential party of government remains. So social democrat Corbyn cannot be allowed success, let alone allowed to succeed. This is why Blair traduces social democracy and demands that any 'socialist heart' left in the Labour party is ripped out. This is why Cooper and Kendall publicly state they won't serve in a Corbyn cabinet. This is why a humiliated Beckett admits to being a 'moron'. They are all shouting 'it's ok...we get it...we'll behave and we'll make sure the party does to'.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Spot-on.
I believe the phrase is 'market compliant'.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> whats the yellow star thing?





brogdale said:


> D/K


It's a football mascot. I'm not sure of its pertinence here, aside from the fact it's a little ridiculous.

e2a: Partick Thistle, to be precise.


----------



## Sue (Jul 23, 2015)

Anyone hear Yvette Cooper on the Today programme this morning?  Appalling doesn't begin to describe it.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> It's a football mascot. I'm not sure of its pertinence here, aside from the fact it's a little ridiculous.
> 
> e2a: Partick Thistle, to be precise.


Broon's team?


----------



## JTG (Jul 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Broon's team?


No, he supports Raith Rovers


----------



## ska invita (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> I'm not sure of its pertinence here, aside from the fact it's a little ridiculous.


and that its "absolutely terrifying." i guess
I like it though


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Just occasionally the right can produce something quite amusing...



Yeah these are... a thing


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Just occasionally the right can produce something quite amusing...


The chuckle brothers are missing.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

killer b said:


> The chuckle brothers are missing.


So is Corbyn's minister for Women...although she's in the states atm


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 23, 2015)

i'm beginning to think the whole thing was cleverly plotted by the labour party to get corbyn in.


Lord Camomile said:


> It's a football mascot. I'm not sure of its pertinence here, aside from the fact it's a little ridiculous.
> 
> e2a: Partick Thistle, to be precise.


guess it's an SNP ref?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yeah these are... a thing
> 
> View attachment 74397



Never had Wario down as a communist, but I guess it's obvious from the moustache now I think about it.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 23, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Never had Wario down as a communist, but I guess it's obvious from the moustache now I think about it.



It's a Gramsci caricature.


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> So Cooper and Kendall will refuse a place in the Shadow Cabinet if Corbyn wins the leadership!
> So what was all the abstaining about the other day?
> I understood all those who abstained did so to show how united the party was, guess that was pants too!
> ''I'll do this for the party, I'll do that for the party, as long Corbyn isn't in charge!''
> ...



One does wonder why Cooper, Kendall and Umunna thought that them refusing to serve under Corbyn will make people less likely to vote for him.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 23, 2015)

Is that David Schneider in there as well?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Is that David Schneider in there as well?


It is. I figured it was something to do with the character he was playing? 

e2a: actually, I think he might be quite a vocal lefty. Possibly.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2015)

*Jeremy Hardy* ‏@*JeremyJHardy* 
Someone should put all the arguments against Jeremy Corbyn together in a dossier - Alastair Campbell, maybe.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> mildly social democratic leanings from what I can see. So old school Labour. I still think burnham will take the belt though, him or yvette cooper


Me too, though the corbyn 'surge' has affected burhham.  He realises there's enough old style social democrats around to swing this election. Saying he would be willing to serve in a corbyn cabinet is part of his pitch to be the main recipient of corbyn's 2nd preferences - or perhaps to get corbyn's actual votes if the party is successful getting the message out that labour would never win with corby as leader.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 23, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Just occasionally the right can produce something quite amusing...



 source?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2015)

Prescott dives in (against blair). Not so much a position of principle I'd have thought, just sour grapes that his former master has gone on to make his multi millions while he's been left behind to grub a living off the odd appearance on the telly.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ony-blairs-totally-unacceptable-jeremy-corbyn

Also, cooper and burnham seeking too ease kendall out of the contest.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> source?


Twatter


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Prescott dives in (against blair). Not so much a position of principle I'd have thought, just sour grapes that his former master has gone on to make his multi millions while he's been left behind to grub a living off the odd appearance on the telly.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ony-blairs-totally-unacceptable-jeremy-corbyn
> 
> Also, cooper and burnham seeking too ease kendall out of the contest.


Had to laugh at Pressa on R4 this morning...top moaning...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 23, 2015)

I have to say it is really quite satisfying to see shitbags of varying shades get in a tizz about Corbyn. It's tempting to donate 3 quid to vote for him just to piss off Blair and his ilk both inside and outside the party.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 23, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I have to say it is really quite satisfying to see shitbags of varying shades get in a tizz about Corbyn. It's tempting to donate 3 quid to vote for him just to piss off Blair and his ilk both inside and outside the party.


Best £3 you'll ever spend


----------



## marty21 (Jul 23, 2015)

Corbyn is definitely stirring things up, and for once a Labour Leadership campaign is rather interesting. Hilarious seeing Beckett (didn't realise she was still an MP) regretting nominating him - why the hell did she nominate him then?


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2015)

Cause Burnham told her to.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 23, 2015)

marty21 said:


> why the hell did she nominate him then?



I think it's that slightly smug "I believe in a good debate / democracy / giving a man chance" idea. Just to prove there is a vague affection still for actual left wing ideas. Of course this stuff is ridiculous though and will never get anywhere. Cue mass panic when it does.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 23, 2015)

killer b said:


> Cause Burnham told her to.


 well he doesn't seem leadership material if he's going to do something like that


----------



## marty21 (Jul 23, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think it's that slightly smug "I believe in a good debate / democracy / giving a man chance" idea. Just to prove there is a vague affection still for actual left wing ideas. Of course this stuff is ridiculous though and will never get anywhere. Cue mass panic when it does.


 I'm guessing that it worked with Abbott when she ran against Miliband, so surely nothing could go wrong this time


----------



## teqniq (Jul 23, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think it's that slightly smug "I believe in a good debate / democracy / giving a man chance" idea. Just to prove there is a vague affection still for actual left wing ideas. Of course this stuff is ridiculous though and will never get anywhere. Cue mass panic when it does.


Yup properly blew up in her face, and as an added bonus has really rattled and pissed off the Blairites.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 23, 2015)

What's tipped me into seriously considering it is seeing Kay Burley being thick and a cunt, not merely a thick cunt, to Dawn Butler over nominating Corbyn. Basically everyone I'd have little concern for if they occupied a gas chamber is having problems over this. Him winning and the thought of them having a look on their face like they've just drank a pint of piss infused vinegar, even for just a few moments and the thought of me actually contributing to that really does warm the cockles.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 23, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> What's tipped me into seriously considering it is seeing Kay Burley being thick and a cunt, not merely a thick cunt, to Dawn Butler over nominating Corbyn. Basically everyone I'd have little concern for if they occupied a gas chamber is having problems over this. Him winning and the thought of them having a look on their face like they've just drank a pint of piss infused vinegar, even for just a few moments and the thought of me actually contributing that really does warm the cockles.



I seriously considered signing up as a union affiliate purely as a response to the 'don't be so silly children' article in the Guardian yesterday.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 23, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I seriously considered signing up as a union affiliate purely as a response to the 'don't be so silly children' article in the Guardian yesterday.



Yeah it's precisely this attitude from varying parts of the establishment that has me reaching for my wallet. How much is it to sign up as a union affiliate?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 23, 2015)

Corbyn could have a Blair effect (but in a good way) tempting loads of people back to the party who left because of ....Blair


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 23, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah it's precisely this attitude from varying parts of the establishment that has me reaching for my wallet. How much is it to sign up as a union affiliate?



It's free I think, assuming your union is on the list.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 23, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It's free I think, assuming your union is on the list.


Yup it's free, page here


----------



## ska invita (Jul 23, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think it's that slightly smug "I believe in a good debate / democracy / giving a man chance" idea. Just to prove there is a vague affection still for actual left wing ideas. Of course this stuff is ridiculous though and will never get anywhere. Cue mass panic when it does.


aka patronising tokenism


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2015)

treelover said:


> J, how are your peers responding to all this, if at all?
> 
> not saying you and froggie are our token youngsters though



The people interested in politics seem to like him but are wary but most people don't know or care about the leadership election.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> aka patronising tokenism



Yeah that - and also presumably a way to split the "left" vote... though Christ knows which of the others is supposed to be losing votes to Corbyn.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2015)

This is... special. Is the likes of Kay Burley really what appeals these days?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 23, 2015)

Right that's it i'm gonna do it. Even Bristol 24/7, that lowly shit rag that promotes gentrification and licks George Ferguson's arse are now in a tizz (Sorry I know it's local to Bristol it's very relevent).

Eurgh I can't do urls on this device because i'm rubbish. Basically they're reporting he's in Bristol tonight and calling him hard left and using words like threat.

I may even pop down.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2015)

treelover said:


> I see John Mcdonnell is a key figure in Jeremy's team, wonder how he feels, he could easily have been the contender.



Read some history. McDonnell prefers to be a power behind the throne.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Yup it's free, page here


Hard to tell from that form, but as you don't have to give your union membership number it looks like they might not be checking whether signees are genuinely members of affiliates.  There's a bit about sharing data with the unions at the bottom, but it isn't really clear if they are asking unions to confirm details.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 23, 2015)

Yes I thought it odd that the union number is optional


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2015)




----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 23, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Right that's it i'm gonna do it.


I've just done the same - for free as I'm in a union. I thought I didn't care about this, but this parade of scum, headed by Cunt-in-Chief Blair, have convinced me I do care. Are hatred and revenge bad motivations? Maybe, but it feels so good 

I feel a bit sorry for Corbyn - he seems a decent sort and he's gonna get eaten alive. But hey, he went into professional politics.  True revolutionaries must use and discard their leaders without pity


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2015)

Twenty years worth of wind in the sails of _the labour party is worth saving/is the only one that can save us_ etc

So, er.._thanks _for that everyone.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> I've just done the same - for free as I'm in a union. I thought I didn't care about this, but this parade of scum, headed by Cunt-in-Chief Blair, have convinced me I do care. Are hatred and revenge bad motivations? Maybe, but it feels so good
> 
> I feel a bit sorry for Corbyn - he seems a decent sort and he's gonna get eaten alive. But hey, he went into professional politics.  True revolutionaries must use and discard their leaders without pity


He'd certainly better check the skeletons in his closet.  It's a largely political attack on him at the moment, but its' going to get personal.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 23, 2015)

Wilf said:


> He'd certainly better check the skeletons in his closet.  It's a largely political attack on him at the moment, but its' going to get personal.


 I'm not even under the illusion that he can lead the party in any reasonably functional way. I think people hoping he can are going to be disappointed. The Labour he would lead doesn't exist.

To butchers, I suspect this will finally prove beyond doubt that the Labour party absolutely can't be saved. We'll see I guess.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Twenty years worth of wind in the sails of _the labour party is worth saving/is the only one that can save us_ etc
> 
> So, er.._thanks _for that everyone.



I don't think anyone here is saying that. This is simply a chance to punch these pricks in the nose, even just a little bit. I'll happily fork out the cost of less than a pint to do that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> I'm not even under the illusion that he can lead the party in any reasonably functional way. I think people hoping he can are going to be disappointed. The Labour he would lead doesn't exist.
> 
> To butchers, I suspect this will finally prove beyond doubt that the Labour party absolutely can't be saved. We'll see I guess.


The same way the 81 leadership and deputy election did? The 94 leadership election? Nah, these activist types are always going to chase after this nonsense, every time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying that. This is simply a chance to punch these pricks in the nose, even just a little bit. I'll happily fork out the cost of less than a pint to do that.


Nevertheless this is what will happen - it already is. The whole thing can only be based on this - this _homecoming_.


----------



## chilango (Jul 23, 2015)

It's cheaper entertainment than the cinema tbf.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2015)

Wilf said:


> He'd certainly better check the skeletons in his closet.  It's a largely political attack on him at the moment, but its' going to get personal.



Do you know something more?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, these activist types are always going to chase after this nonsense, every time.



In a nutshell.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2015)

treelover said:


> Do you know something more?


No, not at all.  Just that the arteries of new lab were the links between the blairites and the press.  I'm guessing something real or invented will be deployed against him if his 'lead' continues.


----------



## chilango (Jul 23, 2015)

...and, being thoughtful for one moment, it matters not that this circus may entrance the few thousand dreamers into more Labour led fantasies, change isn't coming from or through them anyway.

Change, when it comes, is coming from somewhere else. Somewhere that isn't busy watching this sideshow.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nevertheless this is what will happen - it already is. The whole thing can only be based on this - this _homecoming_.


Yes, it's the same delusion.  However for me, remaining in the party after 80% of it's mps voted for the welfare bill means you are something worse - a cunt.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2015)

> The British public is ideologically committed to nationalisation
> 
> http://www.cityam.com/211541/british-public-ideologically-committed-nationalisation



In CityAM of all places, food for thought for the candidates


----------



## chilango (Jul 23, 2015)

Oh, is A Very British Coup online anywhere?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> This is... special. Is the likes of Kay Burley really what appeals these days?




My God Kay Burley is thick!


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> My God Kay Burley is thick!



She is just terrible


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> She is just terrible


She's so right-wing she could have gone for Robinson's (Kuenssberg's) post at the BBC.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2015)

Reporting as part of Sky News's coverage of the September 11 attacks in Manhattan, Burley claimed that "the entire eastern seaboard of the United States has been decimated by a terrorist attack"


----------



## Argonia (Jul 23, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn bought me a coffee on an anti-war march just outside the American Embassy.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Jeremy Corbyn bought me a coffee on an anti-war march just outside the American Embassy.


"Corbyn in new expenses scandal"

e2a: "Corbyn uses tax money collected from hard working British families to fund extravagant 'continental cafe lifestyle' while pushing anti-government propaganda"


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2015)

Does anyone know why Chucky's in Washington? Apparently he's there to give a speech but to whom?

http://www.cityam.com/220808/shadow...s-federal-uk-english-parliament-washington-dc


----------



## pinkychukkles (Jul 23, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Right that's it i'm gonna do it.


I'm in too - the force is strong with Jedi Corbyn.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> "Corbyn in new expenses scandal"
> 
> e2a: "Corbyn uses tax money collected from hard working British families to fund extravagant 'continental cafe lifestyle' while pushing anti-government propaganda"


he's the lowest expense claimer in the country ACTUALLY


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> he's the lowest expense claimer in the country ACTUALLY


So he does it all off the books, is what you're saying?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 23, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> he's the lowest expense claimer in the country ACTUALLY


How can he have any credibility with business if he doesn't rip the taxpayer off?


----------



## weepiper (Jul 23, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> It's a football mascot. I'm not sure of its pertinence here, aside from the fact it's a little ridiculous.
> 
> e2a: Partick Thistle, to be precise.





brogdale said:


> Broon's team?





rutabowa said:


> guess it's an SNP ref?



Mhairi Black's team.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 23, 2015)

In the star and garter pub in maryhill ... Where the thistle 'ultras' drink (of the north stand) ... Pub also runs a Celtic supporters bus too ...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 23, 2015)

treelover said:


>



Good effort, but unfortunately Tony B said 'star trek' not 'star wars'.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Jul 23, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Hmmm



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...used-of-inaction-over-paedophile-scandal.html


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2015)

Is it an absolute truth that no party could win in the UK on a left leaning prospectus?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 23, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...used-of-inaction-over-paedophile-scandal.html



Desperate stuff. John Mann looks like a nasty, slimy cunt.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 23, 2015)

> Jeremy Corbyn, the hard-left Labour MP


...as he shall forever now be known.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 23, 2015)

John Mann's voting record:

Generally voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas
Consistently voted for the Iraq war
Consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war
Almost always voted against measures to reduce tax avoidance
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11093/john_mann/bassetlaw/votes

I wonder if this has anything to do with his attempted dirt digging on Corbyn?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> John Mann's voting record: ...


tbf that is a tiny fraction of his voting record as shown on that page, and much of it is quite good.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 23, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...used-of-inaction-over-paedophile-scandal.html



Fairly tenuous, given the general inaction of everybody about this.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> tbf that is a tiny fraction of his voting record as shown on that page, and much of it is quite good.



True, it's not terrible, but I think a lot of it is because he's been voting _against_ tory proposals. He's clearly significantly to the right of Corbyn.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Jul 23, 2015)

Here is Mann's open letter 
http://www.mann4bassetlaw.com/an_open_letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_on_child_abuse


----------



## J Ed (Jul 23, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Here is Mann's open letter
> http://www.mann4bassetlaw.com/an_open_letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_on_child_abuse



Seems like a dangerous can of worms to open up considering how many others are implicated in this. Curious that he isn't writing an open letter to I don't know lets take a name at random... Keith Vaz


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Seems like a dangerous can of worms to open up considering how many others are implicated in this. Curious that he isn't writing an open letter to I don't know lets take a name at random... Keith Vaz



Or given that Mann claims to have been prompted to this course of action by Corbyn's leadership bid, why not drop a line to the actual current leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman? After all she has in the past been accused of being a one time, trendy, lefty, paedo enabler, which is what Mann is slinging at Corbyn now.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2015)

..


----------



## Libertad (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> ..



Which is the point that Louis has just made above.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2015)

Not sure I can keep this level of interest until 10 September


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2015)

drop out any time you like.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Is it an absolute truth that no party could win in the UK on a left leaning prospectus?


"_Absolute truth_"?
That would seem to take us on quite an important philosophical route?


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2015)

Jane Austen said:
			
		

> It is a truth universally acknowledged that a left wing leader in possession of the Labour Party will always be in want of an electoral victory


----------



## discokermit (Jul 23, 2015)

chilango said:


> ...and, being thoughtful for one moment, it matters not that this circus may entrance the few thousand dreamers into more Labour led fantasies, change isn't coming from or through them anyway.
> 
> Change, when it comes, is coming from somewhere else. Somewhere that isn't busy watching this sideshow.


where? where will this change come from?
because, to be quite honest, i'm seeing fuck all evidence of anything.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Is it an absolute truth that no party could win in the UK on a left leaning prospectus?


I think it would have been true for a few years either side of the millenium. Things have changed now. This is what the nu-labour pricks haven't recognised. The economy has changed, forcing lower wages, workfare and (in some areas) absurd house prices on young people who can't see any prospect of things improving. Most of those young people don't vote. Someone who could get them out to vote, in alliance with the old labourites, could conceivably win I reckon. Of course they'd still end up trounced by neo-liberals on every side and fail to do what they'd promised, but I don' t see it as impossible to get the win.


----------



## chilango (Jul 23, 2015)

discokermit said:


> where? where will this change come from?
> because, to be quite honest, i'm seeing fuck all evidence of anything.



Me neither. I probably won't until it's well under way.

Change is inevitable though. 

Things as they are not sustainable. They never were. But less than ever now.

What form it takes, where - exactly - it comes from and the direction it goes is beyond me.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 23, 2015)

that's alright then. i'll get back to my crossword.


----------



## chilango (Jul 23, 2015)

discokermit said:


> that's alright then. i'll get back to my crossword.





May as well.

More satisfying than pinning hopes on Corbyn.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 23, 2015)

i'll get the kettle on and await the ukip revolution.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 23, 2015)

discokermit said:


> that's alright then. i'll get back to my crossword.



7 down - Blue Flower (4)


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2015)

iris.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 23, 2015)

killer b said:


> iris.



Nope. I will "like" the correct answer.


----------



## chilango (Jul 23, 2015)

discokermit said:


> that's alright then. i'll get back to my crossword.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2015)

chilango said:


> May as well.
> 
> More satisfying than pinning hopes on Corbyn.


at this point we can hope that he gets the leadership and tries to do the stuff he says he is about, thusly trolling the labour right with aplomb.

They'll naill him on the 'friend of the terrorist' thing though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Not sure I can keep this level of interest until 10 September



Methinks Corbynmania may have peaked too soon


----------



## gosub (Jul 23, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Hmmm




That does more damage to Mr Mann's efforts on paedophilia (which could have been called worthy) than to Mr Corbyn.


----------



## Patteran (Jul 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> at this point we can hope that he gets the leadership and tries to do the stuff he says he is about, thusly trolling the labour right with aplomb.
> 
> They'll naill him on the* 'friend of the terrorist'* thing though.



This - I'm Facebook friends with a pro-Kendall ex-Labour party insider & speech writer, & this seems to be the current line of attack - 'observed a minute's silence for terrorists shot dead by SAS, invited Adams & McGuinness to parliament while they were still pulling body parts out of the Grand Hotel, puts ideology before country' etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2015)

Patteran said:


> This - I'm Facebook friends with a pro-Kendall ex-Labour party insider & speech writer, & this seems to be the current line of attack - 'observed a minute's silence for terrorists shot dead by SAS, invited Adams & McGuinness to parliament while they were still pulling body parts out of the Grand Hotel, puts ideology before country' etc.


its worth remembering that, when any walt tells you they never went gloves off in NI. Yes they bloody well did, and it was disasterous


----------



## sihhi (Jul 23, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn doesn't represent me. My mum, me and plenty others want the nationalisation of all private (grant-maintained, foundation, grammar and academy) schools. He apparently offers a 'greater relationship of control' between councils and private schools. 

Already before he has even entered the final stage he has backed down on a 1980 Conference decision - nationalisation with compensation based on need of private education.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 23, 2015)

xslavearcx said:


> In the star and garter pub in maryhill ... Where the thistle 'ultras' drink (of the north stand) ... Pub also runs a Celtic supporters bus too ...



Been in there a few tines before games at Firhill, always more of us in there than Thistle.

Thistle 'ultras'? Hahahaha

I suppose they have to go somewhere to hide.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 23, 2015)

chilango said:


> Me neither. I probably won't until it's well under way.
> 
> Change is inevitable though.
> 
> ...


Yep. This afternoon I was reading Iglesias' NLR piece "Understanding Podemos" and few phrases seemed to resonate at this time when the LP appears to be undergoing a slow and agonising demise.



> In Gramsci’s classic definition, hegemony is the power of the leading elites to convince subaltern groups that they share the same interests, including them within a general consensus, albeit in a subordinate role. _*Loss of that hegemony creates an organic crisis*_, which can manifest itself in the failure of the ruling institutions—including the mainstream political parties—to preserve and renew their legitimacy.





> When our adversaries dub us the ‘radical left’ and try, incessantly, to identify us with its symbols, _*they push us onto terrain where their victory is easier.*_ Our most important political-discursive task was to contest the symbolic structure of positions, to fight for the ‘terms of the conversation’. In politics, those who decide the terms of the contest determine much of its outcome. This has nothing to do with ‘abandoning principles’ or ‘moderation’, but with the assumption that unless we ourselves define the terrain of ideological struggle, it will limit the discursive repertoire at our disposal.





> *The old political parties in Spain appear to the citizens as little more than machines for getting access to the state administration by electoral means. *In fact the elections that followed the 15-M movement had the feeling of an optical illusion: *politicians and parties that were utterly discredited, perceived as the main problem by the citizens,* were apparently inescapable, still dominating the realm of formal democracy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...used-of-inaction-over-paedophile-scandal.html


This will go well. Hodge? Harman? Mann's on to a loser.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 23, 2015)

Ha by ultras I mean vocal standing fans - they would hate that term ha ha ...

Think pubs in maryhill often have that differential between their bigger Glasgow rivals come to play at firhill in the pubs in maryhill - I don't really think there are any exclusively jags pubs in general reflecting the size of our support in the city of rangers and Celtic...

Always been an ok relationship between jags fans and Celtic fans there - the management of the pub are Celtic if memory serves me correctly but have very good relationship with thistle fans.. Been in there a couple of times there on non. Match days and spoken to the regulars there and although most are Celtic a lot have memories of going to firhill as kids or have a family member who are thistle ... Think it kinda goes back to the days when thistle and Clyde were 'old firms' peeps second team the days before either traveling away became the norm for a football supporter and thus second teams would get supporters when first team were playing away... Also tv I thinks impacted on that dimension of smaller Glasgow teams having that type of spectator... Not to mention the hardening of team loyalties which alas I think have made firhill a more hostile environment for those have another Glasgow first team...

Eta in response to Fedayn s post


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> That does more damage to Mr Mann's efforts on paedophilia (which could have been called worthy) than to Mr Corbyn.



Three words. Margaret Fucking Hodge. 

Corbyn asked to have a photo with me and some mates outside Parliament the night of the Iraq vote. And we're likely domestic extremists.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> That does more damage to Mr Mann's efforts on paedophilia (which could have been called worthy) than to Mr Corbyn.



Yes, for a minute there I almost had a small amount of respect for John Mann. But using the issue as a political football is cuntishness of the first order.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 23, 2015)

I don't think Mr Mann or anyone from the Cooper campaign who sanctioned the smear has read this.


> Finally, in my own borough there have been complaints about Islington children’s homes in the past and the council has investigated them. The council is in a very different place now, but nevertheless it welcomes the inquiry and will co-operate with it. As the Home Secretary is fully aware, many of the children who were abused in children’s homes also went to homes in other parts of the country—in some cases to the Channel Islands. It is therefore very important that the inquiry is able to investigate across local authority administrative areas and, indeed, across jurisdictions to ascertain what happened, tragically, to many very vulnerable young children who were taken to homes in the Channel Islands.
> http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/in-parliament-child-abuse/



Inaction, eh? 

If you're going to go to smear someone, it helps to actually do some background reading before going off half-cocked.


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> It helps to actually do some background reading before going off half-cocked.



'Twas always thus with the ruling clique of the Labour Party, though, as the people of Iraq can attest to.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 23, 2015)

On the ball article in the Indie

*The last thing Labour needs is a leader like Jeremy Corbyn who people want to vote for*
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...byn-who-people-want-to-vote-for-10411466.html


----------



## youngian (Jul 23, 2015)

John Mann's tacky intervention shows he's not getting Corbyn; however much mud you sling at him he still remains the grown-up who debates the issues. Negative campaigning may work in a GE because the parasitic media feeds off it and that is the prism voters see the agenda through. The media is almost irrelevant in an election of politically active voters. Burnham by contrast to the Blairites is being much smarter in the way he is engaging with Corbyn.


----------



## JimW (Jul 23, 2015)

Favelado said:


> 7 down - Blue Flower (4)


Nile


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 23, 2015)

Thanks to Hatterly, Blair, Mann etc I'm well tempted to pay my 3 quid and vote Corbyn. But if I become a ''supporter'' am I likely to get hassled for donations or to attend meetings? You know the way you get hassled by SWP, SPers if you sign one of their flipping petitions...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 24, 2015)

The lp arent getting any of my money.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 24, 2015)

I don't think I can bring myself to do it tbh...


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 24, 2015)

I feel dirty even thinking about it...


----------



## Favelado (Jul 24, 2015)

JimW said:


> Nile



Well done Jim.


----------



## JimW (Jul 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Well done Jim.


It's a bit of a crossword classic isn't it? Sure I've seen it before.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 24, 2015)

youngian said:


> John Mann's tacky intervention shows he's not getting Corbyn; however much mud you sling at him he still remains the *grown-up who debates the issues*. Negative campaigning may work in a GE because the parasitic media feeds off it and that is the prism voters see the agenda through. The media is almost irrelevant in an election of politically active voters. Burnham by contrast to the Blairites is being much smarter in the way he is engaging with Corbyn.



Bolded bit especially : spot on


----------



## Favelado (Jul 24, 2015)

JimW said:


> It's a bit of a crossword classic isn't it? Sure I've seen it before.



Yeah. I saw it in article about doing crosswords.


----------



## JimW (Jul 24, 2015)

Just read this BBC article which you might think would be some of their famous 'balance' from the headline (e.g. bit about how left policies might engage the disaffected as mentioned up thread etc) but can only fill the second half with people saying what a disaster and return to the 80s he'd be and some polling that the wider country prefers Burnham: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33646068


----------



## free spirit (Jul 24, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Thanks to Hatterly, Blair, Mann etc I'm well tempted to pay my 3 quid and vote Corbyn. But if I become a ''supporter'' am I likely to get hassled for donations or to attend meetings? You know the way you get hassled by SWP, SPers if you sign one of their flipping petitions...


you'll get a fair few emails, just add them to your junk filter.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

grauniad really entering the fray to kill off corbyn:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...could-cause-sdp-style-labour-split-says-donor


----------



## ska invita (Jul 24, 2015)

Wilf said:


> grauniad really entering the fray to kill off corbyn:
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...could-cause-sdp-style-labour-split-says-donor


"John Mills, one of party’s biggest benefactors, says wealthy supporters could withdraw backing if leftwinger wins leadership election"...."A donor to the Kendall campaign, Mills "


----------



## ska invita (Jul 24, 2015)

"Rich, private school, Oxford. Meet John Mills, Labour's biggest donor"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d.-Meet-John-Mills-Labours-biggest-donor.html

Actually that headline misses some of the more subtle bits of who he is and what he is about, but still...

My favourite bit from that is "Mills [...] perhaps fortunately doesn’t believe in donors “pushing their weight around because they have the money”


----------



## gosub (Jul 24, 2015)

ska invita said:


> "John Mills, one of party’s biggest benefactors, says wealthy supporters could withdraw backing if leftwinger wins leadership election"...."A donor to the Kendall campaign, Mills "





ska invita said:


> "Rich, private school, Oxford. Meet John Mills, Labour's biggest donor"
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d.-Meet-John-Mills-Labours-biggest-donor.html
> 
> Actually that headline misses some of the more subtle bits of who he is and what he is about, but still...
> ...



That bastard Corbyn, forcing millionaires to abandon their principles .


----------



## JTG (Jul 24, 2015)

Friend of a friend spoke in favour of Corbyn at Streatham CLP last night. Apparently despite loads of Chuka groupies being bussed in, Kendall still only beat Corbyn by a couple of votes for the CLP nomination


----------



## ska invita (Jul 24, 2015)

JTG said:


> Friend of a friend spoke in favour of Corbyn at Streatham CLP last night. Apparently despite loads of Chuka groupies being bussed in, Kendall still only beat Corbyn by a couple of votes for the CLP nomination


i didnt understand that - isnt it one member one vote? what were these votes?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 24, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn could be prime minster - Ken Livingstone
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33649251


> Ken Livingstone has defended Labour leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn's electoral appeal, saying the left-winger could be prime minister.
> 
> Labour's ex-London mayor said he would not back the Islington North MP if he did not think he could win.
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

ska invita said:


> i didnt understand that - isnt it one member one vote? what were these votes?


CLP nominations are just indicative


----------



## youngian (Jul 24, 2015)

ska invita said:


> "Rich, private school, Oxford. Meet John Mills, Labour's biggest donor"
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d.-Meet-John-Mills-Labours-biggest-donor.html
> My favourite bit from that is "Mills [...] perhaps fortunately doesn’t believe in donors “pushing their weight around because they have the money”



He was invited along with Dr David Death on Newsnight to confirm the BBC's narrative that this is the 80s civil war repeating itself and failed miserably to get them to do so. 

Most centrist Labour lefties like myself who are not backing Corbyn for leader are highly impressed with the standard of debate he has bought to the party. The media is still absolutely baffled why MPs who are not backing Corbyn nominated them and think still think it was a damned good move (see Burnham supporter Dawn Butler's interview with Sky fuckwit Kay Burley). 

And ironically its the Blairites having the 80s style Hatton/Heffer hissy fits. I was in Streatham CLP in 2010, they were pleased to have a rising star as the new MP but if Umunna thinks he take anyone with him in a SDP style breakaway party he needs his head examining.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> The lp arent getting any of my money.


Blair will be please to hear it


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Blair will be please to hear it


Don't you fucking dare.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Don't you ducking dare.


I will fucking dare - anyone who is so sectarian as to stand on the sidelines is playing into the hands of the most reactionary neoliberal wing of the Labour hierarchy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> at this point we can hope that he gets the leadership and tries to do the stuff he says he is about, thusly trolling the labour right with aplomb.
> 
> They'll naill him on the 'friend of the terrorist' thing though.



Because Blair didn't shake hands with Gadaffi Duck or anything obscene like that (which properly should have been left to his Foreign Secretary, but big Tone wanted the kudos and the photo-op), did he?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I will fucking dare - anyone who is so sectarian as to stand on the sidelines is playing into the hands of the most reactionary neoliberal wing of the Labour hierarchy


Fuck off,  you're back with your oh the bnp will be very glad to hear that you're voting no to AV. Disgusting. 

Hear that everyone,  give labour three quid or you're a Blair loving reactionary neoliberal. You never ever learn do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

I think you've just made up a lot of people's mind there.  Well done.


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2015)

Comical stuff. Either with us or against us, eh?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I will fucking dare - anyone who is so sectarian as to stand on the sidelines is playing into the hands of the most reactionary neoliberal wing of the Labour hierarchy



Are you on a wind up?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

frankly Corbyn can win without the support of a handful of sectarian ultra-lefts in any case.  I won't waste my breath


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I will fucking dare - anyone who is so sectarian as to stand on the sidelines is playing into the hands of the most reactionary neoliberal wing of the Labour hierarchy


Anyone who votes for Corbyn is potentially condemning Britain to another ten years of Tory government at least.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2015)

Join the Labour Party or you're supporting Tony Blair.

Awesome.


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I will fucking dare - anyone who is so sectarian as to stand on the sidelines is playing into the hands of the most reactionary neoliberal wing of the Labour hierarchy





> On Thursday Mr Corbyn responded to his critics by calling for an end to "silly remarks".
> 
> He told the BBC: "I think politics should be conducted on a comradely and friendly basis, and if people disagree with each other then say what they disagree on, and let's keep these silly remarks to themselves."


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Join the Labour Party or you're supporting Tony Blair.
> 
> Awesome.


Not "join" the Labour party - pay £3 to become a registered supporter on a one-off basis


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 24, 2015)

I dont like the lp and dont agree with their politics. Good luck to corbyn et al but its nothing to do with being sectarian. Ill keep my £3 thanks.


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2015)

...or you're supporting tony blair


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Anyone who votes for Corbyn is potentially condemning Britain to another ten years of Tory government at least.


Not.  at.  all.  Who are you supporting?  Burnham?  Cooper?  Kendall?!!!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I dont like the lp and dont agree with their politics. Good luck to corbyn et al but its nothing to do with being sectarian. Ill keep my £3 thanks.



Don't get going round no working class areas saying that - they'll never forgive your ultra left sectarianism


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not "join" the Labour party - pay £3 to become a registered supporter on a one-off basis



A registered supporter of the Labour Party. Right. Or you're supporting Tony Blair.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> A registered supporter of the Labour Party. Right. Or you're supporting Tony Blair.



The litmus test.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Don't get going round no working class areas saying that - they'll never forgive your ultra left sectarianism


I really don't understand people who say "good luck to Corbyn but I'm not going to lift a finger to help"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

Another blazingly successful and on the ball contribution there a8. How many people thinking about it have you just driven away I wonder?  And you're paid to do this stuff. An expert in it.  You really really don't sound like a teenage swap chest prodder at all.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I really don't understand people who say "good luck to Corbyn but I'm not going to lift a finger to help"



Well there's basic honesty for starters, which is perhaps alien to you:

"I agree that the Labour Party and its elected representatives may contact me using the data supplied. I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it."


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

driven away my arse - sectarians will stand aside and always would have.  You're right though, there are some people it's not even worth engaging with.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I really don't understand people who say "good luck to Corbyn but I'm not going to lift a finger to help"



Doesn't what just happened in Greece make you reconsider the utility of electoral politics?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well there's basic honesty for starters, which is perhaps alien to you:
> 
> "I agree that the Labour Party and its elected representatives may contact me using the data supplied. I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it."



the data issue is a red herring - tell them to unsubscribe you after and if they don't tell the Information Commissioner.  As to the other, a tactical white lie would do no harm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Blair will be please to hear it



Will he?
Is that how far you've sunk, that you'll use a bogeyman in an attempt to influence events?
If so, you're no better than Blair, who did exactly that a few days ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

This is our generations battle. With us or against us. I want to build up extra-parliamentary power outside the labour party.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I really don't understand people who say "good luck to Corbyn but I'm not going to lift a finger to help"



Why should i give money to and join a party i dont agree with???


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Doesn't what just happened in Greece make you reconsider the utility of electoral politics?


It has limits - I'd never advocate a purely or primarily electoral politics.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why should i give money to and join a party i dont agree with???


to change it?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

I'm not giving labour £3.  That makes me 27% worse than Harold Shipman.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is our generations battle. With us or against us. I want to build up extra-parliamentary power outside the labour party.


I do.  They aren't mutually exclusive


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why should i give money to and join a party i dont agree with???


Because Tony Blair. Might as well bung the Tories a few quid as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> to change it?



Hows that working out?


----------



## Fingers (Jul 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Anyone who votes for Corbyn is potentially condemning Britain to another ten years of Tory government at least.



And potentially condemning the Tories to some real opposition as opposed to Tory Lite opposition.  If I wanted unopposed Tory policies i would have voted Tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I do.  They aren't mutually exclusive


Amazing,  I bung in a Cameron quote,  a bush quote and one of his. He agrees with them all.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

The Corbyn campaign is a like the Scotland effect but inside the Labour party - it's gathering into a mass movement against austerity and picking up support from thousands of otherwise alienated young people. Not channeling them into dead-end internal Labour politics but challenging the foundations of the power structures


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It has limits - I'd never advocate a purely or primarily electoral politics.



Fair enough, I wouldn't castigate you for getting involved.  To me though, the LP is just too soaked in blood to touch these days.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 24, 2015)

Im not joining the labour party and giving it £3 just to vote for someone who in my view can change very little within the party let alone outside.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

It's like Milhouse demanding money from you isn't it?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The Corbyn campaign is a like the Scotland effect but inside the Labour party



I hear you like Scotland so much that I _put Scotland inside your Labour Party_...


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Fair enough, I wouldn't castigate you for getting involved.  To me though, the LP is just too soaked in blood to touch these days.


it's been soaked in blood from an early stage - always committed to imperialism.  That's not true of all activists though


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

By the way artic, you condemn people for not being willing to give your party £3, whereas you, presumably, are giving the party £46.50* - the party that has just voted for the welfare bill.  The bill that will kill people. You are actively supporting that.

* what looks to be the full membership cost


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Some people really don't want to see a radical Left leadership of the party - they want to confirm their own ideological purity on the sidelines whilst working class people despair


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Wilf said:


> By the way artic, you condemn people for not being willing to give your party £3, whereas you, presumably, are giving the party £46.50* - the party that has just voted for the welfare bill.  The bill that will kill people. You are actively supporting that.
> 
> * what looks to be the full membership cost


It didn't vote for the Welfare Bill - factually inaccurate.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 24, 2015)

So why should i join a party thats soaked in blood and supports imperialism?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It didn't vote for the Welfare Bill - factually inaccurate.



Could have defeated it, but chose not to. Is that better?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Could have defeated it, but chose not to. Is that better?


How could it have defeated it?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 24, 2015)

I give up


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Some people really don't want to see a radical Left leadership of the party - they want to confirm their own ideological purity on the sidelines whilst working class people despair



Some people don't believe that Corbyn would really represent a true radical Left leadership and/or don't believe that such a thing would make a significant difference to the despair many working class people are feeling.

But that's coz we support Tony Blair, innit


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> How could it have defeated it?



By voting against it and encouraging others to do so?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> So why should i join a party thats soaked in blood and supports imperialism?


because it's also a party which historically has won mass support from working class people, and provides the best basis for re-engaging millions of people with socialist ideas, with a hard left anti-imperialist core that can develop out of it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Not.  at.  all.  Who are you supporting?  Burnham?  Cooper?  Kendall?!!!


Burnham.

Please explain what programme Corbyn and his chums will present for winning power in 2020 - which is the only reason the party - any large party - exists.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> By voting against it and encouraging others to do so?


Encouraging Tories to vote against their own Bill?  Now who's being naive?  (I think they ought to have voted against 2nd reading, but let's not pretend it's what would have stopped it stone dead).


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> because it's also a party which historically has won mass support from working class people, and provides the best basis for re-engaging millions of people with socialist ideas, with a hard left anti-imperialist core that can develop out of it.



I disagree


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Burnham


who abstained on the Welfare Bill?  Is coming out with anti-immigration rhetoric?  Who supports the benefit cap?  Who is on the board of Progress?   Nah, he's blown it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> because it's also a party which* historically *has won mass support from working class people, and provides the best basis for re-engaging millions of people with socialist ideas, with a hard left anti-imperialist core that can develop out of it.


Sadly, I think that's the most important word in that sentence.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> who abstained on the Welfare Bill?  Is coming out with anti-immigration rhetoric?  Who supports the benefit cap?  Who is on the board of Progress?   Nah, he's blown it.


What you or I think doesn't really matter - Labour needs to win in the battleground seats while keeping enough of it's traditional supporters on board where they risk being lost to UKIP. I don't see Corbyn or Kendall offering a programme or the leadership and charisma to do either of those things.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Please explain what programme Corbyn and his chums will present for winning power in 2020 - which is the only reason the party - any large party - exists.



a) I don't think it's Corbyn's intention to contest the next election. I think he'll aim to stay for 2 years - open up the structures of the party to give members a real say, shift the entire policy direction, and then bring on a successor who will be more telegenic and "prime ministerial".

b) I think that the biggest barrier to Labour getting elected is the perception that they're all the same.  Why vote for a party which doesn't show any sign of knowing what it believes or where it's going?   

c) By offering a radical anti-austerity alternative it can win back support from the SNP, Greens, UKIP, and non-voters - even some people who voted Tory last time might respect a party that has a clear sense of purpose and direction.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It didn't vote for the Welfare Bill - factually inaccurate.


Yes, factually incorrect, but utterly true in terms of the politics of that vote. They refused to attack a bill, an approach to the deficit, austerity, the whole fucking thing. They were more worried about positioning themselves as reasonable, tory-lite, neoliberal pragmatists that they ended up unable to attack something as misery inducing as the welfare bill.  Being against all that isn't ideological purity - for one thing it's about basic fucking decency.  However, for your ongoing delusion of some future leftist coup in the party, you'd rather stay on the side of austerity=death.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Encouraging Tories to vote against their own Bill?  Now who's being naive?  (I think they ought to have voted against 2nd reading, but let's not pretend it's what would have stopped it stone dead).



Better to sit on your hands.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

I wonder, is spanky a blairite neoliberal reactionary for voting but not for Corbyn?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder, is spanky a blairite neoliberal reactionary for voting but not for Corbyn?


The party grandees will be breathing a huge sigh of relief if Burnham wins - and we'll end up going into the election on a Tory-lite manifesto of welfare attacks, austerity and getting tough on immigration. And we'll lose, and deserve to.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The party grandees will be breathing a huge sigh of relief if Burnham wins - and we'll end up going into the election on a Tory-lite manifesto of welfare attacks, austerity and getting tough on immigration. And we'll lose, and deserve to.


Answer the question. 

And do people not only have to give the labour party money but also vote the way you instruct them to to avoid being an ultra left sectarian Blairite neoliberal?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Yes, factually incorrect, but utterly true in terms of the politics of that vote. They refused to attack a bill, an approach to the deficit, austerity, the whole fucking thing. They were more worried about positioning themselves as reasonable, tory-lite, neoliberal pragmatists that they ended up unable to attack something as misery inducing as the welfare bill.  Being against all that isn't ideological purity - for one thing it's about basic fucking decency.  However, for your ongoing delusion of some future leftist coup in the party, you'd rather stay on the side of austerity=death.



I am fighting for Labour to be much more radical in opposing austerity and welfare reform.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The party grandees will be breathing a huge sigh of relief if Burnham wins - and we'll end up going into the election on a Tory-lite manifesto of welfare attacks, austerity and getting tough on immigration. And we'll lose, and deserve to.


Why would anyone take seriously the predictions of a member or supporter of the LRC? An organisation that has successfully reduced it's own membership year on year since it was founded?

You say you're looking for a Scotland effect but you haven't explained how Jezza can initiate that - how will he open up the party? He will be sucked into rows about Syria, and immigration and welfare for a year or two before being deposed or resigning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I really don't understand people who say "good luck to Corbyn but I'm not going to lift a finger to help"



Because you're a fuckwit.
It's really quite simple - it's not incumbent on non-party members to enter party democracy in order to influence who wins. We may (or may not) think "well, it'd put the cat among the Labour pigeons if he won", but what would it actually change, given the stated aim of the PLP rightists to mount a _coup_ against him (and we *know* that they'd do it, too) if he wins?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I am fighting for Labour to be much more radical in opposing austerity and welfare reform.


But labour isn't fighting austerity and welfare reform, it supports them,


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I am fighting for Labour to be much more radical in opposing austerity and welfare reform.



What will that look like in practice? How will a few votes in parliament which lose anyway make an impact on building a mass movement for something better?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why would anyone take seriously the predictions of a member or supporter of the LRC? An organisation that has successfully reduced it's own membership year on year since it was founded?
> 
> You say you're looking for a Scotland effect but you haven't explained how Jezza can initiate that - how will he open up the party? He will be sucked into rows about Syria, and immigration and welfare for a year or two before being deposed or resigning.



The LRC's organisation model isn't fit for purpose - but it's politics most certainly are, and are at the heart of JC's campaign.   I expect the labour left to relaunch itself organisationally out of this, and on a much more substantial footing.

The fact of him winning would be the equivalent to the scottish radical insurgency - he'd face a fight, of course.  But I genuinely don't think plodding on with the others is any kind of strategy for success.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What will that look like in practice? How will a few votes in parliament which lose anyway make an impact on building a mass movement for something better?



When people think someone is speaking up for them, fighting for their interests, they are much more likely to get involved at a practical level to build support for them?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Blair will be please to hear it



Cunt.


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The party grandees will be breathing a huge sigh of relief if Burnham wins - and we'll end up going into the election on a Tory-lite manifesto of welfare attacks, austerity and getting tough on immigration. And we'll lose, and deserve to.



I pretty much agree with your prediction here, TBH.

What I don't agree with is your idea that it can all be avoided by a handful of people here who you've dismissed as "sectarians sitting confirming their own ideological purity on on the sidelines" forking over a few quid and voting for your mate Jeremy. That bit is simply ridiculous.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Wilf said:


> But labour isn't fighting austerity and welfare reform, it supports them,


at the leadership level - which is why we need to change the leadership!


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

andysays said:


> I pretty much agree with your prediction here, TBH.
> 
> What I don't agree with is your idea that it can all be avoided by a handful of people here who you've dismissed as "sectarians sitting confirming their own ideological purity on on the sidelines" forking over a few quid and voting for your mate Jeremy. That bit is simply ridulous.



No, you're right in the sense that actually the anarcho/libertarian left is so marginal as to make very little difference ot anything.  But the rules of the game mean there is a real opportunity for people who want a radical anti-austerity debate to be driven into the heart of the political "mainstream" to put their money where their mouths are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Some people really don't want to see a radical Left leadership of the party - they want to confirm their own ideological purity on the sidelines whilst working class people despair



Who are you to speak for working class people, bubble-boy?
The only reason I might stir myself to invest 3 quid is because a Corbyn victory is likely to cause the Labour right to do stupid things that will alienate the vast majority of the electorate even further from the red Tory cunts. *That* would almost be worth 3 quid.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

andysays said:


> Some people don't believe that Corbyn would really represent a true radical Left leadership



^^^^^This^^^^^


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

oh right, Corbyn is a left reformist traitor-in-waiting.  I see.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> How could it have defeated it?



It's not about winning, it's about taking the fight to the opposition. Your Parliamentary party didn't do that - only 48 Labour MPs had the bollocks and the wit to do "the right thing". The rest are now hiding behind the fiction that abstaining is meaningful opposition. It isn't, it's opting out of a battle people have elected you to fight.
Shit on you all.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not about winning, it's about taking the fight to the opposition. Your Parliamentary party didn't do that - only 48 Labour MPs had the bollocks and the wit to do "the right thing". The rest are now hiding behind the fiction that abstaining is meaningful opposition. It isn't, it's opting out of a battle people have elected you to fight.
> Shit on you all.


When there's a chance of electing a leader who would certainly be "taking the fight to the opposition" why wouldn't you support it (or you might do, good - whatever the reasoning).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> because it's also a party which historically has won mass support from working class people, and provides the best basis for re-engaging millions of people with socialist ideas, with a hard left anti-imperialist core that can develop out of it.



I'm glad you mentioned historical mass support. Labour mostly did that through supporting (often with gritted teeth) policies that supported the working class.
I'd say that the current farrago is indicative that Labour have chosen to ignore history. Why would *anyone* want to engage with creeps who ignore their core support in order to suck the dribblings from capitalist cock?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> No, you're right in the sense that actually the anarcho/libertarian left is so marginal as to make very little difference ot anything.  But the rules of the game mean there is a real opportunity for people who want a radical anti-austerity debate to be driven into the heart of the political "mainstream" to put their money where their mouths are.


yes. but they're not going to have anything to do with the austerity-supporting labour party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Answer the question.
> 
> And do people not only have to give the labour party money but also vote the way you instruct them to to avoid being an ultra left sectarian Blairite neoliberal?


Will you answer this and the previous question that you avoided please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I am fighting for Labour to be much more radical in opposing austerity and welfare reform.


you're not fighting very effectively, are you. how many years have you been fighting for?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> When there's a chance of electing a leader who would certainly be "taking the fight to the opposition" why wouldn't you support it (or you might do, good - whatever the reasoning).



What point electing a leader who'll be deposed (and your party as you know it destroyed) in short order by Labour's neoliberalists?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> because it's also a party which historically has won mass support from working class people, and provides the best basis for re-engaging millions of people with socialist ideas, with a hard left anti-imperialist core that can develop out of it.


first of all, of course, you have to re-engage the labour party with socialist ideas: how's that going?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> oh right, Corbyn is a left reformist traitor-in-waiting.  I see.



Corbyn is a radical social democrat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> oh right, Corbyn is a left reformist traitor-in-waiting.  I see.



He's a committed member of the Labour Party, therefore he is by definition a "reformist".


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The LRC's organisation model isn't fit for purpose - but it's politics most certainly are, and are at the heart of JC's campaign.   I expect the labour left to relaunch itself organisationally out of this, and on a much more substantial footing.
> 
> The fact of him winning would be the equivalent to the scottish radical insurgency - he'd face a fight, of course.  But I genuinely don't think plodding on with the others is any kind of strategy for success.  Quite the opposite.


i'll tell you a little secret. christ's second coming will happen before labour turn socialist.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's a committed member of the Labour Party, therefore he is by definition a "reformist".



The economic strategy he outline this week and which he is campaigning on is basically Keynesian. So if you don't support him you are Tony Blair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The economic strategy he outline this week and which he is campaigning on is basically Keynesian. So if you don't support him you are Tony Blair.



Well, I *am* a pretty straight kinda guy!


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> No, you're right in the sense that actually the anarcho/libertarian left is so marginal as to make very little difference ot anything.  But the rules of the game mean there is a real opportunity for people who want a radical anti-austerity debate to be driven into the heart of the political "mainstream" to put their money where their mouths are.



I wouldn't describe myself as 'anarcho/libertarian left' (whilst I have shifted significantly to the left in recent years from being democratic socialist), but your fucking divisive, snidey, bubble bullshit (again) this morning has really pissed me off. How about looking at the fucking mess inside the Labour Party (those who are already galvanising in numbers to stop Corbyn winning/or plotting to unseat him if he does), not directing your ire towards those of us electorate/past Labour supporters who might or might not vote for him (my heart says to vote, my head says no, my head's winning the battle right now).

You really are the worst purveyor of 'how to win and influence people' I've ever seen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I wouldn't describe myself as 'anarcho/libertarian left' (whilst I have shifted significantly to the left in recent years from being democratic socialist), but your fucking divisive, snidey, bubble bullshit (again) this morning has really pissed me off. How about looking at the fucking mess inside the Labour Party (those who are already galvanising in numbers to stop Corbyn winning/or plotting to unseat him if he does), not directing your ire towards those of us electorate/past Labour supporters who might or might not vote for him (my heart says to vote, my head says no).
> 
> You really are the worst purveyor of 'how to win and influence people' I've ever seen.


tbh watching articul8 talk about the labour party is a bit like watching someone in an abusive relationship. they get smacked and smacked and smacked but STILL they think they can change things round.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, I *am* a pretty straight kinda guy!


(Look, y'know)


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll tell you a little secret. christ's second coming will happen before labour turn socialist.



No, no, according to articul8's thinking, Corbyn is the new messiah who will save us all (check his initials for confirmation  )


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The economic strategy he outline this week and which he is campaigning on is basically Keynesian. So if you don't support him you are Tony Blair.



Of course it's entirely legitimate to mount a left critique of his ideas - and if he was putting forward that programme at in some immediately pre-revolutionary context it would really matter.  But from where we are now, it's a hell of sight healthier than what the rest of the candidates are arguing.   Arguing that austerity is a political choice rather than an economic inevitability etc....

The fact that he's come from rank outsider to front runner is an indication of the anger inside and outside the party at how fucking useless the leadership has been on any of these questions.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

Wilf said:


> (Look, y'know)



It's no time for soundbites - but I think articul8 feels the hand of history on JC's shoulder....


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

[edit - silly response]


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's a committed member of the Labour Party, therefore he is by definition a "reformist".


not at all - Militant were "committed members of the LP" but not reformists


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> [edit - silly response]


Finally!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> not at all - Militant were "committed members of the LP" but not reformists


No, they were entryists, so not committed members of the labour party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> [yeh but there's no refuge and have to think about the kids]


yeh, i meant to mention that. these would be the kids who have had to pay fees at university, fees brought in by er the labour party (and of course the nus which might have supported the kids had under the leadership of labour's jim murphy moved away in 1995 from its position of a return from maintenance loans to grants and benefits). not to mention the way the labour party's done such a shit job of representing young people for the past five years let alone the past 20.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> But from where we are now, it's a hell of sight healthier than what the rest of the candidates are arguing.   Arguing that austerity is a political choice rather than an economic inevitability etc....



Agreed. Pretty much everyone on here would acknowledge that/have said it. 

But to suggest that, on that basis, unless you join Labour and vote for him you are a Blairite/ultra left sectarian is frankly idiotic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> not at all - Militant were "committed members of the LP" but not reformists



Militant weren't committed Labourites, they were entryists using the Labour party as a structure for assuming a degree of political power.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, i meant to mention that. these would be the kids who have had to pay fees at university, fees brought in by er the labour party (and of course the nus which might have supported the kids had under the leadership of labour's jim murphy moved away in 1995 from its position of a return from maintenance loans to grants and benefits). not to mention the way the labour party's done such a shit job of representing young people for the past five years let alone the past 20.



yes but it's young people who are especially responding the JC's campaign - they do understand more than anyone that we need to turn the page on the New Labour years and have a LP that really fights for their interests.  First thing JC should do if he gets in - refound LPYS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Of course it's entirely legitimate to mount a left critique of his ideas - and if he was putting forward that programme at in some immediately pre-revolutionary context it would really matter.  But from where we are now, it's a hell of sight healthier than what the rest of the candidates are arguing.   Arguing that austerity is a political choice rather than an economic inevitability etc....
> 
> The fact that he's come from rank outsider to front runner is an indication of the anger inside and outside the party at how fucking useless the leadership has been on any of these questions.


everyone knows that austerity is a political choice. everyone also knows that corbyn would barely warm the leather of the front bench before he'd be chucked out by the tina tories in labour clothes. and will you leave the party if that happens? hell no! you'll stay in the party whining about how you're working to bring the lp back to its roots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> yes but it's young people who are especially responding the JC's campaign - they do understand more than anyone that we need to turn the page on the New Labour years and have a LP that really fights for their interests.  First thing JC should do if he gets in - refound LPYS.


the second thing will be to fight another leadership election.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Militant weren't committed Labourites, they were entryists using the Labour party as a structure for assuming a degree of political power.


so is JC but he's deeper in


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> so is JC but he's deeper in


the thing about entryists is it doesn't work if there's only one.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> everyone knows that austerity is a political choice. everyone also knows that corbyn would barely warm the leather of the front bench before he'd be chucked out by the tina tories in labour clothes. and will you leave the party if that happens? hell no! you'll stay in the party whining about how you're working to bring the lp back to its roots.



Depends on the circumstances - but bring that fight on.  A fight like that played out across the national media would be priceless for building a mass movement against the buggers


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the thing about entryists is it doesn't work if there's only one.


there are quite a lot - but less well organised and drilled than the Millies.  But the positive side is that we can't be picked off as easily.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> so is JC but he's deeper in



Sorry, that's bollocks. Corbyn isn't an entryist, he's a dyed-in-the-wool '70s Labourite social democrat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Depends on the circumstances - but bring that fight on.  A fight like that played out across the national media would be priceless for building a mass movement against the buggers


grand. have you noticed how long one of these labour leadership contests take? and how effective the labour party have been in opposition while it's all going on? and as a loyal labour party member you're saying, let's have another four months after that? 

bring it on.

destroy the labour party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

Jesus, the labour party as potential expression of _'hard left anti-imperialism'_ is just so out there that it might as well have been done a parody of some che wearing 14 year old middle class revo-socialist stereotype. Astonishing. To think that picarda has his feet more on the  ground than you as regards the labour party.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus, the labour party as potential expression of _'hard left anti-imperialism'_ is just so out there that it might as well have been done a parody of some che wearing 14 year old middle class revo-socialist stereotype. Astonishing. To think that picarda has his feet more on the  ground than you as regards the labour party.


I'm talking about what would be possible to begin building out of a revitalised party under a radical left leadership - of course it's a quantum leap from the party as it exists today.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm talking about what would be possible to begin building out of a revitalised party under a radical left leadership - of course it's a quantum leap from the party as it exists today.


you're delusional.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> there are quite a lot - but less well organised and drilled than the Millies.  But the positive side is that we can't be picked off as easily.



You, JC, McDonnell, Owen Jones, the soggy oggies, Abbot - what a fucking squad you've got. 

Have you considered asking Russell Brand to join up and vote?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm talking about what would be possible to begin building out of a revitalised party under a radical left leadership - of course it's a quantum leap from the party as it exists today.



How? Even the threat of Corbyn becoming leader has got the party in utter disarray and mobilised to try and prevent any kind of move leftwards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> there are quite a lot - but less well organised and drilled than the Millies.  But the positive side is that we can't be picked off as easily.


they don't need to pick you off. in fact you're quite useful on occasion, when you can be trotted out to bring in the lefty vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I'm talking about what would be possible to begin building out of a revitalised party under a radical left leadership - of course it's a quantum leap from the party as it exists today.


It's like the parodies The39thStep did of workers power and their workers militia. (Anyone still got them?)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> How? Even the threat of Corbyn becoming leader has got the party in utter disarray and mobilised to try and prevent any kind of move leftwards.


I think he's ably demonstrated the potential labour turning itself into an expression of hard-left anti-imperialism'. I think the voters have shown their interest in such a thing as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> they don't need to pick you off. in fact you're quite useful on occasion, when you can be trotted out to bring in the lefty vote.


Or make me think..._nah_.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I dont like the lp and dont agree with their politics. Good luck to corbyn et al but its nothing to do with being sectarian. Ill keep my £3 thanks.


Gotta wonder if this is just a fund-raising scam.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

_Give us the money or the kids get it.
_
He pretty much said that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You, JC, McDonnell, Owen Jones, the soggy oggies, Abbot - what a fucking squad you've got.
> 
> *Have you considered asking Russell Brand to join up and vote*?



he probably would as well, that'd be funny. You'd need to send Corbyn round to go on his shitty youtube show though, otherwise he will not be convinced


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 24, 2015)

J Ed said:


> This is... special. Is the likes of Kay Burley really what appeals these days?




I'd vote for Dawn over everyone else. She seems to handle this moronic interview pretty well plus she's gorgeous (am I allowed to say that ??)


----------



## marty21 (Jul 24, 2015)

the smear campaign against Corbyn is gathering pace, at least on twitter - just had an exchange with someone claiming that Corbyn did nothing about child abuse - tweeted him back saying that Corbyn is as culpable or not as most MPs over the last three or four decades since Dickens gave his dossier to Brittain


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 24, 2015)

Genuine question because, as ever, I'm spectacularly ignorant of such matters: what are they accusing him of not doing? From the little back and forth I've seen he opened an inquiry or two? What other options were available to him?

As others have said though, it seems like he did no less than others in similar situations, so at the very least it's a slightly risky attack strategy.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 24, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Genuine question because, as ever, I'm spectacularly ignorant of such matters: what are they accusing him of not doing? From the little back and forth I've seen he opened an inquiry or two? What other options were available to him?
> 
> As others have said though, it seems like he did no less than others in similar situations, so at the very least it's a slightly risky attack strategy.


 very risky - any of the candidates, particularly those who had cabinet positions could be accused of more


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Genuine question because, as ever, I'm spectacularly ignorant of such matters: what are they accusing him of not doing? From the little back and forth I've seen he opened an inquiry or two? What other options were available to him?
> 
> As others have said though, it seems like he did no less than others in similar situations, so at the very least it's a slightly risky attack strategy.


He's been accused of rubbishing dickens, of attacking his claims, hindering his research, of being fobbed off by abusers/enablers in council ran homes, and lying.

edit: this all concerning claims dickens made about corbyn's constituency.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 24, 2015)

Is the claim that he was aware of child abuse and did nothing?

eta: ok, question answered.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

marty21 said:


> the smear campaign against Corbyn is gathering pace, at least on twitter - just had an exchange with someone claiming that Corbyn did nothing about child abuse - tweeted him back saying that Corbyn is as culpable or not as most MPs over the last three or four decades since Dickens gave his dossier to Brittain


yeh because obviously dickens consulted corbyn or at the least told him what was in the files i suppose


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 24, 2015)

Has Corbyn responded to Mann's letter yet?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 24, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Has Corbyn responded to Mann's letter yet?


 he started it all ? Who is he backing?  will he be sending a similar letter to the other candidates who were cabinet members and more in a position to do something?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He's been accused of rubbishing dickens, of attacking his claims, hindering his research, of being fobbed off by abusers/enablers in council ran homes, and lying.
> 
> edit: this all concerning claims dickens made about corbyn's constituency.


Cheers. I actually thought I'd seen Mann's letter, but there's a lot in there I hadn't read so dunno what I was looking at before


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Has Corbyn responded to Mann's letter yet?


A spokesman has.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

marty21 said:


> he started it all ? Who is he backing?  will he be sending a similar letter to the other candidates who were cabinet members and more in a position to do something?


They weren't cabinet members in islington in the 80s! Mann letters make specific claims, they are not about MPs generally not doing anything about paedos.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He's been accused of rubbishing dickens, of attacking his claims, hindering his research, of being fobbed off by abusers/enablers in council ran homes, and lying.
> 
> edit: this all concerning claims dickens made about corbyn's constituency.


 yep, Corbyn doesn't come out well, but the accusations of not doing enough could be made about the other candidates as well , particularly those in Cabinet posts previously or ministers (Burnham and Cooper) so basically Mann is saying no one can be leader - unless they are newly elected and not tainted?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

marty21 said:


> yep, Corbyn doesn't come out well, but the accusations of not doing enough could be made about the other candidates as well , particularly those in Cabinet posts previously or ministers (Burnham and Cooper) so basically Mann is saying no one can be leader - unless they are newly elected and not tainted?


Someone else could could put that construction on it - but his clear message is that corybn has made specific failures rather than the general ones other made - and so isn't fit to lead. Of course it's politically motivated - quite shamelessly so.


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

youngian said:


> He was invited along with Dr David Death on Newsnight to confirm the BBC's narrative that this is the 80s civil war repeating itself and failed miserably to get them to do so.
> 
> Most centrist Labour lefties like myself who are not backing Corbyn for leader are highly impressed with the standard of debate he has bought to the party. The media is still absolutely baffled why MPs who are not backing Corbyn nominated them and think still think it was a damned good move (see Burnham supporter Dawn Butler's interview with Sky fuckwit Kay Burley).
> 
> And ironically its the Blairites having the 80s style Hatton/Heffer hissy fits. I was in Streatham CLP in 2010, they were pleased to have a rising star as the new MP but if Umunna thinks he take anyone with him in a SDP style breakaway party he needs his head examining.




Stangely David Owen was more sanguine about what may happen than most detractors, he obviously sees himself as a single issue campaigner on the NHS these days


----------



## marty21 (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They weren't cabinet members in islington in the 80s! Mann letters make specific claims, they are not about MPs generally not doing anything about paedos.


 fair point


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

marty21 said:


> yep, Corbyn doesn't come out well, but the accusations of not doing enough could be made about the other candidates as well , particularly those in Cabinet posts previously or ministers (Burnham and Cooper) so basically Mann is saying no one can be leader - unless they are newly elected and not tainted?


perhaps the leader of islington council at the time can remind everyone what went on.


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> The Corbyn campaign is a like the Scotland effect but inside the Labour party - it's gathering into a mass movement against austerity and picking up support from thousands of otherwise alienated young people. Not channeling them into dead-end internal Labour politics but challenging the foundations of the power structures





articul8 said:


> The Corbyn campaign is a like the Scotland effect but inside the Labour party - it's gathering into a mass movement against austerity and picking up support from thousands of otherwise alienated young people. Not channeling them into dead-end internal Labour politics but challenging the foundations of the power structures




They showed the Bristol 'Vote Corbyn' Meeting on TV news last night, really big, lots of young people as well, wonder if they voted?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

marty21 said:


> fair point


I note he's not been demanding corybn stand down as an MP, nor Margaret Hodge or Harman for the last 30 years as being unfit to be an MP for the same thing he accuses corybn of. Whatever can have fired him up so this time?


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Some people really don't want to see a radical Left leadership of the party - they want to confirm their own ideological purity on the sidelines whilst working class people despair




My worry is it is a cycle and in twenty years time, a new Blairite entryist grouping will emerge and thousands leave

btw, I wonder if many of the young activists joining would have been in Globalise Resistance, STWC, etc, in the past at their age.


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> It didn't vote for the Welfare Bill - factually inaccurate.



Sophistry, my M.P is sadly using that tactic.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> My worry is it is a cycle and in twenty years time, a new Blairite entryist grouping will emerge and thousands leave
> 
> btw, I wonder if many of the young activists joining would have been in Globalise Resistance, STWC, etc, in the past at their age.


Your worry isn't what the actual labour party are doing now?

This up/down swing stuff is ridiculous.


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

andysays said:


> Some people don't believe that Corbyn would really represent a true radical Left leadership and/or don't believe that such a thing would make a significant difference to the despair many working class people are feeling.
> 
> But that's coz we support Tony Blair, innit



OK, but where is the mass movement outside the LP which is going to defend and work with those people?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> OK, but where is the mass movement outside the LP which is going to defend and work with those people?


Where is the mass movement inside it? 

And if it exists, what is it doing inside a party that supports the attacks on those people?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> OK, but where is the mass movement outside the LP which is going to defend and work with those people?



Where is the mass movement inside the LP?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 24, 2015)

Ah, butchers got there first.


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Your worry isn't what the actual labour party are doing now?
> 
> This up/down swing stuff is ridiculous.



I'm saying that the LP has historically had these periods of surges of enthusiasm, etc only to go back to the tired cynical ways, why should this be different?

than again, maybe we are not Spain or Greece, maybe renewal will come through social democratic means,

just thinking aloud, you can do this on here you know.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> I'm saying that the LP has historically had these periods of surges of enthusiasm, etc only to go back to the tired cynical ways, why should this be different?
> 
> than again, maybe we are not Spain or Greece, maybe renewal will come through social democratic means,
> 
> just thinking aloud, you can do this on here you know.


But what on earth are you thinking about? What relevance is what the labour party membership will look like in 20 years or if people who join now would have in the past been in GR? You swing between this mad the labour party is dead stuff to, it's in the process of being saved, then down again to, it might be shit in 20 years though?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I note he's not been demanding corybn stand down as an MP, nor Margaret Hodge or Harman for the last 30 years as being unfit to be an MP for the same thing he accuses corybn of. Whatever can have fired him up so this time?


 maybe he should write to Cooper (Who he is backing) and ask her what she did or didn't do on the issue when she had a cabinet or ministerial post   it is a desperate throw of the dice from Mann, could backfire and attract more support to the evil Corbyn


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

marty21 said:


> maybe he should write to Cooper (Who he is backing) and ask her what she did or didn't do on the issue when she had a cabinet or ministerial post   it is a desperate throw of the dice from Mann, could backfire and attract more support to the evil Corbyn


I don't think it'll do anything other than earn mann a biscuit from another candidate. Corbyn was astute enough to not respond directly and get accused of being soft on paedos in a public tit for tat.


----------



## andysays (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> OK, but where is the mass movement outside the LP which is going to defend and work with those people?



Clearly, there isn't one, either inside or outside of the LP, but if Corbyn does win the election and does manage to survive the undoubted attacks he'll face from right-wingers, that alone will do nothing to build or inspire such a mass movement.

This is the logic of what is being argued by articul8 and others, and it's top-down, tail-wagging-the-dog, follow-the-leader nonsense.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the tina tories



Eh?  What's the Pickman's on about now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Eh?  What's the Pickman's on about now?


you might recall tina from the 1980s - There Is No Alternative. maybe you don't. don't know why you felt the need to make an arse of yourself over that. but never mind.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you might recall tina from the 1980s - There Is No Alternative. maybe you don't. don't know why you felt the need to make an arse of yourself over that. but never mind.



You're a weird one and no mistake.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> They showed the Bristol 'Vote Corbyn' Meeting on TV news last night, really big, lots of young people as well, wonder if they voted?


Young people?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 24, 2015)

grey hair is the latest thing among Bristle yoot


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> You're a weird one and no mistake.


tell you what, why don't you make a point related to the topick and then we can take things from there. or you could continue your usual m.o. of posting up stupid bollocks like you did the other day about 'this thread's about pickman's' and see where things end up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> grey hair is the latest thing among Bristle yoot


if only that was the case


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

> Corbyn has given young people like me new hope in politics. Labour must listen Matt Monk
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...hope-politics-labour-values-conservative-lite



from the horses mouth

btw, when I saw the package on the news, a panning shot, there seemed to be lots of young people, will have a look at that you tube.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> from the horses mouth
> 
> btw, when I saw the package on the news, a panning shot, there seemed to be lots of young people, will have a look at that you tube.


Right that one young context free person with contacts enough to write in the guardian is pretty typical. Is the horses mouth - not all them kids out there who don't know or care who corbyn is never mind reel off a list of liberal PR.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

Corbyn has given young people *like me* new hope in politics. Labour must listen


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> grey hair is the latest thing among Bristle yoot



Is it a hipster thing?


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Right that one young context free person with contacts enough to write in the guardian is pretty typical. Is the horses mouth - not all them kids out there who don't know or care who corbyn is never mind reel off a list of liberal PR.



The NS article has many more http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/whos-backing-jeremy-corbyn-young

I do wonder if the Loach film 'Spirit Of 45' has had more of an impact than most would give it credit for, the demographics of those who watched it suggested it was popular with the young.

btw, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there does seem to be upsurge


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> The NS article has many more http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/whos-backing-jeremy-corbyn-young
> 
> I do wonder if the Loach film 'Spirit Of 45' has has more of an impact than most would give it credit for, the demographics of those who watched it
> 
> btw, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there does seem to be upsurge


Of what, a few hundred people into the labour party - people already egaged with the labour party, and people around counterfire and other groups. How many young people do you think there are? 

And oh look a link to a guardian journo. Are there no other young people?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> The NS article has many more http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/whos-backing-jeremy-corbyn-young
> 
> I do wonder if the Loach film 'Spirit Of 45' has had more of an impact than most would give it credit for, the demographics of those who watched it suggested it was popular with the young.
> 
> btw, I'm not saying I agree with them, but there does seem to be upsurge


So, watching a film rather than the exploitation, deprivation and alienation that they experience as their economic reality on a daily basis?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 24, 2015)

marty21 said:


> maybe he should write to Cooper (Who he is backing) and ask her what she did or didn't do on the issue when she had a cabinet or ministerial post   it is a desperate throw of the dice from Mann, could backfire and attract more support to the evil Corbyn


This is what I told some Mann supporter on Twitter last night and by way of reply I got loads of abuse and gobbledegook. I muted him. Life's too short.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So, watching a film rather than the exploitation, deprivation and alienation that they experience as their economic reality on a daily basis?



The Loach film veered between tedium, reformism and dewy eyed romanticism of 'what the proles was like then'.

The notion that young people even watched it on mass - let alone decided that after watching it that the way to fight austerity was by electing a 66 year old politico who looks like their old Geography teacher - is barmy.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 24, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> This is what I told some Mann supporter on Twitter last night and by way of reply I got loads of abuse and gobbledegook. I muted him. Life's too short.


Not liked for the abuse obvs


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> A spokesman has.



Odd how way back in new Labour days, Demetrious Panton mentioned Margaret Hodge (then leader of Islington Council) as covering up abuse, but none of the local MPs.
I think I'm more inclined to listen to a survivor, than to a card-marker like Mann.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I note he's not been demanding corybn stand down as an MP, nor Margaret Hodge or Harman for the last 30 years as being unfit to be an MP for the same thing he accuses corybn of. Whatever can have fired him up so this time?



A nod and a wink about a sinecure? Surely not!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Odd how way back in new Labour days, Demetrious Panton mentioned Margaret Hodge (then leader of Islington Council) as covering up abuse, but none of the local MPs.
> I think I'm more inclined to listen to a survivor, than to a card-marker like Mann.


Mann was a local councilor at the time i think - opposed to corbyn and the like - this is all on the paedo in high places thread. I need to check that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Young people?




Compared to the mob down the local Conservative club!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Mann was a local councilor at the time i think - opposed to corbyn and the like - this is all on the paedo in high places thread. I need to check that.


Mann was a Lambeth councillor during the Lambeth children's home scandal. He also worked for the rather right-wing AEEU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mann_(British_politician)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The Loach film veered between tedium, reformism and dewy eyed romanticism of 'what the proles was like then'.
> 
> The notion that young people even watched it on mass - let alone decided that after watching it that the way to fight austerity was by electing a 66 year old politico who looks like their old Geography teacher - is barmy.



If Corbyn looked like my old Geography teacher, I definitely wouldn't vote for him. Fucker was a hair-down-to-the-waist, satchel-toting, sandal-wearing hippy!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

I've no interest in defending corbyn - and there does _appear _to be inaction there. However, as others have said Mann really demeans himself.  Quite a statement of how he operates if he sees child abuse as something to be _deployed _to seek advantage. Unless there's something to this story that we are all missing, mann is an utter cunt.


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

posted elsewhere, the Guardian bias is showing


----------



## ddraig (Jul 24, 2015)

what is the point of that pic? which bit are you referring to?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 24, 2015)

That Froome one can't be real, can it?! 

e2a: fuck's sake, it is!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Mann was a local councilor at the time i think - opposed to corbyn and the like - this is all on the paedo in high places thread. I need to check that.



He was a Lambeth councillor, and like many of them, he didn't do much about the abuse problems here (whatever he's claimed to the contrary - those that did try to do something usually paid for it by being harassed by the OB and the council if they got caught).


----------



## J Ed (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Young people?




Looks less grey here though they may have put the younger people in the front!


----------



## chilango (Jul 24, 2015)

articul8 said:


> frankly Corbyn can win without the support of a handful of sectarian ultra-lefts in any case.  I won't waste my breath


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Looks less grey here though they may have put the younger people in the front!


Labour uni  people at front

Clare solomon telling me that been the biggest hard left event in year in this city is pretty fucking..well.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 24, 2015)

She is pretty awful


----------



## J Ed (Jul 24, 2015)

I'm surprised that the Labour uni people went, Labour societies at universities in this country are usually full of the sort of right-wingers that despise anything to the left of Miliband


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 24, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm surprised that the Labour uni people went, Labour societies at universities in this country are usually full of the sort of right-wingers that despise anything to the left of Miliband


They vary - I would say there has been more "left" involvement than you might think or at least non robot independently minded involvement recently.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> That Froome one can't be real, can it?!
> 
> e2a: fuck's sake, it is!


"Jeremy Corbyn - didn't attend Barrymore's pool party, but might have"


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> If Corbyn looked like my old Geography teacher, I definitely wouldn't vote for him. Fucker was a hair-down-to-the-waist, satchel-toting, sandal-wearing hippy!



Corbyn has got a satchel and while I can't prove it he's the type to own sandals. And he's got a beard and a corduroy jacket.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He was a Lambeth councillor, and like many of them, he didn't do much about the abuse problems here (whatever he's claimed to the contrary - those that did try to do something usually paid for it by being harassed by the OB and the council if they got caught).


Two more words: Ken Jackson.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 24, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Young people?




Forking hell if that lot are young how old is Treelover?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Forking hell if that lot are young how old is Treelover?


as auld as the hills


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Looks less grey here though they may have put the younger people in the front!




Ah, Clare Solomon, a Peoples Assembly event?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 24, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Forking hell if that lot are young how old is Treelover?


Young is 50 imvho


----------



## ddraig (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ah, Clare Solomon, a Peoples Assembly event?


do you ever have the decency of responding to queries on your posts??


----------



## brogdale (Jul 24, 2015)

treelover said:


>



_*Obi Wan Cornobyn*_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2015)

ddraig said:


> do you ever have the decency of responding to queries on your posts??


no

next


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 24, 2015)

The labour leadership contest is at least offering some darkly comic relief after the disaster of May 7th. 

Its grimly hilarious how all the other candidates are being completely wrong footed by Corbyn brilliant campaigning strategy of giving straight answers and  articualting a clear political  position as opposed to mealy mouthed waffle. 

And what on earth possessed them to leave JC as the only candidate to oppose the tory savaging of the poor?  They are trying argue that they are people who know how to win elections cos they are "grown up" politicians - yet that act of betrayal may just have gifted the leadership to Corbyn.

I still dont believe hes going to win - but if he does I cant see him lasting six months as he will not have the support of more than a third of his mps. But he has essentially already won - by demonstrating the popularity  of a position based on anti-austerity  and defence of the welfare state.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 25, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> That Froome one can't be real, can it?!
> 
> e2a: fuck's sake, it is!


What is she suggesting. Corbyn is taking politics enhancing drugs?


----------



## youngian (Jul 25, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33652205


> *Corbyn campaign supporter in Kendall 'Tory spoof' picture *
> The director of a Jeremy Corbyn campaign organisation has published a mocked-up picture of rival Liz Kendall as a Conservative candidate online.
> Jon Lansman directed Twitter users to a spoof page promoting Kendall as a potential Tory leader.


A bit amateurish for the head of a campaign to be connected to, but its routine 21st century social media political banter. I'm not as sophisticated as these six figure salary BBC Tory and Blairite media brain boxes that ordered this story, but I've a funny feeling that Corbyn will bat this away by not reciprocating and debating real bread and butter issues instead. And it will cost him zero pence in media consultancy advice.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 25, 2015)

articul8 said:


> I really don't understand people who say "good luck to Corbyn but I'm not going to lift a finger to help"


Try having your home (and those of several hundred others in the same borough) threatened by a Labour MP, Labour ward councillors, and a Labour majority council.  Then come back and tell me that you wouldn't for one moment lose faith.

There are a few more ideologically based reasons too, but sometimes core priorities are more than enough.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

I don't understand why people wish him "good luck". 

Not why people "don't lift a finger to help".


----------



## Greebo (Jul 25, 2015)

chilango said:


> I don't understand why people wish him "good luck". <snip>


Because genuine sincerity is a rare thing in politics.  If Jeremy Corbyn could shame the likes of Chuka Umunna and Yvette Cooper into either becoming red Labour or having the guts to cross the floor, that's be a small victory in itself.  Not that it's probable.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Because genuine sincerity is a rare thing in politics.  If Jeremy Corbyn could shame the likes of Chuka Umunna and Yvette Cooper into either becoming red Labour or having the guts to cross the floor, that's be a small victory in itself.  Not that it's probable.



I dunno. I think there's plenty of sincerity. It's just not on our side.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 25, 2015)

chilango said:


> I dunno. I think there's plenty of sincerity. It's just not on our side.


A veneer as far as I can tell, and one which changes with the light.  Not that it matters, seeing as no matter how deep it goes on the red tories, it won't be in favour of us.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

I think IDS is sincere.ditto The likes of Gove. Blair certainly was. Thatcher et al too.

They meant it.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

chilango said:


> I think IDS is sincere.ditto The likes of Gove. Blair certainly was. Thatcher et al too.
> 
> They meant it.


Labour used to be...


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 25, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Try having your home (and those of several hundred others in the same borough) threatened by a Labour MP, Labour ward councillors, and a Labour majority council.  Then come back and tell me that you wouldn't for one moment lose faith.
> 
> There are a few more ideologically based reasons too, but sometimes core priorities are more than enough.



What fucks me off with @articul8, is that posts such as yours should be the ones he's connecting with, not making ridiculous offensive remarks, shouting 'ultra left splitters!!1!' and then pissing off again for a few weeks before re-appearing on another theory thread using impenetrable language.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> What fucks me off with @articul8, is that posts such as yours should be the ones he's connecting with, not making ridiculous offensive remarks, shouting 'ultra left splitters!!1!' and then pissing off again for a few weeks before re-appearing on another theory thread using impenetrable language.


we've all tried to engage with articul8 in the past but it's very hard when he comes out with such clap-trap, when on the one hand he wants to seem all radical and revolutionary and on the other hand believes the labour party is the only game in town. there's the dichotomy between his image of labour and labour in reality which he seems unable to resolve.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jul 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> What fucks me off with @articul8, is that posts such as yours should be the ones he's connecting with, not making ridiculous offensive remarks, shouting 'ultra left splitters!!1!' and then pissing off again for a few weeks before re-appearing on another theory thread using impenetrable language.



the blokes a plonker.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Labour used to be...



The problem is saying Labour is there for the weak ain't going to cut the mustard nowadays is it? People don't like to think of themselves as weak


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2015)

Off to get me corbyn tat in a bit.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The problem is saying Labour is there for the weak ain't going to cut the mustard nowadays is it? People don't like to think of themselves as weak


Yes, that's the hegemonic cultural reality, but I'd suggest _the problem_ is that, with a few exceptions, those in the PLP no longer hold those values or challenge neo-lib attacks on the weak,let alone articulate them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, that's the hegemonic cultural reality, but I'd suggest _the problem_ is that, with a few exceptions, those in the PLP no longer hold those values or challenge neo-lib attacks on the weak,let alone articulate them.


that's because, i submit, those in the plp almost without exception (and those exceptions being broadly the members of the campaign group) accept or hold neo-liberal values.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> that's because, i submit, those in the plp almost without exception (and those exceptions being broadly the members of the campaign group) accept or hold neo-liberal values.


Yep. Using their own favourite term, their aspirations for the state extend no further than seeking to be part of the grand coalition managing its transition from _welfare _status, through _debt _status to the _consolidator _status demanded by 'the markets' of financialised capital.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 25, 2015)

At one time I liked C4 News. Maybe he's been secretly dating Kay Burley? This is a disaster as the comments show.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

Corbyn's biggest strength, and simultaneously, biggest weakness is that he fits the role of "loony labour left" perfectly to allow those to the left of him and the Neo-Thatcherites to the right to play at recreating the 80s when they missed it first time round. It shows the knits of their political horizons.

Remind me to insert Rhe Vaselines "I hate the Eighties" here. It's spt for the daft retro fetishists.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 25, 2015)

Some interesting articles here.

http://www.leftfutures.org/


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

After watching the 2 interviews on that youtube link, I'm pretty impressed with Corbyn.

It's a shame about most of the rest of the parliamentary labour party, though if the new labour mob all refuse to be in a shadow cabinet with him, then that might partially solve that problem... good riddance for most of them.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

My honest, gut feeling, which is honestly not coming from anything anyone has said here, is fuck the labour party, and fuck the 'labour left' (or at least the institutions of it)

I have disliked the labour party for a very very long time. The main reason is I'll never forgive them for going in to iraq. Only a handful of Labour MPs and only one member of the cabinet, Robin Cook, resigned over it. Had Blair not agreed to go into Iraq there is a very good chance that Bush would have made the invasion a far more limited one than what happened solely consisting of air strikes or whatever, if not had to pull out altogether. The organisation founded by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who we have all come to know and 'love', would thus have remained a tiny group carrying out the odd bombing here and there but nothing special. Blairs govt gave Bush's actions legitimacy and added large scale military support.

Labour laid the ground work for the welfare cuts, there is a thread on here started by Blagsta called 'welfare cuts and poverty' which was begun during Blair's rule. I think that thread was started when I was still at school. People are acting like the cuts only started under the Tories but they actually began much earlier than that. I remember talking to a woman once about the Iraq war demo when i was an SP member and talking about how it got me into politics, and she replied that on that day she was also on a demo but it was a local one, protesting against the closure of a daycare centre due to cuts in the council . Remember that brazilian guy who got shot on the tube? Remember 'british jobs for british workers' and PFI??

When i was in the SP i saw countless examples of sectarianism by some (not all) labour members that made me not want to touch their organisation with a barge pole. On just about every local demo labour speakers would stand up and tell people the way to stop this is always to vote labour, every single time. One of the worst examples was in 2011 when it was the public sector strikes and the SP which were always fairly active had done a lot of the work in the unions on getting people out, and during the speeches afterwards this guy in the labour party stood up and started banging on about 'sectarian groups' meaning the SP, and almost no mention of the strikes at all, when the SP had been instrumental of getting people out, whatever I think about these tactics now or whatever my view is of the SP.

I also really dislike this 'THERE IS NO LIFE OUTSIDE THE PARTY' attitude a lot of labour supporters seem to have. Its just vanguardism, assuming that everything which doesnt involve labour being elected or the 'labour left' is shit and not worth bothering about. I don't have much time for the SP's politics these days but at least they were trying to start something different. Good luck to Corbyn and im glad to see anything that pisses off Blairites but really the faith that some people are placing in labour over this imo is just going to lead to disappointment and reminds me a lot of what people thought about Russell Brand and others. There's loads of local stuff beyond Labour there are some groups starting here which look really positive such as People's Political Economy and a few others. Shit even the local AFN round here. These developments are really positive and id hate to see people giving up and going back to Labour. 


Sorry that this post is a bit of a rant and might have some factual errors in it but this is my gut feelings. I just dont want to be pressurised into giving money to a party I don't like or feeling I have to support them in any way. As far as corbyn goes im just indifferent and i can definitely see signs of things changing but when it does it's not going to come from labour or probably not electoral politics in general. These days I would call myself a left communist but my dislike of the labour party is fairly visceral and not really to do with any ideology or theories ive read, for many people especially young people in not traditional 'Labour areas' or in unionised industries, im sure many, many people feel the same way tbh.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 25, 2015)

Good post Frogwoman. I still struggle with the fact that the 'inclusive' Labour Party can see fit to expel Dave Nellist and others yet provide safe harbour for the multi-millionaire war criminal.

I'm hoping that Corbyn has at least lit the blue touch paper. Where the bang will take place I don't know. If nothing else he's brought some of the issues to life. It's either that or listen to the likes of Umunna mimicking the utterances of any Vermin you wish to choose.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

I'm sure most of us are aware of all of that Froggy, virtually all my protesting against various aspects of neoliberal policies was done under the new labour government.

But ultimately getting someone who as far as I can tell doesn't subscribe to that neoliberal mindset elected as leader of the labour party can only be seen as a positive step in that fight against neoliberalism and all that entails.

If he wins and the neoliberal mob mount a coup and force him out, then that will at least finally end that debat / split the labour party. If he wins and they fail in their coup attempts, then maybe they'll split away and form their version of the sdp.

Whatever happens, him winning would in itself be a political earthquake, the ramifications of which are hard to predict (other than the media and political big wigs mounting a vicious campaign against him). 

none of that means that the past problems with the labour party are / should be forgotten, but fighting against that would be far more likely to succeed with the labour party leader roughly on the same page on most of it than it would with another neolib labour stooge up there.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Its about the structure not just who's leading it. The structure not just of the party but the entire political system.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said:
			
		

> The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Of course it wouldnt be a bad thing in terms of getting these arguments a wider exposure but asking people to register their support of labour and pay £3 towards it is worse than useless. And as i said there are actually some really positive, exciting things happening outside the terrain of electoral politics and I think the fact that labour doesnt monopolise the political landscape is a positive thing or could be turned into one.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> ...asking people to register their support of labour and pay £3 towards it is worse than useless.



I would much rather they sent me £3. I'm a bit hard up at the moment.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

The other thing, and this is honestly not a dig at anyone, is that what left communists have been banging on about since the year dot, that the election of a social democratic government is no longer possible under todays conditions. Its not that it wouldnt be a good thing or that i dont want it, its just no longer possible and as the example of Greece shows and Tsipras (who i actually quite like to be honest) was forced to adopt neo liberal policies or face the total ruin of the country, its similar with Obama (who tbh i also like and think was genuine) who at the beginning of his career was a centrist, perhaps even a social democrat, but he had absolutely no choice but to follow the policies of capitalism and dictates of capital. And this isnt a good thing, its just a thing, and im not saying that my solutions or ideas are perfect, but electoral politics is no longer the way to go except in a tactical setting or with strong local candidates or campaigns such as anti bedroom tax or National Health Action Party etc. Some people think electoral campaigns are always a total waste of time in any situation and I dont think I agree. But if you think that someone can overturn 30 or 40 years of neoliberalism within their own party let alone the country you're gonna be very disappointed. I would like corbyn to win too but I don't think it will the all powerful development people think it will and I hope I am wrong but I dont think so.  

I think that if more people went in to politics with that attitude we could, potentially start to see the beginnings of something really good emerge. Im not just cynical for no reason there are things that are really good happening in my area its just that they're not really to do with labour or electoralism although individual labour supporters could be involved.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Of course it wouldnt be a bad thing in terms of getting these arguments a wider exposure but asking people to register their support of labour and pay £3 towards it is worse than useless. And as i said there are actually some really positive, exciting things happening outside the terrain of electoral politics and I think the fact that labour doesnt monopolise the political landscape is a positive thing or could be turned into one.


it's less than the cost of a pint as a one off fee, to be able to potentially help influence the result of what looks to be an unexpectedly close run election for labour leader between a left candidate and the status quo.

I don't know about others, but I'm certainly not intending to do anything other than vote in that election, unless maybe corbyn wins, at which point I guess I'd have to evaluate the situation.

The Labour party still has probably the biggest contingent of left of centre MPs in parliament. The new labour project have lost pretty much all their big hitters, and it looks like the party in general isn't buying the line that they need to move further right to chase tory votes having just lost an entire country to a challenge from the left, so it looks possible that the new labour project might now be vulnerable to a challenge from the left in a way that it's not been for a long time.

Like it or not, over the next 5 years if any tory policies are to be defeated then it will need the support of the labour party to do it, and that support is far more likely to come with Corbyn as leader than any of the others.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

So many disappointments to come. Again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> The other thing, and this is honestly not a dig at anyone, is that what left communists have been banging on about since the year dot, that the election of a social democratic government is no longer possible under todays conditions. Its not that it wouldnt be a good thing or that i dont want it, its just no longer possible and as the example of Greece shows and Tsipras (who i actually quite like to be honest) was forced to adopt neo liberal policies or face the total ruin of the country, its similar with Obama (who tbh i also like and think was genuine) who at the beginning of his career was a centrist, perhaps even a social democrat, but he had absolutely no choice but to follow the policies of capitalism and dictates of capital. And this isnt a good thing, its just a thing, and im not saying that my solutions or ideas are perfect, but electoral politics is no longer the way to go except in a tactical setting or with strong local candidates or campaigns such as anti bedroom tax or National Health Action Party etc. Some people think electoral campaigns are always a total waste of time in any situation and I dont think I agree. But if you think that someone can overturn 30 or 40 years of neoliberalism within their own party let alone the country you're gonna be very disappointed. I would like corbyn to win too but I don't think it will the all powerful development people think it will and I hope I am wrong but I dont think so.


my old dear 'Surely if corbyn wins he'll have to purge  the shadow cabinet?' (slight emphasis on the 'purge' there  )
Yeah when the media went all out to portray Ed as the second coming of vladmir illich I was amused, watching the guardian/statesman et al clutch its pearls in horror is better though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Well yeah 48 MPs. 48. He wouldnt have to purge so much as utterly eviscerate it.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 25, 2015)

Just out of interest. There have been countless reports about what will happen if 'The Left' gain power. Threats of a coup or a more hard line right - if that is possible? - or even a new style SDP. If 'The Left' are trounced by whatever means where will they go? Will they stay in the same institutionalised party and lick their wounds or breakaway? Given the estimated support they are getting it would surely be foolish to stay and fight another day.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

What "the Left"?


----------



## Zabo (Jul 25, 2015)

Precisely hence ' '


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Well yeah 48 MPs. 48. He wouldnt have to purge so much as utterly eviscerate it.


but how many more will basically blow with the wind and support the new party line if he was elected as leader?

And if the labour leadership wasn't from the neoliberal camp then that could change pretty quickly as the central party would stop imposing neoliberal candidates onto local parties.

Ending up with some form of left / centre left government looks a lot more doable (if the actual vote went with corbyn) than say building up any other left of centre party in England to the state where they had enough MPs to govern in coalition with SNP, Plaid etc. One way there is a potential for a centre left coalition government at the next election, the other it'd take 15-20 years at least to get to that state without any labour input.

I was having these arguments with some of the local labour campaigners at the election from the opposite viewpoint, but at that point I didn't think the left in labour stood a chance of getting a leadership candidate elected. It'd seem that the new labour election rules have actually changed that situation significantly, and the neolib PLP have potentially fucked themselves by allowing a credible left wing candidate into the election where the membership now get to vote on an equal footing so it can't be stitched up as it previously would have been.

I know it's a small sample from one city, but every labour candidate and supporter I came across in Leeds at the last election (who wasn't an established new labour figure) was campaigning on a much more socialist / left wing agenda than the national party, and actually talking about the candidates as being good socialists, and they were mostly relatively young rather than being remnants from the 70s or something.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Yea but its not just about the uk tho is it. Where is the the international support which any 'traditional' social democratic far left labour govt would need to carry out such a programme? In france people thought that the socialist party would start to change things and reverse the worst of sarkozy's cuts and instead whats happened is one of the most viciously authoritarian centre right governments in that country ever. I can't see where else in Europe and in european labour party equivalents, where support for these policies would come from? I am so sorry I really dont want to put a downer on things but surely the example of all these countries, Greece, France etc shows that the possibility of change through the electoral route with the best intentions (which i think Tsipras definitely did have at the beginning) is very limited?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yea but its not just about the uk tho is it. Where is the the international support which any 'traditional' social democratic far left labour govt would need to carry out such a programme? In france people thought that the socialist party would start to change things and reverse the worst of sarkozy's cuts and instead whats happened is one of the most viciously authoritarian centre right governments in that country ever. I can't see where else in Europe and in european labour party equivalents, where support for these policies would come from?


well, on that basis we may as well not bother at all then eh?

But, Spain, Greece, Iceland, much of Scandinavia, to an extent France.

And our options are much more open due to not being part of the Euro, we're doing austerity voluntarily not because the ECB demands it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

They would demand it if we stopped doing it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> What fucks me off with @articul8, is that posts such as yours should be the ones he's connecting with, not making ridiculous offensive remarks, shouting 'ultra left splitters!!1!' and then pissing off again for a few weeks before re-appearing on another theory thread using impenetrable language.



TBF, when he uses "impenetrable language", it just marks him as being not even half as intelligent as he thinks he is. If he were, he'd be able to summarise just about any "technical" point into laymans' terms.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Im not telling you not to bother. Im asking where the support for traditional social democracy *within the leadership is gonna come from because you can't push forward any type of policy like that in isolation from other countries.

All european countries have made cuts. While much of this is ideological on the part of the section of British capital it is not 100% so.

(Edited to make clearer sorry)​


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

And you can bet that if a govt got power and started pushing forth an even slightly social democratic programme we would find out very very quickly how 'voluntary' austerity is.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This is our generations battle. With us or against us. I want to build up extra-parliamentary power outside the labour party.


 can you expand on this - what do you mean by extra-parlimentary power outside the labour party?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> They would demand it if we stopped doing it.


but the ECB holds no power over us, we can create our own currency, the likes of Greece, Spain etc can't do that.

I'm not really a fan of QE, but QE was the major difference between us and Greece. We could create £350 billion from nowhere, use it to buy up government debt and pump that liquidity into the financial sector at the same time all by ourselves.

eta The way it was done ended up benefiting the ultra rich and pumping up top end house prices, the stock market and commodity bubbles, but it could have been done differently to have had better impacts. Those in the Euro don't have that option at a national level.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Just out of interest. There have been countless reports about what will happen if 'The Left' gain power.  Threats of a coup or a more hard line right - if that is possible? - or even a new style SDP. If 'The Left' are trounced by whatever means where will they go? Will they stay in the same institutionalised party and lick their wounds or breakaway? Given the estimated support they are getting it would surely be foolish to stay and fight another day.



Depends on who you mean by the left. The minority of non-Labour bods will become even more disillusioned after being burnt probably for at least the second time, if the 'Labour Left' who would leave over it were capable of leaving over Corbyn losing or being thrown out then they would be the sort of people who would have left years ago over something else. They will stay in and back Burnham.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

Fuck it. Urban's very own Labour Left has proved that he'll stay in and back (sorry, "challenge internally") pretty much anyone and anything rather than leave.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> My honest, gut feeling, which is honestly not coming from anything anyone has said here, is fuck the labour party, and fuck the 'labour left' (or at least the institutions of it)
> 
> I have disliked the labour party for a very very long time. The main reason is I'll never forgive them for going in to iraq. Only a handful of Labour MPs and only one member of the cabinet, Robin Cook, resigned over it. Had Blair not agreed to go into Iraq there is a very good chance that Bush would have made the invasion a far more limited one than what happened solely consisting of air strikes or whatever, if not had to pull out altogether. The organisation founded by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who we have all come to know and 'love', would thus have remained a tiny group carrying out the odd bombing here and there but nothing special. Blairs govt gave Bush's actions legitimacy and added large scale military support.
> 
> ...



Good post. as I stated to you over the conversation we had this afternoon I find the idea of the labour left to be an abstraction totally devoid of any analytical rigour. Noone knows what on earth it means or denotes, and it's generally a stick to plaicate more dissident members on the bourgeois left - oh as long as we can shift the LP to the left we can look at implementing socialism. As Bordiga once quipped with the Stalinists (I think?) 'One does not build communism.' And that is one insight that todays left have lost.

RE your point about vanguardism, during the period of old labour they had this nonsensical idea (following plato) to engender good, socialist citizens, in keeping with the bringing consciousness to the class from outside the party. An interesting parallel to note in this regard is that Plato had an indelible influence on Mussolini's idea of constructing the ideal citizen.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Im not telling you not to bother. Im asking where the support for traditional social democracy *within the leadership is gonna come from because you can't push forward any type of policy like that in isolation from other countries.
> 
> All european countries have made cuts. While much of this is ideological on the part of the section of British capital it is not 100% so.
> 
> (Edited to make clearer sorry)​



This is my problem with the whole social democracy narrative. Instead of analysing the concrete historical conditions in which it came into being it's touted as an abstract.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> but the ECB holds no power over us, we can create our own currency, the likes of Greece, Spain etc can't do that.
> 
> I'm not really a fan of QE, but QE was the major difference between us and Greece. We could create £350 billion from nowhere, use it to buy up government debt and pump that liquidity into the financial sector at the same time all by ourselves.
> 
> eta The way it was done ended up benefiting the ultra rich and pumping up top end house prices, the stock market and commodity bubbles, but it could have been done differently to have had better impacts. Those in the Euro don't have that option at a national level.



Devaluation?

In fact, this is my problem with the Lapavitsas crowd who are/were yelling for grexit and the drachma. It's a totally counterproductive measure that'll only strengthen the right.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Devaluation?
> 
> In fact, this is my problem with the Lapavitsas crowd who are/were yelling for grexit and the drachma. It's a totally counterproductive measure that'll only strengthen the right.


can you elaborate? what's your problem with this?

ps in this situation we're talking about the UK where we already have our own currency, which means we have those options open whereas Greece doesn't, so the chaos of greece leaving the Euro doesn't apply.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> can you elaborate? what's your problem with this?
> 
> ps in this situation we're talking about the UK where we already have our own currency, which means we have those options open whereas Greece doesn't, so the chaos of greece leaving the Euro doesn't apply.



Well obviously. My point was how do you expect to generate value for an artificially printed currency?

If money didn't represent value through being a representation of alienated labour this wouldn't be an issue. But it's not just a free floating abstract that you can print off at will.

In your scenario you're just trying to remedy a crisis by repeatedly hitting yourself in the face by adding even more fictitious capital into circulation. But that is already the problem. We already have tons of it, why more?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Well obviously. My point was how do you expect to generate value for an artificially printed currency?
> 
> If money didn't represent value through being a representation of alienated labour this wouldn't be an issue. But it's not just a free floating abstract that you can print off at will.
> 
> In your scenario you're just trying to remedy a crisis by repeatedly hitting yourself in the face by adding even more fictitious capital into circulation. But that is already the problem. We already have tons of it, why more?


ok, but back in the real world the UK was able to create £350 billion of new money because we have our own currency and central bank. Greece wasn't.

That is a massive difference and means that we're not in the same position as Greece etc when it comes to the European Central Bank, which was the point I was making.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Umm both the USA Norway and Russia have all introduced cuts in the social wage as have countries in Eastern Europe which have not yet adopted the Euro. I fully agree about the ideological nature of Osborne's programme but you can't say that the introduction of some degree of austerity is at least in part because capital demands it and not solely ideological.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

as have we, but we weren't forced to do this in the same way that a eurozone country can be, we had other options available as did those countries.

I'll give you the counter example of Iceland.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Social democracy and the post war boom arose from very specific circumstances which are no longer possible today.  I find it a bit patronising how people can talk about 'in the real world' when trying to dismiss these criticisms of the far left of Labour. in the real world conditions for social democracy do not and have not existed in the west for some time. In the real world austerity and cuts were going on for a long time well before the current crisis, albeit in a more restrained form. In the real world Mitterand was elected in the 80s on a radical left platform, it was a disaster and he had to reverse it, in the real world we just seen how the total ruination and humiliation of a country for trying to reverse even a fraction of the austerity measures of the last ten years can be brought about despite the resistance of its leadership. People say that those that are putting forward views sceptical of far left electoralism arent living in the real world despite the fact that putting ones hope in the leadership of labour to introduce a programme reminiscent of 1945 is as utopian as you can get and is recognised as such by huge numbers of the electorate. Hence like it or not why many of them voted tory. The best we can hope for under a labour govt is a few sticking plaster type measures and the deceleration of austerity and given blairs last record i wouldnt even be so confident of that. Would that be better than what we got now? Probably. At least for a short time until capital would demand further cuts. would it stop the overall trend? No. No offence but this 'in the real world where this and this happens' reminds me of the tories 'there is no alternative'

This isnt about passivity or cynicism. I am not disillusioned. This is gonna sound well cheesy but I really still believe in 'the revolution' and i find all these charges of being a splitter or ultra left and sectarian very tiresome and a way not to deal with the substance of the criticisms and questions about exactly how labour can do this stuff. This isnt a personal criticism of anyone so please dont take it as such.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Social democracy and the post war boom arose from very specific circumstances which are no longer possible today.  I find it a bit patronising how people can talk about 'in the real world' when trying to dismiss these criticisms of the far left of Labour. in the real world conditions for social democracy do not and have not existed in the west for some time. In the real world austerity and cuts were going on for a long time well before the current crisis, albeit in a more restrained form. In the real world Mitterand was elected in the 80s on a radical left platform, it was a disaster and he had to reverse it, in the real world we just seen how the total ruination and humiliation of a country for trying to reverse even a fraction of the austerity measures of the last ten years can be brought about despite the resistance of its leadership. People say that those that are putting forward views sceptical of far left electoralism arent living in the real world despite the fact that putting ones hope in the leadership of labour to introduce a programme reminiscent of 1945 is as utopian as you can get and is recognised as such by huge numbers of the electorate. Hence like it or not why many of them voted tory. The best we can hope for under a labour govt is a few sticking plaster type measures and the deceleration of austerity and given blairs last record i wouldnt even be so confident of that. Would that be better than what we got now? Probably. At least for a short time until capital would demand further cuts. would it stop the overall trend? No. No offence but this 'in the real world where this and this happens' reminds me of the tories 'there is no alternative'
> 
> This isnt about passivity or cynicism. I am not disillusioned. This is gonna sound well cheesy but I really still believe in 'the revolution' and i find all these charges of being a splitter or ultra left and sectarian very tiresome and a way not to deal with the substance of the criticisms and questions about exactly how labour can do this stuff. This isnt a personal criticism of anyone so please dont take it as such.


Not passive, cynical or disillusioned...just seeing with clarity.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> well, on that basis we may as well not bother at all then eh?
> 
> But, Spain, Greece, Iceland, much of Scandinavia, to an extent France.
> 
> And our options are much more open due to not being part of the Euro, we're doing austerity voluntarily not because the ECB demands it.


Well on this basis you might as well not join the labour party.


----------



## chilango (Jul 25, 2015)

Thing is, no one is real talking about Social Democracy (hence my thread on it). People are wafting vague "anti-austerity" slogans which ultimately boil down to a bit of tax here, a bit of public spending there and so on. It's not Social Democracy. It's not even standard mainstream Labour fare from the 80s and 90s.

There are no concrete ideas - utopian or realistic - being raised by "the Left" that are caring about Corbyn (or the People's Assembly or any of these schemes). 

A genuine examination of (for example) Social Democracy, where it came it from and to realise it today, would at least be interesting and initially credible (certainly more credible than some blind hope in an undefined shift led by Corbyn or Jones or Brand or whatever). 

But there's not even that.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> well, on that basis we may as well not bother at all then eh?
> 
> But, Spain, Greece, Iceland, much of Scandinavia, to an extent France.
> 
> And our options are much more open due to not being part of the Euro, *we're doing austerity voluntarily* not because the ECB demands it.


'kinnel mate.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> as have we, but we weren't forced to do this in the same way that a eurozone country can be, we had other options available as did those countries.
> 
> I'll give you the counter example of Iceland.



http://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2015/07/23/a-quiet-riot-filming-icelands-constitutional-reform/

More here


http://uti.is/2015/03/panic-politics-the-biggest-risk-in-iceland/


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Icelandic government continues attacks on workers and unions 




http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/07/15/court-sides-administration-strike-law-dispute

More info here 

http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/06/15/bhm-bring-suit-against-government


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/06/12/government-creates-bill-force-strikes-stop



> The bill would force the specified groups to stop striking, and ban them from striking again until July 1. In the meantime, it requests parties involved to reach a new wage deal that everybody can be happy with; otherwise the contract dispute will go to arbitration. The bill has now been sent to both coalition parties’ parliamentarians to read, and will be put to the Alþingi parliament as soon as possible.
> 
> The leader of the nurses told RÚV that the government’s decision is a disappointment. He has great fears for the future of the health service; not least based on discussions nurses are having in closed groups on social media. He says they are taking the news badly and that many could resign.
> 
> The government cannot ban the unions from striking, but it does have the power to postpone strike action. Hospitals are at breaking point, with most non-emergencies being turned away. The healthcare system will enjoy the relief of getting key workers back—but at what cost, they ask?





Im sorry


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 25, 2015)




----------



## weltweit (Jul 25, 2015)

Interesting article about Corbyn and the EU here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ition-future-britain-eu-membership?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## teqniq (Jul 25, 2015)

by turns both amusing and scathing

The last thing Labour needs is a leader like Jeremy Corbyn who people want to vote for


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Interesting article about Corbyn and the EU here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ition-future-britain-eu-membership?CMP=twt_gu



It's not really interesting so much as a continuation of the previous red-baiting. Oh no Corbyn is against the EU (despite saying explicitly he is in favour of staying in) which means he's against stuff that middle-class 'left' liberal Guardistas like... like french cheese, cafés and posh wine and he probably likes racism or something as well as communism!


----------



## weltweit (Jul 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's not really interesting so much as a continuation of the previous red-baiting. Oh no Corbyn is against the EU (despite saying explicitly he is in favour of staying in) which means he's against stuff that middle-class 'left' liberal Guardistas like... like french cheese, cafés and posh wine and he probably likes racism or something as well as communism!


I didn't read it so bleakly, I took more that Corbyn questions the EU for different reasons than Cameron while his competitors for the Labour leadership are simply pro EU without having much principle about it.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jul 25, 2015)

chilango said:


> Thing is, no one is real talking about Social Democracy (hence my thread on it). People are wafting vague "anti-austerity" slogans which ultimately boil down to a bit of tax here, a bit of public spending there and so on. It's not Social Democracy. It's not even standard mainstream Labour fare from the 80s and 90s.
> 
> There are no concrete ideas - utopian or realistic - being raised by "the Left" that are caring about Corbyn (or the People's Assembly or any of these schemes).
> 
> ...



It seems to me that rather than an (anti)politics of hope that intends to negate the existing bourgeois democratic system of representation, the 'left' is now pursuing a politics of consolation and solace. Almost as if they don't want to fundamentally change anything and have actually accepted the logic of the right. I've never been more certain of the left communist criticism against the left bourgeoisie tbh.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

Its the politics of despair. 

I can't blame people for getting their hopes up etc and i have in the past and no doubt will in the future. Im not a great authority on these things i mean ive been wrong plenty of times. But what ive seen on the left the last few years is as the situation deteriorates and the numbers of people engaged with far left politics seem to dwindle people on the left just keep putting their hopes in these figureheads whether its russell brand or the labour party or Obama or Tsipras or whoever. And thats no comment on whether these people are good people or sincere or whatever, its just really tragic (and i dont mean pathetic  i mean in the classical meaning, that its a tragedy) to watch people get really enthusiastic about something then get disappointed again and again and as a result lose hope that ANYTHING could ever be different or there could be ANY alternative to what we've got now.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Icelandic government continues attacks on workers and unions
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I may be out of date, and don't really know anything about those situations.

But Iceland has had the following rates of real terms average wages increase since 2011... 2.6%, 2.5%, 1.7%, 3.7%. They have 2.9% unemployment, and their Gini coefficient has dropped from 29.6 in 2008 to 22.7 in 2014.

http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Wages,-income-and-labour-market/Income-distribution


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I may be out of date, and don't really know anything about those situations.
> 
> But Iceland has had the following rates of real terms average wages increase since 2011... 2.6%, 2.5%, 1.7%, 3.7%. They have 2.9% unemployment, and their Gini coefficient has dropped from 29.6 in 2008 to 22.7 in 2014.
> 
> http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Wages,-income-and-labour-market/Income-distribution


Joined up yet? Not seen you pass up a liberal bandwagon before.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's not really interesting so much as a continuation of the previous red-baiting. Oh no Corbyn is against the EU (despite saying explicitly he is in favour of staying in) which means he's against stuff that middle-class 'left' liberal Guardistas like... like french cheese, cafés and posh wine and he probably likes racism or something as well as communism!



Well yeh that guardian milieu can go fuck themselves. Their snobbery and arrogance has contributed hugely to the lack of support for progressive ideas in this country.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> 'kinnel mate.


We as in the UK government are doing austerity voluntarily, the UK hasn't been forced into it by the ECB as Greece, Spain, Ireland etc were.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Joined up yet? Not seen you pass up a liberal bandwagon before.


I've done the £3 thing to get a vote, If there's a chance of getting a left winger as Labour leader then that's worth a £3 punt IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I've done the £3 thing to get a vote, If there's a chance of getting a left winger as Labour leader then that's worth a £3 punt IMO.


Beautiful


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

I'm in no way thinking that corbyn as Labour leader would magically sort everything out, but it'd shake things up significantly.

I'll be surprised if the neoliberal lot don't manage to pull it together to defeat him, but worth a punt.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> We as in the UK government are doing austerity voluntarily, the UK hasn't been forced into it by the ECB as Greece, Spain, Ireland etc were.


OK, so not _we_, then? It's funny how all states in the EU and beyond have 'voluntarily" decided on a course of fiscal consolidation to reduce the size of the state. You reckon that's 'free will', do you?


----------



## Humberto (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'm in no way thinking that corbyn as Labour leader would magically sort everything out, but it'd shake things up significantly.
> 
> I'll be surprised if the neoliberal lot don't manage to pull it together to defeat him, but worth a punt.



Anything to put the shits up them and bring out the beast. Could be some easy pickings when he is traduced in the media if he can manage to get a point across. Can't see it anyway reckon it will be Cooper if I had to bet. Interesting.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> OK, so not _we_, then? It's funny how all states in the EU and beyond have 'voluntarily" decided on a course of fiscal consolidation to reduce the size of the state. You reckon that's 'free will', do you?


would you care to pick up the other end of that stick?

My point was simply that we as in the UK are in a different position to that of Greece, Spain, Ireland, France or any other Eurozone country, as we are not beholden to the ECB.

As a country we could simply decide not to implement austerity measures, whereas those countries can't do that because ultimately the ECB can decide to cut off the supply of Euros to their banks, at which point due to fractional reserve banking, they're fucked.

Obviously we're not completely immune to the influence of international capital, but that is a massive difference between the UK and the Eurozone countries, and other than Osbourne, the ECB is currently main international advocate of austerity.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> would you care to pick up the other end of that stick?
> 
> My point was simply that we as in the UK are in a different position to that of Greece, Spain, Ireland, France or any other Eurozone country, as we are not beholden to the ECB.
> 
> ...


It is true that the UK Treasury is free to do what 'the markets' will accept, whilst the Eurozone states are only free to do what 'the markets' tell the ECB is acceptable.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It is true that the UK Treasury is free to do what 'the markets' will accept, whilst the Eurozone states are only free to do what 'the markets' tell the ECB is acceptable.


ok, but as a counter example to the austerity narative, the markets are perfectly happy to accept Japanese levels of government spending and debt to gdp ratios. Japanese 10 year bond rates fell from 1.5% in 2008 to 0.4% now, at the same time as government spending has increased by around 10%, and debt to GDP ratios have increased from 175% to 230%.

So the international markets don't actually seem to be too arsed about the austerity narrative when it's a strong country with a strong economy and its own currency.

Japan does of course have a major advantage in that it's a significant net exporter, and hasn't really opened its internal markets up in anything like the way we have.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> ok, but as a counter example to the austerity narative, the markets are perfectly happy to accept Japanese levels of government spending and debt to gdp ratios. Japanese 10 year bond rates fell from 1.5% in 2008 to 0.4% now, at the same time as government spending has increased by around 10%, and debt to GDP ratios have increased from 175% to 230%.
> 
> So the international markets don't actually seem to be too arsed about the austerity narrative when it's a strong country with a strong economy and its own currency.
> 
> Japan does of course have a major advantage in that it's a significant net exporter, and hasn't really opened its internal markets up in anything like the way we have.


The 'markets' are perfectly happy with debt; it's how they extract £bns from ordinary taxpayers. Why do you think that Osborne has been able to maintain such enormous deficits and debt and see bond yields stay so low? 

It's important to realise that 'austerity' or fiscal consolidation is only connected to national debt in that it is used by market compliant regimes as a justification for fincap's small state ideological agenda.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The 'markets' are perfectly happy with debt; it's how they extract £bns from ordinary taxpayers. Why do you think that Osborne has been able to maintain such enormous deficits and debt and see bond yields stay so low?
> 
> It's important to realise that 'austerity' or fiscal consolidation is only connected to national debt in that it is used by market compliant regimes as a justification for fincap's small state ideological agenda.


but as Japan shows the markets will clearly continue to loan money to countries who aren't implementing austerity or that small state agenda as long as they have strong economies and their own currencies, so aren't actually a block to us ending austerity unilaterally.

The markets forcing austerity on countries is one of the austerity advocates myths to justify their imposition of austerity IMO.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> but as Japan shows the markets will clearly continue to loan money to countries who aren't implementing austerity or that small state agenda as long as they have strong economies and their own currencies, so aren't actually a block to us ending austerity unilaterally.
> 
> The markets forcing austerity on countries is one of the austerity advocates myths to justify their imposition of austerity IMO.


You might want to check out Japanese fiscal policy throughout the two 'lost decades'.


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Interesting article about Corbyn and the EU here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ition-future-britain-eu-membership?CMP=twt_gu



Corbyn must be absolutely miles ahead if they are going to come out with nonsense like that.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

agricola said:


> Corbyn must be absolutely miles ahead if they are going to come out with nonsense like that.


 Yep


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2015)

We're now talking about 'the markets'. Nice one green party member and labour party supporter free spirit.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yep




Watching the fauxcilist panic is great fun


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> The markets forcing austerity on countries is one of the austerity advocates myths to justify their imposition of austerity IMO.



Well yes, I think that's right generally. Nearly all developed world governments are willing collaborators with fincap when it comes to imposing the small-state agenda; in that sense they do perpetuate the myth that _they _have been compelled (TINA). I suppose that is why so many of us were excited (to varying degrees) to see Syriza attempt to challenge that narrative and bust that myth.


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yep




Of all the gems those two pages contain, its the David Owen opinion piece that shines brightest.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 25, 2015)

Hatchet-man(n) takes the level of panic to a new (threat) level...



> There is speculation that 140,000 more activists could be eligible to vote than before the general election - with many of them signing up just to back Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> The Communist Party of Great Britain is among the groups that have urged supporters to join Labour and endorse the Islington North MP. Under new rules, they can pay just £3 and take part in the ballot.
> 
> Backbencher John Mann told the Sunday Times the contest was "totally out of control", and insisted acting leader Mrs Harman should step in so that proper checks can be conducted.


Reds under the bed.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/yvette-cooper-accuses-andy-burnham-supporters-sexism-labour-232313690.html#6FNCTKJ


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> We're now talking about 'the markets'. Nice one green party member and labour party supporter free spirit.


I didn't raise the point, and am discussing it to counter that narrative. In case you missed that distinction.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I didn't raise the point, and am discussing it to counter that narrative. In case you missed that distinction.


Are you or you not talking in terms of what 'the markets' will do?

The other poster who talked thusly has some credit - you, not a fucking penny.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Well yes, I think that's right generally. Nearly all developed world governments are willing collaborators with fincap when it comes to imposing the small-state agenda; in that sense they do perpetuate the myth that _they _have been compelled (TINA). I suppose that is why so many of us were excited (to varying degrees) to see Syriza attempt to challenge that narrative and bust that myth.


it is a myth.

There was fuck all compelling the UK to impose austerity, and there remains fuck all compelling it to, just as there's fuck all compelling the ECB to impose it across Europe beyond the idiocy of their founding agreement with its restrictions on government deficit spending levels.

It's just a political choice that was made / continues to be made based on flawed ideology.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2015)

Look at all the pro-eu anti-eu people all of a sudden.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Are you are you not talking in terms of what 'the markets' will do?
> 
> The other poster who talked thusly has some credit - you, not a fucking penny.


brogdale was making out that the markets were forcing austerity, I was disagreeing.

At least I think that's what was happening, though it's tangental to my main point that we're in a very different position to Greece, Spain etc due to having our own currency and our own central bank.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> brogdale was making out that the markets were forcing austerity, I was disagreeing.
> 
> At least I think that's what was happening.



You crack on with that.


----------



## mather (Jul 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's not really interesting so much as a continuation of the previous red-baiting. Oh no Corbyn is against the EU (despite saying explicitly he is in favour of staying in) which means he's against stuff that middle-class 'left' liberal Guardistas like... like french cheese, cafés and posh wine and he probably likes racism or something as well as communism!



What a pity, Corbyn would probably get more support if he was opposed to the EU.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> brogdale was making out that the markets were forcing austerity


I was actually saying the complete opposite; they do not need to force 'market compliant', neo-lib administrations. They are the government.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 26, 2015)

Can anyone recommend some reading on what it was that made social democracy a possibility in the post-WW2 era, and why it might no longer possible? I've heard the argument before but never really thought too deeply about it. Beyond the fact that millions of people with military training demanding a welfare state might be quite persuasive, of course.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 26, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Can anyone recommend some reading on what it was that made social democracy a possibility in the post-WW2 era, and why it might no longer possible? I've heard the argument before but never really thought too deeply about it. Beyond the fact that millions of people with military training demanding a welfare state might be quite persuasive, of course.



They lost the war.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Can anyone recommend some reading on what it was that made social democracy a possibility in the post-WW2 era, and why it might no longer possible? I've heard the argument before but never really thought too deeply about it. Beyond the fact that millions of people with military training demanding a welfare state might be quite persuasive, of course.


Posted before, but this is, in a sense, a condensed version of "Buying Time"


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I was actually saying the complete opposite; they do not need to force 'market compliant', neo-lib administrations. They are the government.


well I'm a bit lost then as to what this post meant.


brogdale said:


> It is true that the UK Treasury is free to do what 'the markets' will accept, whilst the Eurozone states are only free to do what 'the markets' tell the ECB is acceptable.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> well I'm a bit lost then as to what this post meant.


Because we're discussing in a thread about the potential for an anti-austerity leader who given the (massively unlikely) power of office would have the chance to test that 'freedom'.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> OK, so not _we_, then? It's funny how all states in the EU and beyond have 'voluntarily" decided on a course of fiscal consolidation to reduce the size of the state. You reckon that's 'free will', do you?


I think I'm going to give up on this conversation, I've no idea what point you've been making, and you started from a position of misunderstanding a point I'd made.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I think I'm going to give up on this conversation, I've no idea what point you've been making, and you started from a position of misunderstanding a point I'd made.


Great - you've no idea what the person you replied to said.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Great - you've no idea what the person you replied to said.



Who do you think would be the best winner? If you had a preference?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Who do you think would be the best winner? If you had a preference?


Fuck off


----------



## Humberto (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck off



Would you like Corbyn to win? Or are you being regal and mysterious?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

_


Humberto said:



			Would you like Corbyn to win? Or are you being regal and mysterious?
		
Click to expand...

I just want to get home_


----------



## Humberto (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _I just want to get home_



Theres always time


----------



## Humberto (Jul 26, 2015)

bottling out?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

Yep.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 26, 2015)

Lots of hysteria about 'entryism' this morning


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jul 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Lots of hysteria about 'entryism' this morning


TV or print media?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 26, 2015)

Miss-Shelf said:


> TV or print media?


Just now on The Andrew Marr Show... though I daresay, it's in print too.

Remember, if you disagree with the neoliberal orthodoxy it makes you an "extreme left-winger". Corbyn's a fucking social democrat ffs.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I think I'm going to give up on this conversation, I've no idea what point you've been making, and you started from a position of misunderstanding a point I'd made.


OK, I'll have another go, then.
I took objection to your claim that _"We as in the UK government are *doing austerity voluntarily*..". _My principle problem with that notion is the implication that the executives of 'sovereign' nation states are free to choose whether or not they comply with the demands of (global) financialised capital. 

As in most European states, we happen to be governed by an administration that enthusiastically enacts the neo-liberal agenda of austerity and, politically, would want to convey the impression that such measures represent the 'sovereign' settled will of the people as expressed by the executive of their elected representatives.

I agree with you that in the case of Eurozone states there is a 'middle-man' that acts to impose the will of fincap upon the members of the currency union, and we have seen what happens to a state that toyed with the idea of *not* '*doing austerity'. 
*
_*If *_Corbyn (or someone of that stripe) were to become PM of an administration committed to reverse the fiscal consolidation of 'austerity' they would face the hegemonic power of fincap to undermine the economy. The pressure would, obviously, not have to be sub-contracted to the ECB, but applied directly through "the markets" via, for example, unsustainably hiked bond yields.

It is for these reasons that I despair at the 'fetishisation' of the leadership of the 'left' party of financialised capital. If Corbyn won the leadership, if he then carried his party to a genuine anti-austerity platform, if they then won power...then we would be able to see just how "_*voluntary" *_austerity is.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Lots of hysteria about 'entryism' this morning


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 26, 2015)

Mann going for a different tactic this morning I see after trying the child abuse one last week. I can't even be bothered to link an article that's how interested I've become in Labour and the leadership battle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Who do you think would be the best winner? If you had a preference?


can only tell after seeing the acceptance speech, just the same as telling who's the worst loser.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> can only tell after seeing the acceptance speech, just the same as telling who's the worst loser.


tbf, if we were really serious about such a judgement, the party would have to tell them all, (one by one), that they'd 'won'...and then compare their performances. I suppose they'd have to use a sound-proofed, box like they used to on 'Mr&Mrs' to ensure fair play and all that. 
Could be quite entertaining....especially the reveal.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

Interesting...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 26, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Mann going for a different tactic this morning I see after trying the child abuse one last week. I can't even be bothered to link an article that's how interested I've become in Labour and the leadership battle.


Mann used to work as a researcher for the right-wing AEEU under (Sir) Ken Jackson, who himself was an associate of Frank Chapple and Eric Hammond.


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2015)

Corbyn is going for it, Kat Fletcher, ex NUS President/AWL is running the campaign, has hundreds of volunteers, the Manchester meeting saw over 300 people with two days notice, his twitter site, JEZYOUCAN, seem dominated by under 30's, they have raised well over 50, 000 pounds and a new call centre team is being set up, this is all on the sites, don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> OK, I'll have another go, then.
> I took objection to your claim that _"We as in the UK government are *doing austerity voluntarily*..". _My principle problem with that notion is the implication that the executives of 'sovereign' nation states are free to choose whether or not they comply with the demands of (global) financialised capital.
> 
> As in most European states, we happen to be governed by an administration that enthusiastically enacts the neo-liberal agenda of austerity and, politically, would want to convey the impression that such measures represent the 'sovereign' settled will of the people as expressed by the executive of their elected representatives.
> ...


so you were stating that the markets would force austerity on us if we didn't do it voluntarily.

To date the austerity in the UK has been entirely voluntary, there was no significant market pressure for austerity in 2010, we had no problem with borrowing prior to austerity, we had a AAA rating prior to austerity, and we had a growing economy prior to austerity.

The situation now is a little different as 5 years of austerity has wrecked the economy and resulted in far higher borrowing levels, so we're at a very different point now to then, plus the prevailing narative has largely moved to supporting austerity. However the majority of the worlds economists dispute the logic of austerity, and frankly I see no evidence to support the view that the markets would or could force austerity on the UK - some may try, but the UK is a strong enough economy to resist that and having our own currency gives us a huge advantage in that.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Interesting...



Have a look at the England vs Scotland answers to answer no. 2 here in conjunction with that


----------



## rekil (Jul 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Kat Fletcher, ex NUS President/AWL is running the campaign,


Has she done her own wiki? Looks like a striver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kat_Fletcher



> There is some confusion about her political affiliations as president. She left the AWL long before being elected; during her first year in office, she disbanded CFE, as a result of reinstating free education policy. It was at this point that the AWL and other left-wing activists such as the CFE's successor organisation Education Not for Sale came into sharp opposition to her.


NUS spivs ffs.


----------



## lazythursday (Jul 26, 2015)

It's nearly £65K donated and £15K of that is since yesterday. There is real momentum and I really can't see how this can't be good for the whole left. Marxism is being discussed on Andrew Marr ffs. For at least a short time the narrow window of political debate is being forced open. Even if it closes again in September it will have made a difference to the strength of the left, Labour and otherwise, surely?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> so you were stating that the markets would force austerity on us if we didn't do it voluntarily.



I don't accept your interpretation of compliance (however enthusiastic) as being 'voluntary'.


----------



## andysays (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...It is for these reasons that I despair at the 'fetishisation' of the leadership of the 'left' party of financialised capital. If Corbyn won the leadership, if he then carried his party to a genuine anti-austerity platform, if they then won power...then we would be able to see just how "_*voluntary" *_austerity is.



Great post - it really matters very little who the leader of the LP is, and even if JC manages to transform the whole party in his image, he will be extremely limited in what he/it can do.

Which is why posts such as this


articul8 said:


> oh right, Corbyn is a left reformist traitor-in-waiting.  I see.



demonstrate how far removed from reality "LP-or-nothing lefties" actually are - they can only explain their failure on leadership betrayal or similar simplistic nonsense


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I don't accept your interpretation of compliance (however enthusiastic) as being 'voluntary'.


so in 2010 what forces were acting on us that meant we had no option but to implement austerity? How was this not a voluntary policy that the tories implemented due to their ideology?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 26, 2015)

Try as I may I haven't found many people at all apart from my normal political contacts who have any interest what so ever in the Labour leadership elections.


----------



## andysays (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> so in 2010 what forces were acting on us that meant we had no option but to implement austerity? How was this not a voluntary policy that the tories implemented due to their ideology?



I think you're missing brogdale's point. No one is saying the Tory policy of austerity isn't basically voluntary - after all, the Tories (broadly) represent the interests of globalised capital which are served by those policies.

The point is that the ability of governments to act contrary to those interests is now more limited than it has previously been, and the hegemony of those interests is such that even thinking about acting contrary to those interests is apparently beyond the pale for respectable political opinion.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> I think you're missing brogdale's point. No one is saying the Tory policy of austerity isn't basically voluntary - after all, the Tories (broadly) represent the interests of globalised capital which are served by those policies.
> 
> The point is that the ability of governments to act contrary to those interests is now more limited than it has previously been, and the hegemony of those interests is such that even thinking about acting contrary to those interests is apparently beyond the pale for respectable political opinion.


Yes, what is compelled with threat cannot effect a 'voluntary' response.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, what is compelled with threat cannot effect a 'voluntary' response.


Where I come from this is known as "coercion".


----------



## andysays (Jul 26, 2015)

Anyway, the whole Labour leadership contest is essentially a sideshow



> ...a tale
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> Signifying nothing.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Where I come from this is known as "coercion".


The very definition of fincap's MO...as we have seen in Greece.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> I think you're missing brogdale's point. No one is saying the Tory policy of austerity isn't basically voluntary - after all, the Tories (broadly) represent the interests of globalised capital which are served by those policies.
> 
> The point is that the ability of governments to act contrary to those interests is now more limited than it has previously been, and the hegemony of those interests is such that even thinking about acting contrary to those interests is apparently beyond the pale for respectable political opinion.


This exchange started by Brogdale taking exception to me saying that those polices were enacted voluntarily in this country.

And when I said that I was couterposing our situation with that of the Eurozone countries where austerity really was forced upon them.

From my pov, and that of a lot of eminent economists, austerity itself is acting against the interests of global capital, as austerity destroys economies, and removes economic growth from the system. I don't agree that this has been forced on us by global capital, IMO it's a political judgement that was made at a political level based on a false reading of economics, and the ECB and eurozone finance minister have been enforcing it on their own agenda, not particularly being forced into it by global capital.

Ultimately austerity is a policy that largely came from Wolfgang Schauble, it's based on the policy that he enacted for East German integration, and it's no coincidence that austerity first came onto the agenda after he became German finance minister at the end of 2009.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> ok, but back in the real world the UK was able to create £350 billion of new money because we have our own currency and central bank. Greece wasn't.


It worked (more or less) because "The City" and other possible beneficiaries stood behind it.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> so in 2010 what forces were acting on us that meant we had no option but to implement austerity? How was this not a voluntary policy that the tories implemented due to their ideology?


Specifically, one example would be the UK 10Y yields had risen to 5%+ in the aftermath of Lehmans; 7% is considered unsustainable.


free spirit said:


> This exchange started by Brogdale taking exception to me saying that those polices were enacted voluntarily in this country.
> 
> And when I said that I was couterposing our situation with that of the Eurozone countries where austerity really was forced upon them.
> 
> ...


Of course austerity that prevents 'growth' would be counter to the interests of capital. But 'austerity' that basically maintains GDP 'growth' whilst effecting a transfer of economic activity from public to private is massively in the interests of fincap. That's what its all about.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 26, 2015)

No it didn't, its been around a lot longer than Schauble.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It worked (more or less) because "The City" and other possible beneficiaries stood behind it.


yes, but in Greece they don't even have that option. 

The ECB has enacted a 1.1 trillion Euro QE scheme this year, but excluded Greece from it.

That is a huge difference between our situation and the situation of Eurozone countries.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> No it didn't, its been around a lot longer than Schauble.


Correct. In the UK December 1976 has to be a contender for an obvious start-point.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> yes, but in Greece they don't even have that option.
> 
> The ECB has enacted a 1.1 trillion Euro QE scheme this year, but excluded Greece from it.
> 
> That is a huge difference between our situation and the situation of Eurozone countries.


What don't you get about different contexts but same forces/drivers?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Specifically, one example would be the UK 10Y yields had risen to 5%+ in the aftermath of Lehmans; 7% is considered unsustainable.


but the yields had fallen to 4.5% and were continuing to fall prior to Austerity.









brogdale said:


> Of course austerity that prevents 'growth' would be counter to the interests of capital. But 'austerity' that basically maintains GDP 'growth' whilst effecting a transfer of economic activity from public to private is massively in the interests of fincap. That's what its all about.


Even the IMF data has shown that austerity has caused significant reductions in GDP growth, greater reductions in GDP growth than the actual level of cuts themselves.

The transfer from public sector to private sector was happening prior to austerity, it's not contingent upon it.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> No it didn't, its been around a lot longer than Schauble.


it swept europe as a policy in 2010.

Prior to that there was no problem in addressing the global recession with massive levels of public sector borrowing.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> but the yields had fallen to 4.5% and were continuing to fall prior to Austerity.


That's the way "markets" work.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> The transfer from public sector to private sector was happening prior to austerity, it's not contingent upon it.


Or...maybe you're wrong about 'austerity' starting in 2010!


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> What don't you get about different contexts but same forces/drivers?


Straight answer please.

Do you agree or disagree that the UK having it's own currency and central bank puts it in a significantly different position to that of Eurozone countries such as Greece where they do not cotrol the central bank and can't control the money supply to their financial institutions?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Or...maybe you're wrong about 'austerity' starting in 2010!


or maybe you have a different definition of austerity to the one that's widely understood?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> so in 2010 what forces were acting on us that meant we had no option but to implement austerity?



Capital. The falling rate of profit means that the same wages and living standards cant be sustained any longer. You can take the view that this is a sad necessity and try to mitigate/struggle against its worst consequences (a point of view ive a lot of sympathy with tbh) or you can start thinking about other options to the current set up.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Straight answer please.
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that the UK having it's own currency and central bank puts it in a significantly different position to that of Eurozone countries such as Greece where they do not cotrol the central bank and can't control the money supply to their financial institutions?


It gives the treasury a 'lever' not available to Tsakalotos, but Osborne does not control the degree to which he can use that lever.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That's the way "markets" work.


so the markets were working to force austerity on the UK by dropping their rates before austerity started, and before the tory's were even elected?

Not maybe in response to rising GDP levels, quantitative easing etc?

I'd suggest that's a very odd reading of the market situation at that point.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Capital. The falling rate of profit means that the same wages and living standards cant be sustained any longer.


specifics please


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




Every time I've seen that over the last 25+ years, it's made me want to hunt down that Welsh class traitor and kneecap him.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It gives the treasury a 'lever' not available to Tsakalotos, but Osborne does not control the degree to which he can use that lever.


So we are in a significantly different position?

No other country or countries can turn off the taps of currency / liquidity to UK banks in the way that the ECB did to Greece.

I take the point that the government has given much of that control to the bank of england, but the control still resides within the UK, it's still owned by the government, and it still works to a remit set by the chancellor and is answerable to the treasury select committee.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> so in 2010 what forces were acting on us that meant we had no option but to implement austerity? How was this not a voluntary policy that the tories implemented due to their ideology?



You appear to have forgotten that the austerity narrative pervaded the pre-election maunderings of both Labour and the Lib-Deds too. All they promised was to sugar the pill/garnish the shit sandwich.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> So we are in a significantly different position?
> 
> No other country or countries can turn off the taps of currency / liquidity to UK banks in the way that the ECB did to Greece.
> 
> I take the point that the government has given much of that control to the bank of england, but the control still resides within the UK, it's still owned by the government, and it still works to a remit set by the chancellor and is answerable to the treasury select committee.


Neither could Carney operate without the tacit 'permission' of fincap.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to have forgotten that the austerity narrative pervaded the pre-election maunderings of both Labour and the Lib-Deds too. All they promised was to sugar the pill/garnish the shit sandwich.


not so much in 2010.

They were both favouring* continued growth promoting policies initially, with deficit reduction later in the parliament once the economy was back on track, which is pretty much basic Keynesian economics.

*in their pre-election public statements / manifestos at least.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> it swept europe as a policy in 2010.
> 
> Prior to that there was no problem in addressing the global recession with massive levels of public sector borrowing.



Nope. Started in 2008, and had already gained traction/achieved hegemony by 2010. Some states did massive borrowing (US and France being prime examples), others went straight to "fiscal consolidation"(Brown, for example, started winding in government spending, although at nowhere near the speed that Osborne adopted).


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Neither could Carney operate without the tacit 'permission' of fincap.


but he doesn't need the German Finance ministers approval for QE or any other measures.

You seem to be dancing around the point to avoid agreeing with me.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope. Started in 2008, and had already gained traction/achieved hegemony by 2010. Some states did massive borrowing (US and France being prime examples), others went straight to "fiscal consolidation"(Brown, for example, started winding in government spending, although at nowhere near the speed that Osborne adopted).


how the fuck did austerity start in 2008?

Spending rose significantly between 2008 and 2010.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> not so much in 2010.
> 
> They were both favouring* continued growth promoting policies initially, with deficit reduction later in the parliament once the economy was back on track, which is pretty much basic Keynesian economics.
> 
> *in their pre-election public statements / manifestos at least.



And yet the emphasis from both was the *inevitability* of deficit reduction. Neither promoted any escape from or avoidance of it, because their neoliberalised ideologies and the "market" perspective it gave them made them view it as inevitable and necessary.
Take a look at the growth plans. They're anaemic. They would have possibly acted to deflect *some* of the rise in unemployment that Osborne's version of austerity caused, but they *couldn't* have acted as a sufficient stimulus, if we're talking in Keynesian terms.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet the emphasis from both was the *inevitability* of deficit reduction. Neither promoted any escape from or avoidance of it, because their neoliberalised ideologies and the "market" perspective it gave them made them view it as inevitable and necessary.
> Take a look at the growth plans. They're anaemic. They would have possibly acted to deflect *some* of the rise in unemployment that Osborne's version of austerity caused, but they *couldn't* have acted as a sufficient stimulus, if we're talking in Keynesian terms.


I'm not intending to defend either party's 2010 manifestos beyond the point already made, but what's your point?

How does this back up the assertion that these austerity policies in the UK weren't entered into voluntarily, that the UK government couldn't have taken alternative courses of action, that financial capital wouldn't have allowed it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> how the fuck did austerity start in 2008?
> 
> Spending rose significantly between 2008 and 2010.



Now compare to projected spending. Not just the year-to-years, but the medium term (3-5 year) projections too.
You *may* recall that Labour got "clobbered" for high spending in 2010. Projected spending between 2008 and 2010 was higher because projections of the state of the economic cycle were such that (outwith "the credit crunch") higher spending would have been eminently affordable. Unfortunately, the credit crunch made the cycle's wheels fall off.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn: only genuine Labour supporters should vote for next leader



> The frontrunner in the Labour leadership election, Jeremy Corbyn, has said he only wants the support of “genuine Labour supporters” as he sought to dismiss calls for the party to shelve the contest over fears of an “infiltration” by hard-left activists.
> 
> John Mann, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw, has written to the party’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, to call for the election to be suspended until proper checks can be carried out on the tens of thousands of new members who have joined Labour since its election defeat in May.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Jeremy Corbyn: only genuine Labour supporters should vote for next leader


That means green party member free spirt who said this 

_I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it._

should not vote.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> but he doesn't need the German Finance ministers approval for QE or any other measures.
> 
> You seem to be dancing around the point to avoid agreeing with me.


What is it, exactly, that you want me to agree with?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That means green party member free spirt who said this
> 
> _I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it._
> 
> should not vote.


I am mainly enjoying the spectacle of the likes of Mann getting all vein-poppy over the prospect of Corbyn actually winning (however unlikely that may actually be). Pretty much anything that fucks off the Blairites is always good entertainment imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I am mainly enjoying the spectacle of the likes of Mann getting all vein-poppy over the prospect of Corbyn actually winning (however unlikely that may actually be). Pretty much anything that fucks off the Blairites is always good entertainment imo.


_My father's house has many mansions._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'm not intending to defend either party's 2010 manifestos beyond the point already made, but what's your point?
> 
> How does this back up the assertion that these austerity policies in the UK weren't entered into voluntarily, that the UK government couldn't have taken alternative courses of action, that financial capital wouldn't have allowed it?



It's simple.
1) If you're ideologically-predisposed to a particular view of the world (lets say "neoliberalism"), then you don't *see* alternatives, because the ambit of what your ideology allows you to see is narrowed.
2) If your governing structures and institutions are also pervaded by the same ideologies, proposals of alternatives will not be allowed to stand.
3) "The markets" have mechanisms to ensure compliance to their wishes - simple stuff like being able to influence your credit rating being the crudest but most effective mechanism. 

The UK might have been able to take a stand if we had a political class independent of capitalism, but we don't. We instead have a political class indoctrinated to believe that there's no alternative to what the markets want, which is why you find so many "op-ed" pieces in the press pooh-poohing Keynesian economics from 2008 onward - Keynesian economics lie outside of neoliberal discourse, and are therefore "invisible" as an alternative to that discourse.

Our political class fed us to the markets because their economic discourse told them it was the right and proper thing to do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _My father's house has many mansions._



Property-owning bastard!!!


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _My father's house has many mansions._


Anyone care to translate?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Anyone care to translate?



ButchersApron is like Mr Miyagi, when the time is right for you to understand, you _will _understand.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2015)




----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Jeremy Corbyn: only genuine Labour supporters should vote for next leader




Hang on, it was the long term desire of the Blairites to have much more loosely affiliated supporters rather than members, now its happened and its genuine progressives, leftists, etc, they don't like it.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Hang on, it was the long term desire of the Blairites to have much more loosely affiliated supporters rather than members, now its happened and its genuine progressives, leftists, etc, they don't like it.


Agreed at their 2014 (1st March) 'special conference'. Wonder how John Mann voted?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Hang on, it was the long term desire of the Blairites to have much more loosely affiliated supporters rather than members, now its happened and its genuine progressives, leftists, etc, they don't like it.


Is it? Not greens and people who aren't really labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Anyone care to translate?


Oh come on, a well known biblical phrase (yes, well known ) used to mean that we can do what you're doing and also laugh at the likes of free spirit signing something they don't agree with and other bandwagon chasers.


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2015)

BA, lots of new people are getting involved, I've met some of them, they are the sort of people who were around the anti-globalisation movement, etc.



> Earlier this month, the Socialist party’s official newspaper backed Corbyn’s campaign, saying he would defend people “under the cosh” of welfare cuts.
> 
> It said the leadership contest rules were a “virtual lottery in which any individual, Labour supporter or not, can potentially vote. The result is a layer of people signing up in the leadership election in order to vote for Jeremy Corbyn”. The newspaper said if Corbyn won, he should lift Labour’s ban on Militant Tendency
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...genuine-labour-supporters-leadership-election



Wintour at it again, do the SP ever describe themselves now as 'the militant tendency', Wintour trying to invoke the 80's again, when he was a teenager.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> BA, lots of new people are getting involved, I've met some of them, they are the sort of people who were around the anti-globalisation movement, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Wintour at it again, do the SP ever describe themselves now as 'the militant tendency', Wintour trying to invoke the 80's again, when he was a teenager.


What does 'getting involved' entail? 

So you mean it's people who were in their 20s 15 years ago? This is the GR people you attacked for hijacking stuff then? Right?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

Ambulance chasers, _that dead body is mine! He's gonna pay out soon. It's gonna drop mate, i tell you._


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

As Chairman (R)Ed said....


> *Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.*


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That means green party member free spirt who said this
> 
> _I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it._
> 
> should not vote.


I'd support a Labour Party with the values that Corbyn seems to stand for. The Green Party largely also stands for those values, and would have supported a minority Labour government had the situation arisen.

The Labour party may choose to accept or reject this form of qualified support. That's a decision for it to make, but if it rejects that sort of support then it's dead in the water and we'll be stuck with the tories for a long while yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'd support a Labour Party with the values that Corbyn seems to stand for. The Green Party largely also stands for those values, and would have supported a minority Labour government had the situation arisen.
> 
> The Labour party may choose to accept or reject this form of qualified support. That's a decision for it to make, but if it rejects that sort of support then it's dead in the water and we'll be stuck with the tories for a long while yet.


You agreed that 



> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.



not



> I'd support a Labour Party with the values that Corbyn seems to stand for.



So, you pretty much lied.  Great stuff.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You agreed that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Labour party has chosen Corbyn to be a leadership candidate, so it's reasonable to assume that his values are in some way compatible with the Labour Party's stated values - though oddly there are no stated values within the constitution, so it's a little hard to know what they're supposed to be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> The Labour party has chosen Corbyn to be a leadership candidate, so it's reasonable to assume that his values are in some way compatible with the Labour Party's stated values - though oddly there are no stated values within the constitution, so it's a little hard to know what they're supposed to be.


Look at the way wriggle:



> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.



Yes you are. Backbone.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Look at the way wriggle:
> 
> Yes you are. Backbone.


I'm a member of an organisation that seeks to work in some for of partnership with Labour, and that stands in clear opposition to the Conservative party and its policies.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I'm a member of an organisation that seeks to work in some for of partnership with Labour, and that stands in clear opposition to the Conservative party and its policies.


Fuck off, you're in the green party - you've _bought _a vote in another party. A party who you oppose. Rat.

Even corbyn is telling you to fuck off.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 26, 2015)

I ain't paid the £3. As a member of GPEW I couldnt make that declaration in good conscience, though I am aware mine is not a uniform conscience.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2015)

lol communist party mentioned on the tele.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> lol communist party mentioned on the tele.



There are literally dozens of us!


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck off, you're in the green party - you've _bought _a vote in another party. A party who you oppose. Rat.
> 
> Even corbyn is telling you to fuck off.


is he?

Shall we see what the full quote was?



> Speaking on the BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Corbyn welcomed the influx of Labour members since the election and said: “What is there not to like about young people turning up and being interested in politics? What it’s about is converting Labour into much more of a social movement.”
> 
> He also addressed Mann’s fears directly, saying: “I only want people to register as Labour supporters if they are genuine Labour supporters and intend to stay for the longer course.
> 
> “Surely the idea of joining a political party just to vote in a leadership election is a bit limited and we should go a bit further. The entryism I see is a lot of young people hitherto not really excited by politics coming in for the first time and saying we can have a discussion – we can discuss our debts and housing problems.”


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

Yeah: see this bit:



> “I only want people to register as Labour supporters if they are genuine Labour supporters and intend to stay for the longer course.



That's where he told you to fuck off.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> *Oh come on, a well known biblical phrase* (yes, well known ) used to mean that we can do what you're doing and also laugh at the likes of free spirit signing something they don't agree with and other bandwagon chasers.



Not to me but thanks for the explanation anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Not to me but thanks for the explanation anyway


Heathen


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2015)




----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah: see this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> That's where he told you to fuck off.


preceded by this...



> “What is there not to like about young people turning up and being interested in politics? What it’s about is converting Labour into much more of a social movement.”



and then this.





> Surely the idea of joining a political party just to vote in a leadership election is a bit limited and we should go a bit further.


then there would be previous statements that clearly indicate that he doesn't view the Green Party in terms of being opposed to the Labour Party.



> At present, he can see that something new is going on, transcending traditional political allegiances. ‘At a local level,’ he says, ‘people who are supporters of Labour and the Green Party actually work together on a lot of issues – probably with a few Liberal Democrats as well as others. There is going to be a change in politics in the future – look, for instance, at the growth of organisations like UK Uncut. Essentially it is a moral force.’


 redpepper

But obviously what we should all do is to just leave the labour party to decide this on the basis of the membership who've stuck with it and supported it through 3 decades of increasingly neoliberal leadership. Rather than making use of the mechanisms the Labour party have themselves put in place to encourage more people to get involved in their internal democracy.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2015)

teqniq said:


>



See? And now you _know._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> preceded by this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lots of guilty quoting there. You were asked if:


> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.



And you lied on this pretty simple thing.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who votes in Labour leadership elections, and one who sows discord among brothers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who votes in Labour leadership elections, and one who sows discord among brothers.


Nicely done.

Is it worse to be a real member of the labour party or to pretend to be a member? What's the most shameful?


----------



## campanula (Jul 26, 2015)

haughty eyes? wtf are haughty eyes?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

campanula said:


> haughty eyes? wtf are haughty eyes?


You dogging i up?


----------



## campanula (Jul 26, 2015)

a little bit gnomic for me, butchers.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2015)

campanula said:


> haughty eyes? wtf are haughty eyes?


Could be them is like naughty eyes except maybe the LORD didn't have a keyboard to fuck up on


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

campanula said:


> a little bit gnomic for me, butchers.


Are you looking at me in manner designed to cause mutual aggravation. Of the fistic type. You fucking want some? You and them lot behind you.

But haughty eyes probably means talking to your fathers and bothers like a norm. A bit frank booth.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who votes in Labour leadership elections, and one who sows discord among brothers.





butchersapron said:


> Nicely done.
> 
> Is it worse to be a real member of the labour party or to pretend to be a member? What's the most shameful?



Tricky.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Lots of guilty quoting there. You were asked if:
> 
> 
> And you lied on this pretty simple thing.


you can interpret it that way if you want, I don't.

If the Labour party decide to interpret it in that way then so be it, but it'd seem pretty counterproductive to exclude 50,000 people who fought the last election on a centre left anti-austerity agenda, which many local labour party candidates basically nicked wholesale to use as their platform rather than their own parties manifesto commitments, and which the national labour party borrowed several policies from.

That tribalist approach worked really well in Scotland didn't it?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You dogging i up?



So 'haughty eyes' are the expression you put on for Dogging then?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 26, 2015)

FFS - can we please keep the thread on topic?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

YouSir said:


> So 'haughty eyes' are the expression you put on for Dogging then?


is there a form now?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> FFS - can we please keep the thread on topic?


haughty keyboard


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> FFS - can we please keep the thread on topic?


Great, 10 posts not about 'the markets' and we're off topic.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 26, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> FFS - can we please keep the thread on topic?


I take your point entirely but it has cheered me up on this miserable Sunday afternoon


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nicely done.
> 
> Is it worse to be a real member of the labour party or to pretend to be a member? What's the most shameful?



I dunno but when it comes down to it I doubt whether Corbyn is that bothered one way or another, though of course he can never say that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

My favourite one there is the dick holding the Evening Standard. The combination of tie, shit right-wing tabloid, Lib Dem sign and smug punchable face is amazing


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

They're all in the green/labour/next bandwagon party now.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


>



Who are they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Who are they?


The people who held a demo in 2010 demanding Nick Clegg supports "fair votes now" (this was ion the middle of the coalition discussions). The famous purple loons.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They're all in the green/labour/next bandwagon party now.



Even the one holding the Evening Standard like he's trying to flog the Socialist Worker?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Even the one holding the Evening Standard like he's trying to flog the Socialist Worker?


Especially him.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Especially him.



I think that this might be him (found via this Eton scumbag)

I get your point though


----------



## scifisam (Jul 26, 2015)

I've just joined the Labour Party - as a student, £1 per year! - to vote for Corbyn. No proof of student status is required, just so you know.

If he doesn't win, but does get a lot of votes, that might still send out the message that, actually, being right-wing and Labour isn't as much of a vote-winner as they thought.

And yeah, it's a major political party and the current stand-in leader told her MPs not to vote against the austerity bill, and Labour are blue Tories etc etc. But they probably wouldn't, in reality, have been as bad as the current Tories are; they weren't last time they were in power. They didn't do enough, of course, but the Socialist Alliance or whatever is not going to seize power any day soon. 

Labour is the only tool ordinary voters have to try to decrease attacks against the poor. It's a shit tool, but if you're in a fight and the only weapon you have is nail scissors it's better to use them than sit back being bludgeoned while wishing for a machete.

Burnham etc would take away even the nail scissors.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

scifisam said:


> I've just joined the Labour Party - as a student, £1 per year! - to vote for Corbyn. No proof of student status is required, just so you know.
> 
> If he doesn't win, but does get a lot of votes, that might still send out the message that, actually, being right-wing and Labour isn't as much of a vote-winner as they thought.



Sorry but this isn't realistic at all. If he doesn't win then that will be spun as a vindication of neoliberalism over old fashioned backwards thinking socialism and a mandate to proceed as before. These policies are not subject to the democratic will of the electorate and they are certainly not subject to the democratic will of the Labour membership.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 26, 2015)

I think if it comes to having a vote for the Labour Party leader I shall follow their example and abstain.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Labour is the only tool ordinary voters have to try to decrease attacks against the poor. It's a shit tool, but if you're in a fight and the only weapon you have is nail scissors it's better to use them than sit back being bludgeoned while wishing for a machete.
> 
> Burnham etc would take away even the nail scissors.



What is this based on exactly? Abstaining from the welfare bill is totally consistent with statements made during the election campaign. Reeves promised to be tougher on welfare than the Tories, remember?


----------



## andysays (Jul 26, 2015)

scifisam said:


> ...Labour is the only tool ordinary voters have to try to decrease attacks against the poor. It's a shit tool, but if you're in a fight and the only weapon you have is nail scissors it's better to use them than sit back being bludgeoned while wishing for a machete...





> Bullshit, "Labour is the only weapon with which I got to fight". I've got a hell of a lot of weapons to fight! I got my claws, I got cutlasses, I got guns, I got dynamite, I got a hell of a lot of fight! I'll fight! I'll fight! I will fight! I will fight! I will fight! I will fight!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2015)

campanula said:


> haughty eyes? wtf are haughty eyes?


One more lonely night for me. I looked up, what did I see? Haughty eyes movin cross the floor.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2015)

when your in love with a labour leader, you watch your eyes (yeah you watch your eyes)


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2015)

And she'll tease you
She'll unease you
All the better just to please you


----------



## scifisam (Jul 26, 2015)

andysays said:


>




You haven't actually got claws, etc, though, have you? And if you did try to use them to fight against govt cuts you'd be in deep shit.

Also, using a vote for a Labour leader (or any vote) doesn't take away any other tools you have. Unless you fall for all they say, which even some Labour MPs don't, it seems.

J ED -I told you already what it was based on - their past performance. I only think they'd be less monstrous than the current Tories. That is not a high bar to reach. It's sad that the bar is set so low but it is.

It's basically being stuck between a rock and a hard place and choosing the rock because at least it provides some shade whereas with the hard place you're instantly cooked.


----------



## andysays (Jul 26, 2015)

scifisam said:


> You haven't actually got claws, etc, though, have you? And if you did try to use them to fight against govt cuts you'd be in deep shit.
> 
> Also, using a vote for a Labour leader (or any vote) doesn't take away any other tools you have. Unless you fall for all they say, which even some Labour MPs don't, it seems...



The claws etc are figurative, but you were the one who said


> ...Labour is the only tool ordinary voters have to try to decrease attacks against the poor



and it's that which I'm disputing. But I'll go further and suggest that thinking that the Labour Party is any sort of tool for changing things for the better is a delusion which I urge you and others who are not already too far gone to re-consider.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

If social media and newspaper comment threads are anything to go by, the support for the 3 neoliberal candidates is evaporating, and the more they attack Corbyn and his supporters, the stronger his support becomes.

Just been reading through the comments on this indy article by Liz Kendal, the article's not gone down well.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 26, 2015)

This is quite funny. An attack on Corbyn in the Daily Mirror by Carol Malone and a poll under the article which show 70% are going to be voting for him

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-elect-jeremy-corbyn-lurch-6139547


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

A small but interesting reflection of how far Corbyn's campaign has advanced...



> *Even if Corbyn loses*, he will remain a force in his party – and beyond.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> you can interpret it that way if you want, I don't.
> 
> If the Labour party decide to interpret it in that way then so be it, but it'd seem pretty counterproductive to exclude 50,000 people who fought the last election on a centre left anti-austerity agenda, which many local labour party candidates basically nicked wholesale to use as their platform rather than their own parties manifesto commitments, and which the national labour party borrowed several policies from.
> 
> That tribalist approach worked really well in Scotland didn't it?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

as I say, up to the Labour party how they decide to go about this.

Fuckloads of exlabour members joined the greens in the last couple of years, a fair few union members too whos dues have been filling labour party coffers for years.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 26, 2015)

Fingers said:


> This is quite funny. An attack on Corbyn in the Daily Mirror by Carol Malone and a poll under the article which show 70% are going to be voting for him
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-elect-jeremy-corbyn-lurch-6139547


incredible article that - cliche gold
firebrand - check
dinosaur - twice
rabid  - three times
hyperbole - endless
personal digs about his marriage
and theres a lot more besides

fair play to Carole Malone - you couldnt even get close to her rant with a spoof article - shes a natural shite stirrer -takes some skill. The Mirror truly is a shitrag - they deserve each other.

------------
From her wiki:
In 2009, a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about one of Malone's columns in the News of the World which claimed that illegal immigrants receive "free cars", led to the publication of the following clarification by the paper:
On July 26, our columnist Carole Malone claimed illegal immigrants receive "free cars".  We now accept illegal immigrants do not receive such a benefit and apologise for the error.[2][3]
On May 14, 2012, Malone said on national TV that the murders of six children were "an accident waiting to happen" because they were benefits claimants.


----------



## agricola (Jul 26, 2015)

Fingers said:


> This is quite funny. An attack on Corbyn in the Daily Mirror by Carol Malone and a poll under the article which show 70% are going to be voting for him
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-elect-jeremy-corbyn-lurch-6139547



To be honest, even a pro-Corbyn journalist would have a hard time coming up with an article that better demonstrates why people should vote for him than that.  Also kudos to whoever in the Mirror's internet team thought of using the image that goes with the "Old school: Campaigner Corbyn is of the hard-bitten left" caption.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> as I say, up to the Labour party how they decide to go about this.
> 
> Fuckloads of exlabour members joined the greens in the last couple of years, a fair few union members too whos dues have been filling labour party coffers for years.


Join the labour party then you lib-dem twat.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Join the labour party then you lib-dem twat.


I think I'll wait to see who they elect as leader before deciding about that, if it's all the same to you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I think I'll wait to see who they elect as leader before deciding about that, if it's all the same to you.


And join and work for another party inbetween. Nothing like commitment.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> And join and work for another party inbetween. Nothing like commitment.


it's funny that you criticise people for being mindless party drones as well.


----------



## xenon (Jul 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> The claws etc are figurative, but you were the one who said
> 
> 
> and it's that which I'm disputing. But I'll go further and suggest that thinking that the Labour Party is any sort of tool for changing things for the better is a delusion which I urge you and others who are not already too far gone to re-consider.


Who here thinks that really though. Im personly enjoying the OTT reaction Corbyn's leadership bid is causing in mainstream media. Dangerous ideas, don't listen to this stuff etc. 

Houses with many manchans, again.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

I'm just in this for the whining liberals, sorry but they are some of the best political entertainment I've seen in a while


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

That edgy posh liberal Graunid article filled with techno-libertarian corporate buzzwords which attacked the idea of Corbyn without actually mentioning him and instead suggested street parties and bigging up Milton Friedman has been my favourite so far.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

Let them eat hashtags


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2015)

Lol


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm just in this for the whining liberals, sorry but they are some of the best political entertainment I've seen in a while


we shall not see their like again


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2015)

free spirit said:


> it's funny that you criticise people for being mindless party drones as well.


in your case flitting from party to party


----------



## J Ed (Jul 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Lol




She should join UKIP to complete the set


----------



## rekil (Jul 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> That edgy posh liberal Graunid article filled with techno-libertarian corporate buzzwords which attacked the idea of Corbyn without actually mentioning him and instead suggested street parties and bigging up Milton Friedman has been my favourite so far.


I liked the 'our brave buses' bit.


> The Routemaster bus, both new and old, is a prime example of an object of public love: we need many more of them


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> we shall not see their like again


We've got the 2017 refferendum on europe to look forward to yet. Oh what a time to be alive


----------



## Wilf (Jul 27, 2015)

Spoke to someone the other night who tried to tried to vote as a member of unite community, discussed upthread.  He wasn't allowed to, but on the grounds that he had signed the papers of a rival candidate in the past - socialist alliance, Middlesbrough mayoral contest a decade ago (not that he was in the community bit of unite).  Looks like labour keep electronic records of all other party nominations. Has anyone heard of anyone else who has been refused a vote?


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> We've got the 2017 refferendum on europe to look forward to yet. Oh what a time to be alive



June 2016 I heard earlier today. Or did I miss something.?


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> lol communist party mentioned on the tele.




Might be an idea to point out to the news that they, the Morning Star lot, aren't really communists anymore.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> June 2016 I heard earlier today. Or did I miss something.?


2017 is what I've read. Presumably can be bundled up with the council elections and thus spare some money


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Who are they?




Starting up the greasy ladder?, our favourite libertarians are certainly doing that now.


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2015)

Billy Bragg played Tramlines tonight, I wonder what his latest proclamation is?


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2015)

scifisam said:


> You haven't actually got claws, etc, though, have you? And if you did try to use them to fight against govt cuts you'd be in deep shit.
> 
> Also, using a vote for a Labour leader (or any vote) doesn't take away any other tools you have. Unless you fall for all they say, which even some Labour MPs don't, it seems.
> 
> ...



While Ed may have reigned in some of the worst excesses of the welfare reforms, though that wasn't guaranteed, he has also talked of wanting to get rid of DLA himself, the Blairites would follow a path similar to the Tories.


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2015)

agricola said:


> To be honest, even a pro-Corbyn journalist would have a hard time coming up with an article that better demonstrates why people should vote for him than that.  Also kudos to whoever in the Mirror's internet team thought of using the image that goes with the "Old school: Campaigner Corbyn is of the hard-bitten left" caption.



He looks better now than he did then, ageing well.


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> She should join UKIP to complete the set



Isn't Tulip a serial party joiner?, though she voted for Corbyn as well.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 27, 2015)

John Mann's 'we should stop the contest because when we set up an "anyone can register as a supporter and vote for the leader" we didn't think they'd actually do that'  is on a par with....Margaret Becket's 'when I said the party should have a wide choice of people to vote for, I really didn't think they'd vote for the person I allowed them to vote for'.

Clueless fuckwits.  Mann is proving to be an utterly unprincipled twat.  Deploying the 'you did nowt about abuse' dig at corbyn was particularly low.  A bit like misusing the holocaust to win a golf club election.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 27, 2015)

Just in passing, as someone to the left of labour, corbyn's seeming popularity suggests there are people in and around the party with good instincts, people who feel they have permission to finally break with new labour.  Nothing less than that, but probably not much more.  More likely though is that labourites are reacting to the 3 blairites, not so much with contempt or hatred, just aware they simply have nothing to say, that after another defeat the whole thing has come to an end.  Think I'm saying it might not all be attraction to corbyn's social democracy, just that he isn't the blairite.  To some extent then, corbyn's success on a left-ish platform is  a sign that labourites have discovered that the Labour Party is irrelevant.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2015)

R5 phone-in giving an hour-long platform to Ren_tool _


----------



## Libertad (Jul 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> R5 phone-in giving an hour-long platform to Ren_tool _



Fancy living in La-La land?


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2015)

Talking of which....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/izaakson/corbyn-destroys-summer-new-study-finds-1pqb0


> Shocking new research has found that since Jeremy Corbyn, the bearded ultra-leftist firebrand, has taken the lead in the Labour Leadership contest, the British summer has stopped indefinitely. The UK had been enjoying an unprecedented dry spell since the Tory victory in May, the second driest since records began.
> 
> In an exclusive interview (see pages 5,6,7,8), Liz Kendall comments that, “voters have sent a very clear message: they like warm weather, and they don’t want rain. Already Corbyn is ruining our summer...



Burnham quote a classic!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Labour is the only tool ordinary voters have to try to decrease attacks against the poor.



If you believe that, you've already lost.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 27, 2015)

Even worse - _Scottish_ red under the bed entryists 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/..._to_swing_it_for_Corbyn__party_source_claims/


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2015)

I have to say I am impressed by this article over all, and this bit in particular

While slashing college funding, George Osborne boasts of increasing apprenticeships. Yet too many are low quality, failing to give young people the transferable skills they need to get on.

It is clear that some employers are using apprenticeships and traineeships as a means of circumventing minimum wage legislation. This has to end. The minimum wage must be equalised across the board – with no poverty rates like the current £2.73 per hour apprenticeship rate.

First time I've heard a Labour politician say what is obvious to any young person who has looked for work in the past three years or so. In fact the Labour MP Paul Blomfield actually claimed that he abstained from the welfare bill because it contained a provision for more apprenticeships.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Even worse - _Scottish_ red under the bed entryists
> 
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/..._to_swing_it_for_Corbyn__party_source_claims/


The Andrew Marr interview ends with a brief chat with the one who swims upstream to spawn. Ajockalypse Now.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2015)

Corbyn is doing a gig at my local this Saturday. Vaguely tempted to go... any questions I should ask?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> Corbyn is doing a gig at my local this Saturday. Vaguely tempted to go... any questions I should ask?


When he is Eternal Leader, will we have full communism?

PD entryists have been expelled from various activities and fronts the party had on- will he welcome such waifs and strays?

Have you ever bought a used car (socialists always drive crap motors, its the rule) from Andy Burnham?

What are your opinions on the declining rate of profit and the essentially unviable nature of capitalism?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> Corbyn is doing a gig at my local this Saturday. Vaguely tempted to go... any questions I should ask?



"All this social democracy stuff is fine, you're just trying to get elected I get that, but the important question is what are you doing to bring about full communism and attract the aliens which will implement it?"


----------



## agricola (Jul 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I have to say I am impressed by this article over all, and this bit in particular
> 
> While slashing college funding, George Osborne boasts of increasing apprenticeships. Yet too many are low quality, failing to give young people the transferable skills they need to get on.
> 
> ...



He loses points for mentioning PWC, though.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> Corbyn is doing a gig at my local this Saturday. Vaguely tempted to go... any questions I should ask?


Apart from never joining the single currency, what lessons can the left learn from the experience of Syriza?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> Corbyn is doing a gig at my local this Saturday. Vaguely tempted to go... any questions I should ask?



Ask him of he can play Ring of Fire.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> Corbyn is doing a gig at my local this Saturday. Vaguely tempted to go... any questions I should ask?


When is he planning to convene the soviets as I might need a day off work.


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2015)

Could you ask him will he in media interviews reveal the number of deaths from the welfare reforms, many at their own hand, and the media blackout on this figure and consequence of the cuts, etc.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 27, 2015)

Ask him how he's going to purg-... er, negotiate with the portion of the party that hates him if he ends up as leader.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 27, 2015)

I thought this article goes to the heart of labours problem.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ilderness-labour-jeremy-corbyn-or-liz-kendall



> There are two paths to a Labour victory in 2020, argues Michael Chessum: either Labour reject the principles of neoliberalism with Corbyn, or embrace them with Liz Kendall.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 27, 2015)

Cheese or beans first?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> When is he planning to convene the soviets as I might need a day off work.


If the whole thing goes as we obviously know it will, there will be no more work.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

oh and obviously, the key question- Pistols or Clash?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> oh and obviously, the key question- Pistols or Clash?


He's a jethro tull man. Or Robert Wyatt.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2015)

I dont dare ask about music. _imagine_


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2015)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Lewis_(politician)


Some interesting people amongst the new intake of LP M.Ps, such as this guy Clive Lewis, born on a Northampton council estate, Dot Com? ex army reservist, VP NUS, against austerity, seems to back Corbyn.

btw, the Times is thundering that "Labour's leaders must stand up to mutiny on the left"

Never said that when the Blairite entryists were mobilising in the mid 90's


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> I_imagine_


perhaps he is a secret Laibach fan


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2015)

I see Janine Booth has had her application for Registered Supporter status turned down.  Various other such letters being sent out now, apparently. o one here had one yet, I guess


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2015)

I reported free spirit to the police.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2015)

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/im-more-convinced-ever-jeremy-corbyn-going-win



> Of course, polls have been wrong before. But crucially, the polls felt wrong before the fact. Labour’s poll lead was nowhere to be seen at the European elections, when they finished a limp second, or in the local elections, when they fell back in the marginals, foreshadowing the rout they’d suffer at the general election. Ashcroft constituency polls showed Labour in contention in seats where headquarters had long stopped funnelling resources. And every ordinary conversation about politics inevitably spun round to Miliband’s unsuitability as Prime Minister.
> 
> The polls don’t feel wrong this time. Defections from the three candidates of the right to Corbyn are being picked up by all three campaign’s phonebanks, and by the mayoral campaigns as well. At the hustings, which were bossed last time by the two Milibands, it is Corbyn who is getting wildly applauded. “The surge is real,” was the verdict of one staffer I spoke to this weekend.
> 
> Privately, none of the deputy campaigns expect that Corbyn will finish anything other than first in the race for the top spot. Volunteers return from phonebanking sessions, in the words of one “utterly convinced it will be Corbyn now”.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2015)

> At one [CLP] contest there were just 25 ballots: nine for Jeremy Corbyn, eight for Andy Burnham, four for Yvette Cooper, and one simply reading “Fuck Kendall”.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 27, 2015)

fuck - does this really drag on until september 12th?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 27, 2015)

Hey I found the Blairite reply to Corbyn's article on education today



> Educating the underwealthed is all about leveraging incentivized design competencies for ROI on social equity. The key, though, is to catalyze cross-pollinated blue-skying sessions with enough of an emphasis on agile optimization and keen rightsizing deliverables. What the underwealthed say time and again, when surveyed through the appropriate instrument, is that evidence-based flexibility matters: flexible contracts, curricula liberated from regulation, experience-based real-world classrooms, MOOCs, and so on.
> 
> Perhaps a parable can help illustrate the matter: A man walked into the ancient desert in the ancient, mysterious, eternal, unchanging, story-like, unmodern Middle East somewhere. After a while, he became thirsty and realized that he had not brought water with him and was unprepared for the harsh savage conditions of the mysterious desert of the exotic orient. He wandered on until he saw what appeared to be an oasis, with footprints leading to it. As he walked towards it, the footprints disappeared but the oasis remained. But when he finally arrived at the oasis, it disappeared in front of him, as is want to happen in the magical, inscrutable, ancient, exotically mysterious, orient-like Orient. He spun around in confusion only to see that the footprints had reappeared – and when he turned around again, a bright shiny water fountain stood in place of the oasis.
> 
> ...


----------



## gosub (Jul 27, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fuck - does this really drag on until september 12th?


Depends who wins, might just be the start


----------



## rekil (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> Corbyn is doing a gig at my local this Saturday. Vaguely tempted to go... any questions I should ask?


If alien questions get fobbed off, demand that he endorses PD's new 'one strike, three anti' campaign. Or else all our #activists will be exfiltrated from his campaign.



> Enthusiastically play table tennis, beloved of the global proletariat.
> 
> Oppose bourgeois racquet sports (badminton and lacrosse subject to non-negotiable decision of regional committees)
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fuck - does this really drag on until september 12th?


yes. it will all be over by christmas.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Hey I found the Blairite reply to Corbyn's article on education today


Rarely have I seen such a clunking prose style. That's one for Pseud's Corner.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. it will all be over by christmas.


----------



## mather (Jul 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Hey I found the Blairite reply to Corbyn's article on education today



Jesus Christ, is this for real?

I guess the only upside to this is that hardly anyone will understand what this twat is on about as it is all gobbledygook and no substance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


>





Spoiler: blairite xmas message


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2015)

mather said:


> Jesus Christ, is this for real?
> 
> I guess the only upside to this is that hardly anyone will understand what this twat is on about as it is all gobbledygook and no substance.


of course it isn't real.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 27, 2015)

Wilf said:


> John Mann's 'we should stop the contest because when we set up an "anyone can register as a supporter and vote for the leader" we didn't think they'd actually do that'  is on a par with....Margaret Becket's 'when I said the party should have a wide choice of people to vote for, I really didn't think they'd vote for the person I allowed them to vote for'.
> 
> Clueless fuckwits.  Mann is proving to be an utterly unprincipled twat.  Deploying the 'you did nowt about abuse' dig at corbyn was particularly low.  A bit like misusing the holocaust to win a golf club election.



On a similar theme, this from today's torygraph:



> A former cabinet minister in the last Labour government said called for the leadership election to be suspended amid fears that Communists and former members of the Militant Tendency have infiltrated the party. “I absolutely think it is a determined and deliberate attempt to infiltrate the election by powerful unions and it is a very serious threat to the democracy of the party,” the senior figure said. “These are not Labour Party people. I think this is a deliberate attempt to infiltrate the party and distort the basic democracy of the Labour Party.”



We must suspend the election because of this threat to democracy. These people don't even hear what they say when they say it do they?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 27, 2015)

mather said:


> Jesus Christ, is this for real?
> 
> I guess the only upside to this is that hardly anyone will understand what this twat is on about as it is all gobbledygook and no substance.



It's not real, but it's a good enough approximation of neoliberal word-salad that it might fool some genuine blairites.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> of course it isn't real.



You say "of course", but sadly we live in a world where satire and reality are often hard to tell apart.


----------



## killer b (Jul 27, 2015)

I dunno, good satire should always be vaguely plausible. that article is just a soup of shit buzzwords with no wit used in their arrangement (so maybe actually plausible after all...).


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2015)

mather said:


> Jesus Christ, is this for real?


As its posted by someone calling themselves 'Edgy White Liberal,' I'm guessing at 'no'


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 27, 2015)

> A former cabinet minister in the last Labour government said called for the leadership election to be suspended amid fears that Communists and former members of the Militant Tendency have infiltrated the party.



The CPB's membership was about 1,000 last I heard, I'd imagine the SP is similar, so even if they were both practicing entryism in cahoots (they aren't afaik, certainly the Morning Star's not "calling on all comrades") it would have a minimal impact on the leadership election. Says alot about the utterly bonkers atmosphere that must be pervading Labour right circles that it'd get raised as a potential issue though. 

The spectacle of a Blairite decrying other groups for wanting to hijack Labour and remold it in their own image though, priceless


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2015)

> A former cabinet minister in the last Labour government called for the leadership election to be suspended amid fears that Tories have infiltrated the party.


----------



## belboid (Jul 27, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> The CPB's membership was about 1,000 last I heard, I'd imagine the SP is similar, so even if they were both practicing entryism in cahoots (they aren't afaik, certainly the Morning Star's not "calling on all comrades") it would have a minimal impact on the leadership election. Says alot about the utterly bonkers atmosphere that must be pervading Labour right circles that it'd get raised as a potential issue though.


They (or the Sunday Times at least) were talking about the CPGB, not the CPB. So make that two dozen members.


----------



## gosub (Jul 27, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> On a similar theme, this from today's torygraph:
> 
> 
> 
> We must suspend the election because of this threat to democracy. These people don't even hear what they say when they say it do they?



So when the unions had bulk votes, that was wrong coz they chose lefties, so they changed the rules...now the membership is wrong.	Why don't they just save everybody the trouble when they do this again in October and make Leo Ewen Blair "Lord Protector"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2015)

gosub said:


> So when the unions had bulk votes, that was wrong coz they chose lefties, so they changed the rules...now the membership is wrong.	Why don't they just save everybody the trouble when they do this again in October and make Leo Blair "Lord Protector"



because he's dead?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2015)

gosub said:


> So when the unions had bulk votes, that was wrong coz they chose lefties, so they changed the rules...now the membership is wrong.	Why don't they just save everybody the trouble when they do this again in October and make Leo Ewen Blair "Lord Protector"


What lefties did union block votes elect? The union block vote was historically on the right of the party and was effectively the leaderships (and the right) safety net.


----------



## gosub (Jul 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 74556
> because he's dead?



Looked it up, Leo is the youngest son of Mr Blair.  My memory ain't going yet


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2015)

gosub said:


> Looked it up, Leo is the youngest son of Mr Blair.  My memory ain't going yet


the one who's not the drunk you mean


----------



## gosub (Jul 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the one who's not the drunk you mean



Any of them would do, protecting the legacy  from left wingers who think the Labour party is something todo with them.


----------



## mather (Jul 27, 2015)

My mistake but as others have said there is so much bullshit out there that it is now getting increasingly difficult to tell satire and reality apart.


----------



## Supine (Jul 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> I dunno, good satire should always be vaguely plausible. that article is just a soup of shit buzzwords with no wit used in their arrangement (so maybe actually plausible after all...).



Sounded like a normal email from my last job. Scarey!


----------



## free spirit (Jul 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I reported free spirit to the police.


a new low.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 27, 2015)

free spirit said:


> a new low.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Cheese or beans first?


simultaneous ftw


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

thing is that fptp groups people under a certain tent and then has tendencies within that, so Progress or Socialist Campaign- or the tories 1922 comittee, whattever. It's considered how things are done. To moan that a bunch of left wingers have joined the labour party and that...just fuck off. This is 2015. The cold war is over, you won. So why does it taste like ashes?


----------



## agricola (Jul 28, 2015)

mather said:


> My mistake but as others have said there is so much bullshit out there that it is now getting increasingly difficult to tell satire and reality apart.



This, really.  I spent half an hour reading Lambeth's Councillor Bennett's twitter feed earlier yesterday and I still dont know if he actually exists.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 28, 2015)

agricola said:


> <snip> I spent half an hour reading Lambeth's Councillor Bennett's twitter feed earlier yesterday and I still dont know if he actually exists.


Unfortunately, he does.


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2015)

Harriet Harman: we are weeding out bogus Labour leadership voters 

HH reassures us that the electoral system won't be infiltrated by hard left extremists and/or Conservatives out to discredit the process.


> She pointed out the party had tracked down some Green party members trying to join the party as bogus registered supporters through social media such as Facebook



And those who are concerned that by signing-up as a supporter they'll effectively be making a donation to LP funds, if their checks are as thorough as she's suggesting, then they're likely to be spending more on them than the £3 sign-up fee - it's the Blue Monday sleeve all over again.


----------



## JTG (Jul 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> Harriet Harman: we are weeding out bogus Labour leadership voters
> 
> HH reassures us that the electoral system won't be infiltrated by hard left extremists and/or Conservatives out to discredit the process.
> 
> ...


There's divs all over facebook saying things like 'I'm a member of [party] but I've signed up as a Labour supporter to vote for JC'. It's not hard to find them.

Hang on, that story says Toby Young signed up and has been cast out again


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2015)

JTG said:


> There's divs all over facebook saying things like 'I'm a member of [party] but I've signed up as a Labour supporter to vote for JC'. It's not hard to find them.



That still requires people to actually check through facebook posts and match them up to new supporter sign-ups, but according to HH in the article, they're doing rather more than that.

For those who couldn't bring themselves to click on the link, here's some of what it says


> “We are policing the integrity of this process. My job is to ensure the rules for this election agreed in 2014 are properly applied. The system is designed to give people that are supporters of the party, but not necessarily a member, a say in choosing the leader of the Labour party.





> “I have been concerned right from the outset that we should have absolute integrity in the process and that we should be rigorous and robust in our verification. We have got an extensive verification system in place. We are doing everything possible to ensure the process is valid. Under the old system you could be card carrying member of another party and you still got a vote. We are now requiring people to say if they are Labour party members or supporters”.





> Harman said new full party members were being vetted in the normal way, registered union supporters were being checked by the party nationally listening to recordings of recruitment calls made by union phone banks and new £3 registered supporters had to be checked both nationally and locally.





> She said any union member could only be recruited to the party as a supporter by a union either by signing in person, or via a recorded phone call, a record of which has to be sent to the party for cross checking. Checks were being made to ensure that single signatures were not being used.





> In addition, a special party unit was listening to the entirety of the recording of two-thirds of such calls to check those being recruited genuinely said they were lasting party supporters. Of the remaining third, half were being played back and checked. In the case of those calls not being checked completely, if the party staff thought there was a problem in a batch of calls, the automatic procedure is for the entire batch to be reviewed and listened back. She said there are 48 people working shifts across six days a week listening to these calls. She added she had personally listened to recordings of some of the calls.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> Harriet Harman: we are weeding out bogus Labour leadership voters
> 
> HH reassures us that the electoral system won't be infiltrated by hard left extremists and/or Conservatives out to discredit the process.



So you can only vote if you're voting for the right candidate. This just gets better and fucking better.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 28, 2015)

tbh, i think the labour party are totally within their rights to exclude other parties' members from signing up. if you're a member of say the greens and you sign up as a supporter of one of its competitors it doesn't say much about your faith in that party and its leadership. it's hardly surprising that labour are doing this. what would happen if tusc or the greens got a load of MPs and then people from labour and other groups signed up to push it to the right?


----------



## weepiper (Jul 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> Harriet Harman: we are weeding out bogus Labour leadership voters
> 
> HH reassures us that the electoral system won't be infiltrated by hard left extremists and/or Conservatives out to discredit the process.
> 
> ...


Isn't that rigging


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2015)

Did you expect them not to bother checking or something?


----------



## JimW (Jul 28, 2015)

Can't beat a good party rectification campaign. Shame they won't go all out and cleanse the class ranks too.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ck-predictable-out-of-touch-election-campaign

Cringingly transparent.


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Isn't that rigging


No


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2015)

A lot of people who lost faith in the labour party and for example joined the greens seem to feel that it is something they could support again if Corbyn was the leader. So they join the labour party, I don't see why this becomes anywhere near hypocritical.

I can imagine they feel they share the aims and values of the labour party as it used to be and feel Corbyn will push the party back to that, so feel happy joining. I don't think sneering at them is the best approach.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 28, 2015)

I'd like to believe that if there was a concerted campaign to recruit new members to vote for Liz Kendall that this would be monitored in the same way.

I've been involved in (non-political) elections at work and I'd want to know what was happening if the electorate suddenly leapt beyond double figures.


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2015)

The idea that someone who, say, worked as a campaign manager for a rival party at the recent general election would be allowed to vote in the Labour party leadership election is laughable. What do you take them for?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I'd like to believe that if there was a concerted campaign to recruit new members to vote for Liz Kendall that this would be monitored in the same way.



I don't think there'd be much need would there? Where would they come from? 

I'd suggest pointing and laughing would be the appropriate response there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> The idea that someone who, say, worked as a campaign manager for a rival party at the recent general election would be allowed to vote in the Labour party leadership election is laughable. What do you take them for?


Esp in that specific seat where the rise in the green vote may have cost the labour party the seat and handed it on a plate to the lib-dems.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 28, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think there'd be much need would there? Where would they come from?
> 
> I'd suggest pointing and laughing would be the appropriate response there.



Well, yes, exactly.

Although I suppose you could say that there has been a slow infiltration of the LP by careerist right wing types for some time...


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

two sheds said:


> A lot of people who lost faith in the labour party and for example joined the greens seem to feel that it is something they could support again if Corbyn was the leader. So they join the labour party, I don't see why this becomes anywhere near hypocritical.
> 
> I can imagine they feel they share the aims and values of the labour party as it used to be and feel Corbyn will push the party back to that, so feel happy joining. I don't think sneering at them is the best approach.


Because they are member of the Greens - a rival political party. It's pretty basic, and hardly corrupt - you can only be a member of one party.  Anything else _is _hypocritical


----------



## YouSir (Jul 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Because they are member of the Greens - a rival political party. It's pretty basic, and hardly corrupt - you can only be a member of one party.  Anything else _is _hypocritical



Do you think that's why Labour are running all the checks? Or is it just a way to try and wean out some people who are voting the 'wrong' way? Doubt they'd give a toss if it were returning Greens voting for Burnham or Cooper. Not that it much matters.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 28, 2015)

there are a few SP members (not the leaders afaic) ive seen saying they're going to try to join the LP and vote for corbyn while still remaining members of the SP!! It's quite ridiculous, it shows that they don't really believe it's ideas, the whole spiel when Taffe and Co left in the 80s was that Labour had become a totally bourgeois party rather than a bourgeois workers' party as their previous analysis, I remember all the discussions on this when I was a member. Thats why TUSC and the "campaign for a new workers' party" was launched


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Isn't that rigging



Course it's not.

I'm not seeking to defend the LP, but can you imagine the shit there would be (rightly) if members of the LP starting signing up in a similar way to influence the internal processes of the SNP or the Greens, or any other party you care to name?

I can't decide what I find most amusing about this whole story - the idea that significant numbers of people who are members of rival parties or groups would think it's actually worthwhile doing this, or the apparent panic among various LP bods that their party processes will really be subverted by "outsiders"


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Do you think that's why Labour are running all the checks? Or is it just a way to try and wean out some people who are voting the 'wrong' way? Doubt they'd give a toss if it were returning Greens voting for Burnham or Cooper. Not that it much matters.



I'd like to think this is true, if only because we could call it the "Blairite Witch-hunt Project"

(apologies if anyone had made that joke already)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Do you think that's why Labour are running all the checks? Or is it just a way to try and wean out some people who are voting the 'wrong' way? Doubt they'd give a toss if it were returning Greens voting for Burnham or Cooper. Not that it much matters.


The case being used here isn't of people returning though - it's of people who are actual active current members of rival parties.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 28, 2015)

It would be interesting to get a breakdown of people who've signed up. My guess is that most of them are returners or people who've not been members of any party before?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The case being used here isn't of people returning though - it's of people who are actual active current members of rival parties.



Which is fair enough, I just don't trust the LP not to be using it to try and stem the Corbyn flow rather than just as a matter of procedure. Depends how far they take it really and where their focus ends up being. Again, don't think it much matters though.


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Do you think that's why Labour are running all the checks? Or is it just a way to try and wean out some people who are voting the 'wrong' way? Doubt they'd give a toss if it were returning Greens voting for Burnham or Cooper. Not that it much matters.


Yes.  It's basic democratic principles.  And, yes, they did run basic checks on people in previous elections.

Anyone who joins whilst being a member of another party is a dishonest turd, and should be removed from membership by both.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2015)

weepiper said:


> Isn't that rigging


You'd almost think they hadn't thought this new system through. 

Anyway, they're on it now:

'Harriet, this checking the registered voters, shall we do it alphabetically, shall we start with Andy Burnham's pile?'

'No, tell you what let's be a bit more random, let's start with Jeremy's'


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Because they are member of the Greens - a rival political party. It's pretty basic, and hardly corrupt - you can only be a member of one party.  Anything else _is _hypocritical



Unless something dramatic changes, and Corbyn standing is something fairly dramatic. A couple of friends (probably several more, I've only really spoken to two) are getting interested in politics again because of the possibility of him leading the party. 

I'm a member of NHS Action party and if I felt that Corbyn would reverse the NHS privatization I'd be tempted to vote for him, even join the party too. They're rival parties because of the UK's voting system but they can have overlapping aims. I think whether they join a second party is down to the individual. As long as it's not a party with conflicting aims and values then fair enough. 

The people who are tempted to join are on the left wing of the party and I think that sneering at them (not that you personally are) is only going to alienate a further set of people who are left leaning and is counterproductive.


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2015)

I don't think the labour tops care much about alienating left-leaning people tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

Anyone who ran/joined/supported the greens on the basis of them being 'the real alternative to labour' and who now is doing this is basically saying _you didn't really think i was serious did you? Well, i wasn't - more fool you for believing me. _ lib-dem levels of rotten behavior there.

Also, i think, demonstrates the limit's to greens potential growth in this country - labour have them hemmed in, huge chunks of their membership (never mind their voters) will desert them for labour as soon as possible, esp now.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 28, 2015)

you can't join two parties that are going to be competing with each other at elections ffs. it's not right imo. how can you be in a party and then say do canvassing for the NHA knocking on peoples doors saying why other parties inc Labour don't care as much about health as you do etc and then go canvassing for Labour? do you think anyone considering voting for those groups would take it seriously?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> I don't think the labour tops care much about alienating left-leaning people tbf.



True, I meant on urban though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

So this surge in new green members that we're often told has moved it significantly to the left are all off is Corbyn wins then? (which would, given the lib-dem background of many of them, put the lib-dems to the left of the greens prior to this!) Might be worth the £3 then.


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2015)

Wilf said:


> You'd almost think they hadn't thought this new system through.
> 
> Anyway, they're on it now:
> 
> ...



Again, far be it for me to defend the LP, but they will be checking people as they attempt to register, not once they have actually voted (of course, they may calculate that the majority of those attempting to sign up who are disqualified through being members of rival parties will be Corbyn supporters, but that's something else)


----------



## JTG (Jul 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone who ran/joined/supported the greens on the basis of them being 'the real alternative to labour' and who now is doing this is basically saying _you didn't really think i was serious did you? Well, i wasn't - more fool you for believing me. _ lib-dem levels of rotten behavior there.
> 
> Also, i think, demonstrates the limit's to greens potential growth in this country - labour have them hemmed in, huge chunks of their membership (never mind their voters) will desert them for labour as soon as possible, esp now.


I've been thinking exactly that tbh - that there are a lot of newish Green members/supporters who will desert like a shot to Labour at the first sign of anything vaguely left of Miliband


----------



## YouSir (Jul 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Yes.  It's basic democratic principles.  And, yes, they did run basic checks on people in previous elections.
> 
> Anyone who joins whilst being a member of another party is a dishonest turd, and should be removed from membership by both.



I find it hard to give a fuck about people dicking about with Labour. Dishonest turds vs dishonest turds. 

On a side note. How about non-Labour voters? I've only voted Labour once in my life, in a Mayoral election. Wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire tbh. But in theory they should be 'my' party. Certainly always been the family party. So am I hypocritical for signing up as a supporter only as long as the guy I back wins? How about if I'd joined TUSC rather than just donating? Would I be a hypocritical turd for wanting to reclaim a say in the LP? Assuming that I might follow that up with the right result?


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> That still requires people to actually check through facebook posts and match them up to new supporter sign-ups, but according to HH in the article, they're doing rather more than that.
> 
> For those who couldn't bring themselves to click on the link, here's some of what it says




Must be costing a fortune that


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ck-predictable-out-of-touch-election-campaign
> 
> Cringingly transparent.



Hard right Blairites, they seem to be getting more coverage than the thirty failed candidates who came out for J/C last week, surprise.


----------



## andysays (Jul 28, 2015)

treelover said:


> Must be costing a fortune that



Hence my reference to the Blue Monday sleeve


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> Again, far be it for me to defend the LP, but they will be checking people as they attempt to register, not once they have actually voted (of course, they may calculate that the majority of those attempting to sign up who are disqualified through being members of rival parties will be Corbyn supporters, but that's something else)


Yes, I know, just my attempt at a feeble jest on how crude this whole thing is. It's been amusing watching the campaign against corbyn starting to roll in the last week or so.  All the press stories about hamas, the opinion pieces on being out of power for a lifetime, john mann's selling his child protection rep for crude inner party advantage, the infiltration stories, all the 'we didn't really want you to vote for the candidate we allowed you to'.  There are headless chickens everywhere shaking their, err, heads in despair.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 28, 2015)

treelover said:


> Hard right Blairites, they seem to be getting more coverage than the thirty failed candidates who came out for J/C last week, surprise.



But they're 'devastatingly frank' and 'not from one wing of the party.' 


Honest.


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I'd like to believe that if there was a concerted campaign to recruit new members to vote for Liz Kendall that this would be monitored in the same way.
> 
> I've been involved in (non-political) elections at work and I'd want to know what was happening if the electorate suddenly leapt beyond double figures.



What is Progress, if not an independently funded(Lord Sainsbury, etc) entryist organisation, they never investigate them.

Corbyn will.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 28, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> you can't join two parties that are going to be competing with each other at elections ffs. it's not right imo. how can you be in a party and then say do canvassing for the NHA knocking on peoples doors saying why other parties inc Labour don't care as much about health as you do etc and then go canvassing for Labour?



I'd hope that they'd form some form of coalition during government. Yes I wouldn't leaflet for NHA again if I felt Labour would get in and reverse privatization (I wouldn't campaign for Labour either though). Although I really do like the NHA aims, if it was a question of joining/voting for them which lets the tories in and labour which gets the tories out, then sorry no contest. 

Perhaps people should unjoin the one party before joining the other. Again, I'd see that as down to them - if the aims are overlapping, then I don't see a problem with it. Fine to disagree with people doing it, but I don't see it as being hypocritical as some are saying. 

Could call people who aren't voting for *any* political party hypocritical for demanding that other people choose a single party to join. I don't think it helps to use those words - setting left against left which will just let the right run riot as they have done.


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I don't think there'd be much need would there? Where would they come from?
> 
> I'd suggest pointing and laughing would be the appropriate response there.




Twenty years ago, you could have said the same about the 'project' and the proto blairites.


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> It would be interesting to get a breakdown of people who've signed up. My guess is that most of them are returners or people who've not been members of any party before?



a large % are young people under 30, some who haven't even voted before.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 28, 2015)

Joining (as opposed to voting) and becoming actively involved in a political party is a serious commitment, and people should be serious about it, it shouldnt be taken lightly. it wouldn't be fair on your comrades who are serious about the party's aims if you joined two parties and then went to campaign for both of them say during an election if you were trying to get two competing candidates elected in the same seat.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

_Why can't all the parties and politicians all get together and agree on the way forward?
_
Basic principle is that only those subject to the outcome of an election/other similar process get to vote/speak etc. That's utterly central and is, in fact, one of the core arguments for how/why to democratise society, esp regarding economic democracy. Bit daft to chuck that overboard for a bit of post-modern political consumerism - _ooh i want one of them, and them and two of them._


----------



## Libertad (Jul 28, 2015)

There's a lot of liberal hand-wringing in this thread. Is there a case to be made for furthering the struggle through the "By any means necessary" route?

(This is a rhetorical question and I haven't taken up Labour's kind offer of supporter status btw.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

treelover said:


> a large % are young people under 30, some who haven't even voted before.


What %? How do you know this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

Libertad said:


> There's a lot of liberal hand-wringing in this thread. Is there a case to be made for furthering the struggle through the "By any means necessary" route?
> 
> (This is a rhetorical question and I haven't taken up Labour's kind offer of supporter status btw.)


What struggle here though? And _against _who and _for _who and _with _who?


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

YouSir said:


> I find it hard to give a fuck about people dicking about with Labour. Dishonest turds vs dishonest turds.
> 
> On a side note. How about non-Labour voters? I've only voted Labour once in my life, in a Mayoral election. Wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire tbh. But in theory they should be 'my' party. Certainly always been the family party. So am I hypocritical for signing up as a supporter only as long as the guy I back wins? How about if I'd joined TUSC rather than just donating? Would I be a hypocritical turd for wanting to reclaim a say in the LP? Assuming that I might follow that up with the right result?


well, you couldn't join TUSC, as they are an even less democratic organisation than Labour.

Voters can, of course, do what they like. They haven't been a member of a rival political party. I do think you should only sign up if you actually intend to support the party, but it isn't against the rules to just sign up and vote, so that's okay.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What struggle here though? And _against _who and _for _who and _with _who?



Me, against all of you. Come get some, I'll have you all.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 28, 2015)

Libertad said:


> There's a lot of liberal hand-wringing in this thread. Is there a case to be made for furthering the struggle through the "By any means necessary" route?



I think escalating it to armed struggle is probably not appropriate at this point.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 28, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> But they're 'devastatingly frank' and 'not from one wing of the party.'
> 
> 
> Honest.



I notice that article talks about how "on the the doorstep" there was concern that labour were "demonising the private sector" . Where were these doorsteps? Non-dom row in mayfair?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 28, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> But they're 'devastatingly frank' and 'not from one wing of the party.'
> 
> 
> Honest.



"Polly", "Will", "Rowena",  all good solid everyday working class monikers there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

Green party constitutionally  don't allow members of other parties to join btw. I wonder why. Labour too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> "Polly", "Will", "Rowena",  all good solid everyday working class monikers there.


4 of the 7 are oxbridge. They're all bubble people - just the right-wing side of it. BBC, guardian, interns etc


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2015)

For my part it isn't liberal handwringing so much as surprise that anyone would expect anything else to happen - it's totally standard to boot out members of rival parties as and when they're discovered. How could it work any other way?

Checks were always going to happen, they're just being highlighted now to steady the troops (and presumably scare rival party members off from bothering - I'd be surprised if they're in as much detail as she suggests).


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> well, you couldn't join TUSC, as they are an even less democratic organisation than Labour.



Don't be daft. TUSC is a coalition. I'd say the internal democracy of the groups involved like the SP and the RMT is far more democratic than the LP. Hell the SWP is probably more democratic in some ways. Anyone, whether a group or an individual standing for, TUSC can put out what ever they like in their public material so long as it doesn't conflict with the very basic minimum anti-cuts, anti-racist program of TUSC. You can't do that in the Labour Party. The only power the TUSC Steering Committee has is the power to approve candidates standing under it's name and to put out public statements in the name of TUSC as a whole. That's a far cry from the LP. 
TUSC is 100 times more democratic than the Labour Party.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 28, 2015)

leyton96 said:


> Don't be daft. TUSC is a coalition. I'd say the internal democracy of the groups involved like the SP and the RMT is far more democratic than the LP. Hell the SWP is probably more democratic in some ways. Anyone, whether a group or an individual standing for, TUSC can put out what ever they like in their public material so long as it doesn't conflict with the very basic minimum anti-cuts, anti-racist program of TUSC. You can't do that in the Labour Party. The only power the TUSC Steering Committee has is the power to approve candidates standing under it's name and to put out public statements in the name of TUSC as a whole. That's a far cry from the LP.
> TUSC is 100 times more democratic than the Labour Party.



Have the sp still got the slate system?


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

leyton96 said:


> Don't be daft. TUSC is a coalition. I'd say the internal democracy of the groups involved like the SP and the RMT is far more democratic than the LP. Hell the SWP is probably more democratic in some ways. Anyone, whether a group or an individual standing for, TUSC can put out what ever they like in their public material so long as it doesn't conflict with the very basic minimum anti-cuts, anti-racist program of TUSC. You can't do that in the Labour Party. The only power the TUSC Steering Committee has is the power to approve candidates standing under it's name and to put out public statements in the name of TUSC as a whole. That's a far cry from the LP.
> TUSC is 100 times more democratic than the Labour Party.


lol.  A distraction, but.....

Individuals have zero say in TUSC, it is a miserably failed lash up, each of whom can block anything being agreed as policy. There are no candidate selections, just the sects imposing their choices. If you think that is 'democratic' then you dont understand the word.


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What %? How do you know this?




Its been mentioned on JC Twitter and Kat Fletcher who is JC's volunteer teams manager.


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

just to repeat and clarify, when twenty seven Labour candidates wrote a letter supporting Corbyn they were described by the Guardian as 'disappointed Labour candidates'. But the seven right wing/blairites post a critique of Ed' leadership and they suddenly become "well regarded".

these included Will Straw, Guardian change the record.


----------



## Libertad (Jul 28, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think escalating it to armed struggle is probably not appropriate at this point.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 28, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> there are a few SP members (not the leaders afaic) ive seen saying they're going to try to join the LP and vote for corbyn while still remaining members of the SP!! It's quite ridiculous, it shows that they don't really believe it's ideas, the whole spiel when Taffe and Co left in the 80s was that Labour had become a totally bourgeois party rather than a bourgeois workers' party as their previous analysis, I remember all the discussions on this when I was a member. Thats why TUSC and the "campaign for a new workers' party" was launched



The thing with the Militant (and the SWP for that matter) is that despite the strategy and rhetoric they can't quite break with Labourism and still see it as the party 'of the class' to varying degrees at different moments.  

It says something that months after the election that some in the SP would rather throw their lot in with a social democrat like Corbyn than try to develop a pro working class voice in the communities that they stood for election in.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Individuals have zero say in TUSC, it is a miserably failed lash up, each of whom can block anything being agreed as policy. There are no candidate selections, just the sects imposing their choices. If you think that is 'democratic' then you dont understand the word.



I'll take your word for it.

A more important point (and one which is actually linked to the thread) is the extent to which SP members and others have abandoned or are considering junking the 'fight for a new workers party' in favour of helping Corbyn win the leadership of a non workers party?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What %? How do you know this?


it's a treelover fact


----------



## Libertad (Jul 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What struggle here though? And _against _who and _for _who and _with _who?



I've just written a long rambling post in an attempt to clarify what it was that I was referring to but it was shit so I'll summarise it like this:

There is an argument supporting entryism that goes vote Corbyn and he takes Labour to the left and small gains may be achieved for the working class either through electoral victory or at least in blocking the worst excesses of vermin legislation. OR vote Corbyn and the Labour party's right wing split off in a huff SDP style and what's left is then shown to be an inadequate force unable to achieve the change that's necessary. Both of the above presupposing a Corbyn victory which atm is not certain.

Neither outcome is really going to further the way towards a socialist society at a speed that many would wish but in themselves both have their merits. Both would serve to show that the Labour party is not the machine capable of bringing about the fundamental societal changes that are needed.

In short, vote Corbyn to fuck the Labour party and speed up the incremental process that will lead to a socialist society.


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

Libertad said:


> In short, vote Corbyn to fuck the Labour party and speed up the incremental process that will lead to a socialist society.


yes, I've heard others argue roughly the same thing.  It's not really an argument that is going to win over any sympathetic minds currently in the LP, is it?  Do it, if that's your bag, but, for god's sake, don't tell anyone that's why you're doing it!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 28, 2015)

News of a possible 'new workers party': http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-new-party-says-socialist-group-10419988.html


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The thing with the Militant (and the SWP for that matter) is that despite the strategy and rhetoric they can't quite break with Labourism and still see it as the party 'of the class' to varying degrees at different moments.
> 
> It says something that months after the election that some in the SP would rather throw their lot in with a social democrat like Corbyn than try to develop a pro working class voice in the communities that they stood for election in.



I don't think you've read the SP statements on Corbyn - we're certainly not going to register as supporters and vote for him. We are agitating for him and his little group to turn away from the Labour Party and towards those who support him. He'll either lose or win and be driven out so it probably won't surprise many that that's the line we're taking.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...rites-terror-at-popularity-of-left-wing-ideas


----------



## J Ed (Jul 28, 2015)

While I'm not surprised at Labour cracking down on people from other parties joining I don't see it as a moral wrong really. Is it any different to being a member of the CBI or the Henry Jackson Society and joining the Labour Party?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> While I'm not surprised at Labour cracking down on people from other parties joining I don't see it as a moral wrong really. Is it any different to being a member of the CBI or the Henry Jackson Society and joining the Labour Party?



Of course it's not wrong but they'll use it to declare the results invalid, and the Labour Left blame everything on us as it is.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think you've read the SP statements on Corbyn - we're certainly not going to register as supporters and vote for him. We are agitating for him and his little group to turn away from the Labour Party and towards those who support him. He'll either lose or win and be driven out so it probably won't surprise many that that's the line we're taking.
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...rites-terror-at-popularity-of-left-wing-ideas



this was individual members rather than the leadership.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> this was individual members rather than the leadership.



Some are, which I think is daft, but don't really care, let them. It's not "The Line".

Tony Mulhearn just re-applied to join the Labour Party, but he does that all the time.


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Tony Mulhearn just re-applied to join the Labour Party, but he does that all the time.


Degsy was insisting on Newsnight last night, he holds a LP card at the moment.  I suspect it's still his 1986 one he's held onto tho


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

Don't like saying this, but he(Hatton) came across rather well in that interview.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think you've read the SP statements on Corbyn - we're certainly not going to register as supporters and vote for him. We are agitating for him and his little group to turn away from the Labour Party and towards those who support him. He'll either lose or win and be driven out so it probably won't surprise many that that's the line we're taking.
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...rites-terror-at-popularity-of-left-wing-ideas



I was responding to the post of Frogwoman which concerned individuals but seen as you are here in the event of a JC win and the formation of a '100% anti austerity new workers party' (according to Hannah Sell) what would the SP do? Surely you couldn't stand against such a formation as TUSC?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Degsy was insisting on Newsnight last night, he holds a LP card at the moment.  I suspect it's still his 1986 one he's held onto tho



He rejoined a while ago, they gave him a card but I don't think they're happy about it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I was responding to the post of Frogwoman which concerned individuals but seen as you are here in the event of a JC win and the formation of a '100% anti austerity new workers party' (according to Hannah Sell) what would the SP do? Surely you couldn't stand against such a formation as TUSC?



Read the press statement? 

"Whatever the outcome of the Labour leadership election, these events show the popularity of socialist ideas and the possibility of organising around them. In the face of endless austerity we urgently need a party that is prepared to oppose it. If Jeremy is defeated in the election we would urge him and his supporters to escape from the prison of a Labour Party led by a pro-austerity leader and to begin to build such a party - with a clear anti-cuts, socialist programme.

However, if Jeremy Corbyn wins, he will face open revolt from the right wing that dominates the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Labour machine. Of the 232 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party only nine are members of the Socialist Campaign Group to which Jeremy Corbyn belongs. Already Labour MPs are threatening to trigger another contest immediately in order to get Jeremy Corbyn 'out by Christmas'.

Far from respecting democracy the Blairites, as Bertolt Brecht put it, want to dissolve the electorate and get a new one! In this situation Jeremy Corbyn would need to mobilise the maximum possible support from across the workers' movement. We would encourage him to organise a conference of all those who have voted for him, plus the many trade unions - including non-affiliated unions like the RMT, PCS and FBU - which support his programme. The Socialist Party would be happy to participate in such a conference and would encourage other TUSC supporters to do the same."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Degsy was insisting on Newsnight last night, he holds a LP card at the moment.  I suspect it's still his 1986 one he's held onto tho


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2015)

> As someone who worked for Labour in a Tory marginal and got our candidate Cat Smith elected on a Socialist ticket.
> 
> Lancaster and Fleetwood is a highly marginal seat, we won by being true to core Labour values.
> 
> ...



Posted elsewhere as a counter to the Seven Blairites and their Fabian report..


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

treelover said:


> Posted elsewhere as a counter to the Seven Blairites and their Fabian report..


who posted it where originally?


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2015)

'elsewhere' is the comments section on a guardian article isn't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> 'elsewhere' is the comments section on a guardian article isn't it?


let's allow treelover to speak for himself.


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2015)

good luck with that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> good luck with that.


yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

One of those seven (or at least one) was a key ed milband player. Don't let them off the hook by pretending they're all just blairites. These people are a massive part of the party and have been for decades now, not cuckoos. That means the soft left too.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Read the press statement?



Yup. But given your position that a new workers party will have been formed if JC wins what will your line be at this 'defend the leader of the new workers party' conference?

Will it be for JC, Owen Jones, the AWL etc to resign and join TUSC?


----------



## youngian (Jul 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Degsy was insisting on Newsnight last night, he holds a LP card at the moment.  I suspect it's still his 1986 one he's held onto tho


They keep trying to fit their narrative that this is a rerun of the 80s. Even David Owen wasn't biting last week so now they've dug up Derek Hatton from Merseyside Talkshit FM to represent the sinister tentacles of Militant that are encircling the Labour Party. Next week on Newsnight: Molly Ringwald and Judd Nelson explain why Corbyn is a Commie bastard. Its interesting that an economics correspondent like Evan Davies would rather asks questions about hypocrite Hatton's property developing than discuss Corbyn's economic agenda. I know its a loaded term but I don't know why Davies thinks that socialists shouldn't develop houses.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

when was the last time a labour party leader sported a beard? These are historic times we live in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Owen Jones


Corbyn should make him shadow cabinet minister for always wearing the same shirt. Its a policy I endorse myself


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> when was the last time a labour party leader sported a beard? These are historic times we live in.


Clement  attlee famously had a moustache on his chin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Clement  attlee famously had a moustache on his chin.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> when was the last time a labour party leader sported a beard? These are historic times we live in.



Hipster entryism


----------



## YouSir (Jul 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Hipster entryism



There's an article on LabourList which actually calls in that oddly enough.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 74590


clem the gem was a red menace in his day?


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> He rejoined a while ago, they gave him a card but I don't think they're happy about it.


back in May, apparently.  it's been referred to the NEC, but no one has heard any more of it since then (he said last night)


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> when was the last time a labour party leader sported a beard? These are historic times we live in.


there hasn't been a bearded PM since Labour were formed, i believe


----------



## gosub (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> when was the last time a labour party leader sported a beard? These are historic times we live in.


Last Prime Minister to have one was Lord Salisbury over a hundred years ago


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> clem the gem was a red menace in his day?


when he wanted to be


----------



## agricola (Jul 28, 2015)

gosub said:


> Last Prime Minister to have one was Lord Salisbury over a hundred years ago



and what a beard it was:


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 28, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yup. But given your position that a new workers party will have been formed if JC wins what will your line be at this 'defend the leader of the new workers party' conference?
> 
> Will it be for JC, Owen Jones, the AWL etc to resign and join TUSC?



We would be interested in any kind of formation that embodied a degree of federalism/right to exist as internal current and had a fairly concrete attitude to the question of austerity. We wouldn't dissolve ourselves into any new party but we would be prepared to consider abandoning TUSC for a larger formation I think. Would be equally happy for the Corbyn/Jones/Campaign Group axis to sit on the steering committee of TUSC of course. Dunno why you're asking about the AWL. Who cares?


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> We wouldn't dissolve ourselves into any new party but we would be prepared to consider abandoning TUSC for a larger formation I think.


prepared to consider?  You'd bloody jump at the chance!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

agricola said:


> and what a beard it was:



compared to that corbyns facial foliage is a mere 5 oclock shadow


----------



## gosub (Jul 28, 2015)

At some stage in my later life , i will probably live to see a PM humilitated by photos of him as a hipster uni student a la Blair's Ugly rumours


----------



## J Ed (Jul 28, 2015)

Wrong uns


----------



## weltweit (Jul 28, 2015)

gosub said:


> At some stage in my later life , i will probably live to see a PM humilitated by photos of him as a hipster uni student a la Blair's Ugly rumours


Is that Blair's equivalent to Cameron's Bullingdon club pic?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 28, 2015)

is it?
does it look like it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

are those ironic boaters? because if not...


----------



## killer b (Jul 28, 2015)

it's a fancy dress party ffs. look at the hat on the right.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

yes the bonnet had quite escaped everyones attention


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jul 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> it's a fancy dress party ffs. look at the hat on the right.



It's a bit like the satire thing again. You can never quite tell these days.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 28, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn opens up 22point lead in the Labour leadership election race



> Jeremy Corbyn has opened up an astonishing 22point leader over his rivals in the race for the Labour leadership.
> 
> Private polling seen by the Daily Mirror shows Mr Corbyn set to top the ballot with 42%, way ahead of Yvette Cooper on 22.6%, Andy Burnham on 20% and Liz Kendall on 14%.
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Jeremy Corbyn opens up 22point lead in the Labour leadership election race


whoever wrote that headline can't count


----------



## weltweit (Jul 28, 2015)

Normally someone polling 42% against someone else with 22% would win. This second preference business is insidious and I am not at all sure it is fair.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> when was the last time a labour party leader sported a beard? These are historic times we live in.


This was my earlier estimate on such matters:



> To cut to the real issues, by my reckoning he would be the first Labour Leader with a beard since Keir Haride - and after his inevitable electoral victory, the first PM with a beard since Lord Salisbury. Take that you pogonophobic bastards!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2015)

Wilf said:


> This was my earlier estimate on such matters:


For too long has the House been home to people shorn of beardage. Its high time for a more hirsute sort of politician to come in and do the business. While corbyns snowy chin may not rival the salisbury's or kropotkins- nor even the mighty beard of marx himself- it is certainly a step in the right direction. A hairy direction


----------



## teqniq (Jul 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> For too long has the House been home to people shorn of beardage. Its high time for a more hirsute sort of politician to come in and do the business. While corbyns snowy chin may not rival the salisbury's or kropotkins- nor even the might beard of marx himself- it is certainly a step in the right direction. A hairy direction


Are you on a mission from god?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2015)




----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 28, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think escalating it to armed struggle is probably not appropriate at this point.


Aw, spoilsport.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2015)

Highpoint under Engels, slowdown under Lenin, then that wrongun Stalin.  Andy Burnham's shorn face is the objective end of the communist project, even if his flourishing eyebrowery provides the illusion of scientific socialism.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Highpoint under Engels, slowdown under Lenin, then that wrongun Stalin.  Andy Burnham's shorn face is the objective end of the communist project, even if his flourishing eyebrowery provides the illusion of scientific socialism.


Maybe, but anarchists have better hats...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 28, 2015)

After several years in the Peter and Paul Fortress I seem to remember he had less teeth than Shane McGowan.  The hat's clearly a ruse to draw your eyes upwards. Ditto Andy Burnham's puppetish brow warmers.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 28, 2015)

Wilf said:


> After several years in the Peter and Paul Fortress *I seem to remember *he had less teeth than Shane McGowan.  The hat's clearly a ruse to draw your eyes upwards. Ditto Andy Burnham's puppetish brow warmers.


How old are you?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 28, 2015)

FWIW Google trends shows that Jeremy Corbyn's generated by far the most online public interest of any of the candidates.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 29, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Esp in that specific seat where the rise in the green vote may have cost the labour party the seat and handed it on a plate to the lib-dems.


As I've said before, the Greens here took significantly more votes off the lib dems than we did from Labour, so without the Greens standing the Lib Dems would have won by a bigger margin.

Totalling up the council wards, Greens had 13% vs 7% in the GE, and Labour were almost neck and neck with Lib Dems, but in the GE the lib dems won by 6.8%. So we took almost all of that winning percentage off the Lib Dems at council level, but couldn't do it in the GE probably due to the personal vote for the MP.

So you're talking shit.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> Yes.  It's basic democratic principles.  And, yes, they did run basic checks on people in previous elections.
> 
> Anyone who joins whilst being a member of another party is a dishonest turd, and should be removed from membership by both.



This is a vote for the only potential left of center challenger for prime minister there is likely to be, so ultimately it's a vote for who I'd prefer to see as Prime Minister. Now the SNP have the whole of Scotland, the chances are this will be a coalition or minority government with confidence and supply by other left of centre parties, but either way in any successful challenge to the tories, the leader of the Labour party will become the prime minister heading up either a majority labour government, a coalition or minority labour government.

We don't get to vote directly for prime minister in this country, so this is the only real chance any of us have to directly influence that selection of the person I'd want to end up as prime minister.

The Green Party would probably offer confidence and supply arrangements to any minority labour government, definitely with Corbyn as leader, whereas it wouldn't for a Tory government. So I'd see us more as potential allies than opponents, and with a less partisan none neoliberal leader that alliance could be put on a more formal basis.

Not that the Green Party would amount to much with Corbyn as Labour leader as we'd lose a hell of a lot of votes and members to a centre left labour party, so I doubt we'd have more than the 1 MP we've got now.

The best I could hope for with the Green party at the last election was that it would pull Labour to the left, and potentially help counter the prevailing austerity narative - which I think happened to some extent. +I suspect that the surge in support for Corbyn's position now has been helped a lot by the inclusion of real anti-austerity voices in the debates (SNP being the strongest, but the Green Party activists were making that case at a more local level across most of England).

ps I was working on the assumption that being a registered supporter was different to being a party member, if not then why set that category up?


----------



## gosub (Jul 29, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/21/labour-party-spam-email-overload

might explain a weariness Labour mates were having at the weekend


----------



## emanymton (Jul 29, 2015)

gosub said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/21/labour-party-spam-email-overload
> 
> might explain a weariness Labour mates were having at the weekend





> When yet another friend posted on Facebook that he’d received three Labour phone calls and eight emails in seven days and was thinking of leaving because of it


Really that's it? A little over 1 email I'll a day! That's what the fuss  was about?


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

free spirit said:


> This is a vote for the only potential left of center challenger for prime minister there is likely to be, so ultimately it's a vote for who I'd prefer to see as Prime Minister. Now the SNP have the whole of Scotland, the chances are this will be a coalition or minority government with confidence and supply by other left of centre parties, but either way in any successful challenge to the tories, the leader of the Labour party will become the prime minister heading up either a majority labour government, a coalition or minority labour government.
> 
> We don't get to vote directly for prime minister in this country, so this is the only real chance any of us have to directly influence that selection of the person I'd want to end up as prime minister.


that's your excuse?  Fucking pathetic.  You sound like a six year old - 'You cant have a vote Johnny'   'waaaaah, but mummy, I want one, its not fair'


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2015)

gosub said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/21/labour-party-spam-email-overload
> 
> might explain a weariness Labour mates were having at the weekend


my mrs is a member and reports a similar issue. bit mental really.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 29, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2015/jul/28/quiz-are-you-a-genuine-labour-supporter


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 29, 2015)

.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 29, 2015)

gosub said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/21/labour-party-spam-email-overload
> 
> might explain a weariness Labour mates were having at the weekend



I am still surprised that wankers get paid for churning this crap out.

"I joined a political party aged 38 and the Party I joined sends me emails and stuff. It's all too stressful". Fuck off you prick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I am still surprised that wankers get paid for churning this crap out.
> 
> "I joined a political party aged 38 and the Party I joined sends me emails and stuff. It's all too stressful". Fuck off you prick.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> that's your excuse?  Fucking pathetic.  You sound like a six year old - 'You cant have a vote Johnny'   'waaaaah, but mummy, I want one, its not fair'



Is there a point to this post?


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is there a point to this post?


I'm guessing its in reply to the post it quoted


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> I'm guessing its in reply to the post it quoted



And yet you make no attempt to address the point raised in the that post.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> And yet you make no attempt to address the point raised in the that post.


the point?  What that a member of a party other than Labour wants a vote because its his only chance to vote for a potential PM?  Such a 'point' deserves nothing but absolute contempt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> the point?  What that a member of a party other than Labour wants a vote because its his only chance to vote for a potential PM?  Such a 'point' deserves nothing but absolute contempt.



Why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why?


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why?


If you and he want to live in the USA, please move there.  Otherwise, you'd be better working out how our political system works.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> the point?  What that a member of a party other than Labour wants a vote because its his only chance to vote for a potential PM?  Such a 'point' deserves nothing but absolute contempt.


you're right. should also join the tories.


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2015)

Absolute contempt is a bit much isn't it? I dont think I could muster much more than mild scorn.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> Absolute contempt is a bit much isn't it? I dont think I could muster much more than mild scorn.


you might be right, largely depends on the size of my hangover


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> Absolute contempt is a bit much isn't it? I dont think I could muster much more than mild scorn.


you should exercise more


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 29, 2015)

It's divertingly interesting to observe that while Ed Miliband suffered under the perception of being 'a red' and a media battering, Corbyn seems to actually be benefiting from the attempts by the media and his own party to take him down under the same accusations. The efforts are in fact being mocked, and seemingly strengthening his support!

Admittedly I still suspect it's a little different outside the lefty bubble of urban and, to a lesser extent, my Facebook feed, but there certainly seems to be a different attitude to a similar, if not identical, rhetoric.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> It's divertingly interesting to observe that while Ed Miliband suffered under the perception of being 'a red' and a media battering, Corbyn seems to actually be benefiting from the attempts by the media and his own party to take him down under the same accusations. The efforts are in fact being mocked, and seemingly strengthening his support!
> 
> Admittedly I still suspect it's a little different outside the lefty bubble of urban and, to a lesser extent, my Facebook feed, but there certainly seems to be a different attitude to a similar, if not identical, rhetoric.


maybe because miliband was in fact not red ed.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe because miliband was in fact not red ed.


And so didn't get the support from either side, you mean? Aye, fair point I suppose.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> prepared to consider?  You'd bloody jump at the chance!



Yes, provided it represented something we could work with in. We didn't fully enter Syriza and we're not totally inside Die Linke.


----------



## Sue (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe because miliband was in fact not red ed.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 29, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes, provided it represented something we could work with in. We didn't fully enter Syriza and we're not totally inside Die Linke.



You tease you.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 29, 2015)

YouSir said:


> You tease you.



Knew as soon as I typed that it was gonna get smutty


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Ed Miliband suffered under the perception of being 'a red' and a media battering


the press called him so, nobody except headbangers bought it because people aren't thick


----------



## YouSir (Jul 29, 2015)

Unison is backing Corbyn too now. Hasta Victoria siempre...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Unison is backing Corbyn too now. Hasta Victoria siempre...


hasta LA victoria siempre


----------



## YouSir (Jul 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> hasta LA victoria siempre



Come the revolution I'll be free of your pedantry, si comrade?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Come the revolution I'll be free of your pedantry, si comrade?


yeh, as things stand you're scheduled against the wall on day 3. me? i write the lists.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 29, 2015)

The chosen voting system seems likely to favour a middle of the road candidate though, seems quite likely to me that Corbyn won't win through.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2015)

weltweit said:


> The chosen voting system seems likely to favour a middle of the road candidate though, seems quite likely to me that Corbyn won't win through.


you go down the middle of the road, traffic from both sides will hit you.


----------



## chilango (Jul 29, 2015)

I am astonished that there is any defence of free spirit registering as a Labour supporter to vote for Corbyn at the same time as being not just a Green Party member but an activist (campaign manager iirc?).

If I was a GP member in his branch I'd be calling for his expulsion. Really damaging behaviour. The same for anyone else in the GP or other parties.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

chilango said:


> I am astonished that there is any defence of free spirit registering as a Labour supporter to vote for Corbyn at the same time as being not just a Green Party member but an activist (campaign manager iirc?).
> 
> If I was a GP member in his branch I'd be calling for his expulsion. Really damaging behaviour. The same for anyone else in the GP or other parties.


as I've mentioned before, I know a few people who are actively campaigning for Corbyn, including joining the party, whilst at the same time telling people to join Left Unity!  And some of them are (local) office holders for LU.  Tell them they're being dishonest and they look at you utterly dumbfoundedly.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> they look at you utterly dumbfoundedly.


recon this is because they don't see any contradiction, they're after a leftist electoral platform and anyone offering a mere glimmer of it is to be endorsed. Even the lib dems.

Personally I just want corbyn to win because a) beard lols and b) harriet harmans aggrieved face when or if it happens. The sour faces on all of them. Used motors burnham, kate burley with a degree, the patronising deputy head. It'll provide me with lols anyway.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> kate burley with a degree




(by the bye, I see Greg Davies has dumped her, the only reason she'd have been amusing as PM is now gone)


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jul 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the press called him so, nobody except headbangers bought it because people aren't thick



Not at all sure about that one. Remember living in Surrey and UKIP blokes with their sexism and their 'buddies' and their desire to penetrate Margaret thought he was the second coming of Vladimir Ilich!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Not at all sure about that one. Remember living in Surrey and UKIP blokes with their sexism and their 'buddies' and their desire to penetrate Margaret thought he was the second coming of Vladimir Ilich!



yeah but you are never going to sell anything left of pinochet in that neck of the woods- to supporters of trad labour values (and I grew up under major then blair so I have no rememberance of those people practising soc/dec values or even preaching them). I said straight after the defeat at the GE that they could have mobilised more voters on an anti-austerity ticket rather than some piss weak giant headstone solution. Corbyns popularity seems to me that I called it right- remember he was only put forward as the token crusty old labour left donkey jacket man from the 70s. Thats backfired on them so badly I have had to have stiches for my split sides


----------



## RainbowTown (Jul 29, 2015)

Ah,The Labour Leadership Show.

Coming soon to a theatre near you. A modern day tragic-farce about a once great party of long ago, now reduced to a punch-and-Judy sideshow.


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2015)

chilango said:


> I am astonished that there is any defence of free spirit registering as a Labour supporter to vote for Corbyn at the same time as being not just a Green Party member but an activist (campaign manager iirc?).
> 
> If I was a GP member in his branch I'd be calling for his expulsion. Really damaging behaviour. The same for anyone else in the GP or other parties.


It must be filling the greens with dismay all this - all them new members, fucking off at the first opportunity. 

There's just so much to enjoy.


----------



## chilango (Jul 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> It must be filling the greens with dismay all this - all them new members, fucking off at the first opportunity.
> 
> There's just so much to enjoy.



Heh.

The Greens will be better off longer term without them though.


----------



## Supine (Jul 29, 2015)

I still don't think he will win. There are three right side candidates vs him. If they combine into one against JC somehow they have more votes. Am I right on this?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

another good thing about corbyns candidacy is that the press near shot their wads in order to label Ed Milliband as the neolenin. So now they will have to dig deeper into the big bag of red baiting cliches. Hopefully we will see the guardian screeching about stalinism at some point.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2015)

Supine said:


> I still don't think he will win. There are three right side candidates vs him. If they combine into one against JC somehow they have more votes. Am I right on this?


pretty much 50/50 it seems


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 29, 2015)

Some one I met in the pub was convinced that Torys were signing up for £3 just to vote for Corbyn just to make mischief.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 29, 2015)

How many shadow cabinet ministers does it take to change a light bulb?

Sorry - too risky to say without checking what the right wing press think and running it past 5 focus groups.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 29, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Some one I met in the pub was convinced that Torys were signing up for £3 just to vote for Corbyn just to make mischief.


Your friend in the pub is not exactly up to date. That story was reported in the press a long time ago. I think it was commented on here. I may have made a contribution but can't really remember.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Some one I met in the pub was convinced that Torys were signing up for £3 just to vote for Corbyn just to make mischief.


some of the twats have been but if they think corbyn would kill the party quicker than Kendall mint cake then it just shows how little they understand people.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 29, 2015)

Hi voters. I'm John McTernan and I'm a professional cunt:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...labour-leader-who-cares-about-the-grassroots/


----------



## teqniq (Jul 29, 2015)

Isn't he just?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

> a Blairite who is not afraid to speak his mind



yes because the mouthy pricks have a reputation for reticence and hesitancy in expressing thier views.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> yes because the mouthy pricks have a reputation for reticence and hesitancy in expressing thier views.



Yep, while being shit scared of opponents being free to express theirs.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 29, 2015)

Supine said:


> I still don't think he will win. There are three right side candidates vs him. *If they combine into one* against JC somehow they have more votes. Am I right on this?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


>


like when all the power rangers combine into one huge mecha and then defeat the labour left


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2015)

Really have to pinch myself that I wasn't dreaming when I read Unison(inc the leadership) were backing Corbyn, this is Union that has witch hunted leftists and greens from the union.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/29/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-campaign-momentum


btw, guardian realising which way the wind is going? and many of its paying readers.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 30, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> Hi voters. I'm John McTernan and I'm a professional cunt:
> 
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...labour-leader-who-cares-about-the-grassroots/


From the man who masterminded Scottish Labour's election campaign.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 30, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> Hi voters. I'm John McTernan and I'm a professional cunt:
> 
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...labour-leader-who-cares-about-the-grassroots/


Wow. Normally there's one or two sentences in an article/interview that can sum up why you dislike someone, but there it's pretty much every one of them!


----------



## gosub (Jul 30, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> From the man who masterminded Scottish Labour's election campaign.



next proper election is Holyrood next year, after the abstain fiasco the ONLY leader that could breath life back into the embers of what is left of Scottish Labour-would be Corbyn.  And this fucker would want rid even before that election.  
If the Blairites do get rid without giving him enough rope to hang himself there really isn't any point in a Labour party.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 30, 2015)

CWU backing Corbyn too now.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 30, 2015)

I heard that the South West labour party has come out in favour of Corbyn. Wouldn't surprise me - it would be the only way labour could take seats from tories down here in the next election - siphon off some disaffected liberal democrats. Still pretty unlikely though unfortunately.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 30, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> From the man who masterminded Scottish Labour's election campaign.


 quite a thing to have on your political CV


----------



## marty21 (Jul 30, 2015)

Labour have no identity at the moment other than, we're not as bad as the Tories - the other main stream candidates just offer more of the same - Corbyn seems to be striking a chord with disaffected Labour voters

At least with the Tories, you know what you are going to get, they are going to cover you in a shower of shit, you expect it, you aren't surprised by it - with Labour it seems at the moment that the shit will be less smelly, but that's the only difference.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I heard that the South West labour party has come out in favour of Corbyn. Wouldn't surprise me - it would be the only way labour could take seats from tories down here in the next election - siphon off some disaffected liberal democrats. Still pretty unlikely though unfortunately.


There's no such membership grouping or way to come out for him is there? Just a party ran for labour in the SW?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2015)

Radio says all £3.00 voters will be carefully vetted to ensure no non labour supporters sneak into affect the Labour leadership voting process.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Radio says all £3.00 voters will be carefully vetted to ensure no non labour supporters sneak into affect the Labour leadership voting process.



I wonder if anyone else has noticed this?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 30, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Radio says all £3.00 voters will be carefully vetted to ensure no non labour supporters sneak into affect the Labour leadership voting process.


 in other works, to ensure that no Corbyn supporters sneak in to affect the Labour leadership voting process


----------



## Zabo (Jul 30, 2015)

YouSir said:


> CWU backing Corbyn too now.



Yeah! Let's have a Purge Party!

“There is a virus within the party – Jeremy Corbyn is the antidote,” Ward said as he said that Corbyn offered the chance to fight back against Blairites such as Peter Mandelson." Dave Ward CWU.

Bring it on! I'll be happy to make Mandy a cake with his famous words in the very best icing: "I'm intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich." Ummuna can have the crumbs.

Yours, ever the optimist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2015)

Best one yet, from Michael White:

Corbyn is like ISIS



> Anti-Nato, basically anti-Europe despite this week’s belated statement(remember, he’s a politician too), pro-Hamas, in favour of renationalising all sorts of things he doesn’t have the money to buy, let alone invest in: the list of tried and tested, failed Labour policies is a long one. On top of which, he’s old enough to be Greece’s Alexis Tsipras’s dad.
> 
> I know there are good ideas in there, too, and that his lack of spin, his candour (sort of) and informality (etc) make a refreshing change from the timid incrementalism of the post-Blair Labour world. But running a party, let alone a government dealing with other governments, is a disciplined business. It’s got to hang together, which is not easy, as the Cameron government often shows.





> Wouldn’t it be nice if it wasn’t so? Yes. A cooperative world with sound green policies, global peace and no more poverty, would also be lovely. We’ve actually done pretty well in the last few centuries, despite their periodic horrors, centuries in which unlovely things like markets and capitalism, tempered by humane social interventions, brilliant science and the rule of law, have overwhelmed the primitive, impoverished authoritarianism of the past.
> 
> The modern battle is never permanently won. Reactionary fundamentalism of many varieties is in view: anti-science, anti-internationalist, anti-women, anti-reason. Isis is just the most lurid manifestation of the flight from modernity among those it either has not yet touched or (in many countries like Britain) feel left behind by the hi-tech digital world it is creating.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Best one yet, from Michael White:
> 
> Corbyn is like ISIS



I like it, it's all going a bit Lord of the Rings. Would the unions be the rings of power then? Duped into helping Corbyn unleash the 'forces of DARKNESS'?


----------



## Zabo (Jul 30, 2015)

White

"The response so far has been disappointingly timid, leaving the field open to Syriza, Spain’s Podemos and – perhaps – to sharp-suited reactionaries like Nigel Farage or romantic beardies who wear sandals and socks to the office. They don’t have the answers either, but their failures would open the road to the forces of real darkness"

Let's hope the first part of the darkness takes place at The G when all the lights get turned off.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 30, 2015)

Meanwhile the same paper prints fawning eulogies of 'highly valued' ISIS commanders who appeared on newsnight once and gave other jihadis advice


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 30, 2015)

> The response so far has been disappointingly timid



Does White even read his own paper, which has been running at least a couple of attack pieces on a daily basis? It's hard to see how the Blairites could be more hysterically aggressive short of physical violence, tbh. If anything that's part of their problem, if they stopped hectoring everyone for being too stupid to do what they want for five minutes and played the "we're listening, let's have a debate" card they could spend a month turning Corbyn from everyone's favourite fiery rebel into a crushing mush of unflattering compromises.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2015)

Zabo said:


> romantic beardies who wear sandals and socks to the office


you're rocking the the little fash tash (thankyou belushi) White. But yeah this is just that cunt once again orating from on high.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Does White even read his own paper, which has been running at least a couple of attack pieces on a daily basis? It's hard to see how the Blairites could be more hysterically aggressive short of physical violence, tbh. If anything that's part of their problem, if they stopped hectoring everyone for being too stupid to do what they want for five minutes and played the "we're listening, let's have a debate" card they could spend a month turning Corbyn from everyone's favourite fiery rebel into a crushing mush of unflattering compromises.


they didn't get where they are today by careful consideration of the issue and thoughtful responses to difficult situations.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 30, 2015)

Michael White lives in the same area as me. I always feel tempted to give the cunt a piece of my mind when I see him. I reckon he lives in one of the posh riverside properties.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 30, 2015)

What the fuck does he know about Podemos? He thinks they're a response to PSOE's timidity? Fucking bullshit. In any case, you can hardly complain that the left is too timid and then slag off radicalism. Incoherent dogshit.


----------



## rekil (Jul 30, 2015)

This is spooky. I checked the twitter machine this morning before getting the bus and was dismayed to see that Michael White was replying to someone who had chipped into that beef I had with him, so it gave me an idea for a blues tune - mainly just "Woke up this mornin', guardian hack, in my mentions" over and over. Then I come home and see that the first line of that White piece is... "I woke this morning after a good night’s sleep". Can he see into my brain? 

(as you were)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 30, 2015)

White is a grade a poltical ligger - always ready to pen articles excusing disgraced mps, argue they need higher wages and go on about just how hard done by they are. In return he gets to schmooze at their bars and parties.  And gets paid by the guardian for his sycophantic, westminster bubble-tastic drivel.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> There's no such membership grouping or way to come out for him is there? Just a party ran for labour in the SW?



Fair point. The person who told me may have been referring to South East Cornwall Labour Party. They’re linked to Cornish Labour Party. https://labourcornwall.wordpress.com/, but I’m not sure whether they're anything more than a Facebook page.

A couple of other regions haven’t decided the look of it, and a couple haven’t updated their pages since before the election so they may not have noticed the leadership election yet.


_Red Labour – Cornwall _has come out in pro Corbyn though so he’s as good as in No. 10 already.


----------



## 03gills (Jul 30, 2015)

Supine said:


> I still don't think he will win. There are three right side candidates vs him. If they combine into one against JC somehow they have more votes. Am I right on this?



Labour uses AV (instant-runoff voting) for it's internal leadership election. I won't go into too much detail, but the basic premise is to prevent someone from winning an election on less than 50% of the vote simply because of a split opposition (the _'spoiler effect'_) 

So, If a majority of the Labour party really *don't* want him as leader, then yes, AV should in theory allow one of the others to win.

It got a lot of shit in the 2011 referendum, but it's actually a bloody clever way to elect a single winner.


----------



## JTG (Jul 30, 2015)

03gills said:


> Labour uses AV (instant-runoff voting) for it's internal leadership election. I won't go into too much detail, but the basic premise is to prevent someone from winning an election on less than 50% of the vote simply because of a split opposition (the _'spoiler effect'_)
> 
> So, If a majority of the Labour party really *don't* want him as leader, then yes, AV should in theory allow one of the others to win.
> 
> It got a lot of shit in the 2011 referendum, but it's actually a bloody clever way to elect a single winner.


OTOH, if the polls are right and Corbyn has 40%+ of the first preference vote, he'll only need a tiny number of transfers to him to get him past the winning post


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 30, 2015)

Serious question: If Corbyn wins, how and when might the security services start to undermine him, assuming it aint already happening? (given at the very least that he is anti trident and no friend of NATO type stuff)

MI5, CIA et al have their creatures all over the place, fingers in many pies. I think it's naive to not give consideration to this question, though I am less confident of what the answer may be and am interested in qualified speculation from people with some knowledge of the field.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 30, 2015)

One labour supporter, not massively to the left, said what they like about Corbyn is that he talks politics like an engineer talks engineering.

I've been watching some of his talks around the country, and that's just what he does: Talks and talks and talks politics, because that's what he is and that's what he does.

No flannel. Not over or under detailed (though he clearly knows massive detail) Not over or under exciting. Few rhetorical flourishes (though I know he is capable of them), no false attempts to be funny or "with it". Hardly any jargon or soundbites.

Just interesting, confident and accessible, quietly expert but not show-offy.

he is the antithesis of the dumbed down stuff slopped out to us by the establishment political/media nexus. That's another reason why they just don't get him, It's like trying to load a Playstation game onto a megadrive or something, this then translates into their echo-chamber edict that he is somehow "unacceptable".

His critics rarely discuss his actual analysis, because it tends to be very soundly constructed.


----------



## gosub (Jul 31, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Serious question: If Corbyn wins, how and when might the security services start to undermine him, assuming it aint already happening? (given at the very least that he is anti trident and no friend of NATO type stuff)
> 
> MI5, CIA et al have their creatures all over the place, fingers in many pies. I think it's naive to not give consideration to this question, though I am less confident of what the answer may be and am interested in qualified speculation from people with some knowledge of the field.


on one level, on another he's the forlorn hope for keeping the UK together.


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 31, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Serious question: If Corbyn wins, how and when might the security services start to undermine him, assuming it aint already happening? (given at the very least that he is anti trident and no friend of NATO type stuff)
> 
> MI5, CIA et al have their creatures all over the place, fingers in many pies. I think it's naive to not give consideration to this question, though I am less confident of what the answer may be and am interested in qualified speculation from people with some knowledge of the field.



For all that GCHQ et al are a paranoid bunch, I doubt they're bothering to do much more than monitor him and his associates atm. He'd only be of much interest if he was getting anywhere near Number 10, which even if he wins the leadership contest won't happen (unless he bucks the habit of a lifetime by being utterly ruthless to head off the certainty of a Blairite coup long before 2020). All they really need to do is wait until his own side does him in.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Best one yet, from Michael White:
> 
> Corbyn is like ISIS


God the man is such a cunt, I'd love to wrap a cricket bat around his face.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2015)

free spirit said:


> As I've said before, the Greens here took significantly more votes off the lib dems than we did from Labour, so without the Greens standing the Lib Dems would have won by a bigger margin.
> 
> Totalling up the council wards, Greens had 13% vs 7% in the GE, and Labour were almost neck and neck with Lib Dems, but in the GE the lib dems won by 6.8%. So we took almost all of that winning percentage off the Lib Dems at council level, but couldn't do it in the GE probably due to the personal vote for the MP.
> 
> So you're talking shit.


That's _exactly my point_ you prat, that you took the lost never-to-return lib-dem votes who would otherwise have voted labour, thereby putting the lib-dems out of the seat and labour in. That's why you shouldn't be voting in the labour leadership election - you're a member of a rival party seeking to damage to the labour party. Did you really think i was claiming that you took your rise in votes from labour, whose vote went up by 9%?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 31, 2015)

I guess socialists in The Green Party (and others) could be churlish and tribalist about Corbyn success, but that to me is not the nature of socialism. Pluralism is quite a natural instinct for many, along with loyalty to socialism itself.

Also, The Green Party is likely to suffer if Corbyn wins, so it's not in a tribal interest for him to do so, so the good wishes of GP socialists should be taken as non duplicitous in that way.

As I said, I aint paying the £3, but if Corbyn wins and the party shapes well in response, I will see it as far less of a rival organisation.

All this probably goes even more so for members of other left parties. The ethics of them agreeing to that declaration is interesting in each case because (correct me if I'm wrong) some of them call for Labour votes where they aint standing (i.e nearly everywhere) That's the attitude of the Morning Star communists, and SWP contingent of TUSC isnt it?  Less so for Left Unity? Dunno about SP and others.


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

Yet more illusions in Labour. *sighs*


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> As I said, I aint paying the £3, but if Corbyn wins and the party shapes well in response, I will see it as far less of a rival organisation.



Labour are never going to see you as anything but a rival organisation - quite rightly. They're not playing some nice game where we're all on the same side really. They want to wipe you out.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Labour are never going to see you as anything but a rival organisation - quite rightly. They're not playing some nice game where we're all on the same side really. They want to wipe you out.



Oh I get that. 

Labour under Corbyn would be a rival organisation to me as a GP member.

But it may well not be a rival organisation to me as a socialist. Therefore, it's complex (Im not talking about signing the declaration, but more generally)

Labour may see itself as rival to the Communist Party. But in the vast majority of the country the CP is not rival to Labour and actually thus encourages Labour votes. I can't sign the declaration in good conscience, but if I was in the CP I might be able to wangle it.


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Labour are never going to see you as anything but a rival organisation - quite rightly. They're not playing some nice game where we're all on the same side really. They want to wipe you out.



...and the sooner the Green Party is rid of naive left Labour lite types and adopts a similar hostility to the Labour Party the better for its long term prospects.

The same goes for any party aiming to fill the huge void in w/c or "left" representation.

The Labour Party is your enemy. Just like the Tories or the Lib Dems.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 31, 2015)

If i was caroline lucas i'd be quite insulted.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 31, 2015)

Of course they're a rival organisation, they're competing for seats with you in local, national and european elections. it's nothing to do with sectarianism, it's like saying UKIP aren't a rival organisation to the tories or labour because a lot of people in UKIP believe the same stuff. All these parties want to improve their share of the vote and in so doing take votes from other parties ffs.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 31, 2015)

A Very British Coup, part two: New novel in pipeline as Jeremy Corbyn's rise inspires sequel


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> If i was caroline lucas i'd be quite insulted.


and frequently


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 31, 2015)

chilango said:


> ...and the sooner the Green Party is rid of naive left Labour lite types and adopts a similar hostility to the Labour Party the better for its long term prospects.
> 
> The same goes for any party aiming to fill the huge void in w/c or "left" representation.
> 
> The Labour Party is your enemy. Just like the Tories or the Lib Dems.



"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss".


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

Thing is, it's not really my place to advise the Green Party (or TUSC SpackleFrog ) but some things leap out as so obvious (to me at least) that I can't restrain myself from passing comment.

Oh well


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2015)

teqniq said:


> A Very British Coup, part two: New novel in pipeline as Jeremy Corbyn's rise inspires sequel


"Mullin believes the parallels between his novel, *twice *adapted as a television drama by Channel 4"

twice?  I remember one, with Ray McAnally, but not another


----------



## gosub (Jul 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> "Mullin believes the parallels between his novel, *twice *adapted as a television drama by Channel 4"
> 
> twice?  I remember one, with Ray McAnally, but not another


Gabriel Byrne on C4 about two years ago,  was different really  http://www.channel4.com/programmes/secret-state


----------



## Rob Ray (Jul 31, 2015)

chilango said:


> ...and the sooner the Green Party is rid of naive left Labour lite types and adopts a similar hostility to the Labour Party the better for its long term prospects.



I'd say the opposite is true, the only way the Greens will ever pick up enough votes to win anything is by being nice to the flighty types, so when the latest wave of misplaced Labour enthusiasm crests they're there to capitalise on the disappointment. Worst thing you can do in a popularity competition is get pointlessly snarky/judgmental about people who jump to the other side, as the three stooges have been finding.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 31, 2015)

But someone who worked as a campaign manager and is an activist for the Greens should obviously not be joining labour. Sorry free spirit I actually like you but you're totally wrong on this one.


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2015)

teqniq said:


> A Very British Coup, part two: New novel in pipeline as Jeremy Corbyn's rise inspires sequel



he is not Harry Perkins,

yet.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 31, 2015)

The green party was set up because the main parties had rubbish environmental policies. If a labour leader pushed the party towards destroying the environment at a much slower pace then the tories (I don't know enough about Corbyn to say whether he would) I can quite see why green party members might transfer allegiance because they think labour has better chance of being elected. 

Just seems like tactical voting to me, I can't see why this is in the least hypocritical.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2015)

That corbynjokes twitter feed has some good stuff


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 31, 2015)

killer b said:


> That corbynjokes twitter feed has some good stuff


I find myself agreeing with quite a few of the punchlines


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> I'd say the opposite is true, the only way the Greens will ever pick up enough votes to win anything is by being nice to the flighty types, so when the latest wave of misplaced Labour enthusiasm crests they're there to capitalise on the disappointment. Worst thing you can do in a popularity competition is get pointlessly snarky/judgmental about people who jump to the other side, as the three stooges have been finding.



The day the Greens "pick up enough votes to win anything" is the day they start to collapse.

Nice solid 5-10%, occasional "shock results" and a niche of principled opposition is their sustainable position.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 31, 2015)

teqniq said:


> A Very British Coup, part two: New novel in pipeline as Jeremy Corbyn's rise inspires sequel





> I don’t think the security services would intervene. They have been cleaned up considerably in the last 20 years.”



chinny recon to that last bit


----------



## teqniq (Jul 31, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> chinny recon to that last bit


Yeah me too.


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2015)

A friend who's involved in bringing corbyn to Preston tomorrow has urged us to 'attend and be captivated by this exciting campaign offering hope'

Bless.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2015)

killer b said:


> A friend who's involved in bringing corbyn to Preston tomorrow has urged us to 'attend and be captivated by this exciting campaign offering hope'
> 
> Bless.


Come and hear the bearded Billy Graham of retro Social Democracy.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 31, 2015)

How is there not an Obama/Hope/Corbyn poster mash-up yet? 

By which I mean my cursory google didn't produce one.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 31, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Come and hear the bearded Billy Graham of retro Social Democracy.



If he could get the sort of audiences out that a Billy Graham Crusade did then maybe he'd actually be on to something


----------



## gosub (Jul 31, 2015)

JTG said:


> OTOH, if the polls are right and Corbyn has 40%+ of the first preference vote, he'll only need a tiny number of transfers to him to get him past the winning post


especially if the supporters of the other candidates use their favoured candidates tactics and abstain


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 31, 2015)

Labour hierarchy logic.

On UKIP supporters : "We must listen to their concerns"

On 40%+ of Labour members: "They are insane and out of touch".


----------



## 8115 (Jul 31, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> But someone who worked as a campaign manager and is an activist for the Greens should obviously not be joining labour. Sorry free spirit I actually like you but you're totally wrong on this one.


Its perfectly possible to be a supporter of the Labour party and a member of the green party, I don't really see any contradiction in that. But then I don't really see the green party as much more than a pressure group.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If he could get the sort of audiences out that a Billy Graham Crusade did then maybe he'd actually be on to something


It's a bit of a shit cult really. Old style evangelists would have ripped the life savings out of their believers. Jeremy's gig is 'come down to the stage if you've been saved. Oh and give your £3 to the attendants'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 31, 2015)

Wilf said:


> It's a bit of a shit cult really. Old style evangelists would have ripped the life savings out of their believers. Jeremy's gig is 'come down to the stage if you've been saved. Oh and give your £3 to the attendants'.



at least corbyn isn't flogging shitty insipid love-songs-to-jesus tapes what he done on acoustic guitar. That shit always makes me look fondly on them old hymns about crushing the unrighteous and so on. The lib dem of baptist revival


----------



## killer b (Jul 31, 2015)

Wilf said:


> It's a bit of a shit cult really.


Has Oaten joined up?


----------



## Tankus (Jul 31, 2015)

oh god ...I hope someone doesn't dig up and remove the stake from billy bragg ......please ....dont ...!


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Labour hierarchy logic.
> 
> On UKIP supporters : "We must listen to their concerns"
> 
> On 40%+ of Labour members: "They are insane and out of touch".



To be frank I personally think you're more likely to see sparks of "insurgence" that may develop into something more concrete from the UKIP voters than from the ossified rump of the Labour Left.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 31, 2015)

killer b said:


> Has Oaten joined up?


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2015)

Tankus said:


> oh god ...I hope someone doesn't dig up and remove the stake from billy bragg ......please ....dont ...!



He has already spoken, he is backing JC.


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> He has already spoken, he is backing JC.


that's one lib-dem voter he's brought back to the fold


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 31, 2015)

chilango said:


> Thing is, it's not really my place to advise the Green Party (or TUSC SpackleFrog ) but some things leap out as so obvious (to me at least) that I can't restrain myself from passing comment.
> 
> Oh well



Advice welcome


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 31, 2015)

chilango said:


> ossified rump


never underestimate a hardarse


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Advice welcome


give up on TUSC


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 31, 2015)




----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2015)

chilango said:


> I am astonished that there is any defence of free spirit registering as a Labour supporter to vote for Corbyn at the same time as being not just a Green Party member but an activist (campaign manager iirc?).
> 
> If I was a GP member in his branch I'd be calling for his expulsion. Really damaging behaviour. The same for anyone else in the GP or other parties.


how's it damaging to sign up as a registered supporter to vote for the candidate the Green Party would most like to work with as Labour leader?

It's not against the GP rules either, nowt in there about becoming a registered supporter of another party, which is clearly different to actually signing up as a properly paid up member.

Personally I'm sick of this tribal party bullshit, those parties on the left have to find ways to work together, and Labour are the missing ingredient to actually getting anything significant done. If they can be turned from the neoliberal path then that potentially changes the situation massively, and suddenly makes it a significant possibility that some sort of non-neoliberal coalition could be in government at the next election.

if it pisses the neoliberal leadership of the labour party off, then I'll take that as a bonus. I find it interesting to note who on here is the most up in arms about this as well... suddenly they care about the internal democratic integrity of parties most of them have been slagging off for years (I'm aware you voted Green so that's aimed elsewhere).

The Green Party generally seems to be a bit more tolerant and open to collaborative working than is perhaps the norm in parties where the party is all, and everything must be done via the party, so I doubt they're about to have a purge of members who've done the £3 to vote for corbyn thing.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> But someone who worked as a campaign manager and is an activist for the Greens should obviously not be joining labour. Sorry free spirit I actually like you but you're totally wrong on this one.


I haven't joined labour.

ps when I first looked at this supporters thing there was fuck all on the page about it other than pay your £3 and get the right to vote in the leadership contest, which to me actually looked like a good attempt to open up the internal democracy of the labour party rather than just leaving it to their dwindling supporter base.

Here's the original version of that page from the wayback when machine from May


----------



## free spirit (Jul 31, 2015)

btw 17 states in the US have open primaries for the parties to choose their presidential candidates, so it's not that unheard of an idea to want to open up the process of selecting candidates beyond the narrow membership based of that party.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> That's _exactly my point_ you prat, that you took the lost never-to-return lib-dem votes who would otherwise have voted labour, thereby putting the lib-dems out of the seat and labour in. That's why you shouldn't be voting in the labour leadership election - you're a member of a rival party seeking to damage to the labour party. Did you really think i was claiming that you took your rise in votes from labour, whose vote went up by 9%?


no, the extra Green voters in the Council still voted lib dem in the national election, but voted for the Greens in the locals. Had we persuaded more of them to vote Green in the national as well as the locals then Labour would have been pretty much neck and neck with the Lib dems (but still lost). Labour obviously didn't persuade them to vote for them either.

Had the greens not stood then the lib dems would have won by a bigger margin IMO.

You'd have to believe that all 7% of the Green vote would have voted labour rather than Lib Dem, to believe that we somehow stopped labour from winning here given that the winning margin was 6.7%, and that's pure fantasy land bollocks.

Labour didn't take a single one of the 16 town council seats, all of which were up for election in Otley, which is the biggest ward in the constituency, it's now entirely lib dem other than 1 Green, 1 independent. The Lib Dems hold 6 out of the 12 council seats in the constituency, Tories hold 3, Labour hold 3, all in the ward with the lowest turnout by a significant margin. They'd not made any inroads into any of the other wards prior to the General election.

What makes you think Labour were on track to have won here had it not been for the Green votes? They barely campaigned in the 2nd biggest ward (where the Lib dem vote went up), were apparently having to pay people to distribute leaflets, and had to print and distribute an apology for misrepresenting the lib dem MPs voting record and give him £2k compensation. Outside of Headingley their campaign was pretty shambolic. The Lib Dems by contrast ran a far better campaign, pretty much a text book operation that steamrollered over both Greens and Labour everywhere other than Headingley, with the tories somehow winning the posh bit yet again while barely lifting a finger.

but obviously you know more about what went on here than me.

eta not that I was that arsed either way as they were both neoliberal austerity promoting parties at the election, but ultimately I'd have preferred the Labour version to the Tory version. If Labour turns and rejects neoliberalism as the failed economic model that it is, then that'd be a bit of a different situation, hence my participation in this thread and that vote.

[/derail]


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 1, 2015)

An excellent piece about the influence of Lord Sainsbury on Labour. It aint a good one.

http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7dd3-Who-are-the-real-entryists#.VbwQWflVhHy


----------



## J Ed (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> btw 17 states in the US have open primaries for the parties to choose their presidential candidates, so it's not that unheard of an idea to want to open up the process of selecting candidates beyond the narrow membership based of that party.



IIRC that was the initial model for Labour. Voters of other parties signing up to influence the primary election seems to happen whenever there is an election.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

_Why can't all the parties and politicians just put their differences aside, get together and work for the common good?_

Bleugh.


----------



## chilango (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> how's it damaging to sign up as a registered supporter to vote for the candidate the Green Party would most like to work with as Labour leader?
> 
> It's not against the GP rules either, nowt in there about becoming a registered supporter of another party, which is clearly different to actually signing up as a properly paid up member.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but if this represents the Green Party's views then I wouldn't be voting for them again. 

I don't believe it does (though I might be wrong) but rather that of a minority of generally newish members who are likely to be more transient.

Anyhow, that's for the Green Party to decide.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2015)

JFTR: I was curious about the attitude Labour on this one, i.e. whether they wanted it to be truly open or not.  So I checked out the 'register as a supporter' option.  The terms and conditions at the bottom ask you to agree to this:



> I agree that the Labour Party and its elected representatives may contact me using the data supplied. I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.


You can argue about how that should be interpreted but it's definitely not intended to just be open.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> no, the extra Green voters in the Council still voted lib dem in the national election, but voted for the Greens in the locals. Had we persuaded more of them to vote Green in the national as well as the locals then Labour would have been pretty much neck and neck with the Lib dems (but still lost). Labour obviously didn't persuade them to vote for them either.
> 
> Had the greens not stood then the lib dems would have won by a bigger margin IMO.
> 
> ...


Forget all that council mumbo jumbo, if the green voters you took from the lib-dems (and the other greens, _hey we're all on the same team_) had voted labour, they would have won that seat and kicked out the lib-dem. They didn't, and one reason they didn't is because you (and i mean you personally here as pushy campaign manager) _campaigned against them. _Then three month later, whilst remaining an active green party member, you sign a form that says



> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.



And you don't see a problem?

Let's be clear, i couldn't give a shit about labour internal democracy (and haven't actually posted about it). I'm just pointing out the behaviour of the labour-->lib-dem-->greens-->labour herd and the utter lack of principle our supposed betters have in their post-modern pick and mix political consumerism. The last time i heard this _tribalism_ stuff btw was when this lot were urging a lib-dem vote in 2010.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> JFTR: I was curious about the attitude Labour on this one, i.e. whether they wanted it to be truly open or not.  So I checked out the 'register as a supporter' option.  The terms and conditions at the bottom ask you to agree to this:
> 
> You can argue about how that should be interpreted but it's definitely not intended to just be open.


Oddly enough, that has been mentioned once or twice.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2015)

Sorry that I missed it.  It's a long thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Sorry that I missed it.  It's a long thread.


The more time it's mentioned and put out there in the open the better as far as i'm concerned. It's just that you posted it right in the middle of an argument about precisely that that i was laughing at.


----------



## chilango (Aug 1, 2015)

Y'know what? If I see one of my local Green councillors about I'll raise this issue with him. See what they think about their Party activists getting involved in in internal Labour Party stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ur-leadership-battle-would-be-a-disaster.html

Britain needs as many pro-capitalist parties as it can get. For a brief period in the mid-1990s, it had at least three: the Tories, a reformed Labour Party under Tony Blairwhich appeared ready to embrace markets for the first time, and the Liberal Democrats, who at the time were still pretty centrist.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

Needless to say, it didn’t quite work out that way. The view that politicians and bureaucrats should direct, dictate, tax and control economic activity, while tragically misguided, is ingrained deep in the human psyche. The battle of ideas is never won: it turns out that the 1990s were the years of peak capitalism in the West, and Left-wing ideas have since made a return, to the great regret of commentators such as myself.


----------



## belboid (Aug 1, 2015)

interviews with the contenders in this months Labour Research.  Well, I say contenders, but its only actually three of them, Kendall didn't bother to reply.  It would probably have been better for Burnham if he hadn't either, his were awful.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

This article really seen to be believed


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> This article really seen to be believed


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




while Ed Miliband’s views on price-fixing and other matters helped drag the Tories to the Left and led to them endorsing huge increases in the minimum wage and property taxes.



Thats an erm, _interesting_ interpretation


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> embrace markets


and be utterly consumed


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2015)

give the telegraph that much, their drivel is a lot more headbanging than the guardians


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2015)

_must manage to work in a reference to the warsaw pact as if thats relevant to any fucking thing today_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> chinny recon to that last bit



"Cleaned up considerably" is more like "has better PR nowadays", IMO.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 1, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ur-leadership-battle-would-be-a-disaster.html
> 
> Britain needs as many pro-capitalist parties as it can get. For a brief period in the mid-1990s, it had at least three: the Tories, a reformed Labour Party under Tony Blairwhich appeared ready to embrace markets for the first time, and the Liberal Democrats, who at the time were still pretty centrist.



One thing that I think has been fascinating in all of this is the number of Tory voters, members and journalists who think that they are actually entitled to have someone they like leading the party which they otherwise spend their time disparaging and despising. I would never dream of saying 'the Tories need a good moderate leader who can bring them back to the point where they can provide a strong opposition and win an election', I hope that the entire Tory party disappears from the face of the earth because they are scum. IMO It shows how much all of this is just a game to them, and how much it is about power and control of society _beyond democracy._


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> An excellent piece about the influence of Lord Sainsbury on Labour. It aint a good one.
> 
> http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7dd3-Who-are-the-real-entryists#.VbwQWflVhHy



Its pretty revealing just how little coverage Progress receives in the rest of the mass media.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 1, 2015)

treelover said:


> Its pretty revealing just how little coverage Progress receives in the rest of the mas media.



Yes, they aren't ideological, they are 'normal'. Not worthy of passing comment on.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2015)

> Progress could not pick a candidate for deputy leader — which in fact shows how deeply Progress is embedded in the parliamentary party.
> 
> Three deputy leader candidates — Caroline Flint, Ben Bradshaw and Stella Creasy — are all Progress members, so they couldn’t choose which one to back.





> At the forthcoming Labour conference you could go and see a Progress meeting with Chris Leslie MP, shadow chancellor of the exchequer — and a prominent Progress member. The meeting is funded by the British Venture Capital Association (BVCA). It is the lobby group for private equity investors who are keen to privatise the NHS. A BVCA paper on the NHS said its members would make money from “a trend towards outsourcing (to independent sector providers) of publicly funded healthcare.” BVCA has been funding Progress meetings for some years.
> 
> At the same forthcoming Labour conference you could go and see shadow culture secretary Chris Bryant speaking at a meeting funded by mobile phone firm Talk Talk and shadow energy minister Caroline Flint speaking on a meeting funded by Hitachi, which is deeply involved in our heavily subsidised nuclear power programme.



Decent LP members should picket Progress meetings, especially the ones with corporate backing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Supine said:


> I still don't think he will win. There are three right side candidates vs him. If they combine into one against JC somehow they have more votes. Am I right on this?



That's what single transferrable vote allows them to do. Cooper will get all Burnham's second preference votes and vice versa, and whoever Liz Kendall's mum and Liz Kendall's cat choose to vote for it won't make much difference either way. I would expect one of the blairites to narrowly win thus, despite Corbyn being the only candidate with genuine popular support.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's what single transferrable vote allows them to do. Cooper will get all Burnham's second preference votes and vice versa, and whoever Liz Kendall's mum and Liz Kendall's cat choose to vote for it won't make much difference either way. I would expect one of the blairites to narrowly win thus, despite Corbyn being the only candidate with genuine popular support.


AV system, not STV.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Just checking you're awake etc


----------



## gosub (Aug 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> One thing that I think has been fascinating in all of this is the number of Tory voters, members and journalists who think that they are actually entitled to have someone they like leading the party which they otherwise spend their time disparaging and despising. I would never dream of saying 'the Tories need a good moderate leader who can bring them back to the point where they can provide a strong opposition and win an election', I hope that the entire Tory party disappears from the face of the earth because they are scum. IMO It shows how much all of this is just a game to them, and how much it is about power and control of society _beyond democracy._



Found the 2 tory councillors in the pub crowing about 10 more years of tory rule if Corbyn gets in far more exasperating.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

Just received this text: 




> Hi it's Unite. Do you want to vote in the Labour leadership contest? Text YES to become an affiliated supporter and we'll let Labour know. Reply STOP to opt out


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2015)

There was about 500 people at corbyn's Preston rally this afternoon (which was announced on Wednesday) too big for the room so they did it outside.

Audience was mainly the usual suspects, but there was a load of new faces too. And some tit selling the socialist worker.

Good speech anyway fwiw. He's a very impressive performer.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 1, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Just received this text:



Decision time Froggie


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

_It's happening Reg, something's actually happening!_


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Decision time Froggie



I replied stop

A puncture in the wheel of the lorry of capitalism


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2015)

killer b said:


> There was about 500 people at corbyn's Preston rally this afternoon (which was announced on Wednesday) too big for the room so they did it outside.
> 
> Audience was mainly the usual suspects, but there was a load of new faces too. And some tit selling the socialist worker.
> 
> Good speech anyway fwiw. He's a very impressive performer.


There's going to be a huge 'groundswell' of disillusionment and anger when that AV/pref system robs him of victory by a tiny margin on second ballot.
Are Labour people preparing for the split from Neo-Lab?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


> There's going to be a huge 'groundswell' of disillusionment and anger when that AV/pref system robs him of victory by a tiny margin on second ballot.
> Are Labour people preparing for the split from Neo-Lab?



It will be interesting to see what the unions do if Corbyn loses. He must be their last throw of the dice in terms of having any kind of meaningful engagement with the Labour party.


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2015)

His speech urges people explicitly not to (of course).


----------



## Libertad (Aug 1, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I replied stop
> 
> A puncture in the wheel of the lorry of capitalism



That'll teach 'em


----------



## andysays (Aug 1, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Just received this text:



I'm also a member of Unite.

I deliberately didn't give them my phone number (can't quite understand why anyone would, TBH) so I don't get texts, but they regularly email me and the most recent one was reminding me that I can vote for free and including a link to the Supporters Sign Up page.

Further to on-going discussion, you do have to declare


> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.


but you don't have to say whether or not you intend to vote for JC


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

brogdale said:


> There's going to be a huge 'groundswell' of disillusionment and anger when that AV/pref system robs him of victory by a tiny margin on second ballot.
> Are Labour people preparing for the split from Neo-Lab?


They've saved time by already being in other parties.

There is no chance of labour splitting.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They've saved time by already being in other parties.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

Libertad said:


> That'll teach 'em



Striking a blow for communism against the reformist platitudes of the labourite telecommunications juggernaut and their lackeys in the trade union bureaucracy


----------



## J Ed (Aug 1, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It will be interesting to see what the unions do if Corbyn loses.



Nowt


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> There is no chance of labour splitting.



Not even if corbyn wins?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not even if corbyn wins?


Nope.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

Not unless the coup fails, which it won't because the right has all but a handful of MPs, the rules allow them to do it and they will have absolutely no compunction at all about subverting democratic process, unlike Corbyn and co. He and his are totally outmatched regardless of whether he wins the vote.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2015)

killer b said:


> There was about 500 people at corbyn's Preston rally this afternoon (which was announced on Wednesday) too big for the room so they did it outside.
> 
> Audience was mainly the usual suspects, but there was a load of new faces too. And some tit selling the socialist worker.
> 
> Good speech anyway fwiw. He's a very impressive performer.




How many out of 500 were the 'usual suspects'?  that is a lot for a small city.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Not unless the coup fails, which it won't because the right has all but a handful of MPs, the rules allow them to do it and they will have absolutely no compunction at all about subverting democratic process, unlike Corbyn and co. He and his are totally outmatched regardless of whether he wins the vote.


Only question is whether the stitch up would be so obvious that Corbyn and his supporters would be forced to leave.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

It'd have to be pretty humiliating to get Corbyn to leave, man's more loyal than a beagle and also has a few new leftie MPs to support. A couple of people might flounce, Skinner's in his 80s (I suspect he's only still there to annoy people), I could see him retiring, but not many. Maybe a defection from Richard Burgon, if he's not feeling like having a career?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

Why would corbyn leave? He has more chance of being influential within labour than in a smaller party led by trot sects surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Only question is whether the stitch up would be so obvious that Corbyn and his supporters would be forced to leave.


They ate militant. They're going nowhere. They are LABOUR. Nothing else.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 1, 2015)

And i dont understand why people are joining labour, paying £3 and then hoping for a split when corbyn specifically said thats not what he wants?


----------



## spartacus mills (Aug 1, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Striking a blow for communism against the reformist platitudes of the labourite telecommunications juggernaut and their lackeys in the trade union bureaucracy



That's the spirit!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They ate militant. They're going nowhere. They are LABOUR. Nothing else,.


I get that. But if they won the leadership contest and the MPs just immediately de-selected him their position in the party would be untenable.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I get that. But if they won the leadership contest and the MPs just immediately de-selected him their position in the party would be untenable.


Whose position?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I get that. But if they won the leadership contest and the MPs just immediately de-selected him their position in the party would be untenable.


Can they do that?


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2015)

Turn out in Liverpool was apparently massive, hundreds outside, the old Liverpool is back!













meanwhile


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Whose position?


Corbyn. If he wins the leadership election and the PLP basically declares it invalid because of his politics.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Can they do that?


As I understand it the PLP can call a new leadership contest, can't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Corbyn. If he wins the leadership election and the PLP basically declares it invalid because of his politics.


How. By what process?

And you missed the rather important political bit of turn-around in my post.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> As I understand it the PLP can call a new leadership contest, can't they?


Reckon you better have checked that first.

The idea that they would if they could is fantasy - they're not that headless.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2015)

Video from Liverpool, at the height of the holiday season as well, students away, etc..


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> How. By what process?



It's already being mooted, 47 MPs sign a piece of paper and there's a leadership challenge. I mean don't get me wrong, unless they're totally stupid it won't happen immediately, but it'll be done by this time next year at the latest (unless they decide to let him lose in 2020 and definitively kill the left of Labour for another generation).


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Reckon you better have checked that first.
> 
> The idea that they would if they could is fantasy - they're not that headless.


I almost added that I didn't think they would (although that's what McTernan seemed to be suggesting)


----------



## andysays (Aug 1, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> And i dont understand why people are joining labour, paying £3 and then hoping for a split when corbyn specifically said thats not what he wants?



It's almost as if they don't really support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and are actually supporters of another organisation opposed to it.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...r-leadership-video?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

JC on tour,

John Harris video, can't seem to embed.


warning Bragg alert.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> It's already being mooted, 47 MPs sign a piece of paper and there's a leadership challenge. I mean don't get me wrong, unless they're totally stupid it won't happen immediately, but it'll be done by this time next year at the latest (unless they decide to let him lose in 2020 and definitively kill the left of Labour for another generation).


Being mooted (i.e a tory journo reads the rule book). The same rules that applied to previous labour leaders. Calm down.

It'll be done by this time next year? There's an awful lot of definiteness flying around.


----------



## andysays (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> It's already being mooted, 47 MPs sign a piece of paper and there's a leadership challenge. I mean don't get me wrong, unless they're totally stupid it won't happen immediately, but it'll be done by this time next year at the latest (unless they decide to let him lose in 2020 and definitively kill the left of Labour for another generation).



You appear to be taking that article 100% at face value and not recognising the possibility that it's actually part of the "game" of rumour etc around the election itself, that the anonymous "senior Labour figures" are attempting to influence people not to vote for Corbyn.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Being mooted (i.e a tory journo reads the rule book). The same rules that applied to previous labour leaders. Calm down.



*Shrugs* who knows, these days it's all "a Labour MP said" - the Independent seemed to have quotes as well though, so make of that what you will. It wouldn't surprise me if a few of the more silly MPs were briefing about it. As I said, I doubt it'd happen unless they were being very dense, but the rules appear to support it.



> It'll be done by this time next year? There's an awful lot of definiteness flying around.



Fair enough nothing's definite, I'll go with very confident though, given Corbyn's near-total isolation within a hostile Commons and facing a media in full-on attack mode.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> *Shrugs* who knows, these days it's all "a Labour MP said" - the Independent seemed to have quotes as well though, so make of that what you will. It wouldn't surprise me if a few of the more silly MPs were briefing about it. As I said, I doubt it'd happen unless they were being very dense, but the rules appear to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough nothing's definite, I'll go with very confident though, given Corbyn's near-total isolation within a hostile Commons and facing a media in full-on attack mode.


Ever been in the labour party rob?


----------



## Coolfonz (Aug 1, 2015)

Does Corbyn's treasurer still work for the Saudis?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Ever been in the labour party rob?



Would I need to be? I mean I suppose I could point to working for the Labour-obsessive Star for wonk-points, or to experiences I've had of groups clashing with individuals who try to enforce their views without backup, but It's not exactly a difficult thing to predict.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Would I need to be? I mean I suppose I could point to working for the Labour-obsessive Star for wonk-points, or to experiences I've had of groups clashing with individuals who try to enforce their views without backup, but It's not exactly a difficult thing to predict.


It would help in making predictions of splits certainly.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Would I need to be? I mean I suppose I could point to working for the Labour-obsessive Star for wonk-points, or to experiences I've had of groups clashing with individuals who try to enforce their views without backup, but It's not exactly a difficult thing to predict.


That's a no then. Outsiders, will never get the labour party mentality. Corbyn is the labour mentality writ life.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

I've speculated that a split wouldn't happen (and actually said Corbyn probably wouldn't leave even if ousted from the leadership role), but suggested a coup will, based on his clear lack of support among MPs, particularly influential ones who can get him out.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> I've speculated that a split wouldn't happen (and actually said Corbyn probably wouldn't leave even if ousted from the leadership role), but suggested a coup will, based on his clear lack of support among MPs, particularly influential ones who can get him out.


Covered all bases rob. That's the game.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

I'm suggesting a pretty specific outcome tbh, Corbyn (if he wins) gone within a year, no split in the party but maybe a couple of defections and a retirement. Corbyn being ousted I'm confident of, the party not splitting I'd be reasonably confident of (I may not be a party member but I _do _work with Labour party activists regularly, the reporters' desk is full of em), defections and Skinner jacking it in is wild speculation.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm suggesting a pretty specific outcome tbh, Corbyn gone within a year, no split in the party but maybe a couple of defections and a retirement. Corbyn going I'm confident of, the party not splitting I'd be reasonably confident of (I may not be a party member but I _do _work with Labour party activists every day), defections and Skinner jacking it in is wild speculation.


I'm suggesting it's fantasy world - all of it. The same crap the trots have come up with for 50 years+ and you've attacked them for and spent a lot of time circulating attacks on such ideas. Fucking hell.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

If I for a moment thought any of this would have an effect on the overall political situation in Britain you might have a point, but I don't. Corbyn could run a stunning series of victories over the labour right, storm into Downing Street and his administration would still be beaten into submission.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> If I for a moment thought any of this would have an effect on the overall political situation in Britain you might have a point, but I don't.


What's that got to do with your position hopping?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

Who's hopping? I've set out what I think will happen to Labour, nothing more. It's the political equivalent of predicting the outcome of a football match.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Who's hopping? I've set out what I think will happen to Labour, nothing more. It's the political equivalent of predicting the outcome of a football match.


You are - between a def prediction of what will happen if corbyn wins to what the labour party will do to...well _we'll see._


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

I agreed that nothing's definite in my first reply to you, hence saying I was "confident" subsequently. That's not hopping, that's accepting you had a point.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> I agreed that nothing's definite in my first reply to you, hence saying I was "confident" subsequently. That's not hopping, that's accepting you had a point.


Corbyn def getting _removed _still?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2015)

Setting aside speculation about the possibility of Corbyn's campaign leading somehow to schism, there must be the potential for Corbyn's remarkable momentum to do real damage to the 'ground campaign' if he loses (closely) or is, at a later date, ousted. With so many CLP activists apparently energised and enthused by the prospect of non neo-lab the 'come-down' of failure (or 'coup'?) could surely compromise the Party's ability to mobilise it's 'ground troops' in many areas?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2015)

well you'd think if they were going to get the message they'd have done so years ago, who knows if one more slap will finally convince them they are wasting their time


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 1, 2015)

As in from the leadership (clunky language on my part). To be clear, I'm confident he wouldn't leave the party unless he was really humiliated, ie what I originally said.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> well you'd think if they were going to get the message they'd have done so years ago, who knows if one more slap will finally convince them they are wasting their time


But look at their little faces Dotty...do they look like they've got the message?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> As in from the leadership (clunky language on my part). To be clear, I'm confident he wouldn't leave unless he was really humiliated, ie what I originally said.


OK - Shall we leave it there?

The left-orbit spent spinning around this is more interesting for me. It's far larger than i thought after years of trying to make it spin. Who'd make use of this? (bookshops go for it)


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2015)

Maybe it's just my lack of reading, but I've not seen much mention of Corbyn's age.  If he were to win the next election (I know, but stick with it), he'd be 76 by the end of the term.  Is that a thing or is it not a thing?  I have no idea.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Maybe it's just my lack of reading, but I've not seen much mention of Corbyn's age.  If he were to win the next election (I know, but stick with it), he'd be 76 by the end of the term.  Is that a thing or is it not a thing?  I have no idea.


it could easily be made one. Like Charles 'enjoys a drink' Kennedy's problems. Oh and ming the merciless was age bashed when clegg and co knifed him


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Maybe it's just my lack of reading, but I've not seen much mention of Corbyn's age.  If he were to win the next election (I know, but stick with it), he'd be 76 by the end of the term.  Is that a thing or is it not a thing?  I have no idea.


For who? For labour party left people he's in there for two years to clear out the scum. If he's popular then go with that.

You've never been in a party have you kabbes?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Maybe a defection from Richard Burgon, if he's not feeling like having a career?


never going to happen IMO.

Labour would have to do a militant style purge to get him out, he's born and bred Labour, and has a huge amount of support in that constituency Labour Party, all determined that reclaiming Labour from the neoliberal set is the only way to go.

at least that's the impression I've got from various conversations with people who're close to him.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> For who? For labour party left people he's in there for two years to clear out the scum. If he's popular then go with that.
> 
> You've never been in a party have you kabbes?


No, not a fan of political parties.  Don't get me wrong -- I deal with a lot of politicians and I've been around a number of elections.  My mum ran as a Labour candidate once, giving me a teenager's perspective of the 1990s Labour party.  But I can't say that I have any insight at all into internal party politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> never going to happen IMO.
> 
> Labour would have to do a militant style purge to get him out, he's born and bred Labour, and has a huge amount of support in that constituency Labour Party, all determined that reclaiming Labour from the neoliberal set is the only way to go.
> 
> at least that's the impression I've got from various conversations.


You know, as a green party member in another seat, after running an anti-labour campaign, what all members of the labour party in a seat miles away think? You arrogant cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> No, not a fan of political parties.  Don't get me wrong -- I deal with a lot of politicians and I've been around a number of elections.  My mum ran as a Labour candidate once, giving me a teenager's perspective of the 1990s Labour party.  But I can't say that I have any insight at all into internal party politics.


He's not there for 2020. Unless his actions prove popular. So saying he can't win in 2020 in neither here nor there nor getting what's going on.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You know, as green party member in another seat, after running an anti-labour campaign, know what all members of the labourt party in a seat miles away think? You arrogant cunt.


who or what I know and have talked with or haven't are fuck all to do with you.

But as I actually live in the same city, there's a fair chance that I might be in a position to comment on that from first hand conversations as opposed to you who lives in Bristol and appears to think he knows more about Leeds constituencies / politics than me.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He's not there for 2020. Unless his actions prove popular. So saying he can't win in 2020 in neither here nor there nor getting what's going on.


I see.  Let him make the arguments, let others reveal their hand in arguing with him, drag the ground leftwards and then put your real man into the frame in time for 2020?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I see.  Let him make the arguments, let others reveal their hand in arguing with him, drag the ground leftwards and then put your real man into the frame in time for 2020?


No. Forget 2020. Think 2017. This isn't a presidential election. This is disgusting stuff kabbes.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> who or what I know and have talked with or haven't are fuck all to do with you.
> 
> But as I actually live in the same city, there's a fair chance that I might be in a position to comment on that from first hand conversations as opposed to you who lives in Bristol and appears to think he knows more about Leeds constituencies / politics than me.


What is it this time? _Numbers mean more the closer you live to them._


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What is it this time?


I was merely answering an aside from another poster, nowt to do with you.


butchersapron said:


> _Numbers mean more the closer you live to them._


Interpreting those numbers is clearly easier to do when you've lived and campaigned in the area, but only a complete idiot / someone with an axe to grind would interpret them as you have.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I was merely answering an aside from another poster, nowt to do with you.
> 
> Interpreting those numbers is clearly easier to do when you've lived and campaigned in the area, but only a complete idiot / someone with an axe to grind would interpret them as you have.


Why have they been quoted?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Why have they been quoted?


what?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> what?


The numbers drongo. The council fucking numbers.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The numbers drongo. The council fucking numbers.


to demonstrate that most Green votes went back to the lib dems not to labour when it came to the general election vote, so if we'd not campaigned it's far more likely that this pattern would have applied to the 7% who did vote for us in the GE than to assume they'd all have voted Labour instead.

98% of all Green voters would have had to have voted Labour vs 2% Lib Dem for Labour to have won here, so as I said, only a complete idiot / someone with an axe to grind would interpret those numbers in the way you have.



butchersapron said:


> That's _exactly my point_ you prat, that you took the lost never-to-return lib-dem votes who would otherwise have voted labour, thereby putting the lib-dems out of the seat and labour in.



Fuck knows why you're insisting on continuing pushing this point when you're so obviously wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> to demonstrate that most Green votes went back to the lib dems not to labour when it came to the general election vote, so if we'd not campaigned it's far more likely that this pattern would have applied to the 7% who did vote for us in the GE than to assume they'd all have voted Labour instead.
> 
> 98% of all Green voters would have had to have voted Labour vs 2% Lib Dem for Labour to have won here, so as I said, only a complete idiot / someone with an axe to grind would interpret those numbers in the way you have.
> 
> ...


Because i'm not. With each green post you make the lie that :





> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.



more klar.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Because i'm not.


you're not what?

The numbers are perfectly clear, there's fuck all way that labour would have won in this constituency had the Green Party not stood here.

There are other constituencies where this would apply, but this isn't one of them, and never was going to have been.

But this is pretty irrelevant really, as I didn't and don't support the austerity light policies Labou stood on at the last election. That's history though, we're talking about potential future direction, and the aims and values of the Labour Party as a whole not the PLP, which is a different kettle of fish.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> you're not what?
> 
> The numbers are perfectly clear, there's fuck all way that labour would have won in this constituency had the Green Party not stood here.
> 
> ...


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

as I said, it would have taken 98% of all Green voters to vote for Labour vs 2% Lib Dem for Labour to have won.

You obviously are both a complete idiot as well as having an axe to grind if you can't grasp this fairly basic point.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> as I said, it would have taken 98% of all Green voters to vote for Labour vs 2% Lib Dem for Labour to have won.
> 
> You obviously are both a complete idiot as well as having an axe to grind if you can't grasp this fairly basic point.


Loon i've done the numbers.They're quite simple. They're irrelevant. The campaign shows that you campaigned against labour then signed up to this:



> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.



You're done little fishie.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Loon i've done the numbers.They're quite simple. They're irrelevant.


so you accept that your previous assertions were bullshit then?


butchersapron said:


> That's _exactly my point_ you prat, that you took the lost never-to-return lib-dem votes who would otherwise have voted labour, thereby putting the lib-dems out of the seat and labour in.





butchersapron said:


> The campaign shows that you campaigned against labour then signed up to this:


I campaigned for the Green Party to potentially depose a sitting Lib Dem MP, on pretty much the same platform as Corbyn is now campaigning for Labour Party leadership on.

Spot the difference.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> so you accept that your previous assertions were bullshit then?
> 
> You what?
> 
> ...


I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.

All in it together.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Disgusting post-modern filth, i demand a vote in anything i like because of pluralism, you nasty tribalist are the past


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Thanks for the 2010 coalition btw - i lost about 5 years of life expectation off that.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You what?


Let me refresh your memory. You made these specific allegations, which were complete bullshit as proven by the numbers quoted.



butchersapron said:


> Esp in that specific seat where the rise in the green vote may have cost the labour party the seat and handed it on a plate to the lib-dems.





butchersapron said:


> if the green voters you took from the lib-dems (and the other greens, _hey we're all on the same team_) had voted labour, they would have won that seat and kicked out the lib-dem. They didn't, and one reason they didn't is because you (and i mean you personally here as pushy campaign manager) _campaigned against them. _





butchersapron said:


> That's _exactly my point_ you prat, that you took the lost never-to-return lib-dem votes who would otherwise have voted labour, thereby putting the lib-dems out of the seat and labour in.



These statements are all wrong. Do you now accept they're wrong or would you merely prefer to pretend you never made them?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Thanks for the 2010 coalition btw - i lost about 5 years of life expectation off that.


I think you'll find that this would have happened with or without my minor input.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Let me refresh your memory. You made these specific allegations, which were complete bullshit as proven by the numbers quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are all correct fool. And i tell you what, do yourself a fav and look at what the the original post was about. It was about how the labour party view you.

You ego fool


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I think you'll find that this would have happened with or without my minor input.


Sure, you clapping it tells us all we need to know.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They are all correct fool. And i tell you what, do yourself a fav and look at what the the original post was about. It was about how the labour party view you.
> 
> You ego fool


so you actually believe that 98% or more of Green Party voters would have voted for Labour in this constituency had the Green Party not stood here?

you're delusional then.

eta why anyone on here gives any credence to you when you come out with obvious bullshit like this is beyond me.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> so you actually believe that 98% or more of Green Party voters would have voted for Labour in this constituency had the Green Party not stood here?
> 
> you're delusional then.
> 
> eta why anyone on here gives any credence to you when you come out with obvious bullshit like this is beyond me.


Can someone else explain this to him? Bellers.

All this stuff is evidence of you being anti-labour. Hence



> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.



Being a lie. And you, a branded £3 liar.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 1, 2015)

A nice change from the serious stuff and the unremitting Bliarite onslaught by The G.

Made me laugh.

"If Jeremy Corbyn ran your local pub, it would be fucking excellent."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/labour-theory-of-ale


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Can someone else explain this to him? Bellers.


fuck that, you made specific allegations / statements, and have made them before. They were wrong, you were wrong, yet you'd prefer to discuss other things rather than admit to having been wrong.

not for the first time either.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> fuck that, you made specific allegations / statements, and have made them before. They were wrong, you were wrong, yet you'd prefer to discuss other things rather than admit to having been wrong.
> 
> not for the first time either.


List them. I'll fuck you up on each one.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Fucking lib dem greens.Here comes the wall. 

Of shit.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> List them. I'll fuck you up on each on.


you'll do what?

already listed and pointed out why you were wrong, fuck knows why you can't just accept that.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> you'll do what?
> 
> already listed and pointed out why you were wrong, fuck knows why you can't just accept that.


Where did you do this?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

* fuck knows why you can't just accept that.
 fuck knows why you can't just accept that.
 fuck knows why you can't just accept that.
 fuck knows why you can't just accept that.
*
Dunno why really


----------



## free spirit (Aug 1, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Fucking lib dem greens.Here comes the wall.
> 
> Of shit.


you'd still be sat behind your keyboard on here CTR, so would be in no position to decide who went to the wall.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> you'd still be sat behind your keyboard on here CTR, so would be in no position to decide who went to the wall.


That's a good thing you freak.


----------



## rekil (Aug 1, 2015)

free spirit said:


> you'd still be sat behind your keyboard on here CTR, so would be in no position to decide who went to the wall.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 1, 2015)

Fucking hell 
Reading here, trying to get the gist, like I do - trying to _learn_ and make decisions - what is this?! Fuck sake.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 2, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> Fucking hell
> Reading here, trying to get the gist, like I do - trying to _learn_ and make decisions - what is this?! Fuck sake.


sorry, but it pisses me off when someone posts up false statements related to me then refuses to retract them when shown the evidence that they were false.


----------



## Dandred (Aug 2, 2015)

I wouldn't waste you time with butchersapron when it comes to politics, he though Milliband was going to win the election.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 2, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I replied stop
> 
> A puncture in the wheel of the lorry of capitalism


One for the informal anarchist action thread I think [emoji1]


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 2, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> Fucking hell
> Reading here, trying to get the gist, like I do - trying to _learn_ and make decisions - what is this?! Fuck sake.



So sheo, what do you think? Do you have a union vote?


----------



## killer b (Aug 2, 2015)

treelover said:


> How many out of 500 were the 'usual suspects'?  that is a lot for a small city.


I didn't see any signs of the social movement corbyn is keen on creating emerging as yet. New faces, but they were still of a 'type' - trades unionists & guardian liberals on the whole. No-one off the estates, hardly any ethnic minorities. Maybe that's just because the word hadn't got out except through particular channels though, I dunno.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 2, 2015)

Red Cat said:


> So sheo, what do you think? Do you have a union vote?



I'm a member of unison but pretty sure I didn't opt in to pay the political levy...I tried to check but trying to sign up online was hopeless as it wouldn't recognise my member number, so at that point I gave up and just went and paid my £3.
My son, who turned 16 yesterday, is also very, very keen to vote, so I signed him up as a young member, too.
I pretty much have two places I turn to to get information/news/views that I _trust_ and that's here and my mum 
She'd finally left the LP after Blair but was convinced to rejoin and *fight from within* a few years ago and she's been delighted at the support JC has been getting, seeing more and more unions come out and back him etc, even while she's aware that this is all a long, long way from any real change.

I dunno - maybe a bit of it is just blindly trying to seek any positive at all from amongst the absolute bleakness - I _do_ feel lifted by the support he's got, by the _surprise_ that was. It gives me *hope*.

Anyway, obv then I come on here and it's all arguments and _scorn_  but whatevs, I don't feel at all awkward about giving it a fucking go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> If I for a moment thought any of this would have an effect on the overall political situation in Britain you might have a point, but I don't. Corbyn could run a stunning series of victories over the labour right, storm into Downing Street and his administration would still be beaten into submission.



That'd depend upon the _realpolitik_ in play.


----------



## campanula (Aug 2, 2015)

Shush now, please Butchers - (and Free Spirit too please) blood pressure is going through the roof. True, I voted Labour in the GE and in my constituency...and I am glad I did because we finally had a skip day on our estate after 18 years of nothing...and these little interventions truly help us in a micro sort of way. And although I feel demoralised and distrustful of the electoral process, I cannot help but feel heartened by the sincere explosion of support for JC (as the only visible choice for hoi polloi like us) since at the very least, it utterly destroys the Labour numpties assertions that more of the same is the way to go. Yep, whilst we still have even the semblance of voting democracy, it should never be forgotten that there are more of us then them and unless the entire parliamentary democratic edifice is disassembled, those numbers will always count.


----------



## campanula (Aug 2, 2015)

Mmm, apols for dragging this down to a tiny localised sort of thing but, ya know, you look for hope wherever...


----------



## Wilf (Aug 2, 2015)

In terms of who will win, it's worth thinking how bizarre some of the polls have been.  They've been taking place before the electorate is even created - you can join up right up to the 12th August.  That's the case in a general election to some extent, with late registrations, but much more so with the new affiliated/supporting categories.  CAn understand the press and even the candidates wanting to run these stories, but they have little value.

Having said that, the corbyn leads were interesting, as much as anything marking the point when the party realises the blairites have officially nothing else to say.  I've gone from thinking he had simply no chance when nominated - nothing more than another run out for the microscopic remnants of the labour left -  to, well, who knows.  Still have it down as most unlikely that he will win.  

In terms of manipulation this mentions the figures in the various membership categories:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...re-weeding-out-bogus-labour-leadership-voters

It was from the 28th and things may well change significantly before the 12th. However at the moment there are:
262,000 individual members
21,000 supporters
28,500 registered individual union members

In other words, individual members are still by far the biggest group (and all but 20,000 of the 262,000 had joined before the leadership campaign started).  There's volatility in this election, but it's likely to be determined by long term full members.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 2, 2015)

Anyone seen this nonsense from engage: 



> It is sometimes suggested that Jewish left-wingers who refuse to support Corbyn out of concern about his antisemitic friendships are selfishly putting the (putative) interests of Jews ahead of the interests of the poor and the working class, for whom Corbyn speaks. Jews should, it could be said, rise above their narrow sectional concerns, and support the candidate who will work for the down-trodden and impoverished. Leave aside the question of whether Corbyn would, were he to become Leader of the Labour Party, actually improve the lot of the downtrodden any better than the other candidates. Let’s focus on the charge of sectional selfishness levelled at Jews who have doubts about supporting Corbyn.



https://engageonline.wordpress.com

Lol.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 2, 2015)

Is it true that corbyn has been on presstv semi regularly tho? If so, not a good sign


----------



## chilango (Aug 2, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Is it true that corbyn has been on presstv semi regularly tho? If so, not a good sign



What is definitely true is that Corbyn is a long serving Labour MP. That's not a good sign either!


----------



## free spirit (Aug 2, 2015)

500 trots turn out to support Corbyn at a meeting in Coventry today...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2015)

I know people are looking for hope and all that but ffs, it comes to something when this bloke has started being referred to by first name only. Labour supporters still pretending Blairism never happened or that it can be reversed by holding hands and cheering a bit

"Jeremy's in town on Saturday - I'm so excited, it's like a revolution!"

"My mum and dad have just joined Labour to vote for Corbyn - and they're getting some of the Ladies' Group to do it, too"

"What a failure of courage from Labour, damn you all to hell" *gives them £3*


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 4, 2015)

We're all being beastly unfair to poor Polly 


> The Labour question is always the same – how far can you go and still bring enough voters with you? As Labour’s divide deepens, those of us not supporting Corbyn have been assailed as “neoliberal”, “siding with the elite”, “betraying the poor”, “hypocrite” and worse. Like many Labour people, free to dream I’d go further than Corbyn: I’d go for a windfall wealth tax to pay off the deficit, make the Queen be Elizabeth the Last, abolish faith schools, private schools and inheritance, tax millionaires at 70%: add your wishlist here. I don’t know how far you can go – but you have to win power to get anywhere at all. Once in power, with the levers of persuasion, you can take people further than you dare tread in opposition.


Particularly pathetic coming from a SDP scumbag who helped Thatcher win.


----------



## treelover (Aug 4, 2015)

free spirit said:


> 500 trots turn out to support Corbyn at a meeting in Coventry today...





Over 2000 in Camden last night, two overspill rooms, and J/C speaking to hundreds outside on a FBU Fire engine!

intrigued by Wilf's info though, that only 28,000 have become supporters, maybe it will again be the 'silent majority' who win out


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

treelover said:


>


you've cocked that up


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

S☼I said:


> I know people are looking for hope and all that but ffs, it comes to something when this bloke has started being referred to by first name only. Labour supporters still pretending Blairism never happened or that it can be reversed by holding hands and cheering a bit
> 
> "Jeremy's in town on Saturday - I'm so excited, it's like a revolution!"
> 
> ...


he should join urban. perhaps he could post under the name red jezza


----------



## treelover (Aug 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you've cocked that up



What a pathetic comment, you really think not being able to post an image is worthy of criticism

btw, it was the now viral image of five youths precariously standing on an outside ledge six feet up and peering through a window to listen to Corbyn.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> he should join urban. perhaps he could post under the name red jezza



Two different female Labourites


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> What a pathetic comment, you really think not being able to post an image is worthy of criticism
> 
> btw, it was the now viral image of five youths precariously standing on an outside ledge six feet up and peering through a window to listen to Corbyn.


no, i thought you might be encouraged to sort it out. but you haven't. edited: strange you get back on this rather minor point but ignore so many requests for clarification or whatnot.

e2a: have another go, in the spirit of 'if at first you don't succeed...'.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> What a pathetic comment, you really think not being able to post an image is worthy of criticism
> 
> btw, it was the now viral image of five youths precariously standing on an outside ledge six feet up and peering through a window to listen to Corbyn.


where is this picture then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

treelover i'd like to see this picture. one more effort, comrade, and victory shall be ours


----------



## ddraig (Aug 4, 2015)

seriously treelover if i said "was the now viral image" and couldn't or wouldn't supply it would you believe me? 
if it is "viral" then you can easily find and post it surely


----------



## YouSir (Aug 4, 2015)

Who cares?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 4, 2015)

ddraig said:


> where is this picture then?


This one?


----------



## ddraig (Aug 4, 2015)

ta
I don't know, maybe treelover would be gracious enough to confirm?
 seeing as they can't post properly with links, pics or sources in the first place
luckily there are other conscientious posters here who will do their work for them!


----------



## chilango (Aug 4, 2015)

Staggering. 

*sighs*


----------



## sihhi (Aug 4, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I get that. But if they won the leadership contest and the MPs just immediately de-selected him their position in the party would be untenable.



I think this is fantasy. Corbyn if/when he wins has already said he will form a cabinet of all the talents - from Kendall to Abbott.
Corbyn will be a centre-left in practice, he has backtracked on the monarchy, private schools and cuts to the military; he will backtrack on everything else. There's no reason for any Labour MP to attempt anything remotely like this.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 4, 2015)

campanula said:


> Shush now, please Butchers - (and Free Spirit too please) blood pressure is going through the roof. True, I voted Labour in the GE and in my constituency...and I am glad I did because we finally had a skip day on our estate after 18 years of nothing...and these little interventions truly help us in a micro sort of way. And although I feel demoralised and distrustful of the electoral process, I cannot help but feel heartened by the sincere explosion of support for JC (as the only visible choice for hoi polloi like us) since at the very least, it utterly destroys the Labour numpties assertions that more of the same is the way to go. Yep, whilst we still have even the semblance of voting democracy, it should never be forgotten that there are more of us then them and unless the entire parliamentary democratic edifice is disassembled, those numbers will always count.



these numbers will very rarely count...
Did people vote in 2005 for Labour for a massive transfer of wealth to the financial sector?
When people voted in 2001 for a Labour government did they vote for an assault on Iraq? When people voted in 1997 for a Labour government did they vote for university fees?

There's no reason to give this zombie politics life with £3 of your money. We can vote Labour in 2020 for anti-austerity promises and they will give voters austerity in a new combination compared to the other lot.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 4, 2015)

Cuddly Corbyn, when asked by Marr if he considered himself to be a marxist, refused to give an emphatic answer, and resorted to yer classic academics approach 'Marx had wonderful insights but blah blah'..

my prediction, for what its worth, is that Jeremy will turn out to be a safe pair of hands for yet another variety of state interventionist capitalism.  We have been here before - Labour placed at the helm to save free market economics from the excesses of free market economics. 

The old Who song 'Wont get fooled again' is, very sadly, likely to be quite incorrect.  Tens of thousands joining Labour, precisely to 'get fooled again'.


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 4, 2015)

Corbyn's coming to leeds soon - might mosey along to see what he's got to say..


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> What a pathetic comment, you really think not being able to post an image is worthy of criticism
> 
> btw, it was the now viral image of five youths precariously standing on an outside ledge six feet up and peering through a window to listen to Corbyn.





nino_savatte said:


> This one?


five? two of them seem to have absconded.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 4, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn backs boycott of Israeli universities involved in arms research


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 4, 2015)

sihhi said:


> I think this is fantasy. Corbyn if/when he wins has already said he will form a cabinet of all the talents - from Kendall to Abbott.
> Corbyn will be a centre-left in practice, he has backtracked on the monarchy, private schools and cuts to the military; he will backtrack on everything else. There's no reason for any Labour MP to attempt anything remotely like this.


I'd say "idle speculation" rather than fantasy


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2015)

I found some reference to Corbyn having 'worked with Press TV' on a hatchet job by James Bloodsworth, and had a dig - apparently he presented Galloway's programme on the Iranian propaganda organ while George was on holiday once, and seems to have regularly appeared on the show. Has he been tackled on this?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 4, 2015)

Labour must 'end the madness' over Jeremy Corbyn, says Alan Johnson



> The Labour party should “end the madness” of a growing surge in support for Jeremy Corbyn and elect Yvette Cooper, who has “the intellect, the experience and the inner-steel” to succeed as leader, Alan Johnson has said.
> 
> In a major boost to the shadow home secretary’s campaign, Johnson says that she can unite the party to win power as he launches a strong attack on Corbyn and his supporters for disloyalty to progressive Labour governments....


----------



## J Ed (Aug 4, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Labour must 'end the madness' over Jeremy Corbyn, says Alan Johnson



Another hysterical front page anti-Corbyn headline in the 'balanced' and 'neutral' Graunid


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Another hysterical front page anti-Corbyn headline in the 'balanced' and 'neutral' Graunid


they've got two out of it - the original piece by Johnson, then another news piece about the comment piece...


----------



## teqniq (Aug 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Another hysterical front page anti-Corbyn headline in the 'balanced' and 'neutral' Graunid


Heh, I think we've already established that there is absolutely nothing 'balanced' or ''neutral' about the Graun's reportage. Always worth repeating though.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 4, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Heh, I think we've already established that there is absolutely nothing 'balanced' or ''neutral' about the Graun's reportage. Always worth repeating though.



I know but they had an article which 'proved' that they weren't biased against Corbyn, it had graphs and everything


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 4, 2015)

S☼I said:


> I know people are looking for hope and all that but ffs, it comes to something when this bloke has started being referred to by first name only. Labour supporters still pretending Blairism never happened or that it can be reversed by holding hands and cheering a bit
> 
> "Jeremy's in town on Saturday - I'm so excited, it's like a revolution!"
> 
> ...


its the credible vehicle thing I suppose. Labour can and have returned big GE majorities and had what-13 odd years under blair then brown? I've been getting a bit of this from ma 'but Labour is the only hope and this time they'll sort it out'. Nope. We don't get fooled again.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2015)

It's just sad, and I don't mean that in a 'saaaad' sense but just the belief among lots of my friends that because they're to the left of plp policy they're virtually Marxist, and Jeremy will save us, and what we need is capitalism brought under check, and Bill y Bragg is a saint, and rioters should put their energies into voting, etc etc

Edit actually that IS quite saaaad' but I mean when Jezza turns out to be a waste of time.


----------



## Sue (Aug 4, 2015)

Maybe not quite the right place for it and probably a bit hyperbolic but you know...

'Ed Miliband’s team was so out of touch that it struggled to find a single person earning the minimum wage to appear at a campaign event as the party geared up for the general election, a former senior adviser has revealed.

In an article for the website Labour List, Arnie Graf – a US community organiser who was a mentor to Barack Obama and advised Labour between 2011 and 2013 – says he was enlisted to help find a minimum wage worker to speak to the former Labour leader at an event that the media had been invited to in autumn 2013.

“The point of the conversation was to show how difficult it was for a minimum wage worker to get on in life,” Graf writes. “There was only one problem. No one had been able to locate a minimum wage worker for Ed to talk with.

The Labour party, supposedly the party of working people, was not in relationship with a single minimum wage worker? It was stunning!”'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-wage-out-of-touch-arnie-graf-labour-election


----------



## J Ed (Aug 4, 2015)

Sue said:


> Maybe not quite the right place for it and probably a bit hyperbolic but you know...
> 
> 'Ed Miliband’s team was so out of touch that it struggled to find a single person earning the minimum wage to appear at a campaign event as the party geared up for the general election, a former senior adviser has revealed.
> 
> ...



Given the number of students that must have been working on that campaign how is it that they weren't able to get one of them to call one of their mates doing bar or call centre work or something?


----------



## Sue (Aug 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Given the number of students that must have been working on that campaign how is it that they weren't able to get one of them to call one of their mates doing bar or call centre work or something?



Maybe they couldn't find someone on minimum wage who'd say the right thing/project the right image...? Anyway, however true it is, it sounds like it could be which says quite a lot...


----------



## ddraig (Aug 4, 2015)

my spin doctor labour lickspittle cousin has posted the 'Alan Johnson' piece saying "nuff said" and when i said the attacks on Corbyn were desperate stuff they've come back with this *"a list of achievements as long as my arm for workers is sooo desperate."*
they honestly believe this! what's the easiest way to counter this shite please? ta


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2015)

why bother?


----------



## chilango (Aug 4, 2015)

ddraig said:


> my spin doctor labour lickspittle cousin [snip] what's the easiest way to counter this shite please? ta



Guns.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 4, 2015)

e2a to KB not chilango
I know but they reckon their so bloody clever
yeah should prob leave it, no way they'll change their views


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2015)

Their world view is incompatible with yours. You might as well try to convince a horse that voting Corbyn is the way forward.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 4, 2015)

ddraig said:


> they honestly believe this! what's the easiest way to counter this shite please? ta



Mention student loans and fees. One of many of Bliars finest hours helped by Johnson.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 4, 2015)

ddraig said:


> my spin doctor labour lickspittle cousin has posted the 'Alan Johnson' piece saying "nuff said" and when i said the attacks on Corbyn were desperate stuff they've come back with this *"a list of achievements as long as my arm for workers is sooo desperate."*
> they honestly believe this! what's the easiest way to counter this shite please? ta



You're not Labour are you ddraig to be part of its leadership debate?

These 'achievements' listed are massaged tidbits, the by-products of streamlining Britain into a more neoliberal society. They were secured on the basis of extending Major's privatisation drive in a period of expansion, they shifted British capital's problems into the future leading to the godawful crash of 2008.

Are voters expected to applaud this nonsense? On the basis of its logic Alan Johnson would also have to praise Putin every week. His statistics since 1999 are far more impressive since coming into office and did it with only 2 aggressive wars Georgia & Ukraine compared to Blair's 3 NATO v Serbia & Afghanistan, Coalition of the Willing v Iraq.


----------



## andysays (Aug 4, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its the credible vehicle thing I suppose. Labour can and have returned big GE majorities and had what-13 odd years under blair then brown? I've been getting a bit of this from ma 'but Labour is the only hope and *this time they'll sort it out*'


----------



## ddraig (Aug 4, 2015)

sihhi said:


> You're not Labour are you ddraig to be part of its leadership debate?
> 
> These 'achievements' listed are massaged tidbits, the by-products of streamlining Britain into a more neoliberal society. They were secured on the basis of extending Major's privatisation drive in a period of expansion, they shifted British capital's problems into the future leading to the godawful crash of 2008.
> 
> Are voters expected to applaud this nonsense? On the basis of its logic Alan Johnson would also have to praise Putin every week. His statistics since 1999 are far more impressive since coming into office and did it with only 2 aggressive wars Georgia & Ukraine compared to Blair's 3 NATO v Serbia & Afghanistan, Coalition of the Willing v Iraq.


nope!
not any party


----------



## 8115 (Aug 4, 2015)

tufty79 said:


> Corbyn's coming to leeds soon - might mosey along to see what he's got to say..


I thought that said, Mosley along and I was like, tufty's a fascist, wtf?!


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 4, 2015)

Shit. Rumbled


----------



## ska invita (Aug 4, 2015)

Ronnie O SUllivan comes out for Jeremy Corbyn... surely that seals it
http://www.eurosport.co.uk/snooker/...plans-for-pure-snooker_sto4843768/story.shtml


----------



## Sifta (Aug 4, 2015)

sihhi said:


> only 2 aggressive wars Georgia & Ukraine



WTF - do you have any acquaintance with reality?


----------



## Ole (Aug 4, 2015)

Paul Krugman adds his two pennies' worth:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/corbyn-and-the-cringe-caucus/



> There is no fiscal crisis, except in the imagination of Britain’s Very Serious People; the policies had large costs; the economic upturn when the UK fiscal tightening was put on hold does not justify the previous costs. More than that, the whole austerian ideology is based on fantasy economics, while it’s actually the anti-austerians who are basing their views on the best evidence from modern macroeconomic theory and evidence.
> 
> Nonetheless, all the contenders for Labour leadership other than Mr. Corbyn have chosen to accept the austerian ideology in full, including accepting false claims that Labour was fiscally irresponsible and that this irresponsibility caused the crisis. As Simon Wren-Lewis says, when Labour supporters reject this move, they aren’t “moving left”, they’re refusing to follow a party elite that has decided to move sharply to the right.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 4, 2015)

Ole said:


> Paul Krugman adds his two pennies' worth:
> 
> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/corbyn-and-the-cringe-caucus/






> What’s been going on within Labour reminds me of what went on within the Democratic Party under Reagan and again for a while under Bush: many leading figures in the party fell into what Josh Marshall used to call the “cringe”, basically accepting the right’s worldview but trying to win office by being a bit milder



I like the use of 'cringe' there. It's a pretty good summary of where the Labour Party has ended up.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 4, 2015)

clunge works too


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 4, 2015)

This is still giving me endless entertainment. This is most of the media at the moment: AAGGHH, there's lefties coming out the woodwork when we thought they'd all died or moved to Venezuela! AGGHHHHH NOOOO, THEY'RE NOT GOING AWAY EVEN THOUGH WE CALLED THEM LEFTIES WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS RUDE. 

So much (self-interested) cluelessness among the people who are meant to report on what's happening in this country.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2015)

complete and utter fucking capitulation and collaboration with the class enemy works even better


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 4, 2015)

In general I think it's all a good thing btw. I don't think the party element is interesting, either in a positive way (I don't think the LP can be saved) or in a negative way (I don't think it's distracting people from some other mode of organising), and I also have to admit to being puzzled by people on here who believe in loyalty to parties and so on. It might have made sense if the party stood for something, but when fighting back against neo-liberalism you suddenly want us to fight fair? Fuck that. It's not fucking cricket.

What I find interesting is something positive: 30 years of brow-beating with TINA, and the establishment thought they had it sewed up, and suddenly they find...oh shit - all these people we didn't persuade. And they run around like headless chickens. It's great, mostly because all the Corbynites can *see *the neo-libs are scared. People are discovering they can scare the establishment. For the first time in a long time, I would say.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 4, 2015)

It looks like Corbyn, if successful, will struggle to convince voters of his anti-austerity message...

http://gu.com/p/4b92f?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

'The polling shows that 56% of those surveyed agree, and just 16% disagree, with the statement: “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2015)

mk12 said:


> It looks like Corbyn, if successful, will struggle to convince voters of his anti-austerity message...
> 
> http://gu.com/p/4b92f?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
> 
> 'The polling shows that 56% of those surveyed agree, and just 16% disagree, with the statement: “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'


Showing once again that...


> …what is represented in ideology is therefore not the system of the real relations which govern the existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations which they live.
> _Althusser_


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Another hysterical front page anti-Corbyn headline in the 'balanced' and 'neutral' Graunid


That article does have one bit of sense in it





> Sources in the Corbyn campaign suggested that the Johnson intervention would backfire on the grounds that Labour members will be unimpressed by his negative tone. A spokesperson for the Corbyn campaign said: “Whatever anyone else says in this leadership election, Jeremy Corbyn is keeping it positive, about policies for growth rather than austerity, not personal attacks. Jeremy’s giving a positive lead and focusing on unity, not division.”


I still don't see Corbyn winning but like with the Scottish Ref and the anti-SNP stuff all the liberal squealing/insults have done is help Corbyn.


----------



## laptop (Aug 4, 2015)

mk12 said:


> It looks like Corbyn, if successful, will struggle to convince voters of his anti-austerity message...
> 
> http://gu.com/p/4b92f?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
> 
> 'The polling shows that 56% of those surveyed agree, and just 16% disagree, with the statement: “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'



Reason why it's illegal to teach politics in schools, or economics in any meaningful way.

*The national accounts are not a fucking piggy-bank*


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 4, 2015)

mk12 said:


> It looks like Corbyn, if successful, will struggle to convince voters of his anti-austerity message...
> 
> http://gu.com/p/4b92f?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
> 
> 'The polling shows that 56% of those surveyed agree, and just 16% disagree, with the statement: “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'



Let's see what happens to public opinion when the next round of cuts plunges us back into recession.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 4, 2015)

laptop said:


> Reason why it's illegal to teach politics in schools, or economics in any meaningful way.
> 
> *The national accounts are not a fucking piggy-bank*



It's just become a reflexive 'truth' repeated ad nauseam without any explanation or thought. In some ways that makes it even harder to challenge because when people say it, and you challenge them on it, it's probably the first time that they have thought about it in any depth or even considered that it might not be the whole truth which immediately makes anyone defensive and inclined to be offended.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 4, 2015)

laptop said:


> Reason why it's illegal to teach politics in schools, or economics in any meaningful way.
> 
> *The national accounts are not a fucking piggy-bank*


Agree with sentiment, but not true. 
I know very few state school kids ever get the opportunity to study it...but the Edexcel Govt & Politics A2 unit 3/4 topic B does cover ideologies..even Anarchism!


----------



## yield (Aug 4, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> This is still giving me endless entertainment. This is most of the media at the moment: AAGGHH, there's lefties coming out the woodwork when we thought they'd all died or moved to Venezuela! AGGHHHHH NOOOO, THEY'RE NOT GOING AWAY EVEN THOUGH WE CALLED THEM LEFTIES WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS RUDE.
> 
> So much (self-interested) cluelessness among the people who are meant to report on what's happening in this country.


The Guardian is comedy gold at the moment. Hours of fun reading articles with my senile Tory dad.

I spice it up and tell him Arthur Scargill is his deputy and Vladislav Surkov will be his PR man.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 4, 2015)

laptop said:


> Reason why it's illegal to teach politics in schools, or economics in any meaningful way.
> 
> *The national accounts are not a fucking piggy-bank*


yep, and even if it were there's more than one way to reduce the deficit..... economic growth, increased tax receipts and lower numbers reliant on benefits being a far more credible deficit reduction plan than counter cyclical public spending cuts.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2015)

mk12 said:


> It looks like Corbyn, if successful, will struggle to convince voters of his anti-austerity message...


No-one else has really tried tbf. Or been given the opportunity to try.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 4, 2015)

I'd also have thought that: 

“We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'

is atrociously phrased and clearly wanting the answer "yes", along the lines of "We mustn't give all our money away, so we should cut foreign aid".


----------



## laptop (Aug 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Agree with sentiment, but not true.
> I know very few state school kids ever get the opportunity to study it...but the Edexcel Govt & Politics A2 unit 3/4 topic B does cover ideologies..even Anarchism!



They have their empty claims: I'll have mine 



J Ed said:


> It's just become a reflexive 'truth' repeated ad nauseam without any explanation or thought. In some ways that makes it even harder to challenge because when people say it, and you challenge them on it, it's probably the first time that they have thought about it in any depth or even considered that it might not be the whole truth which immediately makes anyone defensive and inclined to be offended.





free spirit said:


> yep, and even if it were there's more than one way to reduce the deficit..... economic growth, increased tax receipts and lower numbers reliant on benefits being a far more credible deficit reduction plan than counter cyclical public spending cuts.



Worse: following the real answer involves a certain amount of numeracy; and even some abstract thought.

Not happening 



two sheds said:


> I'd also have thought that:
> 
> “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'
> 
> is atrociously phrased and clearly wanting the answer "yes", along the lines of "We mustn't give all our money away, so we should cut foreign aid".



Do we know who commissioned the research? Cruddas? Or someone "for" him?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 4, 2015)

It was done by Cruddas.

And the question “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”' is  blatantly loaded. Its a "push poll" - designed to give a particular response. Worthless other than for propaganda purposes.
Corbyn should do a poll asking people "do you think the economy should be run for the benefit of the people rather than the bankers" and use the inevitable positive response to say that 72% of the public support his policy.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 4, 2015)

mk12 said:


> It looks like Corbyn, if successful, will struggle to convince voters of his anti-austerity message...
> 
> http://gu.com/p/4b92f?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
> 
> 'The polling shows that 56% of those surveyed agree, and just 16% disagree, with the statement: “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'


Of course they agree with it at the moment.  Who has been giving an alternative message with any kind of consistency or clarity?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 4, 2015)

Its not the first votes its the second votes that's going to win this . I backed Cooper but Burnham has already got some second preference from unions and will continue to do some lefty talking to get some more.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 4, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I'd also have thought that:
> 
> “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'
> 
> is atrociously phrased and clearly wanting the answer "yes", along the lines of "We mustn't give all our money away, so we should cut foreign aid".


True enough.  And so ambiguous as to be meaningless.  We should live within our means, but what are those means and who gets to define them?  The second part begs the question too.  It doesn't follow from the first part at all (because what are our means?) and hence should not have a "so".


----------



## TopCat (Aug 4, 2015)

I just paid the three quid that I had to borrow to support the man. Go on slag me.


----------



## tim (Aug 4, 2015)

TopCat said:


> I just paid the three quid that I had to borrow to support the man. Go on slag me.



You should live within your means and cutting your deficit should be your top priority. Profligate borrowing of this sort can only lead to disaster. Will that do?


----------



## youngian (Aug 5, 2015)

Send Corbyn off to Dignitas says Andy Burnham

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andy-burnham-says-mps-should-6194623


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 5, 2015)

The labour right wing have pretty much burnt their bridges though haven't they? "Madness" "economic illiteracy" - can they credibly stay in the party after coming out with stuff like that?
Who hasn't slagged Corbyn off yet?


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Aug 5, 2015)

TopCat said:


> I just paid the three quid that I had to borrow to support the man. Go on slag me.



Hysterical anarcho-trot?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 5, 2015)

Corbyn's been at between 5-10 times the google trends ranking of any of the other candidates for the last 2 weeks solidly now, and higher than all other candidates every day since 1st July.

That's a fair head of steam he's building up, and the other 3s tactics are probably helping drive a lot of that search traffic his way by making him the main story of this contest.


----------



## laptop (Aug 5, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> The labour right wing have pretty much burnt their bridges though haven't they? "Madness" "economic illiteracy" - can they credibly stay in the party after coming out with stuff like that?



Time for a sweepstake on the name of the new party 

Er... The New Party


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 5, 2015)

laptop said:


> Time for a sweepstake on the name of the new party
> 
> Er... The New Party



A party of Action!


----------



## spartacus mills (Aug 5, 2015)

laptop said:


> Time for a sweepstake on the name of the new party
> 
> Er... The New Party



The George Osborne Fanclub?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 5, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Hysterical anarcho-trot?


My head hurts. Just woke up and thought why is my debit card out of my wallet? Oh fuck.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> True enough.  And so ambiguous as to be meaningless.  We should live within our means, but what are those means and who gets to define them?  The second part begs the question too.  It doesn't follow from the first part at all (because what are our means?) and hence should not have a "so".


I'd like to propose an alternative poll question. 
We should cut tax for the wealthiest while cuttung benefits for the poorest 
Agree or disagree.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 5, 2015)

I smell a hint of desperation

Andy Burnham vows to renationalise railways


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I smell a hint of desperation
> 
> Andy Burnham vows to renationalise railways


I wish he'd _pledged _to do this.


----------



## Santino (Aug 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I wish he'd _pledged _to do this.


I'm calling for them to be re-nationalised.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2015)

Santino said:


> I'm calling for them to be re-nationalised.


You know..photographed grinning with a written pledge to do this...that sort of thing.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I wish he'd _pledged _to do this.


I take it 'vows' is something they could renege on later whereas 'pledge' as in 'election pledge' is not.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I take it 'vows' is something they could renege on later whereas 'pledge' as in 'election pledge' is not.


"_could_"?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 5, 2015)

Heh, yeah. 'Would' then.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 5, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I take it 'vows' is something they could renege on later whereas 'pledge' as in 'election pledge' is not.


Yeah, cos...no party have even broken a pledge, have they?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 5, 2015)

Either way it's a blatant ploy to draw support away from Corbyn


----------



## Ole (Aug 5, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I'd also have thought that:
> 
> “We must live within our means, so cutting the deficit is the top priority.”'
> 
> is atrociously phrased and clearly wanting the answer "yes", along the lines of "We mustn't give all our money away, so we should cut foreign aid".



It's also simply illogical to conclude from that that voters favour austerity, like that cunt Cruddas is so desperate to do. 

Austerity is just one means of cutting the deficit. What a ridiculous article.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 5, 2015)

Yep and particularly with the headline on the Guardian front web page being "*Why Labour lost. *Austerity popular with the voters, finds inquiry". Just propaganda hoping people will accept the headline without looking at the article itself. Atrocious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2015)

ddraig said:


> my spin doctor labour lickspittle cousin has posted the 'Alan Johnson' piece saying "nuff said" and when i said the attacks on Corbyn were desperate stuff they've come back with this *"a list of achievements as long as my arm for workers is sooo desperate."*
> they honestly believe this! what's the easiest way to counter this shite please? ta



Ask him whether his arm is still a three inch long stump.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 5, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I smell a hint of desperation
> 
> Andy Burnham vows to renationalise railways



Erm, shouldn't the fanclub of JC be strongly welcoming this? Shows how Jeremy's campaign is moving the party 'left' etc??

Am sure Owen Jones will be along shortly to explain.


----------



## Ole (Aug 5, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Yep and particularly with the headline on the Guardian front web page being "*Why Labour lost. *Austerity popular with the voters, finds inquiry". Just propaganda hoping people will accept the headline without looking at the article itself. Atrocious.



To his credit Corbyn has now responded along those lines. 

*Jeremy Corbyn: poll that claims to find voters are pro-austerity actually shows the opposite*



> Jeremy Corbyn, the anti-austerity MP who has surprised the experts by taking the lead in the polls, argues that the research in fact "confirms exactly what we have been saying all along."
> 
> "Drilling down into this research confirms exactly what we have been saying all along that Labour must have a credible method of tackling the deficit and that people insist that this must be fair. That's exactly why our economic strategy is based upon eliminating the deficit by making sure the corporations pay their taxes, halting the tax cuts to the wealthy and the subsidies to high rent landlords and low pay employers."
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Erm, shouldn't the fanclub of JC be strongly welcoming this? Shows how Jeremy's campaign is moving the party 'left' etc??
> 
> Am sure Owen Jones will be along shortly to explain.


used motors burnham is about as likely to bring rail back into public ownership as I am to wake up in bed with sandra bullock


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> used motors burnham is about as likely to bring rail back into public ownership as I am to wake up in bed with sandra bullock



Er, yeah cheers. Not the point I was making though was it?


----------



## marty21 (Aug 5, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I smell a hint of desperation
> 
> Andy Burnham vows to renationalise railways


 strange that - he didn't seem as keen before


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2015)

marty21 said:


> strange that - he didn't seem as keen before


its almost like naked political opportunism he doesn't intend on backing up ennit


----------



## Ole (Aug 5, 2015)

Corbyn has published his housing plan.

http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/housing

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...ts/original/1438782182/housing.pdf?1438782182


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Er, yeah cheers. Not the point I was making though was it?


ok, I'll spell it out: I think the JC fanclub see that burnhams doing of this is a move of desperation rather than any 'left turn' They think he's bullshitting like anyone with half a brain does.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 5, 2015)

Burnham remains the bookies favourite and the likely destination of a lot of second preference votes. As such what he commits to and says now is significant regardless of if he wins or becomes a member of the JC Cabinet - he's tied in.

Your claim that the JC camp's analysis of this pledge is whether or not Burnham is 'bullshitting' is daft.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 5, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> As such what he commits to and says now is significant regardless of if he wins or becomes a member of the JC Cabinet - he's tied in.


I think history has shown many, _many_ times over that there are many ways for politicians to get out of a campaign promise. They're rarely "tied in".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2015)

its not a pledge anyway.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 5, 2015)

I thought Corbyn was now the bookies' favourite?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2015)

I'll do it for him

"Yes, during the Labour leadership campaign I did pledge to renationalise the railways however after looking into the issue further we realised that we might be in breach of EU competition law and the last thing we want to do is put at risk our membership of the EU thereby jeopardising hard working British families"


----------



## teqniq (Aug 5, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Your claim that the JC camp's analysis of this pledge is whether or not Burnham is 'bullshitting' is daft.



I think he's bullshitting, hence the 'I smell a hint of desperation' line with the Graun link, otherwise why come out with it now? What the Corbyn camp thinks is neither here nor there to me.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2015)

Argonia said:


> I thought Corbyn was now the bookies' favourite?



http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader


----------



## redcogs (Aug 5, 2015)

Who the fucks Sandra Bullock?


----------



## Argonia (Aug 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader


 Blimey, Liz Kendall is nowhere according to Mr.Turf Accountant.


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2015)

There's a new poll that suggests burham is most popular with labour voters (rather than members/supporters), expect that's why the odds have swung back to him


----------



## weltweit (Aug 5, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Blimey, Liz Kendall is nowhere according to Mr.Turf Accountant.


Well she doesn't really have much to say as far as I can tell.
And Burnham, I listened to a chat / interview with him, what a drip that man is!


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2015)

the poll is here: http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/burnham-ahead-among-labour-voters

bit of a sleight of hand in the summary though - it suggests a sample of nearly 2000, but if you look in the full results only 500-odd of them are labour voters.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 5, 2015)

What singularly fails to get mentioned on all the op-ed pieces that get written about Kendell is how incredibly dim she seems to be.  I've never seen her have an answer for anything.  Instead, she gets caught in terrible fallacious logic and obvious nonsense. Not big-lie nonsense like Gideon, Ham-face or Balls come out with, which can be argued with but they have some skill in defending.  But nonsense on stilts that a two year-old would see through.

She might be a terrible Tory but, frankly, the rank stupidity she exhibits is worse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'll do it for him
> 
> "Yes, during the Labour leadership campaign I did pledge to renationalise the railways however after looking into the issue further we realised that we might be in breach of EU competition law and the last thing we want to do is put at risk our membership of the EU thereby jeopardising hard working British families"


claiming not to know the business after being voted in- 'I didn't know I couldn't back my promises cos I didn't know the realities of power' is mealy mouthed shit and they should be recalled for ever pulling that one. Cleggs sadface as the tuition fees were hiked etc.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Aug 5, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I What the Corbyn camp thinks is neither here nor there to me.



Good for you. Except that's what my original comment was about - how this would be received by the JC camp, how they would perceive/use this, what is happening to the trajectory of debate. It was not 'will Andy Burnham renationalise the railways or is he bullshitting'. FFS


----------



## teqniq (Aug 5, 2015)

Well that wasn't exactly clear.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2015)

and the answer was that I think they'll see it as transparent politicking and not believe he will follow through


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2015)

because how thick do you have to be to believe he'd back that one up?


----------



## agricola (Aug 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'll do it for him
> 
> "Yes, during the Labour leadership campaign I did pledge to renationalise the railways however after looking into the issue further we realised that we might be in breach of EU competition law and the last thing we want to do is put at risk our membership of the EU thereby jeopardising hard working British families"



You left out _"... though of course the public sector can make an bid to run a franchise, though we won't be funding it and we will make damned sure no-one else can"_


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2015)

apols if already posted, but feel a bit stupid not being aware of the extent of Lord Sainsbury funding of Progress - shocking stuff .

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-7dd3-Who-are-the-real-entryists#.VcJGY_lVikq


----------



## teqniq (Aug 5, 2015)

I didn't know till i read that.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> What singularly fails to get mentioned on all the op-ed pieces that get written about Kendell is how incredibly dim she seems to be.  I've never seen her have an answer for anything.  Instead, she gets caught in terrible fallacious logic and obvious nonsense. Not big-lie nonsense like Gideon, Ham-face or Balls come out with, which can be argued with but they have some skill in defending.  But nonsense on stilts that a two year-old would see through.
> 
> She might be a terrible Tory but, frankly, the rank stupidity she exhibits is worse.



I'm incredibly grateful for her stupidity.


----------



## killer b (Aug 5, 2015)

I thought Sainsbury had jumped ship to the tories?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2015)

killer b said:


> I thought Sainsbury had jumped ship to the tories?



Only to the red Tories.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Good for you. Except that's what my original comment was about - how this would be received by the JC camp, how they would perceive/use this, what is happening to the trajectory of debate. It was not 'will Andy Burnham renationalise the railways or is he bullshitting'. FFS


Isn't the best way to use that simply to welcome it? They're in the same party and supposedly on the same side, after all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'm incredibly grateful for her stupidity.


Why?

For me, she represents something far larger, the stupidity of Harman and Milliband before her. A mix of stupidity and moral cowardice. The mix varies by candidate, but the result is the same.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 6, 2015)

https://bilgewatch.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/labour-leadership-alleged-green-entry-ism/


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 6, 2015)

Burnham making noises about renationalising the railways and making leftish comments -  looks like hes  trying to get camp Corbyn's second preferences. I suspect this will work to an extent.


----------



## killer b (Aug 6, 2015)

He isn't after Corbyn's second preferences - if Corbyn is one of the last two then they won't count. He's after the first preferences of people who might be tempted to vote for Corbyn.


----------



## laptop (Aug 6, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't the best way to use that simply to welcome it? They're in the same party and supposedly on the same side, after all.



Welcome, with a soupçon of sarcasm, yes. Can they work the word "belated" into the statement?


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> He isn't after Corbyn's second preferences - if Corbyn is one of the last two then they won't count. He's after the first preferences of people who might be tempted to vote for Corbyn.


Strikes me that if that 43% figure is anywhere near accurate then he'll need them. If JC scores that highly on first preferences then he'll only need a tiny number of transfers to win. So Burnham needs to take first prefs directly from him


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2015)

That raving mouthpiece of the loony left has something nice to say about Corbyn's economic policies today.

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/08/06/2136475/corbyns-peoples-qe-could-actually-be-a-decent-idea/ (may require registration, is free)


----------



## teqniq (Aug 6, 2015)

With plans like these I can't see him getting anywhere near the levers of power, but hooray for saying it anyway.

Corbyn to set out plans for UK nuclear disarmament 70 years after Hiroshima



> Labour leadership hopeful Jeremy Corbyn will use the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the atom bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima to set out his plan for nuclear disarmament in the UK.
> 
> Speaking at a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament commemorative event in London on Thursday, Corbyn will say that if he were prime minster he would not replace the Trident nuclear weapons system and would transition away from nuclear weapons entirely.
> 
> In a document entitled Plan for Defence Diversification, *Corbyn sets out a strategy to protect the jobs and skills of those who work on Trident, and in the defence sector more widely, by investing in “socially productive” hi-tech industry and infrastructure projects.*



The bit in bold is something I have long thought would be a really good idea.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 6, 2015)

teqniq said:


> .. The bit in bold is something I have long thought would be a really good idea.


I am happy to give up nuclear weapons, when Russia, North Korea, Iran and China give up theirs!


----------



## teqniq (Aug 6, 2015)

Someone's got to start somewhere


----------



## weltweit (Aug 6, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Someone's got to start somewhere


All together now !!


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 6, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I am happy to give up nuclear weapons, when Russia, North Korea, Iran and China give up theirs!



For what eventuality?


----------



## JTG (Aug 6, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I am happy to give up nuclear weapons, when Russia, North Korea, Iran and China give up theirs!


Yeah, cos our nukes definitely deter all of theirs


----------



## weltweit (Aug 6, 2015)

And let's not forget the USA should give up theirs at the same time, after all being the only country in the history of nuclear weapons to have used them against civilian targets!

eta: and France and Israel (like that will happen anytime soon!)


----------



## weltweit (Aug 6, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> For what eventuality?


Sorry, I don't follow?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 6, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Sorry, I don't follow?


When do you imagine that having nuclear weapons would be useful in our interactions with those states?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> He isn't after Corbyn's second preferences - if Corbyn is one of the last two then they won't count. He's after the first preferences of people who might be tempted to vote for Corbyn.



ah yes - your right. If Corbyn comes first in first preferences - which looks quite likely - his 2nd preference votes dont count.  
There will be more pressure on Kendall to drop out the race I guess - that would probably ensue copper or burnham have enough on 2nd prefs to stop JC.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 6, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> When do you imagine that having nuclear weapons would be useful in our interactions with those states?


It is very difficult to accurately predict the future, except that the short term includes that Israel has attained nuclear weapons, North Korea likewise and Iran has been trying to obtain nuclear weapons, an ambition which seems at the moment to have been headed off. The knowledge of how to develop nuclear weapons is now known which means others may also attempt to attain them in the future.

To leave Europe with France as the only nuclear power would leave our reliance on the USA much greater in order to maintain a balance and deterrent against Russia.

And one should not discount the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons on conventional warfare. If Russia (or an other) were to amass a conventional force of tanks in order to invade western Europe (or anywhere) that army would be very vulnerable to being wiped out by a battlefield nuclear strike.

It is tempting to say, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Austria, etc etc don't have nuclear weapons, and they are not exactly quaking in their boots about unnamed foreign invaders, and it is a good point, but were we to discontinue our program I think we would be the first country to have had nuclear weapons and to have ceased having them.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 6, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I am happy to give up nuclear weapons, when Russia, North Korea, Iran and China give up theirs!



Yep, gotta keep those nukes otherwise we'll have Hezbollah at Dover in the morning


----------



## J Ed (Aug 6, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It is tempting to say, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Austria, etc etc don't have nuclear weapons, and they are not exactly quaking in their boots about unnamed foreign invaders, and it is a good point, but were we to discontinue our program I think we would be the first country to have had nuclear weapons and to have ceased having them.



No.

South Africa, Argentina, Brazil...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 6, 2015)

weltweit said:


> To leave Europe with France as the only nuclear power would leave our reliance on the USA much greater in order to maintain a balance and deterrent against Russia.
> 
> And one should not discount the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons on conventional warfare. If Russia (or an other) were to amass a conventional force of tanks in order to invade western Europe (or anywhere) that army would be very vulnerable to being wiped out by a battlefield nuclear strike.



I'll ignore the rest because it didn't address my question.

But this bit is just barking, isn't it?
I mean, any future Russian government is going to be well aware that should they launch a ground war anywhere in the world no one is going to nuke them. Also, there's a million other reasons why the Russians wouldn't launch a ground invasion of Western Europe (economic, military, common bloody sensical).

It's beyond belief that we're having this conversation in 2015.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 6, 2015)

We can't even launch Trident without American permission anyway so even if we accepted the early 20th Century logic at face value the idea of 'well we'd have to rely on France and America' makes no sense.


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> We can't even launch Trident without American permission anyway so even if we accepted the early 20th Century logic at face value the idea of 'well we'd have to rely on France and America' makes no sense.


given that our nuclear launch is deadman's handle, how does that work?


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'll ignore the rest because it didn't address my question.
> 
> But this bit is just barking, isn't it?
> I mean, any future Russian government is going to be well aware that should they launch a ground war anywhere in the world no one is going to nuke them. Also, there's a million other reasons why the Russians wouldn't launch a ground invasion of Western Europe (economic, military, common bloody sensical).
> ...


presumably why Russia has just massively upscaled its tank and warship production


----------



## J Ed (Aug 6, 2015)

gosub said:


> given that our nuclear launch is deadman's handle, how does that work?



http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk

So unless the British government happened to launch it within a few months of doing something to upset the American government it just would not happen. Not really an independent deterrent so much as an American missile hosted at British expense which allows right-wingers to imagine getting rid of it leading to a Red Dawn GB wankfest scenario with Hezbollah operatives parachuting into Essex


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 6, 2015)

gosub said:


> presumably why Russia has just massively upscaled its tank and warship production



The idea that we would or could ever drop a "battlefield nuke" on massed tanks (in Russia? Or "our side" of the border?) is just ...

As, frankly, is the idea of Russia "invading Western Europe" when since 1989 virtually all the traffic has been NATO advancing into Eastern Europe.


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk
> 
> So unless the British government happened to launch it within a few months of doing something to upset the American government it just would not happen. Not really an independent deterrent so much as an American missile hosted at British expense which allows right-wingers to imagine getting rid of it leading to a Red Dawn GB wankfest scenario with Hezbollah operatives parachuting into Essex


we've got quite a lot of kit that can't be maintained without support from US.  Hezbollah would have to logarithmically up their game to even get a mention in Northwood planning.


----------



## gosub (Aug 6, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> The idea that we would or could ever drop a "battlefield nuke" on massed tanks (in Russia? Or "our side" of the border?) is just ...
> 
> As, frankly, is the idea of Russia "invading Western Europe" when since 1989 virtually all the traffic has been NATO advancing into Eastern Europe.


the mrk82 and mrk 83 were withdrawn in 97. We can't do battlefield nukes.  Agree on the asymmetry.


----------



## newbie (Aug 6, 2015)

killer b said:


> He isn't after Corbyn's second preferences - if Corbyn is one of the last two then they won't count. He's after the first preferences of people who might be tempted to vote for Corbyn.


why on earth would anyone voting for Corbyn have a second preference?


----------



## laptop (Aug 6, 2015)

newbie said:


> why on earth would anyone voting for Corbyn have a second preference?



So as not to "waste" it.

People are odd. So many don't like, and certainly don't get, calculations.


----------



## newbie (Aug 6, 2015)

laptop said:


> So as not to "waste" it.
> 
> People are odd. So many don't like, and certainly don't get, calculations.


Voting for Corbyn and then endorsing one of the others in his stead is ludicrous.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 7, 2015)

Remember when Andy Burnham wanted your granny eyescanned for a database? (this is 2005, the full details were beyond disgusting. I'll be comming back to this)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4235086.stm


----------



## killer b (Aug 7, 2015)

Interesting to see all these people from other parties joining to vote corbyn is now being used to undermine the validity of the vote. No-one saw that one coming.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 7, 2015)

*Communist Corbyn housing policy branded disastrous!*



> In a policy statement Corbyn, the left-wing Labour backbench MP for Islington North, said were he to come to power he would scrap the right to buy scheme for local authority housing and stop it from being introduced for housing association tenants.
> 
> But he also said he would "investigate" whether money raised by scrapping tax relief for private landlords could be used "to fund a form of right to buy shared equity scheme to private tenants in cases when they are renting from large-scale landlords".
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2015)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4519890.ece  - Times article on 'infiltration' by TUSC and LU members (and officers).

http://leftunity.org/response-to-times-accusations-of-labour-infiltration/ - LU response, which basically endorses such entryism


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 7, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> *Communist Corbyn housing policy branded disastrous!*


I thought the Cold War had ended.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 7, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I thought the Cold War had ended.


	Just shows how bright you are.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4519890.ece  - Times article on 'infiltration' by TUSC and LU members (and officers).
> 
> http://leftunity.org/response-to-times-accusations-of-labour-infiltration/ - LU response, which basically endorses such entryism



Surely if Corbyn was to win the leadership contest, the only course of action for Left Unity would be for them to dissolve themselves as an organisation and enter the Labour Party?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I am happy to give up nuclear weapons, when Russia, North Korea, Iran and China give up theirs!



Iran don't have any, you pissflap!


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2015)

imposs1904 said:


> Surely if Corbyn was to win the leadership contest, the only course of action for Left Unity would be for them to dissolve themselves as an organisation and enter the Labour Party?


i think they've already given up, not really any point any more.  I think all the Sheffield branch have joined labour


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It is very difficult to accurately predict the future, except that the short term includes that Israel has attained nuclear weapons, North Korea likewise and Iran has been trying to obtain nuclear weapons, an ambition which seems at the moment to have been headed off. The knowledge of how to develop nuclear weapons is now known which means others may also attempt to attain them in the future.



The knowledge of how to develop nuclear weapons has been "open source" for more than 50 years. That doesn't imply that everyone with that knowledge is likely to develop them.



> To leave Europe with France as the only nuclear power would leave our reliance on the USA much greater in order to maintain a balance and deterrent against Russia.



...And?
For whole swathes of past decades we've been in that situation, when we've been going through upgrading cycles on current weapons. In fact once we withdrew the RAF's bomb stocks, we deliberately put ourselves in a situation ofdependency.



> And one should not discount the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons on conventional warfare. If Russia (or an other) were to amass a conventional force of tanks in order to invade western Europe (or anywhere) that army would be very vulnerable to being wiped out by a battlefield nuclear strike.



The Russians know exactly the same thing as us: That the chances of using a sub-kiloton nuclear weapon on a battlefield will rely on variables that can't be predicted in advance, the most important being weather local to the target. No-one wants to detonate if it means that The Motherland gets to suck nuclear fallout.  



> It is tempting to say, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Austria, etc etc don't have nuclear weapons, and they are not exactly quaking in their boots about unnamed foreign invaders, and it is a good point, but were we to discontinue our program I think we would be the first country to have had nuclear weapons and to have ceased having them.



Irrelevant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yep, gotta keep those nukes otherwise we'll have Hezbollah at Dover in the morning



And nukes are also incredibly good at suppressing internal threats too!


----------



## Crispy (Aug 7, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And nukes are also incredibly good at suppressing internal threats too!


The Met should have them for crowd control.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I'll ignore the rest because it didn't address my question.
> 
> But this bit is just barking, isn't it?
> I mean, any future Russian government is going to be well aware that should they launch a ground war anywhere in the world no one is going to nuke them. Also, there's a million other reasons why the Russians wouldn't launch a ground invasion of Western Europe (economic, military, common bloody sensical).
> ...



People tend to forget (unless they've studied the possibility) that geographical constraints on a ground war mean those from the east having to transit through several geographical bottlenecks. Now you can get round some by using airborne troops, but if you're on a war footing, then a) you're going to hold your airborne troops in reserve for insertion *after* the fighting starts, and b) any halfway-decent strategist on the Russian General Staff will be aware that airborne troops during a war situation have high losses "in transit" - your enemy doesn't wait around, they'll be aiming to knock your troop planes out of the sky.

One of the reasons NATO strategists were reasonably sanguine about a Soviet invasion is that they knew the Soviets would be highly unlikely to nuke the massing NATO troops on the North German plains, given that said Soviets would have to transit those areas themselves. They were also aware that many of the Warsaw Pact countries would react "badly" to the Kremlin using nukes "preventively" on those countries' soil. 

Now, there's the added brake of economic ties, and of the frontiers of Russian engagement having changed, meaning there's more territory west of Russia to roll through first. Russia still has a gert large army, but they can't afford to throw away battalions, let alone divisions, in the way they used to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

Crispy said:


> The Met should have them for crowd control.


that's where you use the neutron bomb


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2015)

Crispy said:


> The Met should have them for crowd control.



They should, although TBF these are people who can't even deploy tear gas without half-killing their own personnel, so we'd probably see mushroom clouds over New Scotland Yard _tout suite_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> that's where you use the neutron bomb




Ah, efficiency and progress, all in one neat package!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2015)

gosub said:


> presumably why Russia has just massively upscaled its tank and warship production



Warships-wise, totally understandable given the parlous state of many of the fleets. Hard to convincingly project military power when your fleet has a relative handful of modern craft, and the rest are superceded models (poorer defence tech, poorer armour etc) with newer weapons bolted on.
And the above is if we ignore the persistent tales of admirals selling off bits of their surface fleet for scrap in order to keep other bits operational.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 7, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Just shows how bright you are.


And that reply shows what a tool you are. On your bike.


----------



## Ruchi Gupta (Aug 7, 2015)

Ed Miliband right, stopping unfair 0hrs contracts is part of immigration policy. Dodgy firms exploit immigration to undercut . Unfortunately, None of these people on that stage engage with the generation of today .
Thanks,
Ruchi Varshney


----------



## Santino (Aug 7, 2015)

You're welcome.


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2015)

and the rest of the article:




			
				The Times said:
			
		

> senior Labour figures who are concerned that the party’s vetting process is not robust enough to remove all entryists with only a week to go until the first ballot papers are sent out. The vote closes on September 10.
> A Labour insider said that the party’s central operation had started to panic about the potential scale of entryism. It has attempted to strengthen the operation by drafting in staff from its headquarters in Westminster to do batches of vetting. There have even been rumours that the vote will have to be delayed.
> On Wednesday Harriet Harman, acting party leader, wrote to MPs urging vigilance against entryism. Each Labour MP has been sent data on local new members to check for suspicious names and those who do not “share Labour’s values”. The failure to spot senior rival party members, many of whom stood against Labour figures in the election, is likely to cause concern.
> Liz Davies was a member of Left Unity’s ruling body until this summer and has signed up to vote in the Labour contest without being detected. Although she claims she resigned from Left Unity when she registered, she is still listed online as a member of the party’s ruling body and has not been contacted by Labour to verify her status.
> ...


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> and the rest of the article:


From that article:_ “Anybody identified as a public critic of the party or seen to do it down will not be given a ballot paper.” 
_
Does that mean that Jeremy Corbyn won't be getting a ballot paper?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> and the rest of the article:



So 29 people out of 180,000 are entryists. Panic! that's nearly one in 6,000! OOOHH the humanity. 

Entertainingly, in percentage terms if I was to say it's like Calais it'd be about right, while simultaneously being utterly ridiculous. Ahh silly season, you're a corker this year.


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> So 29 people out of 180,000 are entryists. Panic! that's nearly one in 6,000! OOOHH the humanity.


plus 100 Greens, don't forget.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 7, 2015)

100 GREENS???! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD! GRAB YOUR CHILDREN, PRAY TO  WHATEVER GOD WILL HAVE YOU!

(I'm hoping there's not any other groups, I'm fast running out of sarcastic hyperbole here)


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2015)

Communist Party as well, thats another dozen.

I think its a bit much to say anyone openly critical won't get a ballot though, Harriet Stalin there.

key line from corbyn at the end of that indy article mochasoul posted, in regards to people not working with him in shadow cabinet: 'When the dust settles we're all still labour'


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Communist Party as well, thats another dozen.


naah, thats the CPGB, so they're include in the 29


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 7, 2015)

CPB's pro-Corbyn, and may have duel carders around (I mean let's be honest, they all do, a lot of revolutionary group members are middle-of-the-road lefties who like to support everyone "left" that they can), but entryism's definitely not policy.


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2015)

Only just noticed the article mentions the ISN as being a part of Left Unity - even tho it dissolved several months ago.


----------



## treelover (Aug 7, 2015)

> A Labour source said Corbyn was “sneaking in Green party members by the back door” and that a Corbyn surge would be “completely illegitimate and on a par [with], if not worse than, the Militant infiltration in the 80s”. The source said senior figures would expect an immediate independent inquiry to follow the result, due to be declared on 12 September, regardless of who wins.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ndidates-and-members-rival-parties-apply-vote



Preparing the ground for a postponement or even cancellation if they don't get the result they want?, wouldn't be surprised by these 'democrats'


----------



## treelover (Aug 7, 2015)

> This implies the electorate in the leadership ballot is now well over 325,000, and likely to rise still further. Some MPs have already voiced fears that the system to elect the party leader, one of the most important tasks facing the membership, should never have been handed to people who have no long-term commitment to the party. The decision to change the rules was taken by Ed Miliband in 2014 as part of his effort to reform the party in the wake of allegation of ballot-rigging by Unite in the Falkirk constituency selection.



Wintour spin again, this is what the Blairites wanted, a much more open(less committed) membership, now its not in their favour they don't like it.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 7, 2015)

They only found 260?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2015)

J Ed said:


> They only found 260?


as purges go, its hardly the night of the long knives


----------



## Ungrateful (Aug 7, 2015)

Given the size of the membership of  the(not-so) 'radical-left':  SWP, LU, TUSC, I doubt they could swing a pendulum never mind a Labour Party leadership election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> as purges go, its hardly the night of the long knives


the morning of the boxcutters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> So 29 people out of 180,000 are entryists. Panic! that's nearly one in 6,000! OOOHH the humanity.


what % of the sp membership is 29?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 7, 2015)




----------



## Libertad (Aug 7, 2015)

brogdale said:


>


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



the most disappointing thing about that is that if 18 left unity people have entered the labour party, and there's only questions about 29, that means at most only 11 socialist party members entered the labour party as entryists. that's disgraceful.


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the most disappointing thing about that is that if 18 left unity people have entered the labour party, and there's only questions about 29, that means at most only 11 socialist party members entered the labour party as entryists. that's disgraceful.


TUSC, not necessarily SP. They're clearly a disciplined bunch.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> TUSC, not necessarily SP. They're clearly a disciplined bunch.


at most 11 sp: and as you point out quite possibly fewer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> that means at most only 11 socialist party members entered the labour party as entryists. that's disgraceful.


once bitten twice shy? fool me once shame on you, fool me twice etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> once bitten twice shy? fool me once shame on you, fool me twice etc


what about trots who have called for a labour vote in every election since 1974? they must have been fooled so often they don't know what day it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> once bitten twice shy? fool me once shame on you, fool me twice etc


you can tell trots don't like the who


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 7, 2015)

The Blairite postmodernist wing of the party is doing an excellent job of making itself unelectable and that's in spite of the fact that it regards Corbyn as "unelectable". Irony?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> Wintour spin again, this is what the Blairites wanted, a much more open(less committed) membership, now its not in their favour they don't like it.


The Wintour of discontent.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 7, 2015)

I do hope the headless chickens Labour have hired to co-ordinate the anti-corbyn campaign are being well paid for their consultancy.  It's most amusing to see the grauniad recycling the 80s wild eyed trot (errrm, green) entryist stories.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> at most 11 sp: and as you point out quite possibly fewer.



I know of one or two who say they're going too. But they've not done it yet and I think its nearly too late. Tony Mulhearn says he's applied to rejoin as a member but he does that all the time, I think it amuses him.

Personally I'm quite fucked off with anyone even thinking of doing it, but sadly I'm in a minority of one when it comes to demanding expulsions apparently.

But yeah, we've done fuck all to warrant the most press coverage we've had in years.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 7, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I know of one or two who say they're going too. But they've not done it yet and I think its nearly too late. Tony Mulhearn says he's applied to rejoin as a member but he does that all the time, I think it amuses him.
> 
> Personally I'm quite fucked off with anyone even thinking of doing it, but sadly I'm in a minority of one when it comes to demanding expulsions apparently.
> 
> But yeah, we've done fuck all to warrant the most press coverage we've had in years.


Yes, there is something ironic about the far left having its greatest moment of influence by signing up as.  supporters of a neo liberal party.


----------



## newbie (Aug 7, 2015)

do you really think this silly season fluff amounts to influence?  strikes me that when say 60,000 people vote for Corbyn, and a couple of hundred thousand vote for the others the left will have exposed just how little influence it has.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 7, 2015)

I mean that the 'left' has very little influence - and that signing up to a neo lib party is a bizarre (and so probably appropriate) way of showing it.


----------



## gosub (Aug 8, 2015)

newbie said:


> do you really think this silly season fluff amounts to influence?  strikes me that when say 60,000 people vote for Corbyn, and a couple of hundred thousand vote for the others the left will have exposed just how little influence it has.


Numbers is what this boils down to and I think yours are what the Blairites thought they were.  I think reality may well yet bite


----------



## Supine (Aug 8, 2015)

Labour are so friggin incompitant. They have a chance to shout from the rooftops about how popular they are becoming. But no, they want to downplay all the new members and hunt down the wrong types. Missing a trick in the spin wars IMHO.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 8, 2015)

I don't give a fuck. I'm drunk and I'm joining Labour!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 8, 2015)

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................* Not really.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 8, 2015)

Cints!


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 8, 2015)

Supine said:


> they want to downplay all the new members and hunt down the wrong types.



"The wrong sort" is how they'd put it. But yes it is ludicrous that Labour's reacting to the fact it's pulling activists and voters away from left groups for the first time in years by panicking about entryism rather than, for example, rubbing their hands with glee that they're successfully diverting large numbers of their most trenchant critics into paying them money to jump at mad (and soon to be embarrassing) dreams of reform through Corbyn.


----------



## newbie (Aug 8, 2015)

gosub said:


> Numbers is what this boils down to and I think yours are what the Blairites thought they were.  I think reality may well yet bite


I don't quite follow, how do you think the numbers will pan out?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 8, 2015)

A lesson from history

https://bilgewatch.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/trust-burnham-does-he-even-trust-us/


----------



## free spirit (Aug 8, 2015)

Looks like a decent turnout in Bradford last night. 

1500 signed up for tonight's meeting at Royal Armories in Leeds where the main hall only holds 1000.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 8, 2015)

I guess Harriet won't give me a vote either, then. I think she'd be left with about fifty voters, which would be fine by her.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 8, 2015)

Here's how the 4 candidates have been doing on Facebook in the last week.

 

If Corbyn does win, then social media will have played a huge part in that win.


----------



## magneze (Aug 8, 2015)

Or social media merely reflected public opinion...


----------



## free spirit (Aug 8, 2015)

magneze said:


> Or social media merely reflected public opinion...


IMO social media in this context works to reinforce public opinion and counter mainstream media narratives, plus helping to fill these meetings, and build the sense of momentum that a campaign like this needs in order to motivate further people to join etc.

That level of engagement probably means the posts were viewed around 2.5-3 million times between the 2 corbyn pages, a lot of which will have been repeat views on the same people's walls by people who're likely to be broadly sympathetic to his campaign (due to the way facebook works).

The Corbyn campaign's social media and internet campaign in general all seems to be surprisingly well run to me, far better than any of the other candidates. Actually that counts for the entire campaign, I just notices he's not just speaking in Leeds today, he's also in Doncaster and York, so his team are obviously able to sort out a fairly packed campaign schedule.

In contrast I can't even find any events that cooper or burnham are doing. Are they running scared of actually meeting with the party's supporters?


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2015)

'twas rammed in Donny, spilled out of the doors.  He's meant to be in Sheffield next saturday


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 8, 2015)

free spirit said:


> 1500 signed up for tonight's meeting at Royal Armories in Leeds where the main hall only holds 1000.


He's also speaking at the Islamic centre on spencer place in chapeltown/harehills in an hour, which might be a bit more roomy  (only about 60 down as attending)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 8, 2015)

More desperate drivel in the guardian - 

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-like-me-not-cynics-corbynites-pure-socialism

Corbyn is wrong and the 'centrists' are right  cos Stalin, purges, gulags etc. 

Thanks Johnathon Jones - without your wisdom i would have never have realised that wanting to  build some more council houses could put one on the path of such evil. 

what effect do these wankers think this shite will have on their target audience? It can only reinforce the image of the labour establishment and their media cheerleaders as a bunch of out of touch, pompous, fuck wits.


----------



## youngian (Aug 8, 2015)

I know this online survey in the Mirror is about as scientific as Jon Cruddas's bullshit Sir Humphrey surveys but interesting nevertheless


> *Who would you like to be the new Labour leader?*
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn -
> 100%
> ...




http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-party-membership-soaring-fastest-6207338

But what do you expect from an evil Stalinist like Corbyn


----------



## free spirit (Aug 8, 2015)

I think that poll's broken.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 8, 2015)

Anybody catch the Corbyn interview on R5 last night? Transcript below. What it doesn't show is that Nolan called Kate Hoey and asked her to condemn the IRA which she willingly did and which he played back no doubt to contrast with JC. Definitely a hatchet job by the BBC or their contracted employee.

Your favourite search engine will show how Nolan's divisive strategy has had some effect among the non thinkers.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...anscript-of-his-nolan-interview-31430884.html


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Looks like a decent turnout in Bradford last night.
> 
> 1500 signed up for tonight's meeting at Royal Armories in Leeds where the main hall only holds 1000.



Are those god rays JC coming through for the meeting


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

belboid said:


> 'twas rammed in Donny, spilled out of the doors.  He's meant to be in Sheffield next saturday



I predict Sheff will be massive, though more interested in the crowds view, do they get a chance to speak?

who is organising it?				 


free spirit said:


> IMO social media in this context works to reinforce public opinion and counter mainstream media narratives, plus helping to fill these meetings, and build the sense of momentum that a campaign like this needs in order to motivate further people to join etc.
> 
> That level of engagement probably means the posts were viewed around 2.5-3 million times between the 2 corbyn pages, a lot of which will have been repeat views on the same people's walls by people who're likely to be broadly sympathetic to his campaign (due to the way facebook works).
> 
> ...



Its Kat Fletcher, former NUS President, very sharp


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 8, 2015)

Whens the actual date of the election?


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> I predict Sheff will be massive, though more interested in the crowds view, do they get a chance to speak?
> 
> who is organising it?


him/his organising team i think


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Whens the actual date of the election?


ballots out from the 14th, in by september 10, result saturday 12th


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> More desperate drivel in the guardian -
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-like-me-not-cynics-corbynites-pure-socialism
> 
> ...



lots of straw men and women in that article


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> Are those god rays JC coming through for the meeting


 my first thought seeing that shot. Hopefully the cherubim sang Ave as he ascended to pulpit


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

Does look like a revivalist meeting


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

> *Luke Savage* ‏@*LukewSavage*  3 hrs3 hours ago
> 
> @*Harryslaststand* I have never in my years of observing politics seen a slander campaign on the same scale as Project Stop Corbyn. #*JezWeCan*



Old Harry is so right.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 8, 2015)

standing room only in Leeds from the looks of it. 

(should have gone I guess, but knackered)


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

Apparently, they are merchandising JC style vests!, Kat Fletcher is  very very shrewd/sharp, though the back page ad in the Guardian is a bit off.


----------



## treelover (Aug 8, 2015)

free spirit said:


> standing room only in Leeds from the looks of it.
> 
> (should have gone I guess, but knackered)




See the Unite/Unite Community people are there.

btw, I wonder what it would be like if the students were back.
remember this is august, holiday time, lucky to get 20 people to a meeting of any kind.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> Are those god rays JC coming through for the meeting



Those rays are sometimes called "Jacob's Ladder"; a journey in quite the opposite direction, how symbolic.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 8, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Those rays are sometimes called "Jacob's Ladder"; a journey in quite the opposite direction, how symbolic.


It's Lord Anthony Wedgewood Benn pronouncing 'this is my son, in whom I am pleased'


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 8, 2015)

Its interesting that the attacks on Corbyn - well the ones that go beyond "Urggh! Beard and sandals Stalinist lunatic!" are focusing on his anti-austerity position ("to win labour needs to be credible on the economy" etc) - which is a position lot of people agree with and potentially a load more could be persuaded on.

What I haven't seen mentioned much is the stuff that would probably stop him winning an election  - withdrawal from nato, scrapping trident, being seen as "soft" on immigration and "terrorism". Come a general election - this is what the tories and the media - and UKIP -  will be crucifying him on.


----------



## tim (Aug 9, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its interesting that the attacks on Corbyn - well the ones that go beyond "Urggh! Beard and sandals Stalinist lunatic!" are focusing on his anti-austerity position ("to win labour needs to be credible on the economy" etc) - which is a position lot of people agree with and potentially a load more could be persuaded on.
> 
> What I haven't seen mentioned much is the stuff that would probably stop him winning an election  - withdrawal from nato, scrapping trident, being seen as "soft" on immigration and "terrorism". Come a general election - this is what the tories and the media - and UKIP -  will be crucifying him on.



Get thee behind me Satan!

Remember, the other JC didn't do too badly after crucifixion.


----------



## treelover (Aug 9, 2015)

> Paul Flynn, MP for Newport West, who is backing Liz Kendall, said he welcomed Green party members registering as Labour supporters. Flynn said he had been a member of the Ecology party before it became the Green party in 1985, as well as being a Labour member.



I'm not certain but I think Flynn was in the Campaign Group, but his comments on social security over the years indicated he was going rightwards.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 9, 2015)

Has corbyn said anything attacking drug prohibition? Now or in the past.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 9, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Has corbyn said anything attacking drug prohibition? Now or in the past.


a quick search shows that Corbyn sponsored this early day motion in the spring.



> That this House commends Health Poverty Action's report of February 2015, Casualties of War: How the War on Drugs is harming the world's poorest, which highlights how the predominant drug policy of prohibition has undermined attempts to tackle poverty and improve health; notes that this is confirmed by evidence presented in the report of January 2015, Drugs and Development: The Great Disconnect from the Global Drug Policy Observatory at Swansea University; is concerned at the alarming violence fuelled by the increased militarisation of repressive responses to the drugs trade; acknowledges the opportunity afforded by the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Drugs in 2016 to help the poorest and most marginalised; and calls on the Government to recognise that drug policy should be treated as a health and development issue, not a crime and security issue, and to advocate this approach at UNGASS.


----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Has corbyn said anything attacking drug prohibition? Now or in the past.



TBH that isnt the best stick with which to judge anyone by, before it mattered Cameron said some sensible things on the subject.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 9, 2015)

So I see that Corbyn is the bookies' favourite now


----------



## Favelado (Aug 9, 2015)

J Ed said:


> So I see that Corbyn is the bookies' favourite now



Very tight between them.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 10, 2015)

Thing is at every meeting that JC does hes got a hundreds of people signing up to labour to support him. Hes got over 50k "likes" in his facebook page. I expect their will be a big push to get those people to register over the next few days as the deadline approaches. 

That may be enough to push him over the line - I wonder how many people are joining to vote for the insipid three? Andy Burnhams has 17k facebook likes, Coopers 20k, Kendals 6k - and im guessing these will be from within labours existing membership whears Corbyns is going beyond that. 

Wasn't OMOV and the £3 entry fee an idea from the blairites? LOL.

If Corbyn doesn't win hes going to be pretty bloody close.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 10, 2015)

Burnham to squeak it because life is horrible.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Wasn't OMOV and the £3 entry fee an idea from the blairites? LOL.


yep, Millibands sop to them to prove he wasn't in hoc to the unions I think.

Though I do wonder if whoever was responsible for sorting it out actually knew what they were doing.

Hoisted by their own petard, hopefully.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Thing is at every meeting that JC does hes got a hundreds of people signing up to labour to support him. Hes got over 50k "likes" in his facebook page. I expect their will be a big push to get those people to register over the next few days as the deadline approaches.
> 
> That may be enough to push him over the line - I wonder how many people are joining to vote for the insipid three? Andy Burnhams has 17k facebook likes, Coopers 20k, Kendals 6k - and im guessing these will be from within labours existing membership whears Corbyns is going beyond that.
> 
> ...


Don't think those like figures are as good as you do. That's partly because  most of the 43k lined up against him are likely to vote for the other blairites as second choice (though he'd get some of burhams if he was eliminated). Other thing is the other candidates' likers are indeed much more likely to already be registered.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 10, 2015)

free spirit said:


> yep, Millibands sop to them to prove he wasn't in hoc to the unions I think.
> 
> Though I do wonder if whoever was responsible for sorting it out actually knew what they were doing.
> 
> Hoisted by their own petard, hopefully.



They just wanted it to be like American primaries, though with Sanders doing reasonably well at the moment over there they might not be quite so keen on that model these days.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Don't think those like figures are as good as you do. That's partly because  most of the 43k lined up against him are likely to vote for the other blairites as second choice (though he'd get some of burhams if he was eliminated). Other thing is the other candidates' likers Are much more likely to already be registered.


JC has 2 pages though, each with well over 50k likes.

Many of those will be the same people, but there's probably at least 75k different people between them. The campaign team are working that quite well to ensure people sign up, and encourage others to sign up as well.

I'm also wondering what the relative size is of all the constituency parties that have come out to support Corbyn vs the others.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 10, 2015)

All very unpredictable - electorate not finalised, imperfect relationship between fb and actual votes etc. suppose I'd just think he'd need a pretty big fb lead over all the others combined to have a chance in the real thing.


----------



## Ole (Aug 10, 2015)

Just to offer something a bit more concrete than Facebook 'likes', this was in The Mirror the other day.

*Labour Party membership soaring at fastest rate for 64 YEARS as thousands sign up for leadership vote*







That's 70,000 that have joined the Labour Party after the GE, and another 70,000 that have signed up as registered supporters without joining the party.


----------



## JTG (Aug 10, 2015)

Burnham's done an interview with Everton fanzine When Skies Are Grey. Mostly about football, partly about getting people involved with the vote. Not very campaigning as such


----------



## Ole (Aug 10, 2015)

A clearer picture of the figures has been obtained by Sky News. 

*Labour: Half Eligible To Vote Are New Sign-Ups*

There are currently around 270,000 members of the Labour Party, of which 200,000 were members before the election.

In addition, 70,000 have joined as affiliated supporters (mainly through trade unions) and 50,000 have paid £3 to sign up as a registered supporter. That’s a total of 190,000 people joining up since the election.

I think it's likely that the vast majority of that 190,000 are Corbyn voters. On the other hand the vast majority of the 200,000 pre-election membership will be anti-Corbyn. It's going to be tight.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> A clearer picture of the figures has been obtained by Sky News.
> 
> *Labour: Half Eligible To Vote Are New Sign-Ups*
> 
> ...



Except that the neo-lab constituency is split 2 and a half ways.


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> On the other hand the vast majority of the 200,000 pre-election membership will be anti-Corbyn.


What makes you think this? The constuency parties that have been nominating Corbyn won't have been packed with new members - my own Labour friends & acquaintances round (by no means a majority of left-wingers) are overwhelmingly voting for him.


----------



## Ole (Aug 10, 2015)

killer b said:


> What makes you think this? The constuency parties that have been nominating Corbyn won't have been packed with new members - my own Labour friends & acquaintances round (by no means a majority of left-wingers) are overwhelmingly voting for him.


I suppose it's largely just anecdotally that the Labour members I've been talking to are mainly all against him. I've seen plenty of support for Corbyn but mainly from trade unionists. I'm also just being pessimistic. You make a fair point about the CLPs.


brogdale said:


> Except that the neo-lab constituency is split 2 and a half ways.


Yes - but far from cleanly split. Everyone on that side is sure that Kendall won't win and I reckon will be swinging behind Burnham/Cooper as first and second in either order.


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> I suppose it's largely just anecdotally that the Labour members I've been talking to are mainly all against him. I've seen plenty of support for Corbyn but mainly from trade unionists.


well, the constituency noms suggest otherwise. I fully expect a number of people to be scared by the relentlessly negative press Corbyn has been getting into voting 'pragmatically' for Burnham or whatever, but there certainly isn't an overwhelming majority of long-time members against him.


----------



## JTG (Aug 10, 2015)

Last time this happened, I had a vote in the deputy contest (not in Gordon's coronation though) - Unite member at the time, didn't have to do anything.

This time I have a vote as a Unison member, though I had to tick a box online to get it.

In what way does this make me a 'new sign up'?


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

In the way that allows them to de-legitimise your vote


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

Campbell's blog. haven't read it yet...

http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blo...one-but-corbyn-labour-is-finished-if-he-wins/


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2015)

Wonder if Owen will get a place in a Corbyn shadow cabinet?


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

Owen who?


----------



## Argonia (Aug 10, 2015)

Surely David Owen is too old now to be part of the shadow cabinet.


----------



## andysays (Aug 10, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Surely David Owen is too old now to be part of the shadow cabinet.



That was my first thought too


----------



## Ole (Aug 10, 2015)

This is hilarious. The two plonkers on the right look at her like she's a Martian when she starts quoting facts about British public opinion.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2015)

alastair campbell said:
			
		

> Tony Blair, whom it has become all too fashionable to despise on the left, was the first Prime Minister to deliver TWO full consecutive terms in office for Labour



Is this true?


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

yeah.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2015)

killer b said:


> Owen who?


must be Owen Smith or Albert Owen, they're the only Labour MPs of that name.  And even treelover must know only MP's will be in the Shadow Cabinet (bar whatever they call the head of the Lords these days)


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Is this true?


No. It was neo-lab in office.


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

what?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No. It was neo-lab in office.



It was still the labour party though. 

Hate to say i agree with this: 


> If he wins, Corbynmania will evaporate even more quickly than Cleggmania did, once the pressures of real, difficult decisions and the day to day leadership of the main Opposition kick in. I fear that activists currently cashing in on perceived ‘betrayal’ by past Labour leaders are going to end up feeling very badly let down.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

killer b said:


> what?


They didn't govern as Labour. They called themselves new labour.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2015)

Yes they did?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> It was still the labour party though.
> 
> Hate to say i agree with this:


That's almost certainly true but, if he were to win, he'd have the luxury of opposition.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2015)

Barry Sheerman calls for the election to be 'paused' - until he can be sure the right person will win, presumably

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849534


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

belboid said:


> Barry Sheerman calls for the election to be 'paused' - until he can be sure the right person will win, presumably
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849534


Hoping for a peerage obvs


----------



## killer b (Aug 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> They didn't govern as Labour. They called themselves new labour.


I know. it's a meaningless distinction though - they were still Labour.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 10, 2015)

http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blo...one-but-corbyn-labour-is-finished-if-he-wins/

Cambell was and is a liar, spin doctor, clever but corrupt.
Blair won his first election because everyone was sick of the nasty, sleezy, fiddling, in fighting Tories.
Election 1 & 2 they just began to pinch moreTory clothes, Blair the wolf in sheep's clothing dismantling Labour for his boss, Murdoch.
Cambell says Blair help unions, nothing could be further from the truth. Over time, to be a union rep where I worked became a revolving door to management.
That is when! started by Thatcher and carried on by Blair that wage rises and union meetings began to reduce( a slow simmering atrophy).
I believe Blair and (Cambell=deputy prime minister) were lying and spinning well before the Iraq war debackle even started.  The method of operation for these two was pretending to listen, all the while doing Murdoch's bidding while firmly in his pocket, the Blairites (wooden tops) are still pretending to listen but Blair,Cambell and Murdoch have moved on to their own pus lipped rat fest crap retelling of history.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 10, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blo...one-but-corbyn-labour-is-finished-if-he-wins/
> 
> Cambell was and is a liar, spin doctor, clever but corrupt.



He should be in prison along with everyone who voted for the Iraq War.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Is this true?



Yes, but Campbell is imbuing it with meaning - that it validates new Labour policy and ideology - that it doesn't have. It strips away the context - 18 years of Thatcherism - of those two consecutive full terms.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

No wonder Campbell was wheeled out....


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

Well, well well


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> He should be in prison along with everyone who voted for the Iraq War.



Thats the thing. Tony blair took the UK to five wars and even argued the wests biggest mistake was not invading Syria at the start of the uprising. The man seems to have an insatiable lust for violence.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Well, well well



That might be why they're refusing to publish the breakdown of Burnham's surprise victory the result.


----------



## Ole (Aug 10, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> That might be why they're refusing to publish the breakdown of Burnham's surprise victory the result.


The full data breakdown is up on YouGov already.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/10/corbyn-pull-ahead/

He's blitzing all comers in every membership category.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> The full data breakdown is up on YouGov already.
> 
> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/10/corbyn-pull-ahead/
> 
> He's blitzing all comers in every membership category.


No, he means breakdown of the actual results...by 'constituency' ie. full, union and supporters.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> The full data breakdown is up on YouGov already.
> 
> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/10/corbyn-pull-ahead/
> 
> He's blitzing all comers in every membership category.


I can see that my "they" was ambiguous.  I was referring to the report that Labour says it won't publish the breakdown of the leadership election.  And joking that maybe that's because they want to fix it keep their workings out private.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> The full data breakdown is up on YouGov already.
> 
> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/10/corbyn-pull-ahead/
> 
> He's blitzing all comers in every membership category.


Narrowly loses on those who were labour members before miliband took over as leader - 48-52. Overwhelming


----------



## Ole (Aug 10, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I can see that my "they" was ambiguous.  I was referring to the report that Labour says it won't publish the breakdown of the leadership election.  And joking that maybe that's because they want to fix it keep their workings out private.



Sorry, thanks for clarifying.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> Sorry, thanks for clarifying.


Nae bother.

(James Bray, btw, is a Newsnight producer).


----------



## agricola (Aug 10, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Hate to say i agree with this:



That piece is replete with Campbellisms - of course Corbyn is going to face _"the pressures of real, difficult decisions and the day to day leadership of the main Opposition"_ and "_need to rely on others showing discipline he has never shown himself_"; Alistair and his Blairite chums are going to go around ensuring that all of those crises exist.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 10, 2015)

Ole said:


> The full data breakdown is up on YouGov already.
> 
> https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/10/corbyn-pull-ahead/
> 
> He's blitzing all comers in every membership category.



Well, unless they fix it then it looks like he has it, surely?


----------



## Ole (Aug 10, 2015)

The yet more detailed breakdown here:


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2015)

belboid said:


> Narrowly loses on those who were labour members before miliband took over as leader - 48-52. Overwhelming




No info on when he is coming to Sheff?


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Well, unless they fix it then it looks like he has it, surely?




when is the voting and how long does it take?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> No info on when he is coming to Sheff?


loads of info (and I' m not one of his supporters) are you stupid?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> when is the voting and how long does it take?


again - pretty easy to find out FFS


----------



## J Ed (Aug 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> when is the voting and how long does it take?




*Tuesday 9 June 2015* – Nominations open
*Monday 15 June 2015 (12:00)* – Nominations for the Leader close
*Wednesday 17 June 2015 (12:00)* – Nominations for the Deputy Leader close
*Wednesday 17 June 2015 (12:00)* – Hustings period opens
*Friday 31 July 2015 (12:00)* – Supporting nominations close
*Wednesday 12 August 2015 (12:00)* – Last date to join as member, affiliated support or registered supporter and be able to vote
*Friday 14 August 2015* – Ballot papers are sent out
*Thursday 10 September 2015 (12:00)* – Ballot closes
*Saturday 12 September 2015* – Special Conference to announce the results


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2015)

I like the way that, the more top labour brass and ex-brass warn against voting for Corbyn, the more people are seeming to decide to vote for him.


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> loads of info (and I' m not one of his supporters) are you stupid?



No, but you are an ignorant and unpleasant twat.


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> *Tuesday 9 June 2015* – Nominations open
> *Monday 15 June 2015 (12:00)* – Nominations for the Leader close
> *Wednesday 17 June 2015 (12:00)* – Nominations for the Deputy Leader close
> *Wednesday 17 June 2015 (12:00)* – Hustings period opens
> ...



So voting takes place over nearly a month, still time for big upsets, dirty tricks, etc.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 11, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I like the way that, the more top labour brass and ex-brass warn against voting for Corbyn, the more people are seeming to decide to vote for him.



i can't help thinking that doing the opposite of what tony blair and alistair campbell want you to do is a fairly reasonable action...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 11, 2015)

Highlights from the you gov poll -

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...ed-landslide-53-6230347#ICID=sharebar_twitter



> The poll questioned 1,411 people eligible to vote in the contest.
> 
> It says even fully-fledged Labour members - who've increased from 200,000 to 270,000 since May - would vote 49% in favour of Mr Corbyn.
> 
> ...



Astonishing stuff. Those millitant tendancy entryists and trolling telegraph readers have excelled themselves - seems lots of them joined labour before the last election.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 11, 2015)

19% of Corbyn supporters don't think he's likely to win the next election, but are going to vote for him anyway. 

That's probably a worrying statistic as those will be the people who're most likely to be able to be scared into voting for someone they're told is more electable, and that's a big enough proportion of his support base to really put it on a knife edge.

Would the Labour Party actually put their principles before electing someone they viewed as being more electable? Possibly this time because only a tiny majority think that Burnham is likely to win it, and most of them are only in the fairly likely to win it camp, so they're not really buying the idea that any of the others are particularly electable.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2015)

free spirit said:


> 19% of Corbyn supporters don't think he's likely to win the next election, but are going to vote for him anyway.
> 
> That's probably a worrying statistic as those will be the people who're most likely to be able to be scared into voting for someone they're told is more electable, and that's a big enough proportion of his support base to really put it on a knife edge.
> 
> Would the Labour Party actually put their principles before electing someone they viewed as being more electable? Possibly this time because only a tiny majority think that Burnham is likely to win it, and most of them are only in the fairly likely to win it camp, so they're not really buying the idea that any of the others are particularly electable.


Similar to the other candidates in that regard though.  For Burnham amongst his own supporters, it's still 11% and he's the lowest.  Amongst Corbyn supporters, they think Corbyn is the most likely to win.

Ther is an oddity in the data I don't understand.  Corbyn exceeds 50% for both ABC1 and C2DE.  this surely isn't possible given that his total is less than 50%.  Or is there another category than A-E?


----------



## JTG (Aug 11, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Ther is an oddity in the data I don't understand.  Corbyn exceeds 50% for both ABC1 and C2DE.  this surely isn't possible given that his total is less than 50%.  Or is there another category than A-E?


Nope. He has 53% support for first preference votes in that poll. 51% of ABC1 and 57% of C2DE


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2015)

JTG said:


> Nope. He has 53% support for first preference votes in that poll. 51% of ABC1 and 57% of C2DE


So he does.  I was looking at the first column with 43 rather than the second with 53.

The poll certainly gives lie to the myths about niche popularity.  It's truly universal.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 11, 2015)

Yawn!


----------



## Santino (Aug 11, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> Yawn!


Is it someone's nap time?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2015)

This is 'real'..


----------



## Diamond (Aug 11, 2015)

The Corbyn thing isn't really about Corbyn though from my pov.

It's more about the other candidates being so anodyne.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Corbyn gets in though.  The impression I get is that he is not remotely ready for actually assuming the leadership and the question then is whether (i) he compromises or (ii) he presses forward on his current prospectus.

Although I voted Labour (that vote being irrelevant under FPTP anyway...), I would struggle to muster an argument in favour of any of the candidates this time round.

It is an appallingly weak field.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2015)

Yeah, there is a massive irony in three candidates that can't muster 50% between them telling the one that has more than 50% by himself that *he* is the unelectable one...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 11, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, there is a massive irony in three candidates that can't muster 50% between them telling the one that has more than 50% by himself that *he* is the unelectable one...


 
But the obvious point is that there are two elections going on here.

First, the election to Labour leadership which is dependent on the Labour franchise.

Second, the general election to Prime Minister which is dependent on the UK franchise.

They are quite different things.


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, there is a massive irony in three candidates that can't muster 50% between them telling the one that has more than 50% by himself that *he* is the unelectable one...


if they read that poll - and don't dismiss it out of hand - they really should start to shut the fuck up about 'infiltration' as it (to the miserly extent it actually exists) is obviously irrelevant to the result.  Shits like Sheerman cant be stupid enough to not realise that every word they say pushes more people to Corbyn, and the more he just fucks off that majority of existing Labour members who will vote for him.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2015)

The Andy Burnham leadership video is terrible.


----------



## rekil (Aug 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> The Andy Burnham leadership video is terrible.


Have you seen the shoddy Liz Kendall ones?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2015)

copliker said:


> Have you seen the shoddy Liz Kendall ones?



 yes


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2015)

copliker said:


> Have you seen the shoddy Liz Kendall ones?


I was going to say exactly that 

Mind you she has never looked to me to have leadership potential, nor Burnham or Cooper for that matter. There is only one who seems to be filling halls across the country and that's Corbyn.


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2015)

I heard a clip from a Liz Kendall one on the radio yesterday, it was


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> There is only one who seems to be filling halls across the country and that's Corbyn.


are the others even trying?


----------



## rekil (Aug 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> yes


PD front group 'Communists 4 Kendall' leading the cyberfightback, mainly just by 'liking' her vids for now.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> are the others even trying?



I'd love to see the pictures when Liz Kendall books a 1000-capacity hall for her supporters to come and see her.


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'd love to see the pictures when Liz Kendall books a 1000-capacity hall for her supporters to come and see her.


I suspect those likely pictures are the reason why none of the others attempting a similar tour. It'd be like those photos from that East 17 gig that were doing the rounds last month...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2015)

they should hold webinar hustings and stock the chat room box with millions of sock puppets


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they should hold webinar hustings and stock the chat room box with millions of sock puppets


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2015)

Vile article by arch Blairite John McTernan on why you should vote Tom Watson for Deputy - to undermine Corbyn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...assin-can-save-Labour-from-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

(Vote....mmm, Stella Creasy?)


----------



## WaiGong (Aug 11, 2015)

I was considering Watson until I read that article...


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2015)

> If it all goes wrong on September 12, then Labour will need to be saved urgently. If Jeremy Corbyn is Michael Foot, then Tom Watson is Neil Kinnock. There is no alternative.



Neil kinnock who lost the election disastrously


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2015)

Before taking anything the architect of labour's 2015 Scottish electoral strategy seriously, you should remember that he was the architect of labour's 2015 Scottish electoral strategy. My five year old has sounder political instincts.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 11, 2015)

WaiGong said:


> I was considering Watson until I read that article...



Actaully - yeah - whos best to vote for in the deputy elections? Not Caroline Flint is about as far I know.


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Actaully - yeah - whos best to vote for in the deputy elections? Not Caroline Flint is about as far I know.


Stella Creasy.  A decent campaigner and organiser (which is the basis on which Watson is winning) but a bit better politically. hardly brilliant, but better than the other shower of shite.

"Labour is on your side – the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers." - that's from an old Tom Watson election leaflet, by the way


----------



## WaiGong (Aug 11, 2015)

It was always Creasy or Watson for me and that's just decided it...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2015)

watsons had his sentence commuted from wall to re-education for his work on the historic child abuse cases,but he's still getting a long long sentence


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> watsons had his sentence commuted from wall to re-education for his work on the historic child abuse cases,but he's still getting a long long sentence


how's he going to fit in digging a canal?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> I suspect those likely pictures are the reason why none of the others attempting a similar tour. It'd be like those photos from that East 17 gig that were doing the rounds last month...


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 11, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Neil kinnock who lost the election disastrously


"We're all right"! (repeat 3 times).


----------



## Zabo (Aug 11, 2015)

This won't go down well with the Bliarites. 

"He is reviled by many in the party, and his supporters are in decline as a new generation of Labour MPs has entered Parliament, rejecting Mr Blair and the way he tried to rid their party of its left-wing elements."

"Rather, it has been his contacts with regimes and individuals of questionable morality, and his money-making activities and his homes, all of which have been regularly aired by a profoundly suspicious press, that seem to have caused the damage. 

Members of the Labour Party cannot understand why it is necessary for their former leader to make so much money and to be travelling the world in private jets."

In full

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849764


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 11, 2015)

Zabo said:


> This won't go down well with the Bliarites.
> 
> "He is reviled by many in the party, and his supporters are in decline as a new generation of Labour MPs has entered Parliament, rejecting Mr Blair and the way he tried to rid their party of its left-wing elements."
> 
> ...



Do they care? Genuine question as I don't pay enough attention to know - do the right-wingers in the Labour party who're always described as 'Blairites' actually give a shit about him as an individual?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 11, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Do they care? Genuine question as I don't pay enough attention to know - do the right-wingers in the Labour party who're always described as 'Blairites' actually give a shit about him as an individual?



Enough to disinter him for a round of Wot I Fink About Jezza, not enough to defend him when people call him a war criminal.


----------



## Ole (Aug 11, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Do they care? Genuine question as I don't pay enough attention to know - do the right-wingers in the Labour party who're always described as 'Blairites' actually give a shit about him as an individual?


In my experience, yes. Many of them genuinely see him as a heroic figure.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Enough to disinter him for a round of Wot I Fink About Jezza, not enough to defend him when people call him a war criminal.


not the best of moves- for anyone paying attention to him and wavering hearing him admit that 'even if we could win on a left platform I wouldn't want to' must have made a few minds up. he was confirming what we all know, they'd rather be in opposition than be led from the left. For all the talk of how corbyn is the Wrecker, they've all flat out admitted they'd rather tank the party electorally than have him in.


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2015)

Ole said:


> In my experience, yes. Many of them genuinely see him as a heroic figure.


yup, those Kendalites - the 10% - still think the sun shines our of his arse.  Iraq was all worth it, and Kazakhstan?  Well, its only a job, innit? Look what a good job he made out of bringing Gadaffi in from the cold


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2015)

The biggest mistake the west made is not Invading Syria


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> not the best of moves



Oh God yes, tactically the whole thing was a hilarious misreading of public opinion and an unintentional expose of how utterly cack-handed the Blairite leadership is now their old guard have retired. If they're had any nous they should have told Blair to salute Corbyn's indefatigability and ask a few general questions about how the old chap intends to defy the markets without emptying the City, causing massive capital flight and tanking British bonds.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 11, 2015)

belboid said:


> yup, those Kendalites - the 10% - still think the sun shines our of his arse.  Iraq was all worth it, and Kazakhstan?  Well, its only a job, innit? Look what a good job he made out of bringing Gadaffi in from the cold



More disturbingly to me are thee 'soft' Blairites who say things like 'okay in retrospect the Iraq War wasn't the best idea but it wasn't a war crime/at least we got rid of Saddam/you left-wing purists need to get over it' etc


----------



## J Ed (Aug 11, 2015)

Does Tony Blair ever address Labour conferences or meeting other than Progress?


----------



## Sifta (Aug 11, 2015)

This was worth a read:

http://dougald.nu/labour-through-th...rly-morning-speculations-on-the-corbyn-surge/

if only for

"if Blair and Brown had been the Gallagher brothers of Brit Pop politics, the current Labour frontbench was a dodgy Oasis tribute act. The tunes might be the same, only if you thought they were going to wow an audience, you hadn’t really grasped how this works."


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> More disturbingly to me are thee 'soft' Blairites who say things like 'okay in retrospect the Iraq War wasn't the best idea but it wasn't a war crime/at least we got rid of Saddam/you left-wing purists need to get over it' etc



'Labour only did all that bad war crime stuff because of Blair and it wasn't that bad anyway'


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But the obvious point is that there are two elections going on here.
> 
> First, the election to Labour leadership which is dependent on the Labour franchise.
> 
> ...


If you can't even inspire your own party, how on Earth are you going to inspire the unconvinced?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 11, 2015)

kabbes said:


> If you can't even inspire your own party, how on Earth are you going to inspire the unconvinced?



1. Elect Blairite Leader

2.  ?????

3. Profit!


----------



## Diamond (Aug 11, 2015)

kabbes said:


> If you can't even inspire your own party, how on Earth are you going to inspire the unconvinced?


 
I can think of plenty of party leaders who have managed to inspire their own party while failing to inspire the "unconvinced", thereby leading them into the electoral wilderness...


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 11, 2015)

Can you think of any who didn't inspire their own faithful but did inspire the wider electorate though?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2015)

Interesting poll in the Telegraph suggesting voters want Corbyn to win the leadership contest but think Burnham would be most likely to win the next election:

The poll that proves Labour is a suicidal party
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...l-that-proves-Labour-is-a-suicidal-party.html


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2015)

Stella Creasey was in the year below me at my college.  I feel properly establishment now.


----------



## killer b (Aug 11, 2015)

Its just a spin on the poll that's already been mentioned today, not a new one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2015)

only one month to go


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Interesting poll in the Telegraph suggesting voters want Corbyn to win the leadership contest but think Burnham would be most likely to win the next election:
> 
> The poll that proves Labour is a suicidal party
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...l-that-proves-Labour-is-a-suicidal-party.html


Of those voting for Corbyn, 19% think he won't win the election.  Of those voting for Burnham, 11% think he won't win the election.  The rest are in between.

Basically, about 15% of Labour supporters think they won't win the election regardless of who is leader.  That's all the stats mean on that question.  There's no "suicide" involved.  They're probably right too.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2015)

Yep, theres a good chance labour will lose now no matter who the next leader is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2015)

the telegraph have been coming up with some right old bollocks around this- that article on watson and browns 'political assasin' for instance. You had the author claiming Tom the loyalist would be a foil to Corbyn who is happy to tear the party asunder. When he's actually stated his labour loyalism many many times. And won 8 elections for them.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 11, 2015)

thinking about it, I doubt they'd win the election outright whoever was in charge, but then I'd prefer to see a minority labour government supported by SNP, Plaid, Green etc and I think that's doable with Corbyn as leader, and that Corbyn could actually work effectively in that way with the other parties.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> only one month to go


and miles to go before we sleep


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> and miles to go before we sleep


are we nearly there yet?


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2015)

Ken Loach tried to sign up to vote    What a prick

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33868771


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 11, 2015)

> Labour said verification checks would continue even once votes had been cast.



sounds rather dodgy, we know whose votes they'll be looking at closely


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Stella Creasey was in the year below me at my college.  I feel properly establishment now.


Magdalene?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Magdalene?


That's the one.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 11, 2015)

kabbes said:


> That's the one.


Then I presume that La Creasey would be the only politico that coincided with your time at college, then?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 11, 2015)

Seen this? Juliar Hartley Brewer pleads with the public to join labour to stop Comrade Jez

*Join Labour now! Save Britain from Jeremy Corbyn*
http://www.capx.co/join-labour-now-save-britain-from-jeremy-corbyn/

Right wing entryism ahoy. Cant quite see this taking off.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Then I presume that La Creasey would be the only politico that coincided with your time at college, then?


The only one I know of, anyway.  Other alumni that have been in public view coinciding with my time there, though, included the winner of the Apprentice a few years back (two years below me) and that toff adventurer who died a few months back (my year).  Make of that what you will


----------



## agricola (Aug 11, 2015)

free spirit said:


> thinking about it, I doubt they'd win the election outright whoever was in charge, but then I'd prefer to see a minority labour government supported by SNP, Plaid, Green etc and I think that's doable with Corbyn as leader, and that Corbyn could actually work effectively in that way with the other parties.



TBH if the Chilcot Report is in any way an honest look at things (and the ongoing delays would tend to suggest that it is at least a bit honest), then having Corbyn as leader is probably the only way that they would have a chance of winning it outright.  I doubt the SNP would be any part of any subsequent government though, a Corbyn-led Labour would probably look to give the Nats a revenge kicking.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2015)

Desperation. The ABC campaign has produced this -


----------



## Wilf (Aug 12, 2015)

By that logic Dali could never be accepted as a member.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 12, 2015)

https://networkforanimals.org/uk-labour-leadership-candidates-their-perspectives-on-animal-welfare/


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2015)

Sifta said:


> This was worth a read:
> 
> http://dougald.nu/labour-through-th...rly-morning-speculations-on-the-corbyn-surge/
> 
> ...



Dougald lives in Sweden now


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 12, 2015)

View attachment 75266 

Fixed.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2015)

The Daily Mash's take on the joke candidate - 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...all-losing-faith-in-aspiration-20150812101013



> Kendall, tenaciously fighting for last place in a field of unparalleled unpopularity, has always firmly believed in the power of aspiration and hard work but is now wondering if she was an idiot all along.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Dougald lives in Sweden now



Cheers treelover - there's some insightful stuff in there. I think hes right when he says this is a spontaneous movement that has seized the opportunity to "occupy" the labour party.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Desperation. The ABC campaign has produced this -



21 out of those 31 years were post Blair's election as leader. So "at least two-thirds Tory" is perfectly plausible.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 12, 2015)

A party of enemies has no future. Labour’s left and right need to go their separate ways.


----------



## laptop (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> The Daily Mash's take on the joke candidate -
> 
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...all-losing-faith-in-aspiration-20150812101013





> “Aspiring – or deciding you’d like something, as non-wankers call it – does absolutely shit all for your actual prospects."


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2015)

teqniq said:


> A party of enemies has no future. Labour’s left and right need to go their separate ways.



quality line:

For Labour members, the fundamental questions now that confront them are these. Is it your dream to tramp from doorstep to doorstep campaigning to advance the career of some PPE mediocrity who holds your politics and your principles in something approaching contempt?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 12, 2015)

Yup


----------



## YouSir (Aug 12, 2015)

> It starts with a look. Then a double take. Then a smile. A moment to work up the confidence and then they come over. Tessa cannot leave the house without meeting new people who want to say hello. I have seen this a hundred times, and believe me it’s not normal – no other politician inspires such warmth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Alan and Tessa sitting in a tree... Part of the Labour registered supporter spam. Bizarrely enough the comparison to a pint sized Australian popstar with a famous arse hasn't won me over.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 12, 2015)

> Many MPs are also calling on former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown to intervene and urge members to reject Corbyn as the "last best chance" to stop him



Apparently.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Apparently.


does anyone give a flying fuck what gordon brown says these days? #bunchoflickspittles


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2015)

teqniq said:


> A party of enemies has no future. Labour’s left and right need to go their separate ways.



Very good stuff - gets to the nub of the issues very clearly and nails the pointlessness of carrying on with the blairites.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2015)

> Simon Danczuk told LBC that Labour MPs would "not put up" with the "crazy left-wing policies" Corbyn plans to pursue as leader.
> 
> Asked if the plotting against Corbyn would begin "on day one" he replied: "Yeah, if not before. As soon as the result comes out."



Surely this cunt should - and could - be kicked out of the party for this shit?


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 12, 2015)

It is fun reading earlier in the thread when people are being all condescending to me and other supporters like "oh you are so naive to think that Jeremy Corbyn has the slightest chance of being leader, he'll be forgotten about in a few days". it is even more fun to see the increasing pitch of desperation in the press haaaa. throwing everything against him and it is just bouncing harmlessly off.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Surely this cunt should - and could - be kicked out of the party for this shit?



I bet he's not the lowest-ranked PLP member to have exactly this view.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Surely this cunt should - and could - be kicked out of the party for this shit?



Proper scumbag.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 12, 2015)

Corbyn boost after condemnations from dreadful people


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 12, 2015)

I just had to share this. This interview on the Marr Show took place before Corbyn entered the contest. It was Cooper who'd originally accused Kendall of "swallowing" the Tory election manifesto. For her part, Kendall repeats line after line of the Tory 'welfare' mantra, which she's internalised to such an extent that it's become natural to her.


----------



## belboid (Aug 12, 2015)

Deadline extended till 3pm after Labour's website crashes - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ip-vote-registration-deadline-website-crashes


----------



## Wilf (Aug 12, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> It is fun reading earlier in the thread when people are being all condescending to me and other supporters like "oh you are so naive to think that Jeremy Corbyn has the slightest chance of being leader, he'll be forgotten about in a few days". it is even more fun to see the increasing pitch of desperation in the press haaaa. throwing everything against him and it is just bouncing harmlessly off.


Can't remember whether I replied to you personally along those lines, but I certainly didn't think he'd win (still not convinced, but it's obviously a very real possibility).  What I do think is interesting is the apparent tens of thousands willing to sign up for a kind of anti-austerity position in corbyn, but not willing to become regularly active in anti-austerity politics/activism (in the sense that whilst the odd London demo can get tens of thousands, there aren't anything like that many beavering away on weekly basis).  I'm not dismissing the corbyn 'surge' as a 'protest vote' - it's real and reflects a genuine despair about new lab dominance + the general election result. However I'm not convinced it can transform the party.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 12, 2015)

Oh god, I'm two minutes in and cringing like all get-out. I think the word "fiscal credibility" was the final thing that almost made me lose my lunch.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 12, 2015)

seems to be corbyn vs a collection of "proper grown up politicians" who all want to be tory lite


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


>



Good to see Marr up and about after his stroke but I didn't realise how much control he has lost on his left hand side. I understand he has been using a leg buzzer device thingy. Also it was my understanding that he was pretty fit before the stroke which makes me wonder if it can happen to him what about the rest of us?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 12, 2015)

Kendall says absolutely nothing and is the epitome of a Labour drone. Even if she was right about everything, her blandness would crush the message. Her low poll ratings reflect the fact that she has made zero impression even on Blairites.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 12, 2015)

I keep expecting Kendall to step down (after a private conversation with ABC Labour bigwigs) in order to send more first pref. votes to Cooper and Burnham. Still time I guess...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 12, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Good to see Marr up and about after his stroke but I didn't realise how much control he has lost on his left hand side. I understand he has been using a leg buzzer device thingy. Also it was my understanding that he was pretty fit before the stroke which makes me wonder if it can happen to him what about the rest of us?



everyone's different. my grandda* smoked 90 a day til he was 86 etc, my vegan athlete mate* had a brain haemorrhage at 23

*fictional


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Very good stuff - gets to the nub of the issues very clearly and nails the pointlessness of carrying on with the blairites.



But that still leaves the question of whether the non-Blairites will decide to leave and form a new party. There are two obvious reasons why I don't think they will

many of them are still convinced the party can be transformed, and the level of support Corbyn is getting is encouraging them in this belief
were they to leave, they would have to abandon the Labour name (and the bulk of the financial support from the unions) to the Blairites
You, me and the author of that article may see it's pointless for them to carry on like this, but we're not the ones making that decision


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> But that still leaves the question of whether the non-Blairites will decide to leave and form a new party. There are two obvious reasons why I don't think they will
> 
> many of them are still convinced the party can be transformed, and the level of support Corbyn is getting is encouraging them in this belief
> were they to leave, they would have to abandon the Labour name (and the bulk of the financial support from the unions) to the Blairites
> You, me and the author of that article may see it's pointless for them to carry on like this, but we're not the ones making that decision



If anyones going to leave its the Blairites. Labour conference is going to be ... interesting.


----------



## chilango (Aug 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Neil kinnock who lost the election disastrously



No. Neil Kinnock who got rid of Militant. A far more important victory obvs.


----------



## andysays (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> If anyones going to leave its the Blairites. Labour conference is going to be ... interesting.



Are you suggesting they'll be kicked out or that they'll leave voluntarily?

What mechanism does the conference have to deal with Blairite MPs?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> If anyones going to leave its the Blairites.



Why? Are you going to throw hope at them until they relinquish their death-grip on the PLP, internal levers of power, privileged media access etc? I mean good-oh if it happens, it'd be exceedingly funny to watch, but I don't see where the leverage is to get them to leave rather than just spend 12 months putting together a marvellously-constructed coffin for Corbyn lined with anonymous briefings and nailed down by 200-odd MPs who can't wait to see the back of him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2015)

corbyn will challenge them all to trial by combat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Surely this cunt should - and could - be kicked out of the party for this shit?



He's cut his own throat if Corbyn wins, given that the constitution of the Labour party deliberately prohibits that kind of thing.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 12, 2015)

The Blairites are just convinced the membership don't get it about their "real world". The membership do get it because they live in the real world, not just talk about it as an abstract concept.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Why? Are you going to throw hope at them until they relinquish their death-grip on the PLP, internal levers of power, privileged media access etc? I mean good-oh if it happens, it'd be exceedingly funny to watch, but I don't see where the leverage is to get them to leave rather than just spend 12 months putting together a marvellously-constructed coffin for Corbyn lined with anonymous briefings and nailed down by 200-odd MPs who can't wait to see the back of him.



Im not saying they will leave - but there is going to be a battle for the labour party - Corbyn plus most of the membership vs the blairites. The unknown will be how the bulk of PLP repsond. Some will knuckle down. Some will look for advancement by working with the new power structure (they are polticians after all). Some will not look at all kindly on the likes of  Danczuk shit stirring.  Leading Blarites - Chucka, Kendal, Tarquin-Hunt etc - may decide to bide their time or they may decide its a lost cause and take their 'talents' elsewhere. Dunno - lots of variables.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 12, 2015)

If Blairites don't back Corbyn, then they'll lose voters overall. The trend toward a politically apathetic public will continue.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Corbyn plus most of the membership vs the blairites. The unknown will be how the bulk of PLP repsond.



Even in the midst of Corbyn-mania and with the £3ers and unions backing him he's only 53% first preference at best, in terms of Labour's remaining long-time activists, the ones who actually go to CLP meetings every month, I'd be very surprised if he had anywhere near a majority in his camp once the dust has cleared. The PLP will be well aware of this, in fact it's one reason they're so furious and bleating about entryism all the time. Unless something really significant changes, they're not going to gamble their careers that Corbyn will pull a miracle out of his hat and reform the party entire.



gimesumtruf said:


> If Blairites don't back Corbyn, then they'll lose voters overall. The trend toward a politically apathetic public will continue.



You say that as though they'd mind - hell after the fiasco of the last month they'd welcome the return to undisputed PLP control that renewed apathy offers.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 12, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Even in the midst of Corbyn-mania and with the £3ers and unions backing him he's only 53% first preference at best, in terms of Labour's remaining long-time activists, the ones who actually go to CLP meetings every month, I'd be very surprised if he had anywhere near a majority in his camp once the dust has cleared. The PLP will be well aware of this, in fact it's one reason they're so furious and bleating about entryism all the time. Unless something really significant changes, they're not going to gamble their careers that Corbyn will pull a miracle out of his hat and reform the party entire.
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as though they'd mind - hell after the fiasco of the last month they'd welcome the return to undisputed PLP control that renewed apathy offers.



But there is a lot of support for JC amongst the existing membership - as born out by the polls and his lead in CLP nominations. For the rest of the membership, we don't know if they are implacably opposed to Corbyn or just playing safe - Im guessing its more the latter. I cant see the arch-Blairites having much support amongst the rank and file.

It may be that Cooper, burnham, Jowell, Benn, Reeves and the rest of the biege-ocracy are more likely to go with the prevailing political wind than rock the boat. I'd lay money that will see a few of them suddenly become born again Corbynites if it looked good for their careers.

Intersting that Ed Milliband has not uttered a peep about the leadership. I wonder if hes laughing or crying into his bacon sandwich?


----------



## belboid (Aug 12, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> in terms of Labour's remaining long-time activists, the ones who actually go to CLP meetings every month, I'd be very surprised if he had anywhere near a majority in his camp once the dust has cleared.


he has (according to that one poll) 50% of those labour members who were members before Miliband took over - and even a fair few of his opponents will be sympathetic.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 12, 2015)

If you wanted a master class in how to fuck up the good news story of "tens of thousands joining\signing up" ... Also labour are quite good  at "how do we create the conditions for a post election civil war".


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2015)

and this is all we will be talking about for the next four weeks


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2015)

Wilf said:


> If you wanted a master class in how to fuck up the good news story of "tens of thousands joining\signing up" ... Also labour are quite good  at "how do we create the conditions for a post election civil war".


yeh but their civil wars don't live up to the billing


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> and this is all we will be talking about for the next four weeks


short of any major disaster or shocking revelations, it looks likely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> short of any major disaster or shocking revelations, it looks likely.


i expect both are guaranteed tho.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 12, 2015)

250000 registered since May.1800 expulsions for being in other parties. That's 0.72%

So the panic about mass "infiltation" was inflated by who, and with what purpose?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 12, 2015)

Nearly missed this from yesterday: Shock horror! The Graun publishes a pro-Corbyn article by John McDonnell

Jeremy Corbyn would clear the deficit – but not by hitting the poor


----------



## teqniq (Aug 12, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2015)

teqniq said:


>




What other party does Mark Steel support? He isn't a member of the SWP anymore is he?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 12, 2015)

Dunno, sorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What other party does Mark Steel support? He isn't a member of the SWP anymore is he?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2015)

I mean I spose they could say Radio 4 and they wouldn't be wrong...


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 12, 2015)

Should he win, it'll be interesting to see how many supporters he can get to sign up as actual CLP attending members. Mind you the internal democracy of the party is so decrepit it probably wouldn't matter, it could put a lot of pressure on local MPS though.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Surely this cunt should - and could - be kicked out of the party for this shit?



Ecky Thump! As they say up here. Obviously still a poorly man since his recent bout of depression, marriage break up and withdrawal from the child sex abuse enquiries.

"He said he was "getting angry at stuff I shouldn't be getting angry at, fairly mundane things" and becoming "aggressive - not violently aggressive - but getting angry about things".

"With the polls showing Jeremy Corbyn streets ahead in the Labour leadership contest, Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk caused outrage following an interview on LBC in which he suggested the democratic vote of Labour members in their choice of the new party leader should effectively be ignored.

He said: "...that the leadership race had been badly organised and described it as 'not even tenable... we're moving towards a position where [re-running] it is necessary'."

One local critic, Paul Mitchell, took to social media to mock Mr Danczuk posting: "Ah bless Simon Danczuk doesn't like democracy and prefers a coup! Good grief. This is Britain not North Korea idiot. One member, one vote."

Addressing Mr Danczuk, Jill Rowe said: "You're a disgrace to the Labour Party and so is anyone else who plots a coup against any democratically elected leader."

Dave Robinson was one of a number of Labour party members who said they would leave if a coup took place: "So Simon Danczuk thinks we should overthrow the democratically elected leader of the Labour party? I'd leave in a heartbeat if that happened."

Mr Danczuk nailed his colours to the mast of the Blairite MP Liz Kendall very early in the leadership campaign and the polls show he has backed the candidate currently trailing in last place."

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/new...-should-subvert-democratically-elected-leader

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/new...829/simon-danczuk-seeking-help-for-depression


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

What CLP would Rochdale be in?


----------



## JTG (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> What CLP would Rochdale be in?


Rochdale I'd imagine


----------



## killer b (Aug 12, 2015)

I couldn't find Rochdale on the list of CLP noms here, so I was wondering if it came under a larger area (or do some CLPs not bother nominating?)


----------



## Wilf (Aug 12, 2015)

Been some minor boundary changes in the last. Decade but still Rochdale afaik. Danczuk is also still a cunt afaik.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 12, 2015)

Yes, Rochdale.

Here's his nomination for Kendall Mints.

I'll give him Urban's compliments if and when I move there.



http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/who-nominated-who-2015-labour-leadership-election


----------



## belboid (Aug 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> I couldn't find Rochdale on the list of CLP noms here, so I was wondering if it came under a larger area (or do some CLPs not bother nominating?)


390 CLP's are listed as having nominated, which leaves 243 or so who haven't bothered - or only did so after that article came out (only two of the five Sheffield parties are listed, for example)


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2015)

R4 News has said from today, with a late surge, the L/P now has 600,000 members!, surely can't be that many?


----------



## belboid (Aug 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> R4 News has said from today, with a late surge, the L/P now has 600,000 members!, surely can't be that many?


no it didnt.  It said it had 610,753 eligible voters, around a half of whom are members


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 12, 2015)

Meanwhile, across the pond Bernie Sanders is packing out stadia to scores of thousands. These trots are everywhere.


----------



## Ole (Aug 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> no it didnt.  It said it had 610,753 eligible voters, around a half of whom are members



That's interesting, since Sky News just last week estimated there were 390,000 eligible voters (270,000 members / 70,000 affiliated supporters / 50,000 £3 sign-ups). As I suspected then, they obviously massively underestimated the number of affiliated supporters through trade unions. McCluskey was saying back in July that Unite alone had already signed up 50,000 registered supporters. There must also have been a large surge of £3 supporters signed up in the last week.


----------



## WaiGong (Aug 12, 2015)

Blair getting desperate and inadvertently doing his best to help to Corbyn campaign again...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...annihilation-if-jeremy-corbyn-wins-leadership


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 12, 2015)

As I said earlier, the amount of post May applicants expelled for being in other parties is 0.72%

The stuff about "entryism" is mildy interesting, if predictable, silly season fodder. 

To have blown it up into some major trot threat to party democracy is yet another wanton fabrication which the tory and establishment press are happy to believe and perpetuate as if true. Perhaps people can judge for themselves the siginicance of so many in the party behaving the same way.


----------



## red & green (Aug 12, 2015)

WaiGong said:


> Blair getting desperate and inadvertently doing his best to help to Corbyn campaign again...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...annihilation-if-jeremy-corbyn-wins-leadership



The comments lol


----------



## YouSir (Aug 12, 2015)

WaiGong said:


> Blair getting desperate and inadvertently doing his best to help to Corbyn campaign again...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...annihilation-if-jeremy-corbyn-wins-leadership



One day I really hope that amoral cunt suffers something truly horrible.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 12, 2015)

WaiGong said:


> Blair getting desperate and inadvertently doing his best to help to Corbyn campaign again...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...annihilation-if-jeremy-corbyn-wins-leadership


Ridiculous intervention. Burnham and Cooper must be well fucked off, it's only going to boost the JC vote.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 12, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Ridiculous intervention. Burnham and Cooper must be well fucked off, it's only going to boost the JC vote.



If they were smarter you could almost imagine that they thought Corbyn would get gutted as leader so they're playing a long game, use their personal hatred from the public to get him in then guarantee a win for Chukka or Tristram next time as the Blairite saviour.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 12, 2015)

I had a conversation today with two long-term Labour supporters who want Corbyn but are going to vote for Kendall because they don't think Corbyn could win the next election (well, he won't if you don't let him win this one). They think the important thing is to get the Tories out; I can't see that as being significant if we just vote a load of differently-tagged Tories in.

At least this came up in the context of one them having spent the previous weekend with two other long-term Labour supporters who are adamantly pro-Corbyn.

I don't think Corbyn is the second coming or anything, but he seems like a chance to at least try to stop the swing further to the right. Renationalisation is never going to happen even if he were PM, but stopping further privatisation probably would. And I couldn't stomach voting for anyone who abstained from that vote on austerity like all the other contenders did.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2015)

YouSir said:


> If they were smarter you could almost imagine that they thought Corbyn would get gutted as leader so they're playing a long game, use their personal hatred from the public to get him in then guarantee a win for Chukka or Tristram next time as the Blairite saviour.


I sort of get the impression yvette and used-motors thought they would be easily batting aside blairite lightweight Kendall before battling between each other. This spectre of the donkey jacket coming back to haunt seems to have caught them all on the back foot.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2015)

Blair's missive really is one of the most infuriating things I think I have ever read.  Iraq, the open sale of honours, PFI, the treatment of David Kelly, the destruction of competent and honest government and all the rest summed up in the following words:



> And, yes, governments do things people don’t like


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 12, 2015)

Blair will be even more of a social outcast should Corbyn win.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 12, 2015)




----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 12, 2015)

It's "his" party and he'll cry if he wants to.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 12, 2015)

He might have to invade if corbs wins.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> He might have to invade if *corbs* wins.



We should try for a more youth media image nickname than this, in case people confuse him with the town of Corby.

C-Byn. 
The Big C
C Daddy Keynes
J to the Cizza


we could get Westwood onside 'Now drop the social democratic bomb!' he could say


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> We should try for a more youth media image nickname than this, in case people confuse him with the town of Corby.
> 
> C-Byn.
> The Big C
> ...



rap name generator came up with this one:-



> *Authentic Jeremy J a.k.a. Lethal Assassin*


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2015)

first album: Back To Beard Sicks


Dedications: To my Mother, to God, to Bevan and all of the old school heavy hitters. Tolpuddle crew dem, never forget. Rest in Peace brothers and sisters.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> first album: Back To Beard Sicks
> 
> 
> Dedications: To my Mother, to God, to Bevan and all of the old school heavy hitters. Tolpuddle crew dem, never forget. Rest in Peace brothers and sisters.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> first album: Back To Beard Sicks
> 
> 
> Dedications: To my Mother, to God, to Bevan and all of the old school heavy hitters. Tolpuddle crew dem, never forget. Rest in Peace brothers and sisters.


"Straight outta Tollington"


----------



## free spirit (Aug 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> no it didnt.  It said it had 610,753 eligible voters, around a half of whom are members


that's a huge increase from last week. 

Did the unions have lists of members wanting to be turned into supporters that they sent in as a bulk list in the last couple of days?

If there have really been about 180,000 new sign ups as supporters in the last few days, then corbyn's surely got this contest won as the new supporters were around 70% for corbyn, and he's been doing the bulk of the work getting new people to sign up.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 12, 2015)

Nice man though (ahem) J-Cor is, I dread to think how excitable and batshit-irrational large chunks of my Fb feed is going to remain for ages afterwards if he wins


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> "Straight outta Tollington"


Labour right why would ya
I put it back on atchya
Capitalist stooge to nod and moo
Motherfucker, remember Peterloo.

If you aint up on beards
Mines whiter than Jon Snows
all the blairite feards
had best better knows

This is Corbyn now
My whole shits social democatic
Your policies are entirely erratic


*hey...hoo.....hey...hooo'


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

free spirit said:


> that's a huge increase from last week.
> 
> Did the unions have lists of members wanting to be turned into supporters that they sent in as a bulk list in the last couple of days?
> 
> If there have really been about 180,000 new sign ups as supporters in the last few days, then corbyn's surely got this contest won as the new supporters were around 70% for corbyn, and he's been doing the bulk of the work getting new people to sign up.



On the BBC Papers Review, this was posited, that the Unions had " been sitting on a large number of affiliations' and just sent the info to the Corbyn campaign for them to canvass, could be rubbish


----------



## spartacus mills (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## billy_bob (Aug 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> This spectre of the donkey jacket



When Alan Bleasdale writes a TV series about all this, that's what he should call it.


----------



## Ole (Aug 13, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


>


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)

Just reading a bit of the BBC's candidate overview:


> Ms Cooper has made her opposition to the government's welfare reforms known


 but hasn't actually _done_ much to oppose them, such as voting against them or anything silly like that.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 13, 2015)

Ole said:


>


----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


>



It barely needs doing but someone should do the Photoshop on this


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)

Surely someone's put Corbyn's face on that by now? I mean, stick him in a bath robe and they're practically indistinguishable anyway!


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

it's been done, posted weeks ago in this thread (or the other one)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)

Pics or GTFO.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

Repost please


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


>


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

there are others though.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> there are others though.



Thanks for repost. Is there one with the light-sabre image though? To anyone who reads this, not just you.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

That wasn't the droid I was looking for etc.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

there's various shops here, although none of obi-wan

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...my-corbyn-social-media-vote-labour-leadership


----------



## scifisam (Aug 13, 2015)

Huh. Turns out I won't get a vote after all. Because I live in Tower Hamlets they're asking for extra ID and it'll take at least eight weeks to process. I've literally been disenfranchised.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

could  have done without the beckham one in my eyes


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 13, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Huh. Turns out I won't get a vote after all. Because I live in Tower Hamlets they're asking for extra ID and it'll take at least eight weeks to process. I've literally been disenfranchised.



What are they asking for exactly?!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> could  have done without the beckham one in my eyes


That's what she sai... never mind.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 13, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Huh. Turns out I won't get a vote after all. Because I live in Tower Hamlets they're asking for extra ID and it'll take at least eight weeks to process. I've literally been disenfranchised.



As have the 12 other people living at your address who just happen to have the same name as you but spelt slightly differently


----------



## andysays (Aug 13, 2015)

Burnham apparently about to be interviewed by callers on Radio 4's World at One


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)

*dead air*


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> there's various shops here, although none of obi-wan
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...my-corbyn-social-media-vote-labour-leadership


"Jeremy Corbyn to become mysterious tough drifter".


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tony-blair-rejected-hillsborough-inquiry-6067392

Here's Burnham trying to distance himself from Blair - guess he's worked out Tony's support isn't worth shit


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

One of the best yet from Pinochet's old mate...



> The Liberal Democrats will “come back from the dead” like the biblical character Lazarus if Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader of the Labour party, a politician has said.
> 
> Former Home Secretary Jack Straw told Sky News that Tim Farron’s party would benefit from a victory for Mr Corbyn.
> 
> ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...emy-corbyn-wins-says-jack-straw-10453572.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

Lazarus was actually dead wheras the octocunts still have octo seats


----------



## gosub (Aug 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> Burnham apparently about to be interviewed by callers on Radio 4's World at One


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> One of the best yet from Pinochet's old mate...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...emy-corbyn-wins-says-jack-straw-10453572.html



That must make Straw Pontius Pilate in this little biblical narrative - we know how good he is at sitting back trying to keep his hands clean while atrocities are carried out on his watch.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

Is it worth betting on one of the other candidates?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Is it worth betting on one of the other candidates?


Only if you pick one that wins...


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Only if you pick one that wins...



Like if I bet on Andy Burnham to win? I prob wont btw


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

https://twitter.com/petewylie

Lots of interesting people now joining LP, inc Pete Wylie

btw, just noticed his daughter is called 'mersey'

taking it a bit too far?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

Fuck it lol 've just placed £10 on Andy Burnham. If he wins i'll be able to buy a few people drinks as a consolation.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 13, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Fuck it lol 've just placed £10 on Andy Burnham. If he wins i'll be able to buy a few people drinks as a consolation.



Anti-revolutionary behaviour noted.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> https://twitter.com/petewylie
> 
> Lots of interesting people now joining LP, inc Pete Wylie
> 
> ...


Not really, he's a proud Scouser. Nut' in wrong with da'h, la'. It beats the fuck out of Apple.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Aug 13, 2015)

JC nickname suggestion: Corbachev


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Mikhail Corbynchev?


 

(Think yours works slightly better on balance though )


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

Gorby sold the revolution out! ill-fated nickname!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

this is just an aside because of the old labour nostalgia I don't have having never known that party. In what became known as the battle of cable street Labour local organised a seperate protest, some miles away, and left the residents and anti fascists to fend for themselves against mosely's boot boys. Which they did with great aplomb.

Now this was Labour at its heights of what people hope corbyn might return it to- its roots. And yes 'its got to better than the tories' is a good rejoinder, 'we can force them leftwards from the inside' not so much, we'll see how corbyn fares. Just worth remembering that the labour party has traditionally acted as a negotiator between the working class and capital. Not more than that. No red dawn.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 13, 2015)

Graun continue to ramp up The Fear. At least three anti JC articles on the front page alone. Can't be arsed to link to them anymore.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 13, 2015)

I've put a tenner on Corbynchev today. Gonna be checking out the result with trepidation. Just wish I'd punted on when he was 100-1 but then it's a bit like being prescient on Bitcoin or something and mining a whole load of it just months before it went stratospheric.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Graun continue to ramp up The Fear. At least three anti JC articles on the front page alone. Can't be arsed to link to them anymore.


i think you meant to say 





> graun continues to ramp up The Boredom with another three articles about the election which are devoid of real content


----------



## teqniq (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## Argonia (Aug 13, 2015)

Life is first boredom, then fear. Or maybe it's the other way round.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> https://twitter.com/petewylie
> 
> Lots of interesting people now joining LP, inc Pete Wylie
> 
> ...


I once attended a wedding Pete Wylie and his family were at. I offered them a lift from the church to the reception on the other side of town, but there wasn't a lot of room in the car so I had to do a couple of trips. I took Pete along with my family, but then I had to go back and ferry across Mersey.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 13, 2015)

Taxi for danny....


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 13, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Taxi for danny....


My understanding was that of all the people in that story, danny was the one person who _didn't_ need a taxi


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> My understanding was that of all the people in that story, danny was the one person who _didn't_ need a taxi


She was the best dancer at the wedding. Nobody had Mersey beat.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 13, 2015)

Yer on a roll there


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


>


I've seen that skull-showing-through-the-face visage a few times on heroin addicts 20 years older than me who do the on-off thing with it.

Blairs must be caused through existential guilt.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 13, 2015)

These Pete Wylie/Professional Scouser jokes make me wail, big time. You could call my response a mighty wah.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I've seen that skull-showing-through-the-face visage a few times on heroin addicts 20 years older than me who do the on-off thing with it.
> 
> Blairs must be caused through existential guilt.


The piece that accompanies that pic is a good laugh:

https://samkriss.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/tony-blair-dread-creature-of-the-forbidden-swamp/


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

who is samkriss? i seem to be following them on twitter, and have no memory why...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Yer on a roll there


Singing sensation Duffy was there too. She very impressed by Wylie junior's dancing. She kept asking for her to do some more. She wouldn't take no for an answer. I remember to this day her shouting across to Pete,  "you've got me begging you for Mersey!"


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> who is samkriss? i seem to be following them on twitter, and have no memory why...


No idea, but going by my past record he/she will turn out to be dodgy in some way.


----------



## JimW (Aug 13, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Singing sensation Duffy was there too. She very impressed by Wylie junior's dancing. She kept asking for her to do some more. She wouldn't take no for an answer. I remember to this day her shouting across to Pete,  "you've got me begging you for Mersey!"


The quality of your Mersey puns is strained


----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

JimW said:


> The quality of your Mersey puns is strained



Wirral sick of them to be honest.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)

JimW said:


> The quality of your Mersey puns is strained


I feel I can still hold my head up high. And not be afraid of the dark.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2015)

James Bloodworth goes for the culpability-by-association angle. Despicable and desperate. 


> Then there is Corbyn’s apparent proximity to antisemitism. While I genuinely believe that Corbyn does not have an antisemitic bone in his body, he does have a proclivity for sharing platforms with individuals who do; and his excuses for doing so do not stand up.
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Wirral sick of them to be honest.


They're not so much top class, more Form B.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 13, 2015)

Time to stop being a berk n' head off now danny.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> They're not so much top class, more Form B.



Toxteth the hand, because the head ain't listening.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 13, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> They're not so much top class, more Form B.



Ouch.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

Yeah but mine's much worse.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 13, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Time to stop being a berk n' head off now danny.



Stop it now


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Ouch.


Not enjoying our trip down Punny Lane?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Not enjoying our trip down Punny Lane?



Very strange.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 13, 2015)

To be fair to the mainstream media it is quite prevalent now for Corbynchev to be described as the "frontrunner" in the leadership contest.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 13, 2015)

Unwatches thread.


----------



## WaiGong (Aug 13, 2015)

Argonia said:


> I've put a tenner on Corbynchev today. Gonna be checking out the result with trepidation. Just wish I'd punted on when he was 100-1 but then it's a bit like being prescient on Bitcoin or something and mining a whole load of it just months before it went stratospheric.



Stuck a fiver on him when he was still 14-1.  I'll be pleased with £75, but like yourself wish I'd got in there on 100-1...


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2015)

Britain’s oldest Jewish newspaper has attacked the Labour leadership frontrunner, Jeremy Corbyn, claiming he associated with “Holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright anti-Semites”.

In a strongly worded editorial on its front page, the Jewish Chronicle said it was certain it spoke for the vast majority of British Jews in “expressing deep foreboding at the prospect of Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader”.

The paper wrote: “If Mr Corbyn is not to be regarded from the day of his election as an enemy of Britain’s Jewish community, he has a number of questions which he must answer in full and immediately. The JC asked him earlier this week to respond. No response has been forthcoming.”

Pretty irresponsible stuff from the Jewish Chronicle


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

Has there been a refutation of the paul eisen stuff?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Stop it now


Calm down, even?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 13, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Calm down, even?



Fazakerley.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 13, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> They're not so much top class, more Form B.



Knowledge comes, but Whiston lingers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> https://twitter.com/petewylie
> 
> Lots of interesting people now joining LP, inc Pete Wylie
> 
> ...



Imagine if she married Otis Ferry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Libertad said:


> Anti-revolutionary behaviour noted.



A suitable candidate for the Peoples' Re-education Holiday Park, comrade?


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Imagine if she married Otis Ferry.



The fox hunting arse whose dad thinks Nazis are cute? That's a bit much even for mainstream Labour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> this is just an aside because of the old labour nostalgia I don't have having never known that party. In what became known as the battle of cable street Labour local organised a seperate protest, some miles away, and left the residents and anti fascists to fend for themselves against mosely's boot boys. Which they did with great aplomb.
> 
> Now this was Labour at its heights of what people hope corbyn might return it to- its roots. And yes 'its got to better than the tories' is a good rejoinder, 'we can force them leftwards from the inside' not so much, we'll see how corbyn fares. Just worth remembering that the labour party has traditionally acted as a negotiator between the working class and capital. Not more than that. No red dawn.



TBF, there were a few "local tensions" informing the Labour Party's decision to stage away from Cable Street, including the high Conservative vote in parts of Bethnal Green, Wapping etc (but also personality clashes,as ever!  ).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Wirral sick of them to be honest.



Just wish he'd shut his birken' head!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

WaiGong said:


> Blair getting desperate and inadvertently doing his best to help to Corbyn campaign again...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...annihilation-if-jeremy-corbyn-wins-leadership



He's starting to sound like a man who is seriously losing his shit. Like Lady Macbeth or something.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> A suitable candidate for the Peoples' Re-education Holiday Park, comrade?



Indeed, don't bother to pack a bag Cmbbe frogwoman .


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

I really hope he wins now as I recently lost my job and could do with some extra cash.


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

Nice one


J Ed said:


> Britain’s oldest Jewish newspaper has attacked the Labour leadership frontrunner, Jeremy Corbyn, claiming he associated with “Holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright anti-Semites”.
> 
> In a strongly worded editorial on its front page, the Jewish Chronicle said it was certain it spoke for the vast majority of British Jews in “expressing deep foreboding at the prospect of Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader”.
> 
> ...




Seems to be a pattern, Louise Mensch has twitted that Corbyn has been associating with the dubious cartoonist Carlos Latuuf and will be sharing a platform with in the next couple of weeks.

leaving aside these attacks, foreign policy will be a Corbyn weakness


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

He's been a labour mp for 32 years is it any surprise his politics are shit? 

As for that fb comment, erm, wow


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

The above was a reply to the Jewish Chronicle posted on Jack Sommers twitter(above)

twitter wouldn't embed properly

dark side of the left?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> He's starting to sound like a man who is seriously losing his shit. Like Lady Macbeth or something.



With Corbyn's popularity and Cameron putting pressure on the Chilcott enquiry, the smell of the Hague is getting rather strong in Blairs nostrils and he is not liking it one bit.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)

do people not realise all this stuff makes them look like a bunch of lunatics? That 'fuck off to israel' guy sounds like he'd be happy in an ex labour breakaway New Party


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

> “The Holocaust was the most vile period in human history and the Jewish people were scapegoated by the Nazis. Some people in Britain, including Jeremy’s own parents, stood in Cable Street in 1936 to halt the rise of Nazism in our country.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-jeremy-corbyn-associating-holocaust-deniers



Interesting


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

I believe his parents met on a Spanish anti fascism rally during the civil war.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

Blair is never going to the hague - it won't be figuring in his recent interventions at all, because it's not going to happen. He just fucking hates Jeremy Corbyn and everything he stands for (an animosity they clearly share).


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

https://twitter.com/HollyJohnsonfan

really vicious stuff against JC on this twitter, for a moment I thought it was Holly himself

it may be, if not someone should send him a line, Holly that is,

btw, I suspect its going to get a whole lot worse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

still, at least we have the satisfaction of him looking a bit like skeletor if skeltor was to go undercover in an election campaign to decide the future of Eternia


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Watching all the blairites throw their toys out of the pram has been really enjoyable. They really are a bunch of entitled little children aren't they?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

The Guardian have endorsed Cooper and it has not gone down well with their readers

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-yvette-cooper-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=share_btn_tw

It seems that the entire establishment is shitting bricks. 

Fantastic stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> Blair is never going to the hague - it won't be figuring in his recent interventions at all, because it's not going to happen. He just fucking hates Jeremy Corbyn and everything he stands for (an animosity they clearly share).



I recall reading an anecdote from the butcher of iraq himself about his early years campaigning where he made sadface about how labour ignored the estates because their vote was a given and shouldn't we try to reach out further. Frankly that wizened twig of a soul should leave the husk it inhabits. The lying prick.


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/jenni-f...uestions-and-the-community-needs-to-ask-them/

Another attack on JC


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> https://twitter.com/HollyJohnsonfan
> 
> really vicious stuff against JC on this twitter, for a moment I thought it was Holly himself
> 
> ...


why are you posting a link to someone who's rantings have an audience of 144? who gives a fuck what they think?


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> The Guardian have endorsed Cooper and it has not gone down well with their readers
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-yvette-cooper-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=share_btn_tw
> 
> ...






> Beneath the seemingly spontaneous activism is a determined drive by the Unite juggernaut, even while organised labour remains in historic retreat.



Smearing Unite as well.


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> why are you posting a link to someone who's rantings have an audience of 144? who gives a fuck what they think?



Because I wanted to, you don't have to read it if you don't want to, put me on ignore, there's a good lad.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 13, 2015)

It is quite funny as the establishment newspapers started their attacks early by trying to claim he was short tempered/had a short fuse. Bit of a Gordon Brown.  Nothing could be further from the truth as all this is doing is increasing his popularity.

The MSM should have learnt this from attacking Farage and UKIP before GE2015.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Fingers said:


> The Guardian have endorsed Cooper and it has not gone down well with their readers
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-yvette-cooper-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=share_btn_tw
> 
> ...



From the comments:



> The guardian also backed clegg....
> 
> I'll say no more


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 13, 2015)

I'm glad I didn't pay the 3 quid now as I'm getting all the entertainment I wanted for free. Now it looks like he's not only going to win but win convincingly, meaning even more entertainment. I love the fact Blair has twice felt the need to crawl of his human sacrifice chamber to comment, a fact made sweeter as the more he comments the more support Corbyn gets


----------



## belboid (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Smearing Unite as well.


not really, in this instance, 104,000 out of 189,000 affiliated are from Unite


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Breaking news: voting for Corbyn will awaken the Great Old One Cthulhu from his slumbers in the lost city of R'lyeh and unleash his wrath upon the unsuspecting mortals of Earth.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Because I wanted to, you don't have to read it if you don't want to, put me on ignore, there's a good lad.


can't do that, I need to keep up with what's going on below the line at CiF.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Breaking news: voting for Corbyn will awaken Cthulhu from his slumbers in the lost city of R'lyeh and unleash his wrath upon the unsuspecting mortals of Earth.



cthulhu for deputy leader?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 13, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> cthulhu for deputy leader?



And I thought that Creasy was pronounced like Greasy. You learn summat new every day.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Breaking news: voting for Corbyn will awaken the Great Old One Cthulhu from his slumbers in the lost city of R'lyeh and unleash his wrath upon the unsuspecting mortals of Earth.


I heard his overall plan is to conquer mars (the Red planet) while simultaneously ending civilisation as we know it and transforming the consciousness of the proleteriat by introducing shit that makes stalinist soviet realism look like a vicars tea party


----------



## Belushi (Aug 13, 2015)

All this hysteria because of a moderate Socialist. The establishment would do a Chile on us if anyone really radical ever got anywhere near power, and the Guardian would back them all the way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

Belushi said:


> All this hysteria because of a moderate Socialist. The establishment would do a Chile on us if anyone really radical ever got anywhere near power, and the Guardian would back them all the way.



wilson plot. And theres loads to suggest they done a number on his gov.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

oh and if anyone doubts how low they will stoop before they start shooting, look to the Zinoviev letter


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Breaking news: voting for Corbyn will awaken the Great Old One Cthulhu from his slumbers in the lost city of R'lyeh and unleash his wrath upon the unsuspecting mortals of Earth.


They've cut off our heads, but we're not dead,

And we're bound by an ancient vow.

That does not sleep which dreams in the deep,

We're the great old ones now!


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 13, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'm glad I didn't pay the 3 quid now as I'm getting all the entertainment I wanted for free. Now it looks like he's not only going to win but win convincingly, meaning even more entertainment. I love the fact Blair has twice felt the need to crawl of his human sacrifice chamber to comment, a fact made sweeter as the more he comments the more support Corbyn gets



We can look forward to so many more of Blair's swivel-eyed solepsistic vacuous ramblings if Corbyn gets in. It's so grotesque you just have to laugh - I think he _genuinely _can't grasp that most people would rather turn to Amon Goeth for a bit of sensible advice about what the left should do.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 13, 2015)

Blair's voice might just get a bit quieter if Corbynchev gets in...


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

He'll shut up once the contest is over (will probably shut up after today) - the interventions are about preventing Corbyn winning, not destabilising the party.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> James Bloodworth goes for the culpability-by-association angle. Despicable and desperate.



Saw that and can't stop laughing at the comments. I'm assuming that The G is hell bent on self-destruction.

I enjoy pressing the x on their silly banner begging not to use Ad Blocker as it helps them with their revenue. I'll be more than pleased to deliver a ton of horse manure to their HQ in case they have run out of supplies.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> He'll shut up once the contest is over (will probably shut up after today) - the interventions are about preventing Corbyn winning, not destabilising the party.



I really think how much he can get paid for spewing out articles about it is more likely to determine whether or not he carries on doing so than any concern for the future of 'his' party.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

Pretty sure Blair isn't troubled by money issues mate. He'd get more at some private gig as after dinner speaker any day of the week. And a dinner as well.

No I think Blair believes his own shit and has so lost whatever grasp he had on politics that he actually thinks he is helping


----------



## free spirit (Aug 13, 2015)

Belushi said:


> All this hysteria because of a moderate Socialist. The establishment would do a Chile on us if anyone really radical ever got anywhere near power, and the Guardian would back them all the way.


You mean like if he named  Varoufakis as say economic advisor and nominee for next head of the back of england?

The apoplexy levels would be off the chart


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

what is this? fan fiction?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 13, 2015)

agricola said:


> Blair's missive really is one of the most infuriating things I think I have ever read.  Iraq, the open sale of honours, PFI, the treatment of David Kelly, the destruction of competent and honest government and all the rest summed up in the following words:





> Tony Blair: Even if you hate me, please don’t take Labour over the cliff edge



Tony Blair... over a cliff edge...

Now there's a thought...


----------



## 8115 (Aug 13, 2015)

I literally never even dreamt I would see the end of New Labour. Never even dared to dream.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 13, 2015)

one of our local-ish ex MPs (who stood down before the seat went tory in 2010) is in the local rag today saying party members / supporters "should not vote for political oblivion" by electing JC...


----------



## bendeus (Aug 13, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> They've cut off our heads, but we're not dead,
> 
> And we're bound by an ancient vow.
> 
> ...


I'm reading this with a Tammy Wynette voice to the tune of Justified and Ancient by the KLF


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2015)

Zabo said:


> I'm assuming that The G is hell bent on self-destruction.


Bring it on!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 13, 2015)

bendeus said:


> I'm reading this with a Tammy Wynette voice to the tune of Justified and Ancient by the KLF


Not the opposite? I dunno about Wynette but it's easy to imagine Drummond chanting it.


----------



## bendeus (Aug 13, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Not the opposite? I dunno about Wynette but it's easy to imagine Drummond chanting it.



Sorry for derail - imagine Idris' lyrics overlaid from the bit where she sings 'They called me up in Tennessee'


----------



## Wilf (Aug 13, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> When Alan Bleasdale writes a TV series about all this, that's what he should call it.


Alan Bennett's version would  be The Old Labour in The Vanguard.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)




----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




57% first pref?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> 57% first pref?


I think so, yes. But I've not seen the actual story yet.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



Just came to post that. 

Sorry frogwoman,  your stake isn't looking at all safe.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> 57% first pref?


Here's the explanation..


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 13, 2015)

Thanks brogdale.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2015)

yvette cooper on newsnight. she looks like a loon with weird stary eyes.


----------



## shygirl (Aug 13, 2015)

Fucking disingeuous with it too, all that fake sorrow for the children of Britain having to endure Tory rule if JC wins the leadership.  I hate 'em, I do.


----------



## Patteran (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/jenni-f...uestions-and-the-community-needs-to-ask-them/
> 
> Another attack on JC



This anti-semitism angle is getting a lot of traction online. The Chronicle editor's page on power base (thanks to nino_savatte for the site link) is worth a read - & links to this thread & this thread. Former leader writer for the Express, Henry Jackson Society, Civitas, Pfizer, etc.

Edited to add - I've made a mistake there - treelover posted a link to the Jewish News - I've responded by referencing a similar piece in the Jewish Chronicle,which echoes Alan Johnson's original in Left Foot Forward.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 13, 2015)

Patteran said:


> This anti-semitism angle is getting a lot of traction online. The Chronicle editor's page on power base (thanks to nino_savatte for the site link) is worth a read - & links to this thread & this thread. Former leader writer for the Express, Henry Jackson Society, Civitas, Pfizer, etc.


I can remember an edition of BBC Breakfast just before the Iraq invasion. Ken Loach and Stephen Pollard were on the show being 'interviewed' by Bill Turnbull (Old Etonian) and 'Simpering' Sian Williams. Every time Loach opened his mouth to say something, Pollard shouted him down. This went on for about 4 minutes. Turnbull and Williams didn't intervene once and allowed Pollard to dominate. I'd never heard of Pollard before but made a point of keeping an eye on him thereafter.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 13, 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...g-big--what-a-complete-disaster-10454504.html


----------



## Patteran (Aug 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I can remember an edition of BBC Breakfast just before the Iraq invasion. Ken Loach and Stephen Pollard were on the show being 'interviewed' by Bill Turnbull (Old Etonian) and 'Simpering' Sian Williams. Every time Loach opened his mouth to say something, Pollard shouted him down. This went on for about 4 minutes. Turnbull and Williams didn't intervene once and allowed Pollard to dominate. I'd never heard of Pollard before but made a point of keeping an eye on him thereafter.



I'd never heard of him before - or hadn't registered him. Thing is, there are genuine concerns about elements on the left tolerating or even sharing platforms with reactionary islamists or 'banks/rothschilds/jews' occupy cranks - & they've been discussed here before - but this isn't it, this is just a slur from the right wing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Breaking news: voting for Corbyn will awaken the Great Old One Cthulhu from his slumbers in the lost city of R'lyeh and unleash his wrath upon the unsuspecting mortals of Earth.



That's okay, as long as they don't wake Yog-Sothoth too!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> They've cut off our heads, but we're not dead,
> 
> And we're bound by an ancient vow.
> 
> ...



Blasphemer!!!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 13, 2015)

shygirl said:


> Fucking disingeuous with it too, all that fake sorrow for the children of Britain having to endure Tory rule if JC wins the leadership.  I hate 'em, I do.



These being the children being impoverished by tory policies that she won't oppose?

Get tae Fuck

(her not you that is.  in the same way I assume the 'them' you hate is new labour, not the children of britain...   )


----------



## agricola (Aug 13, 2015)

shygirl said:


> Fucking disingeuous with it too, all that fake sorrow for the children of Britain having to endure Tory rule if JC wins the leadership.  I hate 'em, I do.



The truly maddening thing about it is that the people who are coming out with that line are the ones most responsible for losing two elections to the Tories.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 14, 2015)

agricola said:


> The truly maddening thing about it is that the people who are coming out with that line are the ones most responsible for losing two elections to the Tories.



the alarming thing is that some of them seem seriously to believe that they lose elections for not being enough like the tories.

hence the "ok, we're shit, all the bullshit the tories and their friends in the press have come out with about us being crap on the economy, crap on immigration, crap on benefits scroungers is right.  we're going to be much more like the tories in future.  please vote for us.  we're exactly the same as the tories.  only we're nicer.  except to immigrants and benefits scroungers of course.  we're nastier to them.  vote for us.  please?  hello, is anyone still there?" sort of shit that they have been coming out with since 'red ed lost the election for being far too wadical'


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Patteran said:


> This anti-semitism angle is getting a lot of traction online. The Chronicle editor's page on power base (thanks to nino_savatte for the site link) is worth a read - & links to this thread & this thread. Former leader writer for the Express, Henry Jackson Society, Civitas, Pfizer, etc.
> 
> Edited to add - I've made a mistake there - treelover posted a link to the Jewish News - I've responded by referencing a similar piece in the Jewish Chronicle,which echoes Alan Johnson's original in Left Foot Forward.



I think that this is a particularly dangerous stuff for a whole host of reasons but not least because it makes anti-Semitism seem less serious and feeds into tropes that accusations of anti-Semitism are made purely to defend Israeli foreign policy. It also equates the interests of all Jews with those of Israel.

Of course, the author of the piece does not give a shit about any of that.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2015)

Patteran said:


> I'd never heard of him before - or hadn't registered him. Thing is, there are genuine concerns about elements on the left tolerating or even sharing platforms with reactionary islamists or 'banks/rothschilds/jews' occupy cranks - & they've been discussed here before - but this isn't it, this is just a slur from the right wing.




Going by that Powerbase article, Pollard has been on the Blairite wing of Labour, maybe not always a Tory.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Of course, the author of the piece does not give a shit about any of that.



That's very pertinent to what will go on with the attacks on Corbyn over Foreign Policy generally (FP is seen as something the left are way more obsessed with, we are about to see reactionaries start to give way more of a shit if it suits some clunky narratives)

I don't share all of Corbyns perspectives, but they are at least well informed. If he wins then mawkish pieces in The Scum etc. exploiting the loved ones of IRA violence will become pretty much a staple (and a useful break from race hate and celeb garbage). The facts of history will be neither her nor there.

Likewise, his position on the Middle East will be massively simplified, with the massive hypocricies of conservatism / imperialism here and abroad ignored. The Daily Mail won't bother to resurface their 30s paranoia about "Jews pouring into the country" which is a shocking mirror of todays Calais focussed poison.

The propaganda will neither be written by or for people who know the ins and outs of Sykes Picot or whatever. It's going to be hateful, and though there are always debates to be had around this stuff, I wonder if it's beholden on us to be overall on side against the elite forces of hatred and stupidity.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Likewise, his position on the Middle East will be massively simplified, with the massive hypocricies of conservatism / imperialism here and abroad ignored. The Daily Mail won't bother to resurface their 30s paranoia about "Jews pouring into the country" which is a shocking mirror of todays Calais focussed poison.
> 
> The propaganda will neither be written by or for people who know the ins and outs of Sykes Picot or whatever. It's going to be hateful, and though there are always debates to be had around this stuff, I wonder if it's beholden on us to be overall on side against the elite forces of hatred and stupidity.


Let's hope the current situation continues then, where it seems that the more mud they fling at him, the more people decide they want to support him.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Let's hope the current situation continues then, where it seems that the more mud they fling at him, the more people decide they want to support him.



At the moment, those people, important for now, are electors...the base. It's positive for his campaign that the effect is as it is. But the propagandameisters are putting together their material for the rest of the population.

This isn't going to be some phoney UKIP operation where the establishment essentially fetishise a naked reactionary emperor as some totem of rebellion.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2015)

But he'd probably do as well on question time and the like as Farage does, and would actually go on it rather than being scared of it and hiding behind convention not to appear on it.

I hope he can still hack the pace of this sort of campaign he's doing now, it looks pretty relentless, but he must be loving it, his moment to shine after all these years.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2015)

in other news, Yvette Cooper is holding a meeting in Leeds on saturday afternoon in an 80 capacity room, and Liz Kendall's hosting an outdoor rally or something out side the leeds art gallery in the morning. 

That Liz Kendall rally is almost tempting me to go and laugh. It looked like she had 150 people RSVPd, but 100 of them are from one poster called Jeremy Corbyn, with 99 guests.

Comparing that to the 1500+ people Corbyn attracted in Leeds last week doesn't bode well for the mainstream candidates (up here anyway).


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

These attacks on him are all getting a bit random.  Unelectable!  Beards!  Errrrr... Iran?  Edge of a cliff!  Perhaps anti-semitism?  Yes, let's go with that.  Oh hang on, what about pigeons?  Yes, absolutely, pigeons is the theme of the day. Definitely.  But he's got a _bike_!  Right, get Alistair Campbell to do 2,000 words on bikes.  And pigeons. Oh, and I bet he dropped a cat in a bin.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2015)

If he did win, and if he then won the next election it would really give the lie to the entire rationale that new labour used to take over the party, and basically destroy their excuses for their lurch to the right.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

the labour right do love to pull the anti semite card. Look how often they done it to Ken of Keningrad. Nauseating shit really


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

... oh yes, and he'll unravel the NI peace process:


> The fourth candidate, Liz Kendall, said in the Birmingham Mail that a perception Corbyn was sympathetic to the IRA would make it harder to maintain peace in Northern Ireland. She also asked her supporters not to choose Corbyn for their second or third preference and to put down Burnham or Cooper in either order instead.


 - Guardian (can't be arsed linking to it, they are coming too thick and fast now).


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

free spirit said:


> That Liz Kendall rally is almost tempting me to go and laugh. It looked like she had 150 people RSVPd, but 100 of them are from one poster called Jeremy Corbyn, with 99 guests.



If you're having poll problems I feel bad for you son. She's got 99 guests but Liz ain't won.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2015)

Classy


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

Labour Leadership Campaign Latest: 'How the weirdy beardo wiped out the dinosaurs and gave National Treasure David Attenborough a Chinese Burn, all before his oddball veggie lunchtime'.  In other pages, 'Angela Rippon, my Corbyn dogging nightmare'.  Sport: 'Is Sepp Blatter an anagram of Jeremy Corbyn?'


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2015)

I am finding it painfully funny.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I am finding it painfully funny.


Pain? I suggest a homeopathic cure:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/17/homeopathy-idiots-science-jeremy-corbyn


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2015)

Aaaaargh!


----------



## Dandred (Aug 14, 2015)

I really hope he wins, I might even splash out 3 quid. 

I love how the labor party are trying to throw themselves under the bus to make themselves look more like the Tories!


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 14, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I really hope he wins, I might even splash out 3 quid.


You're too late to pay your three quid, now...


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2015)

More pathetic flailing from The Guardian (apols if has been linked to before). 

*Cooper has taken on Corbyn, gloves off. Could this be a knockout blow? *



> This morning in Manchester Yvette Cooper takes on the Corbyn arguments, gloves off. No, it’s not personal: there have been few personal attacks on this well-liked and thoroughly authentic MP. It’s Corbyn’s key policies she warns will send Labour deeper into the wilderness. As an economist, she explains why printing money in more quantitative easing for spending will never be credible. She’s right.



and again: "there have been few personal attacks on this well-liked and thoroughly authentic MP" 

From Polly Toynbee - her love of 'last chances' shows again with the last chance for labour voters this time, again.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 14, 2015)

Nut job Kendall on R4 _Today 7:35. _She keeps rabbiting on about _Our Labour Values _yet I have to hear her articulate what those values are? I suppose we don't really need to be told as we have know damn well what they are.


----------



## JimW (Aug 14, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Nut job Kendall on R4 _Today 7:35. _She keeps rabbiting on about _Our Labour Values _yet I have to hear her articulate what those values are? I suppose we don't really need to be told as we have know damn well what they are.


Just heard that. She's whatever the polar opposite of engaging is, like some smug speech from a particularly dim head girl.


----------



## andysays (Aug 14, 2015)

two sheds said:


> More pathetic flailing from The Guardian (apols if has been linked to before).
> 
> *Cooper has taken on Corbyn, gloves off. Could this be a knockout blow? *
> 
> ...



If I were Toynbee's editor, I'd have told her she has one last chance to stop using that well-worn old trope and find something new...

Anyway, I've been thinking recently that Burnham has played this far more sensibly than either Cooper or Kendall, avoiding coming out with any of this "we must stop Corbyn at all costs" business. On the radio yesterday he was still talking about party unity and saying he would be prepared to serve in anyone's shadow cabinet.

If, as I've seen suggested somewhere, Corbyn is thinking in terms of being a temporary leader and planning to step down to allow someone else to fight the next GE, Burnham could yet be in with a chance of the leadership. But if, as looks increasingly likely, Kendall and Cooper's combo of not having much of substance to offer and rubbishing the eventual winner so blatently leaves them doing badly, any chance either of them might have had at a second attempt looks pretty much shot.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2015)

Yes all the Corbyn hate mail from within the Labour party is handing ready-made quotes to the tories come election time.


----------



## billy_bob (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Pretty sure Blair isn't troubled by money issues mate.



Wasn't suggesting he was - he (and his wife for that matter) has always shown willingness to do gigs not consistent with a dignified, statesmanlike post-PM-ship for the right price, regardless of whether he needs the readies or not. 




			
				DotCommunist said:
			
		

> No I think Blair believes his own shit and has so lost whatever grasp he had on politics that he actually thinks he is helping



Certainly thinks he's gracing us with his wise words and we should be grateful. Whether he actually cares about the LP's fortunes per se is a different matter.

For sure, if Corbyn does have a landslide win and is part of a reinvigoration of the left, it further damages the remnants of Blair's 'legacy' because it refutes his orthodoxy that the party has no choice but to leave all that stuff in the 1970s and continue tacking to the right.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Nut job Kendall on R4 _Today 7:35. _She keeps rabbiting on about _Our Labour Values _yet I have to hear her articulate what those values are? I suppose we don't really need to be told as we have know damn well what they are.


I'm torn between thinking she genuinely doesn't know what Labour's values are and thus doesn't want to say and thinking she knows damn well that it's a murky hodge-podge of its traditional socialism and Blaritie new-liberalism and is thus hoping to use the "big lie" technique to keep saying what she wants it to be in order to make that the new reality.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 14, 2015)

Labour needs a major shake up and a Corbyn win will surely give it that. No idea if he can win the 2020 election, but the opportunity for Labour to actually provide some real opposition to the Tory twats over the next few years is the main reason I am hoping for a Corbyn victory.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

Toynbee's article is yet another one suggesting that ordinary readers are too thick to understand what they're voting for. They're mad, passionate idealists whose heart has got the better of them.

Condescending shit from Britain's most patronising newspaper.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 14, 2015)

.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 14, 2015)

JimW said:


> Just heard that. She's whatever the polar opposite of engaging is, like some smug speech from a particularly dim head girl.


She is terrible, I'm amazed that the Blairites can't find someone less shit than her. That interview she did with Marr posted some pages back is abysmal - it's not that she even say's anything that objectionable it's the fact that she doesn't say a single word that isn't some empty fucking soundbite.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

two sheds said:


> More pathetic flailing from The Guardian (apols if has been linked to before).
> 
> *Cooper has taken on Corbyn, gloves off. Could this be a knockout blow? *
> 
> ...



Could it be a knock out blow? No, Corbyn is miles ahead. As for 'gloves off' well that would imply that the gloves were, at some point, on.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2015)

It looks like Toynbee actually came up with the 'gloves are off' phrase and some cleverclever subed introduced the 'knock out blow' headline. She must be embarrassed as hell if so.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

two sheds said:


> It looks like Toynbee actually came up with the 'gloves are off' phrase and some cleverclever subed introduced the 'knock out blow' headline. She must be embarrassed as hell if so.



Toynbee doesn't strike me as the sort of person who is susceptible to any kind of shame.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Could it be a knock out blow? No, Corbyn is miles ahead. As for 'gloves off' well that would imply that the gloves were, at some point, on.


It's not specified who will be knocked out.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

It continues:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33921047



> Liz Kendall has urged her supporters to back anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest.
> 
> She told the BBC Labour risked sending a "resignation letter to the British people as a serious party of government" by electing Mr Corbyn.
> 
> She told The Independent voters should mark Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper as second and third preferences, and avoid giving votes to the frontrunner.



Liz Kendall has urged her supporters, or 'Greg' as she usually calls him...

Still waiting for anyone to explain _why _voting for Corbyn will doom us all, or why we should listen to a bunch of people who just lost an election talking about who can and can't get elected.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Toynbee doesn't strike me as the sort of person who is susceptible to any kind of shame.


She certainly isn't. The party she stood for parliament for in 1983 did more than anything else to keep Labour out of power for a generation (In Lewisham East she basically handed the seat to the Tories) - that she now has the gall to try and use the spectre of 1983 to influence Labour members to tack right is breathtaking. Totol cunt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

mauvais said:


> It's not specified who will be knocked out.



Toynbee, with any luck.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It continues:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33921047
> 
> ...



I never had him down as that right-wing, but....you never know with these rich slebs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I never had him down as that right-wing, but....you never know with these rich slebs.



They've split up anyway as it turns out.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> They've split up anyway as it turns out.


Oh...well.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> Going by that Powerbase article, Pollard has been on the Blairite wing of Labour, maybe not always a Tory.


In the postmodernist scheme of things, there is little if any difference between the two. The boundaries between them dissolved. This is further reinforced by Osborne's claim that the Tories are "progressive" and the "workers' party".


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2015)

I see Cooper and Burnham have claimed Corbyn "lacks credibility". This coming from two Labour MPs who went through the aye lobby to vote with the government on the benefit cap, and who abstained on the Welfare Bill. No class, no style.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

Strictly roots.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2015)

two sheds said:


> More pathetic flailing from The Guardian (apols if has been linked to before).
> 
> *Cooper has taken on Corbyn, gloves off. Could this be a knockout blow? *
> 
> ...


Pollee doesn't take in much boxing, does she?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 14, 2015)

The lesson for me of the Post-war Social Contract was that the way to reduce the benefits bill is to bring unemployment down by providing proper jobs for people. 

There's loads of things that could be done to improve peoples' lives. Pay a living wage for however many hours dole + housing benefit works out for people to do something constructive.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Strictly roots.


----------



## newbie (Aug 14, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Labour needs a major shake up and a Corbyn win will surely give it that. No idea if he can win the 2020 election, but the opportunity for Labour to actually provide some real opposition to the Tory twats over the next few years is the main reason I am hoping for a Corbyn victory.





andysays said:


> If, as I've seen suggested somewhere, Corbyn is thinking in terms of being a temporary leader and planning to step down to allow someone else to fight the next GE, Burnham could yet be in with a chance of the leadership. .


the coalition shackled the prime minister with 5 year fixed term parliaments, hence 2020.  Cameron is in a position to overturn that if he wants to, and I can think of very few reasons why he wouldn't want to, for centuries the power to call snap elections has been a key piece of the pms personal power. He's already positioning for some sort of parliamentary reform, focused on the HoL, a handy vehicle to slip in clause 14(i)(iii) to rid him of the FTPA without much fuss. The only real caveat is that he's said he won't lead the tories into a third election, but circumstances....  

So there's doubts about a strategy based on Corbyn revitalising the LP as leader of the opposition, but explicitly keeping the seat warm for a new leader, a putative election winner like  Burnham or whoever, someone able to distance themselves from him (and the fallout from some years of rw press attacks) and regain the ever popular _center ground_. If Corbyn lasts that long a LP leadership election (under what rules? ) would have to take place in 2018/9 to give a new leader a chance to emded themselves before 2020, and there's a good chance it'll be as divisive as this one.   

Gideon can point the economy towards May 2018, just as Labour siblingcide is at its height. (GE in 2018 is 9/1 on Paddypower atm, for anyone thinking there's a shred of credibility about any of this).


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

Corbyn doesn't even want to be the Labour leader ffs!

The whole thing is a farce.

He thought that he could nudge the victor leftwards by tacking hard left and now he's become the prospective victor and will finally have to take responsibility for his "convictions" on the decks of a sinking ship.


----------



## andysays (Aug 14, 2015)

newbie said:


> the coalition shackled the prime minister with 5 year fixed term parliaments, hence 2020.  Cameron is in a position to overturn that if he wants to, and I can think of very few reasons why he wouldn't want to, for centuries the power to call snap elections has been a key piece of the pms personal power. He's already positioning for some sort of parliamentary reform, focused on the HoL, a handy vehicle to slip in clause 14(i)(iii) to rid him of the FTPA without much fuss. The only real caveat is that he's said he won't lead the tories into a third election, but circumstances....
> 
> So there's doubts about a strategy based on Corbyn revitalising the LP as leader of the opposition, but explicitly keeping the seat warm for a new leader, a putative election winner like  Burnham or whoever, someone able to distance themselves from him (and the fallout from some years of rw press attacks) and regain the ever popular _center ground_. If Corbyn lasts that long a LP leadership election (under what rules? ) would have to take place in 2018/9 to give a new leader a chance to emded themselves before 2020, and there's a good chance it'll be as divisive as this one.
> 
> Gideon can point the economy towards May 2018, just as Labour siblingcide is at its height. (GE in 2018 is 9/1 on Paddypower atm, for anyone thinking there's a shred of credibility about any of this).



I accept that all of this is plausible - I wasn't making a prediction that Labour will have Burnham as leader when they next fight an election, merely musing that he still has some chance in that direction whereas the other two seem to have burnt their bridges.

But even a week is a long time in politics


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Yes all the Corbyn hate mail from within the Labour party is handing ready-made quotes to the tories come election time.



This is what happens in the U.S primaries, they take each other apart and are often damaged when the winner takes office


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

Tbh i dont think labour are winning next time no matter who wins it. I wouldnt trust any of them to run a bath and the level of personal venom thats being traded is unbelievable. If theres one thing voters hate its a divided party.


And i dont think the fact they're not winning next time is necessarily a bad thing either.


----------



## Santino (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Corbyn doesn't even want to be the Labour leader ffs!
> 
> The whole thing is a farce.
> 
> He thought that he could nudge the victor leftwards by tacking hard left and now he's become the prospective victor and will finally have to take responsibility for his "convictions" on the decks of a sinking ship.


 'hard left'


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 14, 2015)




----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

They've fucked it whoever wins.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

Why would anyone bother predicting what might happen at an election in 5 years? 5 weeks ago corbyn didn't stand a chance, today its the scale of his victory rather than the fact of it that we're waiting to find out. 5 years is a long time, and there's lots can change. Best wait and see.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

Yeah, most of my predictions turn out to be wrong tbh


----------



## chilango (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Why would anyone bother predicting what might happen at an election in 5 years? 5 weeks ago corbyn didn't stand a chance, today its the scale of his victory rather than the fact of it that we're waiting to find out. 5 years is a long time, and there's lots can change. Best wait and see.



Cos if we all just shrugged our shoulders and admitted we haven't got a clue, threads on Urban would be very short and boring.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Why would anyone bother predicting what might happen at an election in 5 years? 5 weeks ago corbyn didn't stand a chance, today its the scale of his victory rather than the fact of it that we're waiting to find out. 5 years is a long time, and there's lots can change. Best wait and see.



Well, I'm going to stick my neck out and say it's not going to be Liz Kendall winning it.


----------



## campanula (Aug 14, 2015)

I confess - I cheerfully stumped up my £3 just to add to the general glee.

If nothing else, the three nitwits just look so appalling - shiny, shiny faces and Burnham's eyebrows (shudder) - they seem to have slipped down the side of his face...plus there is a startling resemblance to those 'moppet' pics popular in Woolworths, circa 1960 - he just needs a little teardrop for the sad puppy look to be complete.  
I have not had so much enjoyment (on the party political front) in years.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Corbyn doesn't even want to be the Labour leader ffs!
> 
> The whole thing is a farce.
> 
> He thought that he could nudge the victor leftwards by tacking hard left and now he's become the prospective victor and will finally have to take responsibility for his "convictions" on the decks of a sinking ship.


I don't buy any of this. This is just the same as the milder stuff found in the Tory press and forced through the Urban75 filter.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Corbyn doesn't even want to be the Labour leader ffs!
> 
> The whole thing is a farce.
> 
> He thought that he could nudge the victor leftwards by tacking hard left and now he's become the prospective victor and will finally have to take responsibility for his "convictions" on the decks of a sinking ship.


Maybe when he decided to run he was just 'having a punt ' but I'd say given his support he'd quite fancy the gig now


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I don't buy any of this. This is just the same as the milder stuff found in the Tory press and forced through the Urban75 filter.


it's diamond, no one buys it. sadly he insists on giving it away.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

chilango said:


> Cos if we all just shrugged our shoulders and admitted we haven't got a clue, threads on Urban would be very short and boring.


Fair enoough - but the whole _labour can't win the next election whatever! a generation of tory rule!_ stuff is just buying into the narrative the rightwing media are pushing - that a shambolic party at war with itself under Corbyn would be the automatic result of a Corbyn win. Considering what's happened so far in this election, that's far from certain to be what happens.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Why would anyone bother predicting what might happen at an election in 5 years? 5 weeks ago corbyn didn't stand a chance, today its the scale of his victory rather than the fact of it that we're waiting to find out. 5 years is a long time, and there's lots can change. Best wait and see.


it is not the urban way


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> They've fucked it whoever wins.


the death of a great british institution  

what will its obituary be? will it be the likes of clement attlee and the foundation of the nhs or will it be clement attlee and the half-arsed partition of india which led to the death of more than a million people?


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Fair enoough - but the whole _labour can't win the next election whatever! a generation of tory rule!_ stuff is just buying into the narrative the rightwing media are pushing - that a shambolic party at war with itself under Corbyn would be the automatic result of a Corbyn win. Considering what's happened so far in this election, that's far from certain to be what happens.



That is the one thing that can be guaranteed to happen, though - if Corbyn does win, the weaselry in the PLP will immediately try to depose him.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

I'm suggesting that it would probably be the result under a burnham or kendall win as well. You can't fling that sort of abuse around publically against fellow contenders and come back easily from it.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the death of a great british institution
> 
> what will its obituary be? will it be the likes of clement attlee and the foundation of the nhs or will it be clement attlee and the half-arsed partition of india which led to the death of more than a million people?



Tony Blair gets his legacy at last


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

agricola said:


> That is the one thing that can be guaranteed to happen, though - if Corbyn does win, the weaselry in the PLP will immediately try to depose him.


I disagree. If he wins with the numbers he's predicted to win with, they'll suck it up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tony Blair gets his legacy at last





Spoiler






 nsfw picture from 1947


----------



## marty21 (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> They've fucked it whoever wins.


In degrees of fuckedness,  I think a narrow win over Corbyn by one of the others (probably eye lashes) would make them more fucked than a Corbyn win . Part of me thinks a Corbyn win would regenerate the party , get back a load of old members who left during the Blair era , and attract a new crew of younger members .


----------



## Belushi (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> clement attlee and the half-arsed partition of india which led to the death of more than a million people?



68 years ago today


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I disagree. If he wins with the numbers he's predicted to win with, they'll suck it up.



Yep, i agree with that. However the damage will have been done. I mean how the fuck can you publically accuse someone of anti-semitism without (so far) any real evidence and expect there to be no comeback after the election if he wins? Or publically say that you wont serve under a government led by him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Belushi said:


> 68 years ago today


yeh and its effects are still being felt - the fallout from e.g. the war between the former east and west pakistans having an effect not only in bangladesh but also in east london where the bangladeshi 'community' divided by it.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 14, 2015)

Is not one of the reasons that nige did so well in the run up to the election is that there was little to choose between labout n tory and he offered an alternative? This being the case,
Corbyn will at least be offering an alternative to the torys and taking labour back towards where they belong. There must be many out there who would go for that,
Anyway, I have put my money up, joined the party to get my vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Is not one of the reasons that nige did so well in the run up to the election is that there was little to choose between labout n tory and he offered an alternative? This being the case,
> Corbyn will at least be offering an alternative to the torys and taking labour back towards where they belong. There must be many out there who would go for that,
> Anyway, I have put my money up, joined the party to get my vote.


labour have always offered an alternative to the tories, even though the alternative has all to often simply been another way of spelling 'tory'.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yep, i agree with that. However the damage will have been done. I mean how the fuck can you publically accuse someone of anti-semitism without (so far) any real evidence and expect there to be no comeback after the election if he wins?


comeback from whom? If there's no substance to it then it's just noise - no-one will take it seriously in significant numbers.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I disagree. If he wins with the numbers he's predicted to win with, they'll suck it up.


If he gets around the 50% mark I'd be very surprised if they try any overt move in the short term. They'll brief against him and try to undermine him of course but they'll play a longer game.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> comeback from whom? If there's no substance to it then it's just noise - no-one will take it seriously in significant numbers.



I mean comeback by him/his support against those in the labour party accusing him of it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

who in the labour party is accusing him of anti-semitism?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> who in the labour party is accusing him of anti-semitism?



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-record-ivan-lewis

This guy for a start


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I disagree. If he wins with the numbers he's predicted to win with, they'll suck it up.



Why would they?  IDS lasted two years, and he was much closer politically to his opponents than Corbyn is to his.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

I met Lewis once. Slimy fuck... but he hasn't accused him of anti-semitism.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

agricola said:


> Why would they?  IDS lasted two years, and he was much closer politically to his opponents than Corbyn is to his.


because if Corbyn wins with 50-60% first prefs, and massive support across all parts of the party (as it currently looks like) then he clearly has a mandate to lead the party - attempting to dethrone him would result in a huge backlash from the membership.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah, most of my predictions turn out to be wrong tbh


You should start predicting you will be right then your previous prediction will in fact be right. Maybe


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

The venom thrown around by all sides is just astonishing, while i think there will be no split, cant see him leaving at all, imo it will take a long time for labour to come back from this tbh in terms of winning an election. Its like the splits in the tories from the ousting of Thatcher onwards, while a new party wasnt formed out of it, the factional infighting and succession of leaders did the tories so much damage that they almost didnt recover from it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

Kaka Tim posted some interesting things in the other thread about the direction things might take - MPs toeing the line under fear of deselection by newly energised CLPs, and democratic input on policy decision by members (if he can push it through - and I think he'll have a mandate to do so).


----------



## emanymton (Aug 14, 2015)

I was thinking today that one of the problems for the labour left is that the right is more willing to damage the party in order to get what they want. 
The right would rather have a Tory in no 10 than Corbyn, while the left would have any labour PM over a Tory one.

This is the game Burnham is playing, positioning himself as the middle grand unity candidate so that if he doesn't win this time he may well be the next Labour party leader.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> because if Corbyn wins with 50-60% first prefs, and massive support across all parts of the party (as it currently looks like) then he clearly has a mandate to lead the party - attempting to dethrone him would result in a huge backlash from the membership.


 and possibly independent Labour candidates running against the anti- corbyn wing at the next election


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I met Lewis once. Slimy fuck... but he hasn't accused him of anti-semitism.


Maybe not, but there's a bit of this and a bit of that, a dancing round the issue, highlighting links with holocaust deniers.  It's what media savvy politicians know they can get away with without making an outright accusation.

edit: to be perfectly honest, if I was a politician and seeking to attack/stop corbyn, it's probably just what I'd do.  It's business as usual. It's also why I'm not a politician.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> and possibly independent Labour candidates running against the anti- corbyn wing at the next election



Yes that seems likely to me. The new-Labour 'pragmatic' logic relies on them keeping all their safe seats while offering the people there nothing. At some point an alternative on the left is going to stick - it doesn't ever look like being any of the various groups of paper-sellers but a Corbyn-style platform could (possibly) do it IMO, in the event they kick him out.


----------



## andysays (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Kaka Tim posted some interesting things in the other thread about the direction things might take - MPs toeing the line under fear of deselection by newly energised CLPs, and democratic input on policy decision by members (if he can push it through - and I think he'll have a mandate to do so).



I read that and it's interesting speculation about how things might go, but at the moment CLPs don't have the ability to deselect, however reenergised they might be - it will require a change in party rules, as will the other aspect of democratic policy making by members.

I don't know (maybe somebody else will be able to clarify) exactly who within the party has the power to change those rules - is it the leader alone, is it the PLP or is it the members by some means or other?


----------



## marty21 (Aug 14, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes that seems likely to me. The new-Labour 'pragmatic' logic relies on them keeping all their safe seats while offering the people there nothing. At some point an alternative on the left is going to stick - it doesn't ever look like being any of the various groups of paper-sellers but a Corbyn-style platform could (possibly) do it IMO, in the event they kick him out.


 I'm trying to think of an example where the Labour party has ousted a leader before allowing them to stand as leader in a general election, can't think of any in recent times (post war) The Tories are far keener at getting rid


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

,


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

Corbyn is explicitly standing on a platform of increased democratic accountability and ending automatic reselection - if he wins by a landslide, the party will struggle to justify going against these changes. 

There's also the boundary changes the tories are certain to push through this parliament, which will result in a new selection process across a huge number of seats anyway... I wouldn't fancy the chances of any MPs who've been caught plotting with a CLP full of new members brought to the party by Corbyn...


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 14, 2015)

chilango said:


> Cos if we all just shrugged our shoulders and admitted we haven't got a clue, threads on Urban would be very short and boring.


everyone should just have listened to me at the start of the thread.


----------



## Patteran (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-record-ivan-lewis
> 
> This guy for a start



Our MP - Blairite, pro Kendall, Labour friends of Israel, representing a constituency with the largest Jewish community outside London - predominantly frum. It's no suprise that he's responded to this. He's not for me, but is reasonably well regarded in the constituency, & gets involved with a variety of local campaigns & good causes.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

Guardian seem to have given up on the rest of the news. Currently running with a big picture of Kendal as their lead story saying a vote for the Corbyn would be a 'resignation letter' - along with the anti-Semitism stuff (using that exact term).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Patteran said:


> Our MP - Blairite, pro Kendall, Labour friends of Israel, representing a constituency with the largest Jewish community outside London - predominantly frum. It's no suprise that he's responded to this. He's not for me, but is reasonably well regarded in the constituency, & gets involved with a variety of local campaigns & good causes.


squeaky frum?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 14, 2015)

Pretty amusing piece from Mark Steel on the "not the likes of you" debacle, and not without its very good points, too:



> Or there’s Simon Danczuk, the MP who has pledged to do all he can to overthrow Jeremy Corbyn from day one of his leadership. I wonder if publicly committing yourself to bringing down the democratically elected leader of the Labour Party could give someone a reason to believe you didn’t support the aims and values of the Labour Party?



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...g-big--what-a-complete-disaster-10454504.html


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

Genuine question to Corbyn supporters -

Working on the most likely basis that he will never achieve office, why support him?

Admittedly the others are rubbish...

Can the party ditch the winner asap in any event and then run a sensible contest?

(but the who the hell is viable?  Such a lack of talent...)


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Genuine question to Corbyn supporters -
> 
> Working on the most likely basis that he will never achieve office, why support him?


err why work on that basis?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Genuine question to Corbyn supporters -
> 
> Working on the most likely basis that he will never achieve office, why support him?


let me stop you there. he has achieved office in 1983, '87, '92, '97, '01; '05, '10 and '15.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Genuine question to Corbyn supporters -
> 
> Working on the most likely basis that he will never achieve office, why support him?



There's about ten really obvious answers to that even if we accept your stupid premise.

Before anyone answers this dick, let Diamond have a go himself.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

Wait a second - is not the point of a parliamentary party leader to achieve the office of prime minister?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

Rhetorical question. Ignore.


----------



## Santino (Aug 14, 2015)

Only in the sense that the point of a gun is to kill people.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Ignore.


the most important word for posters to bear in mind when considering whether to reply to diamond.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Wait a second - is not the point of a parliamentary party leader to achieve the office of prime minister?




no

next


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Rhetorical question. Ignore.


but it isn't, in that the leader of the snp at westminster does not aspire to the post of prime minister, nor do the leaders of the dup or uup.


----------



## Patteran (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-record-ivan-lewis
> 
> This guy for a start



It's a snide, cynical response from Lewis - he knows Corbyn isn't anti Semitic - he could have said so out loud & helped to reduce the nastiness that swirls round allegations like these & does have real consequences. He chose not to.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

No, but I think this is a worthwhile question - is the aim of a parliamentary party to achieve power?

And, if not, what is the aim of that parliamentary party?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

These are critical questions for Labour now.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> These are critical questions for Labour now.



I'm so glad that you are asking them otherwise without your wise intervention none would have considered them


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, but I think this is a worthwhile question - is the aim of a parliamentary party to achieve power?
> 
> And, if not, what is the aim of that parliamentary party?



You need a dictionary not a forum.


----------



## chilango (Aug 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> I'm trying to think of an example where the Labour party has ousted a leader before allowing them to stand as leader in a general election, can't think of any in recent times (post war) The Tories are far keener at getting rid



John Smith.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> These are critical questions for Labour now.


you're a critical question.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> These are critical questions for Labour now.


Or for your GCSE politics assignment?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm so glad that you are asking them otherwise without your wise intervention none would have considered them


He is the wisest person on Urban, for he knows one thing, and that is that he knows nothing.


----------



## chilango (Aug 14, 2015)

chilango said:


> John Smith.



...and I'm being semi-serious.

Corbyn is getting on a bit. 

Being leader will be stressful and draining. 

Being leader whilst constantly having your credibility and legitimacy chipped away by relentless, niggling internal and external opponents (with more power and less scruples) even more so.

Sustained campaign of attrition and let nature take it's course I'm callously speculating on.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Ministerial Cars!


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 14, 2015)

chilango said:


> ...and I'm being semi-serious.
> 
> Corbyn is getting on a bit.


he looks fairly buff in that motorbike picture, mind.  For his age, likes.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

So, I've not been keeping up with this thread, but whats the urban concensus on joining Labour to vote Corbyn?  Has it had the seal of approval, or has it been slagged down hard?

(I've done it, btw - will be happy to explain my reasons if anyone wants me to...)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> So, I've not been keeping up with this thread, but whats the urban concensus on joining Labour to vote Corbyn?  Has it had the seal of approval, or has it been slagged down hard?
> 
> (I've done it, btw - will be happy to explain my reasons if anyone wants me to...)


i'd be happy not to hear them if it's all the same to you.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Wow, Robert Webb is a bit of a cunt


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow, Robert Webb is a bit of a cunt


Not_ really_ a surprise.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

*Left-winger Jeremy Corbyn is 'first choice for Londoners'
*
Jeremy Corbyn is today revealed as the first choice of ordinary Londoners to lead the Labour Party — defying claims that his appeal is limited to Left-wingers and trade unionists.

An exclusive YouGov poll for the Evening Standard reveals he has more support among the London public than his nearest rivals, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, put together.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...n-is-first-choice-for-londoners-a2633546.html


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow, Robert Webb is a bit of a cunt



Not surprising from someone who is a plummy sounding posh cunt.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> *Left-winger Jeremy Corbyn is 'first choice for Londoners'
> *
> Jeremy Corbyn is today revealed as the first choice of ordinary Londoners to lead the Labour Party — defying claims that his appeal is limited to Left-wingers and trade unionists.
> 
> ...



'Ordinary Londoners' not being left wingers or trade unionists of course.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Not surprising from someone who is a plummy sounding posh cunt.



Yeah he's a millionaire upper-middle-class Oxbridge graduate. More than a bit of calculated self-interest at play here.

Also he writes/wrote for the Torygraph


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow, Robert Webb is a bit of a cunt



That's funny, I remember him mewling not long ago about how everyone who didn't vote in elections was a tacit Stalinist. Apparently this is also true of anyone who votes in ways he disapproves of following his two whole years as a (hugely active, I'm sure) Labour Party member.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> That's funny, I remember when he was mewling how everyone who doesn't vote is a proto-Stalinist - apparently this is also true of people who vote in ways he doesn't like.



Usually true of the 'if you don't vote in X election I have decided is important then you are spitting on the grave of a group of people I only have the vaguest of understandings of' types


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 14, 2015)

Edit: Urban seems to have had a hiccough while I was editing


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow, Robert Webb is a bit of a cunt


Yes, I had a little interaction with him yesterday evening on twatter; I wasn't impressed.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

So back to the real world... are there any visible signs of the Corbyn campaign on the ground where you all are?

I'm not in Sheffield but a friend who is has told me that there has been phone banking and a stall in the city centre in the past couple of weeks. Sounds like it's the 'usual suspects' who are campaigning for him and some very, very recent converts from the usually terrible Sheffield Green Party


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

Apparently he deleted this one....


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 14, 2015)

Robert Webb's in the same bracket as Bragg, Linehan, Honest, etc


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Apparently he deleted this one....



Why delete that one in particular I wonder, it's not like it's any worse than the rest


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Why delete that one in particular I wonder, it's not like it's any worse than the rest



"He is a cunt".


----------



## marty21 (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Genuine question to Corbyn supporters -
> 
> Working on the most likely basis that he will never achieve office, why support him?
> 
> ...


 can you give me the lottery numbers for tonight?if you have such a great crystal ball .

tvm


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> So back to the real world... are there any visible signs of the Corbyn campaign on the ground where you all are?


Yeah, there's a phone bank on Wednesdays in a cafe in town run by local labour left / TU types. I didn't go so I can't say who was manning the phones.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Favelado said:


> "He is a cunt".



oh lol

I think I need extra coffee today...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

Webb seems to be taking his role, as part-time scribbler of inconsequential tosh for the NS, quite seriously. very party line.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> oh lol
> 
> I think I need extra coffee today...


Also denied that Blair & Straw were war criminals...on the grounds that they had not yet been convicted!


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

He's constantly accused of being "Bennite" and "Marxist". Does Corbyn have any policies that would have been to the left of John Smith? I'm confused as to what the truth is after reading so much smear. Is the NATO policy true or is it mud-slinging?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Also denied that Blair & Straw were war criminals...on the grounds that they had not yet been convicted!



He seems to have a real hard on for the old imperialism thing, then again the Blairite press has really been punching that angle for the past 48 hours as a talking point

I love the use of language, it is so weird, the repeated description of Corbyn as 'anti-internationalist' because he is against NATO. It's very Spiked Online I think.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Favelado said:


> He's constantly accused of being "Bennite" and "Marxist". Does Corbyn have any policies that would have been to the left of John Smith? I'm confused as to what the truth is after reading so much smear. Is the NATO policy true or is it mud-slinging?



He is critical of NATO, has talked about withdrawal in the past


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Also denied that Blair & Straw were war criminals...on the grounds that they had not yet been convicted!



I was going to post something along the lines of 'look at these people who are also definitely "not war criminals" on that basis,' and apparently Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are still 'on trial' and have been for years. Somehow I don't think they'll be getting round to Blair any time soon.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 14, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)




----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd be happy not to hear them if it's all the same to you.



Sure.  So the first thing to say is that I don't have any loyalty to any party at all.  I've voted green and campaigned for them, I've voted tusc and attended socialist party meetings, I'm in the IWW, and have been involved in non-party affiliated grass roots anarchist campaigns over the years.  A political party isn't a football club - you don't pick one and then stick with it for the rest of your life (well, some people do, but I think that's a bit weird...).  My left wing beliefs are wishy-washy and undefined, but my political efforts are essentially to push the country leftward, but I'm not politically knowledgeable enough to have a specific position I want to achieve.  I just try to do my bit to push the country leftward.  

So Corbyn is a Labour MP for 30+ years.  He's supported a party that is not in any sense socialist.  I'm not under any illusions that, if he is successful in his leadership challenge, that he will bring in a new era of a hard left old labour policies.  He won't get a chance, because he will be stabbed in the back and be back on the back benches within a year.  But the unprecedented swell of support for an actual leftist labour leadership candidate has given me some hope - hope that many of the grassroots members - the ones who have stuck with Labour like a football supporter sticks with their club, ie through thick and thin - are actually what I would consider "proper labour", they're not all blairite drones who are happy with the centrist policies of New Labour, many of them would like to be part of a party with principles again.  I think it's a chance for the Labour activists to see how the public reacts to a party with principles beyond "if you don't like the Tories, then we're you're only hope".  

I'm not articulating myself very clearly here, but I'm just thinking that there's an outside chance that if Corbyn wins he might surprise the Labour party machine by capturing the pubic imagination with actual principles.  

I'm not setting my expectations too high, I just think it would be interesting to see how the public react to a labour leader that's actually Labour.

That's so badly written - I've not explained myself well at all.  I might try again tomorrow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> That's so badly written - I've not explained myself well at all.  I might try again tomorrow.


don't put yourself to the trouble.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> don't put yourself to the trouble.



why not?  What are your opinions on signing up to vote for Corbyn?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tbh i dont think labour are winning next time no matter who wins it. I wouldnt trust any of them to run a bath and the level of personal venom thats being traded is unbelievable. If theres one thing voters hate its a divided party.
> 
> 
> And i dont think the fact they're not winning next time is necessarily a bad thing either.


I haven't seen any personal venom spat out from Corbyn. 

I don't think he'll win. Too many people too scared to even try having a left-wing Labour Party. Hope I'm wrong. 

Somebody asked me earlier what proofs of ID the Labour Party want from me; it's basically utility bills plus a passport. But eight weeks to process them means no vote for me or anyone else in Tower Hamlets joining up recently. I joined up a month ago too.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> why not?  What are your opinions on signing up to vote for Corbyn?


Deadline passed. End of.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

scifisam said:


> I haven't seen any personal venom spat out from Corbyn.
> 
> I don't think he'll win. Too many people too scared to even try having a left-wing Labour Party. Hope I'm wrong.
> 
> Somebody asked me earlier what proofs of ID the Labour Party want from me; it's basically utility bills plus a passport. But eight weeks to process them means no vote for me or anyone else in Tower Hamlets joining up recently. I joined up a month ago too.



Not corbyn himself. Some of his supporters on social media.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 14, 2015)

scifisam said:


> /snip
> 
> Somebody asked me earlier what proofs of ID the Labour Party want from me; it's basically utility bills plus a passport. But eight weeks to process them means no vote for me or anyone else in Tower Hamlets joining up recently. I joined up a month ago too.



What's this? They want proof of ID etc.? I missed this bit. Could you expand/link for me please?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Deadline passed. End of.



well I signed up a month ago, so expecting my ballot over the next few days.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

scifisam said:


> I haven't seen any personal venom spat out from Corbyn.
> 
> I don't think he'll win. Too many people too scared to even try having a left-wing Labour Party. Hope I'm wrong.
> 
> Somebody asked me earlier what proofs of ID the Labour Party want from me; it's basically utility bills plus a passport. But eight weeks to process them means no vote for me or anyone else in Tower Hamlets joining up recently. I joined up a month ago too.


much as I laugh at shennanigans because it amuses me to see the process derailed sometimes, that must right hack you off that you can't vote because rahman and co were cowboying the electoral process


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> why not?  What are your opinions on signing up to vote for Corbyn?


why not? because i have no interest in your opinion on this subject.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> why not? because i have no interest in your opinion on this subject.



I'm interested in yours though.  What are they#?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

Tbh i think, 'good luck and everything, but...'


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> well I signed up a month ago, so expecting my ballot over the next few days.


Oh, right. Who yer voting for, then?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 14, 2015)

If labour are going to deliberately make it that difficult for new supporters to vote to the extent of it taking eight weeks to register why the hell would you want to get involved with a party which treats the public and the democratic process with such contempt?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Oh, right. Who yer voting for, then?



Corbyn


----------



## spitfire (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> If labour are going to deliberately make it that difficult for new supporters to vote to the extent of it taking eight weeks to register why the hell would you want to get involved with a party which treats the public and the democratic process with such contempt?



It cost me £3
I was drunk
I didn't know they were going to do that as my crystal ball was broken.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm interested in yours though.  What are they#?


i think there is no point in signing up to vote for corbyn


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> If labour are going to deliberately make it that difficult for new supporters to vote to the extent of it taking eight weeks to register why the hell would you want to get involved with a party which treats the public and the democratic process with such contempt?


Are they making it difficult? Verifying the new sign-ups and booting out obvious piss-takers and supporters of other parties seems ok to me. If they're saying it'll take 8 weeks to verify anyone from Tower Hamlets then they need to sort that out, but it's not unreasonable to take special care with sign ups from there, considering (irritating though it may be for Sam)


----------



## spitfire (Aug 14, 2015)

And me, I'm TH as well.


----------



## belboid (Aug 14, 2015)

andysays said:


> I read that and it's interesting speculation about how things might go, but at the moment CLPs don't have the ability to deselect, however reenergised they might be - it will require a change in party rules, as will the other aspect of democratic policy making by members.
> 
> I don't know (maybe somebody else will be able to clarify) exactly who within the party has the power to change those rules - is it the leader alone, is it the PLP or is it the members by some means or other?


if Cameron pushes the boundary changes through, almost every seat will be 'new' - hence 'deselection' wont come into it, because no MP will be an MP for the new constituency


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Genuine question to Corbyn supporters -
> 
> *Working on the most likely basis that he will never achieve office,* why support him?



Show your working please.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> why not? because i have no interest in your opinion on this subject.



Also, I wasnt only asking for your opinion, more the general consensus.  What has been said on this thread about it? It's too long to go back through everything.  What have other people said?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tbh i think, 'good luck and everything, but...'


thats where I'm at. God speed you Corbyn, but you aren't FC


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Also, I wasnt only asking for your opinion, more the general consensus.  What has been said on this thread about it? It's too long to go back through everything.  What have other people said?




good luck but the right of your own party will eat you mainly. Although I think we should listen to rutabowa as his delphic skills have proven prescience is no myth


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

The other thing, they took £10 out of my account.  I signed up as a member not a supporter cos I didn't read the options right.  I have emailed them repeatedly asking for my money back and have been ignored.  They are well shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Also, I wasnt only asking for your opinion, more the general consensus.  What has been said on this thread about it? It's too long to go back through everything.  What have other people said?


you want to know what other people have said? http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/labour-leadership.334737/


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Show your working please.



Good question!

I am admittedly entering into the world of soothsaying here but I would wager that Corbyn would certainly not command a majority in England and Wales and would struggle further still in Scotland and Norn Iron.

Happy to be persuaded otherwise.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you want to know what other people have said? http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/labour-leadership.334737/



I was, possibly cheekily, hoping someone could précis the general points that have been made in favour and not in favour of signing up to vote.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> thats where I'm at. God speed you Corbyn, but you aren't FC


*Nobody* could replace Frank Carson.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 14, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> *Nobody* could replace Frank Carson.



It's the way he told them


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I was, possibly cheekily, hoping someone could précis the general points that have been made in favour and not in favour of signing up to vote.


the deadline has passed. there are now no arguments in favour of signing up to vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> *Nobody* could replace Frank Carson.


or edward carson


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> *Nobody* could replace Frank Carson.


Did he miss the "K"?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the deadline has passed. there are now no arguments in favour of signing up to vote.



Still time to sign up to endorse Tessa Jowell for Mayor though, right?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Still time to sign up to endorse Tessa Jowell for Mayor though, right?


there's no one in that queue.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> If labour are going to deliberately make it that difficult for new supporters to vote to the extent of it taking eight weeks to register why the hell would you want to get involved with a party which treats the public and the democratic process with such contempt?


It's not actually the LP's fault; they were doing the same thing months ago and they are quite busy right now. It's because of voter fraud in my borough, doesn't apply to other areas. It's still annoying to be denied a vote because someone else committed fraud.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Did he miss the "K"?


It was special.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm interested in yours though.  What are they#?





Jon-of-arc said:


> Also, I wasnt only asking for your opinion,


you don't know what you want.


----------



## chilango (Aug 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tbh i think, 'good luck and everything, but...'



I think you're being a touch generous there!

I can't even get as far as "good luck" if I'm honest.

A plague on all their houses.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't know what you want.



I'm sensing a lot of hostility, Pickmans.  Have I upset you?  

I was interested in your opinion, but also in the opinion of the entire forum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm sensing a lot of hostility, Pickmans.  Have I upset you?


no


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm sensing a lot of hostility, Pickmans.  Have I upset you?
> 
> I was interested in your opinion, but also in the opinion of the entire forum.



He's always hostile, noticing it is a bit like noticing that the sea is wet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

scifisam said:


> It's not actually the LP's fault; they were doing the same thing months ago and they are quite busy right now. It's because of voter fraud in my borough, doesn't apply to other areas. It's still annoying to be denied a vote because someone else committed fraud.


I dunno what would be the bigger crime- incompetence in vote rigging or the fall out disenfranchising me effectively. And to compound it all, the inept bastards let eric pickles have reason to come sniffing round TH. Inexcusable.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no



FWIW, the thing with the welsh language thread the other day was supposed to be a wind-up, but it quickly became apparent that it's a much touchier subject than I had anticipated, so I bowed out as gracefully as I could.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> FWIW, the thing with the welsh language thread the other day was supposed to be a wind-up, but it quickly became apparent that it's a much touchier subject than I had anticipated, so I bowed out as gracefully as I could.


i wish you wouldn't carry beefs across threads.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Good question!
> 
> I am admittedly entering into the world of soothsaying here but I would wager that Corbyn would certainly not command a majority in England and Wales and would struggle further still in Scotland and Norn Iron.
> 
> Happy to be persuaded otherwise.



It's possible a Labour party led by Corbyn would lose an election against Cameron/Osbourne's tories. But it's a point of fact that the Labour party, led by Blairites, has already lost two consecutive elections against them. It's also a point of fact that Labour's current trajectory has already cost them the whole of Scotland. 

To say Corbyn _can't_ win is an obvious lie, and I've yet to see it backed up with anything resembling an argument.

You can say that you think he's unlikely to win, but for that to be relevant you'd have to explain why you think Burnham or Cooper or Comedy Option would be more likely to win than he is. None of the Corbyn-haters want to talk about this either, because they know it's a lot easier to sell the idea of Corbyn as a communist mole sent forwards in time by Krushchev than it is to sell the idea of any of the rest of them winning the public's hearts and minds. Liz Kendall couldn't even win a Liz Kendall lookalike competition ffs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> FWIW, the thing with the welsh language thread the other day was supposed to be a wind-up, but it quickly became apparent that it's a much touchier subject than I had anticipated, so I bowed out as gracefully as I could.



Generally speaking it's not that graceful to remind others of how graceful you are.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> FWIW, the thing with the welsh language thread the other day was supposed to be a wind-up, but it quickly became apparent that it's a much touchier subject than I had anticipated, so I bowed out as gracefully as I could.



Had you not encountered welsh people before


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Had you not encountered welsh people before


he said he found the sound of their language very funny.


----------



## Santino (Aug 14, 2015)

YouSir said:


> He's always hostile, noticing it is a bit like noticing that the sea is wet.


Do fish notice that the sea is wet?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's possible a Labour party led by Corbyn would lose an election against Cameron/Osbourne's tories. But it's a point of fact that the Labour party, led by Blairites, has already lost two consecutive elections against them. It's also a point of fact that Labour's current trajectory has already cost them the whole of Scotland.
> 
> To say Corbyn _can't_ win is an obvious lie, and I've yet to see it backed up with anything resembling an argument.
> 
> You can say that you think he's unlikely to win, but for that to be relevant you'd have to explain why you think Burnham or Cooper or Comedy Option would be more likely to win than he is. None of the Corbyn-haters want to talk about this either, because they know it's a lot easier to sell the idea of Corbyn as a communist mole sent forwards in time by Krushchev than it is to sell the idea of any of the rest of them winning the public's hearts and minds. Liz Kendall couldn't even win a Liz Kendall lookalike competition ffs.



While not disagreeing outright, there are a couple of points to flag up here.

First, the Labour party has not lost two elections (Brown, Miliband) under Blairites.  That is completely wrong.

Second, no English politican from an English party will ever win back Scotland until the SNP cock up governing north of Berwick-upon-Tweed.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> First, the Labour party has not lost two elections (Brown, Miliband) under Blairites.  That is completely wrong.



Which part of it is wrong?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> While not disagreeing outright, there are a couple of points to flag up here.
> 
> First, the Labour party has not lost two elections (Brown, Miliband) under Blairites.  That is completely wrong.
> 
> Second, no English politican from an English party will ever win back Scotland until the SNP cock up governing north of Berwick-upon-Tweed.


your political acumen does not surprise me.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Second, no English politican from an English party will ever win back Scotland until the SNP cock up governing north of Berwick-upon-Tweed.



Show your working please.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> he said he found the sound of their language very funny.



I'm not crossing beef, because I don't have any beef.  I was just taking the piss, and people took it WAAAY worse than I thought they would.  I don't find the welsh language that funny.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm not crossing beef, because I don't have any beef.  I was just taking the piss, and people took it WAAAY worse than I thought they would.  I don't find the welsh language that funny.


not any more anyway


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I was just taking the piss



Kindly take it, and yourself, elsewhere.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Which part of it is wrong?



Brown and Miliband are not Blairites!


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> your political acumen does not surprise me.



Wow - you are a tenacious little terrier, aren't you?

Yapping away across the boards, in dismal fashion...


----------



## Belushi (Aug 14, 2015)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm not crossing beef, because I don't have any beef.  I was just taking the piss, and people took it WAAAY worse than I thought they would.  I don't find the welsh language that funny.



Good, 'cos I've got my beady welsh eye on you now bechgyn


----------



## Argonia (Aug 14, 2015)

Even Zac Goldsmith says that Corbyn might surf the zeitgeist - assuming he doesn't flop.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-zeitgeist-warns-zac-goldsmith-10455102.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

'capturing the zeitgeist'

uncanny, theres a new ghostbusters film comin out soon (all female team as well)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Brown and Miliband are not Blairites!



Why not? Did they oppose privatisation, support progressive taxation, call for an increased minimum wage and inrcreased protections for workers? Because I can't remember them doing any of that, or indeed opposing any of the core tenets of Blairism.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

Can someone please confirm?   Do I need to do a second, third, forth preference or can I leave blank?

I really do not want to be voting for any of those three Tory lite plonks


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why not? Did they oppose privatisation, support progressive taxation, call for an increased minimum wage and inrcreased protections for workers? Because I can't remember doing any of that.


did brown not indeed serve as chancellor from 1997 to 2007 under er tony blair?


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Can someone please confirm?   Do I need to do a second, third, forth preference or can I leave blank?
> 
> I really do not want to be voting for any of those three Tory lite plonks


you can leave them blank


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> did brown not indeed serve as chancellor from 1997 to 2007 under er tony blair?



I think he might have done now that you mention it.

Miliband also served under Brown as minister for polar bears and quinoa.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Can someone please confirm?   Do I need to do a second, third, forth preference or can I leave blank?
> 
> I really do not want to be voting for any of those three Tory lite plonks



Won't make any difference as the seconds and thirds are only counted if your first choice candidate is eliminated, which Corbyn won't be.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Wow - you are a tenacious little terrier, aren't you?
> 
> Yapping away across the boards, in dismal fashion...


newsflash: you won't find any ENGLISH parties standing in SCOTLAND


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Wow this is real

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...p-in-anticipation-of-corbyn-win-a2633476.html



> A moderate Labour pressure group dubbed “the Resistance” is being formed by two top shadow cabinet members as Jeremy Corbyn pulls ahead in the leadership race, the Evening Standard can reveal.
> 
> Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt have written privately to Labour MPs calling on them to meet four days before the leadership result is announced. It is being seen by MPs as a rival to Mr Corbyn’s Left-wing  platform and the start of guerrilla warfare for Labour’s soul.
> 
> ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

In a New Statesman piece which I shant dignify with a link, Ivan Lewis (Lab, Bury South, Shadow Northern Ireland) says he can not "in all conscience" vote for Corbyn.

However, his conscience did guide him to vote for war crimes, and against investigating them, For ID cards and the database state. And the same hallowed conscience had him abstain on welfare "reform", which will further impoverish disabled people.

It is a dark conscience indeed, the conscience of an utter prick.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Show your working please.



Ok - I'm admit that I'm going on gut instinct here but my previous flatmate, during the referendum, is from Edinburgh and she had a whole bunch of Glaswegian friends, where she went to university, that she spent a lot of time with when she was living with me.  They were top, top people but almost en masse they quit their jobs in London, quit the leases on their flats, sometimes to their disadvantage, and returned North of the border prior to the vote in the expectation that this was a new dawn.

Now - I have no idea how they are doing now and my previous flatmate has now moved in with her sister in Hackney and it's a bit of a sensitive topic as she was a firm "no", but there was something much, much deeper than day-to-day politics going on there.

Scotland will become independent - it is just a matter of time.

I spent four years up in Scotland for university and it is genuinely an independent country, and that's a good thing.

It is, of course, a bad thing for Labour and leftwing politics in England but we just have to live with that...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

moderate lol

repeat the fails to condemn anti-semites (which we all know means he is a great big hater of jewish people). The fucking substandard


----------



## Belushi (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow this is real
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...p-in-anticipation-of-corbyn-win-a2633476.html



The twats


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Ivan Lewis


funnily enough he's the one quoted in the standard article calling corbyn an anti-semite out of the side of his mouth.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow this is real
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...p-in-anticipation-of-corbyn-win-a2633476.html



May be catnip to all those passing voters who might have lost interest after the election was done. Now they have a proper evil enemy to go to constituency meetings and purge. Everyone loves a bit of drama.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

I can't believe that they are calling their thing 'the resistance', it's like something teenagers would come up with


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Why don't they themselves 'the goodies'


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

Rebel Alliance?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

cry freedom from your massive posh houses hunt n chukka. am dram wankers


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

In years to come a horseman will ride into Parliament, sweat on his brow and a tremouring voice. Tristram Hunt has been sighted off the coast of Dover with an army of Guardian readers rallied from their holidays in Provence. Back to restore, by divine right and natural order, the Ancien Regime. May just start buffing my roundhead helmet in preparation...


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> cry freedom from your massive posh houses hunt n chukka. am dram wankers



Resistance against 'the trash'


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow this is real
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...p-in-anticipation-of-corbyn-win-a2633476.html



Good news for the icepick industry, at any rate.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 14, 2015)

Chuka won't do nothing. He pissed his pants on the first day of the leadership election at the thought the press might be trawling through his bins. Tristram Hunt I actually thought he was a paid up member of the Tory party but I'm sure his constituency party will shortly welcome a chance to deselect him.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 14, 2015)

I bet the Scots are really regretting abandoning Labour right now


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow, Robert Webb is a bit of a cunt


Bit harsh.  I think he's utterly wrong but his heart comes from the right place.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 14, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> He is the wisest person on Urban, for he knows one thing, and that is that he knows nothing.


I thought it was the rest of us that knows he knows nothing?


----------



## campanula (Aug 14, 2015)

I do feel quite sick that, apart from the parliamentarian abstainers on urban, for most people, the democratic process of voting in an election has not yet been superceded - and will, at the end of this sorry shambles, be even more utterly discredited. Yes, I get it that Westminster has nothing to offer people who wish to protest against social injustice other than a discredited and tiny mandate for a minority but until there are better forms of representation, it is, at present, what we have...and the naked disgusting self-interest of the LP - well politicos in general...simply removes even this smidgeon of pretend power from an infuriated electorate. True, whatever the outcome, the LP will cease to exist...or at least any effective opposition - much like the US where politics are fought on an endless platform of personalities, faux-morality (a rush to theocracy as a weapon of repression) and a massive warchest of bought puppets who are just shiny toothed fronts for billionaire oligarchs. -


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 14, 2015)

emanymton said:


> I thought it was the rest of us that knows he knows nothing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Ok - I'm admit that I'm going on gut instinct here but my previous flatmate, during the referendum, is from Edinburgh and she had a whole bunch of Glaswegian friends, where she went to university, that she spent a lot of time with when she was living with me.  They were top, top people but almost en masse they quit their jobs in London, quit the leases on their flats, sometimes to their disadvantage, and returned North of the border prior to the vote in the expectation that this was a new dawn.
> 
> Now - I have no idea how they are doing now and my previous flatmate has now moved in with her sister in Hackney and it's a bit of a sensitive topic as she was a firm "no", but there was something much, much deeper than day-to-day politics going on there.
> 
> ...


and nary a word about these mysterious english parties which stamd in scotland. i call bullshit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I bet the Scots are really regretting abandoning Labour right now


Its like watching a carcrash in slo-mo. They've learned nothing from scotland, nothing from the GE defeat overall. Despite being straight out the gates with 'we realise we failed to blah blah'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

campanula said:


> parliamentarian abstainers


spoilers too. I do enjoy drawing a big cock or writing STALIN on the ballot paper. And the local polling station is right next to the shop in a school over the road, so its no hardship, thats how I ended up being one of the mighty 13% who turned out to vote in the PCC elections


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> spoilers too. I do enjoy drawing a big cock or writing STALIN on the ballot paper. And the local polling station is right next to the shop in a school over the road, so its no hardship, thats how I ended up being on of the mighty 13% who turned out to vote in the PCC elections



I quite enjoy throwing the "so did you vote in the PCC elections then?" in the faces of the people who whine about non-voters around GE day


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2015)

Lol

Gordon Brown to speak on Labour leadership as MPs panic over Corbyn



> Labour MPs – among whom support for Corbyn is low – pushing for an intervention from Brown, who they believe has more credibility than Tony Blair...


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Lol
> 
> Gordon Brown to speak on Labour leadership as MPs panic over Corbyn



I think with the membership he probably does have more credibility


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Lol
> 
> Gordon Brown to speak on Labour leadership as MPs panic over Corbyn


I don't know how much influence his last min intervention on scots indyreff had. I do know he promised a raft of new powers that never happened. I do know people in england view him as the also-ran who was in charge when the balloon went up financially worldwide


----------



## teqniq (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I think with the membership he probably does have more credibility


Perhaps so, it's all the hysteria though...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Lol
> 
> Gordon Brown to speak on Labour leadership as MPs panic over Corbyn



Gordon Brown is a war criminal. Open and shut.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't know how much influence his last min intervention on scots indyreff had. I do know he promised a raft of new powers that never happened. I do know people in england view him as the also-ran who was in charge when the balloon went up financially worldwide



Yep. "The Pledge" aka "The Stonecold Fucking Lie".


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 14, 2015)

Steve Coogan comes out for Burnham
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/andy-burnham-jeremy-corbyn-steve-coogan-labour



> He speaks his mind and doesn’t just say what he thinks people want to hear. He wears beige zip-up jackets and vests from the market stall down the road.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

campanula said:


> (a rush to theocracy as a weapon of repression


just to pick this one up, in my humble opinion that shit won't play in british politics. Tony the recusant never went so far as US pols do on the openly god bothering because it doesn't play well here. IMO. Wheras the US has the bible belt and masses of christians who actually believe, not just CofE for duty or what we might term 'culturaly christian'. They mean it.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Steve Coogan comes out for Burnham
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/andy-burnham-jeremy-corbyn-steve-coogan-labour



Wow they really are rushing out all the celebs, Izzard next I imagine


----------



## campanula (Aug 14, 2015)

No, I know that, Dottie, but the preponderance of 'morality' themes - the undeserving poor, migrant vermin, scroungers, idlers, wasters kind of chimes along with a politics based on emotions, faith, non-rational nasty stuff which is all over the US with the foaming rabidity regarding abortion for example...and not just as a religious 'sin' but as a moral failing of women in general.


----------



## campanula (Aug 14, 2015)

Noticing something of a silence from the nitwit Brand...or am I missing something.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

campanula said:


> No, I know that, Dottie, but the preponderance of 'morality' themes - the undeserving poor, migrant vermin, scroungers, idlers, wasters kind of chimes along with a politics based on emotions, faith, non-rational nasty stuff which is all over the US with the foaming rabidity regarding abortion for example...and not just as a religious 'sin' but as a moral failing of women in general.



You aren't wrong, US style culture wars are here to misdirect people's anger on bullshit and it's working.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Steve Coogan comes out for Burnham
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/andy-burnham-jeremy-corbyn-steve-coogan-labour



Ironic really, I could see Burnham doing almost anything to be liked, give him five years and he'll be on Radio Norwich doing the night shift. Shame though, I like Steve Coogan.


----------



## JimW (Aug 14, 2015)

There's this bit in the Coogan article:


> The membership polls that everyone’s talking about have obscured other polls that haven’t had enough coverage. They have shown repeatedly that Burnham is the most popular candidate among Labour voters, the voting public in every part of the country, and among voters from all other parties. Corbyn trails far behind in fourth place. Our bearded comrade cannot and will not deliver the Labour government that this country needs from 2020.


Have we had those polls posted here and I missed them?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

JimW said:


> There's this bit in the Coogan article:
> 
> Have we had those polls posted here and I missed them?



Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham asked their friends what they thought and the results were as you quoted. Liz Kendall didn't have any. Well, she said her best friend had had to move to another town so they couldn't meet them but they really hated Corbyn so they should be counted. Andy and Yvette didn't believe her though.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Lol
> 
> Gordon Brown to speak on Labour leadership as MPs panic over Corbyn


"A funny thing happened on the way to Granita..."


----------



## campanula (Aug 14, 2015)

what's the matter with these people? Can they not hear what they are saying...'arrogant and deluded'...that's us, the people in the street, you know, people who vote (but not, of course, how we are being told to do by our betters'). Surely every article, every self-serving celeb just emphasises the absolute problem at the heart of politics...that there is no longer even a pretense of adequate representation for huge swathes of the populace since those who are supposedly 'representing ' us seem to think we have no right to speak out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

campanula said:


> what's the matter with these people? Can they not hear what they are saying...'arrogant and deluded'...that's us, the people in the street, you know, people who vote (but not, of course, how we are being told to do by our betters'). Surely every article, every self-serving celeb just emphasises the absolute problem at the heart of politics...that there is no longer even a pretense of adequate representation for huge swathes of the populace since those who are supposedly 'representing ' us seem to think we have no right to speak out.


shut it and vote labour in 2020  this is no time for disunity


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

JimW said:


> There's this bit in the Coogan article:
> 
> Have we had those polls posted here and I missed them?


There have been some...like this one...
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/burnham-ahead-among-labour-voters


> Opinium’s first major poll of the Labour leadership contest suggests that Andy Burnham is the preferred choice among Labour voters with Liz Kendall back in fourth place. However many said they would have no reaction to any of the candidates winning, suggesting a high level of apathy from voters.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2015)

Nye will be smiling from above.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2015)

Some fans earlier.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

I would deffo buy a second hand cortina from Burnham. I'd walk into the showroom, cocksure negotiator. But his personable charm and shiny eyes would make me nod along as I payed cash money for a lemon and also signed up for vehicle recovery, insurance and so on.Is that who we want as labour leader? a man who could shift motors onto naifs like me? No. No it is not


----------



## campanula (Aug 14, 2015)

jesus christ, (the new TV - am still reeling) - have just sat through 5 minutes of Liz Kendall  and am even more stunned and disgusted - she has the substance of a fucking rice-cake and is barely fit to run a village fete bun stall.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> Some fans earlier.


 
Mark Steel and Mark Thomas; who are the other two?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

Mark Thomas -  "A man who bullies receptionists" (Chris Morris)


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

Isn't it Alan Titchmarsh on the left?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

Result, i am now banned from Tory Liz's Facebook page. Just wanted to know if she had any policies or any new ideas apart from not liking Corbyn.  

Bit surprised really as there is far worse stuff posted and she is getting a proper tanking on there


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...hip-most-popular-candidate-voters-all-parties



> Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than the other Labour leadership candidates with the wider electorate and fares particularly well with Ukip supporters as well as those from his own party, a Survation poll suggests.
> 
> The survey of 1,000 people found that Corbyn scored the highest when they were asked about his personal qualities and which candidate would be the best at holding the government to account as the leader of the opposition.
> 
> ...



The ability to appeal to the left behind voters who have defected to UKIP will be pretty crucial


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

YouSir said:


> In years to come a horseman will ride into Parliament, sweat on his brow and a tremouring voice. Tristram Hunt has been sighted off the coast of Dover with an army of Guardian readers rallied from their holidays in Provence. Back to restore, by divine right and natural order, the Ancien Regime. May just start buffing my roundhead helmet in preparation...



Tristram rested a hand on the pommel of his sword. He could afford the comfort of calmness now, he was home, at last, in sight of the great white cliffs of Dover. At the peak of which lay the crown of his expectations.

On the estates and farms, in shops and factories, branches of Waitrose and office blocks, his people awaited him. Desperate to break the shackles cast upon them by the Usurper, the thief, the rabble rouser who'd driven out their one true leader, him.

Yes, the time of his absence had been hard on them. Yoked to the plough of Corbyn, forced to dark Labours by his rabid followers who held no regard for the ancient rights of their betters. Bullied by uncouth barbarians in donkey jackets, flat caps and conspicuous by their refusal to wear a tie like they should. How could they not dream of his return? Singing the forbidden hymns in quiet moments, hidden from the heavy glare of thuggish union boot boys culled from the degenerate masses. Reciting tracts of virtue and Agas smuggled to them by the resolute exiles of Comment is Free as if the beacon of civility could keep them warm in their long, hard Autumn of discontent. Oh what triumphs would be declared! What exultations of joy would be heard when their rightful ruler delivered to them the treasures of sensible private sector involvement and true consensus government in the realm!

And to the traitors? The agitating barrow boys, reckless youths and belligerent peasantry? A swift death. For a true ruler could not be without mercy. And the ten thousand screaming Guardian readers at his back would see that their resistance would be but fleeting. Recruited from their poor exile in Provence with barely half a tonne of Quinoia and a copy of 'Unspeakable Things' to their name their blood-lust shocked even Tristram himself.  Especially that of the Lady of Kendall, who by her own hands had already shed the blood of many a Corbynite whilst he himself had sought refuge in exile, alongside the Lord Chukka and his strange coterie of tabloid intriguing adherents. But their loyalty was treasured and did they not have cause enough for revenge? Was it not their investment properties that had been rent controlled? Their free schools that had been handed back to the vile masses? Necessity demanded that they be offered flesh in payment for such slights. And, as ever, justice was a ruler's duty. As was resistance.

Tristram smiled to himself. The end was nigh and_ things could only get better_.

--

I have time on my hands, don't judge me...


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...hip-most-popular-candidate-voters-all-parties
> 
> The ability to appeal to the left behind voters who have defected to UKIP will be pretty crucial



I came across rather a lot of lefty UKIP supporters before the election which baffled me at first but I sort of get it now. They will be back as Farage has pretty much had his day unless he pulls off some credibility in the EU referendum. 

The ability to appeal to the huge numbers who did not bother to vote for anyone because it was a choice between Tory and Tory lite will also be very very crucial. There seems to be only one candidate connecting with them.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> I came across rather a lot of lefty UKIP supporters before the election which baffled me at first but I sort of get it now. They will be back as Farage has pretty much had his day unless he pulls off some credibility in the EU referendum.
> 
> The ability to appeal to the huge numbers who did not bother to vote for anyone because it was a choice between Tory and Tory lite will also be very very crucial. There seems to be only one candidate connecting with them.



Even if Farage (rhymes with Garage) does well on the referendum if Corbyn were at least acknowledging the idea of a 'Out' vote a lot of those voters would still have a more natural home to go to. Whether he will or not I'm skeptical.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Even if Farage (rhymes with Garage) does well on the referendum if Corbyn were at least acknowledging the idea of a 'Out' vote a lot of those voters would still have a more natural home to go to. Whether he will or not I'm skeptical.



I think he has already hasn't he?


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

Actually not quite but it may be enough to placate a lot of those voters

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ws-fire-position-future-britain-eu-membership


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> I think he has already hasn't he?



He has, but this is now, not as leader. I've got time for Corbyn but not so much as to start believing the things politicians say.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> I came across rather a lot of lefty UKIP supporters before the election which baffled me at first but I sort of get it now. They will be back as Farage has pretty much had his day unless he pulls off some credibility in the EU referendum.
> 
> The ability to appeal to the huge numbers who did not bother to vote for anyone because it was a choice between Tory and Tory lite will also be very very crucial. There seems to be only one candidate connecting with them.



Worth reading


----------



## andysays (Aug 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> if Cameron pushes the boundary changes through, almost every seat will be 'new' - hence 'deselection' wont come into it, because no MP will be an MP for the new constituency



So how will the new selection process work and who will have the final say? 

What generally happens IIRC is that the standing MPs in the area are all found a new seat as close as possible to their old one where they have a decent chance of winning, with the (new remember so not necessarily united) CLPs frequently being over-ruled by the central party.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Tristram rested a hand on the pommel of his sword. He could afford the comfort of calmness now, he was home, at last, in sight of the great white cliffs of Dover. At the peak of which lay the crown of his expectations.
> 
> On the estates and farms, in shops and factories, branches of Waitrose and office blocks, his people awaited him. Desperate to break the shackles cast upon them by the Usurper, the thief, the rabble rouser who’d driven out their one true leader, him.
> 
> ...


alt history novel needs writing


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> alt history novel needs writing



Just revised it to include our Lady of Kendall too, then realised I was getting carried away and went back to arguing on Twitter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Second, no English politican from an English party will ever win back Scotland until the SNP cock up governing north of Berwick-upon-Tweed.


name these english parties standing in scotland then (3rd time of asking): your silence speaks volumes


----------



## Zabo (Aug 14, 2015)

Burnham on _Any Questions _now_. _Trying to sound 'nice' while spinning for himself. He's just dissed Cooper and Kendall.

They need a Clap-O-Meter

Repeated tomorrow.


----------



## Santino (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I would deffo buy a second hand cortina from Burnham. I'd walk into the showroom, cocksure negotiator. But his personable charm and shiny eyes would make me nod along as I payed cash money for a lemon and also signed up for vehicle recovery, insurance and so on.Is that who we want as labour leader? a man who could shift motors onto naifs like me? No. No it is not


But you'll buy any car, DotCom.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

Santino said:


> But you'll buy any car, DotCom.



*Applauds*


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> name these english parties standing in scotland then (3rd time of asking): your silence speaks volumes


do tory and labor count? or are they specifically Scottish Labour or Scottish Conservative?

cos I thought there was no organisational seperation of significance between Slab and Elab. I might have thought wrong tho, would not be the first time


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Santino said:


> But you'll buy any car, DotCom.


*buys Santino a pint of cheap lager*


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> do tory and labor count? or are the specifically Sctottish Labour or Scottish Conservative?
> 
> cos I thought there was no organisational seperation of significance between Slab and Elab. I might have thought wrong tho, would not be the first time


tory and labour both british parties: they organise throughout britain.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

The inevitable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=31&v=7E6H0BhBrAA


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Burnham on _Any Questions _now_. _Trying to sound 'nice' while spinning for himself. He's just dissed Cooper and Kendall.
> 
> They need a Clap-O-Meter
> 
> Repeated tomorrow.


who's caught a dose?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Burnham on _Any Questions _now_. _Trying to sound 'nice' while spinning for himself. He's just dissed Cooper and Kendall.
> 
> They need a Clap-O-Meter
> 
> Repeated tomorrow.


*kicks tyres*


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

> Commenting on today's polls, a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's campaign said:
> 
> "We do not usually comment on polls, but given the debate about who is best placed to win, it is worth noting the following. The national Survation poll and the YouGov poll of Londoners both point to an emerging, clear fact – that Jeremy Corbyn reaches voters beyond Labour’s existing vote, and that he has a strong electability-factor based on his ability to take on David Cameron and stand up for ordinary people. These polls show the value of leadership – straight-talking politics that give people hope and a real sense that winning with a better kind of politics is possible."


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> who's caught a dose?


Not Cooper for certain, she's quite literally Balls deep


----------



## Zabo (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> who's caught a dose?



LOL


----------



## Sifta (Aug 14, 2015)

In the mainstream post-GE pontification, the actual voting results in England and Wales - Lab increase, Tory flat, Libdem obliterated - were ignored in favour of the 'Lab needs to be more right wing' message. In fact it was the red kippers who were decisive then, and are likely to be next time. Corbyn needs to throw them a bone or two


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

That new poll is fucking hilarious, every argument the right of the party have been making about electability, appealing to non-labour voters, 'credibility' has been torpedoed. They've got nothing now.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 14, 2015)

Next week's Any Questions has Corbyn and Toynbee. I look forward to listening unless she's been burned at the stake beforehand.

Burnham is totally shameless. No matter the question he manages to add 'When I'm leader...'


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I can't believe that they are calling their thing 'the resistance', it's like something teenagers would come up with


Totally indicative of the twats though. Just utterly subsumed in their little Westminster bubble.


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

they aren't calling their thing 'the resistance', that was a joke by an unnamed labour MP


----------



## killer b (Aug 14, 2015)

their actual name for their thing, 'Labour for the Common Good' sounds a bit stalinist to me.


----------



## Sifta (Aug 14, 2015)

Common Purpose surely?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> their actual name for their thing, 'Labour for the Common Good' sounds a bit stalinist to me.



Are they sure Corbyn hasn't set that up as a euphemism for his Gulag? Sounds like a trap to me.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 14, 2015)

A Different Class


----------



## JimW (Aug 14, 2015)

Sifta said:


> Common Purpose surely?


Joint enterprise


----------



## YouSir (Aug 14, 2015)

JimW said:


> Joint enterprise



Joint _Entrepreneurs_. S'aspirational, y'see?


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> who's caught a dose?



Lord Sewell, probably.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 14, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Joint _Entrepreneurs_. S'aspirational, y'see?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Bakunin said:


>


grass and posho


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 14, 2015)

The dead posh grass roots resistance thing.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 14, 2015)

If you've affliated through your union to vote check your emails. I've just been given 72 hours on a Friday afternoon to prove I'm on the electoral register. I should manage it but the timing seems a bit fishy to me


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> If you've affliated through your union to vote check your emails. I've just been given 72 hours on a Friday afternoon to prove I'm on the electoral register. I should manage it but the timing seems a bit fishy to me


piece of piss if you kept your voting card or recent e.r. reg form


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> piece of piss if you kept your voting card or recent e.r. reg form



Which I didn't and lots of other people won't have either. And it's less the ease of proving it - my council will no doubt provide me a letter - it's noticing the email and sorting it by Monday afternoon from a demand sent very close to 5pm on a Friday.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> He is critical of NATO, has talked about withdrawal in the past



And in fact was very rarely critical of NATO before the adventures in former Yugoslavia. A lot of his criticism is about what NATO became, not about the existence _per se_ of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

Corbyn has delivered his ten point plan this evening in Glasgow in front of hoardes of Scots, whilst the others have not really delivered much at all today


Growth not austerity – with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all - let the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden to balance the books.
A lower welfare bill through investment and growth not squeezing the least well-off and cuts to child tax credits.
Action on climate change - for the long-term interest of the planet rather than the short-term interests of corporate profits.
Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector - privatisation has put profits before people.
Decent homes for all in public and private sectors by 2025 through a big housebuilding programme and controlling rents.
No more illegal wars, a foreign policy that prioritises justice and assistance. Replacing Trident not with a new generation of nuclear weapons but jobs that retain the communities’ skills.
Fully-funded NHS, integrated with social care, with an end to privatisation in health.
Protection at work – no zero hours contracts, strong collective bargaining to stamp out workplace injustice.
Equality for all – a society that accepts no barriers to everyone’s talents and contribution. An end to scapegoating of migrants.
A life-long national education service for decent skills and opportunities throughout our lives: universal childcare, abolishing student fees and restoring grants, and funding adult skills training throughout our lives
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/jeremy_corbyn_launches_standing_to_deliver


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

I want to hear more about his backtracking on Clause 4 to be honest, in his justification for that he seemed to be hinting at supporting worker co-ops in lieu of top down nationalisations but that hasn't made it on to the top 10.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> That new poll is fucking hilarious, every argument the right of the party have been making about electability, appealing to non-labour voters, 'credibility' has been torpedoed. They've got nothing now.



I dunno about that poll. I wonder if he's just in the lead through little more than name repetition. And the others being shit of course.


----------



## agricola (Aug 14, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I dunno about that poll. I wonder if he's just in the lead through little more than name repetition. And the others being shit of course.



The influence of the sterling efforts that Blair, Campbell, Umunna and the rest have put in to opposing him has probably helped him to be more popular as well, lets not forget.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

agricola said:


> The influence of the sterling efforts that Blair, Campbell, Umunna and the rest have put in to opposing him has probably helped him to be more popular as well, lets not forget.




It's true. If The Warcrim-In-Chief said I was that big a threat to whatever, I'd probably never need to buy another meal or drink in public ever again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Its like watching a carcrash in slo-mo. They've learned nothing from scotland, nothing from the GE defeat overall. Despite being straight out the gates with 'we realise we failed to blah blah'.



Like most public relations specialists, Hameron included, Labour's front bench can't quite bring themselves to believe that their message is wrong, so they fiddle around the edges and gabble _mea culpas_ for the failure, all the while cursing the stupid plebs who weren't convinced by their shallow charlatanry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> Which I didn't and lots of other people won't have either. And it's less the ease of proving it - my council will no doubt provide me a letter - it's noticing the email and sorting it by Monday afternoon from a demand sent very close to 5pm on a Friday.


see if your local archives open tomorrow and if so visit them and note down your e.r. ref.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's true. If The Warcrim-In-Chief said I was that big a threat to whatever, I'd probably never need to buy another meal or drink in public ever again.


you think the death squads would be put on you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


>


at least 2 should be disciplined then


----------



## Fingers (Aug 14, 2015)

The Blarites are getting battered into the ground if this poll is to be believed, all this talk of him making an unelectable party unelectable.....

http://news.sky.com/story/1536004/voters-more-likely-to-choose-corbyn-led-labour


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Corbyn has delivered his ten point plan this evening in Glasgow in front of hoardes of Scots, whilst the others have not really delivered much at all today
> 
> 
> Growth not austerity – with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all - let the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden to balance the books.
> ...


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> see if your local archives open tomorrow and if so visit them and note down your e.r. ref.



That's helpful - have managed to unearth May's poll card so I'm ok, I wonder how many people will only notice the email on Monday.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> That's helpful - have managed to unearth May's poll card so I'm ok, I wonder how many people will only notice the email on Monday.


tbh in the not too distant past the labour party got a load of current electoral registers so they could prove if you were on there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> hoardes


hordes


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Just revised it to include our Lady of Kendall too, then realised I was getting carried away and went back to arguing on Twitter.


Lady Morgana, shurely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Corbyn has delivered his ten point plan this evening in Glasgow in front of hoardes of Scots, whilst the others have not really delivered much at all today
> 
> 
> Growth not austerity – with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all - let the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden to balance the books.
> ...


clearly this means corbyn is a red menace who must be destroyed by- *gasp* the Resistance!

The arrogance of those wanks to take up such a name.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tristram hunt's a cunt













Separated at birth? I think we should be told...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> Separated at birth? I think we should be told...


dk about separated  just sorry not smothered at birth


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

How did Chucky know all this was going to happen?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And in fact was very rarely critical of NATO before the adventures in former Yugoslavia. A lot of his criticism is about what NATO became, not about the existence _per se_ of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.


can't really find much to fault in that- as I'm sure you know NATO was formed to cohere the various arms and armies of western europe in opposition to the warsaw pact countries. Not to be an international military force that operates outside the bounds of the UN. I mean, they called the league of nations a paper tiger but when the fuck have the blue helmets actually sorted anything out? never. Watched the rwandan massacre and did nothing.

But that doesn't give NATO the right to go around acting like the armed wing of dominant capitalist nations now does it. Standardised ammo. Thats the sole good thing they did (for a given value of good obvs).


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 14, 2015)

Amazing to think JC is likely to win and could in fact be a runner to win the next election...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


>


But the wording of 3 is such that any old fucker from the past can rock-up and spew as much shite as they like. Tonight's award for bile & bollux must go to old dribblechops himself...


> Lord Hattersley, the former Labour deputy leader, told The Telegraph that Mr Corbyn would have no right to “impose” his views on the party as he called on MPs to openly rebel against his policies should he win.


No, cos obviously that's never happened before, has it?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 14, 2015)

I think that the demonstration of naked contempt towards democracy on the part of Labour MPs is going to be very healthy in the long run


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I think that the demonstration of naked contempt towards democracy on the part of Labour MPs is going to be very healthy in the long run



Not just toward democracy but towards vast swathes of their own base. It's one thing to disagree with the bloke and campaign for opponents, quite another to constantly insult the majority of people who even make the party what it is.

Now, it's often the case that revolutions are followed by civil war, and I don't think victors should fire the first shot in this case (or that Corbyn will, I expect he will/would be quite conciliatory). But if the coup faction kicks off I hope there are moves to de select them very quickly indeed. Some rebellion is one thing, lord knows Corbyn has done enough of it himself. But full blown insurrection would better be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly by the grassroots.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Amazing to think JC is likely to win and could in fact be a runner to win the next election...



Sorry, but it's amazing that anyone thinks he _could _be a runner to win the next election.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry, but it's amazing that anyone thinks he _could _be a runner to win the next election.


Well, if he were to be leader of Her Majesty's Loyal opposition come the 2020 GE, he would, by definition be a 'runner' in the 'race'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I think that the demonstration of naked contempt towards democracy on the part of Labour MPs is going to be very healthy in the long run


pasokification. I really don't get them, I just don't. I'm thick as two short planks and call things wrong all the time but these people drawing their MP's 50k a year are somehow unable to see which way the wind blows. Lunatics.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 15, 2015)

From a thread elsewhere:


"...apart from single-handedly doubling Labour's supporter base, forcing the other candidates into defining themselves against him, making all the headlines, and topping the polls amongst the general public, what makes Corbyn a serious candidate?

It's like that time Livingstone told the party to do one, and utterly failed to be mayor of London."


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

One thing that I hadn't considered until now is how well (in a very relative sense) Socialist Appeal and Socialist Action will do out of a Corbyn victory. They must expect their numbers to (in a relative sense, again) swell


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 15, 2015)

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-1ccb-A-herald-of-new-and-exciting-times-1-2#.Vc5_-vlVhHw


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry, but it's amazing that anyone thinks he _could _be a runner to win the next election.


you must be right, because all the papers are saying it, and all the new labour big cheeses.

How could someone who actually knows what he's talking about possibly stand a chance of convincing the public that Cameron and Osbourne have been engaged in emporers new clothes style economics for the previous 10 years, that have cost the country hundreds of billion in lost GDP (by then), cut wages in real terms, flogged even the kitchen sink to their funders at knock down prices.... nah that could never work, best to just tow the tory line and hope it's not as bad as most economists are predicting.


----------



## oryx (Aug 15, 2015)

Well, I must admit that when I started this thread I never imagined it would go this way (Labour leadership that is). 

Blairites and 'New Labour-ites' shitting themselves. 

A massive groundswell of support for something different.

It's exciting. Who'd have thought it?


----------



## Zabo (Aug 15, 2015)

She's becoming more pathetic as each day passes by. If she can't handle Social Media she certainly wouldn't last long as leader. Good to see the G keeping up with yet more anti-Corbyn drivel.

"Liz Kendall has hit out at the “vitriolic” bullying she has suffered in the Labour leadership race but vowed that she would not allow personal smears and online abuse to derail her campaign.

The shadow minister said she was a “warm-hearted tough cookie” who was strong enough to take the knocks.

But she said some party members and supporters who were guilty of engaging in “horrible” attacks while at the same time decrying the Tories for “divisive rhetoric” should be “called out”."

In full

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...uld-be-called-out-over-vitriolic-online-abuse


----------



## damnNAFTA (Aug 15, 2015)

I found this amusing....


> “Tell me what you think is more radical,” she asked: “spending billions of pounds we haven’t got switching control of some power stations from a group of white middle aged men in an energy company to a group of white middle aged men in Whitehall as Jeremy wants, or extending Sure Start, giving mothers the power and confidence to transform their own lives and transform their children’s lives for years to come?"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hoice-now-Jeremy-Corbyn-or-Yvette-Cooper.html


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

yvette cooper said:
			
		

> Tell that to the working parents on tax credits about to lose thousands of pounds who cant afford new school shoes for the autumn term.



Erm... Wasn't corbyn the only leadership candidate to vote against this measure?


----------



## dendrite (Aug 15, 2015)

damnNAFTA said:


> I found this amusing....
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hoice-now-Jeremy-Corbyn-or-Yvette-Cooper.html



Still processing that one in bemusement - the folding of private vs public ownership into a pure gender/race/age issue.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 15, 2015)

Zabo said:


> She's becoming more pathetic as each day passes by. If she can't handle Social Media she certainly wouldn't last long as leader. Good to see the G keeping up with yet more anti-Corbyn drivel.
> 
> "Liz Kendall has hit out at the “vitriolic” bullying she has suffered in the Labour leadership race but vowed that she would not allow personal smears and online abuse to derail her campaign.
> 
> ...



What form of social media would be the best if one wanted to vitriolically abuse her do you think?


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

The comments section of that article would be a good start.


----------



## JimW (Aug 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> hordes








"We'd like to give you this leaflet on Jeremy's ten-point plan"


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2015)

Zabo said:


> She's becoming more pathetic as each day passes by. If she can't handle Social Media she certainly wouldn't last long as leader. Good to see the G keeping up with yet more anti-Corbyn drivel.
> 
> "Liz Kendall has hit out at the “vitriolic” bullying she has suffered in the Labour leadership race but vowed that she would not allow personal smears and online abuse to derail her campaign.
> 
> ...


Kendall's continued presence in the contest can only improve Corbyn's chance of winning. The fact that neither the candidate herself, nor her team, has had the political acumen to withdraw demonstrates as much ineptitude as hubris. Corbyn may well have much to thank Kendall for.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2015)

Mind you, according to Survation's polling, some people do see positive qualities in La Kendall!






Most "*normal*", second most "*in touch with people*" and *"trustworthy"*...but not the most *"intelligent"* or "*charismatic*"...and certainly not "*tough*" (cookie or otherwise).

Cooper's polling is pretty poor.


----------



## JimW (Aug 15, 2015)

What doctors write as NFNL, "normal for New Labour".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 15, 2015)

Still, 80% of people think Kendall is intelligent. To me she she comes across as someone who is perpetully afraid that someone will ask her what 'MP' stands for and she'll have to admit that she doesn't know.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 15, 2015)

tbf i think she comes across better than cooper who reminds me of an enthusiastic but slightly patronising schoolteacher


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> tbf i think she comes across better than cooper who reminds me of an enthusiastic but slightly patronising schoolteacher


"Slightly"?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 15, 2015)

'Oh no, Andy, that was silly wasnt it? Oh look what youve done, we're gonna have to clear it all up now. Oh whats that you have there Jeremy? Thats a nice picture, but you'll have to try a little bit harder if you want to win the competition'


----------



## rekil (Aug 15, 2015)

I assume being "Tough" means being able to make "hard decisions" and we all know what that entails.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

What does Corbyn's strong support among UKIP voters say to those who write them all off as racist idiots?


----------



## Zabo (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> The comments section of that article would be a good start.



Indeed. When I posted there were no comments. And in just a few hours there's over 1,400.

I don't know if the photo on the article is recent but she's either in need of a good sleep or she's off to a Panda Lookalike Party.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 15, 2015)

Zabo said:


> I don't know if the photo on the article is recent but she's either in need of a good sleep or she's off to a Panda Lookalike Party.



Wtf? What the fuck has her appearance got to do with anything?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

free spirit said:


> How could someone who actually knows what he's talking about possibly stand a chance of convincing the public that Cameron and Osbourne have been engaged in emporers new clothes style economics for the previous 10 years, that have cost the country hundreds of billion in lost GDP (by then), cut wages in real terms, flogged even the kitchen sink to their funders at knock down prices.



Sadly true, he couldn't, at least not enough to get Labour elected.

Polls today are suggesting that Labour could win a 'staggering' 32% of the vote in 2020 with JC as leader. Labour are supposed to be a party of government FFS, not an eternal opposition.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

That isn't what the poll says.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sadly true, he couldn't, at least not enough to get Labour elected.
> 
> Polls today are suggesting that Labour could win a 'staggering' 32% of the vote in 2020 with JC as leader. Labour are supposed to be a party of government FFS, not an eternal opposition.



And polls, as we learned at the last general election, are never wrong.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

And it isn't what the poll said.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sadly true, he couldn't, at least not enough to get Labour elected.
> 
> Polls today are suggesting that Labour could win a 'staggering' 32% of the vote in 2020 with JC as leader. Labour are supposed to be a party of government FFS, not an eternal opposition.



Pointless observation really. Polls 5 years before the election about someone who isn't even leader of their own party yet. About as meaningful as an Andy Burnham speech.


----------



## andysays (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> What does Corbyn's strong support among UKIP voters say to those who write them all off as racist idiots?



If I was a Guardian columnist, I'd probably say it was further proof that Corbyn was a dangerous extremist who appeals to racist idiots, and that the important task of choosing the Labour leader shouldn't be trusted to the ignorant masses, but should instead be left to sensible right-thinking people such as Guardian columnists and their friends.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> And it isn't what the poll said.



But is it what the poll said? I think we shoud be told.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> But is it what the poll said? I think we shoud be told.



My inside sources say no, it isn't. But shush, don't tell anyone.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

The poll said that 32% or respondents (the highest score of all the candidates) would be more likely to vote labour with corbyn in charge. Completely different to what Hertford suggested, and tbh totally meaningless when applied to a general election in 5 years time.


----------



## andysays (Aug 15, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> But is it what the poll said? I think we shoud be told.



It may have been linked to already, but what poll are we talking about here (and what *does* it say  )?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> The poll said that 32% or respondents (the highest score of all the candidates) would be more likely to vote labour with corbyn in charge. Completely different to what Hertford suggested, and tbh totally meaningless when applied to a general election in 5 years time.



So not completely different to what I said.

Labour will need around 40% of the vote to win a majority in 2020, what do you think they'll get with JC as leader?


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

yes, completely different to what you said.


----------



## wtfftw (Aug 15, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> Which I didn't and lots of other people won't have either. And it's less the ease of proving it - my council will no doubt provide me a letter - it's noticing the email and sorting it by Monday afternoon from a demand sent very close to 5pm on a Friday.


Noddle credit reports say if you're on the electoral roll. Probably not acceptable proof and pretty detailed on other info but still, possible avenue.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

As for what vote Corbyn would get in 2020, who knows?

What we _do_ know is that with the entire establishment and media against him, and before he's had the opportunity to give more than a brief outline of the policies he'd like to introduce, before he's faced Cameron at the dispatch box and before he's really made much impression on the public at large, he's the candidate who most people think would make them more likely to vote Labour, the candidate most popular with the general public and the candidate with the biggest support within the party - by a huge margin.

I don't know if that means he can win against the tories come 2020, but it certainly utterly contradicts the other candidates (and media, and establishment) claims that his policies are not credible with the British public, and that he can't win - by the numbers there, if Corbyn can't win then the others can't win either, and they'll lose harder.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 15, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Still, 80% of people think Kendall is intelligent. To me she she comes across as someone who is perpetully afraid that someone will ask her what 'MP' stands for and she'll have to admit that she doesn't know.


Exactly that.  That's a point I made earlier.  It's how _dim_ she is that I find the most depressing angle of the fact that anybody would even nominate her.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 15, 2015)

I ended up paying three quids for the right to vote, by the way. It was late, I'd had a wine or two, I thought wha the fuck.

I'm now being bombarded with emails begging me to vote for deputies. As if that position means anything at all.


----------



## andysays (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So not completely different to what I said.
> 
> Labour will need around 40% of the vote to win a majority in 2020, what do you think they'll get with JC as leader?



Out of interest (because I'm *still* not sure what poll is being discussed here  ) what are the comparable figures for the other three contenders?

If, as suggested, they are all worse than Corbyn's, that suggests two things

The best leader in electoral terms ATM would be Corbyn
The idea that Labour does better by trying to emulate the Tories/not going too far to the left is no longer one that will work, if it ever was


----------



## Celyn (Aug 15, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I ended up paying three quids for the right to vote, by the way. It was late, I'd had a wine or two, I thought wha the fuck.
> 
> I'm now being bombarded with emails begging me to vote for deputies. As if that position means anything at all.



Cheer up.  If you were Ken Loach or Mark Steel, you'd have been told you were not allowed to vote, cos of not being hip to the values and aims or whatever the phrase is.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

it's this one

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...hip-most-popular-candidate-voters-all-parties

survation bits here: http://survation.com/labour-leadership-latest-survation-video-poll/


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> As for what vote Corbyn would get in 2020, who knows?
> 
> What we _do_ know is that with the entire establishment and media against him, and before he's had the opportunity to give more than a brief outline of the policies he'd like to introduce, before he's faced Cameron at the dispatch box and before he's really made much impression on the public at large, he's the candidate who most people think would make them more likely to vote Labour, the candidate most popular with the general public and the candidate with the biggest support within the party - by a huge margin.
> 
> I don't know if that means he can win against the tories come 2020, but it certainly utterly contradicts the other candidates (and media, and establishment) claims that his policies are not credible with the British public, and that he can't win - by the numbers there, if Corbyn can't win then the others can't win either, and they'll lose harder.



As you say, nobody knows, but the media are presenting this poll as an indication that 32% of voters being _'more likely'_ to vote Labour (instead of _'could'_ if you want to be pedantic) as a triumph for the Corbyn camp, but it isn't, Labour need to be putting forward policies and a candidate for leader who will appeal to voters across the board if they want to replace the tories in 2020 and I can't see JC ever being that candidate, can you? 

At the moment it looks like a huge number of Labour members would rather stay in principled opposition and let the tories continue to eat away at public services well into the next decade.


----------



## andysays (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> As you say, nobody knows, but the media are presenting this poll as an indication that 32% of voters being _'more likely'_ to vote Labour (instead of _'could'_ if you want to be pedantic) as a triumph for the Corbyn camp, but it isn't, Labour need to be putting forward policies and a candidate for leader who will appeal to voters across the board if they want to replace the tories in 2020 and I can't see JC ever being that candidate, can you?
> 
> At the moment it looks like a huge number of Labour members would rather stay in principled opposition and let the tories continue to eat away at public services well into the next decade.



My vague recollection is that you're something of a Blairite (apologies if I've got that wrong).

Who would be your preferred leader, and what do you think their prospects might be at the next GE?


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

I'm not being pedantic, you're just misreading (or misrepresenting, I'm not sure which) the figures from the poll. 

It isn't saying 32% of respondents would vote Labour with Corbyn as leader - it's saying that 32% of respondents would be more likely to vote Labour. 

So within the remaining 68% will be lifelong labour supporters who would vote Labour whatever, and lifelong tory supporters who wouldn't under any circumstances. And within the 32% are people who won't vote labour, but might look more favourably on them under Corbyn - so the 32% doesn't really bear any relation to the usual polling question (_if there was a general election tomorrow which party would you vote for_) as it's a different question, looking for a different answer.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 15, 2015)

i recently attended one of the Corbyn rallies in Scotland.  Although its a difficult assessment to make, i came away with a strong impression that many who had attended were not the usual types who regularly turn out to worthy (or lost) cause meetings. CND were present, but i didn't notice anyone selling socialist papers or seeking to generate support for this or that issue.  Speakers from the floor (i wasn't selected ) raised straight forward matters for Jeremy to answer - a good example being the issue posed by a young women who was concerned about the ongoing denigration of disabled people in the media and more generally, and that she wondered whether it would be possible for a future Corbyn administration to turn that around.  He answered the point meticulously well, accepting the difficulties of the task, but stating in a very forthright way that those at the bottom of society, in particular those less able than most are bearing the brunt of Tory attacks, and that he would attempt to confront the notion that disabled people are fair game for scapegoating by those peddling divisive and disgusting ideas.  The evidence from the rally suggested to me that Corbyn is tapping a deep well of opposition to Conservative Britain, and he is doing it rather well, in quite an understated way.  

i imagine that few could have predicted this might begin to happen - even amongst those who take a keen interest in such matters.  But happening it is. It would surely be a mistake for those on the left who oppose 'parliamentary cretinism' to simply stand and stare as such an opportunity begins to develop?  The trouble is, i can't work out what an appropriate response might be.  Joining Labour would feel like an act of total betrayal of socialist principles.  

Maybe sitting in the armchair wins?


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i recently attended one of the Corbyn rallies in Scotland.  Although its a difficult assessment to make, i came away with a strong impression that many who had attended were not the usual types who regularly turn out to worthy (or lost) cause meetings. CND were present, but i didn't notice anyone selling socialist papers or seeking to generate support for this or that issue.  Speakers from the floor (i wasn't selected ) raised straight forward matters for Jeremy to answer - a* good example being the issue posed by a young women who was concerned about the ongoing denigration of disabled people in the media and more generally, and that she wondered whether it would be possible for a future Corbyn administration to turn that around.  He answered the point meticulously well, accepting the difficulties of the task, but stating in a very forthright way that those at the bottom of society, in particular those less able than most are bearing the brunt of Tory attacks, and that he would attempt to confront the notion that disabled people are fair game for scapegoating by those peddling divisive and disgusting ideas.*  The evidence from the rally suggested to me that Corbyn is tapping a deep well of opposition to Conservative Britain, and he is doing it rather well, in quite an understated way.
> 
> i imagine that few could have predicted this might begin to happen - even amongst those who take a keen interest in such matters.  But happening it is. It would surely be a mistake for those on the left who oppose 'parliamentary cretinism' to simply stand and stare as such an opportunity begins to develop?  The trouble is, i can't work out what an appropriate response might be.  Joining Labour would feel like an act of total betrayal of socialist principles.
> 
> Maybe sitting in the armchair wins?



I thinks this is great news, the sort of people who seem to be getting involved now may be the kind that don't flit from issue to issue for the membership  'dividend' or blithely follow a youth based activism which focusses on the exciting and the immediate, that understands Left politics is a long and often dull slog, I went to a music venue last night, its a very progressive outfit, run by a collective, but usually politics is not discussed, earwigging, all I could hear was 'corbyn', 'corbyn', etc.


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2015)

> Speakers from the floor (i wasn't selected ) raised straight forward matters for Jeremy to answer - a good example being the issue posed by a young women who was concerned about the ongoing denigration of disabled people in the media and more generally, and that she wondered whether it would be possible for a future Corbyn administration to turn that around.



Exactly, at a local Peoples Assembly meeting recently, some of us raised the issue of the crisis in social care, generally there wasn't much interest, the then usual SWP suspects brought up the imminent anti-EDl rally and the buzz began...

btw, not one of them turned up for the social care meeting


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

For someone who often moans about sectarianism and divisiveness on the left, you aren't half a devisive sectarian.


----------



## red & green (Aug 15, 2015)

Blair won election first term on an anti Tory vote alone after the abject misery of the thatcher regime and what followed .

What is happening at the moment in the Labour Party reminds me of a reverse 1982 situation


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sadly true, he couldn't, at least not enough to get Labour elected.
> 
> Polls today are suggesting that Labour could win a 'staggering' 32% of the vote in 2020 with JC as leader. Labour are supposed to be a party of government FFS, not an eternal opposition.


polls today, not polls after 5 years of ripping the tory's economic record to shreds - something milliband and balls gave up attempting after the first couple of years.

Real terms GDP per capita is still below the 2008 peak, 7 years on, making this by far the longest time taken to recover from a recession in post war UK history. It's pretty much undisputable that this has been caused by the choice to implement austerity policies at completely the wrong point in the economic cycle, rather than using government spending to boost economic activity in 2010-12 as should have been done.

Yet not once did I hear the Labour party pointing this out at the last election, and their policies would have simply continued down the same road.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

The poll still doesn't suggest they'll get 32% in 2020 under corbyn.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> The poll still doesn't suggest they'll get 32% in 2020 under corbyn.


agreed. I read your posts after responding to that one.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Exactly, at a local Peoples Assembly meeting recently, some of us raised the issue of the crisis in social care, generally there wasn't much interest, the then usual SWP suspects brought up the imminent anti-EDl rally and the buzz began...
> 
> btw, not one of them turned up for the social care meeting



Its increasingly a big issue


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> can't really find much to fault in that- as I'm sure you know NATO was formed to cohere the various arms and armies of western europe in opposition to the warsaw pact countries. Not to be an international military force that operates outside the bounds of the UN. I mean, they called the league of nations a paper tiger but when the fuck have the blue helmets actually sorted anything out? never. Watched the rwandan massacre and did nothing.



Also have spent decades watching the IDF murder Palestinians and done nothing, plus hundreds of other offences against humanity.



> But that doesn't give NATO the right to go around acting like the armed wing of dominant capitalist nations now does it. Standardised ammo. Thats the sole good thing they did (for a given value of good obvs).



And, to be fair, standardisation would have happened anyway,just later.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> What does Corbyn's strong support among UKIP voters say to those who write them all off as racist idiots?



You ask that like you can't believe that people could easily live with the cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Ole (Aug 15, 2015)

damnNAFTA said:


> I found this amusing....
> 
> 
> > “Tell me what you think is more radical,” she asked: “spending billions of pounds we haven’t got switching control of some power stations from a group of white middle aged men in an energy company to a group of white middle aged men in Whitehall as Jeremy wants, or extending Sure Start, giving mothers the power and confidence to transform their own lives and transform their children’s lives for years to come?"
> ...


What a twat. The clip showed on the news the other day was almost as bad.

"What is more radical? Is it a Labour Party ... to be led again by a leader and a deputy leader who are both white men? Or is it to smash our own glass ceiling, and to get Labour's first elected woman leader, and first woman Prime Minister as well, who is really the radical?! Jeremy or me?!*"
*


We've had a woman Prime Minister Yvette. Remember?


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You ask that like you can't believe that people could easily live with the cognitive dissonance.


What?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> What?



You asked "What does Corbyn's strong support among UKIP voters say to those who write them all off as racist idiots?".
It's fairly obvious that what it says is that UKIP support is a bit more complex than the "UKIP: Gateway drug to fascism" line that has been touted far and wide, but that some commentators still stick with that line.
So, my point is that your question reads like you can't see that such commentators could easily live with the dissonance between what actually *is* (UKIP supporters being somewhat more complex than "racist idiots), and what they want to see (UKIP supporters as simple racist fuckwits).


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> tbf i think she comes across better than cooper who reminds me of an enthusiastic but slightly patronising schoolteacher



I don't think she'd last 5 minutes in a proper job like teaching


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> My vague recollection is that you're something of a Blairite (apologies if I've got that wrong).
> 
> Who would be your preferred leader, and what do you think their prospects might be at the next GE?



Christ, what ever made you think I was a Blairite!?? If I was ever an 'ite' then I was a Bennite, but I've known since the 80s that to get keep the tories out of government Labour needs to appeal across the political spectrum and JC just doesn't do that. He may be flavour of the month at the the moment, but unfortunately not enough British voters will vote for a Labour party led by a 71 year old committed to (among other things) dropping the nuclear 'deterrent'. That's the reality.

For the sick, the elderly, the poor and those of us who support free state funded public services, even a Blairite Labour government is always going to be better than a tory one.

Chuka Umunna would have stood the best chance of winning the next election for Labour but sadly that's no longer an option. None of the other candidates are exactly inspirational, but any one of them could be a potential PM.... although they may have to depend on other factors such the tories fucking up the economy or being in government at the start of another Global downturn, or of the electorate simply being sick of Cameron by then.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You asked "What does Corbyn's strong support among UKIP voters say to those who write them all off as racist idiots?".
> It's fairly obvious that what it says is that UKIP support is a bit more complex than the "UKIP: Gateway drug to fascism" line that has been touted far and wide, but that some commentators still stick with that line.
> So, my point is that your question reads like you can't see that such commentators could easily live with the dissonance between what actually *is* (UKIP supporters being somewhat more complex than "racist idiots), and what they want to see (UKIP supporters as simple racist fuckwits).


Ah, got you. I thought you were saying the ukips had the cognitive dissonance. Probably is a load going on there too, mind.


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So not completely different to what I said.
> 
> Labour will need around 40% of the vote to win a majority in 2020, what do you think they'll get with JC as leader?


What would they get with any of the other three in charge who all score lower than Corbyn in the same survey? I'm not a massive Corbyn supporter, I think the end result is bound to be a disappointment but the vast majority of the labour party has to realise that the reason they're not going to get voted in is because they're not standing for anything but themselves. At least the Tories still represent a class, even if it is the class that wants to destroy us all. Which is why people like Cooper end up spouting nonsensical self contradictory identity politics. They don't actually have a political position on anything except being elected and that will never get them elected.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Chuka Umunna would have stood the best chance of winning the next election for Labour


its not a competition on youth or good looks. Do you think the electorate are fucking idiots?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 15, 2015)

Ole said:


> What a twat. The clip showed on the news the other day was almost as bad.
> 
> "What is more radical? Is it a Labour Party ... to be led again by a leader and a deputy leader who are both white men? Or is it to smash our own glass ceiling, and to get Labour's first elected woman leader, and first woman Prime Minister as well, who is really the radical?! Jeremy or me?!*"
> *
> ...



She said Labour Prime Minister, though it's easy to misread. 

I know someone likely to vote for Cooper because they think Labour could do with a female leader. That's not enough reason for me, and also a terrible female leader would be worse for women than not having one at all, because people tend to criticise all women when one of their gender fucks up.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its not a competition on youth or good looks. Do you think the electorate are fucking idiots?



No I'll leave that think to you.

Unfortunately Corbyn's age _will_ be an issue for many voters and you'd be deluding yourself to think otherwise.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2015)

and its heated up 'women in the boardroom'co-opted feminism scifisam


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No I'll leave that think to you.
> 
> Unfortunately Corbyn's age _will_ be an issue for many voters and you'd be deluding yourself to think otherwise.


so thats a yes


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> and its heated up 'women in the boardroom'co-opted feminism scifisam



Yes, and very few are falling for it which is nice.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)




----------



## andysays (Aug 15, 2015)

Ole said:


> ..."What is more radical? Is it a Labour Party ... to be led again by a leader and a *deputy leader* who are both white men?..."



Harriet Harman and Margaret Beckett may be scratching their balls heads at that one


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 15, 2015)

Ahaha that's a fucking brilliant cartoon, even just for the look on Blair's dead face


----------



## andysays (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Christ, what ever made you think I was a Blairite!?? ...
> 
> ...Chuka Umunna would have stood the best chance of winning the next election for Labour...



Looks like you just answered your own question there...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> Looks like you just answered your own question there...



Looks like you didn't get what I said there...


----------



## redcogs (Aug 15, 2015)

Too old, too nice, too left, too bearded, too CND, too round toed, too soft, too male, too Islington, too dedicated to despots etc etc etc..  

All criticisms from people within his own organisation!

Yet the enormous membership figures insists none of the above matter too much.

Imagine the woeful politics of anybody who seeks to present extraordinary growth in membership and support as problematic and negative.  Fools and charlatans who are contemptuous of democracy.


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

What's the difference between a 'pragmatic' bennite and a blairite? Like, practically, not what's in your immortal souls?


----------



## andysays (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Looks like you didn't get what I said there...



There are a number of possible definitions of "Blairite" but one of his most significant approachs was the idea that the LP had to move right and ape the Tories to win power.

Of the four actual candidates, Corbyn is the furthest from that position, so clearly he gets the thumbs down from you, but apparently none of the others are Tory-like enough for you either, you would prefer Chuka Umunna, arch Blairite, in other words you think that the LP should continue Blair's legacy of aping the Tories. That, whether you like it or not, is the logic of what you're arguing, so it looks like my memory was correct


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> What's the difference between a 'pragmatic' bennite and a blairite? Like, practically, not what's in your immortal souls?



Even neoliberalism's personification Hillary Clinton knows how to play the same 'I would really love to implement full communism but it's about being practical and getting through what we can right now' schtick


----------



## kabbes (Aug 15, 2015)

To put the same argument a different way: Corbyn may or may not win an election.  It's an unknown at this point.  But we can be damn near _certain _that the other three won't.  They represent a bland power-for-its-own-sake Tory-liteness that the electorate have now rejected twice.  The polling backs this up -- Corbyn's popularity may or may not be enough to swing voters behind him... But either way he's still more popular than the others.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> There are a number of possible definitions of "Blairite" but one of his most significant approachs was the idea that the LP had to move right and ape the Tories to win power.
> 
> Of the four actual candidates, Corbyn is the furthest from that position, so clearly he gets the thumbs down from you, but apparently none of the others are Tory-like enough for you either, you would prefer Chuka Umunna, arch Blairite, in other words you think that the LP should continue Blair's legacy of aping the Tories. That, whether you like it or not, is the logic of what you're arguing, so it looks like my memory was correct



You've completely twisted my point. My politics are similar to JC's, but what matters most is getting the tories out of power and only Labour can do that and they can only do it by appealing to the wider electorate.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

maomao said:


> What would they get with any of the other three in charge who all score lower than Corbyn in the same survey? I'm not a massive Corbyn supporter, I think the end result is bound to be a disappointment but the vast majority of the labour party has to realise that the reason they're not going to get voted in is because they're not standing for anything but themselves. At least the Tories still represent a class, even if it is the class that wants to destroy us all. Which is why people like Cooper end up spouting nonsensical self contradictory identity politics. They don't actually have a political position on anything except being elected and that will never get them elected.



What makes you think that most of the Labour Party stand for what JC stands for, or more importantly that enough voters share what he stands for and put Labour into government?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You've completely twisted my point. My politics are similar to JC's, but what matters most is getting the tories out of power and only Labour can do that and they can only do it by appealing to the wider electorate.



Why would anyone vote for Chukka when they could vote for Osborne? If you're trying to sell a manifesto to the right of the 2010 Labour election manifesto as the Labour Party then you have no unique selling point, and short of a major scandal, no chance of being elected. I am sure I am not the only one who has spoken to several people who said that they voted for the Tories because 'they are all corrupt bastards but at least the Tories are competent'.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You've completely twisted my point. My politics are similar to JC's, but what matters most is getting the tories out of power and only Labour can do that and they can only do it by appealing to the wider electorate.



Getting the Tories out isn't the most important thing. Let's break that myth right now. We did that in 1997 and it's just led to Britain becoming a very similar kind of place than it would have done under the Tories anyway. Labour privatised things, didn't invest in housing, started the process of private money being key in the NHS, and promoted greed and selfishness.

It's much more important to start to build an opposition that doesn't get us to the same place as the Tories slightly more slowly.
It's much more important to build an alternative that may bring real change. It's time for politics to have some meaning. The strings of empty sentences from career politicians who only half mean them need to go. Let's have conviction politics that motivates and emotionally connects with people.

Labour has ceased to be a socialist party. It's ceased to be a socially democratic party. It's time to do its job or get out of the way.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

I also very much doubt that many people would want to vote for someone who casually refers to them as trash


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Unfortunately Corbyn's age _will_ be an issue for many voters and you'd be deluding yourself to think otherwise.



Well, that myth has been debunked by the large numbers of young people flocking to his rallies. You've clearly invested heavily in the postmodern idea of politics in which appearances matter more than substance. I think the only one deluding themselves is _you_.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 15, 2015)

The thing that matters most is the mobilisation of significant numbers of people who are committed to ending a social system that's based in privilege inequality and corruption.  Some (maybe many?) in the Corbyn groundswell are winnable to such an understanding, and could be persuaded that a different system of society is worth struggling for - on the streets and picket lines when necessary.

Just getting the Tories out of parliament and replacing them with other red tories wastes the time of everybody (apart from the career oriented Chukka Burnham types).


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

redcogs said:


> The thing that matters most is the mobilisation of significant numbers of people who are committed to ending a social system that's based in privilege inequality and corruption.  Some (maybe many?) in the Corbyn groundswell are winnable to such an understanding, and could be persuaded that a different system of society is worth struggling for - on the streets and picket lines when necessary.



This is what we need to see out of all of this - a translation of this support into a wider social movement which can put boots on the streets for extraparliamentary politics. If this doesn't materialise then it will all have been for nothing imo.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What makes you think that most of the Labour Party stand for what JC stands for, or more importantly that enough voters share what he stands for and put Labour into government?


Jesus H Christ.  You're not actually paying that much attention to what's happening. Have you seen the numbers at Corbyn's rallies?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Getting the Tories out isn't the most important thing. Let's break that myth right now. We did that in 1997 and it's just led to Britain becoming a very similar kind of place than it would have done under the Tories anyway. Labour privatised things, didn't invest in housing, started the process of private money being key in the NHS, and promoted greed and selfishness.
> 
> It's much more important to start to build an opposition that doesn't get us to the same place as the Tories slightly more slowly.
> It's much more important to build an alternative that may bring real change. It's time for politics to have some meaning. The strings of empty sentences from career politicians who only half mean them need to go. Let's have conviction politics that motivates and emotionally connects with people.
> ...



Yeah? How long do you want us to wait for this 'real alternative conviction socialism' to turn up and win an election? I know elderly people who are suffering now, I know teachers who can't wait to retire, young people who can't afford a home or who are going to be paying off their student loans for most of their adult lives.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yeah? How long do you want us to wait for this 'real alternative conviction socialism' to turn up and win an election? I know elderly people who are suffering now, I know teachers who can't wait to retire, young people who can't afford a home or who are going to be paying off their student loans for most of their adult lives.



So how is running a Tory manifesto which doesn't win an election anyway going to help all of them then?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yeah? How long do you want us to wait for this 'real alternative conviction socialism' to turn up and win an election? I know elderly people who are suffering now, I know teachers who can't wait to retire, young people who can't afford a home or who are going to be paying off their student loans for most of their adult lives.


Strangely enough, many elderly people are also flocking to Corbyn's rallies. Do you honestly think the Blairite postmodernists have anything to offer them or young people when they: 1. abstained on the Welfare Bill and 2. walked through the 'aye' lobby with the Tories on the vote for the benefit cap?


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What makes you think that most of the Labour Party stand for what JC stands for, or more importantly that enough voters share what he stands for and put Labour into government?


I didn't say that. I said that the rest of the PLP stand for precisely fuck all and represent no-one except themselves and that won't get them elected.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yeah? How long do you want us to wait for this 'real alternative conviction socialism' to turn up and win an election? I know elderly people who are suffering now, I know teachers who can't wait to retire, young people who can't afford a home or who are going to be paying off their student loans for most of their adult lives.



That's because of the legacy of Labour governments. It's also what Labour would continue to do anyway. _Your_ Labour lost the election anyway so shut up.


----------



## andysays (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You've completely twisted my point. My politics are similar to JC's, but what matters most is getting the tories out of power and only Labour can do that and they can only do it by appealing to the wider electorate.



But you've equated "appealing to the wider electorate" with having Tory-lite Chuka Umunna as the leader, rather than building a vaguely principled alternative to the Tories, which now appears to be getting some support with the very wider electorate you're saying need to be appealed to.

Not only are you a Blairite, you're living in the past if you think that approach will work now or in the future.

ETA: and of course you claim *your* politics are "similar to JC's" but apparently the "wider electorate" aren't able to appreciate them, so they have be offered Tory-lite instead.

Not just a Blairite, but fucking patronising with it


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2015)

An actively left wing opposition would drag the debate to the left and probably result in most people being marginally better off under a Tory government than they would be under a right wing labour government anyway.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> Not only are you a Blairite, you're living in the past if you think that approach will work now or in the future.



This is also important. The idea that Blairites are modernisers is bullshit. Thatcherite neo-liberalism and its variants are now in their 5th decade of British government. It's not consensus so much as dogma.

It's time for something else. We're crying out for a change


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yeah? How long do you want us to wait for this 'real alternative conviction socialism' to turn up and win an election? I know elderly people who are suffering now, I know teachers who can't wait to retire, young people who can't afford a home or who are going to be paying off their student loans for most of their adult lives.



And what will Burnham, Chukka, Cooper, Kendall or Hunt do about any of those things? What did Labour do last time? I qualify as at least one of the things listed and as I recall they did fuck all. Nor do the acolytes of those Tory lite types do anything about it on a local level.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2015)

I have to say the sight of anarchos and kabbes getting pissed and joining the £3 pound club has amused me no end. Not that I'm mocking, its just funny- you've had a drink, you've perhaps partaken of a hempen pipe. Fuck it, its only three quid lol


----------



## redcogs (Aug 15, 2015)

There are probably worse ways of spending £3.00, but i confess that i couldn't bring myself to do it.

Its all a bit conflicting.


----------



## Ole (Aug 15, 2015)

This Tory boy summarises the value of a Corbyn-led Labour Party rather well (presented by him as a warning to #ToriesforCorbyn).

“Corbyn would still have six questions at PMQs. His frontbench would still have a representative on Question Time and Newsnight. His party’s policy announcements and press releases would get just as much news coverage as a credible opposition.

“In short, Labour being Labour, they’ll still have the same platform … The only difference is Corbyn’s views will be more left-wing, so will shift the entire political debate to the left. Long-term, so long as Labour and the Conservatives remain the two major parties in the UK, the only way to make progress is to persuade Labour to accept our position. Our ideas don’t win just when our party does, but when the other party advocates our ideas, too.

“Instead, a Corbyn victory would lend credibility to the far-left … giving a megaphone to their [politics]. Inevitably, this would skew the discourse, letting Corbyn’s ideas become the default alternative to the Conservatives. Corbyn’s brand of socialism would poison the groundwater of British politics for a generation: influencing people, particularly young people, across the political spectrum.

“All of the above applies if he loses the general election. … [But that’s] not a foregone conclusion. Indeed, in 1975, Margaret Thatcher was widely portrayed as ‘unelectable’. Her election as party leader was cheered by Labour as playing to the Conservative base and guaranteeing yet another Conservative defeat. Three general election landslides later, nobody was left worrying about her electability.

“… as Harold Macmillan said, governments can always be undermined by “Events, dear boy, events.” And if he were leader, it would take just one event – from the collapse of the Eurozone to a domestic political scandal – to put Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. For the sake of the country and for the innumerable Conservative achievements he’d unwind, it is important that that option be taken off the table.

“I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn would win the 2020 election – but then I don’t think Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, or Liz Kendall would either. … But there’s always that risk of the unexpected. So while Corbyn doesn’t reduce the risk of Labour winning, he does raise the stakes. And the danger of bringing socialism back to the UK under Jeremy Corbyn is all too real a threat for #ToriesAgainstCorbyn to risk.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...vote-for-Jeremy-Corbyn.-It-wont-end-well.html


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2015)

Ole said:


> Instead, a Corbyn victory would lend credibility to the far-left …


And the Tory victory didn't lend credibility to the far-right? FFS.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2015)

Ole said:


> This Tory boy summarises the value of a Corbyn-led Labour Party rather well (presented by him as a warning to #ToriesforCorbyn).
> 
> “Corbyn would still have six questions at PMQs. His frontbench would still have a representative on Question Time and Newsnight. His party’s policy announcements and press releases would get just as much news coverage as a credible opposition.
> 
> ...



Finally a positive article about Corbyn...


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

it's obviously only one survey, but the data in here (which is borne out by other surveys) shows wide support even within tory voters for much of Corbyn's platform. pages 15 onwards on this pdf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2015)

redcogs said:


> There are probably worse ways of spending £3.00, but i confess that i couldn't bring myself to do it.
> 
> Its all a bit conflicting.



Me niether. In the remarkable chance of a C-Byn in No.10 he'd still need harrying from the left. And anyway I swore I'd never vote labour again over a decade ago.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

Article in the FT, the ruling class is starting to take Corbyn seriously


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2015)

can't read it, can you c&p?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 15, 2015)

> If Britain’s Labour party chooses Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, no historical comparison will do the event justice. Parties have been eccentrically led before — Labour by Michael Foot in the 1980s, the Conservatives by Iain Duncan Smith in the last decade — but this committed socialist, with his taste for nationalisation at home and pacifism abroad, represents another order of stridency altogether.
> 
> Nor does the continental boom in far-left politics offer a point of reference. Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece are scrappy young parties that define themselves against the mainstream. Labour, by contrast, is more than a century old. It has provided five prime ministers since the second world war. The sudden transformation of an established party is more shocking than the eruption of a new one.
> 
> ...


----------



## scifisam (Aug 15, 2015)

maomao said:


> An actively left wing opposition would drag the debate to the left and probably result in most people being marginally better off under a Tory government than they would be under a right wing labour government anyway.


Yup. He would never have ordered his members to abstain on the austerity vote, for example. It's not only the ruling party that determines which bills get passed.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 15, 2015)

FT marxists know that "a part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeoise society", as they often say down the pub.

This article recognises the European dimension to the emerging left opposition to capitals excesses, and suggests they are rattled.  Lets hope this time that their trepidation is well founded, and the side of sanity and social justice will begin the process of forcefully asserting itself.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> But you've equated "appealing to the wider electorate" with having Tory-lite Chuka Umunna as the leader, rather than building a vaguely principled alternative to the Tories, which now appears to be getting some support with the very wider electorate you're saying need to be appealed to.
> 
> Not only are you a Blairite, you're living in the past if you think that approach will work now or in the future.
> 
> ...



Hilarious.

I've been on the Labour left for 35 years and yet here's some wally patronising me and telling me I'm a Blairite simply because I dare to suggest that for the sake of the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable, even a watered down Labour government is always better than a tory government.

Those who say the tory and Labour Parties are exactly the same are deluding themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Christ, what ever made you think I was a Blairite!?? If I was ever an 'ite' then I was a Bennite, but I've known since the 80s that to get keep the tories out of government Labour needs to appeal across the political spectrum and JC just doesn't do that. He may be flavour of the month at the the moment, but unfortunately not enough British voters will vote for a Labour party led by a 71 year old committed to (among other things) dropping the nuclear 'deterrent'. That's the reality.
> 
> For the sick, the elderly, the poor and those of us who support free state funded public services, even a Blairite Labour government is always going to be better than a tory one.
> 
> Chuka Umunna would have stood the best chance of winning the next election for Labour but sadly that's no longer an option. None of the other candidates are exactly inspirational, but any one of them could be a potential PM.... although they may have to depend on other factors such the tories fucking up the economy or being in government at the start of another Global downturn, or of the electorate simply being sick of Cameron by then.



Chuka Umunna, through what some claim was opportunism (to give himself a better chance as leader in 2020), and others claim was cowardice (proximity of media to details about his private life that he didn't want revealed), shot himself in the foot by withdrawing. What he didn't think through was that his action has also marked his card "do not trust" with some of the party faithful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> What's the difference between a 'pragmatic' bennite and a blairite? Like, practically, not what's in your immortal souls?



A Blairite admits to wallowing in neoliberalism. A pragmatic Bennite still wallows, but refuses to admit to it.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Hilarious.
> 
> I've been on the Labour left for 35 years and yet here's some wally patronising me and telling me I'm a Blairite simply because I dare to suggest that for the sake of the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable, even a watered down Labour government is always better than a tory government.
> 
> Those who say the tory and Labour Parties are exactly the same are deluding themselves.


Labour have got fuck all chance with any of the other 3 candidates though.

Corbyn's a wild card, and look at the momentum he's built up in the last couple of months while barely putting a foot wrong, and managing somehow to turn all the mud that's being thrown at him to his advantage. If he can repeat that feat for Labour with the leadership, then there's all to play for at the next election. He's even got supporters coming back to Labour from UKIP, which would be another way of winning seats from the tories rather than chasing tory votes by adopting tory-lite policies.

If you're Labour left, then please don't blow the only chance we'll probably get in this generation of actually getting a prime minister elected who stands for something worth fighting for, rather than just someone who's not quite as bad as the tories but accepts and implements much of their policies anyway.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> The poll said that 32% or respondents (the highest score of all the candidates) would be more likely to vote labour with corbyn in charge. Completely different to what Hertford suggested, and tbh totally meaningless when applied to a general election in 5 years time.



It's an incredibly high figure. People who voted labour last time and will vote labour again if Corbyn wins are not included in that 32%.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chuka Umunna, through what some claim was opportunism (to give himself a better chance as leader in 2020), and others claim was cowardice (proximity of media to details about his private life that he didn't want revealed), shot himself in the foot by withdrawing. What he didn't think through was that his action has also marked his card "do not trust" with some of the party faithful.



The most disgusting thing about Umunna for me is that he was bullied out of standing, but has since chosen to put more effort into slagging off some of his own colleagues, and masses of the Labour base, than the scumpress responsible. 

Time and again in recent weeks, the Labour hierarchy have stood square onside with the Torygraph, Scum etc in their analysis.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Hilarious.
> 
> I've been on the Labour left for 35 years and yet here's some wally patronising me and telling me I'm a Blairite simply because I dare to suggest that for the sake of the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable, even a watered down Labour government is always better than a tory government.
> 
> Those who say the tory and Labour Parties are exactly the same are deluding themselves.



So what did/would your Labour do on the housing situation in London, for example?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The most disgusting thing about Umunna for me is that he was bullied out of standing, but has since chosen to put more effort into slagging off some of his own colleagues, and masses of the Labour base, than the scumpress responsible.
> 
> Time and again in recent weeks, the Labour hierarchy have stood square onside with the Torygraph, Scum etc in their analysis.



Chuka *implies *that he was bullied out of standing, as do media outlets that support him.
However, he has a long history of political opportunism, so the claims (by those close to him, as well as enemies) that he found a reason not to run - in order to give him a clearer field and be untainted by what has turned out to be a cluster-fuck - are tenable, even though they're not (yet) provable.


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Christ, what ever made you think I was a Blairite!??


You utter bullshitter. On what issue do you agree with Benn. You supported a Lib-Lab alliance, you support the EU, you argued for NATO intervention in Libya. You might want to think that you're not a liberal but you're fucking deluded. You're basically Polly Tonybee's godson, arguing how dreadful neoliberalism is but actually fighting for it every step of the way.



Andrew Hertford said:


> Chuka Umunna would have stood the best chance of winning the next election for Labour but sadly that's no longer an option. None of the other candidates are exactly inspirational, but any one of them could be a potential PM.... although they may have to depend on other factors such the tories fucking up the economy or being in government at the start of another Global downturn, or of the electorate simply being sick of Cameron by then.


Yeah cause Chuka really following the Bennite path. Christ.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I have to say the sight of anarchos and kabbes getting pissed and joining the £3 pound club has amused me no end. Not that I'm mocking, its just funny- you've had a drink, you've perhaps partaken of a hempen pipe. Fuck it, its only three quid lol


There's a point in the evening when principles go out the window and three quid is good value to join in the fun and frolics.  To say, "I was there"


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> There's a point in the evening when principles go out the window and three quid is good value to join in the fun and frolics.  To say, "I was there"


when the shit went down. In Grenada. No I'd have been tempted myself if it wasn't for my visceral loathing of the labour party. Its not that they won't deliver full communism, thats never been their bag and we'd have to dig some pretty big lime pits to deal with those who objected to FC. Its just...FABIAN CUNTS


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

had you partaken of the healing herb that night as well? Cos its clearly a factor in getting weary leftos to vote for the spry corbyn


----------



## oryx (Aug 16, 2015)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Those who say the tory and Labour Parties are exactly the same are deluding themselves.



I do agree with that to a large extent - e.g. under the last Labour government there was the minimum wage, there was Sure Start and Decent Homes, and since then we've had the bedroom tax and savage cuts due to the supposed 'need' for austerity which I believe is ideologically driven, i.e. throttling the public sector while pumping up the private.

However as someone on the left I saw the last Labour government as too right-wing and authoritarian e.g. the PFI and ID cards.

But what a lot of people are feeling is that the current thinking of the Labour Party is too centrist and they are desperately trying to look like the party of 'hard-working families' and to cosy up to business interests.

The unexpected populist move to the left is to be welcomed. Hard-won fights around working conditions and equality of opportunity are being eroded (quite frighteningly so) and to be a credible alternative for the 99%, the Labour Party needs to move left.


----------



## agricola (Aug 16, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Corbyn's a wild card, and look at the momentum he's built up in the last couple of months while barely putting a foot wrong, and managing somehow to turn all the mud that's being thrown at him to his advantage. If he can repeat that feat for Labour with the leadership, then there's all to play for at the next election. He's even got supporters coming back to Labour from UKIP, which would be another way of winning seats from the tories rather than chasing tory votes by adopting tory-lite policies.



The quality of mud being thrown at him is awful, though - the best meme that the other three and their media chums can come up with is that he is advocating policies which are impossible to achieve, despite many of them (student grants, nationalized rail and power generation, affordable public housing, a strengthened NHS etc) having existed within the past twenty-five years, costing much less than the "privatized" versions do now, and they are all policies which all score well with the public now (and nearly every time they have been asked their opinion down the years).


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

agricola said:


> The quality of mud being thrown at him is awful, though - the best meme that the other three and their media chums can come up with is that he is advocating policies which are impossible to achieve, despite many of them (student grants, nationalized rail and power generation, affordable public housing, a strengthened NHS etc) having existed within the past twenty-five years, costing much less than the "privatized" versions do now, and they are all policies which all score well with the public now (and nearly every time they have been asked their opinion down the years).


burnham has broken ranks and also said he'd renationalise rail. Because that doesn't at all look desperate. Christ the lib dems were touting that one when they were actually a thing. Cheap, cheap politicking. It'd be nice to get a train without having to sacrifice 90% of my disposable income for that month yeah. Burnhams just grasping at straws tho


----------



## agricola (Aug 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> burnham has broken ranks and also said he'd renationalise rail. Because that doesn't at all look desperate. Christ the lib dems were touting that one when they were actually a thing. Cheap, cheap politicking. It'd be nice to get a train without having to sacrifice 90% of my disposable income for that month yeah. Burnhams just grasping at straws tho



What he actually said was that he would allow the public sector to bid for franchises when they came up for renewal, which is an even worse proposal than just keeping the status quo.


----------



## murphy1970 (Aug 16, 2015)

Probably posting this in the wrong thread, but the one question that interests me regarding Corbyn's successful march to the LP leadership is how this will impact on the left north of the border.
From my own experiences on Twitter he has sparked quite a reaction from SNP loyalists. They have went out of their way to denounce him as a Red Tory, on the sole basis that he is a unionist. I remain convinced of the case for the break up of the British state, but it is inarguable that Corbyn is miles to the left of the SNP and this is the cause of the fear in their ranks.
What do other posters predict for the future of the LP north of Hadrian's wall?
I think they're doomed myself, for two reasons - 1 the election of Kezdale which is itself a reflection of the soul less Blairism of party in Scotland and 2 LP's permanent stain for their horrendous decision to share a platform/cause with Tories in Better Together
As a member of the SSP I hope that the Left Project can make inroads in the forthcoming Scottish election whilst retaining a realistic sense of what can be achieved


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

I think labour have had their day in scotland. Regardless of the indy question. Scotlands had a gutful. And if the labour right eviscerate corbyn just because, then they will see the same here. You don't have to be a non-unionist to despise the parties who claim to represent it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

agricola said:


> What he actually said was that he would allow the public sector to bid for franchises when they came up for renewal, which is an even worse proposal than just keeping the status quo.


mealy mouthed maggotry from the dealer in second hand austin allegros


----------



## murphy1970 (Aug 16, 2015)

I still find myself shell shocked at how quickly and completely Labour have vanished north of the border. For years they could safely put up anyone and be assured of a thumping victory, a process rapidly being replicated by the SNP, who will suffer the same fate in a few years (hopefully).
As someone introduced into politics via Benn's arguments for Democracy/Socialism in my early teens and a member of AWL in the early 90s, I am a natural Corbyn supporter and find it perverse that he stands a very good shot at LP leadership.
As the Chinese proverb says - or as I paraphrase it - we live in interesting times. A resurgent left in LP in England, a left completely divided over EU, Scotland swept away by fake left nationalist fervour, feck knows what will happen next.


----------



## Celyn (Aug 16, 2015)

dp


----------



## Celyn (Aug 16, 2015)

murphy1970 said:


> ...
> From my own experiences on Twitter he has sparked quite a reaction from SNP loyalists. They have went out of their way to denounce him as a Red Tory, on the sole basis that he is a unionist...



I've seen a lot of tweets along the lines of "Corbyn good, because will oppose the Tories, which the current Labour lot aren't doing" - that sort of thing. I've seen tweets saying he doesn't really get Scotland and his fondness for the Union is a pain, but I haven't seen anyone call him a red Tory.  Then again, I'm probably not using Twitter in a particularly clever way.  I think most would welcome Corbyn as Labour leader, as it's really important to get some opposition to the current 'kill the poor' plans.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2015)

What I find so irritating about the Blairites is their complete refusal of their Party's history. Worse, they've completely ignored their recent electoral history: Brown and Miliband failed to ignite voters' imaginations and lost the elections of 2010 and 2015 respectively. But they'll complain Corbyn is unelectable (when he's won larger majorities than his challengers in his Islington North constituency). Even worse, Gordon Brown, who was a failure at the ballot box, will be speaking today about the "dangers" of a Corbyn-led Labour Party. This from the man who said he wanted "British jobs for British workers".


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 16, 2015)

I really don't think cooper is aware of how she comes across. That or she genuinely believes the electorate are all total morons who will swallow anything. Of Corbyn's economic policy she said:

"I don't think the answer is what Jeremy has proposed, which is basically printing money that we haven't got to build things."

I feel like I'm three years old but I know what the grown up is telling me is absolute bollocks.


----------



## campanula (Aug 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> had you partaken of the healing herb that night as well? Cos its clearly a factor in getting weary leftos to vote for the spry corbyn



I admit it - I certainly had...as I do most nights (and days)...but I would like to think this was not the sole reason for stumping up the cash (although, out of all the endless 38degree and Change e.mails requesting donations, I have only actually dipped in my pocket to 'save our bees'


----------



## ska invita (Aug 16, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> basically printing money that we haven't got to build things."


I think he has said something to that effect - why should banks do QE, when we could do targeted QE on infrastructure projects


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 16, 2015)

ska invita said:


> I think he has said something to that effect - why should banks do QE, when we could do targeted QE on infrastructure projects


I think he did, yes but he's mentioned borrowing at low interest as well, which is what a government should do at times of poor output to invest in infrastructure etc. Which one he'll do is unclear but what does cooper offer? Just more austerity and support of all the Tory cuts.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 16, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I think he did, yes but he's mentioned borrowing at low interest as well, which is what a government should do at times of poor output to invest in infrastructure etc. Which one he'll do is unclear but what does cooper offer? Just more austerity and support of all the Tory cuts.


Yeah but to be fair to Cooper, it is something he is proposing.
How much this kind of print and build economics can work is an interesting subject, one for another thread. If your whole economy depends on it then disaster looms, but I expect in little targeted ways it would be fine. It would be interesting to look at some comparative examples around the world.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 16, 2015)

Liz Kendall:
"...because people thought that we had a message that was yes for the weak and the vulnerable and those who are suffering but ordinary people too."

Interesting pivot.


----------



## agricola (Aug 16, 2015)

ska invita said:


> How much this kind of print and build economics can work is an interesting subject, one for another thread. If your whole economy depends on it then disaster looms, but I expect in little targeted ways it would be fine. It would be interesting to look at some comparative examples around the world.



No need to go around the world, just look at our history since 1997 - government borrowing was always cheaper than using PFI, even when interest rates were not hovering around zero.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 16, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

Knotted said:


> the weak


the untermensch. Even when she's trying to sound caring she uses the wrong words


----------



## Knotted (Aug 16, 2015)

Gordon Brown at the minute criticising Corbyn for having policies. Seriously.


----------



## tommers (Aug 16, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I really don't think cooper is aware of how she comes across. That or she genuinely believes the electorate are all total morons who will swallow anything. Of Corbyn's economic policy she said:
> 
> "I don't think the answer is what Jeremy has proposed, which is basically printing money that we haven't got to build things."
> 
> I feel like I'm three years old but I know what the grown up is telling me is absolute bollocks.


As opposed to printing money we don't have to give to bankers?


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2015)

How is all this being reported in Europe or the U.S?

J Ed, do you know who wrote that leader, was it Beth Rigby?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> J Ed, do you know who wrote that leader, was it Beth Rigby?



Can't access the FT article now, hit my limit


----------



## ska invita (Aug 16, 2015)

For it is Sunday and He Has Spoken...


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 16, 2015)

Cameron tried to seek putins advice over scotland ffs   plainly that didnt stop him being elected!


----------



## Knotted (Aug 16, 2015)

Interesting thing about Brown's speech, he didn't once attack Corbyn's economic policies except perhaps in the most cryptic way. Further he refused to say that beating the Tories was the be all and end all - a bit of a slap in the face of Burnham/Cooper/Kendall. The focus was on Corbyn's foreign policy (not that he mentioned Corbyn by name). I think this is significant, I think this is how the right of the party will procede in its anti-Corbyn campaign.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 16, 2015)

> "What I am here to say is that the best way of realising our high ideals is to show that we have an alternative in government that is credible, that is radical, and is electable..."



says ex PM who failed to get the party re-elected and wasn't considered credible by large chunks of the electorate in 2010


----------



## Knotted (Aug 16, 2015)

If I am right above prepare for some hilarity. Gordon Brown's cynical pragmatism of staying on the right side of international power relations is going to be lost under a wave of scribblings from unsophisticated moralistic hypocrits.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 16, 2015)

Knotted said:


> Liz Kendall:
> "...because people thought that we had a message that was yes for the weak and the vulnerable and those who are suffering but ordinary people too."



Ordinary people are weak and they do suffer. Suffering is the most ordinary thing there is.


----------



## laptop (Aug 16, 2015)

murphy1970 said:


> As the Chinese proverb says - or as I paraphrase it - we live in interesting times.



I asked a colleague of Cantonese extraction what the proverb actually says.

She looked blank. I elaborated.

"No such proverb."


----------



## Argonia (Aug 16, 2015)

"May you live in interesting times." Actually it's more of a curse than anything else, suggesting that it's more pleasant to live in uninteresting times. But as this Labour leadership contest alone proves, we certainly live in interesting ones.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ordinary people are weak and they do suffer. Suffering is the most ordinary thing there is.



Surprised that she considers those she thinks of as below her as people at all tbh


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 16, 2015)

Argonia said:


> "May you live in interesting times." Actually it's more of a curse than anything else, suggesting that it's more pleasant to live in uninteresting times. But as this Labour leadership contest alone proves, we certainly live in interesting ones.



It coms from a set of three increasingly grave curses:

May you live in interesting times.
May you come to the attention of those in authority.
May you find what you are looking for.

...they are sometimes called the 'Chinese curses' but nobody has much evidence that they came from China. IIRC they aren't used at all by the Chinese, only by westerners trying to appear deep by alluding to some piece of supposedly ancient Chinese wit.


----------



## Tankus (Aug 16, 2015)

Free the gordon 1


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2015)

Tankus said:


>



very sad video


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 16, 2015)

TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies  
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?  
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp  
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?  

Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?


----------



## Tankus (Aug 16, 2015)

off at a tangent ...Tiger tiger (the stars my destination ) Alfred Bester...  was the first scifi book ... I remember reading ...made me a life long enthusiast for the genre .....





Corbyn could be a character straight out of a steam punk novel ...even the name ...!

he needs more tats


----------



## Sue (Aug 16, 2015)

In a cafe earlier and had a flick through the Mail On Sunday. Revelations from Corbyn's ex-wife:

1) During their marriage he was out every night _doing politics stuff_.
2) He's a strict vegetarian and isn't much interested in food.
3) Sometimes he'd open a tin of beans and _eat them straight from the tin_.

Obviously an utterly despicable character.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 16, 2015)

Well I never.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 16, 2015)

Buckaroo said:


> TIGER, tiger, burning bright


----------



## laptop (Aug 16, 2015)

Sue said:


> In [the] _Mail On Sunday_. Revelations from Corbyn's ex-wife...



There's a betrayal!




			
				Quisling said:
			
		

> 3) Sometimes he'd open a tin of beans and _eat them straight from the tin_.



Clearly not someone a self-respecting table-manner-fearing _MoS_ reader would ever vote for!

Er, wait...


----------



## Wilf (Aug 16, 2015)

Didn't hear a word of Brown's intervention as I was in the pub for his sponsored pacing up and down. Assuming it was on the beeb, looked like 30 free minutes of anti-corbyn propaganda (presumable he's too aloof to actually come out i_n favour o_f one of the other 3).


----------



## Knotted (Aug 16, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Didn't hear a word of Brown's intervention as I was in the pub for his sponsored pacing up and down. Assuming it was on the beeb, looked like 30 free minutes of anti-corbyn propaganda (presumable he's too aloof to actually come out i_n favour o_f one of the other 3).



To be fair he had substance and outlined the New Labour outlook as being a continuation of Labour traditions in the advent of globalisation. I think it will backfire as it makes Kendall, Burnham and Cooper look utterly vacuous. I doubt they have even heard of Keir Hardie. Brown has a joined up political outlook, he even talks in full sentences. Whereas Liz Kendall earlier:


----------



## brogdale (Aug 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the untermensch. Even when she's trying to sound caring she uses the wrong words


I'm just catching up on today's stuff; did she really say this?


> "Yes we must support the disabled, but we must support ordinary people as well."


Is that verbatim, or a paraphrase? If true, blimey.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'm just catching up on today's stuff; did she really say this?
> ​Is that verbatim, or a paraphrase? If true, blimey.


Looks like it might be, as a consequence someone set up a petition on change.org

Kendall should apologise to disabled people


----------



## brogdale (Aug 16, 2015)

Good response.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'm just catching up on today's stuff; did she really say this?
> ​Is that verbatim, or a paraphrase? If true, blimey.


I've been saying it for weeks, they literally stood a semi educated Kate Burley for the leadership election and expected her to be the joke candidate while burnham and cooper acted the real battle. But o no! whats this! it looks like a man with a beard and a sense of what might be competent has swept in. Tears before bedtime.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'm just catching up on today's stuff; did she really say this?
> ​Is that verbatim, or a paraphrase? If true, blimey.



She did, I heard it on the radio this morning


----------



## brogdale (Aug 16, 2015)

Belushi said:


> She did, I heard it on the radio this morning


Fucksake


----------



## Favelado (Aug 16, 2015)

It's almost impossible to have as much hype behind you and do as badly as Kendall as done. Now she's crying about being bullied. It's all those horrid lefties fault.


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'm just catching up on today's stuff; did she really say this?
> ​Is that verbatim, or a paraphrase? If true, blimey.



This is where Blairism has led, to delineate disabled and sick people from 'ordinary' people, they began this process, Blair with his speech about people on IB being layabouts, Blunkett's about watching day time TV all day, the ubiquitous "we are on to you" posters, at this time, the Tories were not attacking such, they opened Pandora's Box and now they can't close it.


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2015)

> *There is a bloke who until recently, I’d never heard of.  They made a film about him.  He’s in a wheelchair bless him.  Probably sponges off the tax payer.  Stephen something.  Turns out he came up with the singularity theory, and is considered one of our greatest scientific minds.  Talks a bit odd, but that’s only because the bloody tax payer had to pay for some voice box thingamajig, so that we can understand the poor simple fool.*
> 
> *Is he one of “us”, or one of “them”?*


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> This is where Blairism has led, to delineate disabled and sick people from 'ordinary' people, they began this process, Blair with his speech about people on IB being layabouts, Blunkett's about watching day time TV all day, the ubiquitous "we are on to you" posters, at this time, the Tories were not attacking such, they opened Pandora's Box and now they can't close it.


you know the worst one with the 'we're onto you' ads treelover? the one that made me want to drown those bastards in a bath of piss? It's the one where they showed an obviously knackered character, a single mum, doing her ironing and then focused the gunsight in. What the actual fuck was that. These people have no shame, none at all. Proper cunts.


e2a it was to tell grownups they can't live together because of something. Thats how low they went. Barbed wire enemas I say


----------



## Patteran (Aug 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I've been saying it for weeks, they literally stood a semi educated Kate Burley for the leadership election and expected her to be the joke candidate while burnham and cooper acted the real battle. But o no! whats this! it looks like a man with a beard and a sense of what might be competent has swept in. Tears before bedtime.



Your 'Kay Burley with a degree' is genius - I've used it so often I definitely owe you a drink (always credited as 'some funny fucker on the internet called her')


----------



## brogdale (Aug 16, 2015)

Some good sense from YG's Anthony on Labour Leadership polling, especially the 2020 GE outcome polling.


> Bottom line? There is no way of doing a simple poll that will give you a ready packaged answer as to how well or badly a potential party leader will do, and the things that Jeremy Corbyn’s detractors worry about are not things that are easily tested in a poll anyway. My own guess is that those who think Jeremy Corbyn would struggle electorally are correct, though it does depend on whether the Conservatives also pull themselves to shreds after the EU referendum. I am a little wary about arguments about parties not winning because they are too left or too right. While putting yourself broadly where most voters is sensible enough, those voters themselves don’t necessarily see things as ideologically left and right and specific policies aren’t really that important in driving votes. However, broad perceptions of a party, its perceived competence and the public’s views on how suitable its leader is to be Prime Minister are incredibly important. It will be an extremely hard task for Labour to succeed if it is seem as taking up a risky and radical route, if it’s trying to rebuild a lack of public confidence by selling an approach that is radically different from what a normally risk-averse public are used to, if it is seen as being riven by internal dissent and splits, if their leadership patently doesn’t have the support of its own MPs. Maybe he’ll surprise us, but I wouldn’t count on it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

Patteran said:


> Your 'Kay Burley with a degree' is genius - I've used it so often I definitely owe you a drink (always credited as 'some funny fucker on the internet called her')


When Corbyn leads us into the red dawn all the drinks will be free.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Some good sense from YG's Anthony on Labour Leadership polling, especially the 2020 GE outcome polling.
> ​



I think that a lot of it will come down to how much momentum the idea of Labour under Corbyn being an insurgent party of protest can generate and who it appeals to. Can the 'left behind' UKIP voters be won back by (whatever degree of) left-wing Euroscepticism, nationalisations and anti-incumbent sentiment the is crucial question to ask.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2015)

Also, can Corbyn generate interest and votes amongst non-voters as the Nationalists have in Scotland?

Can all this electorialism translate into a social movement? Podemos in reverse, effectively, because it would have to.

I don't really see any of this happening but it will have to for Corbyn to hold on to the leadership let alone win an election.


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you know the worst one with the 'we're onto you' ads treelover? the one that made me want to drown those bastards in a bath of piss? It's the one where they showed an obviously knackered character, a single mum, doing her ironing and then focused the gunsight in. What the actual fuck was that. These people have no shame, none at all. Proper cunts.
> 
> 
> e2a it was to tell grownups they can't live together because of something. Thats how low they went. Barbed wire enemas I say




I should have mentioned it all began with Peter Lilley's 'little white list' but afaik, it did not include disabled and sick people, still disgusting.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> I should have mentioned it all began with Peter Lilley's 'little white list' but afaik, it did not include disabled and sick people, still disgusting.



The very speech that I sat and saw on the nine o' clock news sat next to my single mum. I resolved as a child to never vote Conservative having watched that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

Buckaroo said:


> frame thy fearful symmetry


one of the few lines that ever inspired me to verse is that. It's not especially clever but it struck me deep- the system as fine and elegant as it is in its form can be utterly terryifying in its function.


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2015)

> Corbyn is also said to have been very close to the American polymath Mike Marqusee, who also had great influence on the MP’s thinking. Marqusee, a Marxist, was a founding member of the Stop the War coalition. He died in January this year. He chronicled Labour’s rightwing drift in a book co-authored with Richard Heffernan, Defeat from the Jaws of Victory (1992).



Good influence


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

Tankus said:


> off at a tangent ...Tiger tiger (the stars my destination ) Alfred Bester...  was the first scifi book ... I remember reading ...made me a life long enthusiast for the genre .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I prefer 'The Demolished Man' although everyone in the whole world disagrees. It just works so well to show how you really, really don't need or want to be in someone elses head. You just don't. There are unworthy thoughts and petty...you get the theme. Not only that you have the higher adepts of psi power running tings. Get to fuck.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I prefer 'The Demolished Man' although everyone in the whole world disagrees. It just works so well to show how you really, really don't need or want to be in someone elses head. You just don't. There are unworthy thoughts and petty...you get the theme. Not only that you have the higher adepts of psi power running tings. Get to fuck.


Ah, this must be who Bester in B5 is named after


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Ah, this must be who Bester in B5 is named after


of course it is  if you have the time and space to read Bester you'd really like it. He's old school SF so his gender politics may not quite stack up well to a modern eye but its still worth it


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 16, 2015)

dunno if this has been posted, but utterly predictable nonetheless



> Lord Mandelson tried to persuade the three mainstream Labour leadership candidates to quit en masse to stop leftwinger Jeremy Corbyn and force the party to suspend the election.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-Jeremy-Corbyn-winning-Labour-leadership.html


----------



## Favelado (Aug 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> I should have mentioned it all began with Peter Lilley's 'little white list' but afaik, it did not include disabled and sick people, still disgusting.



Still disgusting all these years on. The allusion to men "screwing" women perhaps the low-point of a sickening low-point in the nation's political discourse. Gilbert and Sullivan - totally irrelevant to 90% of the public too. A symptom in itself of how detached the background a man like Lilley's is from normality.


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2015)

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2014...oying-a-mail-journalist-to-smear-ed-miliband/

In terms of the visceral attacks on Corbyn, apparently the Observer's Daniel Boffey has form for smearing Labour leaders while he was at the Daily Mail,. though not since 2011.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 16, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Still disgusting all these years on. The allusion to men "screwing" women perhaps the low-point of a sickening low-point in the nation's political discourse. Gilbert and Sullivan - totally irrelevant to 90% of the public too. A symptom in itself of how detached the background a man like Lilley's is from normality.




Never seen this before. Makes me feel sick


----------



## Tankus (Aug 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> ..... Get to fuck.


You could just jaunt ,.,..,.....!


----------



## chilango (Aug 16, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Still disgusting all these years on. The allusion to men "screwing" women perhaps the low-point of a sickening low-point in the nation's political discourse. Gilbert and Sullivan - totally irrelevant to 90% of the public too. A symptom in itself of how detached the background a man like Lilley's is from normality.




A vivid, and pivotal, memory from my youth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Never seen this before. Makes me feel sick


deffo not fash at all


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2015)

New nasty stuff, Tories planning 'boot camps for unemployed youth to end welfare culture', not sure what paper, was on Sky Papers,

Tessa Jowell described it as positive, lets hope JC speaks out.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> New nasty stuff, Tories planning 'boot camps for unemployed youth to end welfare culture', not sure what paper, was on Sky Papers,
> 
> Tessa Jowell described it as positive, lets hope JC speaks out.



5 Minutes Googling tells me that there were 1.85 million unemployed people for the period of April-June this year, whereas from May-July there was 750,000 job vacancies available. Maybe maths isn't Tessa Jowell's strong point, but surely even she could have prepared a reasonable challenge to this sort of bollocks. 

It amazes me how Labour consistently fail to challenge the Tory narrative even when there is an open goal to take advantage of. It's almost as if they don't want to challenge it. Almost as if they agree with the Tories. Who'd have thunk it?


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2015)

http://corbynforbusiness.com


Corbyn now going for the small business community, smart move or sell out?,

seeing as many people are now forced into setting up small businesses, often by the DWP, many making no money hardly , could be the former.


----------



## xenon (Aug 17, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Looks like it might be, as a consequence someone set up a petition on change.org
> 
> Kendall should apologise to disabled people


She should just kill herself TBH

What, too far? Fuckem.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 17, 2015)

https://www.facebook.com/JewsforJeremy


----------



## jcsd (Aug 17, 2015)

I'm not sure about Jeremy Corbyn tbh - I like that he sticks to his principles and I agree with him on quite a few points, however leadership requires flexibility.

But all these attacks on him and moaning by the other candidates and their supporters, sounds like sour grapes. The other candidates have probably been jockeying themselves into position for years, doing and saying the 'right things' to make themselves into contenders, only to find themselves trailing someone who seemed to enter the contest on the spur of the moment and has been saying and doing the 'wrong things' for years. It must be like going to an exam to find that the topic is a completely different one to the one you had been told to study for.

As for his electability - I think the jury is still out. However I fail to see why anyone would think the other crop of candidates are more electable.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2015)

Guardian describing corbs as the 'pied piper of north islington'


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 17, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Guardian describing corbs as the 'pied piper of north islington'


Does Polly Toynbee live in a gingerbread house or something?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Guardian describing corbs as the 'pied piper of north islington'


thats literally calling his supporters children or rats. They've really shat it.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://corbynforbusiness.com
> 
> 
> Corbyn now going for the small business community, smart move or sell out?,
> ...


Neither really, he's a social democrat - he believes in the free market.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Neither really, he's a social democrat - he believes in the free market.


social democrats are all about the mixed markets though right? nationalise infrastructure, let the rest be 'free'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Does Polly Toynbee live in a gingerbread house or something?



She lives up her own aresehole as far as I can tell.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 17, 2015)

Looks like the Dark Lord himself has been trying to sneakily pull the plug on the whole election. 



> Labour leadership hopeful Yvette Cooper has admitted that there have been behind-the-scenes manoeuvrings to persuade candidates to bow out of the race to prevent veteran leftwing MP Jeremy Corbyn from winning.
> 
> Against a backdrop of increasingly desperate interventions from senior party figures appealing for those registered to vote to back anyone but Corbyn, ballot papers are expected to start arriving through the letter boxes on Monday of the 450,000 people who have registered to take part – many in the wake of Corbyn’s breakthrough in the polls.
> 
> The Daily Telegraph reported on Sunday night that former Labour cabinet minister Peter Mandelson attempted a “secret plot” to convince Corbyn’s three rival candidates – Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall – to pull out to annul the contest.



Increasingly desperate is right, and increasingly outrageous that these people should go to such lengths, in broad daylight, to sabotage a democratic process. Have any of them even tried to come up with an excuse for all this?


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

What do they think would happen if they did manage to bollox the election? A whole heap of those enthusiastic new members and supporters would leave immediately. Any candidate they did choose would be dead in the water as the one who couldn't beat Corbyn in a fair fight, endless fodder for Tories and internal dissent. Corbyn and his backers would, presumably, have to go into proper revolt against internal corruption and the whole LP would be a joke. These 'sensible' political grandees are like kids having temper tantrums. You'd at least expect them to be smart(er).


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Have any of them even tried to come up with an excuse for all this?


'we'd rather lose than be led from the left' as Grand Wizard Tony has said.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'm just catching up on today's stuff; did she really say this?
> ​Is that verbatim, or a paraphrase? If true, blimey.



Just "the disabled" alone should earn her a good kicking, fucking essentialising cretinous fuckwit!


----------



## andysays (Aug 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Looks like the Dark Lord himself has been trying to sneakily pull the plug on the whole election.
> 
> Increasingly desperate is right, and increasingly outrageous that these people should go to such lengths, in broad daylight, to sabotage a democratic process. Have any of them even tried to come up with an excuse for all this?



This (the idea that the other three pulling out would invalidate the process) was mentioned on one of the other threads recently. I thought then that this was bollocks and even the briefest checking confirms that Gordon Brown was elected/appointed leader unopposed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

andysays said:


> This (the idea that the other three pulling out would invalidate the process) was mentioned on one of the other threads recently. I thought then that this was bollocks and a little checking confirms that Gordon Brown was elected/appointed leader unopposed.



as Mandleson knows though, shouting long and loud about the invalidity of an uncontested election would give traction in party and press to declare the result null. Wheras Gordy had been the heir apparent for so long it just seemed natural lol


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just "the disabled" alone should earn her a good kicking, fucking essentialising cretinous fuckwit!




Lots of people use that term , yes, its demeaning, but most do not mean anything negative about it, I do think the "we are not victims' line" of DPAC, etc, is important, but many sick people would not really benefit from its main tool, the social model, no amount of structural support, eg access, etc,  can help a sick person if they are bed bound, unable to move, etc*, ,while a disabled person, with support can often take on the world.

*though more home support is sorely needed.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Lots of people use that term , yes, its demeaning, but most do not mean anything negative about it, I do think the "we are not victims' line" of DPAC, etc, is important, but many sick people would not really benefit from its main tool, the social model, no amount of structural support, eg access, etc,  can help a sick person if they are bed bound, unable to move, etc*, ,while a disabled person, with support can often take on the world.
> 
> *though more home support is sorely needed.


I think it's more the 'we should help disabled people but also normal people too' that makes what she said so horrendous.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> social democrats are all about the mixed markets though right? nationalise infrastructure, let the rest be 'free'



Essential industries (whatever they decide that means) as well as infrastructure. Often as not it's national security, which is why rolls-royce were nationalised in the 60s or 70s iirc (they were going bust and make aircraft engines we need for war!), rather than actually essential cos otherwise farming and supermarkets would be talked about.


----------



## andysays (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> as Mandleson knows though, shouting long and loud about the invalidity of an uncontested election would give traction in party and press to declare the result null. Wheras Gordy had been the heir apparent for so long it just seemed natural lol



I'm sure it would get _some_ traction, though I'm doubtful as to how much, given how utterly transparent a move it would be.

Also, they'd have to refund all those £3 supporter sign-up fees


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2015)

Everyday the Labour Party shows itself to be drifting further from reality.
So glad I didn't waste £3!


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Everyday the Labour Party shows itself to be drifting further from reality.
> So glad I didn't waste £3!


This is getting like one of those 'Send a sick kid to Florida' scams.  The pub fills the jar of £ coins up and one of the dodgy regulars fucks off with it.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2015)

Listening to Liz Kendall on R4 World at One, she is such a drip, couldn't lead her way out of a wet paper bag!


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Listening to Liz Kendall on R4 World at One, she is such a drip, couldn't lead her way out of a wet paper bag!



No doubt before long she will be retiring from politics and getting a job on some TV station as a political commentator.
They are usually clueless too.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 17, 2015)

Was the now infamous Granita restaurant where Blair and Brown made their diablocal agreement in Jezza's constituency? Ironic that the deal hatched there would possibly lead to Jezza taking the reins 20 years later


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 17, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I think it's more the 'we should help disabled people but also normal people too' that makes what she said so horrendous.



Not that the common misuse of the word 'normal' as so often applied to sick and disabled people, especially those of us with obvious physical differences, learning difficulties and mental illness, is in any way offensive to many of us. So offensive, in fact, that's it's common for Aspies to describe non-Aspies as 'neurotypical,' rather than 'normal' because the word 'normal' often has rather different connotations for people like us.


----------



## red & green (Aug 17, 2015)

Never mind a general election there needs to be an opposition - Tories are ramming through legislation at lightening speed . By the time the next election happens the damage will be done


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> social democrats are all about the mixed markets though right? nationalise infrastructure, let the rest be 'free'


Yeah sure, but it's the delusion there can be a harmonious relationship between a 'socialised' public sector and the free market.  I think the level of support corbyn is getting is positive and it's certainly entertaining watching the anguished blairites squealing as their project hits the buffers.  Just think the corbyn project, however much better it would be than full on austerity, is a dead end - it really is warmed up social democracy, despite some of his comments about new models of public ownership.  I'd certainly rather see the hundreds who are attending his meetings get actively involved in anti-cuts protests.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Yeah sure, but it's the delusion there can be a harmonious relationship between a 'socialised' public sector and the free market.  I think the level of support corbyn is getting is positive and it's certainly entertaining watching the anguished blairites squealing as their project hits the buffers.  Just think the corbyn project, however much better it would be than full on austerity, is a dead end - it really is warmed up social democracy, despite some of his comments about new models of public ownership.  I'd certainly rather see the hundreds who are attending his meetings get actively involved in anti-cuts protests.


*mystic dotty consults his crystal balls*

if they do a JP 1 on him and murder the last pretensions of a labour left then perhaps a new party (not like that one) will rise from the ashes. I mean much as I assume you do, I wish corbyn and his support all the best but I stopped having any hope about parliamentary routes to socialism a long time ago. Still its nice to see them all freaking out and crying 'STALINISM!'. Best bit of political theatre for ages.


----------



## belboid (Aug 17, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Was the now infamous Granita restaurant where Blair and Brown made their diablocal agreement in Jezza's constituency? Ironic that the deal hatched there would possibly lead to Jezza taking the reins 20 years later


naah, it was in Islington South (Emily Thornberry)


----------



## marty21 (Aug 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> naah, it was in Islington South (Emily Thornberry)


 damn it   there could have been  something poetic about the location


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2015)

Here's another scare story - that dozens of Labour courtiers and flunkies will lose their jobs the day after corbo is elected:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rge-if-jeremy-corbyn-is-elected-10458320.html

The lesson I take from this is not some panic about a corbinista night of the long knives - it's that Labour shouldn't have people on temporary fucking contracts anyway.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

The odd thing about all of this is that while most sensible folk recognise that Corbyn will render Labour totally unelectable for the length of his stewardship and might actually lead to the destruction of the party altogether, the other three candidates currently look like they could do just about the same thing through a different route.

When did Labour stop producing competitive politicians?

Corbyn isn't even very inspirational or charismatic and the others are much, much worse.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

This, after a parade of ex MPs/leaders etc.have been set out to rubbish JC on Burnham's (& Co) account.


> On Monday, Burnham will reach out to Corbyn and his supporters in an appeal for party unity as the leadership election threatens to tear Labour apart.
> 
> T*he shadow health secretary will say it would be “unforgivable” if infighting after the result is announced on 12 September prevented Labour from standing up to the Tories*.



At what point will it dawn on these neo-lib poodle MPs that they will have to bray and wave their order papers when Jezza stands in the HoC as their leader?


----------



## andysays (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The odd thing about all of this is that while most sensible folk recognise that *Corbyn will render Labour totally unelectable for the length of his stewardship and might actually lead to the destruction of the party altogether*, the other three candidates currently look like they could do just about the same thing through a different route.
> 
> When did Labour stop producing competitive politicians?
> 
> Corbyn isn't even very inspirational or charismatic and the others are much, much worse.



I love it when people make these catastrophic assertions without any attempt to back them up.

"Everyone" is saying it, so it must be true!


----------



## magneze (Aug 17, 2015)

Hold on everyone. David Miliband has endorsed Liz Kendall. What a game changer!

*Corbyn increases his vote share*


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

andysays said:


> I love it when people make these catastrophic assertions without any attempt to back them up.
> 
> "Everyone" is saying it, so it must be true!



Do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister?


----------



## Zabo (Aug 17, 2015)

magneze said:


> Hold on everyone. David Miliband has endorsed Liz Kendall. What a game changer!
> 
> *Corbyn increases his vote share*



His he lining himself up for a comeback?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ting-jeremy-corbyn-risks-one-party-tory-state


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

magneze said:


> Hold on everyone. David Miliband has endorsed Liz Kendall. What a game changer!
> 
> *Corbyn increases his vote share*


David said...


> If the party takes the wrong direction, Britain could become a “multiparty democracy with only one party – the Conservative party


Ironic does not do that justice.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 17, 2015)

Is there anyone from Labours past left now who they can wheel out to warn of a thousand years of darkness if Corbyn wins?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Is there anyone from Labours past left now who they can wheel out to warn of a thousand years of darkness if Corbyn wins?


Janner?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Here's another scare story - that dozens of Labour courtiers and flunkies will lose their jobs the day after corbo is elected:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rge-if-jeremy-corbyn-is-elected-10458320.html
> 
> The lesson I take from this is not some panic about a corbinista night of the long knives - it's that Labour shouldn't have people on temporary fucking contracts anyway.



A purging of spads would be a great thing


----------



## andysays (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister?



If I say yes (or if I say no) will that in any way confirm or refute your assertion that "Corbyn will render Labour totally unelectable for the length of his stewardship and might actually lead to the destruction of the party altogether"?

If you want people to pay any attention to you and your positions, try coming up with at least some supporting arguments. I'll start the sentence for you and see if you can continue it.

"Corbyn will render Labour totally unelectable for the length of his stewardship and might actually lead to the destruction of the party altogether *because..."*


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

OK - I'll play your little game...

Corbyn will render Labour totally unelectable for the length of his stewardship and might actually lead to the destruction of the party altogether because his policies are extremely distant from the majority of the franchise.


----------



## Santino (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - I'll play your little game...
> 
> Corbyn will render Labour totally unelectable for the length of his stewardship and might actually lead to the destruction of the party altogether because his policies are extremely distant from the majority of the franchise.


Which policies in particular?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

Santino said:


> Which policies in particular?


I bet it's the ones that "*are extremely distant from the majority of the franchise*."


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond has swallowed the press whole. Unelectable. Says the fuck who? there does appear to be many who disagree. Labour could never have lost scotland, according to the wisdom. Yet they did. I'm not a three quidder because I want violent revolution or nothing. But it is funny to see how the wise heads in the press, repeated uncritically by our very own conflict stone seem to think its never going to work. We aren't in predictable territory anymore. In the meantime lets all load a pipe up and have a good laugh at the guardianista set crapping their pants.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2015)

Franchise? 

I think you're right. Very damaging to the Labour brand.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're right. Very damaging to the Labour brand.



Yes, corporate brands are damaged by erratic non-compliant behaviours.


----------



## andysays (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - I'll play your little game...
> 
> Corbyn will render Labour totally unelectable for the length of his stewardship and might actually lead to the destruction of the party altogether because his policies are extremely distant from the majority of the franchise.



It's not a "little game", it's about attempting a coherent argument, but you apparently need to be led through the process by the hand.

Do have any figures to hand demonstrating public support or otherwise for re-nationalisation of the railways, for example?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

The brand is TOXIC, the credit score is DOWN, the liberal media is FURIOUS - what more does a good lawyer need to know?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

Santino said:


> Which policies in particular?



OK - I'll just throw out a few troubling ones:

Leaving NATO

Getting rid of Trident

Ramping up public spending

Nationalisation (which, on a more technical level raises lots of EU issues around state aid and competition law)

I have different views on each of the above but there is clearly no majority public appetite for any of them.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - I'll play your little game...
> 
> Corbyn will render Labour totally unelectable for the length of his stewardship and might actually lead to the destruction of the party altogether because his policies are extremely distant from the majority of the franchise.



Labour are currently unelectable. Why is more of the same going to make them electable?

We don't know if Corbyn is electable or not yet. We only know the other cunts aren't because they keep losing General Elections.


----------



## Santino (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - I'll just throw out a few troubling ones:
> 
> Leaving NATO
> 
> ...


Opinion polls consistently report that a majority of people support renationalising the railways.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Santino said:


> Opinion polls consistently report that a majority of people support renationalising the railways.



utilities too I think.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

OK - you folk continue to jabber away in another of your echo chambers - at some point real life catches up and it's not going to be pleasant for Labour if Corbyn gains the leadership.

If you can't see that, you must be either deluded, fanatical or locked into an extremely narrow life featuring few, if any, dissenting voices.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2015)

Forever the lower class in this country have been treat like shit and for a very brief period, maybe thirty years from 1945, people had hope that things were going to change. Labour then joined the oppressers and let their supporters down by abandoning the base they had built from.
We have lived through worse times than this and still stuck two fingers up at the bastards. Those involved in this leadership contest need to find some direction and stick to it, not run in the opposite way when the bosses threaten the big stick. 
The Labour Party is treading water and being pushed further out. All they need to learn is swim with the current.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - you folk continue to jabber away in another of your echo chambers - at some point real life catches up and it's not going to be pleasant for Labour if Corbyn gains the leadership.
> 
> If you can't see that, you must be either deluded, fanatical or locked into an extremely narrow life featuring few, if any, dissenting voices.



LABOUR HAVE JUST LOST TWO ELECTIONS YOU DOLT.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

Are there even opinion polls on NATO membership? I doubt most people even know what it is

Here are a few polls that show opposition to Trident

The idea of 'ramping up public spending' is such a general term that it would be hard to quantify exactly what the general opinion would be


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> LABOUR HAVE JUST LOST TWO ELECTIONS YOU DOLT.



And they will not win any more with Corbyn as leader!


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - I'll just throw out a few troubling ones:
> 
> Leaving NATO
> 
> ...



Yeah it's really troubling bringing the railways and utilities into public ownership so we all have a stake in them, keep costs down and not stuff some non accountable greedy shareholder's wallet with cash. It's really troubling removing our ability to vapourise several hundred thousand human beings in a blink of an eye, an ability that costs a hundred billion or so, money that could be used for other crazy things like social care and ensuring people don't starve to death for having the nerve to be wheelchair bound.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> LABOUR HAVE JUST LOST TWO ELECTIONS YOU DOLT.



These people saying Labour should run with a Tory manifesto can never explain to me how exactly they plan to win by basically being the Tories. If you want Tory policies you'll just vote for them anyway.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 17, 2015)

Yvette Cooper: I'm the only one who can beat Jeremy Corbyn
Andy Burnham: I'm the only one who can beat Jeremy Corbyn and so's my wife


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - you folk continue to jabber away in another of your echo chambers - at some point real life catches up and it's not going to be pleasant for Labour if Corbyn gains the leadership.
> 
> If you can't see that, you must be either deluded, fanatical or locked into an extremely narrow life featuring few, if any, dissenting voices.



Leaving NATO perhaps.  Ramping up public spending is debateable - state borrowing for investment is cheaper than using PFI to do the same job (which is what the Tories and NL have used).  Not replacing Trident would correct a huge imbalance in the defence budget (though of course its unlikely that he would spend the money on larger conventional forces, but it isnt impossible).  

As for nationalization, bringing back BR is something that almost every poll on the subject has shown people as being in favour of, it would be cheaper than the current mess is, and would not be illegal under EU law as long as competitors had access to the system.  The nationalization of the utilities is a bit more tricky given who owns them now, though it should of course be pointed out that on every occasion that the industry wanted major investment - replacement of nuclear reactors, or the Thames super-sewer for instance - it has got the state to pay for it.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - you folk continue to jabber away in another of your echo chambers - at some point real life catches up and it's not going to be pleasant for Labour if Corbyn gains the leadership.
> 
> If you can't see that, you must be either deluded, fanatical or locked into an extremely narrow life featuring few, if any, dissenting voices.



You've contributed nothing, argued nothing and proven nothing. You're just providing wasted pixels. Try to prove your point, say something interesting or shut up.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - you folk continue to jabber away in another of your echo chambers - at some point real life catches up and it's not going to be pleasant for Labour if Corbyn gains the leadership.
> 
> If you can't see that, you must be either deluded, fanatical or locked into an extremely narrow life featuring few, if any, dissenting voices.


Aside from the fact that recent, credible polling indicates public support for at least 2, possibly 3 of those 'policies' that you've suggested, many of Cameron's 'policies' could be shown to be deeply "distant from the majority of the franchise"...and he was 'electable'.
Reduction of in-work benefits, forced sale of HA housing, TTIP, privatisation of NHS etc.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

YouSir said:


> You've contributed nothing, argued nothing and proven nothing. Your just providing wasted pixels. Try to prove your point, say something interesting or shut up.



He just regurgitates establishment 'common sense' and believes that he is confronting 'received wisdom'. It is very transparent.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

You lot are truly deluded.

If you see Corbyn standing outside Number 10 Downing Street in 5 years time, you have a more fantastical imagination than mine...


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2015)

As has been posted several times on these threads, Thatcher said her greatest achievement was New Labour.
That says all I need to know re the Blairites.
End of story, nothing else need be said.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You lot are truly deluded.
> 
> If you see Corbyn standing outside Number 10 Downing Street in 5 years time, you have a more fantastical imagination than mine...



Say something with actual content...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Say something with actual content...



Do you believe that Corbyn will be elected as Prime Minister of the UK at the next election and, if so, why?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You lot are truly deluded.
> 
> If you see Corbyn standing outside Number 10 Downing Street in 5 years time, you have a more fantastical imagination than mine...



Fuck off you shitcunt. No-one's making glib statements like that apart from you. You're boring now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> it's not going to be pleasant for Labour if Corbyn gains the leadership.


I don't give a flying fuck about the labour parties continued existence. Make or break, I was poor before the crash and still am. I know your echo chamber is well fed people with right wing attitudes but theres a lot of other people who don't live in london and practise law at some posh firm. Grow up.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you believe that Corbyn will be elected as Prime Minister of the UK at the next election and, if so, why?



Diamond: Corbyn is totally unelectable, look at all these policies that people hate!
Urban75: [sourced citation of polling contradicting this view]
Diamond: You lot are deluded with your sources and facts and argumentation!


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You lot are truly deluded.
> 
> If you see Corbyn standing outside Number 10 Downing Street in 5 years time, you have a more fantastical imagination than mine...



And you are missing the point, as a left wing supporter, it is more important to me to have the Labour party back representing a left wing agenda, than it is for them to get into power. Once that is achieved, then they can concentrate on on persuading the voting public that there is a viable left wing alternative.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Santino said:


> Opinion polls consistently report that a majority of people support renationalising the railways.


and this isn't uncritical either. You still get people reminiscing about their dire BR sarnie hell and the delays etc etc. Yet for some strange reason they hate having to take a mortgage out to cover a train ticket or else engage withan increasingly byzantine pricing structure through the internet just to save a fiver. Takes the fucking piss. #alwaysjumpthefuckers


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> and this isn't uncritical either. You still get people reminiscing about their dire BR sarnie hell and the delays etc etc. Yet for some strange reason they hate having to take a mortgage out to cover a train ticket or else engage withan increasingly byzantine pricing structure through the internet just to save a fiver. Takes the fucking piss. #alwaysjumpthefuckers



The main argument against it seems to be that 'BR was in the past'


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Notice that Diamond got shut down two days ago with his shit questions, so he just waited a bit and started with all the same crap again.

Diamond Bearing in mind neo-liberal policies have failed for Labour at the last two elections and you don't like more left-wing ones, what do you suggest Labour's platform should be?


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 17, 2015)

I spent four and a half hours on a fucking National Express yesterday because Cameron hastily gave the state-run East Coast rail franchise to Branson just before the election and they've massively cut the number of discounted fares available (whilst claiming without shame that they haven't put prices up because £13 tickets still exist, if you're lucky enough to find one).  I'm quite a few quid out of pocket for the last few months and have twice had to suffer megalolbus or national express for double the journey time and no escape from shitty ringtones. Rail privatisation can fuck right off.  I'm with Corbyn on this one.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

So Cooper "... has admitted that there have been behind-the-scenes manoeuvrings to persuade candidates to bow out of the race to prevent veteran leftwing MP Jeremy Corbyn from winning.
but La Kendall chooses to say otherwise..

Not very up-beat, is she?


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You lot are truly deluded.
> 
> If you see Corbyn standing outside Number 10 Downing Street in 5 years time, you have a more fantastical imagination than mine...



5 years ago , even with all my cynicism , I never envisaged food banks . Had never even heard of them . And I grew up in the thatcher era in the most chronically disadvantaged and disfunctional armpit of the " uk" . I don't think it's all that fantastical that people might be sick to the back teeth of that shit . And zero hour contracts . So who knows .
When there was an even slightly more to the left option available in Scotland ,that was a clear alternative to the toxic new labour brand ,it proved extremely popular and something absolutely unprecedented happened . Again I never imagined the scale of new labours obliteration. Total .

After 5 more years of Cameron , food banks,austerity , lack of services, anti worker policies and an obscenely increasing wealth gap , accompanied by braying toffs cheering it all on, people may well be ready to vote for something completely different . 

I can imagine what effect of those policies will have on people . I can imagine new labour clones not inspiring anyone to change a thing . And therefore I can imagine corbyn being seen by many as a viable political alternative to a nightmarish existence . Until recently I didn't imagine him as having a hope in hell of being a serious contender for the leadership of labour ...but there you go . He streaked ahead without barely raising a sweat . And so I can imagine him doing quite well now .


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you believe that Corbyn will be elected as Prime Minister of the UK at the next election and, if so, why?



So you don't actually have anything of worth to say then? I don't know if he will but I see plausible reason for hope and think it's a worthwhile thing to try to bring about. Now, you're the one making all the assertions, why not back them up or is being pointless your only act?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I spent four and a half hours on a fucking National Express yesterday because Cameron hastily gave the state-run East Coast rail franchise to Branson just before the election and they've massively cut the number of discounted fares available (whilst claiming without shame that they haven't put prices up because £13 tickets still exist, if you're lucky enough to find one).  I'm quite a few quid out of pocket for the last few months and have twice had to suffer megalolbus or national express for double the journey time and no escape from shitty ringtones. Rail privatisation can fuck right off.  I'm with Corbyn on this one.


in real terms we as a society pay more in subsidies to the franchise owners than was ever given to BR to keep it solvent. And in the final indignity one of the firms running our rails is a vehicle for the german state owned rail so those profits have gone every time into maintaining the german rail system. Its like some funhouse mirror view of the world to see this as in any way logical or neccesary.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 17, 2015)

A.Burnham says "I want the people who are drawn to his campaign   particularly young people " Drawn in by Jeremy by the way, I want to steal capture that
energy.
I say get your own bleeding energised young! Burnham, ya punk.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't give a flying fuck about the labour parties continued existence. Make or break, I was poor before the crash and still am. I know your echo chamber is well fed people with right wing attitudes but theres a lot of other people who don't live in london and practise law at some posh firm. Grow up.



Grow up and destroy the party that you favour by supporting a leader that will never, ever gain the benefit of election?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Grow up and destroy the party that you favour by supporting a leader that will never, ever gain the benefit of election?



Your contributions are less than worthless


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Grow up and destroy the party that you favour by supporting a leader that will never, ever gain the benefit of election?


_You_ grow up and destroy the party that you favour by supporting a leader that will never, ever gain the benefit of election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Grow up and destroy the party that you favour by supporting a leader that will never, ever gain the benefit of election?


have you confused me saying 'I don't give a fuck about the labour party' with support for it? cos thats a pretty big misreading for such a learned man.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 17, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> _You_ grow up and destroy the party that you favour by supporting a leader that will never, ever gain the benefit of election.



His party is prolly the Tories


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 17, 2015)

You will probably get your way Diamond with leader  MR Andy A.T. Nout.
ifin ya do, goodbye Labpoor partly.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2015)

I grew up and supported a party(for a bit). That has done nothing but kick it's loyal supporters in the teeth since the mid 70s.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> His party is prolly the Tories



I voted Labour at the last election.

Previously Lib Dem.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> _You_ grow up and destroy the party that you favour by supporting a leader that will never, ever gain the benefit of election.


stop saying stuff that comes true. Next you'll be all like 'the sky is made of goats cheese' and then it will be.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> have you confused me saying 'I don't give a fuck about the labour party' with support for it? cos thats a pretty big misreading for such a learned man.



OK - if you don't support the party, then why do you care about the Labour leadership election, assuming that you do?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You lot are truly deluded.
> 
> If you see Corbyn standing outside Number 10 Downing Street in 5 years time, you have a more fantastical imagination than mine...



I'll focus on now rather than five years time if it's all the same with you? Labour are meant to be the opposition, they haven't been that since the 2010 election. They might actually be one if Corbyn is elected in September. Then he'll have five years... Half a decade.. to set out his policies. I don't really care about the labour party but having someone with Corbyn's views consistently in the mainstream media is a step in the right direction. Seeing pretty much the entire establishment, including Labour, soil themselves on a daily basis just at the prospect of a Corbyn win is a positive step also.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

and I for one don't want goats milk raining on me, or the sweated liquid from the cheese. I won't have it.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - if you don't support the party, then why do you care about the Labour leadership election, assuming that you do?



Can I have a full answer to the post where I asked you about Labour policy please? You can't just ask tonnes of 8 word questions and think you're contributing.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'll focus on now rather than five years time if it's all the same with you? Labour are meant to be the opposition, they haven't been that since the 2010 election. They might actually be one if Corbyn is elected in September. Then he'll have five years... Half a decade.. to set out his policies. I don't really care about the labour party but having someone with Corbyn's views consistently in the mainstream media is a step in the right direction. Seeing pretty much the entire establishment, including Labour, soil themselves on a daily basis just at the prospect of a Corbyn win is a positive step also.



A positive step to what?


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2015)

Probably best to just not bother at all tbh.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> A positive step to what?



No more tiny questions. Do some proper posting.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> Probably best to just not bother at all tbh.



You're right. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Can I have a full answer to the post where I asked you about Labour policy please? You can't just ask tonnes of 8 word questions and think you're contributing.



You are asking me to produce a full manifesto in about 30 minutes when most of the candidates haven't produced anything remotely as detailed, despite them being professional politicians...?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - if you don't support the party, then why do you care about the Labour leadership election, assuming that you do?


the party politics of this undemocratic system affects the lives of people I love and my own life. Being as we have little agencey within a system such as stands, not being p'd up courtroom dons like yourself. Also, its better than football.


----------



## Ole (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - I'll just throw out a few troubling ones:
> 
> Leaving NATO
> 
> ...



He's made it clear he won't leave NATO so you can write that one off the list.

Getting rid of Trident is in a sense popular with a majority of the public, but most people want a cheaper nuclear weapons system, not to unilaterally disarm, and Corbyn's position is actually nuclear disarmament. 

That's the only currently unpopular policy of those you've listed. Nationalisation of the industries he has talked about: energy, utilities and rail is overwhelmingly popular. "Ramping up public spending" is not a meaningful phrase.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Imagine a lifetime of Diamond's questions. His poor family.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Grow up and destroy the party that you favour by supporting a leader that will never, ever gain the benefit of election?



On current form, Labour are unlikely to be elected in 2020 or 2025, given the less-than-sparkling panoply of talentless opportunists and careerists in the Parliamentary ranks. Neither Cooper, Burnham nor Kendall have sufficient talent and gravitas to be anything beyond caretakers, and the likes of Umunna, Leslie or even Miliband. D promise nothing new, just the same old carefully-triangulated "neoliberalism" that Blair and Brown offered.	
Could Corbyn win an election? Probably not. Is it possible he could energise the electorate more successfully than his party currently has, or the Tories have? Probably. Personally, I see an energised electorate rediscovering old solidarities as having a lot more social value than merely winning an election.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> A positive step to what?



Poking a hole in the neo liberal consensus? Getting the possibility of something a bit different to 'let's piss on the poor' on the agenda? Actually debating what the public actually supports , like nationalising the railways? Actually forming an opposition to the tories rather than actively supporting every fucking thing they do? To name a few. Not being a psychic I can't say for sure but these are best guesses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I voted Labour at the last election.
> 
> *Previously Lib Dem.*



And yet you accuse others of being deluded.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

Losing honourably - the true British disease...?

You're completely deluded if you think that that is going to bring about any change whatsoever...

This isn't the Charge of the Light Brigade.  It's modern politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'll focus on now rather than five years time if it's all the same with you? Labour are meant to be the opposition, they haven't been that since the 2010 election. They might actually be one if Corbyn is elected in September. Then he'll have five years... Half a decade.. to set out his policies. I don't really care about the labour party but having someone with Corbyn's views consistently in the mainstream media is a step in the right direction. Seeing pretty much the entire establishment, including Labour, soil themselves on a daily basis just at the prospect of a Corbyn win is a positive step also.


It's not so much about the party, as about the possible re-emergence of some semblance of broadly-held "left" values that frightens "the establishment" IMO. Their discourse (neoliberalism, while indoctrinating people away from socially-protective and productive institutions and legislation) has been dominant for 4 decades, but that dominance is contingent on a broad acceptance of the discourse as "the only game in town". Corbyn, however mildly, is reminding people that it isn't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You are asking me to produce a full manifesto in about 30 minutes when most of the candidates haven't produced anything remotely as detailed, despite them being professional politicians...?



Which is *why* they haven't.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 17, 2015)

There's a war criminal on some front pages today. He let banks run riot with the economy, mortgaged our public services to PFI spivs and wanted us all eye scanned and finger printed for a massive database. He led Labour to their first defeat in a generation.

The subject of his pontification: "Credibility".

What kind of "journalism" allows this to happen?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not so much about the party, as about the possible re-emergence of some semblance of broadly-held "left" values that frightens "the establishment" IMO. Their discourse (neoliberalism, while indoctrinating people away from socially-protective and productive institutions and legislation) has been dominant for 4 decades, but that dominance is contingent on a broad acceptance of the discourse as "the only game in town". Corbyn, however mildly, is reminding people that it isn't.



Yeah this is what I was trying to get at in my second response to numb nuts up there. It's somethin that resmbles left wing views and values. Having that in the media on a consisten basis if Corbyn wins is a good thing.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Losing honourably - the true British disease...?
> 
> You're completely deluded if you think that that is going to bring about any change whatsoever...
> 
> This isn't the Charge of the Light Brigade.  It's modern politics.



More modern toss in your case.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Losing honourably - the true British disease...?
> 
> You're completely deluded if you think that that is going to bring about any change whatsoever...
> 
> This isn't the Charge of the Light Brigade.  It's modern politics.



Yeah no one really cares what you think. Keep supporting your low fat tories won't you? It really inspired people and worked so well in the last two elections didn't it?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond 
Can you hear, Cameron is shouting you from the Downing street garden:-
Come baaaaack


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Losing honourably - the true British disease...?
> 
> You're completely deluded if you think that that is going to bring about any change whatsoever...
> 
> This isn't the Charge of the Light Brigade.  It's modern politics.



Ok...explain to us how supporting a new labourite who believes in pretty much the same things and has pretty much the same policies, and exactly the same political ethos as the Tories can bring about change ?
Why is it change when the punter with the red rosette says and does  the same stuff as the punter with the blue rosette ?

Jim Murphy used to come out with this stuff . Deluded ? He ended up doing a fair impression of hitlers last days in the bunker .

What you're talking about isn't modern politics . It's failed old hat from the late 1990s . A perceived wisdom that turned out to be a load of bollocks .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Losing honourably - the true British disease...?
> 
> You're completely deluded if you think that that is going to bring about any change whatsoever...
> 
> This isn't the Charge of the Light Brigade.  It's modern politics.



Modern "democratic" politics in the UK require legitimation - that is, "Parliamentary democracy" requires people to validate the system by exercising their franchise. Whether one acts instrumentally or altruistically, the number of people whose circumstances are *affected positively* by the system continues to decrease. We're still expected to pay the same dues, but for ever-decreasing services.

Given that Corbyn, in his hesitant, social-democratic way, is helping to highlight the inequality of (and inequity in) the social compact, why wouldn't that produce a degree of change? Unless one believes that the world is mostly populated by fools who will be eternally complicit in their own shafting, then change isn't just likely, but is unavoidable.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

Seriously - what do people expect will happen when Corbyn gets in?

A Labour victory?

Can Corbyn really secure a Labour victory?

And if the answer to that is no, what can he achieve of any value?


----------



## JimW (Aug 17, 2015)

Yeah but, no but, with added right-classic "real world" billy bullshit bingo. You are one tedious bell-end, Diamond.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister?


 Do you think if one of the 3 other candidates don't beat Corbyn in the leadership election that would make them more likely to win a general election ? If they can't carry the majority in their own party, how the fuck could they win a general election?

Whatever happens - Corbyn is going to do very well in the leadership election , possibly winning it on 1st preferences - of course this might lead to all sorts of dark art shenanigans in the run up to 2020 - what it does prove, is that the party needs to shift to the left .


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Imagine a lifetime of Diamond's questions. His *poor family*.



something tells me Diamond was not reared in a housold that lacked


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Do you think if one of the 3 other candidates don't beat Corbyn in the leadership election that would make them more likely to win a general election ? If they can't carry the majority in their own party, how the fuck could they win a general election?
> 
> Whatever happens - Corbyn is going to do very well in the leadership election , possibly winning it on 1st preferences - of course this might lead to all sorts of dark art shenanigans in the run up to 2020 - what it does prove, is that the party needs to shift to the left .



The field is admittedly tremendously poor - I think I've already said that on this thread.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> something tells me Diamond was not reared in a housold that lacked



It was plainly a household that lacked a clip round the ear policy for asking incessant stupid questions .


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Losing honourably - the true British disease...?


400 years of complete and total imperial dominance suggests that 'losing honourably' is not a british disease. Winning viciously and through methods that make me sick? Yeah. That happened. Don't take it as an endorsment of such empire horrors, just pointing out that you are talking bollocks.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

As a change from the 'Geezer'...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 400 years of complete and total imperial dominance suggests that 'losing honourably' is not a british disease. Winning viciously and through methods that make me sick? Yeah. That happened. Don't take it as an endorsment of such empire horrors, just pointing out that you are talking bollocks.



Bloody hell - this is ridiculous!

Vote for Corbyn because of the British Empire!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bloody hell - this is ridiculous!
> 
> Vote for Corbyn because of the British Empire!


thats exactly what I said as well


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bloody hell - this is ridiculous!
> 
> Vote for Corbyn because of the British Empire!


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 17, 2015)

Is he a fucking lawyer ? Did somebody say that once ? How the fuck did he even get a gcse ?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> On current form, Labour are unlikely to be elected in 2020 or 2025, given the less-than-sparkling panoply of talentless opportunists and careerists in the Parliamentary ranks. Neither Cooper, Burnham nor Kendall have sufficient talent and gravitas to be anything beyond caretakers, and the likes of Umunna, Leslie or even Miliband. D promise nothing new, just the same old carefully-triangulated "neoliberalism" that Blair and Brown offered.
> Could Corbyn win an election? Probably not. Is it possible he could energise the electorate more successfully than his party currently has, or the Tories have? Probably. Personally, I see an energised electorate rediscovering old solidarities as having a lot more social value than merely winning an election.


I'd agree with all that. I think there's an opportunity to build a social democratic bridgehead or, even better, some more creative approaches, all with an underlying message of at the very least stopping 30 years of redistribution towards the rich.  There was a flicker of this when Miliband announced limits on the profits of the energy companies (which, of course, he failed to build on).  Problem Corbyn will have is transforming a party which is still neo-liberal in all of its structures and key personnel into such a social democratic party.  To have a chance of starting that project he's need unity - something the blairites have made clear won't happen.  In fact I can't remember anything since the benn v healey deputy leadership that has been so bad in terms of the behaviour of the right/


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

No-one could have predicted that this contest would be even mildly entertaining. We should be grateful to see just how quickly things got shouty and interesting. It's good news in political terms, but it's good soap too.


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's a war criminal on some front pages today. He let banks run riot with the economy, mortgaged our public services to PFI spivs and wanted us all eye scanned and finger printed for a massive database. He led Labour to their first defeat in a generation.
> 
> The subject of his pontification: "Credibility".
> 
> What kind of "journalism" allows this to happen?



The one with free lunches, expense accounts, being kept in the loop by spin doctors and going off on a series of junkets around the world covering summits / tours etc.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bloody hell - this is ridiculous!
> 
> Vote for Corbyn because of the British Empire!



I've seen a couple of threads where people were having a real go at you and I was feeling that they were somewhat harsh. In retrospect they were just trying to get you to leave a thread that you were repeatedly pissing over with vague accusations and refusal to answer questions put to you.

You make a really slimy argument. You're a proper lawyer, congratulations. 

If you've got something constructive to say please say it, if not please fuck off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Is he a fucking lawyer ? Did somebody say that once ? How the fuck did he even get a gcse ?



The "someone" who said it was Diamond himself.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

He wears defendants down with inane questions in a similar manner to Colombo until they scream their guilt. It's pretty effective.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 17, 2015)

amazing "Twenty Twenty-Four: A Chilling Vision of Corbyn’s Britain" https://markfiddaman.wordpress.com/...ty-four-a-chilling-vision-of-corbyns-britain/


> It was a cold bright day in Jeztember, and the clocks were striking, in solidarity with the MiningBots, so I didn’t know the time.
> 
> I would be late, but knew better than to curse the strike aloud. They would be listening through the telescreen. If I was overheard, the TwitterBots would go into Outrage Mode and, unquestionably, I would be vaporised.
> 
> I pulled on my state-issued socks, buckled my People’s Sandals, and left hurriedly for work. I went by foot. Private cars are forbidden and the only public transport vehicle— the People’s Fixed-Gear Bike— is shared between the 20 million inhabitants of Equalitysberg (formerly ‘London’). It will be my turn to ride in about 80, 000 years, providing the Bike isn’t on strike that day. It almost certainly will be.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 17, 2015)

Willful disregard is a fine art D.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bloody hell - this is ridiculous!
> 
> Vote for Corbyn because of the British Empire!



I've told you I'm not a three quidder.

You airily asked if honourable defeat was the british disease

I mentioned the long long record of empire in dishonourable victory and control. and was careful to point out I don't endorse such and indeed am often astonished by a fresh revelation (malayan emergency the other month. Jesus that was a bad one) but the record shows you to have been crapping out of your mouth on that one. Honourable defeat my arse. The backstab was perfected here.

Try again you crap John Grisham.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> amazing "Twenty Twenty-Four: A Chilling Vision of Corbyn’s Britain" https://markfiddaman.wordpress.com/...ty-four-a-chilling-vision-of-corbyns-britain/



ace.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I'd agree with all that. I think there's an opportunity to build a social democratic bridgehead or, even better, some more creative approaches, all with an underlying message of at the very least stopping 30 years of redistribution towards the rich.  There was a flicker of this when Miliband announced limits on the profits of the energy companies (which, of course, he failed to build on).  Problem Corbyn will have is transforming a party which is still neo-liberal in all of its structures and key personnel into such a social democratic party.



A point I've made repeatedly on here over the past 10 or so years (usually to articul8), is that changing the structures into anything remotely democratic/a semblance of the old party structure and rules, will be hellishly difficult. Blairism removed a great deal of internal democracy, dis-empowered constituency parties massively, and centralised those powers (selection, most importantly) to committees of time-servers. If Corbyn wants to transform the party, he first needs to convince the mostly-neoliberal turkeys in the Parliamentary party to vote for Christmas, and reinstate a form of internal democracy consonant with...well, democracy.



> To have a chance of starting that project he's need unity - something the blairites have made clear won't happen.



Not just "won't", but for the Blairites, *can't* happen. Unity around social-democratic predicates would mean the ideological death of the Progressites and their fellow-travellers.



> In fact I can't remember anything since the benn v healey deputy leadership that has been so bad in terms of the behaviour of the right/



Well, Kinnock v Militant was pretty unseemly!


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 17, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> amazing "Twenty Twenty-Four: A Chilling Vision of Corbyn’s Britain" https://markfiddaman.wordpress.com/...ty-four-a-chilling-vision-of-corbyns-britain/


 
Er... slightly over the top, me thinks.
edit-oh it was supposed to be was it, doh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> The one with free lunches, expense accounts, being kept in the loop by spin doctors and going off on a series of junkets around the world covering summits / tours etc.



Yep. The one where you went to the same university as the movers and shakers you interview.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

I'm going to drive this argument home again to see if any Corbyn supporters have a proper response:

First, do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister of the UK; and

Second, if you do not think that is possible, what is the point of him leading the Labour party?


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 17, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Er... slightly over the top, me thinks.


no, you really think it's over the top?


> I work at the People’s Quantitative Easing Plant. Every day, we print millions in banknotes and give them to poor people, who are then immediately arrested for being too rich. As I arrived at my workstation, the telescreen was broadcasting BlairWatch: 24-hour live footage of the former Prime Minister and convicted war-criminal, pushing a boulder up a slope, with commentary from an increasingly exhausted and deranged Ant and Dec.
> 
> On the adjacent wall had been tacked a coloured poster depicting an enormous face: the face of a man of about seventy-five, with a wispy, grey beard and ruggedly handsome features. JEZ WE CAN, the caption beneath it ran.
> 
> After a few dull hours, the speakers began to blare out the National Song: a dubstep version of _The Internationale_ by Billy Bragg, ft. Alt-J. It was lunchtime. I filed into the canteen, where I took my usual meal. My People’s Falafel Wrap was dry and tasteless, while my state-issued pear kept bursting into flames.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2015)

He has to be a troll. In the sense of someone who posts to get attention rather than for the sake of argument. Time and time again he constructs an argument from 2 or 3 words in someone else's post and responds to that instead of what has actually been said, resulting in more attention than a sensible response could possibly have got him. The example with Dot Communist's post above is just too ridiculous to take seriously.


----------



## youngian (Aug 17, 2015)

Mandelson hires hitman to Get Crobyn!


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 17, 2015)

maomao said:


> He has to be a troll.


err obviously.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm going to drive this argument home again to see if any Corbyn supporters have a proper response:
> 
> First, do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister of the UK; and
> 
> Second, if you do not think that is possible, what is the point of him leading the Labour party?


This thread is not you vs the Corbyn supporters. A wide range of people with a wide range of opinions have gone over these two questions in detail over the last 100 or so pages and not one of them owes you an answer cause you're an ignorant attention seeking cunt. Just fuck off. Please just fuck off.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 17, 2015)

lol, Dan Hodges gets hysterical



> Jeremy Corbyn is poised for victory. Across the Labour party the lights are going out. We may not see them lit again in our lifetime.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-resist-the-Corbyn-regime.html?fb_ref=Default


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2015)

maomao said:


> This thread is not you vs the Corbyn supporters. A wide range of people with a wide range of opinions have gone over these two questions in detail over the last 100 or so pages and not one of them owes you an answer cause you're an ignorant attention seeking cunt. Just fuck off. Please just fuck off.



I think "drive your argument home" is how your request above is most likely to be understood by the poster concerned.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> lol
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-resist-the-Corbyn-regime.html?fb_ref=Default





> The Free French strategy involves effectively withdrawing all support from Corbyn. MPs will not serve in his shadow cabinet, they will not observe the whip



Jesus, Corbyn as Adolf now?


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Jesus, Corbyn as Adolf now?



Adolf, then Kaiser Wilhelm right at the end, and given all the mentions of the Maquis some probably see him as a little bit Gul Dukat too.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2015)

The way to stop the dickhed shitting up the thread is to not respond to his posts.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm going to drive this argument home again to see if any Corbyn supporters have a proper response:
> 
> First, do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister of the UK; and
> 
> Second, if you do not think that is possible, what is the point of him leading the Labour party?




First: Yes.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> lol
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-resist-the-Corbyn-regime.html?fb_ref=Default



That smug, bespectacled twat presenting the video half way down the page made me want to punch a hole in my laptop screen, reach in and throttle him. Even the twee little music is patronising and superior.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> The way to stop the dickhed shitting up the thread is to not respond to his posts.




Oh shit. Sorry.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Jesus, Corbyn as Adolf now?



LP amateur dramatics society, just wait til they get their costumes in


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> Adolf, then Kaiser Wilhelm right at the end, and given all the mentions of the Maquis some probably see him as a little bit Gul Dukat too.



Yvette Cooper as Kira and Chukka as Odo then? Toss up for Quark.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 17, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Yvette Cooper as Kira and Chukka as Odo then? Toss up for Quark.





> A bloodshot eye peered at me through the letterbox. Its owner demanded the password: ‘aspiration’. A pause. Whispers. Then, with a clatter of bolts, chains and keys, the door opened a crack.
> 
> There stood Tristram Hunt. I knew his face from the ‘wanted’ posters, though three years in the underground had taken their toll. He wore an eyepatch, his cheek was scarred, and he hadn’t trimmed his state-issued beard— an arrestable offence.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 17, 2015)




----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

maomao said:


> He has to be a troll. In the sense of someone who posts to get attention rather than for the sake of argument. Time and time again he constructs an argument from 2 or 3 words in someone else's post and responds to that instead of what has actually been said, resulting in more attention than a sensible response could possibly have got him. The example with Dot Communist's post above is just too ridiculous to take seriously.



A troll who has been here for longer than you have?

I post what I think but I'm not the kind of poster to stand by the sidelines and cheerlead.  Generally I post in opposition to stuff that people put forwards and it seems to frustrate them - possibly because they are never really challenged...


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> lol, Dan Hodges gets hysterical
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-resist-the-Corbyn-regime.html?fb_ref=Default


That man has a serious problem and he should seek help.


----------



## red & green (Aug 17, 2015)

Wow TB looking more and more like the grim reaper


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm going to drive this argument home again to see if any Corbyn supporters have a proper response:
> 
> First, do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister of the UK; and
> 
> Second, if you do not think that is possible, what is the point of him leading the Labour party?


non corbynite responds


He could. Its not unknown for a left wing candidate to win elections. Chavez managed it. Shit, Wilsons gov in the UK.

If you don't think its possible, it will drag the labour party kicking and screaming leftwards

Thats it.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2015)

tony blair sitting on top of his pile of skulls, stark naked, cackling maniacally


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> A troll who has been here for longer than you have?
> 
> I post what I think but I'm not the kind of poster to stand by the sidelines and cheerlead.  Generally I post in opposition to stuff that people put forwards and it seems to frustrate them - possibly because they are never really challenged...



You don't challenge anyone, you just smugly repeat the same crap assertions with no actual content. Compare you to other posters here, who can bore the arse off of us all with endless well informed, evidence based arguments and you show up like an arsey kid. Read this whole thread, challenge the opinions presented, or contribute ones of your own worth reading, then people may do more than point and laugh


----------



## red & green (Aug 17, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> tony blair sitting on top of his pile of skulls, stark naked, cackling maniacally



Innit!!

Meanwhile in Dublin


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Generally I post in opposition to stuff that people put forwards..


And you find that rewarding?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

Burnham makes play of his loyalty...


> “I am the person that can unite Labour.
> “*I have never broken a Labour whip in my 15 years in Parliament.* I’ve always played politics as a team game.”


So that's some interesting stuff that you have voted for, then Andy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm going to drive this argument home again to see if any Corbyn supporters have a proper response:
> 
> First, do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister of the UK; and
> 
> Second, if you do not think that is possible, what is the point of him leading the Labour party?


non corbynite responds


He could. Its not unknown for a left wing candidate to win elections. Chavez managed it. Shit, Wilsons gov in the UK.

even if you don't think its possible, it will drag the labour party kicking and screaming leftwards praps. Who knows.

Thats it.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 17, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> tony blair sitting on top of his pile of skulls, stark naked, cackling maniacally



...gnawing on bones in his cave, he's blind now but clutching a jagged edge of flint he scrapes lines into the stone wall, feeling the marks with his blood stained hands, first a J and then much later when he's got the hang of it, Jeremy. Fucking. Corbyn. For. Fucks. Sake....


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> A troll who has been here for longer than you have?
> 
> I post what I think but I'm not the kind of poster to stand by the sidelines and cheerlead.  Generally I post in opposition to stuff that people put forwards and it seems to frustrate them - possibly because they are never really challenged...



You don't challenge people. Your posts don't have any real content and you don't add anything to the debate. You just ignore people's posts and carry on repeating the same two or three mistruthes.

Let's have something useful from you.

You don't thing Labour can win from the left but Labour have just lost on their current platform. Without misrepresenting my simple request - without strawmen, and without just ignoring this post - could you give maybe a 100 word summary of what Labour's politics should be like?

If you can't. Why don't you get another hobby?

If you can, would love to hear.


----------



## newbie (Aug 17, 2015)

I picked up a copy of the sun on sunday and read figures for the campaign funding of the candidates, but I can't find anything online.
Hundreds of thousands each, mostly from a handful of big backers, except Corbyn who's mostly union & crowdfunded.

What struck me was the claim that they spend it on campaigning, leaflets, travelling, booking halls and so on.  Now with C that makes sense, but what are the others really spending the money on?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Burnham makes play of his loyalty...
> ​So that's some interesting stuff that you have voted for, then Andy.




"I'm a rock solid yes-man and proud"


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> He wears defendants down with inane questions in a similar manner to Colombo until they scream their guilt. It's pretty effective.


this is well offensive to Columbo fans. Columbo's questions, while seemingly innocouse, were actually key to his case building. Sometimes he could come in with one they couldn't answer and then it was jobs a goodun.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2015)

Terrible leadership videos 


'You may think I am just asking for your vote. And I am'


----------



## Favelado (Aug 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> The way to stop the dickhed shitting up the thread is to not respond to his posts.



Sorry again. I promise.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 17, 2015)

Shitting up the thread seems to be code for disagreeing with the majority opinion.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Shitting up the thread seems to be code for disagreeing with the majority opinion.


The "majority opinion" being what?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2015)

It will be interesting if Corbyn wins the leadership and stays for the next election, how long ago was it that we last had a left versus right wing contest, Kinnock perhaps? What proportion of voters would benefit from a left wing prospectus and might therefore vote for it, perhaps only time will tell?


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2015)

Its like herding cats


----------



## Wilf (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I've told you I'm not a three quidder.
> 
> .


That could actually become a thing. The Daily Mail abandon moaning about the politically correct and the metropolitan elite. It'll become 'The March of The Three Quidders.... wibble wibble, Eurotunnel swarms.... Commissars.... Winterval......Benefit Street... ".  How the Three Quidders Turned this Green and Pleasant Land into an Isis Hellhole.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Shitting up the thread seems to be code for disagreeing with the majority opinion.



Yeah you're right and you're right about the other thing too, bang on. It's just that your persiflage is hard work, it's painful. You probably mean well and all but this is a franchise, it's about brand loyalty and majority opinions. Stop rocking the flagpole with your whacky idealistic shtick and all that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Is he a fucking lawyer ? Did somebody say that once ? How the fuck did he even get a gcse ?


he gets regularly stitched up by even mental cases like me. Still he can sit on his balcony, reading Nabukov while mastubating and imagining a life that doesn't so closely resemble being the lead in a brit remake of American Psycho


----------



## Belushi (Aug 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The "majority opinion" being what?



That diamond is a dolt.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 17, 2015)

Today's announcement by Burnham that he would if elected leader put Corbyn into his cabinet, sounds to me a clever ploy to  "shoot Corbyn's fox. Nervous Corbyn supporters might be seduced into voting Burnham. Corbyn has reciprocated this which will do him no harm at all. 
'


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> he gets regularly stitched up by even mental cases like me. Still he can sit on his balcony, reading Nabukov while mastubating and imagining a life that doesn't so closely resemble being the lead in a brit remake of American Psycho



"Diamond Geezer" directed by Rich Guy, starring gangsta wannabes and tory molls etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> That diamond is a dolt.


resolution adopted _nem con_


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Let's have something useful from you.


but answer came there none


----------



## YouSir (Aug 17, 2015)

Seeing as he's been the most 'moderate' of the candidates towards Corbyn I wonder what Burnham is angling for when it's all over? He'll say pretty much whatever he thinks will make him popular, no one could call him a radical anything and he's about as inoffensive as you could get as far as public image goes. Just the sort of person to give a job to to prove party unity and all that stuff.

Or in the unlikely event it goes his way where will he put Corbyn to not drive away too many of the enthused masses while still making sure he has no chance to say, do or think anything that'll upset things?


----------



## agricola (Aug 17, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Seeing as he's been the most 'moderate' of the candidates towards Corbyn I wonder what Burnham is angling for when it's all over? He'll say pretty much whatever he thinks will make him popular, no one could call him a radical anything and he's about as inoffensive as you could get as far as public image goes. Just the sort of person to give a job to to prove party unity and all that stuff.



Not sure he is angling for anything; perhaps its just a case of him recognizing that wheeling out an ever more lurid and fantastical series of reasons why people should vote for Corbyn is not necessarily the best way of getting people to not vote for Corbyn.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2015)

If Burnham was elected leader I don't think Labour would have a chance at the next election, Burnham is bland, devoid of conviction or policies and neither a leader nor a winner. I think Labour would have a better chance in 2020 with Corbyn, at least he seems to stand for something and can fill halls.


----------



## maomao (Aug 17, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Is he a fucking lawyer ? Did somebody say that once ? How the fuck did he even get a gcse ?



British public school system. It imbues idiots with a sense of superiority so they can appear to be patronising even in a discussion the vast majority of which has gone straight over their heads. There were tons of the cunts in my class at uni. They spent every lesson asking 'is this in the exam?', scraped 2:1s and are all extremely rich now.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Shitting up the thread seems to be code for disagreeing with the majority opinion.




Nope. I expect due respect would be forthcoming for people who express misgivings about Corbyn without being quite so pompous and know-all.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 17, 2015)

maomao said:


> British public school system. It imbues idiots with a sense of superiority so they can appear to be patronising even in a discussion the vast majority of which has gone straight over their heads. There were tons of the cunts in my class at uni. They spent every lesson asking 'is this in the exam?', scraped 2:1s and are all extremely rich now.



away from this discussion, this encapsulates so well a phenomena I've tried to put my finger on for a very long time. There are some people in my circles who went to fee paying schools. They tend to be left tilted or arty etc. so I'm comfortable asking them if they were at school with folk who are probably now pretty much rich/powerful elite types, and if they were utter planks/pricks at school. It's a discussion that tends to confirm a corelation.

It's one of the ironies of toryism that it is thus highly anti-meritocraic.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2015)

Maybe stop talking about him as well as to him.


----------



## jcsd (Aug 17, 2015)

weltweit said:


> If Burnham was elected leader I don't think Labour would have a chance at the next election, Burnham is bland, devoid of conviction or policies and neither a leader nor a winner. I think Labour would have a better chance in 2020 with Corbyn, at least he seems to stand for something and can fill halls.


All of Cooper Burnham and Kendalls are Labour-insiders associated with the Blair government to some degree (even Kendall who didn't become an MP until 2010 was a former political adviser to Harriet Harman parachuted into a safe seat) and it seems that if Labour picked either of those three the strategy would be to simply be to hope that come 2020 the electorate had enough of the Tories. They are all essentially bland professional politicians whose real talent is navigating the inner political landscape of the Labour party.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 17, 2015)

red & green said:


> Wow TB looking more and more like the grim reaper



Expect to hear from the GR's lawyers in due course.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

YouSir said:


> I wonder what Burnham is angling for when it's all over?


Those rusty Austin Allegros won't fucking sell themselves goddamit


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2015)

> Corbynmania comes to the North East as Labour leadership favourite heads to Newcastle
> 
> The veteran left winger is due to speak at the Tyne Theatre on Westgate Road on Tuesday, where a sell out crowd awaits him.
> 
> ...




Sold out in days in mid August, remarkable

update, sold out in four hours.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

> the lights are going out



I've heard 'the light went out' in several contexts but the most frequent is the description of how devestating the bubonic plague was on medieval europe. So presumably the snowy bearded lenin is the herald of a new plague.

These fucking dramatists. You've got a mild mannered old bloke from the labour left talking about stuff and all of a sudden its armagideon time


----------



## teqniq (Aug 17, 2015)

Armagideon? Is this some weird obscure Freudian slip?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> tony blair sitting on top of his pile of skulls, stark naked, cackling maniacally



thanks for that image frogz. Just really helps my dinner go down.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Armagideon? Is this some weird obscure Freudian slip?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> Adolf, then Kaiser Wilhelm right at the end, and given all the mentions of the Maquis some probably see him as a little bit Gul Dukat too.



there was actually some redemptive episodes for Gul tbf


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 17, 2015)

Liz Kendall's machine was fairly swift to react to those on twitter who commented yesterday

(and Oh mai - mine is one of three in the independent) 

It does seem that the quotes that specifically mentioned "disabled people" or "normal people" are incorrect.

Actual words were

in 1997... “people thought were had a message that was, yes, for the weak and the vulnerable and for those who were suffering, but for ordinary people too.”

I'm not sure I like it much more.  The implication being that in 2015 there wasn't a message for "ordinary people"

Still seems to be very much a "them and us" thing.

This seems a pretty good response.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> The way to stop the dickhed shitting up the thread is to not respond to his posts.



He's on ignore now


----------



## 8115 (Aug 17, 2015)

Corbyn in Burnham's team? Yes, that's definitely not going to be a complete disaster at all. To be honest I can't imagine who that idea would appeal to.


----------



## gosub (Aug 17, 2015)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...lar-to-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-must-step-aside.html you don't see the other candidates worrying about the leftish vote splitting


----------



## magneze (Aug 17, 2015)

8115 said:


> Corbyn in Burnham's team? Yes, that's definitely not going to be a complete disaster at all. To be honest I can't imagine who that idea would appeal to.








"Will this do?"


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 17, 2015)

8115 said:


> To be honest I can't imagine who that idea would appeal to.



People who are 1) attracted to Corbyn's policies, 2) convinced by the media/right-wing press/liberal fabian twats that he is unelectable, and 3) believe that some of those policies might creep into and influence a (for some reason more electorally successful) Burnham shadow-cabinet with Corbyn in it. In other words, practically no-one.


----------



## magneze (Aug 17, 2015)

Does anyone have any tips for stopping the endless email, phone call and texts that the Labour party are sending? I've asked each one to stop but they keep coming. Next stop, the regulator.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> People who are 1) attracted to Corbyn's policies, 2) convinced by the media/right-wing press/liberal fabian twats that he is unelectable, and 3) believe that some of those policies might creep into and influence a Burnham shadow-cabinet with Corbyn in it. In other words, practically no-one.
> 
> 
> View attachment 75490


your graphic points out the exact spot where several 90s era Ford Escorts are parked, next to half a dozen Subaru Imprezas. The shit blue ones with gold sprayed rims.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 17, 2015)

magneze said:


> Does anyone have any tips for stopping the endless email, phone call and texts that the Labour party are sending? I've asked each one to stop but they keep coming. Next stop, the regulator.



You gave them your proper phone number?


----------



## magneze (Aug 17, 2015)

two sheds said:


> You gave them your proper phone number?


I told one of them to fuck off today. I'm sick of it. Felt a bit bad as it wasn't the fault of the person on the other end but it really has been fucking endless.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 17, 2015)

magneze said:


> Does anyone have any tips for stopping the endless email, phone call and texts that the Labour party are sending? I've asked each one to stop but they keep coming. Next stop, the regulator.



Once you're in there is no way out bar clawing away your retinas with your bare hands.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2015)

magneze said:


> Does anyone have any tips for stopping the endless email, phone call and texts that the Labour party are sending?


I've found not being a labour voter helps with this vexatious issue. Now I only have to deal with car insurance emails and spam from people who want to make my nob bigger. It's fine as it is for gods sake!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'm going to drive this argument home again to see if any Corbyn supporters have a proper response:
> 
> First, do you think that Corbyn could ever be elected as Prime Minister of the UK; and
> 
> Second, if you do not think that is possible, what is the point of him leading the Labour party?



I already gave a response to your point two. As ever, you appear to have missed the wood for the trees.

And you're not "driving this argument home". You haven't made an argument, just posted farty two-sentence spewings of what you've ingested from your days' toilet reading.


----------



## magneze (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I've found not being a labour voter helps with this vexatious issue. Now I only have to deal with car insurance emails and spam from people who want to make my nob bigger. It's fine as it is for gods sake!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 17, 2015)

I gave them an old PAYG phone number that I theoretically still have the SIM for.  No way was I giving those fuckers my actual phone number.

I still haven't received a ballot paper, btw.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> A troll who has been here for longer than you have?



Length of tenure doesn't reflect whether or not you're a troll.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> tony blair sitting on top of his pile of skulls, stark naked, cackling maniacally...


...masturbating furiously over a picture of a naked Cherie lying atop a pile of corpses.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...masturbating furiously over a picture of a naked Cherie lying atop a pile of corpses.


while jeremy clarkson stands behind him, hand on his shoulder, muttering words of hate spittled encouragement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> Maybe stop talking about him as well as to him.



So you reckon that he should be sent to that place in the midlands that The Specials came from?


----------



## gosub (Aug 17, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I've found not being a labour voter helps with this vexatious issue. Now I only have to deal with car insurance emails and spam from people who want to make my nob bigger. It's fine as it is for gods sake!


So I can't interest you in an accident that's not your fault?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> while jeremy clarkson stands behind him, hand on his shoulder, muttering words of hate spittled encouragement...


...and erotic stimulus. "Think about lubing her hate-dried vadge with the rendered-down fat of socialists, Tone. Think about slapping some leftie-lard on your cock and riding Cherie raw".


----------



## teqniq (Aug 17, 2015)

Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you reckon that he should be sent to that place in the midlands that The Specials came from?


Sutton Coldfield?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> Sutton Coldfield?



That's the one!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom.



Due to extreme nausea, one hopes!


----------



## teqniq (Aug 17, 2015)

yeah


----------



## brogdale (Aug 17, 2015)

Tristram Hunt on 'Newsnight' FFS


----------



## Ole (Aug 17, 2015)

Corbyn answering accusations about associating with anti-Semites on Channel 4 News earlier.


----------



## Patteran (Aug 17, 2015)

Ole said:


> Corbyn answering accusations about associating with anti-Semites on Channel 4 News earlier.




Think Cathy Newman's got that wrong - according to his wiki, Saleh wasn't convicted of the blood libel pronouncement - charged, but not convicted. I'm not saying he's not a crank, but a journalist should present the facts accurately.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 17, 2015)

Patteran said:


> Think Cathy Newman's got that wrong - according to his wiki, Saleh wasn't convicted of the blood libel pronouncement - charged, but not convicted. I'm not saying he's not a crank, but a journalist should present the facts accurately.



They're not interested in facts. They are at present flailing manically, throwing any minuscule speckle of shite they can get their hands on in the hope that some of it might stick. As far as I can tell, they are just ending up with shitty hands.


----------



## belboid (Aug 17, 2015)

Patteran said:


> Think Cathy Newman's got that wrong - according to his wiki, Saleh wasn't convicted of the blood libel pronouncement - charged, but not convicted. I'm not saying he's not a crank, but a journalist should present the facts accurately.


it's a good tactic to get your interviewee to say something they didn't really want to - "well, he wasn't actually convicted, only charged" - which just sounds like being weaselly. So he dodged that one


----------



## Patteran (Aug 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> it's a good tactic to get your interviewee to say something they didn't really want to - "well, he wasn't actually convicted, only charged" - which just sounds like being weaselly. So he dodged that one



Huh - well spotted. I'd have been bollocksed by that one, belboid - if I ever stand for leadership of the Labour Party, I'll be after you for media training.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 17, 2015)

A very good article here from Craig Murray. He' certainly make a good critique of the media, especially the G.

"*The sheer panic gripping the London elite now is hilarious to behold.*Those on the favoured side of Britain’s enormous wealth gap are terrified by the idea that there may be a genuine electoral challenge to neo-liberalism, embodied in one of the main party structures. *This is especially terrifying to those who became wealthy by hijacking the representation of the working class to the neo-liberal cause.*

The fundamental anti-democracy of the Blairites is plainly exposed, and the panic-driven hysterical hate-fest campaign against Corbyn by the Guardian would be unbelievable, if we hadn’t just seen exactly the same campaign by the same paper against the rejection of neo-liberalism in Scotland. 

I think I am entitled to say I told you so. Many people appear shocked to have discovered the Guardian is so anti-left wing. I have been explaining this in detail for years. It is good to feel vindicated, and even better that the people I have repeatedly shared platforms with, like Jeremy and Mhairi, are suddenly able to have the genuinely popular case they make listened to. Do I feel a little left behind, personally? Probably, but I would claim to have contributed a little to the mood, and particularly my article on the manufactured myth that the left is unelectable has been extremely widely shared – by hundreds of thousands – in the social media storm that is propelling the Corbyn campaign."

In full:


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42637.htm


----------



## Ole (Aug 18, 2015)

Speaking of good articles, I thought this was excellently put in The Independent.

*Why Corbyn is so popular*

_By Frank Cottrell Boyce_

Only 25 per cent of the population earns more than £30,000 a year. Most media commentators (including me) do. For people like me, the country basically works. Politics doesn't affect me. Politics, for me, is about how other people are treated. It's easy inside my echo-chamber to believe that I am the norm, or the middle. Easy to forget that there are voices outside.

To people in my position, austerity can be read as regrettable but pragmatic. But to my friends and family, who live outside the bubble, it's not regrettable, it's terrifying. It's also not pragmatic. The crackpot, gimcrack ideological nature of austerity becomes more apparent the closer you get to the point of delivery.

Outside the bubble, everyone knows that an economy in which you can work 50 hours a week and still need tax credit to make the rent is a broken economy. To those outside the bubble, a Parliament that knows the country does not have enough houses yet cannot bring itself to build any for fear of "interfering with the market", is not a Parliament at all. And a media that sees a 50p top tax-rate, public investment and re-nationalisation of the worst failures of privatisation (railways and energy) as politically dangerous is a media whose understanding of politics has shrivelled into mere gossip.

People keep comparing the Corbyn campaign to 1983. But surely the more apt comparison is with 2001. Back then, everyone in the country – apart a few hundred politicians – knew that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, that the invasion of Iraq was a harebrained folly that would end in tragedy. In 2015, everyone – except a few hundred politicians – can see that austerity is a harebrained folly that could end in tragedy.

We were right then. We're right now.


----------



## yield (Aug 18, 2015)

The Labour party is dead. Long live the Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn is a Fabian for gods sake.

The best thing to happen is for him to lose the election by a few percent.

Then to take a position in the shadow cabinet.

“When philosophy paints its grey in grey, then has a shape of life grown old.

By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only under-stood.

The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only within the falling of the dusk.”


----------



## xenon (Aug 18, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Poking a hole in the neo liberal consensus? Getting the possibility of something a bit different to 'let's piss on the poor' on the agenda? Actually debating what the public actually supports , like nationalising the railways? Actually forming an opposition to the tories rather than actively supporting every fucking thing they do? To name a few. Not being a psychic I can't say for sure but these are best guesses.


This in fucking spades.


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Sold out in days in mid August, remarkable
> 
> update, sold out in four hours.






> Speakers include:
> Jeremy Corbyn MP
> Davey Hopper, General Secretary of the Duram Miners Association
> Grahame Morris MP
> ...




Bit of a dubious line up in parts, many usual suspects, organised by Counterfire?, read Paul Stotts blog to hear more about Laura Pidcock.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 18, 2015)

Ole said:


> Corbyn answering accusations about associating with anti-Semites on Channel 4 News earlier.



Not quite sure how to read his performance there. I'll be honest, I know virtually none of the detail on the groups and individuals mentioned, so I'm just going off his demeanour.  Sounded a bit defensive, couldn't quite come out and apologise or say he fucked up. Sounded a bit like a ..... _politician_.

Edit: should just say, I think the attempt to portray him as anti-semitic are disgusting. Just think that if you've had contact with groups/individuals who turn out to be dodgy (or worse), it's best to address that, rather than going into defence mode.  Saying you live and learn, you make mistakes could actually be a virtue, particularly when set against the robotnik 3 he is up against.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 18, 2015)

The peerless Craig Murray.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42637.htm

ETA: quote - _You can be sure that the security services are heavily targeted on the Corbyn campaign. _


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 18, 2015)

http://spectre-online.org/corbyn-anti-semite/


----------



## two sheds (Aug 18, 2015)

Protesting against the slaughter of Palestinians is itself enough for someone to be labeled anti-semitic by many supporters of the Israeli government.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 18, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Protesting against the slaughter of Palestinians is itself enough for someone to be labeled anti-semitic by many supporters of the Israeli government.



Indeed, using this reasoning I suspect there are many here on the forums who would be considered anti-Semitic, myself included.


----------



## youngian (Aug 18, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> That man has a serious problem and he should seek help.



See also Louise Mensch who seems to have some pathological obsession with Corbyn
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch

Hodges is a drama queen, if Corbyn's leadership implodes it will be down to him. But there will be a lot of goodwill and respect for him among CLP members even if they didn't vote for him. MPs who value their seats will not be playing silly buggers.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 18, 2015)

youngian said:


> See also Louise Mensch who seems to have some pathological obsession with Corbyn
> https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch


Am blocked from her account but based on retweets I see mensch is increasingly unhinged across a whole range of issues. 

Drugs are clearly decent in New York.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Not quite sure how to read his performance there. I'll be honest, I know virtually none of the detail on the groups and individuals mentioned, so I'm just going off his demeanour.  Sounded a bit defensive, couldn't quite come out and apologise or say he fucked up. Sounded a bit like a ..... _politician_.
> 
> Edit: should just say, I think the attempt to portray him as anti-semitic are disgusting. Just think that if you've had contact with groups/individuals who turn out to be dodgy (or worse), it's best to address that, rather than going into defence mode.  Saying you live and learn, you make mistakes could actually be a virtue, particularly when set against the robotnik 3 he is up against.


Vermin strategists will be observing JC's 'brittle' defensiveness for (possible) future tactics.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

Dan U said:


> Am blocked from her account but based on retweets I see mensch is increasingly unhinged across a whole range of issues.
> 
> Drugs are clearly decent in New York.


Yes. I responded to author/lecturer Rob Ford's tweet implying that JC was an anti-semite, (and he had re-tweeted that Mensch thing), last night...and got blocked. Tetchy lots these RW smearers.


----------



## newbie (Aug 18, 2015)

magneze said:


> Does anyone have any tips for stopping the endless email, phone call and texts that the Labour party are sending? I've asked each one to stop but they keep coming. Next stop, the regulator.


I'm feeling left out, not had a single email... sadly I appear to have given them my mobile answerphone number by mistake so phone calls won't be getting though, but why have I had no emails?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 18, 2015)

the important question that has not been addressed yet -

has anyone paid the 3 quid so they can draw a cock on the ballot paper?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 18, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the important question that has not been addressed yet -
> 
> has anyone paid the 3 quid so they can draw a cock on the ballot paper?



They'd just count it as a vote for Andy Burnham.


----------



## magneze (Aug 18, 2015)

newbie said:


> I'm feeling left out, not had a single email... sadly I appear to have given them my mobile answerphone number by mistake so phone calls won't be getting though, but why have I had no emails?


Probably all in spam where they belong. Utterly inept. Whoever is running their election promotional campaign should be fired. Out of a cannon.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Vermin strategists will be observing JC's 'brittle' defensiveness for (possible) future tactics.


It's funny when you think about all the actual murderers that the previous Labour government associated with.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 18, 2015)

youngian said:


> See also Louise Mensch who seems to have some pathological obsession with Corbyn
> https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch
> 
> Hodges is a drama queen, if Corbyn's leadership implodes it will be down to him. But there will be a lot of goodwill and respect for him among CLP members even if they didn't vote for him. MPs who value their seats will not be playing silly buggers.


Eurgh I wish I hadn't read that. I'm almost tempted to sign up to twitter, call her an unhinged shitcunt in order to get blocked to prevent myself from reading it again, accidentally or otherwise.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

Where's that photo of Blair shaking hands with Gaddaffi?


----------



## belboid (Aug 18, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the important question that has not been addressed yet -
> 
> has anyone paid the 3 quid so they can draw a cock on the ballot paper?


I'm writing 'World Communism' on mine


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 18, 2015)

youngian said:


> See also Louise Mensch who seems to have some pathological obsession with Corbyn
> https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch
> 
> Hodges is a drama queen, if Corbyn's leadership implodes it will be down to him. But there will be a lot of goodwill and respect for him among CLP members even if they didn't vote for him. MPs who value their seats will not be playing silly buggers.


I reckon Mensch's love of Peruvian marching powder's affected her judgement.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 18, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Imagine a lifetime of Diamond's questions. His poor family.


What's that Russian word for people who ask too many questions?


----------



## Knotted (Aug 18, 2015)

Burnham and Cooper turn on each other in big way. Accusations of sexism and bully.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...tions-circling-wagon-jeremy-corbyn-leadership


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 18, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Where's that photo of Blair shaking hands with Gaddaffi?



Which one? And of course Brown did it too, though he does at least look unenthused. If any of these people were being in the least bit honest they'd admit the ability to make friendly with dodgy bastards is actually a recommendation for the top job - I mean fuck Huffpo was able to make a top ten of Cameron courting vicious dictators back in 2013.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2015)

Ole said:


> Speaking of good articles, I thought this was excellently put in The Independent.
> 
> *Why Corbyn is so popular*
> 
> ...


I think he's unwittingly confirming he lives in a bubble, opinion-wise.

Just like many people discovered when the general election results took them by surprise because they didn't match what had been in their facebook feeds during the run-up.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 18, 2015)

I like the way the labourites opposed to Corbyn are called the 'moderates'. Other way round what with the dramatic swing rightwards over the last few years.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 18, 2015)

not-bono-ever said:


> What's that Russian word for people who ask too many questions?



Siberian tourists?


----------



## Athos (Aug 18, 2015)

I'm no fan of bourgeois democracy, particularly the way it's acted out through electoral politics in the UK.  And I've got no time for the 'Labour' party: I don't think it has anything significant to offer working class people, particularly in its present sorry state.  But I do have one or two observations about some of what's been posted here (and elsewhere) about Corbyn's leadership challenge.

1. It's not inconceivable that the Labour Party could be elected with him at the helm (though I think it unlikely). It's not without historical precedent, and, after all, a month or so ago it was apparently inconceivable that he'd be elected leader!
2. That prospect is made more likely by the public's increasing frustration with the political class' disdain of (even the pretence of) democracy.
3. What's the alternative?  It would be a pyrrhic victory for a Labour Party to be elected which is not ideologically distinct from the Tories.  Workers in this country would be better off if the Labour Party ceased to exist than if it was led by Liz Kendall; at least its demise would create a space for a genuine left-wing alternative movement.
4. Even if the election of Corbyn did mean that Labour lose the next election, his time as leader might produce a leftwards expansion of the Overton window.  Anything that puts a crack in the monolith of neoliberal ideology can only be a good thing; at present, we have a generation of young people to whom the possibility that there might be an alternative to capitalism seems completely bonkers.  Who know how such cracks might be expanded and exploited thereafter.  I don't mean by the labour party; even with Corbyn in charge, it would continue to act within capitalism (without which it would cease to exist) - but it might get some peole thinking.
5. In my opinion, in the present circumstances, the potential benefit in 4 outweighs the argument that a reinvigorated Labour Party might be a distraction from ultimately more fruitful forms of organisation (not least of all because, at this point, the two aren't mutually exclusive).  As such, there's little harm that could come of Corbyn's leadership, whereas lots of harm will undoubtedly flow from more of the same.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 18, 2015)

Knotted said:


> Burnham and Cooper turn on each other in big way. Accusations of sexism and bully.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...tions-circling-wagon-jeremy-corbyn-leadership


Rats in a sack. So bad even the sack says get the fuck out of here.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 18, 2015)

There really should be a separate thread for Dan Hodges' drivel. Anyway, here's his latest. "Trumpton revolutionaries" is his latest phrase.


> It’s all a mirage. A fiction. Jeremy Corbyn and his campaign are living a well-crafted lie.
> 
> I have spent a great deal of my adult life around politics. Until I started to write about it, I ran some hard campaigns. I ran some downright dirty campaigns. I did many things I’m not proud of, and a few I’m openly ashamed of. But I’ve never seen anything quite like Jeremy Corbyn’s “campaign of Hope”.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ing-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

i didn't see gordon brown's speech, but something tells me it was dull


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 18, 2015)

Dan Loldges: 



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-underground-to-resist-the-Corbyn-regime.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the important question that has not been addressed yet -
> 
> has anyone paid the 3 quid so they can draw a cock on the ballot paper?


I lamented the lack of support for Spunking Cock (M-l) some pages ago


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> There really should be a separate thread for Dan Hodges' drivel. Anyway, here's his latest. "Trumpton revolutionaries" is his latest phrase.



"Toytown revolutionaries" was already copyrighted. 

Whenever Hodges has an article published, I feel like writing to his mum, and asking her why she didn't clip his ear more as a kid.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 18, 2015)

S☼I said:


> Dan Loldges:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-underground-to-resist-the-Corbyn-regime.html



Jesus, the fucking melodrama! 



> The Free French strategy involves effectively withdrawing all support from Corbyn. MPs will not serve in his shadow cabinet, they will not observe the whip



It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 18, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Toytown revolutionaries" was already copyrighted.
> 
> Whenever Hodges has an article published, I feel like writing to his mum, and asking her why she didn't clip his ear more as a kid.


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I think he's unwittingly confirming he lives in a bubble, opinion-wise.
> 
> Just like many people discovered when the general election results took them by surprise because they didn't match what had been in their facebook feeds during the run-up.




yes, the result may be nothing like the polls suggest, its also August and the media believe it or not is in 'playful mode' wait until September for hellfire to be unleashed, I predict it will be around JC's 'discussions' with Islamists over time, etc.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 18, 2015)

_R4 WATO._ Pollster Kellner thinks Kinnock's broadcasted advice is crucial to the election result.

Unfortunately there is no dozing off smiley so you'll have to make do with this:


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

Zabo said:


> _R4 WATO._ Pollster Kellner thinks Kinnock's broadcasted advice is crucial to the election result.
> 
> Unfortunately there is no dozing off smiley so you'll have to make do with this:


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

that'll wake you up again


----------



## Favelado (Aug 18, 2015)

Well alright.

e2a Except he didn't say that


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Corbyn has delivered his ten point plan this evening in Glasgow in front of hoardes of Scots, whilst the others have not really delivered much at all today
> 
> 
> Growth not austerity – with a national investment bank to help create tomorrow's jobs and reduce the deficit fairly. Fair taxes for all - let the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden to balance the books.
> ...


 
I was at the meeting in Glasgow. Got to say it was pretty 'impressive' numbers wise, around 1000. There was 300 or so at a daytime meeting in Edinburgh the same day.
One thing I noticed, apart from the usual paper sellers, and a novel if welcome, for comedic value, mass retuern, ie 6, from the Sparts, was a large-ish numebr of 20 somethings who were clearly interested enough to go and were signing up to help Corbyn/join Labour/get more info. There was also a very uncynical 'air' about a lot of people. That said from the Labour Lefts I know who were there it was the same old same old.... If he wins we stay anf fight to keep him in position and if he loses we stay and fight until we win. It's almost as if the world changing hasn't happened, or they still think it's 1981 and the battles being fought in a comparitively 'democratic' Labour party are being refought.
Was talking to a mate on whether it was worth re-joining as he was planning to do so. Part of me would like to for a laugh and to watch the right snarl and spew... What is also making me curious is that my former MP Ian Davidson, a nasty hun fuck is supporting Corbyn (more a checking which way the wind is blowing I think) so i'm half wondering what he's up to.... A fair few Lefts I know from Left Unity et al are already planning to join if he wins, sopme SNP supporting type Lefts have also mentioned joing... Strange old world....


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 18, 2015)

Fedayn said:


> some SNP supporting type Lefts have also mentioned joing...


that's interesting....


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 18, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> that's interesting....


 
I think their SNP support is very 'recent', I never asked how long they'd supported the SNP. There's been 2 notable moves, back in the 1970's a fair few ex Communist Party membes moved to the SNP and opver the past few years a fair few former Labour 'Lefts' did the same... I'd bet they are in the latter so aren't really long term SNP voters.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 18, 2015)

Tory Liz just took two calls on LBC. 

Both callers called to tell her they were voting for Corbyn and had just rejoined the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn and insinuated she was a tired old Blairite and voted for Tory cuts.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 18, 2015)

*Sorry, that Labour leadership poll is nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn is going to finish fourth
by Atul Hatwal*
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/2...sense-jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-finish-fourth

*Ignore Twitter. Forget the polls. Corbyn’s not going to win
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/*

What is this Labour Uncut?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

ska invita said:


> *Sorry, that Labour leadership poll is nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn is going to finish fourth
> by Atul Hatwal*
> http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/2...sense-jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-finish-fourth
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

ska invita said:


> *Sorry, that Labour leadership poll is nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn is going to finish fourth
> by Atul Hatwal*
> http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/2...sense-jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-finish-fourth
> 
> ...



That was funny


----------



## laptop (Aug 18, 2015)

Companies House said:
			
		

> Name & Registered Office:
> *METROPOLIS 2 LIMITED*
> 49 GEORGE STREET
> BIRMINGHAM
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

ska invita said:


> *Sorry, that Labour leadership poll is nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn is going to finish fourth
> by Atul Hatwal*
> http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/2...sense-jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-finish-fourth
> 
> ...


oh: the author of the piece:


----------



## ska invita (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> That was funny


deep in the bunker


----------



## agricola (Aug 18, 2015)

ska invita said:


> What is this Labour Uncut?



It is Sion Simon's old blog, with all that entails.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

agricola said:


> It is Sion Simon's old blog, with all that entails.


----------



## Ole (Aug 18, 2015)

ska invita said:


> *Sorry, that Labour leadership poll is nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn is going to finish fourth
> by Atul Hatwal*
> http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/2...sense-jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-finish-fourth
> 
> ...


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 18, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 75518



Both parents were teachers and he went to Oxford, perfect start for a labour politician these days.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Both parents were teachers and he went to Oxford, perfect start for a labour politician these days.







perfect end for a labour politician these days


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 18, 2015)

David Miliband says he'll be voting for the 'fresh ideas' and 'straight talking' of Liz Kendall.

I'm sure you were all as eager as I was to find out where he stood.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 18, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> David Miliband says he'll be voting for the 'fresh ideas' and 'straight talking' of Liz Kendall.
> 
> I'm sure you were all as eager as I was to find out where he stood.



Oh dear, what a shock!
Yes probably hoping she will win and set the scene for the triumphant, nay glorious return of the prodigal son in ten years time.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Both parents were teachers and he went to Oxford, perfect start for a labour politician these days.



I wouldn't think that that was a posh enough start tbh

Two public sector workers and no private schooling??


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

Hmmm..haven't we been here before?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Hmmm..haven't we been here before?



in 2003 paddy power paid out early on arsenal for the league only for the mancs to nip in at the last minute http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/411466/Chelsea-Paddy-Power


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

They havent even counted the votes yet!


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

Does that mean if burnham wins i wont get anything?


----------



## belboid (Aug 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> They havent even counted the votes yet!


they have, you know


----------



## Wilf (Aug 18, 2015)

1000 corbynistas in Middlesbrough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Does that mean if burnham wins i wont get anything?


a headache


----------



## The Boy (Aug 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Does that mean if burnham wins i wont get anything?



No.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Does that mean if burnham wins i wont get anything?



No, they'd still have to pay out. The 'early pay out' thing is just something they do occasionally as it gets more publicity than it costs them in the event they get it wrong.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 18, 2015)

Nabbed this from the Indy who nabbed it from _Newsnight.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ind-up-rich-tories-in-the-1980s-10460843.html



_


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

Wilf said:


> 1000 corbynistas in Middlesbrough.



http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...rough-town-hall-9879177#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Rammed in the daytime.


----------



## superfly101 (Aug 18, 2015)

OMFG wearing a  vest under a shirt is now known as doing a Corbyn.

Also girls grab your Tom Jones best concert knickers  as he maybe a sex symbol!

ITV London News Tonight I salute you o/


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 18, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Nabbed this from the Indy who nabbed it from _Newsnight.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ind-up-rich-tories-in-the-1980s-10460843.html
> 
> ...




So *Robin *Corbyn has been lying to us all along.


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

Just been thinking about these turn outs, Tony Benn used to attract such numbers as did many major Peoples Assembly rallies, but they didn't translate into anything else.


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

http://i1.gazettelive.co.uk/incoming/article9881607.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/JS70275406.jpg

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...rough-town-hall-9879177#ICID=sharebar_twitter

local media is now live blogging it on twitter, incredible.

interesting, he comes on to the rousing sound of Elgar.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> as did many major Peoples Assembly rallies, but they didn't translate into anything else.



No they didn't. Even if they did they weren't reported daily on the news, the entire establishment weren't pissing their pants about them either. Ask yourself why they're suddenly so concerned? Personally I didn't give a flying fuck about the people's assembly but I do about this. I guarantee I'm not alone in that.


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

One interesting thing, a main line of questioning to JC is about how disabled and sick people are being treated, imo, that has been marginal to the left upto now, in terms of numbers and interest.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 18, 2015)

http://newsthump.com/2015/08/17/jeremy-corbyn-definitely-has-wmds-insists-tony-blair/


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/jeremy-corbyn-newcastle-live-labour-9881095



> He had originally been booked to appear at the Tyne Theatre on Westgate Road at 7pm but after all 1,100 tickets sold out within just five hours, a second outdoor rally was hastily arranged.





Now the Journal/Chronicle is live on JC, will this carry on when the silly season finishes? getting on for 1500!


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

> “Nearly 1,000 in Ealing last week, packed out in Glasgow on Friday, so it goes.”



Corbyn, is he a Vonnegut fan?


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 18, 2015)

ska invita said:


> *Sorry, that Labour leadership poll is nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn is going to finish fourth
> by Atul Hatwal*
> http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/2...sense-jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-finish-fourth
> 
> ...




Good to get some answers in those posts following yours, agenda-laden stuff there definitely.

But attempting to be realistic *just* about polls, is there _anything_ Atul Hatwal is saying that might have a point -- in strict psephological/polling terms only?

brogdale ?

I mean I think the idea that Corbyn will come fourth is total cobblers, but the reliability or not of polls should at least be considered a bit, no?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 18, 2015)

that's a lot of people standing outside in the rain on a Tuesday evening in newcastle in addition to 1100 people inside the Tyne Theatre.


----------



## Ole (Aug 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Good to get some answers in those posts following yours, agenda-laden stuff there definitely.
> 
> But attempting to be realistic *just* about polls, is there _anything_ Atul Hatwal is saying that might have a point -- in strict psephological/polling terms only?
> 
> ...


No. He really has no point at all. It's absolutely bonkers.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Good to get some answers in those posts following yours, agenda-laden stuff there definitely.
> 
> But attempting to be realistic *just* about polls, is there _anything_ Atul Hatwal is saying that might have a point -- in strict psephological/polling terms only?
> 
> ...


Most of the fieldwork for polling on the contest is now a week or more old, and the pollsters have admitted that they are finding the fluid/unknown nature of the total selectorate rather challenging. As ever, Anthony at YG has put up some useful posts:-
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9466 
&
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9468
Of the fieldwork from the 1st week of August he had this to say:-


> Polling party members is hard, there are not publically available targets to weight or sample too, and there has already been a huge influx of new members and new £3 sign-ups about whom we know little. YouGov’s data has the right sort of proportions of new and old members (thought the final proportions are obviously impossible to know yet), but it’s impossible to know if the sample is right in terms of things like social class. However, looking at the tables Jeremy Corbyn is ahead in every age group and amongst members from every region, amongst working class and middle class members, and amongst members, trade union affiliates and £3 sign-ups.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 18, 2015)

brogdale : Interesting stuff, thanks. Maybe Ole has a point then!

I had my suspicion that the LabourUncut bloke was anti-Corbyn hopecasting, but in the end this must still be the very hardest type of poilling to have confidence in. 

Best to read  objective insights like Anthony's though, rather then just rubbish opinionating, so thanks for that.


----------



## newbie (Aug 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Just been thinking about these turn outs, Tony Benn used to attract such numbers as did many major Peoples Assembly rallies, but they didn't translate into anything else.


E P Thompson on tour for END in about 1980 helped kickstart the huge CND mobilisation, which then went on for a good few years.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 18, 2015)

newbie said:


> E P Thompson on tour for END in about 1980 helped kickstart the huge CND mobilisation, which then went on for a good few years.




Later stages of Thompson's  tour took him to Pilton (1984 -- I just remember that) .... </old school   >


----------



## Argonia (Aug 18, 2015)




----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

> I remember when I was a kid in 83' being at a rally for Foot where he was mobbed by thousand of supporters,we eventual took the seat in 92 and got into power as you know in 97.By then the respectable working class community that I'd grown up in had been ground into the earth.



Posted elsewhere, this is a real fear, that rallies for Foot where like Corbynmania, but then we had many more years of Tories, Thatcher, or is this a Blairite meme that doesn't work now?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Protesting against the slaughter of Palestinians is itself enough for someone to be labeled anti-semitic by many supporters of the Israeli government.


True, but it was, unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail that dragged up the Stephen Sizer story with which to imply that Corbyn is an anti-semite. It's all so fucking binary with the "Hurrah for the blackshirts" Mail when it comes to Labour leaders. They're either "bacon-eating", "North London geek" "zealots" or just out and out jew haters.


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

Blimey.

Only the best for Corbynites.

ours will probably be in a warehouse on the edge of town.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Blimey.
> 
> Only the best for Corbynites.
> 
> ours will probably be in a warehouse on the edge of town.


"ours"?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 18, 2015)

They'll need to be upgrading to an arena tour if this carries on.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> "ours"?



I suspect TL means Sheffield, I too am curious where it will be there.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

Just saw a clip of Tristram 'scab' Hunt on Newsnight, is it me or is he one of the poshest sounding MPs?


----------



## xslavearcx (Aug 18, 2015)

Corbyn should do a gig in the crucible and play an exhibition round with Ronnie osullivan


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I suspect TL means Sheffield, I too am curious where it will be there.


Right oh.
I thought for a moment JC was really going into the lions' den and putting on a dedicated U75 rally!


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Right oh.
> I thought for a moment JC was really going into the lions' den and putting on a dedicated U75 rally!



Actually it's a bit surprising given his social media that he hasn't done more like that, U75 would be too niche of course but why not reddit or mumsnet?


----------



## JimW (Aug 18, 2015)

"I'm A Beardy 80s Throwback, AMA"


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

JimW said:


> "I'm A Beardy 80s Throwback, AMA"



Yes it's a bit silly but politicians doing AMAs there is increasingly common


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Actually it's a bit surprising given his social media that he hasn't done more like that, U75 would be too niche of course but why not reddit or mumsnet?


% of selectorate on mums/reddit?


----------



## JimW (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yes it's a bit silly but politicians doing AMAs there is increasingly common


Yes, see a few linked though mostly US. I'm sure it has a big UK userbase too, though confess only visit if it gets linked elsewhere.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> % of selectorate on mums/reddit?



No idea about mumsnet but on the British subreddits there has been a lot of interest in Corbyn stuff and plenty of people voting.


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

Remember Blair at the WI?, not the same, but a cautionary tale.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> No idea about mumsnet but on the British subreddits there has been a lot of interest in Corbyn stuff and plenty of people voting.


Have to admit that I'm not really familiar with Reddit at all...I'm A Beardy 80s Throwback!


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> No idea about mumsnet but on the British subreddits there has been a lot of interest in Corbyn stuff and plenty of people voting.




Long shot, but any of the Reddits who voted Tory in May?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 18, 2015)

'Truly shameful': Jeremy Corbyn hits out at DWP after it admits making up quotes from 'benefit claimants' saying sanctions helped them 

The leader of the opposition speaks 



touch wood


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Long shot, but any of the Reddits who voted Tory in May?



I suspect that very few subreddits will be made up of a majority of people who vote Tory, I dunno if any individuals who voted Tory are voting Corbyn but it's a weird world these days in regards to that stuff and people seem to change their deeply held principles very quickly


----------



## belboid (Aug 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Blimey.
> 
> Only the best for Corbynites.
> 
> ours will probably be in a warehouse on the edge of town.


You do say some stupid things, but that must be one of your dumbest ever. Congratulations.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 18, 2015)

two sheds said:


> touch wood



Too much information there.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

Tele leading on Harman's quality time with the lawyers...



> Harriet Harman considered attempting to halt the Labour leadership contest amid concerns that controversy around the voting process could leave the result open to a challenge in court.
> 
> Sources close to the acting party leader said she is so alarmed by the prospect of tens of thousands of non-Labour supporters voting in the contest that she discussed the prospect of pausing the election.
> 
> _The Telegraph_ understands that Ms Harman explored the possibility before being told that it would not be legally possible.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

Jesus Nick Cohen is a moron

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/corbyn-labour-party-one-must-go/



> I suppose I’d insult Jeremy Corbyn if I compared him to an American. Jews (sorry ‘Zionists’) and Ukrainians rank high in the far-left’s demonology. But Corbyn and his comrades agree that Americans are the worst.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

Hes such a prick.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

The thing is with statements like that is that they don't even make sense unless you have walked at least a few steps down the right-wing echo chamber. You have to accept not only that leftists are anti-Israel but that they use Zionist as a synonym for Jew, you have to accept that all leftists not only support Putin but go a step further and have some sort of racial animosity for Ukrainians and the American bit is very early 2000s. Even the hardest of thinking left-wingers have realised that they hate the American oligarchy, which is similar to our own, not American people.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

There sre some fucking idiots on the left but yea nick cohen should just go home


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> There sre some fucking idiots on the left but yea nick cohen should just go home



He should go in the sea


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale : Interesting stuff, thanks. Maybe Ole has a point then!
> 
> I had my suspicion that the LabourUncut bloke was anti-Corbyn hopecasting, but in the end this must still be the very hardest type of poilling to have confidence in.
> 
> Best to read  objective insights like Anthony's though, rather then just rubbish opinionating, so thanks for that.


If you believe in the wisdom of crowds (of punters)....


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

Why is he writing for far-right rag the spectator which has given a platform to golden dawn apologists? J Ed


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You have to accept not only that leftists are anti-Israel but that they use Zionist as a synonym for Jew



There's certainly a small (I hope) but vocal subset that do.


----------



## rekil (Aug 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why is he writing for far-right rag the spectator which has given a platform to golden dawn apologists? J Ed


Because


frogwoman said:


> Hes such a prick.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why is he writing for far-right rag the spectator which has given a platform to golden dawn apologists? J Ed



because that is totally consistent with his schtick of being a nominal left-winger that demonises the left, it's a big industry


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> because that is totally consistent with his schtick of being a nominal left-winger that demonises the left, it's a big industry


So many of them I'm almost surprised they don't have an U75 thread.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 18, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There's certainly a small (I hope) but vocal subset that do.



I have come across this as I'm sure plenty of others here have but I have never heard it go unchallenged.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> because that is totally consistent with his schtick of being a nominal left-winger that demonises the left, it's a big industry



That euston manifesto / decent left lot are such shite.

If hes so concerned about antisemitism why doesnt he criticise the columnist who wrote that screed, should be some top material as GD also against austerity and urged a no vote in the referendum.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

Unfortunately its all too often tolerated in the soft left milieu that i suspect make up a lot (not all) corbyns support, some members of the PSC etc altho that's not strictly left wing and includes a few tories.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

Ive got nothing but utter contempt for that euston lot tho


----------



## treelover (Aug 18, 2015)

Daily Record comes out for JC, surprising?


----------



## Sue (Aug 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Daily Record comes out for JC, surprising?


Nope.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 18, 2015)

Didnt they support a yes vote in the referendum?


----------



## rekil (Aug 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I suspect TL means Sheffield, I too am curious where it will be there.


Secret gig. Good for trying out new material.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 18, 2015)

> Mr Corbyn said: “I’ve done over 70 events in the last six or eight weeks since the campaign started and the attendances are getting bigger and bigger.


chronicle

That's a pretty hectic schedule, I wonder how that compares with the other candidates.


----------



## andysays (Aug 19, 2015)

copliker said:


> Secret gig. Good for trying out new material.



Not sure there will be any genuinely new material, more like playing the Labour Left greatest hits of yesteryear, though they may appear to be new to that part of his audience too young to remember the eighties.


----------



## rekil (Aug 19, 2015)

andysays said:


> Not sure there will be any genuinely new material, more like playing the Labour Left greatest hits of yesteryear, though they may appear to be new to that part of his audience too young to remember the eighties.


"I'm gonna do a little number about bitcoins - with a bit of help from a special guest - please give it up for....russia today loon....Max Keiser"


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 19, 2015)

Any clumsy 'Arab Spring' comparisons in the press yet? I hope the apparent momentum shits up a few of the people who deserve shitting up.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2015)

My partners a 3 quidder, so we went to the Middlesbrough bash today.  There were 730 seats downstairs and a fair number in the balcony, so the claimed 1000 would be about right.  I've read something where he talked about going beyond old style nationalisation, more workers control in one form or another. For the most part though today it was warmed up social democracy, light on detail but reasserting state control/spending/decency/internationalism.  It's not a politics I'm going to embrace, but there's an obvious attraction for those wanting labour to get it's mojo back whilst wanting to overturn austerity). 

My twopenneth on Labour's chances with him in charge is that he'd certainly do better than any Labour leader of the last decade. A social democratic approach, confidently asserted and unapologetic might drag a good few seats back. However the right will make sure it's anything but united. Ironically the anti-corbyn commentators do have a point.  What is the job he wants to do?  it's to be elected to run an unequal, corporate capitalist economy - neither he nor Labour are in the business of creating somethi_ng different, transforming it_.  I don't really see that he's come up with new levers of power or exciting ways of creating equality in the middle of all that. Nor, for that matter has he really got a political strategy for building beyond Labour's core vote (though he might well get more of them to turnout).  Some imagined corbyn government would have the chance to explore how much of the thatcher/blair neoliberalism was choice and could be overturned, but he's not in the business of doing something genuinely different. That's why I was both pleased and depressed to see 1000 people at this roadshow.  It's many times the number of people who have passed through the anti-austerity movement in Teesside and even more so in terms of peop9le in anti-system politics locally.  In fact the there were a good few people there today or who I've spoken to recently who are involved in anti-cuts stuff but are g_oing back to Labour_.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2015)

andysays said:


> Not sure there will be any genuinely new material, more like playing the Labour Left greatest hits of yesteryear, though they may appear to be new to that part of his audience too young to remember the eighties.


I was almost expecting him to come out with 'planning agreements' today.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

Wilf said:


> My partners a 3 quidder, so we went to the Middlesbrough bash today.  There were 730 seats downstairs and a fair number in the balcony, so the claimed 1000 would be about right.  I've read something where he talked about going beyond old style nationalisation, more workers control in one form or another.



Stuff from his campaign has hinted at worker co-op type things but nothing has been said about it that's particularly specific really.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2015)

Incidentally, Peter Kellner seems a bit less certain about corbo winning now (after saying he'd be amazed if he didn't a week ago) - very bottom of the piece below:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-labour-enjoy-excitement-leadership-campaign

Might just be hedging his bets after the election polling fiasco, realising he'd left himself a bit exposed. However the difficulties of polling an electorate that hadn't even been finalised till yesterday made some of the predictions pretty ridiculous.  For exactly the same reasons I don't know how it's going to turn out, but I do have a feeling it will be a LOT closer than the polls have suggested.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

Daily Record endorses Corbyn


----------



## Lefty92 (Aug 19, 2015)

It's a difficult one. On the one hand, choosing Corbyn could win back votes from the left in Scotland, from the SNP and from the Greens and Plaid. But then, choosing Corbyn is unlikely to win the middle-England Tory seats Labour will rely on to win the election in 2020. And what about the votes the party lost to Ukip? They are unlikely to win these back with Corbyn's open stance towards immigration (which I'm in full support of).  So do Labour want to be a party of power or protest? I'm of the opinion, that to achieve genuine change, Labour need to be in government. The great inventions of the NHS, the welfare state and the minimum wage were only possible because of this. I'm backing Burnham.


----------



## jd79 (Aug 19, 2015)

Hehe


----------



## Celyn (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Didnt they support a yes vote in the referendum?



Hell, no. Daily Rectum supported 'No'. Unsure what to make of this Corbyn preference. Possibly building up in order to knock down later?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 19, 2015)

Over the years the grass roots have been ignored, it's like being spit on. I have had just about enough of them now.
They complain about being bad mouthed but just look what happened to that Gillian Duffy row, they couldn't ignore her when caught red handed but they did.
Blairites wanting it their way, Hey you three how do you like your moral being pissed on.
Corbyn being a good leader, not for me (he wants to stay in the EU) but at least he listens to people.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 19, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Over the years the grass roots have been ignored, it's like being spit on. I have had just about enough of them now.
> 
> They complain about being bad mouthed but just look what happened to that Gillian Duffy row, they couldn't ignore her when caught red handed but they did.
> 
> ...



Terrific post! A great summary, short and snappy.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 19, 2015)

Paddy Power are paying out on Corbyn winning.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Aug 19, 2015)

Corbyn 

Exciting times!


----------



## Celyn (Aug 19, 2015)

Ooh, tasty Chinese spam.  

How do you secure a skyline anyway?  And why?  I find that the sky is usually in the same place that I last saw it.  Do modern skies need padlocks and passwords?

Gosh, life is getting complicated.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 19, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

So, is that a Kendall supporter?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2015)

" mainly product security eqiupments"

Just what I was wanting when browsing this thread, where do I pay my money?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So, is that a Kendall supporter?


It's a clueless oriental salesperson, so yes it may be a Kendall supporter.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

Is it just me or is anyone else finding the excited reaction of lots of radicals to this Corbyn thing really quite depressing? 

It feels like people who should have better politics grasping at ever increasingly desperate straws uncritically: Syriza, The Green Surge, voting Labour/The Green Party, and now Corbyn... all of which so far have disappointed, as IMO Corbyn obviously will as well.

LDC


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

teqniq said:


> It's a clueless oriental salesperson, so yes it may be a Kendall supporter.


Wealth creator.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Is it just me or is anyone else finding the excited reaction of lots of radicals to this Corbyn thing really quite depressing?
> 
> It feels like people who should have better politics grasping at ever increasingly desperate straws uncritically: Syriza, The Green Surge, voting Labour/The Green Party, and now Corbyn... all of which so far have disappointed, as IMO Corbyn obviously will as well.
> 
> LDC



Possibly, but for me it's just the thought of actually having some possible opposition to the tories over the next 5 years. I can't see any of the other candidates giving any.


----------



## Celyn (Aug 19, 2015)

Dunno.  I fancy a high quility myself, a nice warm quility for the winter.  Also, I could hide under it and whimper if some bastard hacker steals my insufficiently secured skyline.

So, now that's at least two customers, yet I bet the silly merchant won't come back to talk terms with us.


----------



## Celyn (Aug 19, 2015)

TopCat said:


> Paddy Power are paying out on Corbyn winning.




No big relevance except publicity for Paddy Power - if Corbyn not win, still worth the money for PP in terms of publicity aand advertising.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Possibly, but for me it's just the thought of actually having some possible opposition to the tories over the next 5 years. I can't see any of the other candidates giving any.



If any Labour MP realised that they are still the opposition, perhaps If they behaved and tried to mount an opposition to the government instead of abstaining and rubber stamping every attack on people and services rolled out by Cameron and co.
Maybe those suffering may see that policies can be defeated and maybe those people will also be impressed enough to to support and vote for the opposition party and the sudden increase from the lower classes may be enough to defeat these insidious bastards and lead to a change of government. One that doesn't fawn and pander to the rich and undeserving, but a party that stands up for the majority of people.
In my opinion only Corbyn is at least willing to try and oppose. Any of the other three would allow a policy to be passed that anyone called Yvette, Andy or Liz to be kicked in the streets as long as it did not upset the banks, businesses and the upper classes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Celyn said:


> Hell, no. Daily Rectum supported 'No'. Unsure what to make of this Corbyn preference. Possibly building up in order to knock down later?


They're supporting Corbyn because they see him as a way to regain Scottish Labour's lost supporters from the SNP. Not so sure it'll work to any great degree, but it at least has a logic behind it. 

But if anyone is tempted to think that makes the Record in any way progressive, remember the Record co-sponsored the homophobic Keep The Clause campaign to keep Section 2A (as clause 28 was known in Scotland), running horrendous stereotyping scare stories, including the infamous front page banner "Gay Sex Lessons For Scots Schools", and assisting Souter in perpetrating his bogus ballot. 

They also ran the utterly shameful front page headline about the racist murder of Kurdish refugee Firsat Dag: "Stabbed Turk Firsat Conned his Way in as Asylum Seeker".

Amongst other crimes. 

So, they are disgusting filth who should be shunned by decent people.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Is it just me or is anyone else finding the excited reaction of lots of radicals to this Corbyn thing really quite depressing?
> 
> It feels like people who should have better politics grasping at ever increasingly desperate straws uncritically: Syriza, The Green Surge, voting Labour/The Green Party, and now Corbyn... all of which so far have disappointed, as IMO Corbyn obviously will as well.
> 
> LDC



You're not the only one.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So, is that a Kendall supporter?



It's probably Shapps if anyone.

(so yes.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Why is he writing for far-right rag the spectator which has given a platform to golden dawn apologists? J Ed



For the money, and because he's a stinky Eustoner.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> because that is totally consistent with his schtick of being a nominal left-winger that demonises the left, it's a big industry



And because the _Speckled 'tater_ pays well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Ive got nothing but utter contempt for that euston lot tho



Personally, I've got a soft spot for them.

It's near the biggest pond on Wimbledon Common.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> You're not the only one.



Thanks for the reassurance frogwoman.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

Wilf said:


> My partners a 3 quidder...



You some kind of anti-Semitic rhyming slang merchant, son?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Is it just me or is anyone else finding the excited reaction of lots of radicals to this Corbyn thing really quite depressing?
> 
> It feels like people who should have better politics grasping at ever increasingly desperate straws uncritically: Syriza, The Green Surge, voting Labour/The Green Party, and now Corbyn... all of which so far have disappointed, as IMO Corbyn obviously will as well.
> 
> LDC


Being amused at the horrified reaction of the neoliberal establishment is not necessarily the same thing as expecting Corbyn to actually deliver anything (far less to implement socialism).  But what _has_ happened is that a public space has opened up where questioning austerity is actually almost a legitimate and permitted debate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Is it just me or is anyone else finding the excited reaction of lots of radicals to this Corbyn thing really quite depressing?
> 
> It feels like people who should have better politics grasping at ever increasingly desperate straws uncritically: Syriza, The Green Surge, voting Labour/The Green Party, and now Corbyn... all of which so far have disappointed, as IMO Corbyn obviously will as well.
> 
> LDC



What the above all have in common, and what holds them away from actually being politically effective, is of course the very reason those "radicals" are falling in behind Corbyn - Parliamentarianism. Some people can't get away from the idea that only parliamentary politics is legitimate, sadly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Possibly, but for me it's just the thought of actually having some possible opposition to the tories over the next 5 years. I can't see any of the other candidates giving any.



Oh, any of them would give *some* opposition, but from Kendall, Cooper or Burn'em, it'd be hair-splitting of a piece with the welfare bill abstention.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Being amused at the horrified reaction of the neoliberal establishment is not necessarily the same thing as expecting Corbyn to actually deliver anything (far less to implement socialism).  But what _has_ happened is that a public space has opened up where questioning austerity is actually almost a legitimate and permitted debate.



Yeah, I do get the 'opening a space for discussion' thing (although I largely think it's a load of bollocks). It's just that's exactly what everyone was going on about for all the other things as well, none of which even came close to matching the hysterical enthusiasm that loads of 'anarchists' and 'communists' I know seemed to have.

Personally I think it's partly a result of the shit state of radical politics in this country, combined with the individualized narcissism of FB, Twitter, etc. which encourages a certain type of easily digestible and quite liberal politics where people can feel part of the 'in gang' by jumping on the next wave of excitement for something that's reflected as important in The Guardian etc..

Oh, and add the Scottish Referendum to that list...

LDC


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Being amused at the horrified reaction of the neoliberal establishment is not necessarily the same thing as expecting Corbyn to actually deliver anything (far less to implement socialism).  But what _has_ happened is that a public space has opened up where questioning austerity is actually almost a legitimate and permitted debate.



On reflection, I think that this is a really, really important point but I'm not sure that it merits the kind of Pyrrhic victory that seems to  be in the offing unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging...


----------



## PursuedByBears (Aug 19, 2015)

Got my voting registration codes by email this morning and voted for Corbyn/Watson.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 19, 2015)

It's like when Man U get stuffed by a team you don't particularly like, still feels good even if you don't have much truck with the winning side.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

I think it's more like getting excited about a polo match cos there's not football on, and then after it's finished being a bit surprised it was really shit and you hate all the players too. But then doing it again the following week with hockey...

LDC


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think it's more like getting excited about a polo match cos there's not football on, and then after it's finished being a bit surprised it was really shit and you hate all the players too. But then doing it again the following week with hockey...
> 
> LDC


you can't have a left-handed person on a polo team: fact.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 19, 2015)

Only if the left handed player sat on the horse facing backwards (towards the tail)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Only if the left handed player sat on the horse facing backwards (towards the tail)


arse. towards the arse. say what you mean, redcogs.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you can't have a left-handed person on a polo team: fact.



Pretty sure you can in canoe polo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Pretty sure you can in canoe polo.


i'm talking about polo with horses not some dodgy aquatick derivative


----------



## newbie (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I do get the 'opening a space for discussion' thing (although I largely think it's a load of bollocks). It's just that's exactly what everyone was going on about for all the other things as well, none of which even came close to matching the hysterical enthusiasm that loads of 'anarchists' and 'communists' I know seemed to have.
> 
> Personally I think it's partly a result of the shit state of radical politics in this country, combined with the individualized narcissism of FB, Twitter, etc. which encourages a certain type of easily digestible and quite liberal politics where people can feel part of the 'in gang' by jumping on the next wave of excitement for something that's reflected as important in The Guardian etc..
> 
> ...




yup, better politics is to sneer at ordinary w/c people who've been rather unexpectedly motivated to use this opportunity to express themselves. That's radical politics worth crying out for.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> yup, better politics is to sneer at ordinary w/c people who've been rather unexpectedly motivated to use this opportunity to express themselves. That's radical politics worth crying out for.


and what happens when them "expressing themselves" gets thrown in their face, AGAIN!?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

Not sure how shes sneering at anything.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

And im not sure how much ordinary people who arent part of the organised left are getting excited over this, at all


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

When people are describing corbyn as a 'miracle' or a 'gift' and knitting hand held soft toys of him im afraid thats impossible for me to take seriously as well as the defensive and aggressively sectarian attitude of a lot of labour supporters im afraid.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> When people are describing corbyn as a 'miracle' or a 'gift' and knitting hand held soft toys of him im afraid thats impossible for me to take seriously as well as the defensive and aggressively sectarian attitude of a lot of labour supporters im afraid.



It's finely balance if he'll get elected.....if he does the party may commit suicide. Then watch their little faces drop.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> yup, better politics is to sneer at ordinary w/c people who've been rather unexpectedly motivated to use this opportunity to express themselves. That's radical politics worth crying out for.



How am I sneering at 'ordinary w/c people' when I specifically have been talking about radicals and those that consider themselves anarchists and communists already? (Excusing and pre-empting the obvious whinge of "But aren't we ordinary w/c people too?")

LDC


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

> To all the Corbyn haters who just seem to be doing him favours by slagging him off...you may as well pack up now cos we've got our very own knitted Jez. Thanks for coming, thanks for going, goodnight. #VoteCorbyn Thanks to @cardiffnan on Twitter who made £80 for the campaign by auctioning this wonderful creation. Well done Nan!





Sorry im sure hes a great bloke and everything but people have fucking gone nuts.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

Oh my fucking motherfucking god. Please tell me that's a joke? I need to un-see that too, can I get my memory wiped?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

It doesnt appear to be no


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

If he gets elected are we going to have to suffer 5 fucking years of this followed by the obvious crushing disappointment when he either doesn't get Labour elected, or does, and then they turn out to still be shit?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

Jez finger puppets.
Jez duvet cover.
What else?


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

Jez condoms? (Said in a New Zealand accent...)


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> If he gets elected are we going to have to suffer 5 fucking years of this followed by the obvious crushing disappointment when he either doesn't get Labour elected, or does, and then they turn out to still be shit?



No, just four and a half years.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

Maths was never my strongpoint you pedant. Anyway, it'll feel like a lifetime.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Jez condoms? (Said in a New Zealand accent...)



Would certainly be an effective contraceptive.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I do get the 'opening a space for discussion' thing (although I largely think it's a load of bollocks).


I don't think it's bollocks.  You have to remember that despite all the talk of social media radicalising people (eg the Scottish indyref), less than a quarter of the UK population uses Twitter (15 million according to Twitter's last announcement), and 40% of those just use it as a curated newsfeed, rather than taking part in any debate.  There are no figures for how many are just following mainstream media sources, or perhaps no current affairs at all. (Twitter use is double the total daily newspaper circulation figures, mind you).

But the point is that what was accepted allowable media debate prior to the GE campaign was only a very narrow band of pro-austerity opinion.  BBC commentators like Nick Robinson would say "of course" we had to "tighten our belts" and so on. When the extended size TV leaders' debates put anti-austerity rhetoric on people's TV screens, that meant that this kind of talk at least had to be responded to by the neoliberal establishment.  Austerity was no longer the only way.

Of course what Corbyn and others are _actually proposing_, beyond the rhetoric, doesn't deviate that much from the accepted wisdom.  For all his Keynesian talk, he still accepts the "need" to reduce the deficit. 

But what matters is that now when reporters such as Nick Robinson says on Twitter "nobody supports renationalising the power companies", people can reply "except the public".  Because even though it was never reported even by the supposed progressive* press (*and there's a whole thread on how true that is, but the short answer is: not at all) like the Guardian, right during the period of the mainstream media blackout, even a majority of Tory voters supported public ownership of the power companies, railways, and so on.  It was just never considered part of the hegemonic "common sense", so it never entered into mainstream media debate.  Now at least it does.

Not that Corbyn himself has brought this about; he's just part of a trend.  (The Jacobin article linked to further up thread is good on this).



> It's just that's exactly what everyone was going on about for all the other things as well, none of which even came close to matching the hysterical enthusiasm that loads of 'anarchists' and 'communists' I know seemed to have.


I can't speak for the people you know, but the people I know who are enjoying the spectacle mostly remain just as convinced that there is no parliamentary road to socialism, and that even if there was, neither Corbyn nor the SNP would be it.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> For the money, and because he's a stinky Eustoner.



Did he sign the Euston Manifesto, attend meetings?


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I do get the 'opening a space for discussion' thing (although I largely think it's a load of bollocks). It's just that's exactly what everyone was going on about for all the other things as well, none of which even came close to matching the hysterical enthusiasm that loads of 'anarchists' and 'communists' I know seemed to have.
> 
> Personally I think it's partly a result of the shit state of radical politics in this country, combined with the individualized narcissism of FB, Twitter, etc. which encourages a certain type of easily digestible and quite liberal politics where people can feel part of the 'in gang' by jumping on the next wave of excitement for something that's reflected as important in The Guardian etc..
> 
> ...




The SWP have been band-wagoning since the early 90's if not before, jumping on new social movements, events, etc, its not new, though this time they won't get the 'dividend'. If J/C and co provide some opposition in parliament(but also without) then for me that is significant.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> On reflection, I think that this is a really, really important point but I'm not sure that it merits the kind of Pyrrhic victory that seems to  be in the offing unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging...


Saying "paleo" doesn't excuse you from making a coherent point.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> And im not sure how much ordinary people who arent part of the organised left are getting excited over this, at all




There were over 1600 in Newcastle, in mid August, I reckon that's wider than the 'left' there, by a mile


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Being amused at the horrified reaction of the neoliberal establishment is not necessarily the same thing as expecting Corbyn to actually deliver anything (far less to implement socialism).  But what _has_ happened is that a public space has opened up where questioning austerity is actually almost a legitimate and permitted debate.


Exactly. Where some people see inevitable disappointment, I see opportunities. Politics doesn't begin or end at Westminster.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> There were over 1600 in Newcastle, in mid August, I reckon that's wider than the 'left' there, by a mile



How do you know they were all from newcastle?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> How do you know they were all from newcastle?


They were wearing T Shirts even though it was raining.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> Did he sign the Euston Manifesto, attend meetings?


Who?


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

> How do you know they were all from Newcastle?




Newcastle and surroundings then.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Who?



Hodges.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> On reflection, I think that this is a really, really important point but I'm not sure that it merits the kind of Pyrrhic victory that seems to  be in the offing unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging...


are you saying the total collapse of labour would be a victory?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> Hodges.


I had no idea he was a Eustonite. I thought he was just a common or garden Blairite lickspittle.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> On reflection, I think that this is a really, really important point but I'm not sure that it merits the kind of Pyrrhic victory that seems to  be in the offing unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging...





danny la rouge said:


> Saying "paleo" doesn't excuse you from making a coherent point.



Not being able to spell socialist doesn't help either.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

I remember pbman deliberately misspelling the word "socialist" all the time. Maybe Diamond's got pbman disease or maybe he's just a tool.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I had no idea he was a Eustonite. I thought he was just a common or garden Blairite lickspittle.


No, he isn't a Eustonite, but he is involved with Progress in spite of allegedly tearing up his Labour membership card. That makes him an infiltrator.


----------



## newbie (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> How am I sneering at 'ordinary w/c people' when I specifically have been talking about radicals and those that consider themselves anarchists and communists already? (Excusing and pre-empting the obvious whinge of "But aren't we ordinary w/c people too?")
> 
> LDC


it's only the ones who should have 'better politics' you're sneering at, not the company they're now keeping?  That's alright then, it's self-evidently better they should stick with those who properly self define as radicals, heads held high, purity intact.  That's worked so well. Listening to, and engaging with, other people is bad and has unpredictable consequences.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Saying "paleo" doesn't excuse you from making a coherent point.



Hmm... I was agreeing with you but perhaps that's some kind of kryptonite in your universe...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> are you saying the total collapse of labour would be a victory?



Not really.  But that does seem to be on the cards and who knows what could happen given the increasing fracturing of the traditional British political landscape.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

The Left last night, look at all the banners, etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Sorry im sure hes a great bloke and everything but people have fucking gone nuts.


I want one to go with my Oleg


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> The Left last night, look at all the banners, etc.


i was too busy thinking about the diverse nature of his support.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Jez finger puppets.
> Jez duvet cover.
> What else?


do you remember at the hieght of Turtlemania you could get Turtle coins? they were great. Maybe a Jez 5 pound coin from the mint.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> The Left last night, look at all the banners, etc.



Sorry, I couldn't resist it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> do you remember at the hieght of Turtlemania you could get Turtle coins? they were great. Maybe a Jez 5 pound coin from the mint.


what, a mint £5 coin?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> Did he sign the Euston Manifesto, attend meetings?



Yes to both.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

> Old Labour and young Labour both agree their time has come with Jeremy Corbyn
> 
> The Mirror's Brian Reade goes on the leadership trail with Jeremy Corbyn to find out why the crowds are flocking to see him
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/old-labour-young-labour-both-6276930#



Ex Sheffield Star Journo, Reade, on Corbyn, Mirror hedging its bets?

btw, its a fascinating article.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i was too busy thinking about the diverse nature of his support.




That's my point, its not the usual suspects, and imo, cynicism is not helpful, though guarded optimism may be.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

imposs1904 said:


> Sorry, I couldn't resist it.
> 
> View attachment 75547



was waiting for that.

Guido will be using it soon.

btw, funny how the cynicism and criticisms of Corbomania are coming from ex cult members, SWP, SP, SPGB, etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

Cynicism? Oh ffs


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ex Sheffield Star Journo, Reade, on Corbyn, Mirror hedging its bets?
> 
> btw, its a fascinating article.


you're easily fascinated.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what, a mint £5 coin?


yeah, cover it in chocolate


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ex Sheffield Star Journo, Reade, on Corbyn, Mirror hedging its bets?
> 
> btw, its a fascinating article.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> was waiting for that.
> 
> Guido will be using it soon.



you lured me into it.

*edit:* Guido can use this one as well if he pays me in chocolate mint coins:

Scroll down for the obvious gag.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

I dunno who to vote for deputy, is Caroline Flint ok?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> That's my point, its not the usual suspects, and imo, cynicism is not helpful, though guarded optimism may be.


i'll stick to unguarded cynicism


----------



## ddraig (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> That's my point, its not the usual suspects, and imo, cynicism is not helpful, though guarded optimism may be.


why is cynicism not helpful? you are very cynical on a lot of subjects that aren't your pet ones


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

Oh well, if burnham gets elected i'll be able to buy people £45 worth of consolation drinks


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

or stella creasy? yeh i'll probably pick her.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> was waiting for that.
> 
> Guido will be using it soon.
> 
> btw, funny how the cynicism and criticisms of Corbomania are coming from ex cult members, SWP, SP, SPGB, etc.



btw, bit cheeky to edit your comments after the fact without acknowledging it. Makes you seem more insightful than you actually are.

*Edit: *And, btw, the SPGB is a sect rather than a cult. We never had the 'personality' to qualify for cult status.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> I dunno who to vote for deputy, is Caroline Flint ok?


She is on the right, Angela Eagle is leftish and boring and Stella Creasy is leftish and interesting, Tom Watson is a diehard bureaucrat and a supporter of Luke Akehursts strange Labour First group


----------



## Argonia (Aug 19, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> Hodges.



I was talking about Cohen, you trumpet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

imposs1904 said:


> btw, bit cheeky to edit your comments after the fact without acknowledging it. Makes you seem more insightful than you actually are.
> 
> *Edit: *And, btw, the SPGB is a sect rather than a cult. We never had the 'personality' to qualify for cult status.


that's why you should always quote treelover's posts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> I dunno who to vote for deputy, is Caroline Flint ok?





Spanky Longhorn said:


> She is on the right, Angela Eagle is leftish and boring and Stella Creasy is leftish and interesting, Tom Watson is a diehard bureaucrat and a supporter of Luke Akehursts strange Labour First group


Watson gets some props for going after the establishment peeds and that. I'd probably vote for flint out of incredibly shallow reasons  if I had a vote.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> it's only the ones who should have 'better politics' you're sneering at, not the company they're now keeping?  That's alright then, it's self-evidently better they should stick with those who properly self define as radicals, heads held high, purity intact.  That's worked so well. Listening to, and engaging with, other people is bad and has unpredictable consequences.



You're constructing a straw man argument.

I never said any of that guff about not talking to people outside the 'radical' milieu, in fact the cultural/friendship scene like nature of much of the UK left is something I think is a real stumbling block to a better movement.

And not 'sneering', I'm being critical of thinking parliamentary politics are the direction to go in, and the blind enthusiasm for Corbyn and Labour.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> She is on the right, Angela Eagle is leftish and boring and Stella Creasy is leftish and interesting, Tom Watson is a diehard bureaucrat and a supporter of Luke Akehursts strange Labour First group


i voted SC first and AE 2nd preference.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd probably vote for flint out of incredibly shallow reasons  if I had a vote.


what are these incredibly shallow reasons?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what are these incredibly shallow reasons?


I like her smile.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 19, 2015)

Paddy Power reckon Corbychev is a done deal. He's attracted 80% of the betting in the past two weeks.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...paddy-power-as-it-pays-out-on-bets/ar-BBlQP2r


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I like her smile.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I like her smile.


i'm not sure i had much deeper reasons for my deputy vote. ohh i get to pick the mayor too. my foresight is cloudy on both these nominations.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

alright david lammy then diane abbott because they have both been my MPs so I kind of know them. done.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

Honestly people must look at this and think we're all a bunch of lunatics. And there's nothing wrong with cynicism especially when labour is concerned ffs


----------



## Argonia (Aug 19, 2015)

“It is the biggest upset in political betting history.”


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

and they both voted against the welfare reform bill


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Honestly people must look at this and think we're all a bunch of lunatics. And there's nothing wrong with cynicism especially when labour is concerned ffs


i think they'd draw one conclusion about treelover and quite another about everyone else. they'd likely think that we were all very tolerant of treelover's little foibles.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Honestly people must look at this and think we're all a bunch of lunatics. And there's nothing wrong with cynicism especially when labour is concerned ffs


not everyone surely? i mean everyone has different opinions so not everyone can be wrong? except in some general existensial lunatic way


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> not everyone surely? i mean everyone has different opinions so not everyone can be wrong? except in some general existensial lunatic way


not everyone. treelover's right.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> I dunno who to vote for deputy, is Caroline Flint ok?


No. She's a Blairite shitbag.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> or stella creasy? yeh i'll probably pick her.


She's a member of Progress iirc. Pick another one.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> No. She's a Blairite shitbag.


a quick google revealed that, I didn't put her down at all.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

I was thinking more of things like this


----------



## Belushi (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I was thinking more of things like this




Probably wrote a song about Clegg in 2010


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I was thinking more of things like this



Bragg to cover that one in T-minus...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I was thinking more of things like this



pls pass the mindbleach


----------



## two sheds (Aug 19, 2015)

I'd say that sceptical is a better word here (well hopefully anyway) than cynical

Although cynical can be:
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/doubtful#doubtful__2


> Doubtful as to whether something will happen or whether it is worthwhile: _most residents are cynical about efforts to clean mobsters out of their city_


It has the edge of


> Believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity: _he was brutally cynical and hardened to every sob story under the sun _


Whereas sceptical has the main meaning:
_



			Not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations:
		
Click to expand...

and only a peripheral: 



			Philosophy: relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
		
Click to expand...

_
_(but how do they know that?) _


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

I don't think 'even if he wins its still not what I wanted brer' is cyniscism. 'The cynics' TL talks of have all expressed that they wish C-Byn well.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> C-Byn


C-Bizzle?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 19, 2015)

C-Pussel


----------



## Santino (Aug 19, 2015)

LL J-Co


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I'd say that sceptical is a better word here (well hopefully anyway) than cynical
> 
> Although cynical can be:
> It has the edge of
> ...


nice to see pedantry alive and well


----------



## two sheds (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> nice to see pedantry alive and well


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You some kind of anti-Semitic rhyming slang merchant, son?


This almost rhymes with Herbert Morrisson, so yes.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> No. She's a Blairite shitbag.



When Flint was housing minister she slagged off council housing tenants for their "lack off aspiration"  and wanted to do scrap their long term tenancies. She also had a plan to make a social housing tenancy conditional on looking for work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7227667.stm

Scum, basically.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

A lot of lefties dont get that there are many people who view blair and labour with the same loathing as they have for thatcher and the tories.

Its very difficult for me to see why i should support someone who was a member of labour for 32 years to be the leader of the country with wild enthusiasm and that any suggestion hes not gonna save the world is 'cynicism' because labour were once good 30 or 40 years ago, ie nearly twice my age. Its fucking patronising in fact.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

And the self righteous attitude im seeing from a lot of labour supporters basically confirms this view like someone was banging on about why i should support labour as a progressive force because the winter of discontent only happened because of 'right wingers' 40 years ago. In other words labour has been shit for 40 years but we should still support corbyn. Fuck off. Its like someone saying we should support cameron because of ted heath and benjamin disreali.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

> Kezia Dugdale can win back victory for Labour in Scotland John McTernan
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/kezia-dugdale-scottish-labour-party-victory




New McTernan Brainsplurt.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

Labour might be the party of tony benn and corbyn but its also the party of jim murphy and kezia dugdale.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Labour might be the party of tony benn and corbyn but its also the party of jim murphy and kezia dugdale.


and mad frankie fields who inexplicably hasn't been kicked to death or smoten with a thunderbolt yet


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Labour might be the party of tony benn and corbyn but its also the party of jim murphy and kezia dugdale.


not the party of tony benn any more. unless they organise in limbo.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Its like someone saying we should support cameron because of ted heath and benjamin disreali.



Well be fair, Disraeli did introduce the Public Health Act of 1875.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Well be fair, Disraeli did introduce the Public Health Act of 1875.



Maybe we should all join the tories then and 'push them to the left'


----------



## gosub (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Its like someone saying we should support cameron because of ted heath and benjamin disreali.



Not supporting Cameron because of Heath and Disraeli leaves you open to charges of homophobia and anti semitism


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Hmm... I was agreeing with you but perhaps that's some kind of kryptonite in your universe...


You agreed with my point, then went on to say something that, as far as it was saying anything, and as far as I was able to construe any form of coherence, appeared to say something I disagreed with:

"but I'm not sure that it merits the kind of Pyrrhic victory that seems to be in the offing unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging..."

Let's take that in sections.

So, first this "Pyrrhic victory that seems to be in the offing".  Well, for us to consider that, you have to tell us what you're thinking of.  Corbyn winning the leadership of the Labour party would be a Pyrrhic victory?  How so?  For whom?  A Pyrrhic victory for Labour?  For Corbyn supporters?  Well, the Labour Party, since its inception as a vehicle to deliver working class representation in Parliament, has been a hundred years worth of the last word in Pyrrhic as far as the working class are concerned.  So a bit more expanding on this aspect of your post wouldn't go amiss.

Now, "unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging".  What on earth are you talking about?  What is "paleo-socialist" for starters?  Corbyn?  No he isn't; he's right in the centre of what used to be the political consensus at the time of Butskellism, from the post war Welfare State right up until the Dawn of Thatcher.  He's not old left, he's old centre.  In fact, as you have been told, much of what he proposes even now enjoys majority support _even of Tory voters_.  (Eg: http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/ ).

So, if "paleo-socialist" means Corbyn, then it's an inaccurate and daft term.  Let's say "paelo-centre".  But now you have to define what it is that is neither paleo-centre nor centre-right that your hypothetical collapse of the Labour Party (not going to happen; it survived Ramsay MacDonald ffs), this preferred middle way of yours that will mitigate or negate the as-yet-nebulous Pyrrhic nature of Corbyn's projected victory.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

You will be answered in less than 30 words and have a pointless question along the lines of "So you think that Corbyn is the answer to all of the world's problems then?" thrown at you.

Killer B is right. He's just a dick, ignore him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Maybe we should all join the tories then and 'push them to the left'


I know a woman who considers herself 'so left of the party I am dead to them' but will never, ever vote other than tory. And when you give her shit for it she points to disraeli and the one-nation tory tradition. People are weird


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> You will be answered in less than 30 words and have a pointless question along the lines of "So you think that Corbyn is the answer to all of the world's problems then?" thrown at you.
> 
> Killer B is right. He's just a dick, ignore him.


it's astonishing that despite posting here since the beginning he is such an obnoxious wanker. and i write this as an obnoxious wanker myself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I know a woman who considers herself 'so left of the party I am dead to them' but will never, ever vote other than tory. And when you give her shit for it she points to disraeli and the one-nation tory tradition. People are weird


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I know a woman who considers herself 'so left of the party I am dead to them' but will never, ever vote other than tory. And when you give her shit for it she points to disraeli and the one-nation tory tradition. People are weird



Is that anyone ive met?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Is that anyone ive met?


If you ever met big dave from the IT support at my old uni, maybe. It's claire she goes by now though.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> If you ever met big dave from the IT support at my old uni, maybe. It's claire now though.



Dont think so.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman, aren't you putting words into peoples mouths? Outside of a few overenthusiastic tools, most of the positive reaction to corbyn - both here and elsewhere - is to cautiously welcome his ascendency, and mainly simply because of the arguments that are now getting some mainstream attention than out of hope for a new left labour. 

Who are these credulous fools you keep digging up?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> frogwoman, aren't you putting words into peoples mouths? Outside of a few overenthusiastic tools, most of the positive reaction to corbyn - both here and elsewhere - is to cautiously welcome his ascendency, and mainly simply because of the arguments that are now getting some mainstream attention than out of hope for a new left labour.
> 
> Who are these credulous fools you keep digging up?



People on my fb feed mostly.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> You agreed with my point, then went on to say something that, as far as it was saying anything, and as far as I was able to construe any form of coherence, appeared to say something I disagreed with:
> 
> "but I'm not sure that it merits the kind of Pyrrhic victory that seems to be in the offing unless we're looking at the total collapse of Labour and something completely different, not paleo-solicalist nor centre-right, emerging..."
> 
> ...



I'll try to keep this concise.

First, pyrrhic - Cameron just won the election, by surprise, on an extremely conservative prospectus.  If you think that the electorate are prepared to vote Corbyn in, fair enough, but I think you are fundamentally wrong.  Labour tacked left over the last election campaign and were resoundly sunk.  Tacking further left still might uphold "values" but will almost certainly sink the party further.

And this comes to the fundamental question - do you want Labour to be a party of government?

Second, "Butskellism", "old centre", "used to be the political consensus" - maybe you can start to get the nostalgic picture here.  Corbyn is a siren call to the past that might seem attractive but doesn't read across onto the modern world.  I was thinking about this further over lunch - how are we to reindustrialise as a nation and which group of young people are you going to persuade to do so when we have limited natural resources left and the jobs that they entail bring with them long, hard hours?

And finally - isn't the whole point of what happened in May was that the pollsters from YouGov and others got it radically wrong?  I'm not sure how that happened, whether it was down to flawed methodology (unlikely) or whether the electorate when push came to shove just didn't trust a Labour government (more likely).


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> People on my fb feed mostly.



And that's why I left FB. It made me despair for humanity and start to dislike some of my friends.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> People on my fb feed mostly.


We've talked about _them_ before haven't we?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'll try to keep this concise.
> 
> First, pyrrhic - Cameron just won the election, by surprise, on an extremely conservative prospectus.  If you think that the electorate are prepared to vote Corbyn in, fair enough, but I think you are fundamentally wrong.  Labour tacked left over the last election campaign and were resoundly sunk.  Tacking further left still might uphold "values" but will almost certainly sink the party further.
> 
> ...


i don't think you can say 75% of the registered population not voting for you is a victory.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> People on my fb feed mostly.


Curate your feed better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And that's why I left FB. It made me despair for humanity and start to dislike some of my friends.


i started to dislike some of my friends when i actually listened to them for a change


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> We've talked about _them_ before haven't we?



Not all of them. And its kind of annoying when you know so many excitable trots   but id say paying £3 goes and beyond just being cautiously welcoming.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think you can say 75% of the registered population not voting for you is a victory.



So the result of the general election was not a Tory victory?

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> but id say paying £3 goes and beyond just being cautiously welcoming.


Why?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

You think that custard and scabies are the same thing?
Are you saying that everyone should cut their own limbs off?
Will you be happy when the country turns into North Korea?
Are you saying Napoleon used to be in Westlife?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Not all of them. And its kind of annoying when you know so many excitable trots   but id say paying £3 goes and beyond just being cautiously welcoming.


its at least thirty chomps, or 4 kit kat chunkies.

Whats interested me here, to be serious, is the talk of ukippers voting jez and joining the society of the three groats. Kind of shows how much frustration there is with the consensus rather than '4 milion people are xenephobic bordering on racist'


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

There should be some kind of process whereby public support for a candidate, or a a political party, is tested... maybe everyone who chose to could write their preference on a piece of paper or something... it would be the only way to check what popular opinion really is. Any other guesses are just mental diarrhea really.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> Why?



Because by paying £3 to the labour party you're financing them and agreeing that 



> I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

I dont think that's a legally binding oath


----------



## The Boy (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its at least thirty chomps, '



Chomps were ten pence when I was a child.  If they don't cost at least 15p (if not 20p) by now then I'll be left with no option but to assume they are now made from people.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

Chomps are Wham bars for pussies.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> I dont think that's a legally binding oath



But paying £3 and agreeing to that statement, and then voting is more active support than just being cautiously welcoming would imply.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

Have a Wham. Let's get them fillings out.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 19, 2015)

Chomps are 25p


----------



## laptop (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> I dont think that's a legally binding oath



It is, however, a binding contractual term. You can legitimately be prevented from voting if your statement is false.


----------



## belboid (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> I dont think that's a legally binding oath


it _is _(one of) the terms of a legally binding contract tho.  If it is found that it is not true, the other party to the contract would be legally entitled to consider it null and void.

(quietly curses laptop)


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> But paying £3 and agreeing to that statement, and then voting is more active support than just being cautiously welcoming would imply.


I think you may be giving more weight to that statement than most of the people who've actually signed it.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

laptop said:


> It is, however, a binding contractual term. You can legitimately be prevented from voting if your statement is false.





belboid said:


> it _is _(one of) the terms of a legally binding contract tho.  If it is found that it is not true, the other party to the contract would be legally entitled to consider it null and void.
> 
> (quietly curses laptop)



so what?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

laptop said:


> It is, however, a binding contractual term. You can legitimately be prevented from voting if your statement is false.



Perhaps - you can make an argument saying that it lacks certainty and therefore is unenforceable though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Chomps were ten pence when I was a child.  If they don't cost at least 15p (if not 20p) by now then I'll be left with no option but to assume they are now made from people.


15p mate. I was reminded of my own mortality when I first noticed that iniquitous price hike


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think you may be giving more weight to that statement than most of the people who've actually signed it.



But then why sign it and then go to all the trouble of voting etc? You said people viewed it with cautious optimism and in general id agree, but im not sure thats a phrase id use to describe most of the people who have actually signed up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

spitfire said:


> Chomps are 25p


Not under Corbyn they won't be


----------



## belboid (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> so what?


it means it kinda is a legally binding oath. If it has been taken in falsity, the swearer must bear the consequences. Which is just not getting a vote anyway.  

Just bloody pedantry, really (although I didn't join in no small part because I couldn't sign that statement)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 19, 2015)

laptop said:


> It is, however, a binding contractual term. You can legitimately be prevented from voting if your statement is false.



Not if you vote now online...with your fingers crossed...ironically.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## spitfire (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Not under Corbyn they won't be



I'll be casting my £3 vote later accordingly.

#thesethingsmatter


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Not under Corbyn they won't be



I hope that they will be nationalised, subsidised and renamed Chompskys


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I'll try to keep this concise.
> 
> First, pyrrhic - Cameron just won the election, by surprise, on an extremely conservative prospectus.  If you think that the electorate are prepared to vote Corbyn in, fair enough, but I think you are fundamentally wrong.  Labour tacked left over the last election campaign and were resoundly sunk.  Tacking further left still might uphold "values" but will almost certainly sink the party further.


I disagree with you on the last sentence.  As to the rest, it remains to be seen how the public will respond to Corbyn in electoral terms, but I don't think you can extrapolate from the Tory victory in May that the conservative prospectus was the cause of their victory.  There are many other things to consider.  But let me put this point to you: the Tories are in power on a minority of the popular vote, so victory or not, you can't use the election results as evidence for public support for the Tory agenda.

You still haven't explained what would be Pyrrhic and for whom.



> And this comes to the fundamental question - do you want Labour to be a party of government?


Who me?  I'm an anarchist.  I haven't voted Labour since I left the party in the mid-80s.



> Second, "Butskellism", "old centre", "used to be the political consensus" - maybe you can start to get the nostalgic picture here.


Nope. Nothing.  

But look at what Corbyn proposes: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/standing_to_deliver  For example "Public ownership of railways and in the energy sector".  "Of" the railways, but only "in" not "of" the energy sector. Remember electricity remained publically owned until the very end of Thatcher's reign.  So Corbyn is potentially suggesting something less than even Thatcher lived for 10 years with.



> Corbyn is a siren call to the past that might seem attractive but doesn't read across onto the modern world.


Who are you talking to?  Because I have noticed that people are responding to Corbyn doesn't mean_ I_ support him. 



> I was thinking about this further over lunch - how are we to reindustrialise as a nation and which group of young people are you going to persuade to do so when we have limited natural resources left and the jobs that they entail bring with them long, hard hours?


Oh, Jesus. This is too big a topic to even begin with you on, but if you want the Keynesian version read up on FDR and the Overseas Highway. If you want the anarchist communist version (my preference), then read Fields, Factories and Workshops.  What Corbyn has proposed is, once more, here: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/standing_to_deliver

Anything there that suggests working hours being extended?



> And finally - isn't the whole point of what happened in May was that the pollsters from YouGov and others got it radically wrong?


"It"?  They called this election wrong.  That doesn't mean they are wrong about everything.



> I'm not sure how that happened


Clearly.

You haven't answered my questions, as I was warned, but lets summarise our disagreements: you are a pro-parliamentarian and as far as I can tell a rightist.  I am neither.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So the result of the general election was not a Tory victory?
> 
> Is that what you are saying?


what i am saying is it is iniquitous for a party with the support of a scanty 25% of the electorate to have achieved a plurality of seats. and it is a sign of deep-rooted stupidity to take such a tainted victory as evidence that the country is four-square behind the conservatives and their view of politics more generally.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

belboid said:


> it means it kinda is a legally binding oath. If it has been taken in falsity, the swearer must bear the consequences. Which is just not getting a vote anyway.
> 
> Just bloody pedantry, really (although I didn't join in no small part because I couldn't sign that statement)


You could have. You could have fibbed.

That's what I'm saying - you're taking this much more seriously than most of the people who've signed up - they've paid their 3 quid and told a small lie, and when the ballot papers come through they'll spend a few minutes voting for Corbyn - it's hardly a giddy breathless headlong leap into some kind of blind faith in the revolution, tomorrow.


----------



## LDC (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Not under Corbyn they won't be



The Daily Mail says under Corbyn they'll be 25 roubles.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I hope that they will be nationalised, subsidised and renamed Chompskys



Nom Chompskys


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> You could have. You could have fibbed.
> 
> That's what I'm saying - you're taking this much more seriously than most of the people who've signed up - they've paid their 3 quid and told a small lie, and when the ballot papers come through they'll spend a few minutes voting for Corbyn - it's hardly a giddy breathless headlong leap into some kind of blind faith in the revolution, tomorrow.



But i dont think anyone was saying that most people thought it was? Just that these people do exist, a lot of them former or current members of other leftist groups, and they seem to have enough of a presence for me not to want to take it seriously. (Among many other reasons)


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> they'll spend a few minutes voting for Corbyn - it's hardly a giddy breathless headlong leap into some kind of blind faith in the revolution, tomorrow.


it only took me 5 minutes because i didn't know I'd have to vote for the deputy and the major as well, so I had spend some time coming back to this thread and asking how to vote.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what i am saying is it is iniquitous for a party with the support of a scanty 25% of the electorate to have achieved a plurality of seats. and it is a sign of deep-rooted stupidity to take such a tainted victory as evidence that the country is four-square behind the conservatives and their view of politics more generally.



So your complaint is constitutional?

But, also, what is your source for 25% of the electorate?


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> But i dont think anyone was saying that most people thought it was? Just that these people do exist, a lot of them former or current members of other leftist groups, and they seem to have enough of a presence for me not to want to take it seriously. (Among many other reasons)


do you judge all political movements by the stances of their loudest and most foolish adherents?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But, also, what is your source for 25% of the electorate?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> do you judge all political movements by the stances of their loudest and most foolish adherents?



Well, no not at all. Ive already said my reasons why i have trouble supporting it and the stupid bollocks being uttered on a regular basis is just making me more annoyed with the whole thing as time goes on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But, also, what is your source for 25% of the electorate?




36.9 x 0.661 = 24.4 <-- this is the percentage of the registered voters who voted conservative.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

public phone-in with jeremy corbyn from earlier today http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b066f91x#play


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I disagree with you on the last sentence.  As to the rest, it remains to be seen how the public will respond to Corbyn in electoral terms, but I don't think you can extrapolate from the Tory victory in May that the conservative prospectus was the cause of their victory.  There are many other things to consider.  But let me put this point to you: the Tories are in power on a minority of the popular vote, so victory or not, you can't use the election results as evidence for public support for the Tory agenda.
> 
> You still haven't explained what would be Pyrrhic and for whom.
> 
> ...



First, the Tories hold a significant majority of the popular vote as far as I am aware - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that.

Second, Corbyn's victory would be pyrrhic because it would be a triumph for long suppressed Labour values that would lead to the the party going down in flames.  Politics is the art of the possible etc...

Third, I like the "standing to deliver" part of the manifesto in terms of its ambitions but I'm not sure how that drives back towards a publically owned economy whatsoever.  And, leading on from that, how do you think British working rules and regulations will allow this putative British industry, which I quite frankly have no idea from where it will launch forth, compete with other nations?  It's not a nice idea that other people elsewhere are prepared to work a lot harder for a lot less pay doing more unpleasant industrial jobs but it is the fact of the matter.

Pro-parliament?  Not sure what you're getting at here.  Yes, I think our constitution works pretty well, as it has done for hundreds of years.

Rightist?  That makes you sound like a Maoist but if you want to make that judgment, feel free.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Well, no not at all. Ive already said my reasons why i have trouble supporting it and the stupid bollocks being uttered on a regular basis is just making me more annoyed with the whole thing as time goes on.


fine, but the posts you've made over the last page or so are arguing against something some dickhead trots are saying on your facebook feed rather than what's being discussed by posters here. you don't like it when treelover does that, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to exercise restraint yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> First, the Tories hold a significant majority of the popular vote as far as I am aware - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that.








but this chart does not show the 33.9% of people who decided on 'none of the above'


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but this chart does not show the 33.9% of people who decided on 'none of the above'



That's a pretty poor cop-out.

Your point was designed to show that the Tories had an extremely marginal victory - even your own stats don't demonstrate that.

Very weak stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yes, I think our constitution works pretty well, as it has done for hundreds of years.


could you pls link to this excellent constitution?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's a pretty poor cop-out.
> 
> Your point was designed to show that the Tories had an extremely marginal victory - even your own stats don't demonstrate that.
> 
> Very weak stuff.


my point was designed to say they have no right to be in government. any reasonable polity would award a party with 36.9% of the turnout 36.9% of the seats. not more than 50%.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> "standing to deliver


STAAAAAN TOOK MY LIVER, MY MONEY AND MY WIFE


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> could you pls link to this excellent constitution?



You know as well as I do that is an unwritten constitution.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> fine, but the posts you've made over the last page or so are arguing against something some dickhead trots are saying on your facebook feed rather than what's being discussed by posters here. you don't like it when treelover does that, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to exercise restraint yourself.



Thats true enough  but ive not actually said a great deal to treelover tbh. Point taken tho


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

Stand in your dinner another variation


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> my point was designed to say they have no right to be in government. any reasonable polity would award a party with 36.9% of the turnout 36.9% of the seats. not more than 50%.



On that reasoning, what is your take on the SNP's performance versus UKIP?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You know as well as I do that is an unwritten constitution.


so when you say 'it's worked well' you mean 'they've managed to fudge things so the wheels haven't fallen off yet'.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

remind me again why this tosser is being allowed to fill the thread with bollocks?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> so when you say 'it's worked well' you mean 'they've managed to fudge things so the wheels haven't fallen off yet'.



No, I mean it has worked well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> On that reasoning, what is your take on the SNP's performance versus UKIP?


we've not finished with the constitution yet, don't be in such a hurry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, I mean it has worked well.


but it hasn't otherwise they wouldn't have had to change it so often.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> remind me again why this tosser is being allowed to fill the thread with bollocks?



If all you do when I join a thread is call me a tosser, a dickhead etc... and get really, really wound up about it to the extent that you really, really, really need to show how wound up you are to all and sundry without countering with anything of any weight whatsoever, I suggest that you put me on ignore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> remind me again why this tosser is being allowed to fill the thread with bollocks?




it's ok, i'm off in a minute. then you can have the thread back.

e2a: ah, you mean diamond


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If all you do when I join a thread is call me a tosser, a dickhead etc... and get really, really wound up about it to the extent that you really, really, really need to show how wound up you are to all and sundry without countering with anything of any weight whatsoever, I suggest that you put me on ignore.


might as well go on ignore, you can't argue for toffee.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If all you do when I join a thread is call me a tosser, a dickhead etc... and get really, really wound up about it to the extent that you really, really, really need to show how wound up you are to all and sundry *without countering with anything of any weight whatsoever*, I suggest that you put me on ignore.



Satire is dead.  I saw it gunned down on the streets if Paris.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> we've not finished with the constitution yet, don't be in such a hurry.



No let's nail this one first as it's probably the easier subject matter to polish off.

37% of the vote yields a decisive majority of 330 seats, which is an outrage because some people never even voted!

4.7% of the vote yields 56 seats, which is presumably fine and has no reflection upon those who never voted.

12.7% of the vote yields 1 seat, which is even better than all the rest and is totally irrelevant to those who never voted...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but it hasn't otherwise they wouldn't have had to change it so often.



That's the whole point of an unwritten constitution - it's flexible.

In fact - that's the whole point of any successful constitutional law - it reflects values that are reinterpreted to each modern circumstance as society develops...


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's a pretty poor cop-out.
> 
> Your point was designed to show that the Tories had an extremely marginal victory - even your own stats don't demonstrate that.
> 
> Very weak stuff.



They got less than 25% of the available electorate, so while it wasn't "very" marginal it's also nothing like a solid democratic mandate (by their own terms, no less, if we go by the standards they want to impose on trade unions).


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> 37% of the vote yields a decisive majority of 330 seats, which is an outrage because some people never even voted!


worth remembering what quorum those elected on such a mighty figure intend to impose on workers who vote in union actions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

bollocks to you ray


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No let's nail this one first as it's probably the easier subject matter to polish off.
> 
> 37% of the vote yields a decisive majority of 330 seats, which is an outrage because some people never even voted!
> 
> ...



Where on earth do you get the idea that these are fine?

Fucking dickhead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No let's nail this one first as it's probably the easier subject matter to polish off.
> 
> 37% of the vote yields a decisive majority of 330 seats, which is an outrage because some people never even voted!
> 
> ...


the government does not have a majority of 330.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the government does not have a majority of 330.




Huh, you and your FACTS


----------



## Fingers (Aug 19, 2015)

Meanwhile, the other three candidates will be shuffling and looking at their feet.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ng-his-benefit-sanctions-regime-10461193.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's the whole point of an unwritten constitution - it's flexible.
> 
> In fact - that's the whole point of any successful constitutional law - it reflects values that are reinterpreted to each modern circumstance as society develops...


it means you don't know where you stand tomorrow.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the government does not have a majority of 330.



330 seats - a mistake admittedly - but you know what I am driving at but seem to studiously ignore the argument.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Meanwhile, the other three candidates will be shuffling and looking at their feet.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ng-his-benefit-sanctions-regime-10461193.html


it's Burnham I feel the most sorry for. He's flogged more than 100 shonky Renault 19's to gullible young men in search of a cheap boy racer type motor. And what is his reward? To be outflanked by a beard. Breaks my heart.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> 330 seats - a mistake admittedly - but you know what I am driving at but seem to studiously ignore the argument.


there is no argument in your posts to respond to or to ignore, just a load of assertions which evaporate under scrutiny.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's the whole point of an unwritten constitution - it's flexible.



And here was me thinking that the point is to enable dodgy attacks on citizens' rights which a written constitution might get in the way of. But no sure, you're probably right, I mean it's not like there's a movement to get rid of the HRA and European rights laws or legislation being drafted on the fly to deal with challenges to government snooping/covert ops against citizens or anything.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> there is no argument in your posts to respond to or to ignore, just a load of assertions which evaporate under scrutiny.



No - your assertion was that the Tory government is illegitimate because of the proportion of the total available vote across the entire electorate it won in relation to the seats it gathered was disproportionate.

I challenged you on two points - (i) first, that the proportional total vote argument is fundamentally spurious, and (ii) second, that other parties have soared far higher or dipped much further than the Tories have in relation to their actual votes.

The simple point is this - the country wants a Tory government.

I don't want a Tory government but until the left and the centre-left (which I would place myself in) realise that, then there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting rid of a Tory government.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it means you don't know where you stand tomorrow.



So have you woken up one day as a UK citizen and not known what your fundamental rights are?

If so, I would be interested to know that day...


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

> The simple point is this - the country wants a Tory government ... until the left realise that, then there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting rid of a Tory government.


well there's a conundrum eh.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 19, 2015)

There now follows a much needed interlude. While your are sipping your Corbynian coffee and chomping on your Chompski bar you may want to have a go at this little quiz. Apologies in advance for it being from The G. We knew it wouldn't take them long to descend into sub zero mediocrity.

Backers and Knackers

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...abour-grandees-backing-labour-leadership-quiz

Sorry but it is pissing it down outside.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No - your assertion was that the Tory government is illegitimate because of the proportion of the total available vote across the entire electorate it won in relation to the seats it gathered was disproportionate.
> 
> I challenged you on two points - (i) first, that the proportional total vote argument is fundamentally spurious, and (ii) second, that other parties have soared far higher or dipped much further than the Tories have in relation to their actual votes.
> 
> ...



You really are a stupid, boring cunt.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

Zabo said:


> There now follows a much needed interlude. While your are sipping your Corbynian coffee and chomping on your Chompski bar you may want to have a go at this little quiz. Apologies in advance for it being from The G. We knew it wouldn't take them long to descend into sub zero mediocrity.
> 
> Backers and Knackers
> 
> ...


I'm clicking on jeremy corbyn for every lord in the quiz, just to piss them off.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> I dont think that's a legally binding oath


We need to check  with a lawyer.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So have you woken up one day as a UK citizen and not known what your fundamental rights are?
> 
> If so, I would be interested to know that day...



Jesus which of the dozens of times where rights have shifted do we pick here? There's the maximum limit on pickets suddenly becoming a criminal matter. Or the one where groups of more than three people listening to repetitive beats was made illegal. Or the one where they banned protest on Parliament square. 

And "freedom of assembly," if you asked most British citizens, would be listed as among the core rights we're most proud of having.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> And here was me thinking that the point is to enable dodgy attacks on citizens' rights which a written constitution might get in the way of. But no sure, you're probably right, I mean it's not like there's a movement to get rid of the HRA and European rights laws or legislation being drafted on the fly to deal with challenges to government snooping/covert ops against citizens or anything.



The HRA stuff is worrying, admittedly, but there's quite enough caselaw precedent in place that should provide some protection unless parliament goes directly against it, which would be odd.

And then getting rid of the HRA doesn't mean leaving the ECHR, which is simply what the HRA is (the latter being incorporated directly as statute law - it does not emanate from the EU, which is a common misconception) and so technically it's a meaningless political stunt from our wonderful Tories.

It will make it much, much harder to get proper redress but unless we leave the ECHR then scrapping the HRA leaves us at odds with an international treaty that we are still signed up to and which we were instrumental in creating - of course the Tories would never tell the electorate that scrapping the HRA means leaving the ECHR because that would make us almost a pariah nation under international law but they're not really fantastic about medium to long term thinking anyway, being politicians...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> On that reasoning, what is your take on the SNP's performance versus UKIP?


In the area it stood, the SNP won (just) over 50% of the popular vote. UKIP stood in 624 of the 650 constituencies, and won 12.6% of the popular vote using 650 seats as the base. I can't be bothered finding out the number of voters who turned out in the 26 seats they didn't stand in so that I can work out what percentage of the 624 seats they did stand in that equates to. But the lesson for UKIP is clear; if they want to replicate the SNP seat tally, they need to pick a geographic area where they can win most of the popular vote and only stand there. 

Short version: your comparison is ridiculous and misunderstands the FPTP system, the nature of Westminster, the make up of the UK, the aims of the SNP, the goals of UKIP and arithmetic. In fact, it shows you have misunderstood all of the relevant details.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

You're a dangerously naive person Diamond.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So have you woken up one day as a UK citizen and not known what your fundamental rights are?
> 
> If so, I would be interested to know that day...



I have no idea to what extent I have freedom of speech and I would question anyone who claimed to know. You can be prosecuted for putting a picture of a burning poppy on twitter.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> You're a dangerously naive person Diamond.



People of his class make a sport out of defending the establishment, right or wrong.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Thats true enough  but ive not actually said a great deal to treelover tbh. Point taken tho


What killer b said is the more direct version of what my post about curating your Facebook feed better was aiming at . 

You know too many of the wrong sort of people.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Jesus which of the dozens of times where rights have shifted do we pick here? There's the maximum limit on pickets suddenly becoming a criminal matter. Or the one where groups of more than three people listening to repetitive beats was made illegal. Or the one where they banned protest on Parliament square.
> 
> And "freedom of assembly," if you asked most British citizens, would be listed as among the core rights we're most proud of having.



So when exactly was "freedom of assembly" rescinded?

The odd thing about "rights" is that the common law understanding was that anything was allowed that was not restricted.

The civil law idea is that what is codified (in a way restricted) is allowed.

As an intellectual point, we now have two systems jogging along side by side which should, hopefully, reinforce each other.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I have no idea to what extent I have freedom of speech and I would question anyone who claimed to know. You can be prosecuted for putting a picture of a burning poppy on twitter.


Unless you are the DWP and are doing it for "illustrative purposes".


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So when exactly was "freedom of assembly" rescinded?



If people on strike cannot have more than three people on a picket line then how can you argue anything else?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Unless you are the DWP and are doing it for "illustrative purposes".


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I have no idea to what extent I have freedom of speech and I would question anyone who claimed to know. You can be prosecuted for putting a picture of a burning poppy on twitter.



Freedom of speech here is nowhere near as liberal as it is in the States where it is a constitutional right under the First Amendment but almost all free speech rights are limited in some way or fashion.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The simple point is this - *the country wants a Tory government.*
> 
> I don't want a Tory government but until the left and the centre-left (which I would place myself in) realise that, then there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting rid of a Tory government.


I sense I may be joining this discussion rather late, but a statement like that cannot go unchallenged. 

When you say "_the country_" I presume you mean the UK? If that's the case, it is patently not true that '_the country' _expressed a desire for a tory government. It is true to say that *24.39%* (11,334,576) of the (registered) electorate decided to vote for tory candidates (which probably equates to pretty close to 1 in 5 of those age eligible to vote). 

Of that (approx.) 20% of adults, it would be reasonable to assume that not every person voting tory actually desired a tory government.

It's not a simple point at all that 'the country' voted for a tory government.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The simple point is this - the country wants a Tory government.



{citation needed}


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Freedom of speech here is nowhere near as liberal as it is in the States where it is a constitutional right under the First Amendment but almost all free speech rights are limited in some way or fashion.



No shit and that has been the argument of every authoritarian state in modern history. "Of course we cannot allow the Basques to fly their flag, we have to limit some rights for the sake of public safety"


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So when exactly was "freedom of assembly" rescinded?



I never said it was rescinded, I've pointed out where it's been restricted to the point where people would be unaware of their constitutional rights, as asked in your frankly ludicrous attempt at defending the transparency of Britain's utterly byzantine legal system.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

Answer all of his questions with questions.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If people on strike cannot have more than three people on a picket line then how can you argue anything else?



I'm not a fan of the Tory government - I think I've made that fairly clear, although people may have got another impression given my opinions on a range of subjects and I am especially not keen on the proposed trade union legislation, which seems to indicate how far right this government want to take things.

That's why I think the whole Corbyn thing is, to be frank, a bit of a mistake.

It's silly season and it's the only political story out there.

If Corbyn gets in, he will face a relatively powerful government pushing through an agenda that will force him to go further and further left and further away from the electorate.  The Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

Fuck off and join the Lib Dems. They're up your street.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I sense I may be joining this discussion rather late, but a statement like that cannot go unchallenged.
> 
> When you say "_the country_" I presume you mean the UK? If that's the case, it is patently not true that '_the country' _expressed a desire for a tory government. It is true to say that *24.39%* (11,334,576) of the (registered) electorate decided to vote for tory candidates (which probably equates to pretty close to 1 in 5 of those age eligible to vote).
> 
> ...



Yes, you are joining this late - we have already explored this issue a few pages ago.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> I never said it was rescinded, I've pointed out where it's been restricted to the point where people would be unaware of their constitutional rights, as asked in your frankly ludicrous attempt at defending the transparency of Britain's utterly byzantine legal system.



So it's a limited right, then?

Like freedom of speech, for instance?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yes, you are joining this late - we have already explored this issue a few pages ago.


Then why are you still peddling such ill-informed falsehoods?


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

please enjoy this impressive logic once more:



> The simple point is this - the country wants a Tory government ... until the left realise that, then there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting rid of a Tory government.



i meditate on it daily like a zen mystery.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If people on strike cannot have more than three people on a picket line then how can you argue anything else?


will you answer this Diamond?


I love these 'we live in a democracy' sorts. How thats defined and effected through our ruling class doesn't accord with the principle really.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> please enjoy this impressive logic once more:
> 
> 
> 
> i meditate on it daily like a zen mystery.



Do you understand how a popular election works?

If you want someone to win, you vote for them.  If they get the majority of the vote, they win.  If they do not, they lose.

Those who do not vote have no influence as a result, presumably because they do not care.

In a general election, in a democracy, unless the results are fixed, you get the government that people want.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So it's a limited right, then?
> 
> Like freedom of speech, for instance?



Quick question, do you stand around while people rob your house citing the important principle that a man's home is his castle, which no doubt said thieves would agree with even as they rifle through your sock drawer?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> will you answer this Diamond?
> 
> 
> I love these 'we live in a democracy' sorts. How thats defined and effected through our ruling class doesn't accord with the principle really.



Post above covers it off, I think.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Post above covers it off, I think.



You really don't get that you're not actually making salient points here do you.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If you want someone to win, you vote for them.  If they get the majority of the vote, they win.  If they do not, they lose.


OMMMMMMMMMMMMM


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you understand how a popular election works?
> 
> If you want someone to win, you vote for them.  *If they get the majority of the vote, they win*.  If they do not, they lose.
> 
> ...


Wrong again. Stop making such woefully ill-informed assertions. A party can only govern (as a majority administration) if it has a plurality of seats in the commons. That is not the same thing as a majority of the popular vote, as I have just shown you above.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> What killer b said is the more direct version of what my post about curating your Facebook feed better was aiming at .
> 
> You know too many of the wrong sort of people.



Yeah fair play I do still have a lot of SP members on my list and i only chat to a few people on there and should really delete it. But they're not the only ones, my mum's mate asked me a few weeks ago whether i was excited by corbyn lol.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you understand how a popular election works?
> If they get the majority of the vote, they win.  If they do not, they lose.



The Tories lost the election then.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you understand how a popular election works?
> 
> If you want someone to win, you vote for them.  If they get the majority of the vote, they win.  If they do not, they lose.
> 
> ...



Oh god


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Quick question, do you stand around while people rob your house citing the important principle that a man's home is his castle, which no doubt said thieves would agree with even as they rifle through your sock drawer?



Huh?

Not sure what you are getting at here - the right to privacy or property under the relevant legislation or common law maybe?

Or, perhaps, you are trying to make a clever/dim point about the words that a person writes on a bulletin board while bored at work on a Wednesday afternoon are illustrative of some wider truth...


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

reckon i beat him... pretty sure he's not going to come back on the thread now...


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Those who do not vote have no influence as a result, presumably because they do not care.



A significant number of posters on this thread will not have voted in the 2015 election. Is this because they don't care who runs the country?


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> reckon i beat him... pretty sure he's not going to come back on the thread now...


yep well done I think you did a great job.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond 

Sorry, in a way, to be so rude but you are a completely thick cunt. The thing about being stupid is that you're sometimes the only one who doesn't know it.

I'll put you on ignore now, but why don't you do yourself a favour and fuck off? You might find a hobby you're good at. Gardening's nice in summer. Football's just started up again. Go and get yourself a season ticket.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Favelado said:


> The Tories lost the election then.


Is Diamond a bit dim or a troll, or a combination of the two?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> reckon i beat him... pretty sure he's not going to come back on the thread now...


I respect your delphic qualites but I fear you misread people if you think ConflictStone can be merely ommed off


----------



## agricola (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If Corbyn gets in, he will face a relatively powerful government pushing through an agenda that will force him to go further and further left and further away from the electorate.  The Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee.



That is the anti-Corbyn meme, but it does tend to ignore a few things.  

For a start, their majority is still only 12 and almost all of what passes for their agenda (further austerity, further privatization, a Cameron-defined Europe) relates to things that even "the resistance" are unlikely to break ranks over.  There are also considerable divisions over most of those policy areas within the Tories.  

Secondly, what they say they want to do (reduce the deficit) is in considerable conflict with what they are actually doing - eg: building council housing is cheaper than paying HB to landlords, public borrowing is cheaper to use than using PFI, the nationalized railway would be cheaper than what we have now, a proper student grant system would probably be cheaper for the state to run than tuition fees / loans is, having a larger and more capable conventional military would be cheaper and more effective than replacing Trident.  All Corbyn has to do is ask why it is that, if iDave / Osborne are so determined to reduce spending, they continually pick the more expensive options and who benefits from those decisions.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

This is complete idiocy - the argument, such as I can understand it runs as follows:

Because every single person in the country who could have voted, did not vote, the fact that the Tories have a popular majority and a majority in parliament means nothing.

That is TOTALLY BATSHIT CRAZY!!!


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

If Corbyn becomes leader, does that mean that millions more voters will become mobilised?

Does that mean that the turnout will radically change so as to overwhelm the Tory voters by mobilising those who couldn't give a shit about voting before?

Again, that is TOTALLY BATSHIT CRAZY!!!


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I respect your delphic qualites but I fear you misread people if you think ConflictStone can be merely ommed off


I've been reading these allen ginsberg interviews where he ommed away the chicago police who were teargassing anti war demonstrators in a park... i think he got truncheoned in the head while doing it and someone died tho.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Labour lost and they lost abysmally.  They should be looking to work out how to become electable again, not going on off on a grand, fruitless adventure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So have you woken up one day as a UK citizen and not known what your fundamental rights are?
> 
> If so, I would be interested to know that day...


yeh 12/09/2001 for starters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> excited by corbyn lol.


Finbarr Saunders gif


my old dear on the other hand, believes once more in the Labour party and thinks Jezwecan will bring back sensible labour.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is complete idiocy - the argument, such as I can understand it runs as follows:
> 
> Because every single person in the country who could have voted, did not vote, the fact that the Tories have a popular majority and a majority in parliament means nothing.
> 
> That is TOTALLY BATSHIT CRAZY!!!


No. It has been explained quite clearly above. The plurality electoral system has translated 24% of the registered turnout into a parliamentary majority of 12. What is it that you can't understand?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Not sure what you are getting at here



My point is that you're bollocking on about how our "fundamental rights" don't change as though you're making some sort of important constitutional distinction (in fact a pathetic equivocation because you were called out once again on your woeful politics) while the goverment is in practice outright ignoring those rights, even as they agree with you that they're fundamental.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Labour lost and they lost abysmally.  They should be looking to work out how to become electable again, not going on off on a grand, fruitless adventure.


_you_ should be going on off on a grand, fruitless adventure


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No - your assertion was that the Tory government is illegitimate because of the proportion of the total available vote across the entire electorate it won in relation to the seats it gathered was disproportionate.
> 
> I challenged you on two points - (i) first, that the proportional total vote argument is fundamentally spurious, and (ii) second, that other parties have soared far higher or dipped much further than the Tories have in relation to their actual votes.
> 
> ...


if the country wants a tory government so badly why did 75% of the electorate not support them - indeed, the number of people who didn't vote was markedly larger than the number of people who voted tory.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Labour lost and they lost abysmally.  They should be looking to work out how to become electable again, not going on off on a grand, fruitless adventure.



How can Labour get elected on a manifesto that is almost identical to the Tory manifesto? They've already tried that twice.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> I've been reading these allen ginsberg interviews where he ommed away the chicago police who were teargassing anti war demonstrators in a park... i think he got truncheoned in the head while doing it and someone died tho.


Apparently he used to do it regular. I swear I recall reading something by Hunter S Thompson about how it freaked him out


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> _you_ should be going on off on a grand, fruitless adventure


this is his grand fruitless adventure


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> First, the Tories hold a significant majority of the popular vote as far as I am aware - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that.


You are wrong on that. They do hold a slim majority of seats, though. 



> Second, Corbyn's victory would be pyrrhic because it would be a triumph for long suppressed Labour values that would lead to the the party going down in flames.  Politics is the art of the possible etc...


So a Pyrrhic victory for traditional Labour values. Finally, an answer. One I disagree with on two counts. First, I don't think Corbyn represents traditional Labour values. But that's another thread. He represents a strand of social democratic values that still holds currency on the UK, though. And that's why I don't agree with the second part of your sentence: I don't think those values being represented by a party will automatically mean them being defeated electorally. They include some pretty hard to shift attitudes. So they won't be the cause of any hypothetical Corbyn-led Labour defeat. 
(Though if Corbyn does lead Laboyr to defeat at the next GE, those values will indeed be blamed by the establishment received knowledge). 



> And, leading on from that, how do you think British working rules and regulations will allow this putative British industry, which I quite frankly have no idea from where it will launch forth, compete with other nations?


What fresh madness is this? Oh yes, neoliberalism. 



> Pro-parliament?  Not sure what you're getting at here.


I'm getting at: I am an anarchist. I do not think parliament is there to represent the people, but rather to represent the interests of the owning class and impose those on the people. 



> Yes, I think our constitution works pretty well, as it has done for hundreds of years.


 Your chosen timescale rather makes my previous point for me. There hasn't been universal suffrage for even 100 years yet. So the job it is doing clearly isn't representing the people. 

Oh and I was discussing parliament. The constitution is a rather wider beast. 



> Rightist?  That makes you sound like a Maoist but if you want to make that judgment, feel free.


Maoist. How quaint. No, I'm not one of those. Though I understand they had nice hats.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is complete idiocy - the argument, such as I can understand it runs as follows:
> 
> Because every single person in the country who could have voted, did not vote, the fact that the Tories have a popular majority and a majority in parliament means nothing.
> 
> That is TOTALLY BATSHIT CRAZY!!!


the tories do not have a popular majority. a majority means 50%+. the tories did not achieve this level of popular vote whether on the turnout or across the wider electorate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah fair play I do still have a lot of SP members on my list and i only chat to a few people on there and should really delete it. But they're not the only ones, my mum's mate asked me a few weeks ago whether i was excited by corbyn lol.


Sure. People ask me if I am excited by Corbyn too. But only because their frames of reference have been skewed by the way media filters work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Labour lost and they lost abysmally.  They should be looking to work out how to become electable again, not going on off on a grand, fruitless adventure.


may i remind you:


Pickman's model said:


> what i am saying is it is iniquitous for a party with the support of a scanty 25% of the electorate to have achieved a plurality of seats. and it is a sign of deep-rooted stupidity to take such a tainted victory as evidence that the country is four-square behind the conservatives and their view of politics more generally.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Sure. People ask me if I am excited by Corbyn too. But only because their frames of reference have been skewed by the way media filters work.



It's hard to blame people for thinking like that. Most people do not pay very much attention to politics and that is logical, considering the amount of influence the average individual can exert on politics, but if someone is on telly enough that does give them legitimacy and it widens the Overton window.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman i bet you diamond's doing all this on a client's dime.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> My point is that you're bollocking on about how our "fundamental rights" don't change as though you're making some sort of important constitutional distinction (in fact a pathetic equivocation because you were called out once again on your woeful politics) while the goverment is in practice outright ignoring those rights, even as they agree with you that they're fundamental.



Sorry - too incoherent to make sense of.  Try again caller.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Because by paying £3 to the labour party you're financing them and agreeing that



'I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.'

Diamond for once has a point that that is so widely drafted as to be meaningless. It's basically just a get out clause to allow them to block people, it's not really a positive assertion on the part of the person agreeing with it - the aims and values of the labour party could mean anything from the old clause IV to free market capitalism. 

Most of the people I know who've signed up (myself included) are pretty sceptical of Corbyn himself, even more sceptical of the effect he can have on the labour party and still more sceptical that the labour party can ever have relevance to the left again... Don't have many trots on my fb though. It's really more a case of there being nothing to lose (except £3 and ten minutes).


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh 12/09/2001 for starters.



Have you followed the course of the UK public terrorism laws over the past, say, 35 years?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Sorry - too incoherent to make sense of.  Try again caller.



I'm terribly sorry, I'll try and slim it down a bit.

You are a moron.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 19, 2015)

Cid said:


> 'I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.'
> 
> Diamond for once has a point that that is so widely drafted as to be meaningless. It's basically just a get out clause to allow them to block people, it's not really a positive assertion on the part of the person agreeing with it - the aims and values of the labour party could mean anything from the old clause IV to free market capitalism.



Yes, they haven't banned Dan Hodges from voting for example.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No. It has been explained quite clearly above. The plurality electoral system has translated 24% of the registered turnout into a parliamentary majority of 12. What is it that you can't understand?



The electorate who could vote and wanted to vote - i.e. those who are political - voted for a Tory government.

Is that difficult for you to understand?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is complete idiocy - the argument, such as I can understand it runs as follows:
> 
> Because every single person in the country who could have voted, did not vote, the fact that the Tories have a popular majority and a majority in parliament means nothing.
> 
> That is TOTALLY BATSHIT CRAZY!!!


Once again you demonstrate you have no understanding even of the terms you are using. 

Look up what "the popular vote" means. Contrast that with what "parliamentary majority" means. Think about concepts such as "seats" and "FPTP". 

And frankly stop detailing threads until you at least understand the basics of how parliamentary democracy works. Ffs, you claim to support it! I don't!


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> if the country wants a tory government so badly why did 75% of the electorate not support them - indeed, the number of people who didn't vote was markedly larger than the number of people who voted tory.



Do you think that Labour would have gained a greater proportion of the vote with Corbyn as leader and, if so, show your reasoning?


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The electorate who could vote and wanted to vote - i.e. those who are political - voted for a Tory government.
> 
> Is that difficult for you to understand?



That is an astonishingly stupid statement.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think that Labour would have gained a greater proportion of the vote with Corbyn as leader and, if so, show your reasoning?


Because I saw it will be so.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm terribly sorry, I'll try and slim it down a bit.
> 
> You are a moron.




You not met Diamond before? Two whole pages before you reach this conclusion


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Once again you demonstrate you have no understanding even of the terms you are using.
> 
> Look up what "the popular vote" means. Contrast that with what "parliamentary majority" means. Think about concepts such as "seats" and "FPTP".
> 
> And frankly stop detailing threads until you at least understand the basics of how parliamentary democracy works. Ffs, you claim to support it! I don't!



So are you arguing that (i) the Tories do not have a parliamentary majority and/or (ii) they don't have a popular majority?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Cid said:


> That is an astonishingly stupid statement.



Why, how, what is wrong about it?

It's amazing how far people are burying their heads in the sand on this thread.

Simple truth - the Tories are in power because the popular majority who cared wanted them to be in power and they didn't want Miliband.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

glad to see that whole 'replying to him' thing is going so well.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> glad to see that whole 'replying to him' thing is going so well.


That was your thing. I cast my vote already, I've got nothing to do till the results come in now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Have you followed the course of the UK public terrorism laws over the past, say, 35 years?


please to try to keep to the topick at hand


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Why, how, what is wrong about it?
> 
> It's amazing how far people are burying their heads in the sand on this thread.
> 
> Simple truth - the Tories are in power because the popular majority who cared wanted them to be in power and they didn't want Miliband.



You equated voting with 'being political'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The electorate who could vote and wanted to vote - i.e. those who are political - voted for a Tory government.
> 
> Is that difficult for you to understand?


so what were the other 73% of the electorate who did vote but didn't vote for the conservative party? apolitical?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Cid said:


> You equated voting with 'being political'.


no, he equated voting tory with being political. i think.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

the whole anti-semitism thing seems to be coming to a head atm - anyone any thoughts on if it's going to have any traction?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Why, how, what is wrong about it?
> 
> It's amazing how far people are burying their heads in the sand on this thread.
> 
> Simple truth - the Tories are in power because the popular majority who cared wanted them to be in power and they didn't want Miliband.




i suggest you get someone else to do your thinking for you because you're doing a fucking awful job of thinking yourself.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The electorate who could vote and wanted to vote - i.e. those who are political - voted for a Tory government.
> 
> Is that difficult for you to understand?



If you refuse to accept the fact that a 36.9% popular vote on a 66.1% turnout equates to 24.9% of the registered electorate, then there is little point in continuing any discussion. 
I've no idea why, but you appear to be wilfully mis-representing the facts of the 2015 GE.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> the whole anti-semitism thing seems to be coming to a head atm - anyone any thoughts on if it's going to have any traction?


i don't think it will, because there have been so many attacks on him already that it looks like desperate measures, and because i think a lot of people have become bored with the litany of attacks.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So are you arguing that (i) the Tories do not have a parliamentary majority and/or (ii) they don't have a popular majority?


I am arguing the latter. 

Go and make a cup of tea. Re-read all the posts where people have explained the distinction to you. And for a moment put aside any enmity you may feel for the people making those posts, for they are right and you are making an arse of yourself, no matter how much back peddling you now attempt. 

The Tories do not have a majority of the popular vote. What they have is a slim majority of seats. 

This is what everyone has been trying to tell you. Now seriously, stop digging.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Sure. People ask me if I am excited by Corbyn too. But only because their frames of reference have been skewed by the way media filters work.



The person who asked me this has spent a fair bit of time on the left, was active in the anti apartheid movement etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

some of those black panther bods often sported a great military style beret. Style man, style at all times.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> If you refuse to accept the fact that a 36.9% popular vote on a 66.1% turnout equates to 24.9% of the registered electorate, then there is little point in continuing any discussion.
> I've no idea why, but you appear to be wilfully mis-representing the facts of the 2015 GE.


He didn't know what "popular vote" meant. That's at the root of this latest sorry debacle.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> some of those black panther bods often sported a great military style beret. Style man, style at all times.


You wouldn't catch me dressing like Corbyn. What am I, a college lecturer (retired)?

Oh, wait...


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> the whole anti-semitism thing seems to be coming to a head atm - anyone any thoughts on if it's going to have any traction?





Pickman's model said:


> i don't think it will, because there have been so many attacks on him already that it looks like desperate measures, and because i think a lot of people have become bored with the litany of attacks.


Yeah I think I agree with this. I think it is about on a level with russel brand backing the labour party at the last minute before the last GE. The die has already been cast IMO.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> If you refuse to accept the fact that a 36.9% popular vote on a 66.1% turnout equates to 24.9% of the registered electorate, then there is little point in continuing any discussion.
> I've no idea why, but you appear to be wilfully mis-representing the facts of the 2015 GE.




Because he's a toff, so wants to big up the tories.However inspite of his privileged upbringing he's a massive failure of a human being and is incapable of grasping simple facts. That in itself is no bar to contributing to urban or anywhere else, but when you wade in with a toff sized sense of entitlement people will call you out on it. As happens on every fucking thread this cunt shits all over.


----------



## andysays (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> the whole anti-semitism thing seems to be coming to a head atm - anyone any thoughts on if it's going to have any traction?



Where is it coming to a head? There is nothing about it on the BBC website, for instance.

I don't think it's likely to have any significance, TBH, because I suspect most of those voting neither know or care about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

Cid said:


> nothing to lose


never underestimate a man with nothing to lose. Have you seen what happens in action films?


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As happens on every fucking thread this cunt shits all over.


At least this one isn't a very important thread any more really... i mean all anyone can do now is speculate, there isn't really any new information... so keep him here on this thread!


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I am arguing the latter.
> 
> Go and make a cup of tea. Re-read all the posts where people have explained the distinction to you. And for a moment put aside any enmity you may feel for the people making those posts, for they are right and you are making an arse of yourself, no matter how much back peddling you now attempt.
> 
> ...



Out of the number of people who voted - the popular vote - they have a majority, hence they have a popular majority.

You may have been confusing the phrase with an absolute majority or some other kind of supermajority...


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> never underestimate a man with nothing to lose. Have you seen what happens in action films?



Different kind of nothing.


----------



## andysays (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> At least this one isn't a very important thread any more really... i mean all anyone can do now is speculate, there isn't really any new information... so keep him here on this thread!



Just because you've voted now doesn't mean it's suddenly unimportant. Some of us haven't even had our ballot papers yet and could still be swayed by the clarity of the argument...


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

andysays said:


> Where is it coming to a head? There is nothing about it on the BBC website, for instance.
> 
> I don't think it's likely to have any significance, TBH, because I suspect most of those voting neither know or care about it.


there's noise on twitter about the WATO phone-in, and I've seen mention of it appearing in some of the gutter press, but haven't looked for it yet.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Because he's a toff, so wants to big up the tories.However inspite of his privileged upbringing he's a massive failure of a human being and is incapable of grasping simple facts. That in itself is no bar to contributing to urban or anywhere else, but when you wade in with a toff sized sense of entitlement people will call you out on it. As happens on every fucking thread this cunt shits all over.



Given your frothing anger, you are remarkably poor at insults.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

andysays said:


> Just because you've voted now doesn't mean it's suddenly unimportant. Some of us haven't even had our ballot papers yet and could still be swayed by the clarity of the argument...


ha yeah I don't think that is really an issue


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Given your frothing anger, you are remarkably poor at insults.



As you are at insights.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Cid said:


> As you are at insights.



touché


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Out of the number of people who voted - the popular vote - they have a majority, hence they have a popular majority.


A majority of the popular vote would be 50% + 1 vote (or more).

Do you know when the Tories last managed that? I do. Look it up. 




> You may have been confusing the phrase with an absolute majority or some other kind of supermajority...


Please just stop. It's embarrassing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Given your frothing anger, you are remarkably poor at insults.




I wasn't insulting you dickhead. Just laying down some facts. I gave up insulting you long ago, just resorted to calling you a dickhead. Remember now, dickhead?


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> there's noise on twitter about the WATO phone-in


 that wasn't really anything to report. was a pretty robust reply by jc, however not one that would convince anyone that was already dead set against him.... so won't have changed anyone's mind basically.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> A majority of the popular vote would be 50% + 1 vote (or more).
> 
> Do you know when the Tories last managed that? I do. Look it up.
> 
> ...



No - that would be an absolute majority.


----------



## andysays (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> there's noise on twitter about the WATO phone-in, and I've seen mention of it appearing in some of the gutter press, but haven't looked for it yet.



Here's the whole WATO phone in for anyone who's interested (I'm just starting to listen to it now)


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> When Flint was housing minister she slagged off council housing tenants for their "lack off aspiration"  and wanted to do scrap their long term tenancies. She also had a plan to make a social housing tenancy conditional on looking for work.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7227667.stm
> 
> Scum, basically.


Wherever there's a camera, you'll find Flint mugging it big style.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> a quick google revealed that, I didn't put her down at all.


You could have chosen Angela Eagle, who seems to be the most Corbyn-friendly of the deputy leadership candidate. Watson is a snake.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Out of the number of people who voted - the popular vote - they have a majority, hence they have a popular majority.
> 
> You may have been confusing the phrase with an absolute majority or some other kind of supermajority...


No he's not. But you appear to be confusing the term popular majority with the notion of a relative majority. Having the plurality, (or, like the tories, the largest number of total votes), does not represent a popular majority, merely a relative majority.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> You could have chosen Angela Eagle, who seems to be the most Corbyn-friendly of the deputy leadership candidate. Watson is a snake.


I did put her 2nd. didnt put watson down at all.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Corbyn is a siren call to the past that might seem attractive but doesn't read across onto the modern world


Drivel. What do you mean by the "modern world"? Better still, what is "modernity"?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Wherever there's a camera, you'll find Flint mugging it big style.




Cunt of the highest order. I knew her mum, visited her in her council flat as she was expiring from the booze. Sweet Caroline was too embarrassed by her mum to visit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No - that would be an absolute majority.


There are no circumstances in which 36% is a majority. None. 

They were the largest single party both in seats and in terms of the popular vote, but they did not have a majority of the popular vote. Come on, this is the real basics. 

Imagine there are a hundred apples. Johnny has 36. Bill has 29. The other 35 apples are divided between several other children. 

A. Who has the larger number of apples between Johnny and Bill? 

B. Does anyone have a majority of apples? 

C. If Bill and the others pooled their apples is their hoard greater or less than Johnny's?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No - that would be an absolute majority.


Split those hairs!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> And the self righteous attitude im seeing from a lot of labour supporters basically confirms this view like someone was banging on about why i should support labour as a progressive force because the winter of discontent only happened because of 'right wingers' 40 years ago. In other words labour has been shit for 40 years but we should still support corbyn. Fuck off. Its like someone saying we should support cameron because of ted heath and benjamin disreali.


Actually, Labour's been shit for longer. The Wilson years weren't entirely great.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Drivel. What do you mean by the "modern world"? Better still, what is "modernity"?


Important question.
Corbynmania might be properly understood as evidence that growing numbers of people have, or are beginning to, rumble that social democracy designed to negotiate with capital the 'social contract' of the welfare state no longer has any meaning or purpose.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You know as well as I do that is an unwritten constitution.


That isn't quite the case though, is it? The constitution is a collection of statutes outlining the roles and functions of the monarchy and the government. To claim it's "unwritten" is to suggest that it exists entirely in the imagination.

I can do pedantry too.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Important question.
> Corbynmania might be properly understood as evidence that growing numbers of people have, or are beginning to, rumble that social democracy designed to negotiate with capital the 'social contract' of the welfare state no longer has any meaning or purpose.



This is the good thing about 'Corbynmania' though: it has opened up a field of strategic possibilities (to borrow from Bourdieu). Social democracy is a massive confidence trick, though.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No he's not. But you appear to be confusing the term popular majority with the notion of a relative majority. Having the plurality, (or, like the tories, the largest number of total votes), does not represent a popular majority, merely a relative majority.



In other words - a simple majority = a popular majority, unless the voting constitution specifies otherwise...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> There are no circumstances in which 36% is a majority. None.
> 
> They were the largest single party both in seats and in terms of the popular vote, but they did not have a majority of the popular vote. Come on, this is the real basics.
> 
> ...



I know this might be a bit tricky for someone a bit too simple but are you aware of the idea of a simple majority?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> You wouldn't catch me dressing like Corbyn. What am I, a college lecturer (retired)?
> 
> Oh, wait...



OT are those leatherette elbow patches for tweed jackets still available?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> OT are those leatherette elbow patches for tweed jackets still available?


How should I know?





(PM me).


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

In popular elections a majority of the ballots cast, this is really very basic stuff, results usually in a majority.

Sometimes, although rarely in a field with more than more two candidates, you might get an absolute majority - i.e. 50% + - but usually, in almost every election in the UK, you get someone who has a simple majority, otherwise commonly known as a popular majority.

Driving the point home - this means that they have received more ballots from those who have voted than anyone else in the field - i.e. you are the most popular therefore you have a popular majority.

The Tories have a popular majority.

You may not like it, I certainly don't like it but that is the reality.

If Labour ignores that, then they are fools.


----------



## bendeus (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I know this might be a bit tricky for someone a bit too simple but are you aware of the idea of a simple majority?


I rarely comment in P&P threads but you are aware that you're getting one hell of a kicking, aren't you? It reminds me of the bit in Raging Bull where De Niro's cumbersome slugger just keeps on walking forward onto the rapier jabs and uppercuts of Sugar Ray Robinson. It's all he can do even though his face is a mess. Just sayin'


----------



## jd79 (Aug 19, 2015)

Labour been well shit since 1950s, Gaitskell. Who'd of surely been PM if hadn't died a year before the 1964 was a proto-Blair. In fact Blair was considered a Gaitskellite.


----------



## the button (Aug 19, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> OT are those leatherette elbow patches for tweed jackets still available?





danny la rouge said:


> How should I know?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Available from all good retailers that also sell these:


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

bendeus said:


> I rarely comment in P&P threads but you are aware that you're getting one hell of a kicking, aren't you? It reminds me of the bit in Raging Bull where De Nero's cumbersome slugger just keeps on walking forward onto the rapier jabs and uppercut of Sugar Ray Robinson. It's all he can do even though his face is a mess. Just sayin'



This is "a hell of a kicking"!

You must lead a very sheltered and dull life old man.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> In other words - a simple majority = a popular majority, unless the voting constitution specifies otherwise...


The tories won the largest number of votes (a simple majority of the votes cast) in the 2015 GE, but that does not support your assertion that "*the country wants a tory government*".

You can say that *11,334,576 *people voted Conservative which was *36.9%* of the turnout on the day, *24.39%* of the registered electorate or about 1 in 5 adults in the UK. But none of that represents a popular majority in any form other than relative.


----------



## bendeus (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is "a hell of a kicking"!
> 
> You must lead a very sheltered and dull life old man.


It's fine. Probably just looks worse from this angle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The tories won the largest number of votes (a simple majority of the votes cast) in the 2015 GE, but that does not support your assertion that "*the country wants a tory government*".
> 
> You can say that *11,334,576 *people voted Conservative which was *36.9%* of the turnout on the day, *24.39%* of the registered electorate or about 1 in 5 adults in the UK. But none of that represents a popular majority in any form other than relative.


about 1 in 4 adults


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The Tories have a popular majority.


What does this mean? Are you trying to suggest the Tories have a mandate?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 19, 2015)

the button said:


> Available from all good retailers that also sell these:



Put me out of my 4 minutes of misery - what is that? I know I've seen one before...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The tories won the largest number of votes (a simple majority of the votes cast) in the 2015 GE, but that does not support your assertion that "*the country wants a tory government*".
> 
> You can say that *11,334,576 *people voted Conservative which was *36.9%* of the turnout on the day, *24.39%* of the registered electorate or about 1 in 5 adults in the UK. But none of that represents a popular majority in any form other than relative.



No - that is a simple majority and a popular majority.

The country was quorate, the vote happened and the result stands - the popular vote went with the Tories.

To pretend otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> about 1 in 4 adults


I don't think so.
It's not right to assume that the registered electorate = the 'adult', age-eligible potential electorate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

jd79 said:


> Labour been well shit since 1950s, Gaitskell. Who'd of surely been PM if hadn't died a year before the 1964 was a proto-Blair. In fact Blair was considered a Gaitskellite.


if they'd turned blair into paté he'd be a pot o'blair


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> In other words - a simple majority = a popular majority, unless the voting constitution specifies otherwise...


Rubbish. A popular majority is _more than half_ of the votes cast.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I don't think so.
> It's not right to assume that the registered electorate = the 'adult', age-eligible potential electorate.


25% traditionally 1 in 4


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

I'd describe a majority of 12 seats as a "fragile" or "slender" majority.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No - that is a simple majority and a popular majority.
> 
> The country was quorate, the vote happened and the result stands - the popular vote went with the Tories.
> 
> To pretend otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous.


The only ridiculous pretence in evidence here is your laughable assertion that "*the country want(ed) a tory government". *


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> In popular elections a majority of the ballots cast, this is really very basic stuff, results usually in a majority.
> 
> Sometimes, although rarely in a field with more than more two candidates, you might get an absolute majority - i.e. 50% + - but usually, in almost every election in the UK, you get someone who has a simple majority, otherwise commonly known as a popular majority.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, you have failed the exam.


----------



## jd79 (Aug 19, 2015)

Plurality you mean, or relative majority, not 'popular majority'


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> 25% traditionally 1 in 4


Non-registered adults.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> *I know this might be a bit tricky for someone a bit too simple *but are you aware of the idea of a simple majority?



Satire is dead.  I saw it gunned down on the streets of Paris.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

This is quite frankly absurd - a loss of an election is not a loss, it's merely a misrepresentation!

Bonkers, absolutely bonkers!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Non-registered adults.




:lightbulb:

sorry, tired. you are of course right.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Driving the point home



This was today's phrase on Sesame Street, wasn't it?


----------



## bendeus (Aug 19, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Satire is dead.  I saw it gunned down on the streets of Paris.



Je suis Diamond


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is quite frankly absurd - a loss of an election is not a loss, it's merely a misrepresentation!
> 
> Bonkers, absolutely bonkers!


fuck knows how you deal with complex notions when you can't handle fairly simple ideas.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck knows how you deal with complex notions when you can't handle fairly simple ideas.



But you haven't put any ideas forward, as usual!  Maybe that defines their simplicity - they don't exist!


----------



## The Boy (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But you haven't put any ideas forward, as usual! !



Satire is dead. I saw it gunned down on the streets of Paris.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> OMMMMMMMMMMMMM


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But you haven't put any ideas forward, as usual!  Maybe that defines their simplicity - they don't exist!


let's see ... ah yes, you had great difficulty around the mechanics of parliamentary democracy and what constituteda majority.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Satire is dead. I saw it gunned down on the streets of Paris.


they were aiming for diamond


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2015)

Gobshite on, you crazy Diamond


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is quite frankly absurd - a loss of an election is not a loss, it's merely a misrepresentation!
> 
> Bonkers, absolutely bonkers!


No. The UK's plurality electoral system produced the result of a win for the tories (absolute majority of seats) and a loss for other parties. That is fact. 
But the assertion that the country wanted a tory government is not fact, it is bollox.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Aug 19, 2015)

This thread is much better with diamond on ignore.


----------



## bendeus (Aug 19, 2015)

What's that up there?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No. The UK's plurality electoral system produced the result of a win for the tories (absolute majority of seats) and a loss for other parties. That is fact.
> But the assertion that the country wanted a tory government is not fact, it is bollox.



Did the Tories win the popular vote or not?


----------



## the button (Aug 19, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Put me out of my 4 minutes of misery - what is that? I know I've seen one before...


Teachers and engineers put them in their top pockets to keep their pens tidy.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Did the Tories win the popular vote or not?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

jd79 said:


> Plurality you mean, or relative majority, not 'popular majority'


Don't bother; he'll just start throwing in some other terms he doesn't understand and start trying to say he meant that until he discovers he needs to pretend he means something else. And on and on it goes. He's like some sort of demented anti-sophist, trying to win arguments by demonstrating a total inadequacy with words. 

Diamond, there's no sport in this, so I'm going to leave you to it now. Generally I wouldn't have got involved, but you said something stupid in reply to one of my posts and I responded.  I won't make that mistake again, hopefully.


----------



## bendeus (Aug 19, 2015)

The Boy said:


>


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Don't bother; he'll just start throwing in some other terms he doesn't understand and start trying to say he meant that until he discovers he needs to pretend he means something else. And on and on it goes. He's like some sort of demented anti-sophist, trying to win arguments by demonstrating a total inadequacy with words.
> 
> Diamond, there's no sport in this, so I'm going to leave you to it now. Generally I wouldn't have got involved, but you said something stupid in reply to one of my posts and I responded.  I won't make that mistake again, hopefully.



At least you've learnt something about absolute/supermajorities though so not all wasted...


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Did the Tories win the popular vote or not?


If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you.must acquit


----------



## The Boy (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> At least you've learnt something about absolute/supermajorities though so not all wasted...



Satire is dead. I saw it gunned down on the streets of Paris.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Did the Tories win the popular vote or not?


It doesn't necessarily follow that the electorate as a whole wanted a Tory government. That _is_ the point and it's a point that you've continually sought to avoid.

One more time: the Tories _do not_ have a popular majority. They may have won the popular vote but that is another matter.

24% of the votes cast does not constitute a mandate.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> It doesn't necessarily follow that the electorate as a whole wanted a Tory government. That _is_ the point and it's a point that you've continually sought to avoid.
> 
> One more time: the Tories _do not_ have a popular majority. They may have won the popular vote but that is another matter.
> 
> 24% of the votes cast does not constitute a mandate.



But they did not win on 24% of the votes cast - how difficult is this for you to understand?

They won on 37% of the votes cast.

It is really, really not that difficult to understand.


----------



## jd79 (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Did the Tories win the popular vote or not?



'popular majority' 
'popular vote' 
Pick one!


----------



## laptop (Aug 19, 2015)

Does someone have the time and energy to explain that "legal" and "legitimate" are different words for different concepts?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 19, 2015)

jd79 said:


> 'popular majority'
> 'popular vote'
> Pick one!



I'll be greedy and take both with victory in the latter leading to the former.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

the button said:


> Available from all good retailers that also sell these:


I'm pleased to say I don't know what that	 is.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 19, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm pleased to say I don't know what that	 is.



I think it's one of those new-fangled razors that I see advertised on tv.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 19, 2015)

Quorate


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> At least you've learnt something about absolute/supermajorities though so not all wasted...





Mate, you are an embarrassment. Everyone else can read you wriggling and squirming and trying to say other people were saying things they weren't. All the while you try out different terms, all woefully misunderstood. I feel sorry for you, and normally I don't go in for victim blaming, but you bring it all on yourself. I sincerely hope you have more self awareness in real life than you show on here. 

Give up. Stop. Cease. Desist.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Did the Tories win the popular vote or not?


That is not contestable; the tories won more votes (relative majority) than any other party and, as such, they had the plurality. 
However, your assertion that the country wanted a tory government is not supported by those facts.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

Joking aside, all that can be concluded from the fact that the tories won the election in 2015 is that they won the election in 2015. It doesn't mean that will always be the case in the future, just as it wasn't always the case in the past. Times change. People can't second guess them. Go with your personal preference. Follow your heart.

VOTE CORBYN!


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

lol


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> VOTE CORBYN!


Surely you mean #jezwecan


----------



## gosub (Aug 19, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Satire is dead.  I saw it gunned down on the streets of Paris.



Quite a lot of jokes at the expense of Mohamed at this years Fringe, as a result


----------



## emanymton (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But they did not win on 24% of the votes cast - how difficult is this for you to understand?
> 
> They won on 37% of the votes cast.
> 
> It is really, really not that difficult to understand.


FFS people he is trolling, no one could actually be this thick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

emanymton said:


> FFS people he is trolling, no one could actually be this thick.


they could you know. no one could deliberately appear so stupid over so many threads.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> they could you know. no one could deliberately appear so stupid over so many threads.


You make a good point. But surely no one could post what I quoted seriously at this point in the thread?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

if d is really trolling then he's got quite the scalp getting dannylarouge to be giving him grief. I mean, i'm hair trigger easy but that blokes all zen.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But they did not win on 24% of the votes cast - how difficult is this for you to understand?
> 
> They won on 37% of the votes cast.
> 
> It is really, really not that difficult to understand.



24% of the electorate (translated as 37% of the votes cast) voted for them.

That isn't a mandate.

Can you not wrap your head around that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> and mad frankie fields who inexplicably hasn't been kicked to death or smoten with a thunderbolt yet



His constituents are Woollybacks. They're too soft in the head to plan out kicking him to death (casts anxious glance over shoulder at Woollyback - Birkenhead-born - wife).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2015)

emanymton said:


> You make a good point. But surely no one could post what I quoted seriously at this point in the thread?


would anyone willingly appear so crass and thick on thread after thread after thread?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2015)

the button said:


> Available from all good retailers that also sell these:





danny la rouge said:


> I'm pleased to say I don't know what that	 is.



I am the proud owner of both as illustrated triple and single variants of these ever useful examples of top pocket furniture!


----------



## emanymton (Aug 19, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> would anyone willingly appear so crass and thick on thread after thread after thread?


I think I've probably manged it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> STAAAAAN TOOK MY LIVER, MY MUMMY AND MY WIFE



Fixed that for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> remind me again why this tosser is being allowed to fill the thread with bollocks?



Because we pity him?


----------



## jd79 (Aug 19, 2015)

Diamonds are forever...and ever...and ever...and ever....and ever. Till the end of time.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 19, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You really are a stupid, boring cunt.



Sadly, he isn't stupid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> the whole anti-semitism thing seems to be coming to a head atm - anyone any thoughts on if it's going to have any traction?



Only with those for whom it's politically and/or socially advantageous to believe the story. Frankly the Board of Deputies of British Jews rarely get taken seriously, and like Stephen Pollard, the JC editor and Richard Desmond (notorious plastic Jew who is forever buttering up the British Jewish "establishment") employee, tend to react almost hysterically to any perceived threat, or even to the "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism" debate.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 19, 2015)

Something from the Electronic Intifada on this

4 reasons the “anti-Semitism” attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are dishonest


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2015)

bendeus said:


> I rarely comment in P&P threads but you are aware that you're getting one hell of a kicking, aren't you? It reminds me of the bit in Raging Bull where De Niro's cumbersome slugger just keeps on walking forward onto the rapier jabs and uppercuts of Sugar Ray Robinson. It's all he can do even though his face is a mess. Just sayin'



Diamond is no Jake LaMotta.


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> I am the proud owner of both as illustrated triple and single variants of these ever useful examples of top pocket furniture!



So, what are they then?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only with those for whom it's politically and/or socially advantageous to believe the story. Frankly the Board of Deputies of British Jews rarely get taken seriously, and like Stephen Pollard, the JC editor and Richard Desmond (notorious plastic Jew who is forever buttering up the British Jewish "establishment") employee, tend to react almost hysterically to any perceived threat, or even to the "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism" debate.


Yep, but it must be very encouraging for Corbyn's team to see the right pivot so dramatically from the 'let's all vote for the joke lefty' position into one of attack mode. It would appear that they have twigged that Corbyn's momentum/agenda might actually undermine their interests.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 19, 2015)

Brian Eno on Corbychev: I trust him.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Brian Eno on Corbychev: I trust him.



"*Here come the warm Jez*"


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yep, but it must be very encouraging for Corbyn's team to see the right pivot so dramatically from the 'let's all vote for the joke lefty' position into one of attack mode. It would appear that they have twigged that Corbyn's momentum/agenda might actually undermine their interests.


quite.


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2015)

My Life With The Ghosts of Bush


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> So, what are they then?



Pen holders for the top pocket.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 19, 2015)

Russell Brand backs Jeremy Corbyn
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...backs-jeremy-corbyn-in-labour-leadership-race


----------



## Argonia (Aug 19, 2015)

Billy Bragg backs Corbychev


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2015)

astonishing


----------



## jd79 (Aug 19, 2015)

Ambient 1 : Music for Airports Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## tommers (Aug 19, 2015)

Oh well.  Nice while it lasted.


----------



## Cid (Aug 19, 2015)

Not sure I can stomach voting alongside that string of shits.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> "*Here come the warm Jez*"


Baby's on fire.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

This looks interesting...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 19, 2015)

Time to oil the Purdey's Mr. brogdale ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2015)

I'd vote for Corbyn. It's something different and will shake up the Labour party. I don't think he will win any general election - he probably won't last that long, but it will be interesting while it lasts.


----------



## laptop (Aug 19, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> he probably won't last that long, but it will be interesting while it lasts.



And that, I suspect, is why he stood in the first place.


----------



## laptop (Aug 19, 2015)

laptop said:


> And that, I suspect, is why he stood in the first place.



By which I mean: that's all he hoped to achieve.


----------



## bendeus (Aug 19, 2015)

laptop said:


> By which I mean: that's all he hoped to achieve.



So hypothetically speaking, and if that is the case, how does Corbyn reform the Labour Party and ensure a succession that guarantees his anti-austerity agenda with a meaningful candidate going into the next election? How does he ride the bull, get off the bull, and then select and anoint another bull rider of a similar stripe without the Blairite snakes derailing the whole thing? (apologies for all the animals)


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 19, 2015)

bendeus said:


> So hypothetically speaking, and if that is the case, how does Corbyn reform the Labour Party and ensure a succession that guarantees his anti-austerity agenda with a meaningful candidate going into the next election? How does he ride the bull, get off the bull, and then select and anoint another bull rider of a similar stripe without the Blairite snakes derailing the whole thing? (apologies for all the animals)



re-education camp for the blairite MPs for a start...

more seriously, the only direction that stands a chance is to give back a lot of the powers that blair centralised away from local parties as regards selection of MP, policy direction, election of the national executive committee, and so on


----------



## bendeus (Aug 19, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> re-education camp for the blairite MPs for a start...
> 
> more seriously, the only direction that stands a chance is to give back a lot of the powers that blair centralised away from local parties as regards selection of MP, policy direction, election of the national executive committee, and so on



Thanks. Excuse my ignorance: how easy or difficult would it be for him to do this?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 19, 2015)

bendeus said:


> Thanks. Excuse my ignorance: how easy or difficult would it be for him to do this?



dunno.  i'm not sufficiently up on just how the party machine works these days. 

i presume the blairite changes must somehow have got shoved through a party conference


----------



## two sheds (Aug 20, 2015)

Presumably if things were changed so that the wider membership were given ultimate control, the party would have to convince the wider membership to recentralize decisions*.

*but I actually have no fucking idea**

**this label can be attached to most of my posts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Stand in your dinner another variation


how does the second bit go 'Wave your fork and not your knife'?


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 20, 2015)

Forget the pollsters he must be winning if such consummate band wagon fuckwits as Bragg and Brand are belatedly on board. Never known a cause they wouldn't support without personal risk.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> how does the second bit go 'Wave your fork and not your knife'?



That sounds right but the kid I remember singing it did "Stand in your dinner, your mother or your wife"

Better with the cutlery ending.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 20, 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-me-the-grassroots-will-rise-up-10462770.html

Corbyn signalling he wants to give the membership a bigger role and says that the PLP should not in the way of that. So basically a call for labour to be a far more democratic movement - although the article trys to make that sound like he's some kind of tyrant.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 20, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Brian Eno on Corbychev: I trust him.




Why the fuck would Eno wear glasses that make him look like Gary Glitter?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 20, 2015)

I heard Gary Glitter supports Corbyn


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Out of the number of people who voted - the popular vote - they have a majority, hence *they have a popular majority.*
> 
> You may have been confusing the phrase with an absolute majority or some other kind of supermajority...






Diamond said:


> No - that is a simple majority and *a popular majority*.
> 
> The country was quorate, the vote happened and the result stands - the popular vote went with the Tories.
> 
> To pretend otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous.




A popular majority, is a majority of the valid votes cast. The Tories have such a majority in a number of constituencies; they do not have it across the UK...'to pretend otherwise is frankly ridiculous'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is quite frankly absurd - a loss of an election is not a loss, it's merely a misrepresentation!
> 
> Bonkers, absolutely bonkers!



Nobody is saying that the Tories didn't win the election and that Labour didn't loose. They are pointing out the stupid hyperbole of your assertion that the country wants a Tory government and all the other associated garbage that has flowed from that idiotic statement.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Aug 20, 2015)

Has he fucked off now?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 20, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I heard Gary Glitter supports Corbyn


Though JC is in the clear on this one...


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Nobody is saying that the Tories didn't win the election and that Labour didn't loose. They are pointing out the stupid hyperbole of your assertion that the country wants a Tory government and all the other associated garbage that has flowed from that idiotic statement.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Weren't you trying to make cheap points about typos yesterday?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Weren't you trying to make cheap points about typos yesterday?



I was pointing out your lack of attention to even simple detail, much as I've just done. 

So back to the substance; given that the Conservatives attracted about 24% of the available vote and about 37% of the votes cast, what exactly constitutes this  country that want a Tory government? It isn't the population of the UK, or the population of the UK registered to vote, or even the population of the UK registered to vote who actually did so; what exactly is the country that you so confidently asserts wants a Tory government?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Aug 20, 2015)

Do we have to have another day of this?


----------



## Athos (Aug 20, 2015)

It would be crazy for the Labour Party to move even further towards the Tories, given that most people in the country (about three quarters) don't want Tory policies.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> Do we have to have another day of this?


yeh fair enough i'll stick him on ignore, 1 day was enough.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 20, 2015)

Erm ..

Rupert Murdoch backs Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leadership
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/rupert-murdoch-backs-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

Athos said:


> It would be crazy for the Labour Party to move even further towards the Tories, given that most people in the country (about three quarters) don't want Tory policies.



Some of them want UKIP ones though.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Erm ..
> 
> Rupert Murdoch backs Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leadership
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/rupert-murdoch-backs-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership


That's not a backing he's saying corbyn is the most likely winner. Big difference.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 20, 2015)

Murdoch always back the likely winner. This goes as far back as Koch's mayoral election for NYC. He prefers conviction politicians too. Corbyn makes sense.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 20, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Murdoch always back the likely winner. This goes as far back as Koch's mayoral election for NYC. He prefers conviction politicians too. Corbyn makes sense.


I'm more interested in the guardian implying it means Murdoch is supporting him rather than just calling the likely winner.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 20, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'm more interested in the guardian implying it means Murdoch is supporting him rather than just calling the likely winner.



It probably means that to some extent too. Once he comes out for someone he tends to give them some kind of backing. For example, Ed Koch was a Democrat but Murdoch stuck with him.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 20, 2015)

Favelado said:


> It probably means that to some extent too. Once he comes out for someone he tends to give them some kind of backing. For example, Ed Koch was a Democrat but Murdoch stuck with him.


Can you see the likes of the sun newspaper supporting renationalisation and suddenly being nice to benefit claimants and actively campaigning for increased benefit rates?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 20, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Can you see the likes of the sun newspaper supporting renationalisation and suddenly being nice to benefit claimants and actively campaigning for increased benefit rates?



Probably not but if Corbyn became especially popular The Sun would drop it's "principles" in a flash. It's just that Corbyn will struggle to reach the levels of popularity required for that.


----------



## Athos (Aug 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> Some of them want UKIP ones though.



Still not more than half the popular vote, though!


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 20, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Probably not but if Corbyn became especially popular The Sun would drop it's "principles" in a flash. It's just that Corbyn will struggle to reach the levels of popularity required for that.


Yeah they'd likely soften but can't see them going further than that. Who knows maybe the old cunt's gone senile? Or maybe he's bored and trolling? He did support the yes campaign for Scotland didn't he?


----------



## killer b (Aug 20, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Can you see the likes of the sun newspaper supporting renationalisation


If it's popular with their readers, then yes.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 20, 2015)

It's not a bad way of keeping Cameron on his toes, probably just the hint that he might back Corbyn should do the trick.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> If it's popular with their readers, then yes.


its already popular with the public at large. I cant see it



Favelado said:


> It probably means that to some extent too. Once he comes out for someone he tends to give them some kind of backing. For example, Ed Koch was a Democrat but Murdoch stuck with him.


i think Dr Carrot is exactly right - he's just predicting the winner as you might in a horse race - theres no way any of his papers are going to start supporting him. He hasnt 'come out for him' in any shape or form


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 20, 2015)

ska invita said:


> its already popular with the public at large. I cant see it
> 
> 
> i think Dr Carrot is exactly right - he's just predicting the winner as you might in a horse race - theres no way any of his papers are going to start supporting him. He hasnt 'come out for him' in any shape or form



Yes I think the Guardian's stance is more to turn their readers against voting for JC than Murdoch's mischief making.


----------



## magneze (Aug 20, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Yes I think the Guardian's stance is more to turn their readers against voting for JC than Murdoch's mischief making.


Yes, their campaign to stop him becoming leader has been going so well. This latest misinformation is a sure fire winner.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 20, 2015)

magneze said:


> Yes, their campaign to stop him becoming leader has been going so well. This latest misinformation is a sure fire winner.


almost as successful as a banner on the site i saw today asking me to subscribe with a picture of polly toynbee next to it


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 20, 2015)

magneze said:


> Yes, their campaign to stop him becoming leader has been going so well. This latest misinformation is a sure fire winner.



They are flip flopping and so pathetic in their attacks that they are clutching at straws. I believe that if they could find some connection to Pol Pot or Himmler they would be using it.

It was bad enough listening to Diane Abbot and James Bloodworth arguing over how anti-Semitic Corbyn is by sharing platforms thirty odd years ago with militant Palestinians, on Today on Radio4 this morning!


----------



## Favelado (Aug 20, 2015)

ska invita said:


> i think Dr Carrot is exactly right - he's just predicting the winner as you might in a horse race - theres no way any of his papers are going to start supporting him. He hasnt 'come out for him' in any shape or form



I basically agree but he has got a track record of rejecting political bedfellows he feels are weak. Just adding that caveat. I don't think Murdoch papers would give overt support at an early stage but in the unlikely event Corbyn looked like he was going to win an election clearly Murdoch would indeed back him I think - odd though it may seem.

I keep going back to the Koch mayoral election because it's relevant to this. The Republican candidate expected the Daily Post's automatic support - and got a nasty surprise.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I was pointing out your lack of attention to even simple detail, much as I've just done.
> 
> So back to the substance; given that the Conservatives attracted about 24% of the available vote and about 37% of the votes cast, what exactly constitutes this  country that want a Tory government? It isn't the population of the UK, or the population of the UK registered to vote, or even the population of the UK registered to vote who actually did so; what exactly is the country that you so confidently asserts wants a Tory government?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



The majority will of votes cast (the popular vote) voted in the Tories, ergo the majority will of the voters of the UK wanted a Tory government.

You can try and ignore that all you want with perverse arguments around those who did not care to vote, who effectively didn't give two shits about which government that got in, but to try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the country is totally absurd.


----------



## Santino (Aug 20, 2015)

Warning, team. Danger ahead!


----------



## two sheds (Aug 20, 2015)

Lets not forget that 100% of tory voters voted for the Conservative party. To try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the Conservative party is totally absurd.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 20, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Lets not forget that 100% of tory voters voted for the Conservative party. To try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the Conservative party is totally absurd.


Thats a very good point, you should drive it home,


----------



## Belushi (Aug 20, 2015)

When are you next in court Diamond ? I really want to see you in action :thumbs :


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 20, 2015)

Anyway, I assume this is the "mood music" for the eventual legal challenge (and stitch-up) that will follow a Corby win?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-ignored-legal-membership?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

Party lawyers had supported an extra stage of verification in order to protect Labour against a legal challenge by unsuccessful candidates, saying this would put the party in a good position to say its election process had been “robust”.

Under the legal advice, people known to have voted for other parties according to Labour canvass returns would have been asked to confirm again that they really did support its aims and values. But the party’s procedure committee voted to take no action.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The majority will of votes cast (the popular vote) voted in the Tories, ergo the majority will of the voters of the UK wanted a Tory government.
> 
> You can try and ignore that all you want with perverse arguments around those who did not care to vote, who effectively didn't give two shits about which government that got in, but to try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the country is totally absurd.



please fuck off this thread and start your own one to discuss your deluded bollocks about vote shares.


----------



## laptop (Aug 20, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> That's not a backing he's saying corbyn is the most likely winner. Big difference.



The _Guardian_ has taken note of your post:




> *Rupert Murdoch predicts Jeremy Corbyn win in Labour leadership contest *
> 
> Media tycoon says frontrunner ‘seems only candidate who believes anything’




But preserves its illiteracy in the URL:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/rupert-murdoch-backs-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 20, 2015)

a friend of mine has just posted on Facebook, that he registered to join the labour party, to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, but has just has an email from Labour saying they dont believe he is a labour supporter , im going to ask him to post up the email to prve its true, but has anyone else experienced this?


----------



## Cid (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The majority will of votes cast (the popular vote) voted in the Tories, ergo the majority will of the voters of the UK wanted a Tory government.
> 
> You can try and ignore that all you want with perverse arguments around those who did not care to vote, who effectively didn't give two shits about which government that got in, but to try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the country is totally absurd.



No, a simple majority of people who voted in the UK wanted a Tory government. Not 'the' majority of voters in the UK. The majority of people who voted (i.e more than 50%) did not vote for a tory government. The only things you can say with certainty are these:

The Tories have a simple majority.
37% of people who voted voted for the Tories.
25% of the electorate voted for the Tories.

The only things you can infer from that would be along the lines of:

75% of the electorate did not vote for the Tories.
37% of those who voted are likely to have wanted a Tory government.

You cannot infer the following:

Only those that voted are 'political' (whatever the fuck you mean by that).
Those that voted are 'political' (whatever the fuck you mean by that).
Members of the electorate who did not vote 'didn't give two shits which government got in' (possibly unless you mean 'didn't give a shit which of the two main parties got in').


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 20, 2015)

Give it up folks, Diamond is not to be swayed by such petty considerations as logic and statistical proof. Put him on ignore and live a better life.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 20, 2015)




----------



## marty21 (Aug 20, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> a friend of mine has just posted on Facebook, that he registered to join the labour party, to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, but has just has an email from Labour saying they dont believe he is a labour supporter , im going to ask him to post up the email to prve its true, but has anyone else experienced this?


 It's all very bizarre
Labour asking people who join if they are actually supporters? They set the system up, encouraged the 3 quidders and now are changing the goal posts.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 20, 2015)

Another example of Labour knee jerk responses!


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

Cid said:


> No, a simple majority of people who voted in the UK wanted a Tory government. Not 'the' majority of voters in the UK. The majority of people who voted (i.e more than 50%) did not vote for a tory government. The only things you can say with certainty are these:
> 
> The Tories have a simple majority.
> 37% of people who voted voted for the Tories.
> ...



So, just to be clear, any electoral victory that does not lead to an absolute majority of the total electorate for one party is suspect?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

It's awful strange, this democracy stuff, isn't it?

Majority governments that aren't majority governments because the majority is all the people who voted for lots of other parties that form a majority...

e2a - and those that didn't vote at all.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

Oh, and, it's also worth adding - how does this line of reasoning lead to a Labour victory under Corbyn?


----------



## agricola (Aug 20, 2015)

marty21 said:


> It's all very bizarre
> Labour asking people who join if they are actually supporters? They set the system up, encouraged the 3 quidders and now are changing the goal posts.



Well exactly, and for all the talk of the legal challenge it will be interesting to see how they could ever defend taking £3 off people and not allowing them to vote based solely on data that is not that relevant and which they really shouldn't be keeping anyway.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Oh, and, it's also worth adding - how does this line of reasoning lead to a Labour victory under Corbyn?



The way I see it, a Corbyn leadership may lose votes from swing voters, but it will also pick votes up from people on the left of the spectrum who previously had given up on voting at all. The question is really which of those two groups of voters is largest. I don't know the answer to that.


----------



## Cid (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So, just to be clear, any electoral victory that does not lead to an absolute majority of the total electorate for one party is suspect?



Ah, going by your post you think reindeer eat frogs.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So, just to be clear, any electoral victory that does not lead to an absolute majority of the total electorate for one party is suspect?



No, in the circumstances you describe, any claim that the 'country want this that or the other' is suspect*.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

* i.e. wrong


----------



## weltweit (Aug 20, 2015)

Labour supporters claim leadership vote 'purge'
http://www.channel4.com/news/labour-supporters-purged-from-leadership-vote


> Labour supporters who have joined the party to vote in the leadership election are being barred from voting, accusing the party of "McCarthyite" purges, Channel 4 News has learned.
> ..


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The majority will of votes cast (the popular vote) voted in the Tories, ergo the majority will of the voters of the UK wanted a Tory government.
> 
> You can try and ignore that all you want with perverse arguments around those who did not care to vote, who effectively didn't give two shits about which government that got in, but to try and pretend that the Tory victory was somehow illegitimate or not indicative of the current spirit of the country is totally absurd.



Under our current electoral arrangements of course the Tory victory is legitimate. What you cannot do is jump from a factual result produced by a very particular set of electoral and constitutional arrangements, to a conjecture about 'the spirit of the country'. Judged on the votes cast and those not engaging, the spirit of the country  (shouldn't that be countries?) is fragmented; interestingly this fragmentation is something you seem to recognise in another post but conveniently forget in your weird desire to pontificate on what the country wants.

I can only hope that you are more rigorous and coherent in your day job.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. why did you ignore the actual questions I asked about what constitutes the country you are so keen to divine the will of?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The way I see it, a Corbyn leadership may lose votes from swing voters, but it will also pick votes up from people on the left of the spectrum who previously had given up on voting at all. The question is really which of those two groups of voters is largest. I don't know the answer to that.



So the argument is that Corbyn will magic votes from those who did not vote last time out while bleeding some of the more centre-left Labour supporters?

That seems a bit odd to be frank - lose votes, then dilute the weight of each vote by gaining those who did not vote before.

Then, on top of that, such a victory would rest on the assumption that the UK contains a left-wing "silent/so disaffected that they haven't been arsed to vote before" bloc.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 20, 2015)

marty21 said:


> It's all very bizarre
> Labour asking people who join if they are actually supporters? They set the system up, encouraged the 3 quidders and now are changing the goal posts.




this is the email he got :

Dear Applicant,

Thank you for your recent application to become a Supporter of the Labour Party.

As part of the process to sign up as a Supporter all applicants are asked to confirm the following statement; I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.

We have reason to believe that you do not support the aims and values of the Labour Party or you are a supporter of an organisation opposed to the Labour Party and therefore we are rejecting your application.

Although you may have received or may still receive a ballot paper, it will not work and if you do vote it will not be counted.

Should you wish to dispute rejection by the Labour Party you would have to submit and pursue an application to join Labour as a full member.

Kind Regards

The Labour Party

Sent by email from the Labour Party and promoted by Iain McNicol on behalf of The Labour Party, both at One Brewers Green, London SW1H 0RH.
Website: labour.org.uk. To join or renew call 0845 092 2299

its really bizarre, the new labour really dont want him to win do they... this is not what id call democarcy


----------



## andysays (Aug 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Anyway, I assume this is the "mood music" for the eventual legal challenge (and stitch-up) that will follow a Corby win?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-ignored-legal-membership?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
> 
> ...



It appears that the procedure committee's ruling is being ignored and they're doing this anyway.

Neither procedure nor democracy will be allowed to get in the way of the correct decision


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Under our current electoral arrangements of course the Tory victory is legitimate. What you cannot do is jump from a factual result produced by a very particular set of electoral and constitutional arrangements, to a conjecture about 'the spirit of the country'. Judged on the votes cast and those not engaging, the spirit of the country  (shouldn't that be countries?) is fragmented; interestingly this fragmentation is something you seem to recognise in another post but conveniently forget in your weird desire to pontificate on what the country wants.
> 
> I can only hope that you are more rigorous and coherent in your day job.
> 
> ...



Is the spirit of the country more aligned with the Tories or Labour?

Clue - we've recently had a vote on this...


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Then, on top of that, such a victory would rest on the assumption that the UK contains a left-wing "silent/so disaffected that they haven't been arsed to vote before" bloc.


I dont know why you find that so hard to imagine, It definately applies to me, and many of my friends. I did vote last time, just not for Labour.


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It's awful strange, this democracy stuff, isn't it?
> 
> Majority governments that aren't majority governments because the majority is all the people who voted for lots of other parties that form a majority...
> 
> e2a - and those that didn't vote at all.




I think Diamond is actually right. Why does it matter when a relatively small minority of those who voted elected a government? It's still regarded as legitimate even by a majority of those who voted, and of those who didn't bother to vote at all. Or at least that is indicated by the fact that relatively few of the latter two categories shown any active sign of it being any different.

Has it ever been the case anywhere that a government has been elected by an overwhelming majority of the population, or even has the overt support of the majority?


----------



## andysays (Aug 20, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> this is the email he got :
> 
> Dear Applicant,
> 
> ...



And he's not the only one


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 20, 2015)

wow, just wow


----------



## Santino (Aug 20, 2015)

Ooh, nasty.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> I dont know why you find that so hard to imagine, It definately applies to me, and many of my friends. I did vote last time, just not for Labour.



I think this is part of the problem - with the development of social media, online fora, and the general disintermediation of media, allowing people to discriminate more particularly in what they see and hear, one's social universe becomes increasingly smaller and more polarised.

To think that there are lots of leftwing folk that didn't vote last time around and that's why Labour lost and that if Labour would only just become more leftwing then they would flock to the polling booths and disrupt the next election to carry Corbyn to victory - maybe that makes sense if you spend most of your time talking to likeminded people and ignore, even shout down (as seems to be happening here) people who might hold a marginally different view, that's fine but it just is not very convincing.


----------



## agricola (Aug 20, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> its really bizarre, the new labour really dont want him to win do they... this is not what id call democarcy



"The resistance" probably think they can't lose by doing this - either they remove enough of his vote that he doesn't win, or that he puts in a legal challenge to stop this and the contest is delayed anyway (which is what the useful idiots like Mann and Danczuk have been calling for).  In fact I'd bet there are a load of wonks going around calling this their _Death Star moment _right now.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So the argument is that Corbyn will magic votes from those who did not vote last time out while bleeding some of the more centre-left Labour supporters?
> 
> That seems a bit odd to be frank - lose votes, then dilute the weight of each vote by gaining those who did not vote before.
> 
> Then, on top of that, such a victory would rest on the assumption that the UK contains a left-wing "silent/so disaffected that they haven't been arsed to vote before" bloc.



Well it's not _the _argument, it's just my own view about what would need to happen for a Corbyn leadership to translate into electoral success. I don't see how it is odd or 'magic' either. All policy positions will alter the composition of the vote that a party gets, and yes, I do think there is a fairly significant "silent/so disaffected that they haven't been arsed to vote before" bloc. But like I say, it all depends on how the numbers play out.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 20, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> this is the email he got :
> 
> Dear Applicant,
> 
> ...



And they'll keep your three quid. Hard to see how that's legal.


----------



## gosub (Aug 20, 2015)

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1q9JNK5YkqVYEys8IADhanWJuUlX7I-8BeiciMGQZeiA/viewform

this bloke is trying to compile stats on rejected applications


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> I think Diamond is actually right. Why does it matter when a relatively small minority of those who voted elected a government?



Because it's not democratic for a party chosen by a minority of voters to have complete control over the government.


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Well it's not _the _argument, it's just my own view about what would need to happen for a Corbyn leadership to translate into electoral success. I don't see how it is odd or 'magic' either. All policy positions will alter the composition of the vote that a party gets, and yes, I do think there is a fairly significant "silent/so disaffected that they haven't been arsed to vote before" bloc. But like I say, it all depends on how the numbers play out.




There would be no chance of Labour being elected with Corbyn as leader, for the simple reason that a majority of the working class, let alone the electorate does not support what he stands for (as opposed to supporting selected bits of what he stands for), and the inevitable media campaign against him.

I'm still enjoying him pissing off the Blairites, though.


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Because it's not democratic for a party chosen by a minority of voters to have complete control over the government.


I know it isn't. But not enough people give a toss, and, as I said, it's nearly always the case that everybody accepts governments elected by a minority as legitimate.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 20, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> this is not what id call democarcy



That standard letter's actively misleading as well - you don't have to be a party member to find out what information it holds on you or to query the reason for being blocked. Subject access requests can go to leadership2015@labour.org.uk or local CLPs


----------



## marty21 (Aug 20, 2015)

it is strange that a Labour party which needs to increase the Labour vote is rejecting membership applications from people who want to vote for Labour meaning they are less likely to  vote for Labour after being rejected for membership


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> There would be no chance of Labour being elected with Corbyn as leader, for the simple reason that a majority of the working class, let alone the electorate does not support what he stands for (as opposed to selected bits of what he stands for), and the inevitable media campaign against him.



You can't know that without him being put to the test in an election. The massive drop in voter turn-out during the whole of the New Labour period is certainly an indication that there is a disaffected section of the electorate who found what was on offer completely unappealing.



> I'm still enjoying him pissing off the Blairites, though.



It is rather good, isn't it.


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> There would be no chance of Labour being elected with Corbyn as leader, for the simple reason that a majority of the working class, let alone the electorate does not support what he stands for (as opposed to supporting selected bits of what he stands for), and the inevitable media campaign against him. He's too unrelaibel to be allowed to
> 
> I'm still enjoying him pissing off the Blairites, though.





cynicaleconomy said:


> You can't know that without him being put to the test in an election. The massive drop in voter turn-out during the whole of the New Labour period is certainly an indication that there is a disaffected section of the electorate who found what was on offer completely unappealing.
> 
> 
> 
> It is rather good, isn't it.


  I can't know that, that's true. But I do think that would be the outcome.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Is the spirit of the country more aligned with the Tories or Labour?
> 
> Clue - we've recently had a vote on this...



There isn't a spirit of the country singular. Trying to assert one is to ignore the fragmented needs and desires of the variety of people who live in the four different countries of the UK*; the fragmented needs and desires as represented in part by the votes casts and not cast at the last election.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

*Other divisions in society are also available.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

The bizarre thing is that if you run the argument the other way you get to the point where a Corbyn led Labour party would need to gain an absolute majority to have a legitimate claim to represent the "spirit of the country" through their electoral mandate...


----------



## agricola (Aug 20, 2015)

Some more of the purged speak:



> Jason Cobb, a website editor from south London, has blogged on his bemusement at being rejected.
> 
> “I’ve never campaigned against the Labour party, I’ve never been a member of any other party. I know some people have been kicked out before, like Mark Steel, but it seems there’s been a whole mass mail-out overnight. My email arrived at 2am.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I think this is part of the problem - with the development of social media, online fora, and the general disintermediation of media, allowing people to discriminate more particularly in what they see and hear, one's social universe becomes increasingly smaller and more polarised.
> 
> To think that there are lots of leftwing folk that didn't vote last time around and that's why Labour lost and that if Labour would only just become more leftwing then they would flock to the polling booths and disrupt the next election to carry Corbyn to victory - maybe that makes sense if you spend most of your time talking to likeminded people and ignore, even shout down (as seems to be happening here) people who might hold a marginally different view, that's fine but it just is not very convincing.



As ever your response has nothing to do with what I said. I simply stated yes there is a bloc of leftwing supporters who will find it may be possible to start to support the Labour party again. I made no suggestion that it would be enough for a Corbyn led labour victory.


----------



## gosub (Aug 20, 2015)

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10766/andy_burnham/leigh/votes
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10131/yvette_cooper/normanton,_pontefract_and_castleford/votes
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/votes
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24816/liz_kendall/leicester_west/votes

Going by that, is a bit people's front of Judea


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> I can't know that, that's true. But I do think that would be the outcome.


That's why we have to have actual elections; because noone can know.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

Bloody hell - what a cock up!

If Labour won't uphold it's own reformed constitution for the leadership election and it also elects Corbyn, the party will be totally sunk.

Rip up ballot papers and you look at best irresponsible and at worst tyrannical and oppressive.

Elect Corbyn and you make a protest stand with a bunch of policies that will never get you in to power.

To think what would happen if Labour do both!


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 20, 2015)

So is it beginning to look like a purge of potential Corbyn supporters?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 20, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The bizarre thing is that if you run the argument the other way you get to the point where a Corbyn led Labour party would need to gain an absolute majority to have a legitimate claim to represent the "spirit of the country" through their electoral mandate...



Why is that bizzare? Even if a Corbyn led Labour Party secured the votes of 52% of the available electorate, it still wouldn't mean that it represented the spirit of the country; it would represent some of the desires of those 52% of voters. Just to repeat there is no singular 'spirit of the country'; claims to represent it are at best spurious and at worst very dangerous.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> So is it beginning to look like a purge of potential Corbyn supporters?


yes, or as I call it when people rig elections: Shennanigans


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> That's why we have to have actual elections; because noone can know.





Diamond said:


> Elect Corbyn and you make a protest stand with a bunch of policies that will never get you in to power.


Diamond knows...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

if its a proper purge theres going to be a lot of suprised and angry three quidders. Whose running this shambles ffs, Jim Murphy?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 20, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> He did support the yes campaign for Scotland didn't he?


It was rumoured that he was going to, but in the end he didn't. Not publicly at least.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 20, 2015)

The Labour Party could sell t-shirts at the next conference with.

I paid £3 and all I got was this Liz Kendall/ Yvette Cooper/ Andy Burnham! (Delete as appropriate)


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 20, 2015)

Let the purge begin! Stand by for an election so rigged that it would make the elections of the old Cold War east look democratic by comparison.
https://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/michael-chessum/great-labour-purge-is-underway


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 20, 2015)

http://newsthump.com/2015/08/20/labour-leadership-election-to-be-won-with-seven-votes/


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 20, 2015)

Kim Jong-Il for Labour [dear] leader!


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 20, 2015)

I'm enjoying the purge. It's good fun watching Labour knock lumps out of itself again. An added bonus is that today is the 75th anniversary of Lev's cranial adjustment therapy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

I mean, lets have it right. Any large party is going to have voices of critiscism and dissent within its own ranks- that includes MPs as well, the whip can be occaisonly defied (unless he's got those pics of you with a 12 year old or something). Mildly critiscising on social media is not 'running contrary to the aims and values' or whatever the wording of the statement is Harman has decided empowers her to demand slavish loyalty like some tinpot stalin


----------



## two sheds (Aug 20, 2015)

Gives Corbyn the perfect reason for a Stalinist purge to make the party more accountable and democratic if he gets in.


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> That's why we have to have actual elections; because noone can know.


Hardly difficult to predict the kind of outcome I referred to, though, is it?


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Why is that bizzare? Even if a Corbyn led Labour Party secured the votes of 52% of the available electorate, it still wouldn't mean that it represented the spirit of the country; it would represent some of the desires of those 52% of voters. Just to repeat there is no singular 'spirit of the country'; claims to represent it are at best spurious and at worst very dangerous.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


More than that; there isn't any 'spirit' at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> More than that; there isn't any 'spirit' at all.


single malt maybe


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> single malt maybe


More like pissy contraband vodka.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Anyway, I assume this is the "mood music" for the eventual legal challenge (and stitch-up) that will follow a Corby win?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-ignored-legal-membership?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
> 
> ...





> according to leaked meeting notes obtained by the Guardian.


 Random person stole into the office, made off with the notes? Disgruntled employee?  Yeah, surely.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> Hardly difficult to predict the kind of outcome I referred to, though, is it?



No-one predicted that Corbyn would do this well in the leadership contest. Predictions have a habbit of being wrong.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> Hardly difficult to predict the kind of outcome I referred to, though, is it?


err I don't know. again, that's why we actually hold elections, rather than just letting knowledgeable people guess at what everyone thinks and decide on their behalf.


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> No-one predicted that Corbyn would do this well in the leadership contest. Predictions have a habbit of being wrong.


That's different, as he only has to convince those who agree with him in the first place. But look at the minor media frenzy even this has caused. Already they're doing the job of poisoning his brand in the eyes of the wider electorate.


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> err I don't know. again, that's why we actually hold elections, rather than just letting knowledgeable people guess at what everyone thinks and decide on their behalf.


 Probably depends on how cynical you are. But if you fancy a #1000 bet on the eve of an election where Corbyn is Labour leader, I'm your man


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> That's different, as he only has to convince those who agree with him in the first place. But look at the minor media frenzy even this has caused. Already they're doing the job of poisoning his brand in the eyes of the wider electorate.



I'm not so sure. I was struck by the responses of callers into LBC after that first leadership debate. All of them were pro-Corbyn, and this is a radio station that is pretty damn right wing. Not exactly scientific, I know, but there is definitely a disconnect between what the media/blairites are saying and what is actually being said by normal people. And it's not as if I hang around with that many lefties (apart from on this website, and lets face it, no-one here can be considered normal)


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> Probably depends on how cynical you are. But if you fancy a #1000 bet on the eve of an election where Corbyn is Labour leader, I'm your man


I'm not the one claiming to be able to predict who's going to win an election in 5 years time. I don't even know who's going to win the leadership election; maybe get that over with first.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I'm not so sure. I was struck by the responses of callers into LBC after that first leadership debate. All of them were pro-Corbyn, and this is a radio station that is pretty damn right wing. Not exactly scientific, I know, but there is definitely a disconnect between what the media/blairites are saying and what is actually being said by normal people. And it's not as if I hang around with that many lefties (apart from on this website, and lets face it, no-one here can be considered normal)


and a lot of those hopeful voices are going to watch the labour right chuck obi wan under the bus and either conclude
a) his style of Old Labour soc/dec is unworkable

or

b) there is no party of labour anymore.

anyone got a c)?


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> I'm not the one claiming to be able to predict who's going to win an election in 5 years time. I don't even know who's going to win the leadership election; maybe get that over with first.


 Well, I am claiming to be able to, and I'd definitely be proved right should this scenario arise.


----------



## Reg Folder (Aug 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> and a lot of those hopeful voices are going to watch the labour right chuck obi wan under the bus and either conclude
> a) his style of Old Labour soc/dec is unworkable
> 
> or
> ...


 c) People are reliving their youth, or their kids are trying to live their parents' youths.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

Reg Folder said:


> c) People are reliving their youth, or their kids are trying to live their parents' youths.


labour going full kinnock on its own support because lenin or something, war in the middle east, recession. All this has happened before and will happen again as they say on BSG.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 20, 2015)

This Reg Folder is a bit of a diamond aint he.


----------



## dendrite (Aug 20, 2015)

#Labourpurge have become discontent with their database shitlists and are reaching out for warm, live informants, apparently.









The same tweeter, whose feed looks as far from a hoax/troll account as a twitter feed can look, followed up:


----------



## Thimble Queen (Aug 20, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> This Reg Folder is a bit of a diamond aint he.



Did he get banned for agreeing with Diamond or slagging off the Welsh.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 20, 2015)

both are capital offences around here


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

I believe his platic tash fell off


----------



## gosub (Aug 20, 2015)

dendrite said:


> #Labourpurge have become discontent with their database shitlists and are reaching out for warm, live informants, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



support for a party or group other than Labour....

Mr Blair told Gaddafi: “I trust that you, and your family, are well.

"With regret, I should let you know that the British government has not been successful in its recent court case here involving deportation to Libya. I am very disappointed by the court's decision."

He added: "I believe it is essential that this decision is not allowed to undermine the effective bilateral co-operation which has developed between the United Kingdom and Libya in recent years.

"We have made such progress. It is important, for the good of both our peoples, that we continue to do so, not least in the crucial area of counter-terrorism."

He added: "I would like to add a personal word of thanks for your assistance in the matter of deportation. That support - and the excellent co-operation of your officials with their British colleagues - is a tribute to the strength of the bilateral relationship which has grown up between the United Kingdom and Libya. As you know, I am determined to see that partnership develop still further."


----------



## Favelado (Aug 20, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> This Reg Folder is a bit of a diamond aint he.



Right down to the incessant questions.


----------



## agricola (Aug 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> labour going full kinnock on its own support because lenin or something, war in the middle east, recession. All this has happened before and will happen again as they say on BSG.



I can see your point, but I do think that this is incompetence of a scale that we are unlikely to see again anytime soon.  It is as if the post-Foot Labour Party has been in some giant fractionating column, slowly boiling off all the sensible, useful and sane elements down the years until all we are left with now is a viscous, highly toxic residue of purest cretinry that we will only be rid of when we fire it into the sun.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> please fuck off this thread and start your own one to discuss your deluded bollocks about vote shares.



The last three words are superfluous.


----------



## andysays (Aug 20, 2015)

dendrite said:


> #Labourpurge have become discontent with their database shitlists and are reaching out for warm, live informants, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That "even if it has already been cast" is interesting


----------



## Diamond (Aug 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The last three words are superfluous.



Rapier sharp wit!


----------



## weltweit (Aug 20, 2015)

Milliband has grown a beard.

Just thought I would share that, no evidence that it signals support for Obi Wan though


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Milliband has grown a beard.
> 
> Just thought I would share that, no evidence that it signals support for Obi Wan though



He looks hot.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 20, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> He looks hot.


praps he should have grown it sooner then


----------



## Cid (Aug 20, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> He looks hot.



Like many of us he has realised the appropriate method for hiding a weak chin. Just far, far too late in his case.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Milliband has grown a beard.
> 
> Just thought I would share that, no evidence that it signals support for Obi Wan though



is it a tribute beard or an 'I've been wandering the corridors of my house naked and drinking whiskey neat from the bottle for two months' beard though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

andysays said:


> That "even if it has already been cast" is interesting


((((democracy))))


----------



## Cid (Aug 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> is it a tribute beard or an 'I've been wandering the corridors of my house naked and drinking whiskey neat from the bottle for two months' beard though.



Holiday version of the latter judging by the deeply haunted, dead-inside look. Still looks better mind.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 20, 2015)

> Please do report anyone you suspect should be ineligible - you too could be called a 'Star' 'Grass' by the Compliance Unit.



Compliance Unit


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Compliance Unit


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 20, 2015)

This has been dug up now. Some Blairite twat on CH4 news claiming Corbyn was comparing the beheadings, rape and torture to the actions of the US army. When pressed he said the US were engaged in a war ISIS aren't. It gets more dirty and desperate by the hour now!



It's an interview from June 2014 by the way.


----------



## Cid (Aug 20, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> This has been dug up now. Some Blairite twat on CH4 news claiming Corbyn was comparing the beheadings, rape and torture to the actions of the US army. When pressed he said the US were engaged in a war ISIS aren't. It gets more dirty and desperate by the hour now!
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interview from June 2014 by the way.




That video is Shithead Fawkes by the look of it (the specific youtube link), don't give him traffic.


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

Nottingham, crowds seem to be getting bigger, entryism?


dendrite said:


> #Labourpurge have become discontent with their database shitlists and are reaching out for warm, live informants, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The DWP has a big Compliance Unit,


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> This has been dug up now. Some Blairite twat on CH4 news claiming Corbyn was comparing the beheadings, rape and torture to the actions of the US army. When pressed he said the US were engaged in a war ISIS aren't. It gets more dirty and desperate by the hour now!
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interview from June 2014 by the way.




McTernan, a very very unpleasant person.


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

Btw, the purge, Akehurst is gloating all over twitter, pathetic.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 20, 2015)

Cid said:


> That video is Shithead Fawkes by the look of it (the specific youtube link), don't give him traffic.



Aye but it's made the mainstream news and forced Corbyn to respond so it's worth discussing. I did clock the name but it might be just a wannabe rather than the arse faced prick himself.


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

Inside Albert Hall, Nottingham

nothing in local media on it today, afaics.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 20, 2015)




----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

Btw, is the G/P collapsing with this move to labour?


----------



## Argonia (Aug 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> Btw, is the G/P collapsing with this move to labour?


 
Green Party?


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

Sorry, yes.



https://vine.co/v/eDO195IDmgX



Corbyn arrives on stage, can't embed Vine


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

Corbynmania outside


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2015)

denied....



> Dear Applicant,
> 
> 
> Thank you for your recent application to become an Affiliated/a Registered Supporter of the Labour Party.
> ...



ah well, it looks like Corbyn's doing well enough to not miss my vote.

Had a chat with our GP membership secretary, who said she thought we'd lost about 20 members to Labour for this vote at the last count, so something like 2%, but we've gained more new members than that in the same period.

One of them was a council candidate in May who did reasonably well, and seemed pretty good, though I think she lacked much in the way of active support for her campaign which might have been a factor.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> denied....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you surprised the LP rejected you? You're still referring to the Green Party as 'we'!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> denied....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As much as it irritates me to see three quidders shown the door when they are genuine, you've actually run campaign for the greens and the lib dems. Of course you'll get a fuck-off letter for trying it on.


----------



## xenon (Aug 20, 2015)

So how are they deciding who to reject, arbitarily by join date, tralling Facebook?

I didn't bother registering TBH but had I, I'd be pretty fucking fuming receiving a message like that, demand a refund at least.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 20, 2015)

I was allowed to vote, probably because i haven't been that politically active over the last few years.

To be honest, I don't see a problem with the Labour Party refusing membership to people like Mark Steel and Ken Loach, who, after all, were until very recently virulently anti-Labour.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2015)

mk12 said:


> Are you surprised the LP rejected you? You're still referring to the Green Party as 'we'!


Not so much now, but at the start of the thing there was fuck all on their registered supporters page about that, and it looked like they'd set it up as a much more open primary type system than it turns out that they actually wanted.

I get the distinct impression that the Green Party are much more up for the idea of being supportive of a left labour coalition than even Labour's left are. I suspect their intention is to attempt to ride this surge in support to crush all other left parties and reclaim what they see as their rightful votes, rather than considering partnership working.

I think the point where I realised I really was still much more Green (despite their faults) than Labour was when I couldn't actually face the thought of being surrounded by a massive crowd of Labour supporters / activists at the Leeds Corbyn rally, all there to support basically most of the Green Party manifesto that they'd mostly been campaigning against just 3 months earlier.

It's like the reverse of Jack Munroe (and other's) statement about Them not leaving labour, labour left them...... in this case it seems that Labour are joining us, but don't want those of us who were already campaigning on that platform to have any involvement.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> As much as it irritates me to see three quidders shown the door when they are genuine, you've actually run campaign for the greens and the lib dems. Of course you'll get a fuck-off letter for trying it on.


It'd be good if people on here could at some point stop exagerating my lib dem involvement. I never ran a campaign for them, I did something like 3 nights of poster boarding for them.

Thing is, I was genuinely in a bit of a quandry about the situation, and my support for Corbyn and his policies is also genuine. Realistically the Green Party here is unlikely to be making a real electoral challenge at a parliamentary level if Corbyn's leading the Labour Party on mostly the same platform, so in that situation there'd have been a pretty good chance that I'd have either ended up directly supporting the local Labour campaign, or possibly attempting to come to an arrangement with the and the Greens for us to stand aside / support their campaign in the nationals, but not in the europeans or locals.

Obviously they only want the sort of unqualified support their tribal instincts allow them to understand.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2015)

ps my take on it was that I would have liked the opportunity to vote for Corbyn, but always said I'd leave it to Labour to determine whether or not they wanted to give me that opportunity.

I had hoped this initiative might be a first step to opening up the democratic process in this country a bit, maybe it is, but obviously not to that extent.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 20, 2015)

In my constituency the Tories got in, Lib Dems were second and Labour third. I voted NHS Action Party but they of course (although the fastest growing party  of them all) came nowhere. 

Corbyn is the only one of the major parties I'd trust to halt NHS privatization. Who should I vote for at the next election? Abstaining would be doing my part in letting the Tories in again.


----------



## Cid (Aug 20, 2015)

mk12 said:


> I was allowed to vote, probably because i haven't been that politically active over the last few years.
> 
> To be honest, I don't see a problem with the Labour Party refusing membership to people like Mark Steel and Ken Loach, who, after all, were until very recently virulently anti-Labour.



Virulently anti-PLP you mean.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I had hoped this initiative might be a first step to opening up the democratic process in this country a bit, maybe it is, but obviously not to that extent.



Dunno really.

To be honest, I still feel faintly uncomfortable about it.

Why should someone who's paid the full whack as a party member, and signed up to the party's rules, have their vote on the same level as someone who's paid what's less (in some parts of the country) than the price of a pint, who may be doing it out of principled support for one candidate's vision that's distinct enough from the present party direction to make them think about (re) joining the party if they get elected; but equally may be doing it for the lols, or be opposed to the party and doing it in the hope of electing the leader they think will be most damaging.


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2015)

> Today I saw Jeremy Corbyn at a rally in Nottingham. Every word that came out of him resonated with me. He kept mentioning the miners strike and I thought of my late grandfather and neighbour who were unfortunate victims of Thatcher.
> 
> What got to me the most was, I sat next to a retired 75 year old chap in a mobility scooter and I asked him in passing “How do you feel about today?”
> 
> ...



From a young(23) Muso's blog, something does seem to be happening

one thing we should remember there is a whole generation of under thirtys that while not experiencing the above, have family, relatives who did suffer in the 80's, etc.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 20, 2015)

Puddy_Tat  I don't know, we'd not have this issue if we had some form of PR.

As it is though, we only have 2 parties with any chance of actually having their leader elected as Prime Minister, one of them being nominally left of centre, the other right of centre.

The only opportunity any of us actually therefore have to influence who the supposedly left of centre candidate for prime minister is / what policies they'd support is via the labour leadership elections.

Opening this process up to everyone on the left in some way would at least go some way to making the current process a little less unrepresentative / undemocratic.

Or we could just have PR instead, then I'd agree with you about the Labour leadership contest.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 20, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Dunno really.
> 
> To be honest, I still feel faintly uncomfortable about it.
> 
> Why should someone who's paid the full whack as a party member, and signed up to the party's rules, have their vote on the same level as someone who's paid what's less (in some parts of the country) than the price of a pint, who may be doing it out of principled support for one candidate's vision that's distinct enough from the present party direction to make them think about (re) joining the party if they get elected; but equally may be doing it for the lols, or be opposed to the party and doing it in the hope of electing the leader they think will be most damaging.



To an extent, but indeed why should someone who doesn't think about politics at all have their vote in an election on the same level as someone who's a party activist with principled support for one candidate's views?

If people in the Green Party (or Lib Dems or UKIP or whatever) feel that they could support Labour under Corbyn, then why shouldn't they join and vote for him?

Agreed of course on those people doing it for the lols or just trying to damage the party.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

I was reading about Labour Party history today and happened to re-read the text of the 'new'(1995 replacement) Clause IV. I wonder if Kendall and the other neo-lab candidates are on board with the first 8 words?


> *The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.*


----------



## J Ed (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I was reading about Labour Party history today and happened to re-read the text of the 'new'(1995 replacement) Clause IV. I wonder if Kendall and the other neo-lab candidates are on board with the first 8 words?
> ​



"Socialism means many different things to different people at different times but for me it means wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich"


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I was reading about Labour Party history today and happened to re-read the text of the 'new'(1995 replacement) Clause IV. I wonder if Kendall and the other neo-lab candidates are on board with the first 8 words?
> ​


they would recoil in disgust at the word socialist


----------



## agricola (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I was reading about Labour Party history today and happened to re-read the text of the 'new'(1995 replacement) Clause IV. I wonder if Kendall and the other neo-lab candidates are on board with the first 8 words?
> ​



"Is", perhaps, maybe "the" if you stretch it a bit.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2015)

agricola said:


> "Is", perhaps, maybe "the" if you stretch it a bit.


Be fair, they would agree with 75% of it.

"the Labour Party is a party"

Yes it is.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I was reading about Labour Party history today and happened to re-read the text of the 'new'(1995 replacement) Clause IV. I wonder if Kendall and the other neo-lab candidates are on board with the first 8 words?
> ​



I remember a little video put out by the Blair team in1993 when he was bidding to be leader. He was holding a barbeque in his back garden and he declared himself a socialist because... he was being social. Tolerating the prescence of ordinary people in his back yard and stuff.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2015)

He believed in the redistribution of undercooked yet burnt chicken.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Not so much now, but at the start of the thing there was fuck all on their registered supporters page about that, and it looked like they'd set it up as a much more open primary type system than it turns out that they actually wanted.
> 
> I get the distinct impression that the Green Party are much more up for the idea of being supportive of a left labour coalition than even Labour's left are. I suspect their intention is to attempt to ride this surge in support to crush all other left parties and reclaim what they see as their rightful votes, rather than considering partnership working.
> 
> ...


From reading the email and the other one that was posted it looks like it might just be people who signed up as supporters not as full members. Which would make sense and is not really surprising. Basically saying you can leave the Green party (or whatever) and join Labour, but can't sign up as a supporter while being a member of the Green party. 

Has anyone heard of someone who applied for full membership bring rejected? What about people signing up as union members? 

If he wins and you want to support him and change in the Labour party, I am sure you will have a lot less trouble joining as a full member after the election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

kabbes said:


> He believed in the redistribution of undercooked yet burnt chicken.


under corbyn we will have only the finest of bbq chicken. It will be so tasty you could get a stoned teenager to eat it even if KFC was on offer. Its a new day fellas. The milkybars are on C-Bizzle


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they would recoil in disgust at the world socialist


Interesting though, that the word has been used against Corbyn in a derogatory manner by so many of his Labour opponents when the party self-defines as such.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 21, 2015)

It's also the first 8 words on the back of the membership card


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

to think this party was at the first international. O cruel fate.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> It's also the first 8 words on the back of the membership card


Extraordinary to think that people like Field, Kendall, Danczuk and Hunt represent a party with those words on their membership card.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

I dreamt I saw Jeremy Corbyn last night
Alive as you or me
The Labour bosses killed you jez!
I never died, said he


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

free spirit said:


> 3 nights of poster boarding for them.


theres three nights you'll never get back eh


----------



## Ole (Aug 21, 2015)

emanymton said:


> From reading the email and the other one that was posted it looks like it might just be people who signed up as supporters not as full members. Which would make sense and is not really surprising. Basically saying you can leave the Green party (or whatever) and join Labour, but can't sign up as a supporter while being a member of the Green party.
> 
> *Has anyone heard of someone who applied for full membership bring rejected? What about people signing up as union members?*
> 
> If he wins and you want to support him and change in the Labour party, I am sure you will have a lot less trouble joining as a full member after the election.



Yes to both. There are already existing members for years with spotless records in terms of Labour loyalty who have been rejected. Funny as fuck.



brogdale said:


> Extraordinary to think that people like Field, Kendall, Danczuk and Hunt represent a party with those words on their membership card.



I've often found these types of people are quick to identify as socialists. I'm sure I've heard Hunt talk about his 'socialist principles' on Question Time or somewhere else on the BBC. I don't think it's just to throw off the scent incidentally, they really believe it even as they rail against the old-fashioned left.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> to think this party was at the first international. O cruel fate.


Don't think so. The First International dates were 1864 to 1876. The Labour Party wasn't created until 1900.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> Don't think so. The First International dates were 1864 to 1876. The Labour Party wasn't created until 1900.


balls, the second one maybe? or we can say members of the labour movement were present at both? Either that or I'm fucked.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 21, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> Don't think so. The First International dates were 1864 to 1876. The Labour Party wasn't created until 1900.



1906


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> balls, the second one maybe? or we can say members of the labour movement were present at both? Either that or I'm fucked.


I don't think that Brits were hugely in evidence until the Paris Congresses...and then it was people like Hyndman.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 21, 2015)

No February 27th 1900. You  are technically right in that it was called the Labour Representation Committee up until 15th February 1906 when it changed its name to the Labour Party but it was the same organisation.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

imposs1904 said:


> 1906


did the squeegies form ranks first?


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 21, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> No February 27th 1900. You  are technically right in that it was called the Labour Representation Committee up until 15th February 1906 when it changed its name to the Labour Party but it was the same organisation.


 mere details


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> No February 27th 1900. You  are technically right in that it was called the Labour Representation Committee up until 15th February 1906 when it changed its name to the Labour Party *but it was the same organisation.*


That's debatable. For instance the (Marxist) SDF were involved in the founding LRC, but left the following year.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> did the squeegies form ranks first?



'fraid so. I think part of the original impossibilist revolt - both north and south - was because the SDF originally joined the LRC. (Disaffiliating in 1901.)


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That's debatable. For instance the (Marxist) SDF were involved in the founding LRC, but left the following year.



Beat me to it. Brogdale.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 21, 2015)

Labour was admitted to the Second International in 1908. It joined the Labour and Socialist International ( a social-democratic rival to the Comintern) between1923-1940.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

Ole said:


> I've often found these types of people are quick to identify as socialists. I'm sure I've heard Hunt talk about his 'socialist principles' on Question Time or somewhere else on the BBC. I don't think it's just to throw off the scent incidentally, they really believe it even as they rail against the old-fashioned left.



Yeah, and their new factional vehicle, "Labour for the common good" (Laftcog?) appropriates socialist terminology in a superfluous manner.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 21, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> Labour was admitted to the Second International in 1908. It joined the Labour and *Socialist International ( a social-democratic rival to the Comintern) between1923-1940.*



*Wee snippet from 1923:* The staging of another pantomime


----------



## laptop (Aug 21, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> Labour was admitted to the Second International in 1908. It joined the Labour and Socialist International ( a social-democratic rival to the Comintern) between1923-1940.



It took 17 years to join the 2I?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

laptop said:


> It took 17 years to join the 2I?


it takes that long to fill in the membership form for Proleterian Democracy so I'm not completely astonished


----------



## JimW (Aug 21, 2015)

laptop said:


> It took 17 years to join the 2I?


Three pounds took a lot longer to save up in those days and vetting by telegraph slowed the process down too


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 21, 2015)

APART from the SDF, how different was it to the Labour Party of 1906? it still had the same components, the Fabians, the Independent Labour Party, the trade unions.
Re the SDF pulling out in 1901 that was to head off the Impossibilists who did go on to form the SPGB. Other dissatisfied elements went on to help found the De Leonist Socialist Labour Party


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2015)

I've still not received my ballot paper, by the way.  They must be investigating me furiously.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 21, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've still not received my ballot paper, by the way.  They must be investigating me furiously.


Nor me...


----------



## weltweit (Aug 21, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've still not received my ballot paper, by the way.  They must be investigating me furiously.


Difficult, unless they have a translator : http://www.kabbes.nl/
_nieuwe vaste planten - botanische rariteiten_
*Lid Groep Traditionele Kwekers*


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've still not received my ballot paper, by the way.  They must be investigating me furiously.





Lucy Fur said:


> Nor me...



Me neither - maybe we should bring some sort of legal challenge. 

Can anyone suggest a lawyer who might be prepared to do a bit of _pro bono_ work, ideally one with a working knowledge of the electoral system?


----------



## Lucy Fur (Aug 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> Me neither - maybe we should bring some sort of legal challenge.
> 
> Can anyone suggest a lawyer who might be prepared to do a bit of _pro bono_ work, ideally one with a working knowledge of the electoral system?


.


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)




----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> Me neither - maybe we should bring some sort of legal challenge.
> 
> Can anyone suggest a lawyer who might be prepared to do a bit of _pro bono_ work, ideally one with a working knowledge of the electoral system?



contact dave osler on facebook. he's got a lawyer mate who's looking into it.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 21, 2015)

I wonder whether they're stopping enough people voting so that there's a legal challenge and the election has to be scrapped


----------



## Crispy (Aug 21, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I wonder whether they're stopping enough people voting so that there's a legal challenge and the election has to be scrapped


Such an elaborate plan seems a bit beyond them tbf


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 21, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've still not received my ballot paper, by the way.  They must be investigating me furiously.


It's by email you know.... at least mine was.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 21, 2015)

my vote counts still so far. a search of this website would indicate pretty clearly that i have unthinkingly supported labour for my whole life tho, despite the slings and arrows of anarchists and the like.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 21, 2015)

Yep even I wasnt so cynical as to believe the £3 thing was little more than a scam to get people to pay money to the party (i take it nobodys had their £3 given back?) Seems i was wrong though. I laugh but this is a total shambles


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I wonder whether they're stopping enough people voting so that there's a legal challenge and the election has to be scrapped



I think that's a reasonable suspicion, but surely they'll have to choose a leader at some point, and presumably by the current procedures. Corbyn has already been nominated, so it's difficult to see how they can exclude him, though that doesn't mean they won't try.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 21, 2015)

That ISIS thing was ridiculous. Clutching at straws tbh.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 21, 2015)

the one thing that would finally stop me voting labour is if corbyn somehow gets blocked from being leader despite obviously being chosen by popular support.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 21, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yep even I wasnt so cynical as to believe the £3 thing was little more than a scam to get people to pay money to the party (i take it nobodys had their £3 given back?) Seems i was wrong though. I laugh but this is a total shambles


I don't think it was set up as a scam for money, I just think someone is panicking now someone they don't want looks like winning.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> I think that's a reasonable suspicion, but surely they'll have to choose a leader at some point, and presumably by the current procedures. Corbyn has already been nominated, so it's difficult to see how they can exclude him, though that doesn't mean they won't try.



And I think they're on very dodgy ground stopping people from voting. Isn't the only question someone has to answer "Do you agree with the aims of the Labour Party?" and surely only needs the answer "Well if Corbyn is elected as leader yes, because I think he believes in them too". They'd have to come up with something that contradicts this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2015)

mk12 said:


> I was allowed to vote, probably because i haven't been that politically active over the last few years.
> 
> To be honest, I don't see a problem with the Labour Party refusing membership to people like Mark Steel and Ken Loach, who, after all, were until very recently virulently anti-Labour.


I've never heard Loach or Steel voice anti-Labour sentiments.
What I *have* heard them voice is complaints about the ideology of the MPs and councillors who supposedly represent Labour, and the shift rightward such ideologies have manifested in those representatives.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 21, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've still not received my ballot paper, by the way.  They must be investigating me furiously.





Lucy Fur said:


> Nor me...





andysays said:


> Me neither - maybe we should bring some sort of legal challenge.
> 
> Can anyone suggest a lawyer who might be prepared to do a bit of _pro bono_ work, ideally one with a working knowledge of the electoral system?





rutabowa said:


> It's by email you know.... at least mine was.



The £3ers (and the union votes, iirc) are all by email, it's only members who have the choice of a paper ballot or doing it online.
I had my email the other day but my son's yet to receive his ballot paper. It says somewhere on the LP website that the closer an application was to the cut off date, the later the papers/emails would be received but it also suggests calling them if you've had nothing by the 24th (although somewhere else it says they'll still be arriving into September).


----------



## kabbes (Aug 21, 2015)

I just this second got my ballot paper through on email!


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> the one thing that would finally stop me voting labour is if corbyn somehow gets blocked from being leader despite obviously being chosen by popular support.



What was it Blair said recently? "I'd rather the LP lost the election than were elected on a left manifesto" or words to that effect


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 21, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I've still not received my ballot paper, by the way.  They must be investigating me furiously.



Probably trying to decide whether your local eco-activism makes you some kind of ultra-greenie entryist.


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> The £3ers (and the union votes, iirc) are all by email, it's only members who have the choice of a paper ballot or doing it online.
> I had my email the other day but my son's yet to receive his ballot paper. It says somewhere on the LP website that the closer a membership application was to the cut off date, the later the papers would be received but it also suggests calling them if you've had nothing by the 24th (although somewhere else it says they'll still be arriving into September).



I registered through my union fairly close to the cut off date, so I won't take the fact I haven't heard anything yet as significant.

Maybe I'll get my rejection E-mail on Monday


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> What was it Blair said recently? "I'd rather the LP lost the election than were elected on a left manifesto" or words to that effect


He best not test me.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> I registered through my union fairly close to the cut off date, so I won't take the fact I haven't heard anything yet as significant.
> 
> Maybe I'll get my rejection E-mail on Monday



Have you joined then? Just confused because of some of your posts.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've never heard Loach or Steel voice anti-Labour sentiments.
> What I *have* heard them voice is complaints about the ideology of the MPs and councillors who supposedly represent Labour, and the shift rightward such ideologies have manifested in those representatives.



I think it's shitty what they are doing to thousands of Labour Party members and supporters, but Loach always was someone who viewed the Labour Party after the fashion of that old famous quote from Lenin. He really shouldn't be that surprised that he got the knock back.


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Have you joined then? Just confused because of some of your posts.



I signed up for free through Unite. I haven't yet decided if I'm actually going to vote.

ETA I was kind of inspired by the news that Harman was going to get MPs to check out new subscribers in their constituencies - thought I'd find out if David Lammy had me on his shit list


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> I signed up for free through Unite. I haven't yet decided if I'm actually going to vote.
> 
> ETA I was kind of inspired by the news that Harman was going to get MPs to check out new subscribers in their constituencies - thought I'd find out if David Lammy had me on his shit list


If you decide not to vote then you should vote corbyn to take the place of one of the people whose vote has been blocked.


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> If you decide not to vote then you should vote corbyn to take the place of one of the people whose vote has been blocked.



Depends if it's possible to vote Spunking Cock electronically


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 21, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> That ISIS thing was ridiculous. Clutching at straws tbh.


I've seen some pretty lazy smears in my time but last night's attempt by Channel 4 News was right up there with them.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've never heard Loach or Steel voice anti-Labour sentiments.
> What I *have* heard them voice is complaints about the ideology of the MPs and councillors who supposedly represent Labour, and the shift rightward such ideologies have manifested in those representatives.


That's the thing, isn't it. _Who_ is getting to decide what Labour aims and values are, and which members do or do not subscribe to them? There's a quite clear ideological split in the party, so to talk of aims and values is to talk of the very things that are being debated and voted on!


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 21, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> That's the thing, isn't it. _Who_ is getting to decide what Labour aims and values are, and which members do or do not subscribe to them? There's a quite clear ideological split in the party, so to talk of aims and values is to talk of the very things that are being debated and voted on!


it is a perfect catch 22.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 21, 2015)

Ole said:


> Yes to both. There are already existing members for years with spotless records in terms of Labour loyalty who have been rejected. Funny as fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I've often found these types of people are quick to identify as socialists. I'm sure I've heard Hunt talk about his 'socialist principles' on Question Time or somewhere else on the BBC. I don't think it's just to throw off the scent incidentally, they really believe it even as they rail against the old-fashioned left.


I don't understand, how can existing members be rejected?


----------



## laptop (Aug 21, 2015)

emanymton said:


> I don't understand, how can existing members be rejected?



I blame the parents. 
















Calling their child Lev Davidovich Bronshtein was never going to work out well in Macclesfield.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 21, 2015)

The cull does seem quite geographical. Certain South London CLPs seem to be reporting anyone who's sent an anti cuts tweet, even if they are returning LP members and trade unionists who've never been near another party. Other areas are less vengeful. 

Saying that, no ballot for me as yet. They must be furiously investigating my terrible puns on Twitter for anti Kendall sentiment.


----------



## chilango (Aug 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> Btw, is the G/P collapsing with this move to labour?



No.


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> I think that's a reasonable suspicion, but surely they'll have to choose a leader at some point, and presumably by the current procedures. Corbyn has already been nominated, so it's difficult to see how they can exclude him, though that doesn't mean they won't try.


If they started the whole process again then the MPs might not nominate Corbyn to be on the ballot.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 21, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Yep even I wasnt so cynical as to believe the £3 thing was little more than a scam to get people to pay money to the party (i take it nobodys had their £3 given back?) Seems i was wrong though. I laugh but this is a total shambles


Surely it's a handy way of getting an up to date list of commies, islamists and other troublemakers to hand over to gchq?


----------



## gosub (Aug 21, 2015)

emanymton said:


> I don't understand, how can existing members be rejected?



war crimes


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)

Santino said:


> If they started the whole process again then the MPs might not nominate Corbyn to be on the ballot.



I realise that, but there's no (procedural) reason to start the whole process again, it's the voting part of the process which is (supposedly) problematic, not the original nominations. They may try to begin the whole thing again, but if so they will merely reveal themselves all the more clearly as fixing the process to prevent what they see as an unacceptable result. 

However unelectable Corbyn might be, I reckon that sort of blatant stitch up would fuck them even further electorally than him winning, although maybe that would be a good thing for the rest of us.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 21, 2015)

Comrades, great news! My partner has passed the Compliance Team's Ideological Test (some intern having a quick look on facebook). 

Problem is, she did tell me she thought tony blair was a cunt. Should I grass her up and become a Star?


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 21, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Comrades, great news! My partner has passed the Compliance Team's Ideological Test (some intern having a quick look on facebook).
> 
> Problem is, she did tell me she thought tony blair was a cunt. Should I grass her up and become a Star?



It seems that, while potential Corbyn supporters are purged, cats still get a ballot:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/cats-always-need-better-vetting-procedures#.ueb0kyxLzj

Teh kittehs are becoming politicised. Watch yourselves, mere humans.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 21, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> It seems that, while potential Corbyn supporters are purged, cats still get a ballot:
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/cats-always-need-better-vetting-procedures#.ueb0kyxLzj
> 
> Teh kittehs are becoming politicised. Watch yourselves, mere humans.


That's making a mockery of what is an otherwise sensible and well conducted process.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 21, 2015)

Wilf said:


> That's making a mockery of what is an otherwise sensible and well conducted process.



Indeed. What possible grounds could anyone have for poking fun at Labour's handling of the leadership election?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've never heard Loach or Steel voice anti-Labour sentiments.
> What I *have* heard them voice is complaints about the ideology of the MPs and councillors who supposedly represent Labour, and the shift rightward such ideologies have manifested in those representatives.


True, but they both, (along with Hardy), endorsed Lucas in Pavilion...so that makes it too easy for the PLP to ban them...they've supported a candidate standing against the party candidate.


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2015)

I think that, were I planning on voting in the leadership election, I'd shut the fuck up about it on fb and check what groups I'm a member of.


----------



## agricola (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> True, but they both, (along with Hardy), endorsed Lucas in Pavilion...so that makes it too easy for the PLP to ban them...they've supported a candidate standing against the party candidate.



As opposed to publicly threatening to set up / join an internal resistance movement against the elected leader, which apparently is perfectly fine.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

agricola said:


> As opposed to publicly threatening to set up / join an internal resistance movement against the elected leader, which apparently is perfectly fine.


Yeah, I'm not attempting to justify their actions or anything...just saying that some of these slebs made it easy for the party to do what they did.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 21, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> The cull does seem quite geographical. *Certain South London CLPs* seem to be reporting anyone who's sent an anti cuts tweet, even if they are returning LP members and trade unionists who've never been near another party. Other areas are less vengeful.
> 
> Saying that, no ballot for me as yet. They must be furiously investigating my terrible puns on Twitter for anti Kendall sentiment.



That kind of makes sense because of the few CLPs that actually backed Kendall, the majority were in London.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 21, 2015)

I seemed to have passed the test. Luckily I think the bliarites haven't found my facebook comments about bliar cause I always spell his name a way they'd never type 

I have voted


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

19sixtysix said:


> I seemed to have passed the test. Luckily I think the bliarites haven't found my facebook comments about bliar cause I always spell his name a way they'd never type
> 
> I have voted


Are we really suggesting that the LP has the resources to actually attempt to seek such evidence as social media stuff for more than a few individuals?


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Extraordinary to think that people like Field, Kendall, Danczuk and Hunt represent a party with those words on their membership card.




and Flint,


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 21, 2015)

I hope there will be some interesting Freedom Of Information requests to Labour HQ


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> I hope there will be some interesting Freedom Of Information requests to Labour HQ


I don't think political parties are regarded as public sector organisations for the purpose of FoI requests...but I'm no expert.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> and Flint,


we could go on and on.


----------



## zora (Aug 21, 2015)

Glad I read on here that the ballot comes by email, and it has indeed arrived in my spam folder! I could have deleted it all too easily amongst the bazillion spam messages I've received since signing up. 

I was saying to oryx last night that I'm surprised that noone has had a hissy fit about it yet that OMG EUROPEANS with no vote in the general election are allowed to takd part in this fine democratic exercise, but we decided it's probably because it's a bit of a niche thing.


----------



## laptop (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Are we really suggesting that the LP has the resources to actually attempt to seek such evidence as social media stuff for more than a few individuals?



600,000 registered, yes?

That's 920 per Constituency Labour Party. If there are 3 obsessives on the constituency committee, they have on average 300 each. 600 in some constituencies, say.

Scan the list. Look at the names that arouse their suspicions. Sort-of doable.


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Are we really suggesting that the LP has the resources to actually attempt to seek such evidence as social media stuff for more than a few individuals?


they don't need the resources, only the money - isn't this exactly the kind of thing that facebook sells to their clients?

It's a data protection subject access request that people should be submitting to the LP if they want to find the reason for their refusal rather than a FoI request btw.


----------



## killer b (Aug 21, 2015)

(the suggestion to be careful on social media is as much to do with being grassed than any direct trawling of accounts by the party - either could result in being booted.)


----------



## Belushi (Aug 21, 2015)

Telegraph has raised the bar with anti-Corbyn hysteria..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...urn-Britain-into-Zimbabwe.html?fb_ref=Default


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 21, 2015)

Fuckin hell, that's proper cringe worthy guff!!


----------



## Favelado (Aug 21, 2015)

Are there any Blairites who might have voted Tory in 2015 who are now registering for the election and planning on voting for Kendall? Surely scrutiny needs to be applied across the board.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, I'm not attempting to justify their actions or anything...just saying that some of these slebs made it easy for the party to do what they did.


The Compliance Team has a whole Unit dedicated to Radio 4 Panel Games. They've blocked Humphrey Littleton sneaking a vote in from beyond the grave and at this very moment they are injecting Nicholas Parsons with Sodium thiopental.


----------



## Mation (Aug 21, 2015)

Bugger - I can't vote. Just realised I'm not on the electoral register having just moved and not sorted it out yet. They sent me an email to say so but I'd have had to reply within 72 hours, but I was away and with no signal. 

Thanks zora or I wouldn't have known even that. Odd that they called me up a few days after the email to say they were sending the ballott though...


----------



## Sue (Aug 21, 2015)

zora said:


> Glad I read on here that the ballot comes by email, and it has indeed arrived in my spam folder! I could have deleted it all too easily amongst the bazillion spam messages I've received since signing up.
> 
> I was saying to oryx last night that I'm surprised that noone has had a hissy fit about it yet that OMG EUROPEANS with no vote in the general election are allowed to takd part in this fine democratic exercise, but we decided it's probably because it's a bit of a niche thing.



Bloody foreigners, coming here, paying their taxes and trying to participate in the democratic process...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 21, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Are there any Blairites who might have voted Tory in 2015 who are now registering for the election and planning on voting for Kendall? Surely scrutiny needs to be applied across the board.


Never mind Blairites who voted Tory , I'm hearing of actual Tories who have got through.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Telegraph has raised the bar with anti-Corbyn hysteria..
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...urn-Britain-into-Zimbabwe.html?fb_ref=Default



PMSL.

Some gold in the comments too...



> Never say never our worst nightmare could come true and Corbyn could one day be PM.
> If this did happen then there would be bloody revolution on the streets. The right and the left will at be at each others throats, and *thousands of innocent people will die* caught up in between them


.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 21, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> PMSL.
> 
> Some gold in the comments too...
> 
> .



Quite bonkers.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Quite bonkers.



I think that article from a landlords' publication you posted was the best yet. Could you repost?


----------



## andysays (Aug 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Telegraph has raised the bar with anti-Corbyn hysteria..
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...urn-Britain-into-Zimbabwe.html?fb_ref=Default



Not sure about that headline, ATM it looks more like the Labour hierarchy is determined to turn the party into a "democratic" centralist org reminiscent of the old CPSU or indeed ZanuPF


----------



## LDC (Aug 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Telegraph has raised the bar with anti-Corbyn hysteria..
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...urn-Britain-into-Zimbabwe.html?fb_ref=Default



Wow, that is fucking epic! I'm loving the side-by-side photos! I'm disappointed they didn't just go the whole way and Photoshop Corbyn to look African though.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 21, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I think that article from a landlords' publication you posted was the best yet. Could you repost?



Ahh yes - from 'Mortgage Introducer' magazine:

*Communist Corbyn housing policy branded disastrous!!!*



> Corbyn's plan could be the trigger point for the end of civilisation as we know it.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 21, 2015)

> the trigger point for the end of civilisation as we know it.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Telegraph has raised the bar with anti-Corbyn hysteria..
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...urn-Britain-into-Zimbabwe.html?fb_ref=Default



No such thing as a free lunch. Usually said by people stuffing their faces with a free lunch.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 21, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Wow, that is fucking epic! I'm loving the side-by-side photos! I'm disappointed they didn't just go the whole way and Photoshop Corbyn to look African though.


If these ideas would be so 'calamitous' then surely the electorate will vote for the vermin? Looks like the RW press lack confidence in the electorate.


----------



## LDC (Aug 21, 2015)

I'm having my mind (and any faith in humanity) blown by some of the comments on _The Telegraph_ article.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 21, 2015)

> Make no mistake, though, Corbyn's 'economic adviser' is the founder of the neo-Hitlerian school of economics.





> The more probable scenario in my view is that he is a Communist and he would want to utilize antisemitism to progress the building of Communist control in the UK but that he is not actually anti-Semitic.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2015)

andysays said:


> Not sure about that headline, ATM it looks more like the Labour hierarchy is determined to turn the party into a "democratic" centralist org reminiscent of the old CPSU or indeed ZanuPF



ZanuLiarBore innit.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 21, 2015)

Corbychev on radio 4's "Any Questions?" at the moment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_fourfm


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2015)

Banner on the rightwing anti-muslim blog harry's place:


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

is the torygraph in competition with the guardian as to who can produce the most ludicrous corbyn focused article or something


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 21, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Banner on the rightwing anti-muslim blog harry's place:
> 
> View attachment 75646



That's one hell of a banner.


----------



## Sifta (Aug 21, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Corbychev on radio 4's "Any Questions?" at the moment



He's s doing well - audience laughing at and booing the Tory, applauding Jez


----------



## fuck seals (Aug 21, 2015)

meh.  and double meh.

got an email from LP HQ telling me i'm not eligible to vote.  admittedly an on-off member over the last decade; however a consistent voter.

all i can see is the LP eviscerating itself in the name of i know not what ...


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2015)

in case anyone missed it: 
Kate Hoey speaks out after former Lambeth Council Labour Leader purged from voting in leadership election


----------



## J Ed (Aug 21, 2015)

Here you go treelover, Corbyn event announced here


----------



## agricola (Aug 21, 2015)

editor said:


> in case anyone missed it:
> Kate Hoey speaks out after former Lambeth Council Labour Leader purged from voting in leadership election



TBH I am amazed they haven't gone after Hoey as well, the same people did after all have a little go at deselecting her a few years back.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Aug 21, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Banner on the rightwing anti-muslim blog harry's place:
> 
> View attachment 75646



That takes the breath away


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

if they carry on at this rate they'll run out of easily recognizable commie baddies from history and they'll have to start digging out nepalese moaists who only seventh bullet has heard of


----------



## brogdale (Aug 21, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (Aug 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




Great find that. A particularly weird angle since she isn't even Jewish anyway, the Bolivian marching powder must be very exceptional in New York at the moment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Great find that. A particularly weird angle since she isn't even Jewish anyway, the Bolivian marching powder must be very exceptional in New York at the moment.


nah, its the same angle that used to get thrown at 'red' ken everytime he stood for election. An old labour right smear that even coked up quitters like mensch can grasp at through the fog of self importance and vibrating eyeballs


----------



## J Ed (Aug 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, its the same angle that used to get thrown at 'red' ken everytime he stood for election. An old labour right smear that even coked up quitters like mensch can grasp at through the fog of self importance and vibrating eyeballs



I looked at her twitter account and she's just quoting a random selection of anti-Semites with nothing to do with Corbyn or even Britain or quoting people who back Corbyn but are critical of Israel rather than anti-Semitic and then she bangs the #antisemitesforcorbyn tag on them. She is a bit mad I think.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 21, 2015)

What the fuck is all that stuff she just said about John Prescott's dad? Is this what twitter is usually like? It's bizarre.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 21, 2015)

#kittehsforcorbyn


----------



## J Ed (Aug 21, 2015)

I like the red collar


----------



## Sifta (Aug 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> She is a bit mad I think



Burchillism. It will be a recognized syndrome in ten years


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I like the red collar



full article here

And apparently Matthew Parris's llamas have had their memberships rejected.

Seriously, whose bloody stupid idea was this sort of election anyway?

has any other serious political party done similar?  

My understanding of the US presidential primaries, which I think this was an attempt to do something similar to, is that you're only allowed to vote in one party's primary.  How many people choose to vote in the primary of the party they dislike, to try and bugger it up, I don't know.

I think this election process is fucked.

Go through with it, and whoever wins, nobody is going to have the faintest idea if s/he has won by virtue of majority support within the party / party supporters, or whether they were elected by (tory / marxist / whatever the fuck suits the agenda of who's talking - delete as appropriate) infiltrators.

Suspend the whole sorry shower now, and the party can be portrayed as anti democracy, and whoever finally gets elected by whatever process they put together can also be argued as lacking legitimacy.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 21, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065xk23#play

Corbyn does well. Toynbee is a patronising fuck wit.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 21, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> #kittehsforcorbyn



There was me thinking that this was your own cat that you had photographed just for us. It turns out this is an actual cat in real life and has just been on Sky News.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 21, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> There was me thinking that this was your own cat that you had photographed just for us. It turns out this is an actual cat in real life and has just been on Sky News.





I dropped a bollock - intended to put a link in the post with the picture...


----------



## Sifta (Aug 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> She is a bit mad I think


Even the Mail has this now. She's fucked


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I looked at her twitter account and she's just quoting a random selection of anti-Semites with nothing to do with Corbyn or even Britain or quoting people who back Corbyn but are critical of Israel rather than anti-Semitic and then she bangs the #antisemitesforcorbyn tag on them. She is a bit mad I think.



First the Tories laughed at Corbyn, now his populism has some of them worried, they see a threat. It's just an extra bit of fun to play out alongside the Blairites spitting pips.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 21, 2015)

That Louise Mensch is proper caining the coke since she went over to the States.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 22, 2015)

fuck me, John Woodcock  is a bell end and a half. Does he actually believe the deluded drivel he spouts? - 



> John Woodcock, the chairman of the Progress group and a supporter of Liz Kendall, has suggested there is a “highly organised” attempt to play up the idea that there has been a purge of voters on the left in order to pave the way for a purge of those on the right of the party if Corbyn wins.
> 
> He said: “Councillors and MPs to whom I have spoken are concerned that the hard-left is crying foul about a purge now to prepare the ground for a mass deselection of elected representatives if it wins control. The false notion that the party’s process of vetting the electorate for supporters of other parties constitutes a purge is intended to muddy the waters for the genuine purge of longstanding councillors and MPs that is to come.”


 
from here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...adership-election-result-final-corbyn-burnham


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 22, 2015)




----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fuck me, John Woodcock  is a bell end and a half. Does he actually believe the deluded drivel he spouts? -
> 
> 
> 
> from here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...adership-election-result-final-corbyn-burnham



Hope he's right.


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fuck me, John Woodcock  is a bell end and a half. Does he actually believe the deluded drivel he spouts? -
> 
> 
> 
> from here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...adership-election-result-final-corbyn-burnham



Nasty piece of work.


----------



## agricola (Aug 22, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fuck me, John Woodcock  is a bell end and a half. Does he actually believe the deluded drivel he spouts? -
> 
> 
> 
> from here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...adership-election-result-final-corbyn-burnham



Probably not, and kudos to whomever the Guardian internet sub was that chose that precise link to demonstrate who Woodcock was:



> Woodcock tweeted: “Disappointed Yvette attacking @LizforLeader as ‘untested. Seen others over two decades, that’s why I’m backing Liz … Might be put on someone’s blacklist for that, but you know what? We need to turn the page on Labour machine politics and ‘doing people in’.”


----------



## youngian (Aug 22, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fuck me, John Woodcock  is a bell end and a half. Does he actually believe the deluded drivel he spouts? -



It was John Woodcock that helped move me to backing Corbyn; after weeks of personal attacks shadow chancellor Chris Leslie decided to engage on the issues by making some 'criticisms' of Corbynomics (mention Venuzuela and Greece). Richard Murphy, an economist who speaks plain English, went straight on World at One to defend it. Leslie couldn't be arsed to turn up and sent Woodcock along. He clearly hadn't read the proposals and had no idea how to criticise it beyond a few soundbites. Pathetic stuff, meanwhile Chris Leslie was backed to insults and yah boo sucks the next day.

Apologies if someone has already posted this wonderful summary from Aaron Bastani (4 minutes onwards) about what's wrong with ABC but I couldn't have put it any better myself


----------



## two sheds (Aug 22, 2015)

Great vid, love the conclusions at 5:30 and 6:00


----------



## youngian (Aug 22, 2015)

Exactly and the latest attempt to challenge the ballot shows as well as being talentless politicians they are in total denial of the changing landscape, which again makes them unfit to lead. If Burnham seizes the crown he'd just be seen as a laughing stock Ruritanian puppet monarch among the party and the country.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2015)

youngian said:


> Exactly and the latest attempt to challenge the ballot shows as well as being talentless politicians they are in total denial of the changing landscape, which again makes them unfit to lead. If Burnham seizes the crown he'd just be seen as a laughing stock Ruritanian puppet monarch among the party and the country.


Hoping to lead a party that can't even organise its own (rigged) leadership election. This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel for the vermin.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 22, 2015)

Its a good point about the whole blair generation of mps who came up through the party machine and have not a got a clue about how to do real politics.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2015)

Suggestion that those LP members associated with the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts are being blocked...
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/i-got-purged-from-the-labour-party


----------



## youngian (Aug 22, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its a good point about the whole blair generation of mps who came up through the party machine and have not a got a clue about how to do real politics.


 When you look at some of the few MPs that are backing Corbyn: Rashnari Ali, Clive Lewis, Cat Smith these are MPs that either won back Labour seats or defended handsomely, they know how to connect with the public like the new SNP in-take. In fact this is just an internal version of what went on in Scottish Labour seats in May.


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2015)

youngian said:


> It was John Woodcock that helped move me to backing Corbyn; after weeks of personal attacks shadow chancellor Chris Leslie decided to engage on the issues by making some 'criticisms' of Corbynomics (mention Venuzuela and Greece). Richard Murphy, an economist who speaks plain English, went straight on World at One to defend it. Leslie couldn't be arsed to turn up and sent Woodcock along. He clearly hadn't read the proposals and had no idea how to criticise it beyond a few soundbites. Pathetic stuff, meanwhile Chris Leslie was backed to insults and yah boo sucks the next day.
> 
> Apologies if someone has already posted this wonderful summary from Aaron Bastani (4 minutes onwards) about what's wrong with ABC but I couldn't have put it any better myself




Does Aarron ever get invited on the talking heads shows?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2015)

The party's lawyers speak.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 22, 2015)

Looks like the torygraph have decided to get all frothy

Jeremy Corbyn must be stopped


----------



## Belushi (Aug 22, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Looks like the torygraph have decided to get all frothy
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn must be stopped



Lol that's as good as yesterdays Mugabe one


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 22, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The party's lawyers speak.





> We don’t think that there is anything clever or funny about that.


That's just one of those phrases that immediately loses your audience...


----------



## agricola (Aug 22, 2015)

Some talking head on the BBC's Dateline London claiming that Keir Starmer is the man to fix this mess.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Banner on the rightwing anti-muslim blog harry's place:
> 
> View attachment 75646



I see that Harry's Place is as full of hysterical,weak-minded right-wingers as ever.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fuck me, John Woodcock  is a bell end and a half. Does he actually believe the deluded drivel he spouts? -
> 
> 
> 
> from here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...adership-election-result-final-corbyn-burnham



The fact that there's no extant mechanism to purge councillors or MPs without them having transgressed the party's constitution is obviously neither here nor there for a bell-end of Woodcock's minimal size.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

agricola said:


> Some talking head on the BBC's Dateline London claiming that Keir Starmer is the man to fix this mess.



I wouldn't trust Starmer to fix a punctured inner tube, let alone anything else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

agricola said:


> Probably not, and kudos to whomever the Guardian internet sub was that chose that precise link to demonstrate who Woodcock was:



He's either not very self-aware, or he's a hypocrite of a size that dwarfs the combined might of Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 22, 2015)




----------



## poului (Aug 22, 2015)

Anyone here yet mentioned Louise Mensch's rather epic (and hilarious) fail?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...id-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## brogdale (Aug 22, 2015)

poului said:


> Anyone here yet mentioned Louise Mensch's rather epic (and hilarious) fail?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...id-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires?CMP=fb_gu


Yes, it's up there with Gavin Barwell's 'arab girls'.


----------



## youngian (Aug 22, 2015)

Starmer is destined for greater things and I doubt he wants to get in involved in this ballot tish-tosh about Tory pranksters and Trots signing up. We all know that if Cooper or Burnham were heading for victory there wouldn't be a squeek about the integrity of the election. This is a Ceausescu balcony moment and no amount of talk about counter-revolutionary saboteurs is going to sway events.


----------



## chilango (Aug 22, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


>



I see Steel is staying true to his Trot past wth the fetishisation of "energetic youth".


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 22, 2015)

poului said:


> Anyone here yet mentioned Louise Mensch's rather epic (and hilarious) fail?
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...id-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires?CMP=fb_gu


Just read about this. Been feeling a bit down in the dumps today but this has cheered me up enormously [emoji1]


----------



## LDC (Aug 22, 2015)

chilango said:


> I see Steel is staying true to his Trot past wth the fetishisation of "energetic youth".



That's Paul Mason's pet fetish too... He usually manages to mention something about them wearing tight trousers as well!


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 22, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That's Paul Mason's pet fetish too... He usually manages to mention something about them wearing tight trousers as well!



Pet fetish, tight trousers, energetic youth? What's that about?


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2015)

youngian said:


> Starmer is destined for greater things and I doubt he wants to get in involved in this ballot tish-tosh about Tory pranksters and Trots signing up. We all know that if Cooper or Burnham were heading for victory there wouldn't be a squeek about the integrity of the election. This is a Ceausescu balcony moment and no amount of talk about counter-revolutionary saboteurs is going to sway events.




Weird about this Starmer/Jarvis appointed king thing, no one really knows their politics, Starmer's last throw as DPP was to introduce a max ten year tariff for benefit fraud, more than some violent crime, no thanks.

Isn't Starmer, ex Socialist Organiser?


----------



## agricola (Aug 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> Weird about this Starmer/Jarvis appointed king thing, no one really knows their politics, Starmer's las throw as DPP was to introduce a max ten year tariff for benefit fraud, more than some violent crime, no thanks.
> 
> Isn't Starmer, ex Socialist Organiser?



Perhaps it shouldn't be that weird, none of the approved candidates inspire any kind of confidence and that mob desperately need someone to cling to now, never mind if Corbyn wins and they are put in the dreadful position of having to honestly represent their constituents / not enriching themselves / having to sneak from safe house to safe house whilst the hated Gestapo is only a couple of steps behind.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 22, 2015)

If Corbyn is ousted as has been ridiculously telegraphed, it will be interesting to see how many and how quickly the party lose membership.
It will also be a small miracle if the Blairites found the competence and explanation to deflect the criticism that would surely follow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> Weird about this Starmer/Jarvis appointed king thing, no one really knows their politics, Starmer's last throw as DPP was to introduce a max ten year tariff for benefit fraud, more than some violent crime, no thanks.
> 
> Isn't Starmer, ex Socialist Organiser?


do you think before posting? i don't know what the max for benefit fraud was before but i expect it was more than the max for eg assault pc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just read about this. Been feeling a bit down in the dumps today but this has cheered me up enormously [emoji1]



You know you're fucked (and Mensch is *fucked*) when John Prescott schools you on twitter.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 23, 2015)

top loonage from The Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ries-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 23, 2015)

In a bizarre way this does feel very reminiscent of Farage, only the nutters are still on the right (of course, I would say that...). The more his detractors cry fear and woe, the more they throw mud, the stronger his support becomes.

They're giving him more publicity than he'd likely ever get in pure support. To the point where I actually wonder if for at least some parties it's not ideological but simply pragmatic - either selling something or they genuinely think he will cause the left more problems than the right.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 23, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> top loonage from The Mail
> View attachment 75721
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ries-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html



Saw that prefaced on Twitter earlier with the caption: The Mail's had another cheese dream


----------



## two sheds (Aug 23, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> top loonage from The Mail
> View attachment 75721
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ries-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html



Where's the OMG gif when you need it???


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 23, 2015)

I can remember right-wingers getting in a right tiz about that 100 days of UKIP programme on Channel 4. I'm sure they'll be criticising this based on the same principles.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 23, 2015)

At least it takes Jeremy longer to ruin the country than it did Nigel.


----------



## treelover (Aug 23, 2015)

This is much more frightening, and they say Corbynites are fanatics.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 23, 2015)

treelover said:


> This is much more frightening, and they say Corbynites are fanatics.



They couldn't have staged a better photo. It's beautiful.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 23, 2015)

Is that Owen Jones? (top left)


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 23, 2015)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ries-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html
Is that 2011 in the DM?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 23, 2015)

This thread is getting really big.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2015)

Corbyn currently third favourite to be next PM at 7-1. He was fourth favourite to be Labour leader at about 20-1 just a few weeks ago.

Nice.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 23, 2015)

God  I wish I'd placed a bet when it was 100-1 for him to get the labour leadership.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> top loonage from The Mail
> View attachment 75721
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ries-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html



'Tragedy: One Direction - who have now been together for 13 years - flew to America and never returned'


----------



## Belushi (Aug 23, 2015)

Well done Charles Moore 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...ndall-got-the-looks-for-a-leadership-contest/


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 23, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> 'Tragedy: One Direction - who have now been together for 13 years - flew to America and never returned'



that's another few votes for JC...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 23, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Well done Charles Moore
> 
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...ndall-got-the-looks-for-a-leadership-contest/


Fucking hell.

That's even more offensive than the Corbyn smearing.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 23, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> that's another few votes for JC...



Yeah, you'd vote for JC on this basis, but then it'd be like Phil Collins 1997 election pledge all over again


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, you'd vote for JC on this basis, but then it'd be like Phil Collins 1997 election pledge all over again



Paul Daniels also made and broke that pledge.


----------



## Patteran (Aug 23, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> top loonage from The Mail
> View attachment 75721
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ries-gloat-Labour-s-woe-careful-wish-for.html



'Frighteningly realistic' according to Toby Young on twitter.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

Patteran said:


> 'Frighteningly realistic' according to Toby Young on twitter.


the author of that sub randian right wing post apocalypse drivel doesn't even appear to know the strike rules surrounding the police. So about as realistic as that time I slept with angelena jolie


----------



## gosub (Aug 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> .... So about as realistic *as that time I slept with angelena jolie*



that relationship was never going to work, not after she made the mistake of trying to cook you  breakfast in bed


----------



## Argonia (Aug 23, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Corbyn currently third favourite to be next PM at 7-1. He was fourth favourite to be Labour leader at about 20-1 just a few weeks ago.
> 
> Nice.


 
Who is ahead of him in first and second place?


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2015)

osborne & johnston


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2015)

(Hague has surprisingly low odds, considering he's left parliament)


----------



## Argonia (Aug 23, 2015)

Thanks for the info killer b.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Aug 23, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Fucking hell.
> 
> That's even more offensive than the Corbyn smearing.



Charles Moore's permanent adolescence. Like smelling someone else's farts


----------



## free spirit (Aug 23, 2015)

I worked out how they'll have filtered me out of the registration process.... I was a signatory for the green candidates nomination papers.

Forgot about that.

I've seen a few rejects that are pretty baffling though, one from a 30 year trade unionist who says he's never supported or voted for another party, his wife's a labour councillor.

Also my brother reckons that the editor of LibDemVoice has been accepted as a labour supporter, has his voting card etc.

Hopefully the end result isn't close enough for this sort of issue to have affected it either way, or the shit's really going to hit the fan from one direction or the other.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2015)

Wasn't there some kerfuffle over the lib dem leadership election when it was Clegg vs Huhne? Some 'uncounted' postal votes that would have tipped Huhne over the line or something? Didn't come to anything, and it won't here either IMO.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I've seen a few rejects that are pretty baffling though


harman has decided that crit of the extant labour party functions as 'running contrary to the aims of etc' or whatever the wording was. So basically they can boy off anyone who ever spoke against a labour policy or politician in public. Uncle Joe approves from beyond the grave.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

killer b said:


> and it won't here either IMO.


I'd agree, in some ways I'm reminded of that kerfuffle involving union business during millibands reign which came to nothing but allowed the PLP to be seen as tough on unions and alienate yet more of their vote.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd agree, in some ways I'm reminded of that kerfuffle involving union business during millibands reign which came to nothing but allowed the PLP to be seen as tough on unions and alienate yet more of their vote.


_that_ kerfuffle resulted in the new voting system the Labour party is currently finding itself re-shaped by didn't it? 

Either way, there's not going to be a legal challenge - no-one likes a bad loser.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

killer b said:


> _that_ kerfuffle resulted in the new voting system the Labour party is currently finding itself re-shaped by didn't it?
> 
> Either way, there's not going to be a legal challenge - no-one likes a bad loser.


yes but in terms of discovering actual shennanigans and evidence of union bullies rigging an election- nothing right? Just a standard panic. However knowing now that the union bashing has enabled corbyn is making me chuckle wryly.


----------



## Sifta (Aug 23, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I was a signatory for the green candidates nomination papers.



ffs. I signed my neighbour's nomination paper for the local election. All I know of him is: we talk idly about dogs and gardening. All I'm saying on the form is he's a fit and proper person, who is who he says he is. I'd have done the same if he was a Tory

edit to add - he is a Green


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

Sifta said:


> ffs. I signed my neighbour's nomination paper for the local election. All I know of him is: we talk idly about dogs and gardening. All I'm saying on the form is he's a fit and proper person, who is who he says he is. I'd have done the same if he was a Tory


I'd be asking who the person was standing for before giving my John Hancock. Theres lines I don't cross, and that includes endorsing anything right of lenin. I disowned my uncle for standing as a tory councillor. Man has to have a code.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Man has to have a code.


Proper lol...watching "PhoneShop" as I read that!


----------



## JimW (Aug 23, 2015)

A train station locker has to have a code. A man can get by fine on vanity and delusion.


----------



## agricola (Aug 23, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> 'Tragedy: One Direction - who have now been together for 13 years - flew to America and never returned'



Corbyn's influence is even worse than imagined, they have split up already!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

JimW said:


> A train station locker has to have a code. A man can get by fine on vanity and delusion.


the code of the old school:

Never vote tory
Never hit a woman
Never cross a picket line
Always get your round in when you can
Money lent to mates is not lent, if you get it back then thats a bonus
Always give up your seat on the bus if someone needs it more like an old lady or a bloke with sticks or whatever.
Oh and never drink sociably with a copper.


----------



## Patteran (Aug 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the code of the old school:
> 
> Never vote tory
> Never hit a woman
> ...



Did some work with Women Against Pit Closures last year, arranged for young women from a local college to do some filmed interviews for media studies. Final question they asked Betty Cook was 'What advice can you give young people today?' Initially resistant to any answer, on the grounds that their experiences were fundamentally different, she eventually said - 'Learn your history, & never, ever cross a picket line'.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the code of the old school:
> 
> Never vote tory
> Never hit a woman
> ...


I drink sociably with a copper.

Your code doesn't preclude you signing a Tory councillor's form, by the way.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 23, 2015)

> Andy Burnham’s efforts of late to appeal to Jeremy Corbyn’s left-wing voters may have gone to waste after an email blip this morning. Steerpike understands that he has risked the wrath of one of the unions after an official looking email was circulated to members of Unite, the trade union, urging them to vote for Burnham.
> 
> With Unite backing Corbyn, members were surprised to receive the email, from Joyce Still and Steve Hibbert of the union’s executive council, asking them to support Burnham in the leadership race:


Burnham's attempts to court the union vote with an email that appeared to have come from UNITE seem to have backfired, resulting in Unite sending out another email to their membership reaffirming their support for Corbyn.



> Meanwhile, Len McCluskey has now gone one step further and sent an email to members reinforcing that the union is backing Corbyn, rather than Burnham. He says to ignore the emails from other candidate’s campaigns which may cause confusion, as Corbyn is the only candidate that the country needs:



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerp...es-itself-from-burnham-camp-after-email-blip/

It's becoming increasingly clear that Corbyn's team are the only team with any idea on how to run a proper campaign.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I drink sociably with a copper.
> 
> Your code doesn't preclude you signing a Tory councillor's form, by the way.


Seldon, you will never understand how the spirit of the law accords to its letter if you insist on pedantry.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Seldon, you will never understand how the spirit of the law accords to its letter if you insist on pedantry.


Wise you are yet there is wisdom yet for you to accumulate.  There are wheels but there are wheels within wheels.

We are all flawed, but there is a germ worth knowing and cosseting in almost every one of us.  Yea, even coppers and Tory councillors.  I cannot afford to start writing people off on the basis of finding something about them I don't like; I would be left a man alone.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Wise you are yet there is wisdom yet for you to accumulate.  There are wheels but there are wheels within wheels.
> 
> We are all flawed, but there is a germ worth knowing and cosseting in almost every one of us.  Yea, even coppers and Tory councillors.  I cannot afford to start writing people off on the basis of finding something about them I don't like; I would be left a man alone.


you know if his boss asked that copper would boot your front door in mob handed, drag you out feet first and generally put the terror on you right?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you know if his boss asked that copper would boot your front door in mob handed, drag you out feet first and generally put the terror on you right?


Wrong force.  But in principle, yes.  Such is the reality of living life in a country with a police force.  And it would happen regardless of whether or not we spent time together, so what have I lost?  I could also point out that more realistically, he puts himself in physical danger on a daily basis to stop some really violent people repeating really violent acts.  But that really wouldn't be the point either, because that is also not why I do or don't spend time with him.

The choices aren't between closest best friends and total cold shoulder.  I can find reasons to avoid anybody if I go looking for them.  On balance, it's better to get on with those around you on their own merits, within the boundaries of much they are personally a cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2015)

kabbes said:


> what have I lost?


honour


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> honour


I think I last saw that in 1999.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you know if his boss asked that copper would boot your front door in mob handed, drag you out feet first and generally put the terror on you right?


This is what gets me with the ex coppers at work, knowing that they would smack me with shields and batons whilst on public order duty, and for all I know actually did. I can never be proper friends with someone that I know would kick the crap out of me cos they are ordered to.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2015)

Define "proper friends".


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2015)

people you trust to have your back


----------



## chilango (Aug 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> This is what gets me with the ex coppers at work, knowing that they would smack me with shields and batons whilst on public order duty, and for all I know actually did. I can never be proper friends with someone that I know would kick the crap out of me cos they are ordered to.



There's plenty of people who aren't coppers who'd do that if push came to shove.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Define "proper friends".


At work I can be friendly with them, beyond being polite/professional, they're perfectly decent people in that context, but I'd never choose to spend time with them and will not think about keeping in touch after they/i leave

E2a there have been people in previous jobs I wouldn't speak to about anything except when I had to for work, that I wouldn't go for a drink after work if they were coming, and that I'd refuse to rep for in an employer dispute, not the case here with the ex coppers.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2015)

chilango said:


> There's plenty of people who aren't coppers who'd do that if push came to shove.


Of course, I wouldn't be friends with them either. It's a known fact about all coppers/ex coppers though.


----------



## chilango (Aug 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Of course, I wouldn't be friends with them either. It's a known fact about all coppers/ex coppers though.



Thing is though, it's hard to know how your friends (or potential friends if you like) would act in some hypothetical situation that may or may not ever arise. A cop lives inside all of us...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> people you trust to have your back


Will you only drink with those who you trust to have your back?

Extend it -- will you only drink with those you trust to have your back in every circumstance?  What about in every circumstance regardless of what you may have done?


BigTom said:


> At work I can be friendly with them, beyond being polite/professional, they're perfectly decent people in that context, but I'd never choose to spend time with them and will not think about keeping in touch after they/i leave
> 
> E2a there have been people in previous jobs I wouldn't speak to about anything except when I had to for work, that I wouldn't go for a drink after work if they were coming, and that I'd refuse to rep for in an employer dispute, not the case here with the ex coppers.


So you would have a drink with them.

If you lived down the road from them, you might even have a regular drink with them.

I disagree with the black and white context dotty is framing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Will you only drink with those who you trust to have your back?


yes mate. Thats how it works. If I don't trust you you don't have a pint with me.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Will you only drink with those who you trust to have your back?
> 
> Extend it -- will you only drink with those you trust to have your back in every circumstance?  What about in every circumstance regardless of what you may have done?
> So you would have a drink with them.
> ...


Yes, I'll have a drink with them after work. No I wouldn't if they lived down the street with me, I wouldn't talk to them in the pub unless it was about some kind of residents issue.
Bit easier in a city than in a little village though, where the community is too small to really be able to ignore anyone like that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2015)

chilango said:


> A cop lives inside all of us


speak for yourself, all that lives inside me is a socialist father jack shouting abuse at random.


----------



## youngian (Aug 24, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> In a bizarre way this does feel very reminiscent of Farage, only the nutters are still on the right (of course, I would say that...). The more his detractors cry fear and woe, the more they throw mud, the stronger his support becomes.



It depends if the mud slinging chimes with public perception. The Tony Blair demon eyes campaign for example had little effect. Most people don't know who Corbyn is yet and I can't make up my mind how he and his politics will play. Unlike Burnham and Cooper, who's leadership would be met with apathy, indifference and a gut feeling they don't know what they're talking about or even believe in what they're saying.

Confronting Cameron at PMQs will be interesting, Corbyn doesn't suffer fools gladly but however good he is Cameron will respond in the same way by shouting the same words: 'Hamas' 'IRA' 'printing money' 'Greece' '1970s' 'trade unions'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> than in a little village though,


coppers have their own pubs as well, places where our tax money goes on pints of bitter and whiskey chasers. I only clocked the n'pton local plod watering hole because after kelvin (black) said he wouldn't go there cos its a racist pub. Then when I was in there to watch me bro play I'm hearing all sorts of shop talk and acronymics from the boys at the bar grimly drinking away memories. Felt well uncomfortable.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 24, 2015)

kabbes said:


> If you lived down the road from them, you might even have a regular drink with them.
> 
> I disagree with the black and white context dotty is framing.



Former cops can reform, I'd imagine, though I'd still be wary round them. Serving ones though... I'd probably manage cordial if forced into the situation but I'd not do it off my own bat. And not just because I know they'd smack me about if a superior told them to, I'd find it impossible to relax and say what was on my mind - it'd ruin the pint.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> speak for yourself, all that lives inside me is a socialist father jack shouting abuse at random.


(((Random)))


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Former cops can reform, I'd imagine, though I'd still be wary round them. Serving ones though... I'd probably manage cordial if forced into the situation but I'd not do it off my own bat. And not just because I know they'd smack me about if a superior told them to, I'd find it impossible to relax and say what was on my mind - it'd ruin the pint.


On the other hand, coppers have the best stories.  That's why they make so many dramas about them.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

kabbes said:


> On the other hand, coppers have the best stories.  That's why they make so many dramas about them.


So nothing to do with the cultural hegemony and ideological cementing of consent, then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

kabbes said:


> On the other hand, coppers have the best stories.  That's why they make so many dramas about them.


no, they make so many dramas about them to accustom people to see the police as good


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

kabbes said:


> On the other hand, coppers have the best stories.  That's why they make so many dramas about them.


if they have the best stories why do so few police procedurals descend from e.g. rome and greece?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 24, 2015)

Tbh someone like dotty whose been in jail etc its totally understandable why they wouldnt want to act nicey nicey with cops, not really much to do with black and white framing in this case i reckon. 

i would feel uncomfortable with it too tbh. Though i fully understand that if someones only experience of the cops is neutral or positive then they wouldnt have such a massive issue with it.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So nothing to do with the cultural hegemony and ideological cementing of consent, then?


I reckon Kabbes needs someone off the internet to explain these concepts to him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tbh someone like dotty whose been in jail etc its totally understandable why they wouldnt want to act nicey nicey with cops, not really much to do with black and white framing in this case i reckon.
> 
> i would feel uncomfortable with it too tbh. Though i fully understand that if someones only experience of the cops is neutral or positive then they wouldnt have such a massive issue with it.


framing and cops in the same sentence?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I reckon Kabbes needs someone off the internet to explain these concepts to him.


on you go, then


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> if they have the best stories why do so few police procedurals descend from e.g. rome and greece?



Ignoramus.  Don't they teach Aristophanes at Eton?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Ignoramus.  Don't they teach Aristophanes at Eton?


ask someone who went there. as for ignoramus, it's you - not me - who can't tell the difference between none and few.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 24, 2015)

Police do have good stories. But so do paramedics, nurses, doctors, and firefighters etc. and none of them are going to smash your head in because you went on a demo.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> ask someone who went there.



You did go to public school though.  Not that there's anything wrong with that obv.

Anyway, the police in ancient Greece were slaves.  They feature in quite a few dramas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> You did go to public school though.  Not that there's anything wrong with that obv.


if you think that's the case i don't know why you rattle on about it so to the detriment of every thread you raise it on


----------



## Sifta (Aug 24, 2015)

Many, many years ago, I used to buy dope from a place where there were a couple of cops amongst the regulars. Atmosphere was chilled but edgy when one or other of them was there.


----------



## agricola (Aug 24, 2015)

Peter McKay, in today's Mail:



> A Jeremy Corbyn premiership will see our national debt soaring to £3 trillion, our nuclear submarines sold to Vladimir Putin, Britain kicked out of Nato and the red flag flying from No 10 during ‘1,000 days that destroy Britain’.
> 
> This ‘imagining’ by one newspaper feature writer yesterday is merely an exaggerated version of what Corbyn’s leadership rivals, and their supporters, are now claiming.
> 
> ...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So nothing to do with the cultural hegemony and ideological cementing of consent, then?


Could be, could be.  Course, even with that, they still wouldn't get many viewers on a Saturday night if that pesky discourse wasn't so gosh-darned _entertaining._


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> Police do have good stories. But so do paramedics, nurses, doctors, and firefighters etc. and none of them are going to smash your head in because you went on a demo.


Yeah, happy to have a drink with those folks too.

There's a limit to how choosy I can afford to be if I don't want to live a lonely existence.  And there's a lot worse than coppers in the local.  Like CEOs.  At least a copper will just break a bone, not break your whole life.


----------



## xslavearcx (Aug 24, 2015)

My partners son has flirted with the idea of becoming a cop.... Praise the Lord he changed his mind!!


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 24, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Kim Jong-Il for Labour [dear] leader!


Kim Jong-un


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> You did go to public school though.  Not that there's anything wrong with that obv.



You attended ****** College, Oxford (as did the execrable ******). Not that there's anything wrong with that, except that it could be gauged as much a bastion of privilege as a public school.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2015)

agricola said:


> Peter McKay, in today's Mail:



Didn't realise McHackey was still alive. Thought his liver dissolved decades ago.


----------



## killer b (Aug 24, 2015)

What's the point in starring out phil's college if you're going to refer to an easily googleable alumni in the same breath?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 24, 2015)

killer b said:


> What's the point in starring out phil's college if you're going to refer to an easily googleable alumni in the same breath?


Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where a supergrass is being interviewed on telly - and they leave the interviewer in shadow.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Didn't realise McHackey was still alive. Thought his liver dissolved decades ago.


He will live on as long as Agricola cuts and pastes whole articles of his without adding any thoughts of his own.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 24, 2015)

Tomorrow at 08:30  Live Hustings from Stevenage. No doubt punctuated with results from the Oxford Quoits Championships.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b069xw2v


----------



## JimW (Aug 24, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Tomorrow at 08:30  Live Hustings from Stevenage. No doubt punctuated with results from the Oxford Quoits Championships...


Would that constitute a ringing endorsement?


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Tomorrow at 08:30  Live Hustings from Stevenage. No doubt punctuated with results from the Oxford Quoits Championships.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b069xw2v


Oxfordshire play Aunt Sally not Quoits


----------



## Zabo (Aug 24, 2015)

LOL at Jim


----------



## Geri (Aug 24, 2015)

The fucking cunts have rejected me. Wankers.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 25, 2015)

Geri : You blatant entryist!


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> What's the point in starring out phil's college if you're going to refer to an easily googleable *alumni* in the same breath?



Alumnus, surely 

</William of Walworth, Pedant's Academy, Boringshire  >


----------



## Knotted (Aug 25, 2015)

How to enthuse young people:


> In a speech on Tuesday, Cooper will attempt to woo young people enthused by Corbyn with a series of measures to tackle disillusionment in politics.
> 
> Cooper will unveil several new policies including a pledge to consult on moving the House of Lords out of London to a city such as Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or Cardiff and a proposed freeze and cap on new appointments to the Lords until democratic reform is started.
> 
> ...


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/24/gordon-brown-backs-yvette-cooper-for-labour-leader


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

No real change then, that's surprising.


----------



## Knotted (Aug 25, 2015)

How to show strong leadership:


> He said of some of his former cabinet colleagues that they needed to “show a bit more humility when they make their comments about who they would work with or wouldn’t work with”.
> 
> Burnham was heckled by members of the audience demanding to know why he had voted with the party’s leadership and abstained on the welfare bill. Burnham responded that he had not wanted to lead a rebellion and split the party, adding that they were stronger united.
> 
> He addressed Corbyn’s pledge to apologise on behalf of Labour for the Iraq war, suggesting that he could be open to this after the Chilcot report was published if “apologies need to be made”.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/24/gordon-brown-backs-yvette-cooper-for-labour-leader


----------



## J Ed (Aug 25, 2015)

Knotted said:


> How to enthuse young people:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/24/gordon-brown-backs-yvette-cooper-for-labour-leader



The youth cries out and Cooper delivers


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 25, 2015)

Reform of the House of Lords - The hot topic on everyone's mind


----------



## J Ed (Aug 25, 2015)

It's just occurred to me - it probably is the topic on the mind of every young person she talks to cos they are all spads.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

Be fair, move it to Birmingham and that will solve all its problems. Mind you on second thoughts one of the remote Scottish Isles might be better.


----------



## xslavearcx (Aug 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The youth cries out and Cooper delivers


----------



## Geri (Aug 25, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Geri : You blatant entryist!


 
I am so angry. I have voted Labour all my life, and now they spit in my face.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

Worth contacting them letting them know that and asking for an explanation? I can imagine they're going to be getting quite a few FoI requests if they refuse to say.


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Worth contacting them letting them know that and asking for an explanation? I can imagine they're going to be getting quite a few FoI requests if they refuse to say.


For info: You should not submit a FOI request if you want to find out the reason behind a refusal. The labour party isn't a public body, so isn't covered by the freedom of information act. A FOI request will be either ignored or refused.

You need to instead submit a data protection subject access request. They can charge up to £10 'admin' costs, but have to respond. Theres almost certainly some sample letters floating around on the internet for anyone who wants to take this route.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2015)

A short time ago on Radio 4 Today.
Derek Hatton hasn't got a ballot paper either and he is a full member.
I can't see any reason for this!


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

More info here: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/personal-information/


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2015)

Geri said:


> I am so angry. I have voted Labour all my life, and now they spit in my face.



Sadly I have observed them spitting in the faces of their most loyal supporters for years.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> For info: You should not submit a FOI request if you want to find out the reason behind a refusal. The labour party isn't a public body, so isn't covered by the freedom of information act. A FOI request will be either ignored or refused.
> 
> You need to instead submit a data protection subject access request. They can charge up to £10 'admin' costs, but have to respond. Theres almost certainly some sample letters floating around on the internet for anyone who wants to take this route.



Oops, I saw your previous post where you said that, sorry


----------



## hash tag (Aug 25, 2015)

I too have not received my ballot papers yet but was told they have up until 1st Sept to send them.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2015)

Geri said:


> The fucking cunts have rejected me. Wankers.



Liz Kendall from Watford had her spies out.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

Without wanting to appear too cynical or dismissive, I wonder if it's really worth anyone asking why they have been refused a vote.

The conditions are drawn in such away that they are vague and ultimately subjective, so the existing leadership can decide whether or not a person's activities demonstrates that they don't support the LP, at least to their own satisfaction. 

Even if it could be demonstrated that an electorally significant number of people have been "wrongly" denied a vote, what then? I really can't see that there's any practical possibility of individuals being reinstated, or the result of the election being overturned.

Obviously it's up to people to make their own minds up, but to me the primary issue is that the party hierarchy are determine to lock out large numbers of the people who want to be involved, and all that follows from that, rather than the specific justification they may find for it in particular cases.

(this is all based on the fact that I haven't yet heard if I've got a vote, BTW. I reserve the right to completely change my position if *I'm* rejected  )


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

It's worth it just to demonstrate their mendacity IMO.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

Yes along with the annoyance factor.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> It's worth it just to demonstrate their mendacity IMO.



For me, their mendacity was never in doubt, and if it were the simple fact that they're denying people like Geri the vote demonstrates it quite clearly without knowing what spurious justification they can come up with.

But others are welcome to view it differently, obvs


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2015)

A few million subject access requests should have them trying to retrieve the situation quick smart.


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

Also, I'm quite interested in seeing what criteria they're using.

I'm sure it isn't the case for Geri, but I reckon plenty of the people crying foul have a record of campaigning against the Labour Party that they're conveniently forgetting - the mendacity of trots is also something we need to bear in mind.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

cesare said:


> A few million subject access requests should have them trying to retrieve the situation quick smart.



From memory, about 600,000 people have tried to register, members, union affiliates and £3 payers. How many do we think are actually being denied? And what makes people think these requests are going to be taken seriously/given genuine answers?

I'm not for one moment justifying what the LP is doing but it's neither a surprise nor (IMO) worth bothering with asking for the individual justifications when the bigger issue is the reason why they're doing it at all. Just my £3 worth...


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> From memory, about 600,000 people have tried to register, members, union affiliates and £3 payers. How many do we think are actually being denied? And what makes people think these requests are going to be taken seriously/given genuine answers?
> 
> I'm not for one moment justifying what the LP is doing but it's neither a surprise nor (IMO) worth bothering with asking for the individual justifications when the bigger issue is the reason why they're doing it at all. Just my £3 worth...


Don't bother submitting a subject access request then


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

Do you know how data protection works Andy? They cant just brush you off.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> Do you know how data protection works Andy? They cant just brush you off.



Possibly I don't know how it works as well as you do. Maybe you could outline specifically how you think it will work in this case.

Obviously if they say to Geri they think she's a member of the SWP, she can challenge that on the basis of fact, but I'm not convinced they need to do that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> From memory, about 600,000 people have tried to register, members, union affiliates and £3 payers. How many do we think are actually being denied? And what makes people think these requests are going to be taken seriously/given genuine answers?


because i don't suppose the labour party wants to be dragged through the courts over this


----------



## cesare (Aug 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> because i don't suppose the labour party wants to be dragged through the courts over this


Plus potentially big investigation from the ICO, potential fines, bad PR etc


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> Possibly I don't know how it works as well as you do. Maybe you could outline specifically how you think it will work in this case.
> 
> Obviously if they say to Geri they think she's a member of the SWP, she can challenge that on the basis of fact, but I'm not convinced they need to do that.


It's fine that you don't know how something works, but maybe read about it first before postulating at length about it - as there's a risk of both spreading bad information and looking a bit silly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> It's fine that you don't know how something works, but maybe read about it first before farting at length about it - as there's a risk of both spreading bad information and looking a bit silly.


c4u


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> It's fine that you don't know how something works, but maybe read about it first before postulating at length about it - as there's a risk of both spreading bad information and looking a bit silly.



I didn't say I didn't know how it works, I said that *possibly* I don't know how it works as well as you do, and invited you to outline how you think it will work in this case.

You're still welcome to do that, or you could just carry on distorting what I'm saying and asserting with no real substance that you know better. Up to you...


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

> He addressed Corbyn’s pledge to apologise on behalf of Labour for the Iraq war, suggesting that he could be open to this after the Chilcot report was published if “apologies need to be made”.


 So, some time around 2028 there'll be a mumbled "soz" from Burham.


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> I didn't say I didn't know how it works, I said that *possibly* I don't know how it works as well as you do, and invited you to outline how you think it will work in this case.
> 
> You're still welcome to do that, or you could just carry on distorting what I'm saying and asserting with no real substance that you know better. Up to you...


OK. I think they'll send a copy of all the personal data they hold on anyone who does a subject access request, as they're legally obliged to. Contained within this data will be the evidence they used when deciding to refuse a sign-up.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> OK. I think they'll send a copy of all the personal data they hold on anyone who does a subject access request, as they're legally obliged to. Contained within this data will be the evidence they used when deciding to refuse a sign-up.



That's more or less what I thought too.

But within that there are potentially simple issues of fact ("you think I'm a member of a rival party but I'm not"), but also issues of opinion/interpretation ("you think that something I've said/done demonstrates that I don't fully/adequetely support the LP and although I agree that I said/did it, I don't agree with your interpretation").

This will doubtless indicate that they are excluding some people on dubious grounds of interpretation (and probably a few on mistaken fact as well) but I don't really think it's going to lead to a practical difference in the result of the election, or be instrumental in convoncing more than a handful of people who weren't otherwise convinced that the LP is mendacious and otherwise unworthy of their support.

That's all I'm trying to say, though perhaps I didn't make it clear enough to begin with


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> That's all I'm trying to say, though perhaps I didn't make it clear enough to begin with


now can we move on and leave this unedifying spat behind us?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> From memory, about 600,000 people have tried to register, members, union affiliates and £3 payers. How many do we think are actually being denied? And what makes people think these requests are going to be taken seriously/given genuine answers?
> 
> I'm not for one moment justifying what the LP is doing but it's neither a surprise nor (IMO) worth bothering with asking for the individual justifications when the bigger issue is the reason why they're doing it at all. Just my £3 worth...


The Scotsman piece said:


> Although the vetting process is not yet complete, Scotland on Sunday understands the early indications are that almost 10 per cent of the 310,000 or so registered and affiliated “supporters” can be shown to be “entryists”.


Almost by definition the '25,000' claim will be predominantly 3 quidders and union members.  A figure approaching 10% of that electorate rejected is pretty high.  The obvious issues are that this is being done without the remotest consistency, happens more in some constituencies than others - and is affecting Corbyn supporters more than others.  An example is that the Scotsman piece says they are taking canvass returns into account as one bit of the jigsaw.  Can't actually imagine they have universal canvass returns nowadays, but that's by the by.  The point is canvassing returns work along the lines of 'and will you be voting Labour.... err, yes.... and do you think everybody in the house will be..... erm, err, yes....'. An absurd basis to make a legally challengeable decision to exclude someone from an election. Ditto the idea of using 'bliar is a cunt' on somebody's facebook.  The other bit, which is more fuck up than conspiracy, is that they are still excluding people well into the period when the voting has started.  It's gerrymandering that is at once both blatant and incompetent.

At one level, I'm not a Westminster politics fan and I think all this left of centre (ish) energy going into the corbyn campaign is a massive diversion, a waste of energy.  However it really is worth exposing the mendacity - that's an end in it'self. Admittedly, the Labour machine will be just as mendacious if Corbyn wins, just as it would have been all those years ago if Lord Stansgate had won.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 25, 2015)

The latest anti-Corbyn piece from Pollee


> The idea of Corbyn winning Tory votes stretches credulity. I remain convinced that Yvette Cooper has the best chance of holding the party together, appealing widely – especially to women – as a tough anti-austerity economist holding the Tories’ feet to the fire. If Labour can’t elect a winner, nothing will stop the Tory evisceration of public services and the welfare state.
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/25/labour-race-corbyn-wins-britain-out-of-europe



Cooper is seriously shite and she offers nothing different to the other right-wing candidates or the Tories for that matter. Worse, perhaps, her policies (what little I've heard of them) are superficial/cosmetic and don't address the structural issues.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

A shorter way of putting all that is that if it was worth paying £3, if you tried to participate in good faith, it's worth kicking a fuss up if you were rejected.


----------



## youngian (Aug 25, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> The latest anti-Corbyn piece from Pollee





> The idea of Corbyn winning Tory votes stretches credulity, if Corbyn wins, Britain could be out of Europe



Like Farage, Polly doesn't seem to grasp its possible to criticise the direction of the EU over Russia, TTIP or economics without being "anti Europe". 

As for winning over Tory and UKIP voters, Corbyn probably has more chance than the other three as they understand what the man's talking about. And evokes the sort of trust that self confessed socialist Bernie Sanders does with conservative voters in Vermont, that he's the real deal, not in politics for himself and stands up for the little guy. I can see a type of Tory voter that Liz Kendall would be much better at winning over but you'd have little appeal to the rest of society in order to gain their trust.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 25, 2015)

> If Labour can’t elect a winner, nothing will stop the Tory evisceration of public services and the welfare state.



Yvette fucking Cooper won't stop it either, she won't even vote against it


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

Wilf said:


> The Scotsman piece said:
> 
> Almost by definition the '25,000' claim will be predominantly 3 quidders and union members.  A figure approaching 10% of that electorate rejected is pretty high.  The obvious issues are that this is being done without the remotest consistency, happens more in some constituencies than others - and is affecting Corbyn supporters more than others.  An example is that the Scotsman piece says they are taking canvass returns into account as one bit of the jigsaw.  Can't actually imagine they have universal canvass returns nowadays, but that's by the by.  The point is canvassing returns work along the lines of 'and will you be voting Labour.... err, yes.... and do you think everybody in the house will be..... erm, err, yes....'. An absurd basis to make a legally challengeable decision to exclude someone from an election. Ditto the idea of using 'bliar is a cunt' on somebody's facebook.  The other bit, which is more fuck up than conspiracy, is that they are still excluding people well into the period when the voting has started.  It's gerrymandering that is at once both blatant and incompetent.
> 
> At one level, I'm not a Westminster politics fan and I think all this left of centre (ish) energy going into the corbyn campaign is a massive diversion, a waste of energy.  However it really is worth exposing the mendacity - that's an end in it'self. Admittedly, the Labour machine will be just as mendacious if Corbyn wins, just as it would have been all those years ago if Lord Stansgate had won.



I agree with the basic thrust of this (and I'm skeptical about the suggestion that 10% of those applying are really entryists in any meaningful sense, BTW).

My point throughout has been that IMO the individual justifications which might be given if people bother to ask are less important than the fact that significant numbers (more than are likely to be genuine trot or Tory entryists) are being excluded.


----------



## Celyn (Aug 25, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Alumnus, surely
> 
> </William of Walworth, Pedant's Academy, Boringshire  >


Alumna


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

Celyn said:


> Alumna


an Überpedant walks among us


----------



## Geri (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> I'm sure it isn't the case for Geri, but I reckon plenty of the people crying foul have a record of campaigning against the Labour Party that they're conveniently forgetting - the mendacity of trots is also something we need to bear in mind.


 
Actually it did occur to me just now that on two occasions in the past I have signed nomination papers for a Socialist Party candidate in the local elections. I'm guessing this is on the public record.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 25, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yvette fucking Cooper won't stop it either, she won't even vote against it



It's already happening. Don't these cunts see that? Voting New Labour in opened the door for this. I'd love Toynbee to explain how much difference a Labour government has made to the erosion of the state int he past twenty years, or what difference it would make in the next twenty. Same train, just taking a couple of extra stops to get to the same destination.


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

Geri said:


> Actually it did occur to me just now that on two occasions in the past I have signed nomination papers for a Socialist Party candidate in the local elections. I'm guessing this is on the public record.


Yep, that'll be it.


----------



## Geri (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> Yep, that'll be it.


 
Damn it, I was only doing it as a favour because I know him from years back.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 25, 2015)

This is going round Facebook today, apologies if it's already been posted somewhere else in the 186(!) pages...



Doesn't quite square with how people are now getting kicked out.


----------



## Sue (Aug 25, 2015)

Interested in the suggestion that they should use canvass returns as part of this. Given ime they largely gave up on traditional door knocking quite a while ago and many people don't have a land line these days, I imagine their canvass returns must be patchy in the extreme. 

(Also thought it was a bit worrying that the expert in election law on the Today programme this morning didn't seem to know the difference between canvass returns and the info gathered by tellers at polling stations.)


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

Geri said:


> I am so angry. I have voted Labour all my life, and now they spit in my face.



Haven't reached the end of the thread yet so don't know whether this has been posted, but I'm not sure they're helping with words like: 




> Labour leadership: Harman vows to weed out all 'cheats'





> Harriet Harman has said 3,000 alleged "cheats" have so far been excluded from voting in the Labour leadership contest, with more expected.
> 
> The acting Labour leader said: "It is not funny or clever for people from other parties to try to cheat their way into our system."
> 
> And only people who supported the "aims and values" of the Labour Party would be allowed to take part.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34047788

Not sure what the aims are but from http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/what-is-the-labour-party 



> The values Labour stands for today are those which have guided it throughout its existence.
> 
> • social justice
> • strong community and strong values
> ...



Not sure who would say they don't have those aims really, sort of 'we want to make things ever so nice for everyone'.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 25, 2015)

What are 'strong values'? And what is 'decency'? That could mean anything.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> What are 'strong values'? And what is 'decency'? That could mean anything.





and similarly, not sharing those values means whatever they want it to mean


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> What are 'strong values'? And what is 'decency'? That could mean anything.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2015)

Please come and join the Labour Party but never criticise any of it's policies or MPs in the future. (Or have done so at any time in the past!)


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> I agree with the basic thrust of this (and I'm skeptical about the suggestion that 10% of those applying are really entryists in any meaningful sense, BTW).
> 
> My point throughout has been that IMO the individual justifications which might be given if people bother to ask are less important than the fact that significant numbers (more than are likely to be genuine trot or Tory entryists) are being excluded.


Can't disagree with that. And yes, absolutely, only a tiny few will be genuinely entryists. In fact the term entryist is inaccurate, given that it's usual meaning involves JOINING a party whilst retaining a loyalty to some other party/hostile organisation.  But yes, very few will be 3 quidding in order to skew the vote for malicious purposes.

Slightly, ahem, pedantically, you can only really illustrate the overall picture of Gerrymandering by illustrating the pattern of INDIVIDUAL exclusions, but that's splitting hairs.  

Suppose there's an additional reason for exposing the mendacity of the party if you think that joining the party or investing in corbyn is counter productive.  It just illustrates the nature of the beast and the kind of politics/organisation you are buying into.  Same time, I'm slightly conflicted about pushing that line. For me, the reasons for getting involved in anticapitalist class struggle are quite independent of Labour's lack of principles.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Can't disagree with that. And yes, absolutely, only a tiny few will be genuinely entryists. In fact the term entryist is inaccurate, given that it's usual meaning involves JOINING a party whilst retaining a loyalty to some other party/hostile organisation.  But yes, very few will be 3 quidding in order to skew the vote for malicious purposes.
> 
> *Slightly, ahem, pedantically, you can only really illustrate the overall picture of Gerrymandering by illustrating the pattern of INDIVIDUAL exclusions, but that's splitting hairs.*
> 
> Suppose there's an additional reason for exposing the mendacity of the party if you think that joining the party or investing in corbyn is counter productive.  It just illustrates the nature of the beast and the kind of politics/organisation you are buying into.  Same time, I'm slightly conflicted about pushing that line. For me, the reasons for getting involved in anticapitalist class struggle are quite independent of Labour's lack of principles.



And I suspect I'm splitting hairs/being pedantic, but I'm arguing that you won't ever get the LP telling you the reason for individual exclusions, what you will get is the same catch-all statement about not sharing the aims and values.

Anyone who attempts to dig deeper by making a data protection request for info will, I suggest, get all the info the LP hold on them, from which they might be able to hazard a guess at why they were excluded, but they won't get an explicit statement which says, for example "we turned you down because you signed the nomination papers of someone standing for the SP", and perhaps a disclaimer about them not discussing in detail the reasons behind specific cases.

But anyone who wants to pursue it is obviously welcome to try.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> And I suspect I'm splitting hairs/being pedantic,


you're an ultrapedant


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you're an ultrapedant



Are you trying to flatter me now?


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> Anyone who attempts to dig deeper by making a data protection request for info will, I suggest, get all the info the LP hold on them, from which they might be able to hazard a guess at why they were excluded, but they won't get an explicit statement which says, for example "we turned you down because you signed the nomination papers of someone standing for the SP", and perhaps a disclaimer about them not discussing in detail the reasons behind specific cases.
> 
> But anyone who wants to pursue it is obviously welcome to try.


They don't have the option of giving you a disclaimer - they have to give you everything they've got. Which will mean the actual evidence they used to make the decision.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> Are you trying to flatter me now?


it is rare people take elevation to ultrapedant status so calmly


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> They don't have the option of giving you a disclaimer - they have to give you everything they've got. Which will mean the actual evidence they used to make the decision.



Assuming they've saved it. If they've checked names against an external database - signatories to other parties nominees for example which is presumably on some publicly available database somewhere - they might not have.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> They don't have the option of giving you a disclaimer - they have to give you everything they've got. Which will mean the actual evidence they used to make the decision.



What I'm suggesting is they'll give you all the evidence they hold on you, relevant or not, and you will have no definite way of knowing which part is significant, it might be signing the nomination papers of the SP candidate, it might be the fact that you once attended a meeting where Jeremy Corbyn spoke or it might be the ill-advised tweet you once made about Tony Blair being a war criminal


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it is rare people take elevation to ultrapedant status so calmly



If it was anyone else I'd take it as a diss, but from you it's almost like a compliment


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Assuming they've saved it. If they've checked names against an external database - signatories to other parties nominees for example which is presumably on some publicly available database somewhere - they might not have.


yeh but as one electoral services worker told me some years ago simply seconding someone is not necessarily an indication of one's political sympathies: a lot of far-right candidates apparently get signatures by subterfuge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> If it was anyone else I'd take it as a diss, but from you it's almost like a compliment


but only almost.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but as one electoral services worker told me some years ago simply seconding someone is not necessarily an indication of one's political sympathies: a lot of far-right candidates apparently get signatures by subterfuge.



Sure. I was only talking about data holdings there, nothing beyond that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Sure. I was only talking about data holdings there, nothing beyond that.


i'm glad to hear it


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Assuming they've saved it. If they've checked names against an external database - signatories to other parties nominees for example which is presumably on some publicly available database somewhere - they might not have.


that would mean a single person making the decision for each applicant, with no way of checking whether it's the correct decision - can't see it tbh.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> that would mean a single person making the decision for each applicant, with no way of checking whether it's the correct decision - can't see it tbh.



I dunno, we are talking about the Labour Party here. 

I just hope that when Corbyn gets elected and becomes Prime Minister he brings in a workers' cooperative state and nationalizes all the major landowners and confiscates to the state any assets above £100,000. Any tories who've voted for him _now_ will feel sick


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 25, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Be fair, move it to Birmingham...



We don't want it!


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Assuming they've saved it. If they've checked names against an external database - signatories to other parties nominees for example which is presumably on some publicly available database somewhere - they might not have.


Some of this will be fairly straightforward. Someone applies > they first check if they are on the electoral register (and presumably reject if they aren't). They would then put the name/address into relevant databases to pick up whether they have stood or nominated candidates for other parties.  The more interesting bit is the role of role of local Constituency Party officials/MPs and the like in 'denouncing' applicants. Apart from local knowledge, picking up Tories or others who clearly want to fuck up the process, it becomes pretty subjective.  How many letters to the paper or tweets or involvement in the STWC adds up to being against values of the party?  I agree there will probably be no effective legal challenge afterwards, but the party has provided the proverbial lawyer's field day if anyone did want to go down that route.  Harman's statement quoted earlier is also a hostage to fortune even if, to use the word of the moment, her pedantic defence could be that she only meant bring voters of other parties to the hustings (not give them an automatic vote).

By the way, do we know if Labour have entered into a dialogue with anyone, got any info on the apparent grounds for rejection?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> We don't want it!



I bet there'd be a good spinoff business signing in for the Lords so they could claim their daily £300.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

Incidentally, Lab saying over 60k excluded so far - though the vast majority are for the mundane reasons of not paying their subs, being called I. P. Freely etc:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...te-cooper-liz-kendall-want-extra-voter-checks


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 25, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Incidentally, Lab saying over 60k excluded so far - though the vast majority are for the mundane reasons of not paying their subs, being called I. P. Freely etc:
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...te-cooper-liz-kendall-want-extra-voter-checks



60k? Are you sure?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> 60k? Are you sure?


Yep, unless it's a grauniad misprint:
"After a meeting of the candidates on Tuesday, it emerged Labour has weeded out almost 60,000 people for being duplicates, not on the electoral roll, or in arrears with their membership. Just over 3,000 have been excluded for being supporters of other parties, including 1,900 Greens and 400 Tories. This takes the total electorate in the leadership contest down to 554,000."
The implication is that many in their stated full membersip figure are always in arrears and failed to pay up by the cut off date?


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 25, 2015)

They're including 'natural churn' to try and play up the numbers excluded and make it look like a credible successful vetting operation.  This way the public is supposed to think they're a competent organisation, and that the result isn't dodgy.  Clueless fucks.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> They're including 'natural churn' to try and play up the numbers excluded and make it look like a credible successful vetting operation.  This way the public is supposed to think they're a competent organisation, and that the result isn't dodgy.  Clueless fucks.


It is pretty astonishing really. It's akin to deciding who should be on the electoral register at 2.00 in the afternoon on polling day - and admitting you might hoy a few more out at the count.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 25, 2015)

They should just have had the qualifying question "Do you intend to vote for Jeremy Corbyn?", would have been much simpler and more effective.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> 60k? Are you sure?



That's the same number cited by someone above as mentioned in a Scotland on Sunday article.

Only 3000 reckoned to be supporters of other parties, and if you take out 1,900 Greens and 400 Tories, that only leaves a maximum of 700 possible Trot entryists, which will include those who aren't genuine entryists but merely got labelled as such because they signed someone's nomination papers or whatever.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 25, 2015)

Whoops


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

NoXion said:


> Whoops



Do you want to have another go?


----------



## NoXion (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> Do you want to have another go?



At what?


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

NoXion said:


> At what?



At that post (I read what you originally wrote before you edited it)

For the sake of clarity, my point about "if you remove the Greens and Tories" was that although there has been a big fuss about possible Trot infiltration, the LP's own figures now suggest that they've eliminated a maximum of 700 people who they suspect of being that, and about 60,000 for administrative reasons (being duplicates, not on the electoral roll, or in arrears with their membership), so it's hardly the major issue it was held up as.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> At that post (I read what you originally wrote before you edited it)
> 
> For the sake of clarity, my point about "if you remove the Greens and Tories" was that although there has been a big fuss about possible Trot infiltration, the LP's own figures now suggest that they've eliminated a maximum of 700 people who they suspect of being that, and about 60,000 for administrative reasons (being duplicates, not on the electoral roll, or in arrears with their membership), so it's hardly the major issue it was held up as.



Sorry, I was replying to a different post a few pages back; didn't realise.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

NoXion said:


> Sorry, I was replying to a different post a few pages back; didn't realise.



Apology accepted, and I'm sorry if my post read like I was seeking confrontation That wasn't my intention, but re-reading I can see it might have come out that way.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> That's the same number cited by someone above as mentioned in a Scotland on Sunday article.
> 
> Only 3000 reckoned to be supporters of other parties, and if you take out 1,900 Greens and 400 Tories, that only leaves a maximum of 700 possible Trot entryists, which will include those who aren't genuine entryists but merely got labelled as such because they signed someone's nomination papers or whatever.


There's certainly a disparity in the way that the Labour right are spinning this to the press - 'thousands of wild eyed trot entyists' - and the reality you mention. They are in practice trying to twist the fact that tens of thousands of full members can't be arsed to pay their full subs into a story of Liz Kendal being kept from power only by massed ranks of well drilled trots.


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.

As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn. 

They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.
> 
> As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn.
> 
> They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.


Absolutely, if they made no such efforts it would be absurd. Some have compared the people being debarred to those Tories who crossed the floor to become Labour MP's.  But that doesn't really fit because labour had a chance to actually discuss politics with those people, and ascertain whether they did really believe in 'Labour values' - they simply dont have a chance to do that with this timescale.

Also, if they have (as appears to be the case) debarred people because they aren't up to date with their subs, then the majority of those would be pre-existing Labour members, and _less _likely to vote for Corbyn.


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.
> 
> As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn.
> 
> They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.



Not if there are 60,000 of them, and beyond people who stood for elected office (and the odd loon boasting about it on the internet) it one would imagine it will be very difficult to prove one way or another whether an excluded person was connected to another party or that they didn't share "Labour aims and values"; indeed you can argue that in many cases (the Greens or the TUSC, for instance) it should not even matter whether or not they were members of those parties.   How are they going to defend a legal challenge by people who have had their £3 taken away and not given a vote?   With canvass returns, reports from informants and trawls of social media?


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

Most of those 60,000 are people who've let their membership lapse, false names or duplicates. Only 3000 trots, tories & greens, which sounds like a reasonable number to me.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> Only 3000 trots, tories & greens, which sounds like a reasonable number to me.



I heard something on the radio earlier that 1900 of the 3000 are Greens


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

yes.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 25, 2015)

Not sure if we've had this yet. Caroline Lucas has penned an open letter to Corbyn (Facebook link) proposing an alliance against the Tories:




			
				(looooooong open letter) said:
			
		

> Dear Jeremy,
> 
> These are exciting times for progressive politics. In the space of just a few weeks you’ve brought something into your party that’s been missing for far too long: hope. I’ve never felt so optimistic about a potential leader of the Labour Party. For the first time in my memory, the party of Keir Hardie and Clement Attlee looks likely to be led again by someone who dares to stand up for the radical changes demanded by the challenges we face.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Aug 25, 2015)

Caroline would be an asset to any party, if they can have Tories crossing the floor, then they can have an alliance with the Greens.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.
> 
> As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn.



I agree that they're in a difficult position having to administer the thing fairly quickly, but it's also worth pointing out that this was to some extent predicible as anyone who wants a vote either as a TU member or a £3 sign up has to register specifically to vote in this election. I'm not sure if existing members have to apply or if they're checked out and included automatically - maybe somew one who isa member can clarify, if such a person exists here.

So it's an over-simplification to suggest that everyone who's joining will be intending to vote for Corbyn, though presumably many of them will, and wouldn't be joining at all were he not standing.

Finally, I really don't see how you can square this claim


> They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: *I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party*, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.


with the numbers already published and discussed above.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 25, 2015)

a cynic might say she's atemting to stop a heamorrhage of members in the event of a corbyn win


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

andysays said:


> Finally, I really don't see how you can square this claim
> 
> 
> > They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: *I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party*, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.
> ...


here, I done that already.


killer b said:


> Most of those 60,000 are people who've let their membership lapse, false names or duplicates. Only 3000 trots, tories & greens, which sounds like a reasonable number to me.


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> Most of those 60,000 are people who've let their membership lapse, false names or duplicates. Only 3000 trots, tories & greens, which sounds like a reasonable number to me.



.. and yet the papers have been full of three campaigns (and most of the rest of the leadership, past and present) banging on about infiltration all month.  Given past history, and the leaderships obvious interest in one candidate not winning, perhaps their reasons for binning the votes of what is after all more than a tenth of the electorate in this contest should not automatically be believed.


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

Of course it shouldn't automatically be believed. But nor should it automatically be discounted - I generally tend to err on the side of incompetence and seat-of-pantism over outright corruption in cases like this though. If there is outright corruption, we'll see soon enough - I suspect we won't.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> here, I done that already.



Looks to me more like you've contradicted yourself, but I really can't be arsed to pursue it with you...


----------



## killer b (Aug 25, 2015)

Please don't.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 25, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I heard something on the radio earlier that 1900 of the 3000 are Greens


not surprising, I'd have thought that 10,000 + Green members would be ex Labour, many fairly recently ex Labour and recently Green.

If they've been excluding people who've actually resigned from the Green Party that's going to cause a bit of a kick off, as the appeals process doesn't seem to allow for the person appealing to end up having a vote - they're only letting people appeal by submitting a full membership application, which will obviously be submitted after the deadline.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 25, 2015)

Petition on 38 degrees here

We want to see Liz Kendall's outstanding application to join Conservative Party be accepted.



> We were sorry to hear about her experiences with the party during her time in Cambridge. Back then Conservative Party student groups had barriers to entry and Liz couldn't meet some of those conditions. Her family hadn't given her a large enough trust fund, none of her ancestors had married a cousin and she wasn't meeting the RDA for cocaine to allow her to enter the Cambridge University Conservative Association...


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2015)

Serwotka's been rejected by the LP.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Serwotka's been rejected by the LP.




Labour having relations with those lefty trade unionists! The Daily Mail will be telling their Labour Party readers and they will have something to say about any of that carry on.
Labour becoming more ludicrous by the minute!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 25, 2015)

they're blocking affiliate members as well now? I thought it was just three quidders


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Labour becoming more ludicrous by the minute!


Clearly Serwotka's work to defend the interests of PCS members is seen as either "funny" or "clever".


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Clearly Serwotka's work to defend the interests of PCS members is seen as either "funny" or "clever".



The last of the 'Awkward Squad'.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 25, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they're blocking affiliate members as well now? I thought it was just three quidders


IIRC PCS aren't affiliated to Labour.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> IIRC PCS aren't affiliated to Labour.


huh, and heres me thinking they were- google say not also


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> IIRC PCS aren't affiliated to Labour.



Ruth Serwotka is under the impression that Mark is an affiliate apparently.


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Labour having relations with those lefty trade unionists! The Daily Mail will be telling their Labour Party readers and they will have something to say about any of that carry on.
> Labour becoming more ludicrous by the minute!



At least one fairly senior person from the FBU as well, apparently.


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Ruth Serwotka is under the impression that Mark is an affiliate apparently.


Union officials are usually members of a different union to the one they work for, iirr


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Ruth Serwotka is under the impression that Mark is an affiliate apparently.


Is it possible that mark is a member of another body, aside from his own union, which is affiliated?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> Union officials are usually members of a different union to the one they work for, iirr


snap!


----------



## emanymton (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> Union officials are usually members of a different union to the one they work for, iirr


GMB usually isn't it?


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

emanymton said:


> GMB usually isn't it?


I think so


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2015)




----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

I'd guess his crime was regularly supporting candidates opposed to Labour.


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> I'd guess his crime was regularly supporting candidates opposed to Labour.



If he is an affiliated member, does that matter?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think it's worth recognising the difficult position Labour are in: when they brought in these new rules, the likelyhood of someone like Corbyn getting on the ballot - let alone becoming the runaway frontrunner - was preposterous. Had he not done, there would be no issues with these few hundred thousand extra voters as they just wouldn't be joining up.
> 
> As it is, they do have a duty to check each applicant, not least because there's been a visible campaign from a number of non-labour organisations to join and affect the vote - and as everyone is joining to vote Corbyn, then it stands to reason that most of the people being refused are people who were going to vote Corbyn.
> 
> They need to have - and be seen to have - a rigorous screening process, and have a very small amount of time to do the screening: I suspect once the dust has settled most of the people booted will be those with a provable connection to another party, rather than them just refusing anyone who looks a bit lefty.


I think that's all true, though they did bring it in and they are the ones who started off with some vague idea of scrutiny and then had to ramp it up mid-process to something more rigorous.	To be honest it's the headless chicken thing that is most laughable - one the one side 'come one come all, just need to support our values... bring your pals to the hustings, even if they didn't vote for us a few weeks ago' - then on the other turning people down because they nominated for the Socialist Alliance 10 years ago.  If they weren't so obsessed with stopping Corbyn they could have spun this as one of the best periods in the party's recent history - the fucking L_abour Party_ attracting the interest of 100s of thousands (even if it's only £3s worth of interest)!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2015)

agricola said:


> If he is an affiliated member, does that matter?


No, only exception being those likely to put JC 1st pref.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

agricola said:


> If he is an affiliated member, does that matter?



I signed up as a member of an affiliated org and I had to declare I support the party's aims and values, so yes, it does matter if they reckon he doesn't


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

On this bit:


> Labour has weeded out almost 60,000 people for being duplicates, not on the electoral roll, or in arrears with their membership


It's impossible to tell whether it's the duplicates, not on the roll or debtors that are the biggest group.  My first assumption was that it would be people in arrears. What would be really interesting though would be if there were large numbers of people not registered to vote joining the Corbo bandwagon - Labour reaching the parts other parties can't reach. Can't see it to be honest, but it would be fascinating to see a genuine breakdown of the people who have joined the party, done the £3, been rejected etc.  Part of it is just Labour's version of the increase in members the greens, snp and the like got after the election, amplified by the chance to vote for a leader/corbomania, but interesting nonetheless.

edit: a quick dashround the various papers shows they are all reporting this the same way in terms of the 60,000 - 'duplicates, not on the roll etc' - nobody asking for a proper breakdown.  Regardless of the Corbyn stuff, 60k is a massive number to reject and also to piss off.


----------



## andysays (Aug 25, 2015)

According to the Guardian, Serwotka signed up for £3 as a registered supporter, voted by email for Jeremy Corbyn, but was told on Tuesday evening his vote had been rejected


----------



## free spirit (Aug 25, 2015)

Has Serwotka in any way supported TUSC?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 25, 2015)

Wilf said:


> On this bit:
> 
> It's impossible to tell whether it's the duplicates, not on the roll or debtors that are the biggest group.  My first assumption was that it would be people in arrears. What would be really interesting though would be if there were large numbers of people not registered to vote joining the Corbo bandwagon - Labour reaching the parts other parties can't reach. Can't see it to be honest, but it would be fascinating to see a genuine breakdown of the people who have joined the party, done the £3, been rejected etc.  Part of it is just Labour's version of the increase in members the greens, snp and the like got after the election, amplified by the chance to vote for a leader/corbomania, but interesting nonetheless.
> 
> edit: a quick dashround the various papers shows they are all reporting this the same way in terms of the 60,000 - 'duplicates, not on the roll etc' - nobody asking for a proper breakdown.  Regardless of the Corbyn stuff, 60k is a massive number to reject and also to piss off.



I've seen quite a few people commenting that they'd had issues with rejections due to their electoral role info not exactly matching with what Labour has.

I suspect Labour have been using a fairly crude filter to check the exact names and addresses against the electoral role, any discrepency and it gets rejected. There can also be delays between it going on the council electoral role, and making it to the electoral roles that the national parties can get access to.

Also quite a lot of union affiliates seemed to be doing the £3 thing as well just to be sure their union didn't cock it up, so that's probably a big source of duplicates.

ps I've been spending too much time reading through the comments threads on corbyn and the other candidates posts and elsewhere. It's oddly compelling.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I've seen quite a few people commenting that they'd had issues with rejections due to their electoral role info not exactly matching with what Labour has.
> 
> I suspect Labour have been using a fairly crude filter to check the exact names and addresses against the electoral role, any discrepency and it gets rejected. There can also be delays between it going on the council electoral role, and making it to the electoral roles that the national parties can get access to.
> 
> ...


 The underlined bit adds to the idea of it being a massive own goal. If Labour could have ignored their Corbyn obsession, they'd at least have allowed 'genuine' applicants a way of getting round that.  Very time consuming, but they should logically have rung up anyone with a minor discrepancy and ironed it out over the phone i.e. avoided treating them the same way the DWP treats claimants.  Really good way of pissing people off.

It's also a massive number - registration started more slowly as did the rejections, so they must be rejecting about 4 or 5,000 a day now?  Complete guess, but about the size of it.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 25, 2015)

free spirit said:


> Has Serwotka in any way supported TUSC?



a quick look at wikipedia (for what it's worth) says he has supported socialist alliance and respect.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 26, 2015)

Wilf said:


> The underlined bit adds to the idea of it being a massive own goal. If Labour could have ignored their Corbyn obsession, they'd at least have allowed 'genuine' applicants a way of getting round that.  Very time consuming, but they should logically have rung up anyone with a minor discrepancy and ironed it out over the phone i.e. avoided treating them the same way the DWP treats claimants.  Really good way of pissing people off.
> 
> It's also a massive number - registration started more slowly as did the rejections, so they must be rejecting about 4 or 5,000 a day now?  Complete guess, but about the size of it.


yep. It's the madness of having an appeals process that basically means you have to start a new registration as a full member, so for all applicants this happens to after the deadline there's no way of doing it and getting a vote.

Actually, I'm not sure if that's still the case with those refused for just not being on electoral role.

It's a bit of an odd rule to have really if part of the idea is to get disenfranchised people back involved.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 26, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> a quick look at wikipedia (for what it's worth) says he has supported socialist alliance and respect.


that'll probably be it then, especially if he signed anyone's papers.


----------



## gosub (Aug 26, 2015)

Andy Burhnam said:
			
		

> He addressed Corbyn’s pledge to apologise on behalf of Labour for the Iraq war, suggesting that he could be open to this after the Chilcot report was published if “apologies need to be made”.





Wilf said:


> So, some time around 2028 there'll be a mumbled "soz" from Burham.


So he won't know if there is anything to apologise for until Chilcot says so.


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2015)

Here's a Burnham rally today. Channelling a wednesday morning job club.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> Here's a Burnham rally today. Channelling a wednesday morning job club.


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2015)

Pauline would to more to inspire, I suspect.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 26, 2015)

I hear Andy loses his shit if you steal his pens.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2015)

tbf to Burnham...there appear to be 16 people in his meeting, whereas Pauline only had 8 jobseekers at hers. That's twice as many.


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2015)

THIS MAN CAN LEAD US TO VICTORY


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> THIS MAN CAN LEAD US TO VICTORY



HE FIGHTS FOR FREEDOM


----------



## Ole (Aug 26, 2015)

Harriet Harman is saying they could block up to 100,000 voters. 

http://www.cityam.com/223026/labour...et-harman-concedes-many-100000-voters-couldbe


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2015)

Ole said:


> Harriet Harman is saying they could block up to 100,000 voters.
> 
> http://www.cityam.com/223026/labour...et-harman-concedes-many-100000-voters-couldbe


Getting silly now. 

'There are millions of reds under the bed!'
'How many have you caught?'
'Jeremy Hardy and that film maker'.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 26, 2015)

Anyone get the feeling this could end up in the courts like the US elections of 2000?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2015)

blatant rigging


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> blatant rigging


Indeed, but that story is yesterday's news, and the number included a large number of applicants who appeared not to have registered for the electoral role.IIRC.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2015)

There's got to be a good novel to come out of this.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 26, 2015)

belboid said:


> I'd guess his crime was regularly supporting candidates opposed to Labour.


How can that possibly matter? You are allowed to change affiliation. Labour seem to be banning people who want to change to become a labour supporter, having previously supported a different party, something that would make most parties rub their hands with glee.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2015)

And as previously pointed out they don't seem worried in the slightest at the prospect of Tory swing voters coming back to vote for the thick one.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Indeed, but that story is yesterday's news, and the number included a large number of applicants who appeared not to have registered for the electoral role.IIRC.


The idea that 3 quidders and union supporters should be on the electoral register has sort of passed without comment. It's obviously a way of checking identity, fairly sensible.  But then is it?  Afaik there was a drop in the number registered from 2013 to 14 - and that is likely to drop further with the implementation of individual registration... all of which affects poorer, younger and more transient voters disproportionately. If this whole thing wasn't such a headless chicken panic Labour should have thought of other ways for people to prove their identity when seeking to vote.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 26, 2015)

I see moazzam begg was approvingly tweeting that corby supported women's only carriages on twitter earlier. 

A step in the wrong direction imo


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 26, 2015)

Wilf said:


> There's got to be a good novel to come out of this.



It's a damn shame Iannucci has called time on The Thick of It.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2015)

Wilf said:


> The idea that 3 quidders and union supporters should be on the electoral register has sort of passed without comment. It's obviously a way of checking identity, fairly sensible.  But then is it?  Afaik there was a drop in the number registered from 2013 to 14 - and that is likely to drop further with the implementation of individual registration... all of which affects poorer, younger and more transient voters disproportionately. If this whole thing wasn't such a headless chicken panic Labour should have thought of other ways for people to prove their identity when seeking to vote.


Again ...tbf....they had made that requirement explicit in their FAQs. I suspect it was to keep the lawyers happy...ensuring that there was no interference from non-UK residents.


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2015)

Wilf said:


> The idea that 3 quidders and union supporters should be on the electoral register has sort of passed without comment. It's obviously a way of checking identity, fairly sensible.  But then is it?  Afaik there was a drop in the number registered from 2013 to 14 - and that is likely to drop further with the implementation of individual registration... all of which affects poorer, younger and more transient voters disproportionately. If this whole thing wasn't such a headless chicken panic Labour should have thought of other ways for people to prove their identity when seeking to vote.


it wasn't supposed to be like this. they were only expecting a few thousand to bother signing up, Harman could have checked all them herself. As it is, they've not got long to verify a few hundred thousand - I can't imagine there's any other way of verifying a new member isn't someone's cat.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I see moazzam begg was approvingly tweeting that corby supported women's only carriages on twitter earlier.
> 
> A step in the wrong direction imo


Don't fall for the media hype. He did not offer any such support; merely suggested that it might be one proposal that he would like to hear people's views about.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I see moazzam begg was approvingly tweeting that corby supported women's only carriages on twitter earlier.
> 
> A step in the wrong direction imo



Depends on the train, but I would think it's probably unworkable. Especially considering only about one in three bogs is working at any one time on a typical British train, so going for a slash often involves trekking through several carriages.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I see moazzam begg was approvingly tweeting that corby supported women's only carriages on twitter earlier.
> 
> A step in the wrong direction imo





brogdale said:


> Don't fall for the media hype. He did not offer any such support; merely suggested that it might be one proposal that he would like to hear people's views about.



From the other thread:



> Corbyn said: “*Some women have raised with me *that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages.
> 
> “My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself. However,* I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome* - and also if piloting this at times and modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest.”


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Don't fall for the media hype. He did not offer any such support; merely suggested that it might be one proposal that he would like to hear people's views about.



Ok but its worrying that it should need to be discussed at all tbh. I don't like the way society is moving in that regard at all, it would be a huge step backwards and play into patriachal views of women needing to be 'protected'


----------



## redcogs (Aug 26, 2015)

Maybe conductors and adequate staffing levels to deal with rowdyism would be preferable?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Again ...tbf....they had made that requirement explicit in their FAQs. I suspect it was to keep the lawyers happy...ensuring that there was no interference from non-UK residents.


Yeah, sure, I recognise they are bound to use the register, it's just that an increasing number will, literally, be disenfranchised if they don't allow alternative proof of identity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Maybe *conductors* and adequate staffing levels to deal with rowdyism would be preferable?



'The bus conductors ended up in Un Lun Dun because people who don't take buses decided people who do didn't need them'


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Ok but its worrying that it should need to be discussed at all tbh. I don't like the way society is moving in that regard at all, it would be a huge step backwards and play into patriachal views of women needing to be 'protected'


Yes. I don't think it was politically astute, but if that's his biggest gaff...so far...


----------



## teqniq (Aug 26, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> blatant rigging


Looks that way. It would appear that the neoliberal consensus will brook no dissent.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 26, 2015)

Wilf said:


> The underlined bit adds to the idea of it being a massive own goal. If Labour could have ignored their Corbyn obsession, they'd at least have allowed 'genuine' applicants a way of getting round that.  Very time consuming, but they should logically have rung up anyone with a minor discrepancy and ironed it out over the phone i.e. avoided treating them the same way the DWP treats claimants.  Really good way of pissing people off.



I got an email at about 4.45pm on a Friday from them querying my electoral record and giving me 72 hours to respond. Having a dull life I noticed getting an email at that time of the week and managed to get a scanned polling card to them in time. How many people didn't notice that email or didn't notice until halfway through Monday? The timing is dubious as hell, tbh so is the query, as my three Labour councillors and Labour MP managed to send me letters in the run up to the election.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 26, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> I got an email at about 4.45pm on a Friday from them querying my electoral record and giving me 72 hours to respond. Having a dull life I noticed getting an email at that time of the week and managed to get a scanned polling card to them in time. How many people didn't notice that email or didn't notice until halfway through Monday? The timing is dubious as hell, tbh so is the query, as my three Labour councillors and Labour MP managed to send me letters in the run up to the election.


i got that too, weeks ago, but couldnt be bothered to prove my name to them so left it.


----------



## agricola (Aug 26, 2015)

The plot thickens.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2015)

Early indication of which candidate is in lead...?


Spoiler: Yes Prime Minister?



https://vine.co/v/ejAJTxt7Ktj


----------



## The Boy (Aug 26, 2015)

Wilf said:


> There's got to be a good novel to come out of this.



At best you'll get a docu-drama on E4 starring Michael Sheen.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 26, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's a damn shame Iannucci has called time on The Thick of It.


Christmas special written all over it this


----------



## Favelado (Aug 26, 2015)

agricola said:


> The plot thickens.



A hideous Richard Briers sitcom anecdote thrown on the end for good measure. Look what happens when the middle class meets funny foreigners!



> *Diplomacy up in smoke*
> Advertisement
> [iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/59666047/theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/ng_1" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/59666047/theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/ng_1" src="javascript:"[/iframe]
> 
> ...


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 27, 2015)

A view from a right-leaning publication across the pond: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/lefty-christmas-grips-great-britain.html#

 "A man who defends terrorists and dictators; favors the forced re-nationalization of private companies; and wants to disband NATO, has taken a shock lead in the Labour leadership race."

"The intervening weeks have seen the birth of an unprecedented, hard left grassroots movement; Corbynmania is real. There’s no sign of the condition sweeping into mainstream Britain, but a mania has certainly settled on the country’s disaffected protestor class."

'Protestor class'  What's that when it's at home then?

Last line is good though.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 27, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> "The intervening weeks have seen the birth of an unprecedented, hard left grassroots movement; Corbynmania is real. There’s no sign of the condition sweeping into mainstream Britain, but a mania has certainly settled on the country’s disaffected protestor class."
> 
> 'Protestor class'  What's that when it's at home then?
> 
> Last line is good though.


biased rhetoric aside it is still unproven whether a Corbyn government could win the support beyond the old labour core and into swing voters. I reckon he can as the stuff about hard left of course isnt the case, and given a national platform he has a real chance. But pick up ANY newspaper and its amazing what kind of a hatchet job theyre trying to do on him. For example saw a copy of the Sun in the caf on Sunday and Tony Parsons had been given a two page spread that was just jaw dropping in its characterisation. An only slightly toned down thing in the Times too. Every day there is more attack Can anyone fight against the relentlessness of all that? Yes, but its going to be hard...


----------



## Wilf (Aug 27, 2015)

agricola said:


> The plot thickens.


I take the point that they, reasonably, couldn't have expected the numbers that have tried to sign up.  However they could have at least tried to be consistent in the way the did the checks.  They are not even an efficient bureaucracy.  This little anecdote suggests it really is interns in Labour's call centre googling names at random.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 27, 2015)

v funny frankie boyle piece


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 27, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Christmas special written all over it this



If the BBC are allowed to make such gems or if they still exist by then!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34064794


----------



## agricola (Aug 27, 2015)

ska invita said:


> v funny frankie boyle piece



I cannot stand him, but his description of Burnham:



> who looks as if he has carved Fireman Sam’s face off and laid it carelessly across his own skull



did make me laugh.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2015)

ska invita said:


> v funny frankie boyle piece


Yes, even the click-link made me laugh...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> investigating me furiously.



must be refreshing for you to be investigated furiously eh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That Louise Mensch is proper caining the coke since she went over to the States.


my theory is that as she is going out with metallicas manager she probably now has access to chang straight off the colombian boat, the sort of stuff that makes ours look like mellow birds in comparison.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 27, 2015)

Some interesting stats on Corbyn voters https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/27/you-may-say-im-dreamer-inside-mindset-jeremy-corby/


----------



## kabbes (Aug 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> must be refreshing for you to be investigated furiously eh.


I like the smell of being investigated furiously in the morning.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 27, 2015)

In Soviet Russia, furiously investigates you.


----------



## Argonia (Aug 27, 2015)

I wasn't sure about this Corbynator song at first but have found myself humming it when out and about. Are there any other Corbychev-inspired songs out there?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Some interesting stats on Corbyn voters https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/27/you-may-say-im-dreamer-inside-mindset-jeremy-corby/





> ...when asked to identify their own strengths and weaknesses, Corbyn supporters self-identify as much stronger in verbal intelligence and imagination than for example Yvette Cooper’s supporters, who score themselves higher than average on *mathematical intelligence and processing speed*. Put simply, this group is not going to be ‘reasoned with’ - they are looking to be inspired.



Or put even more simply, the Blairites are all fucking robots! Who identifies as having mathematical intelligence and good 'processing speed', for goodness' sake? Bunch of weirdos.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 27, 2015)

Or maybe the Corbynites have a more realistic self-assessment of their intelligence?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 27, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Or put even more simply, the Blairites are all fucking robots! Who identifies as having mathematical intelligence and good 'processing speed', for goodness' sake? Bunch of weirdos.


Their revelation is that voters choose by emotion and attitude rather than logic and policy?  That's no revelation, that news is as old as the hills.  People base their voting practice on what their perception of "people like them" vote for.  This study is no different.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> policy


especially as the last thirty years have shown they'll say anything to get elected and then act directly in contrast to your interests once in the big chair. Thats not even illogical, its just knowing how it is.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 27, 2015)

Look at this nonsense:



> What’s more, when asked to identify their own strengths and weaknesses, Corbyn supporters self-identify as much stronger in verbal intelligence and imagination than for example Yvette Cooper’s supporters, who score themselves higher than average on mathematical intelligence and processing speed. Put simply, this group is not going to be ‘reasoned with’ - they are looking to be inspired.


fine... Except that last statement also applies to Cooper's supporters, who are being contrasted!  They also score themselves higher verbally and on emotional intelligence than mathematical ability or processing speed.  The author is guilty of picking and choosing facts to confirm his theory.


----------



## killer b (Aug 27, 2015)

people have been doing that on twitter (from both sides) all afternoon. I'll just find my favourite, gimme a minute.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 27, 2015)

Former Torygraph journalist who resigned over their HSBC corruption has come out for Corbyn


----------



## treelover (Aug 27, 2015)

Always thought Oborne was an interesting guy, real asset if he has moved to the left.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Always thought Oborne was an interesting guy, real asset if he has moved to the left.


He hasn't. Did you read it?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 27, 2015)

Even though he was working for the Torygraph when I first really became aware of him I thought his journalism showed a great deal of integrity.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 27, 2015)

Graunid hustings is live now for anyone else who is terminally bored cleaning or whatever http://www.theguardian.com/membersh...n-live-labour-leadership-hustings-live-stream


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Graunid hustings is live now for anyone else who is terminally bored cleaning or whatever http://www.theguardian.com/membersh...n-live-labour-leadership-hustings-live-stream


How many of these fucking things are they planning on doing?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 27, 2015)

Wow, Burnham and Kendall dogwhistle on race a lot more than I realised


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 27, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Their revelation is that voters choose by emotion and attitude rather than logic and policy?  That's no revelation, that news is as old as the hills.  People base their voting practice on what their perception of "people like them" vote for.  This study is no different.



No, dammit. It reveals they are robots. _Actual _robots!


----------



## J Ed (Aug 27, 2015)

The doublespeak Blairite transformation of internationalism = pro-EU/NATO is quite stunning


----------



## agricola (Aug 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Graunid hustings is live now for anyone else who is terminally bored cleaning or whatever http://www.theguardian.com/membersh...n-live-labour-leadership-hustings-live-stream



The Corbyn effect is magnified about a thousand-fold when he is actually next to them.


----------



## JimW (Aug 27, 2015)

Shower of twats.


----------



## wtfftw (Aug 27, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> No, dammit. It reveals they are robots. _Actual _robots!


Frakking toasters.


----------



## Cid (Aug 27, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Or put even more simply, the Blairites are all fucking robots! Who identifies as having mathematical intelligence and good 'processing speed', for goodness' sake? Bunch of weirdos.



Dunno, but maybe people who use a strange attractor as their avatar...


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> He hasn't. Did you read it?



Well, he sort of has.  Although he distances himself from Corbyn, he opposes British foreign policy and says he agrees with Corbyn's attempts to correct it--and most important, he wants Corbyn to win.

"Nevertheless Corbyn is our only current hope of any serious challenge to a failed orthodoxy. Blair and Cameron have both adopted a foreign policy based on subservience rather than partnership with the United States, which has done grave damage to British interests."

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/corbyn-troublemaker-1532484034#.dpuf


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Always thought Oborne was an interesting guy, real asset if he has moved to the left.


Ain't gonna happen. 

I don't dig Oborne's politics, but he's a decent journalist and they're incredibly rare these days. Unlike some of the twats working for the BBC et al.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 27, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Well, he sort of has.  Although he distances himself from Corbyn, he opposes British foreign policy and says he agrees with Corbyn's attempts to correct it--and most important, he wants Corbyn to win.



Yes, there is nothing necessarily left-wing about his perspective on foreign policy. You can come from a totally different political philosophy and have views on foreign policy, or aspects of it, not dissimilar from Pilger or Chomsky. Farage's position on Ukraine and Greece has been pretty much in tandem with the consensus here, for example. It's just the product of a basic knowledge of history which is not informed by the establishment 'common sense' which necessitates an ignorance of that basic knowledge. You can see the same with others that most of us here find objectionable like Le Pen who recently claimed to support Podemos and Syriza over their far-right equivalents in Spain and Greece.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Well, he sort of has.  Although he distances himself from Corbyn, he opposes British foreign policy and says he agrees with Corbyn's attempts to correct it--and most important, he wants Corbyn to win.
> 
> "Nevertheless Corbyn is our only current hope of any serious challenge to a failed orthodoxy. Blair and Cameron have both adopted a foreign policy based on subservience rather than partnership with the United States, which has done grave damage to British interests."
> 
> http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/corbyn-troublemaker-1532484034#.dpuf


Quite a convenient position, given his employ.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Quite a convenient position, given his employ.



I have never heard of MiddleEastEye before, is the funding coming from somewhere in particular? Their wiki isn't very helpful


----------



## mather (Aug 27, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Unlike some of the twats working for the BBC et al.



Or the Guardian.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 27, 2015)

All I can find is this http://www.thenational.ae/uae/al-jazeera-executive-helped-to-launch-controversial-uk-website



> A senior executive with Qatar’s TV network Al Jazeera was closely involved with setting up the London news website Middle East Eye, some of whose staff have links to organisations sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Jonathan Powell, an Al Jazeera employee since 2009, spent several months in the UK working on Middle East Eye, which promised “independently produced news, analysis and opinion” at its launch in April. MEE claims to have “no political master, movement or country”.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 27, 2015)

mather said:


> Or the Guardian.


Too true.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I have never heard of MiddleEastEye before, is the funding coming from somewhere in particular? Their wiki isn't very helpful


Me neither, and apart from the AJ link alluded to, I've no idea. It just struck me that an anti-US position might well play well to his new readership/employer.


----------



## Patteran (Aug 27, 2015)

(they do produce some interesting content, & have been linked to a couple of times in syria/is/kurdish threads. i've looked online for funding clues, too, & found nowt beyond one named director, Jamal Bassasso - linked by odd right wing & pro UAE sites to the muslim brotherhood)



J Ed said:


> All I can find is this http://www.thenational.ae/uae/al-jazeera-executive-helped-to-launch-controversial-uk-website


----------



## agricola (Aug 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Quite a convenient position, given his employ.



Well yes, but it isn't as if he has modified his opinions because of who he works for.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2015)

agricola said:


> Well yes, but it isn't as if he has modified his opinions because of who he works for.


If so, that also gives the lie to the notion that Oborne's support of Corbyn's "anti-imperialist' outlook constitutes a 'move to the left' on his part.


----------



## killer b (Aug 28, 2015)

only TL has suggested a move to the left tbf, which just shows they don't pay attention. This is entirely consistent with Oborne's politics.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> only TL has suggested a move to the left tbf, which just shows they don't pay attention. This is entirely consistent with Oborne's politics.


Yep, that's who I was addressing this conversation to.


----------



## belboid (Aug 28, 2015)

Stella Creasy manages to be vaguely amusing in her campaign to lose the Deputy Leadership - http://www.stellacreasy.org.uk/unlu...-lessons-i-have-learned-with-kitten-pictures/


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 28, 2015)

> Labour could publish a monthly kitten picture


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2015)

only another fortnight to go


----------



## redcogs (Aug 28, 2015)

a week is a long time in politics


----------



## andysays (Aug 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Stella Creasy manages to be vaguely amusing in her campaign to lose the Deputy Leadership - http://www.stellacreasy.org.uk/unlu...-lessons-i-have-learned-with-kitten-pictures/



No mention of bringing back Clause IV


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> only another fortnight to go


it feels like eternity


----------



## Sue (Aug 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> only another fortnight to go


'Only'..?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 28, 2015)

still time for an incriminating letter from Putin to Corbyn to be splashed in the mail


----------



## youngian (Aug 28, 2015)

The Zinoviev Email


----------



## teqniq (Aug 28, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn: Labour membership will determine policy, not me



> Policy will be made by Labour members and not the leader, shadow cabinet, or parliamentary party, Jeremy Corbyn has said in a debate with his three leadership rivals organised by the Guardian. The frontrunner has previously made clear that his policy proposals are only suggestions that would have to be agreed by colleagues, but this is his clearest indication yet that the role of MPs and the shadow cabinet would be diminished.
> 
> “I don’t think we can go on having policy made by the leader, shadow cabinet, or parliamentary Labour party. It’s got to go much wider. Party members need to be more enfranchised. Whoever is elected will have a mandate from a large membership.”
> 
> Getting the Labour party members to agree policy is one way in which Corbyn could get around the difficult problem of his lack of support in the parliamentary party, in which he has the support of just 20 MPs....


----------



## killer b (Aug 28, 2015)

> Getting the Labour party members to agree policy is one way in which Corbyn could get around the difficult problem of his lack of support in the parliamentary party, *in which he has the support of just 20 MPs*....


this isn't true. I wonder why the guardian would want to spread such disinformation?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> this isn't true. I wonder why the guardian would want to spread such disinformation?


Is it fewer than that?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2015)

Selective and (slightly) tenuous as some of the comparisons might be, this blog post is another quite interesting addition to the changed political 'centre of gravity' discourse.

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/08/extreme-back-to-the-80s-how-corbynomics-compares-with-the-sdp-manifesto/


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 28, 2015)

When is Michael White due to address the labour electorate on the subject of their foolishness? I'd have thought he'd called a special assembly by now.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> When is Michael White due to address the labour electorate on the subject of their foolishness? I'd have thought he'd called a special assembly by now.


Is he not Sir Michael or a Lord yet?


----------



## andysays (Aug 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Is it fewer than that?



I think I've seen that number bandied around before, but not sure how it's been arrived at (maybe the number who nominated him, minus the number who subsequently said they wished they hadn't?)

Anyway, the number of MPs who support him ATM is not especially important, since they don't get any more of a vote than the rest of the electorate. What will matter more is the number who would be prepared to work with him as leader of the party should he be elected, and I suspect that's rather more than 20.

Guardian shit stirring, for a change.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> I think I've seen that number bandied around before, but not sure how it's been arrived at (maybe the number who nominated him, minus the number who subsequently said they wished they hadn't?)
> 
> Anyway, the number of MPs who support him ATM is not especially important, since they don't get any more of a vote than the rest of the electorate. What will matter more is the number who would be prepared to work with him as leader of the party should he be elected, and I suspect that's rather more than 20.
> 
> Guardian shit stirring, for a change.


Gonna be such fun watching the careerist, neo-lab fuckers squirming with rictus grin to persuade us that they agree with Jeremy.


----------



## andysays (Aug 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Gonna be such fun watching the careerist, neo-lab fuckers squirming with rictus grin to persuade us that they agree with Jeremy.



To some extent, we may see the careerists disentangling themselves from the out-and-out neo-Lab fuckers as they see which way the wind is blowing. Interesting to see how it all unfolds, certainly


----------



## redcogs (Aug 28, 2015)

Hilary Benn shadow Chancellor of the exchequer?


----------



## emanymton (Aug 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Stella Creasy manages to be vaguely amusing in her campaign to lose the Deputy Leadership - http://www.stellacreasy.org.uk/unlu...-lessons-i-have-learned-with-kitten-pictures/


I now wish I'd signed up, so I could vote for her!


----------



## killer b (Aug 28, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Hilary Benn shadow Chancellor of the exchequer?


why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Hilary Benn shadow Chancellor of the exchequer?


would prefer nigel benn


----------



## youngian (Aug 28, 2015)

Absolutely, he could just punch Osborne every week.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 28, 2015)

Ed Balls then.


killer b said:


> why?


To stimulate discussion.  Looking at his wiki Benns only suited to foreign office.  Chancellors job important, can't think of an obvious candidate.  Maybe Jez has already approached a few.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 28, 2015)

Hmmm  - that worked then.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 28, 2015)

Hilary Benn is awful. Through and through Blairite, he came to speak to a Labour Students meeting I went to at university and his eyes positively lit up when talking about shrinking the state and how in his constituency libraries were being privatised and run by volunteers.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 28, 2015)

OK Hilary is out then.  Jez will have to place an advert in the Private Eye:

'Wanted Chancellor of the Exchequer (shadow), salary negotiable, prospects medium to good, benefits include tied cottage in smart residential area and new red box'..


----------



## belboid (Aug 28, 2015)

Richard Burgon is the name I have seen most frequently attached to Shadow Chancellor


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> Richard Burgon is the name I have seen most frequently attached to Shadow Chancellor


so hilary benn won't be the richard burgon shadow chancellor.


----------



## gosub (Aug 28, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Jeremy Corbyn: Labour membership will determine policy, not me


Yay!  More Natalie Bennettesque carcrash interviews. Most of the problems she had was defending  ill thought out policy her party members have voted through


----------



## redcogs (Aug 28, 2015)

I thought Natalie made a good fist of her leadership job during the gen election.  Fuck the media characterization of her being useless, she wasn't.


----------



## gosub (Aug 28, 2015)

http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-agree-to-give-break-down-of-the-leadership-results/

If it ends up a close race that will be a disaster, room for loads of bickering over the disallowed votes...so I'd guess they reckon it'll be over by the first round.  Mind you the General election exit poll came as a shock to them.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 28, 2015)

John McDonnell for Shadow Home Secretary. Lots of fist fights with May.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 28, 2015)

Is McDonnell a street fighter?


----------



## Zabo (Aug 28, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Is McDonnell a street fighter?



It appears he is the mastermind behind JC. I reckon he could deliver a few knock out blows with a couple of well aimed polysyllablic smacks.

Having said that it has always been that the Home Office is the poisoned chalice so maybe something a little better for him.

I can't wait for the results and to watch the rats jump overboard.


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 28, 2015)

Zabo said:


> It appears he is the mastermind behind JC. I reckon he could deliver a few knock out blows with a couple of well aimed polysyllablic smacks.
> 
> Having said that it has always been that the Home Office is the poisoned chalice so maybe something a little better for him.
> 
> I can't wait for the results and to watch the rats jump overboard.


 funney labour party is killing itself


----------



## Argonia (Aug 28, 2015)

So what's the Corbynator's shadow cabinet going to be then?


----------



## treelover (Aug 28, 2015)

Sheffield woman & lifetime Labour activist - now aged 90 - banned from the Labour leadership vote. It surely doesn't get any worse than this!






Gwyneth Francis
My mother-in-law, Win Francis, who has reached the ripe old age of 90 due to the hundreds of miles she has walked delivering leaflets for the Labour Party, has... just been informed she has been barred from voting.

Win joined the Labour Party in the 1940s and spent the next fifty years until she was in her eighties working night and day for the Labour Party. The local MP, who did not live in the constituency, stayed at her house when not in London and she was the mainstay in her local ward in Sheffield. She left the Labour Party in recent years but never joined any other party.

from FB


----------



## treelover (Aug 28, 2015)

https://vine.co/v/eIuiUJIKPFE


can't embed vine

Plymouth tonight


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 28, 2015)

youngian said:


> The Zinoviev Email


I think you mean Litvinov (the famous Litvinov Letter)


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> I think you mean Litvinov (the famous Litvinov Letter)


Litvinov wrote letters to Roosevelt. The forgery printed by the Daily Mail was 7inoviev.


----------



## miktheword (Aug 28, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Is McDonnell a street fighter?






My MP, saw him out with JC ( in the local wetherspoons, opposite The george Orwell now changed name..but one of the few claims to fame due to  the said author's former residence, that  Hayes has) a  few years back. 

That he was out in Hayes, means a street fighter, he must have been prepared to be.

Such is that bit of west london, down the Uxbridge road, Hayes, 15,000 majority  for JM..two miles further,  Uxbridge,  you get Boris.


----------



## Whagwan (Aug 29, 2015)

I've been purged.  I applied to join as a member before Corbyn even announced he was standing.  Never been a member of another party.  Absolutely fuming...


----------



## Santino (Aug 29, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> I've been purged.  I applied to join as a member before Corbyn even announced he was standing.  Never been a member of another party.  Absolutely fuming...


Who are you?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> I've been purged.  I applied to join as a member before Corbyn even announced he was standing.  Never been a member of another party.  Absolutely fuming...



What do you reckon it was then? You on the electoral roll?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2015)

Zabo said:


> It appears he is the mastermind behind JC. I reckon he could deliver a few knock out blows with a couple of well aimed polysyllablic smacks.
> 
> Having said that it has always been that the Home Office is the poisoned chalice so maybe something a little better for him.
> 
> I can't wait for the results and to watch the rats jump overboard.


Shadow Chancellor? He was Chair of the GLC Finance Committee, which means he's probably better qualified than Osborne.


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2015)

I've been reassessing my view of Osborne recently, I don't think his lack of an economics background makes him less competent. If anything, he's scarily competent. They've strip-mined the country while we've scoffed at their posh voices.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2015)

Pasty tax?


----------



## shambler (Aug 29, 2015)

Santino said:


> Who are you?



Have you been a member of any other boards in the past? Do you support the aims and values of U75?


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Pasty tax?


I'm sure we can all pick out individual mistakes even the most competent politician has made. Look at what he's achieved instead.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> I'm sure we can all pick out individual mistakes even the most competent politician has made. Look at what he's achieved instead.


He's a smoke and mirrors man. He's produced little of real substance. Rebranding the minimum wage as a "living wage" wasn't a master stroke: it was the genius of mendacity, spin and PR.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 29, 2015)

He is cunning not talented and slips past snares aided by more knowledgeable villains hiding behind the screens.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2015)

treelover said:


> https://vine.co/v/eIuiUJIKPFE
> 
> 
> can't embed vine
> ...


Did he meet a black man?


----------



## Whagwan (Aug 29, 2015)

Santino said:


> Who are you?



A lurker who has recently signed up...

Never been a member of or actively campaigned for another political party, member of Unite for over 10 years.  Am on the electoral roll.

No idea why it is, I did get a formal warning for replying to Liz for Leader e-mail spam with "Fuck off you disgusting Tory" but this should have no bearing on my membership.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Did he meet a black man?



I've read a few comments by mischief making Tories and wingnut intersectionalistas criticising Corbyn's support base for being 'too white' but in Sheffield AFAIK a lot of those campaigning for him come from the Yemeni community, pictures of his campaign stops elsewhere also show reasonably racially diverse crowds.


----------



## andysays (Aug 29, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> A lurker who has recently signed up...
> 
> Never been a member of or actively campaigned for another political party, member of Unite for over 10 years.  Am on the electoral roll.
> 
> No idea why it is, I did get a formal warning for replying to Liz for Leader e-mail spam with "Fuck off you disgusting Tory" but *this should have no bearing on my membership*.



Pretty likely that it has though.

Welcome to Urban BTW


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> No idea why it is, I did get a formal warning for replying to Liz for Leader e-mail spam with "Fuck off you disgusting Tory" but this should have no bearing on my membership.



LOL

I was so tempted to do something similar but assumed that might get me purged so did not!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I've read a few comments by mischief making Tories and wingnut intersectionalistas criticising Corbyn's support base for being 'too white' but in Sheffield AFAIK a lot of those campaigning for him come from the Yemeni community, pictures of his campaign stops elsewhere also show reasonably racially diverse crowds.


I just thought it was (anecdotally) what 'party leaders' did in Plymouth. You know 40 year old who'd been in the navy 30 years...and all that.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I just thought it was (anecdotally) what 'party leaders' did in Plymouth. You know 40 year old who'd been in the navy 30 years...and all that.



I got the reference  just made me think of something else!


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 29, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> No idea why it is, I did get a formal warning for replying to Liz for Leader e-mail spam with "Fuck off you disgusting Tory" but this should have no bearing on my membership.



You can bet they marked your card for that though 

Welcome to Urban anyway


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> He's a smoke and mirrors man. He's produced little of real substance. Rebranding the minimum wage as a "living wage" wasn't a master stroke: it was the genius of mendacity, spin and PR.


he is a smoke and mirrors man, certainly. He's used smoke and mirrors to hide a breathtakingly fast transfer of public assets to private hands that even Thatcher would have baulked at, with only a fraction of the dissent she faced. Much of the ease they've been able to do it with is down to changes in society since Thatcher, but it'd be a mistake to think it's all just posh boys playing at it with shadowy figures in the background making the decisions. Osborne _is_ that shadowy figure...


----------



## teqniq (Aug 29, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> A lurker who has recently signed up...
> 
> Never been a member of or actively campaigned for another political party, member of Unite for over 10 years.  Am on the electoral roll.
> 
> No idea why it is, I did get a formal warning for replying to Liz for Leader e-mail spam with "Fuck off you disgusting Tory" but this should have no bearing on my membership.


I reckon that would've done it right there  welcome anyway


----------



## treelover (Aug 29, 2015)

Newsnight had a focus group discussing the leadership last night, all people who could be persuaded to vote Labour(not too sure about that) it wasn't good for J/C, one women saying "he would attack the rich and that's not good" another that she "agreed with his policies, but wouldn't vote for him" Not one said he would make a good PM. Finkelstein remarked it was a similar focus group that approved of Cameron in 2010, I do wonder if its a bubble and another Michael Foot scenario awaits(though I think Corbyn will actually engage with some of these voters and his goal is not really electability , but enthusing and building opposition and agenda setting.)

just noticed that he is doing a 1000 seater today in Derby, maybe overspill, before over 1600 in Sheff later.


----------



## agricola (Aug 29, 2015)

treelover said:


> Finkelstein remarked it was a similar focus group that approved of Cameron in 2010, I do wonder if its a bubble and another Michael Foot scenario awaits(though I think Corbyn will actually engage with some of these voters.)



I am sure that is what he will be compared to, however he does have the considerable advantage that many of his policies - getting rid of NHS PFI, or building more council homes, or renationalization of the railways for instance - are going to result in _lower_ government spending, not more.  As long as they frame the argument for those policies in those terms then there shouldn't be a problem, though the way that they have responded to criticism of "Peoples QE" doesn't give me much confidence.


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2015)

I think a focus group of swing voters now doesn't tell us that much about what they'll do in 5 years time: Corbyn's entire media presence over the past two months (and therefore for most people at all - outside anti-war or leftish circles he was essentially unknown) has been framed as him being unelectable lunatic hard left. Will that view remain once the air has cleared? Certainly with some people, but I think he's likely to make up some ground - he's a very persuasive speaker, and the policies he's proposing are - as we know - fairly mild & centrist, and someone who's not committed to the neo-liberal consensus should be able to score regular damage on the government in the tanking economy we're about to run into.

I'd be interested to see how he score among non-voters and those who voted Labour last time but have voted for others in the past - if he scores well with them (so retaining the Labour vote from this year, plus moving a load of non-voters to vote), then the swing voters can eat a bowl of dicks - he doesn't need them.


----------



## treelover (Aug 29, 2015)

He may be successful attracting some of the millions that don't vote.

btwm, I visited Wortley Hall near Barnsley, nicknamed the Workers Stately Home, its now basically a wedding and conference centre, but is it a Co-op, I mentioned to the gardener Corbyn was coming to Sheff, she didn't know who he was.


----------



## killer b (Aug 29, 2015)

(I actually think I hate swing voters more than I hate ideological tories. Their only ideology is the self)


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> (I actually think I hate swing voters more than I hate ideological tories. Their only ideology is the self)



I know what you mean, especially those who wear it as a badge of pride by claiming that it makes them un-ideological and complex intellectually. Very vacuous people usually.


----------



## seventh bullet (Aug 29, 2015)

treelover said:


> He may be successful attracting some of the millions that don't vote.
> 
> btwm, I visited Wortley Hall near Barnsley, nicknamed the Workers Stately Home, its now basically a wedding and conference centre, but is it a Co-op, I mentioned to the gardener Corbyn was coming to Sheff, she didn't know who he was.



Nothing from anyone I know.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 29, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I know what you mean, especially those who wear it as a badge of pride by claiming that it makes them un-ideological and complex intellectually. Very vacuous people usually.



Yes.

The thing i like least about FPTP is that elections are won and lost largely by the people with the least knowledge, who have given the least thought to it all, and are most likely to be swayed by the bollocks that the media puts out, or whether a potential PM looks like a dork eating a bacon sandwich...


----------



## Argonia (Aug 29, 2015)

Bridget Christie has a Corbynator epiphany.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/jeremy-corbyn-moment-bridget-christie


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 29, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I know what you mean, especially those who wear it as a badge of pride by claiming that it makes them un-ideological and complex intellectually. Very vacuous people usually.


complex for believing manifesto pldeges lol


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> (I actually think I hate swing voters more than I hate ideological tories. Their only ideology is the self)



The worst part is that these idiots are the people who decide elections.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

Overspill from the 1500 capacity Crucible in Sheffield


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 29, 2015)

this belongs here rather than languishing in the trump thread:
A brief history of the british establishment losing it over corbyn

vice, but amusing for once.


----------



## maomao (Aug 29, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> The worst part is that these idiots are the people who decide elections.


No the worst part is that the political establishment knows this and has given up all pretense of even trying to engage with any other part of the electorate. Whole GE campaigns are now run entirely focused on the 50,000 or so ignorant cunts who actually have the ability to influence the result.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> The worst part is that these idiots are the people who decide elections.



Yes, I remember being admonished by someone at work after I tried to engage with him (rather than just calling him a cunt, I had to sit next to him for the next few months) when he confessed to voting Tory. He got extremely upset with me when I went through policy after policy with him, I couldn't identify one he actually supported other than repeal of the human rights act. In the end he actually started shouting at me, accusing me of being 'ideological' and a 'socialist' unlike him, he proudly told me that a 'true floating voter who reads all the manifestos'. The idea I guess is that having some fixed principles is bad.

He could talk for ages about things like that stupid Ed stone and the relative perceived 'conviction' of Miliband and Cameron. It really does come down to bacon sandwiches for some people.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 29, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yes, I remember being admonished by someone at work after I tried to engage with him (rather than just calling him a cunt, I had to sit next to him for the next few months) when he confessed to voting Tory. He got extremely upset with me when I went through policy after policy with him, I couldn't identify one he actually supported other than repeal of the human rights act. In the end he actually started shouting at me, accusing me of being 'ideological' and a 'socialist' unlike him, he proudly told me that a 'true floating voter who reads all the manifestos'. The idea I guess is that having some fixed principles is bad.
> 
> He could talk for ages about things like that stupid Ed stone and the relative perceived 'conviction' of Miliband and Cameron. It really does come down to bacon sandwiches for some people.



In the face, with a chair. Top tip for you there.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 29, 2015)

I started reading

Jeremy Corbyn will have to learn Blairite lessons if I'm deputy, says Caroline Flint

but rapidly discerned another Blairite drone and skipped to the comments where I found this Vice article which pretty much confirmed my worst suspicions and more.

Where the fuck do all these people come from? It's like they're from the planet Scumbag or something.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> this belongs here rather than languishing in the trump thread:
> A brief history of the british establishment losing it over corbyn
> 
> vice, but amusing for once.



The author writes for The Morning Star on her day job. Nice lass. I've chatted with her a couple of times.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 29, 2015)

maomao said:


> No the worst part is that the political establishment knows this and has given up all pretense of even trying to engage with any other part of the electorate. Whole GE campaigns are now run entirely focused on the 50,000 or so ignorant cunts who actually have the ability to influence the result.



and pensioners, don't forget pensioners


----------



## Sifta (Aug 29, 2015)

treelover said:


> one women saying "he would attack the rich and that's not good"


This fuckwit nearly cost me a TV


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 29, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Where the fuck do all these people come from?


high end private school system with a dose of ambition thats far more than healthy. I mean everyone should want something, even if its to make the worlds largest lego tower or something, but these people have gone beyond that into 'would lick satans scrotum for advancement'


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2015)

Just in case they didn't get the message last time...


> A defiant Tony Blair has dramatically re-entered the debate over Labour’s future with an 11th-hour appeal to party members to come to their senses and reject the “Alice in Wonderland” politics of Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> The former prime minister and winner of three general elections says Corbyn’s supporters are operating in a “parallel reality” which rejects evidence and reason, and says their leftwing choice for leader will be an electoral disaster.


*“parallel reality”*


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 29, 2015)

lol


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 29, 2015)

everytime blair comes out to scold everyone again, corbyn gains another ten undecideds to his camp lol


----------



## teqniq (Aug 29, 2015)

Yup


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Just in case they didn't get the message last time...
> ​*“parallel reality”*



I just hope that there is at least a little part of Blair which is frightened that this might be the beginning of a path which leads to him being put on trial for war crimes.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> lol


It's like they're engaged in an exercise to minimise the size of Corbyn's first ballot majority. I suppose if he wins big the coup will be harder to effect.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 29, 2015)

evidence and reason...

how fast could those WMDs be deployed in Iraq again Mr Blair?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 29, 2015)

free spirit said:


> evidence and reason...
> 
> how fast could those WMDs be deployed in Iraq again Mr Blair?


*"I only know what I believe."*


----------



## J Ed (Aug 29, 2015)

free spirit said:


> evidence and reason...
> 
> how fast could those WMDs be deployed in Iraq again Mr Blair?



IIRC the current neocon justification for WMDs is that ISIS has used chemical weapons therefore Saddam must have had them thereby justifying the Iraq War


----------



## free spirit (Aug 29, 2015)

The Labour Party under blair didn't do evidence and reason at all, it did gut instinct, focus groups and media opinion.

When the evidence  / experts they consulted disagreed with their policies they over-ruled them and discredited them, as with Prof Nutt and the ACMD and drugs policy, and in the energy field where the government started with a comprehensive industry wide review of energy policy, devised policy from that basis, then scrapped that policy because it didn't support a new generation of nukes, and rewrote it themselves to support a new generation of nuclear power.

Corbyn's economic policies are widely supported by credible economists.


----------



## Humberto (Aug 29, 2015)

J Ed said:


> IIRC the current neocon justification for WMDs is that ISIS has used chemical weapons therefore Saddam must have had them thereby justifying the Iraq War



As I'm sure you know but I'll point it out what they are talking about is apparently degraded stuff leftover from the Iran-Iraq war. No evidence of "pursuing WMDs" in 2003 as the warmongers claimed.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 29, 2015)

It's like a Blairite bereavement this, first we had denial, then there was anger, now it's bargaining.



> Labour’s most senior MPs are to put an extraordinary deal to Jeremy Corbyn to keep the party together ... they have agreed to give him 18 months ... They also want Labour’s new policies to be put to a vote of shadow ministers so nothing too extreme gets through.



So "do what we tell you for until the local elections in May, and then if you don't pull in a massive win we'll oust you" basically (as though the latter wasn't always their backup plan). Depression's next, my bet's on Anne Perkins' opening September column just being "we're dooooomed" written 800 times in green crayon.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 29, 2015)

How kind of them to allow their elected leader to run their party.


----------



## treelover (Aug 29, 2015)

The overspill was massive, there were some who went on to the rally, but not many, hard to fathom all this.


----------



## agricola (Aug 29, 2015)

free spirit said:


> The Labour Party under blair didn't do evidence and reason at all, it did gut instinct, focus groups and media opinion.
> 
> When the evidence  / experts they consulted disagreed with their policies they over-ruled them and discredited them, as with Prof Nutt and the ACMD and drugs policy, and in the energy field where the government started with a comprehensive industry wide review of energy policy, devised policy from that basis, then scrapped that policy because it didn't support a new generation of nukes, and rewrote it themselves to support a new generation of nuclear power.
> 
> Corbyn's economic policies are widely supported by credible economists.



It was their opposition to the "reality-based community" that led to some of their most defining moments.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 30, 2015)

That fucking tone of JC, exuding calm  - that's been my experience my whole life, of how you speak to people if you want to get on with them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> That fucking tone of JC, exuding calm  - that's been my experience my whole life, of how you speak to people if you want to get on with them.


thats the thing with the robotnik opposition and what we saw a lot of during Ed's ill-starred reign as well. You know the phrases they are repeating in interview or at pulpit. They've been circulating in print press and media for a week before hand. Jez also has the advantage of not looking so desperate to win. Earnest, pleased at his unexpected surge and so on yes. Irascible with bad interviewers? yes. But he doesn't look like he's desperate for it whereas the other three look like they'd kil your granny for a spot on the shadowthrone.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 30, 2015)

.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 30, 2015)

Oh dear, oh dear etc


----------



## killer b (Aug 30, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> It's like a Blairite bereavement this, first we had denial, then there was anger, now it's bargaining.


Amazing stuff. They actually have no idea. Wft is this? 


> Labour insiders say Mr Corbyn has been able to outflank rivals Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall by galvanising support from the People’s Assembly Against Austerity he helped to found in 2013.


if only the peoples assembly had such power...


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> Amazing stuff. They actually have no idea. Wft is this?



This!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 30, 2015)




----------



## teqniq (Aug 30, 2015)

Hadley Freeman is getting a bit of stick for


----------



## Belushi (Aug 30, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> That fucking tone of JC, exuding calm  - that's been my experience my whole life, of how you speak to people if you want to get on with them.



In my experience it's how you really wind someone up, the angrier they get the calmer and more rational you play it


----------



## J Ed (Aug 30, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Hadley Freeman is getting a bit of stick for




Liberals do love their 'everyone but me is an extremist' narrative, don't they?


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Liberals do love their 'everyone but me is an extremist' narrative, don't they?



It's pretty much their _only_ narrative. Also equating righteous anger to "hysteria" - because no-one could possibly regard lying to Parliament to justify a war in which hundreds of thousands of people died and which saw human rights violations aplenty as "war crimes" or express their hatred of the man who enabled this while maintaining a clear head.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 30, 2015)

Pull my finger mate...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I just hope that there is at least a little part of Blair which is frightened that this might be the beginning of a path which leads to him being put on trial for war crimes.



I honestly don't agree. I think that what actually worries him is that his political legacy - new Labour - will be shown to have been an unnecessary diversion into neoliberalism, and that he basically fucked over a chance of returning to a more social-democratically inclined economy and ideology in favour of tonguing capitalism's claggy rim.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> *"I only know what I believe."*



The recourse of every buffoon whose reasoning is sufficiently addled as to think their belief has meaning to anyone except them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> IIRC the current neocon justification for WMDs is that ISIS has used chemical weapons therefore Saddam must have had them thereby justifying the Iraq War



Because, of course, Syria and Libya hadn't amassed caches of chemical munitions at the same time that Saddam did.


----------



## agricola (Aug 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I honestly don't agree. I think that what actually worries him is that his political legacy - new Labour - will be shown to have been an unnecessary diversion into neoliberalism, and that he basically fucked over a chance of returning to a more social-democratically inclined economy and ideology in favour of tonguing capitalism's claggy rim.



Blair's political legacy can be summed up in much the same terms as Kleber summed up Napoleons' legacy in Egypt.


----------



## youngian (Aug 30, 2015)

Wasn't the retired Bill Shankley barred from Anfield as he kept turning up to annoy the players and Bob Paisley about what they were doing wrong? Blair and Brown have no self-awareness. They are responsible for this talentless SPAD generation who cannot connect with anyone on a personal or political level.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> IIRC the current neocon justification for WMDs is that ISIS has used chemical weapons therefore Saddam must have had them thereby justifying the Iraq War



Doesn't explain how US and UK forces couldn't find these chemical weapons despite a decade of searching, but a bunch of deranged beardies found them with no trouble at all


----------



## Zabo (Aug 30, 2015)

Elsewhere in the media the 'Chief Political Correspondent' of The Vermingraph takes over the fashion pages.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...est-in-makeover-as-he-prepares-for-power.html


----------



## magneze (Aug 30, 2015)

No vest? Fucking sell out.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Hadley Freeman is getting a bit of stick for



she hasn't got a clue. Theres loads of people  I grew up with who aren't 'the left' nor are they particularly giving a shit about politics in general but one thing they do know about the war is blairs a cunt cos he lied and took us to war. Its that simple. These guardian cunts- five minutes ago they were rimming the lib dems. Now its al about shoring up 'moderate' nulab against 'dangerouse extremist' corbyn


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> How kind of them to allow their elected leader to run their party.



Do you think it is right and proper that the weight of a Labour £3 newcomer to be equivalent to that of an historic member?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2015)

the party did, before votes looked to be going the wrong way.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> thats the thing with the robotnik opposition and what we saw a lot of during Ed's ill-starred reign as well. You know the phrases they are repeating in interview or at pulpit. They've been circulating in print press and media for a week before hand. Jez also has the advantage of not looking so desperate to win. Earnest, pleased at his unexpected surge and so on yes. Irascible with bad interviewers? yes. But he doesn't look like he's desperate for it whereas the other three look like they'd kil your granny for a spot on the shadowthrone.



He looks like he doesn't want to win or is not bothered about winning precisely because that is the case!

You may well take a different view but I, for one, would like to have an executive who wants the job and is prepared to accept the entirety of its mandate with proper enthusiasm.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2015)

Anyway - all this is useless.

He will get the nomination and left wing politics - real politics, mind, not theoretical lamentations - will be sunk for a generation.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 30, 2015)

magneze said:


> No vest? Fucking sell out.


The vest was not a good look, if it is gone then good but I fear it was still present, just hidden under a shirt that was buttoned to a higher level than previous ones had been.


----------



## Looby (Aug 30, 2015)

weltweit said:


> The vest was not a good look, if it is gone then good but I fear it was still present, just hidden under a shirt that was buttoned to a higher level than previous ones had been.


Who gives a fucking shit whether he wears a vest?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 30, 2015)

Looby said:


> Who gives a fucking shit whether he wears a vest?


Indeed, who .. these guys weren't going to vote for him anyhow
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...est-in-makeover-as-he-prepares-for-power.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-1-50-vest-creased-shirts-style-makeover.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> He looks like he doesn't want to win or is not bothered about winning precisely because that is the case!
> 
> You may well take a different view but I, for one, would like to have an executive who wants the job and is prepared to accept the entirety of its mandate with proper enthusiasm.


He's a career politician, of course he wants it. You can bet he's happy as larry to find the spotlight again in what he must have assumed to be the twilight of his career. He just doesn't have that gleam of unnatural lust the others have in their eyes


----------



## Looby (Aug 30, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Indeed, who .. these guys weren't going to vote for him anyhow
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...est-in-makeover-as-he-prepares-for-power.html
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-1-50-vest-creased-shirts-style-makeover.html


You obviously cared enough to comment. 
I'm not clicking Mail and Torygraph links to see a load of pointless crap from papers with an agenda against him.


----------



## Cid (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyway - all this is useless.
> 
> He will get the nomination and left wing politics - real politics, mind, not theoretical lamentations - will be sunk for a generation.



Which left wing politics would those be then?


----------



## andysays (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think it is right and proper that the weight of a Labour £3 newcomer to be equivalent to that of an historic member?



Given that the Miliband proposals for electing future Labour leaders were overwhelming approved by the party, it clearly is right and proper that they are now followed, unless you're ssuggesting that some group within the party should over-rule that decision at the eleventh hour.

I suspect what you mean is do people think it will benefit the Labour Party's chances at the next election or something similar, which is a quite different question, and although you've now returned to ranting about left wing politics being sunk for a generation, you've still neglected to come up with anything resembling a coherent argument for why you're claiming this


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2015)

Cid said:


> Which left wing politics would those be then?



Don't be disingenuous.

It is luxurious to theorise.

To win election actually requires realistic application.


----------



## Cid (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Don't be disingenuous.
> 
> It is luxurious to theorise.
> 
> To win election actually requires realistic application.



To win an election with left wing politics requires left wing politics.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2015)

andysays said:


> Given that the Miliband proposals for electing future Labour leaders were overwhelming approved by the party, it clearly is right and proper that they are now followed, unless you're ssuggesting that some group within the party should over-rule that decision at the eleventh hour.
> 
> I suspect what you mean is do people think it will benefit the Labour Party's chances at the next election or something similar, which is a quite different question, and although you've now returned to ranting about left wing politics being sunk for a generation, you've still neglected to come up with anything resembling a coherent argument for why you're claiming this



The reforms are legitimate. That is clear.

In exactly the same way that it is now clear that Miliband was one of the most abysmal leaders that Labour have ever had.

And now the argument is to continue this?


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 30, 2015)

I suspect Diamond is confusing left politics with liberal politics.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2015)

The Miliband problem is crucial really.

if it had been David, Labour could have trounced the coalition.


----------



## Cid (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The Miliband problem is crucial really.
> 
> if it had been David, Labour could have trounced the coalition.



Counterfactual and irrelevant.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The reforms are legitimate. That is clear.
> 
> In exactly the same way that it is now clear that Miliband was one of the most abysmal leaders that Labour have ever had.
> 
> And now the argument is to continue this?



You've got it the wrong way round. Ed Miliband gave this all to the Labour right as a gift, they were the ones clamouring for a US style open primary as a way of diluting the influence of trade unions.

They just don't want to eat what they have asked for now that it is going against them.


----------



## JHE (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The Miliband problem is crucial really.
> 
> if it had been David, Labour could have trounced the coalition.



I'm not so sure.  I think the media could have decided that the elder brother was a right weirdo, just as they did with Ed, and with the same bad press, the same problems in Scotland (or worse), the same attraction of UKIP, the same distrust of Labour on immigration, the same inability to get half-hearted supporters out to vote, the same half-plausible claims that the Tories had been vindicated on the economy etc... it could all have ended up just as it did in fact end up.  What special talent or strategy did David have that would have led to a Labour victory?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 30, 2015)

He was credible.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> He was credible.



You are vacuous, your politics are vacuous too


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 30, 2015)

My Tory/UKIP-voting FiL this afternoon had only good things to say about Corbyn. He said he's taking Labour back to what it should always have been and these New Labour idiots are the ones who don't belong, etc. Was quite surprised to hear that from him. I doubt he's alone in that view, in his demographic. Whether that translates to a Labour vote is another matter, of course...


----------



## Santino (Aug 30, 2015)

Think once, think twice - is it Diamond?


----------



## andysays (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The reforms are legitimate. That is clear.
> 
> In exactly the same way that it is now clear that Miliband was one of the most abysmal leaders that Labour have ever had.
> 
> And now the argument is to continue this?



Is there any chance, even a small one, that you can make whatever point you're trying to make in a coherent way rather than just jumping around spouting nonsense which doesn't make any sense, either on the level of meaning what you think it means, or which has some foundation in fact and/or logic?

You've just gone back on your previous claim about it not being right and proper for the election to be conducted in the agreed way, and you're immediately throwing in a claim that Miliband was one of the most abysmal leaders that Labour have ever had (debatable but not really relevant) and the assertion that choosing Corbyn would be continuing this.

You really don't know what you're fucking on about, do you?


----------



## andysays (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> He was credible.



But unfortunately not enough of those who mattered had your marvellous insight...


----------



## Belushi (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> He was credible.


----------



## andysays (Aug 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> I suspect Diamond is confusing left politics with liberal politics.



It's far more fundamental than that, Diamond is confusing himself with someone who has something worthwhile to say, and the rest of us with idiots who have nothing better to do than listen in awe to his pearls of wisdom.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyway - all this is useless.
> 
> He will get the nomination and left wing politics - real politics, mind, not theoretical lamentations - will be sunk for a generation.


Blair himself came out early doors and said that even if it was possible to be elected on an anti austerity/leftish/whatever platform he would not want it. Thats naked ideological reasoning over electability right there. Even if it were possible, he'd rather the party stayed in opposition.Corbyn has been elected by his constituents consistently and has spent most of his adult life in elected positions. I don't buy this 'unelectable' stuff. I'm not making any predictions but to rule it out completely on the basis of...of what? The editorials in the broadsheets and what nick robinson recons? If this last year or two in wider europe and england/scotland/wales/NI have proven anything its that nothings a dead cert anymore except the dead cert of pearl clutching horror from the establishment.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyway - all this is useless.
> 
> He will get the nomination and left wing politics - real politics, mind, not theoretical lamentations - will be sunk for a generation.



Real leftwing politics?  you mean this sort of thing? 



















Lord Mandelson greets billionaire David Geffen on the Rising Sun super yacht in Corfu


----------



## free spirit (Aug 30, 2015)

> The latest count was 13,000 registered volunteers on this campaign.


Unpopular bastard that Corbyn.... I wonder what the equivalent numbers would be for the others.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> historic member?








18c dildo found in a puritan womans toilet, Boston.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think it is right and proper that the weight of a Labour £3 newcomer to be equivalent to that of an historic member?



Do you think that if the party (as they did) changed the rules - to very little protest - that it is right and proper to not hold a £3 newcomer to be equivalent in voting rights and power to an established member?


----------



## agricola (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The Miliband problem is crucial really.
> 
> if it had been David, Labour could have trounced the coalition.



Doubtful - his chance was about a year before that when he could have headed up the "ditch Gordon" movement from government, called a snap election and seen off enough of Cameron and Clegg to not lose as badly as Gordon did.  That he blew that chance, then lost to his brother, and then ran off in a sulk suggests that he actually would not have been the great leader that is claimed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

Looby said:


> Who gives a fucking shit whether he wears a vest?


Mostly, ringpieces looking for excuses not to vote for him that don't make them look like reactionary arsewipes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> He's a career politician, of course he wants it. You can bet he's happy as larry to find the spotlight again in what he must have assumed to be the twilight of his career. He just doesn't have that gleam of unnatural lust the others have in their eyes



Or the sense of deservingness and ownership that they feel.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

Cid said:


> Which left wing politics would those be then?



That'll be the ones that don't exist in the mainstream of the Parliamentary Labour Party at the mo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The Miliband problem is crucial really.
> 
> if it had been David, Labour could have trounced the coalition.



Have you followed Miliband. D's career? Perhaps perused the more neutral biographies of his time in government? He did the sum of *nothing* except toe the party line, to give any impression that he might have functioned as a better party leader than his younger brother, and his reaction to defeat indicated a degree of petulance that even Gordon Brown would have been ashamed to manifest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2015)

JHE said:


> I'm not so sure.  I think the media could have decided that the elder brother was a right weirdo, just as they did with Ed, and with the same bad press, the same problems in Scotland (or worse), the same attraction of UKIP, the same distrust of Labour on immigration, the same inability to get half-hearted supporters out to vote, the same half-plausible claims that the Tories had been vindicated on the economy etc... it could all have ended up just as it did in fact end up.  What special talent or strategy did David have that would have led to a Labour victory?



There's nothing in his history to indicate a talent for command. The main "qualification" he appears to have held (according to his advocates) is an adherence to Blairist "third way" ideology as *the* credible way of doing politics.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 30, 2015)

Belushi said:


>



Beat me to it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 30, 2015)

Then again...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 30, 2015)

I didn't think that Corbyn was wearing a vest under his shirt. I always thought it was a white T shirt. I often wear a T shirt with a shirt over it. It will be a black one or a coloured one. The chants about his shirt being scruffy don't ring true to me. In the photographs of him I have seen of his appearances with audiences, his shirts appeared to be quite expensive and freshly ironed.

One paper even tried to compare him with Michael Foot and his "donkey jacket", that is a case of the newspapers believing their own lies. Michael Foot was not wearing a donkey jacket at the Senotaph, it was an expensive coat from a Saville Row taylor. But if they can suggest a similarity with a previously demonised and notorious left winger (who once he was no longer in opposition but in the cabinet had ceased to be left wing) then they can create their news media monster character.


----------



## magneze (Aug 30, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Then again...


In comparison Ed could really show a bacon sandwich who was boss.


----------



## Mation (Aug 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 18c dildo found in a puritan womans toilet, Boston.


I completely saw this as a person in a protective yellow suit and red headgear carrying a massive cock under their arm


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2015)

Mation said:


> I completely saw this as a person in a protective yellow suit and red headgear carrying a massive cock under their arm


He'd have to be one large figure in a hazmat suit to carry a cock that size under one arm!


----------



## J Ed (Aug 31, 2015)

So it looks like the Tories have decided to choose their battle with Corbyn and they're going with culture war/foreign policy

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/31/faslane-naval-base-clyde-500m-jobs-george-osborne



> In an article for the Sun to coincide with the announcement, Osborne said that a Labour party aligned with the SNP on Trident would threaten the country’s security. He said that Corbyn’s candidacy should not be treated as a joke.
> 
> “On the contrary, I think we should take it deadly seriously,” he wrote. “For the new unilateralists of British politics are a threat to our future national security and to our economic security. We’re going to take on their dangerous arguments and defeat them.”
> 
> ...



Is the general public gullible enough to buy a reds under beds narrative in 2015?


----------



## maomao (Aug 31, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Is the general public gullible enough to buy a reds under beds narrative in 2015?


It's not reds under the bed he's trying to invoke a fear of, it's sandal-wearing pacifists. Two-thirds of the population support a nuclear deterrent. He's probably correctly picked Corbyn's least popular policy for his attack.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think it is right and proper that the weight of a Labour £3 newcomer to be equivalent to that of an historic member?


do you think it right and proper the callowest solicitor is listened to in magistrstes courts with the same respect accorded qcs?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyway - all this is useless.
> 
> He will get the nomination and left wing politics - real politics, mind, not theoretical lamentations - will be sunk for a generation.



I've yet to see any rational explanation as to why this would be the case. If Corbyn wins and is unpopular, it's very unlikely he'll be the Labour candidate at the next election. So where does this expectation that having Corbyn as leader will salt the Earth for a Labour Government "for a generation" come from?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 31, 2015)

JHE said:


> I'm not so sure.  I think the media could have decided that the elder brother was a right weirdo, just as they did with Ed, and with the same bad press, the same problems in Scotland (or worse), the same attraction of UKIP, the same distrust of Labour on immigration, the same inability to get half-hearted supporters out to vote, the same half-plausible claims that the Tories had been vindicated on the economy etc... it could all have ended up just as it did in fact end up.  What special talent or strategy did David have that would have led to a Labour victory?



Given the relatively stable economy in May 2015, it's hard to envisage a Labour leader who would've got support from any newspaper other than the usual Guardian/Mirror.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Given the relatively stable economy in May 2015, it's hard to envisage a Labour leader who would've got support from any newspaper other than the usual Guardian/Mirror.


stable? comatose


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> stable? comatose



Dead is stable


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2015)

> A union boss has come under-fire for calling Tony Blair a “*neo-liberal, multi-millionaire, war-mongerer” with nothing useful to say about the Labour leadership race.*



Deservedly so; Blair clearly has 'useful' things to say about the leadership contest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Deservedly so; Blair clearly has 'useful' things to say about the leadership contest.


"the sound of silence"


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

> Attention is now inevitably focused on "Team Corbyn". Who will be in the inner circle in the Leader of the Opposition's suite of offices in Norman Shaw South if he wins on September 12? The answer, equally inevitably, is a ragbag of Trots, anti-war veterans, trade unionists and malcontent and rebel MPs.
> 
> In the early days of the leadership contest, the Corbyn campaign was chaotic. "You couldn't get them to reply to calls in the early days," one veteran who has covered many a leadership contest told me. "Now they do reply, but it's erratic. They seem better organised at the Corbyn rallies."
> 
> ...






Sky Head Journo shows his colours


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> Sky Head Journo shows his colours


Anyone so employed has already revealed enough colour.


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

Sisters for Corbyn, great photo



> Faslane move is first in Tory plot to frame 'peacenik' Corbyn
> 
> George Osborne’s announcement of extra £500m for nuclear base is made with eye on 2020 general election
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-frame-peacenik-jeremy-corbyn-nuclear-trident



btw new article on Osborne's plan of attack


----------



## agricola (Aug 31, 2015)

maomao said:


> It's not reds under the bed he's trying to invoke a fear of, it's sandal-wearing pacifists. Two-thirds of the population support a nuclear deterrent. He's probably correctly picked Corbyn's least popular policy for his attack.



That is no doubt what Gideon thinks - but there is quite a bit of difference between "_supporting a nuclear deterrent_", and "_supporting the replacement of a weapons system that we will (hopefully) never use and which takes immense sums of money away from the conventional forces, leaving progressively fewer of them to ride around in ever-older equipment doing an ever longer list of things for not much money at all_ _and at considerably increased risk_".


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 31, 2015)

A bulwark against Corbyn and a wedge for the SNP between their trident policy and the faslane workforce. The tories might be a-holes but they are better politicians than the labour lot at the mo.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 31, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> A bulwark against Corbyn and a wedge for the SNP between their trident policy and the faslane workforce. The tories might be a-holes but they are better politicians than the labour lot at the mo.



Not hard, the Labour party has been a hollow shell since shortly after Blair got in. If not before.

The problem with big name politics is they don't allow other big names in, instead we have a party that since at least 2001 has been sitting around sniping and back stabbing rather than forging an identity or connecting with voters. Milliband only got in because he was fairly harmless and they spent the next 5 years stabbing him in the arse.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 31, 2015)

The thing about Corbyn is I'd rather stake my hopes on a fraction of a percentage chance that we could end up with a decent government and social justice in the end than give up and support the neoliberals because it's the only realistic option. I'd rather go down dreaming.

When are the results in? My nerves are shot to bits already.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 31, 2015)

Results are announced on 12th.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2015)

I'd make the argument that being as we're basically on the UN SC in order to give the yanks a double vote on anything, ever, and we have loads of their air bases we can rely on uncle sam's vast stock of nukes to protect us from Evil Putin and resurgent mother russia


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Deservedly so; Blair clearly has 'useful' things to say about the leadership contest.


let him talk long and loud I say.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 31, 2015)

Even if Corbyn doesn't win it'll still cheer me up as I watch Labour try and wriggle out of embarrassing blatant vote rigging


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2015)

Ahem...


----------



## JHE (Aug 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Ahem...


Head waiter at the restaurant the Bully boys smashed up the night before.  He's looking very glum because he has to try get the buggers to pay for the damage.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Ahem...


Neat work brogdale.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Neat work brogdale.


have to admit, not my own.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 31, 2015)

Been away from the interwebz for a while now but if you genuinely think that David Miliband would have been less effective than his ridiculously hapless brother and then, beyond that, think that Corbyn could do better and actually win, then you are a prize moron marked by stunning stupidity.


----------



## Santino (Aug 31, 2015)

SCIENCE


----------



## JHE (Aug 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> ...then you are a prize moron marked by stunning stupidity.



Aren't all prize morons marked by stunning stupidity?  How else would they win the prize?


----------



## 8115 (Aug 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Ahem...


What is this a picture of? Also, who?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2015)

8115 said:


> What is this a picture of? Also, who?


What about the where, why and when?


----------



## 8115 (Aug 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> What about the where, why and when?


I'll settle for what and who, I'm not good with faces.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2015)

8115 said:


> I'll settle for what and who, I'm not good with faces.


Are you seriously unfamiliar with the original version of that (slightly) altered image? You've not seen that before?


----------



## 8115 (Aug 31, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Are you seriously unfamiliar with the original version of that (slightly) altered image? You've not seen that before?


Is it the one of Cameron et al at Oxford?  I've seen it before.  I was worried it was actually Corbyn at university.  I still don't really know who the circled person is meant to be but if it's a joke it definitely won't get any funnier by being explained.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 31, 2015)

8115 said:


> Is it the one of Cameron et al at Oxford?  I've seen it before.  I was worried it was actually Corbyn at university.  I still don't really know who the circled person is meant to be but if it's a joke it definitely won't get any funnier by being explained.


Oh.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 31, 2015)

8155, If you have just returned to the UK from a very long sojourn on the other side of the world, out of reach of the mass media then I suggest you trawl through all of the Urban75 political posts since the period when you left. In only a few weeks you will be up to speed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Been away from the interwebz for a while now but if you genuinely think that David Miliband would have been less effective than his ridiculously hapless brother and then, beyond that, think that Corbyn could do better and actually win, then you are a prize moron marked by stunning stupidity.


the thing is though, loads of people are lining up to support c-byn in a manner entirely unlike the meagre support either of the millibrothers had. Its not about wether he can win this leadership battle (and it looks like he could) or even if he could win a GE (I have no idea). The question rather is would he be capable/allowed to enact his very mild social democratic reforms if in power? I think Syzria's mauling may give some clue as to the answer to that one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> you are a prize moron marked by stunning stupidity.


why though? do you think he couldn't actually win? I don't see why not. The man has proved capable hands for a very long time, this isn't some newly minted fire_brand_ (lol) nor is he advocating anything incredibly radical. Its a mark of how well you swallowed all the right wing rhetoric that you've called him hard left in the past, he is not hard left in any way at all. Stop reading papers and start listening to people. Cos there is a lot of them nodding along thoughtfully to corbynite ideas (which aren't his but merely a continuation of old labs keynsian stuff)


----------



## Diamond (Aug 31, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the thing is though, loads of people are lining up to support c-byn in a manner entirely unlike the meagre support either of the millibrothers had. Its not about wether he can win this leadership battle (and it looks like he could) or even if he could win a GE (I have no idea). The question rather is would he be capable/allowed to enact his very mild social democratic reforms if in power? I think Syzria's mauling may give some clue as to the answer to that one.



Corbyn's policy platform is, to be frank, bizarre. People's quantitative easing is really special.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 31, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> 8155, If you have just returned to the UK from a very long sojourn on the other side of the world, out of reach of the mass media then I suggest you trawl through all of the Urban75 political posts since the period when you left. In only a few weeks you will be up to speed.


Please can someone explain that picture now because it's annoying me not knowing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2015)

its nothing that hasn't been done in the past. Nor is it bizarre. I'm no corbynite but you haven't a scooby if you think his rebranding of old ideas in modern language is something truly strange. It is not. None of this is shriekingly weird. It's just old labour governance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Corbyn's policy platform is, to be frank, bizarre. People's quantitative easing is really special.


what i like abour you is your refusal to let your inevitable embarrassment make you give your posts any thought


----------



## The Boy (Aug 31, 2015)

8115 said:


> Please can someone explain that picture now because it's annoying me not knowing.


I believe it's the Bullingdon Club pic that features Cameron et al, but with Corbyn's face superimposed onto one of the chaps.


----------



## Diamond (Aug 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what i like abour you is your refusal to let your inevitable embarrassment make you give your posts any thought



Your thinking is only surpassed by your eloquence.


----------



## andysays (Aug 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Corbyn's policy platform is, to be frank, bizarre. People's quantitative easing is really special.



Your content-and-argument-free stream of posts here are "really special", but not in a good way.


----------



## JimW (Aug 31, 2015)

JHE said:


> Aren't all prize morons marked by stunning stupidity?  How else would they win the prize?


You probably ought to bow to Diamond's well-known expertise and personal experience in the field of rank stupidity.


----------



## andysays (Aug 31, 2015)

JimW said:


> You probably ought to bow to Diamond's well-known expertise and personal experience in the field of rank stupidity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Your thinking is only surpassed by your eloquence.


15 years of humiliation not enough for you then


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

JHE said:


> Head waiter at the restaurant the Bully boys smashed up the night before.  He's looking very glum because he has to try get the buggers to pay for the damage.




apparently JC grew up in a rural seven bedroom house.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> apparently JC grew up in a rural seven bedroom house.


rumour? or do you have a source for that?


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

JC meeting in Colchester sold out, nearly 600 seats, isn't that a squaddie town?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/andy-burnham-makes-a-pitch-for-labours-leftwing-vote

meanwhile, Andy goes for the left vote


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> rumour? or do you have a source for that?






> I also worry a little on Jeremy's behalf about the loose tongue of his weather forecaster brother Piers. Was it really helpful to tell The Sunday Telegraph last weekend that Jeremy grew up "a country bumpkin" enjoying a privileged upbringing in a seven-bedroom manor house in rural Shropshire? To the manor born, literally.
> 
> http://www.totalpolitics.com/opinio...ttention-turns-to-his-fellow-travellers.thtml



could be rubbish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> could be rubbish.


but what do you think?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 31, 2015)

8115 said:


> Please can someone explain that picture now because it's annoying me not knowing.


The picture is of "The Bullingdon Club" an Oxbridge dining club for rich students, David Cameron and Boris Johnston are in that photo. Google Search "The Bullingdon Club" to see the original.


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

It doesn't look like Corbyn is having one last major mass rally in London before the vote, not wanting to show hubris, etc?

Some one just posted we may be in the new 'Jezz Age'!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 31, 2015)

Yippee!  I've cast my vote, for leader and deputy.

Also for London mayoral candidate, which took me by surprise as I wasn't expecting to have to do that at the same time and I hadn't heard of most of the candidates.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> It doesn't look like Corbyn is having one last major mass rally in London before the vote, not wanting to show hubris, etc?
> 
> Some one just posted we may be in the new 'Jezz Age'!


jizzage


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 31, 2015)

Looks like it's a JC win with Burnham coming second going by the bookies and polls.


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

dream team then...


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

> A confession: I didn’t originally want a ‘left’ candidate in the Labour leadership election. My view was that, in the midst of general post-election demoralisation, a left candidate could end up being crushed. Such a result would be used by both the Labour party establishment and the British right generally to perform the last rites of the left, dismiss us as irrelevant, and tell us to shut up forever. I originally toyed with starting a campaign to enlist Lisa Nandy, the straight-talking ‘soft left’ Wigan MP, but she had just given birth, so that wasn’t going to happen. [https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/600625839231893505] The Shadow Cabinet minister Jon Trickett was originally approached by several people asking him to stand: for the reasons above, I suggested it was bad idea. Instead we began brainstorming a ‘Not The Labour Leadership’ tour alongside a presumably dispiriting leadership contest with three candidates dancing on the head of a pin, with the aim of helping to rebuild a grassroots movement.
> 
> https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-...-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884



Owen Jones's  'honest' thoughts on JC, quite revealing


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

> *Popular appeal cannot be won by simply focusing on issues that affect those at the bottom of society. *Yes, we desperately need policies that transform the lives of the one in five workers who earn less than a living wage; people who lack an affordable home; disabled people having their benefits cut away; those suffering from the bedroom tax; and so on. And yes, one of the main aims of a Corbyn-led campaign will be to mobilise, inspire, political engage poorer people who are significantly less likely to vote. But empathy for the worst affected alone will never win an election. Jeremy has begun outlining policies to support self-employed people and entrepreneurs, as well as expanding home ownership without flogging off social housing. *This has to be built on, with a direct appeal to both middle-income and middle-class people that goes beyond being asked to empathise for the poorest people in society*.



Mmm, he may be right but seeing it in print, this is what the other candidates are saying, is Owen sniffing power?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> Mmm, he may be right but seeing it in print, this is what the other candidates are saying, is Owen sniffing power?


no its just a very old labour tendency-christ a trot tendency as well- to admit that the petite bourgoise must be won to the cause as well because in theory the prole dem lack the muscle to take power directly and then weather the opprobrium and outright resistance from an angry and resentful lower middle class.


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

reading his article, it seems like he is setting out his stall as a back room strategist, some surprising stuff on identity and immigration, etc.


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2015)

One thing Corbyn could do on identity, patriotism, is reframe the debate so the Tories can be identified as the global corporate asset strippers, with no real concern for this country.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2015)

treelover said:


> One thing Corbyn could do on identity, patriotism, is reframe the debate so the Tories can be identified as the global corporate asset strippers, with no real concern for this country.


the global corporate asset strippers? there was me thinking they were a uk political party and not e.g. kpmg, pwc


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 1, 2015)

Not got your Ballot yet?

Check your email and/or
see here www.labour.org.uk/page/s/not-received-your-ballot-in-the-post


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 1, 2015)

> *Popular appeal cannot be won by simply focusing on issues that affect those at the bottom of society. *Yes, we desperately need policies that transform the lives of the one in five workers who earn less than a living wage;



One other factor in this is that a lot that are earning below the living wage won't have the right to vote, immigrant workers don't get a GE vote, which is possibly one of the reasons the neo-lib parties are keen on them.  You can vote in locals, but you need citizenship to vote in the GE. There are millions of disenfranchised workers out there.  The gf has been here seven years paying taxes and a mortgage but wasn't able to vote in the GE.

(don't interpret this as me thinking taxes earn you a right to vote or anything else, just framing it in the terms that this issue is normally discussed in)


----------



## Belushi (Sep 1, 2015)

Despite Corbyn having absolutely fuck all to do with it, Boris Johnson is blaming him for London Underground's failure to introduce the night tube on time Boris Johnson blames failure to bring in night Tube on Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## gosub (Sep 1, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Despite Corbyn having absolutely fuck all to do with it, Boris Johnson is blaming him for London Underground's failure to introduce the night tube on time Boris Johnson blames failure to bring in night Tube on Jeremy Corbyn


The scrabbling fuck wit. Makes Osborne' Faslane statement yesterday look like tactical genius. Amazing how far and fast Johnson's star has fallen (til you look at the man)


----------



## Sifta (Sep 1, 2015)

No 10 accepts Electoral Commission's call for new EU referendum question - Politics live

Boris Johnson's LBC phone-in

He denied receiving a text from David Cameron telling him to “fucking shut up”.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Been away from the interwebz for a while now but if you genuinely think that David Miliband would have been less effective than his ridiculously hapless brother and then, beyond that, think that Corbyn could do better and actually win, then you are a prize moron marked by stunning stupidity.



Rather than ranting, why not make your case? Isn't that what lawyers are supposed to be good at?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> why though? do you think he couldn't actually win? I don't see why not. The man has proved capable hands for a very long time, this isn't some newly minted fire_brand_ (lol) nor is he advocating anything incredibly radical. Its a mark of how well you swallowed all the right wing rhetoric that you've called him hard left in the past, he is not hard left in any way at all. Stop reading papers and start listening to people. Cos there is a lot of them nodding along thoughtfully to corbynite ideas (which aren't his but merely a continuation of old labs keynsian stuff)



Ever get the feeling that Diamond had plans to go the new Labour/Progress route to a political career?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rather than ranting, why not make your case? Isn't that what lawyers are supposed to be good at?


tbf he probably has a point about the Millibands. The other brother may well have done better.

However, it's odd to link that to Corbyn. Does Diamond think Ed was left-wing in some way?


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ever get the feeling that Diamond had plans to go the new Labour/Progress route to a political career?



Don't know about that, though he's a big enough dick, but he certainly seems to have an emotional attachment to a system that allows public schoolboys of low to middling ability to get into law school and then straight into a cushty number at a 'magic circle' law firm.


----------



## andysays (Sep 1, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...Does Diamond think Ed was left-wing in some any vaguely coherent way?



CFY (the answer is "No", BTW)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf he probably has a point about the Millibands. The other brother may well have done better.



Based on...? The only difference between the two is that (partly due to starting to climb the greasy pole earlier) Miliband. D was Foreign Secretary (and a singularly-undistinguished one),whereas Miliband. E was "Energy & Climate Change" Minister. Performance-wise, there was barely a fag paper between them.



> However, it's odd to link that to Corbyn. Does Diamond think Ed was left-wing in some way?



He seems to.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Based on...? The only difference between the two is that (partly due to starting to climb the greasy pole earlier) Miliband. D was Foreign Secretary (and a singularly-undistinguished one),whereas Miliband. E was "Energy & Climate Change" Minister. Performance-wise, there was barely a fag paper between them.



He was further to the right of his brother and a Blairite so the press wouldn't have gone after him half as much. Whether that would have made much of a difference, and whether that wouldn't have also (further) suppressed traditional Labour turnout are two questions we will never know.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 1, 2015)




----------



## 8115 (Sep 1, 2015)

All the candidates on C4 news (C4 +1 atm).


----------



## 8115 (Sep 1, 2015)

Andy Burnham seems really pissed off, I don't think this leadership election is going the way he wanted it to.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 1, 2015)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Looks like it's a JC win with Burnham coming second going by the bookies and polls.


 and its only a few weeks ago that people on this thread thought Corbyn didn't didn't have any hope at all. How things change.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 1, 2015)

All the candidates are all managing to sit around and talk and debate, gives me some hope for Labour unity.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 1, 2015)

dp


----------



## brogdale (Sep 1, 2015)

8115 said:


> Andy Burnham seems really pissed off, I don't think this leadership election is going the way he wanted it to.


Thought Corbyn was pretty poor; clearly not his preferred format.
There was also some weird points of agreement between JC & LK. I couldn't work out if he was being a bit cute wrt the first ballot outcome, or if she was desperately applying for some ShadCab position.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 1, 2015)

Burnham and Cooper screeching leftwards, Cooper says UK could take 10,000 Syrian refugees in a month, Burnham criticising right to buy.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rather than ranting, why not make your case? Isn't that what lawyers are supposed to be good at?



Miliband minor campaigned on a left-wing prospectus and failed on that basis.

To pretend otherwise in the battle of the brothers means that you either think (i) that Miliband minor was not left-wing enough and might have carried the popular vote if he had gone down a more radical route, and/or (ii) that Miliband major would never have won in any event because he was never going to be left-wing enough.

It's time to come to one's senses here.  Labour failed because they were unable to persuade people of their credentials - be they left or right-wing.

To think tacking further left into, admittedly interesting, more radical territory with Corbyn could deliver a proper electoral victory, the like of which the Tories have just achieved, is bonkers.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> why though? do you think he couldn't actually win? I don't see why not. The man has proved capable hands for a very long time, this isn't some newly minted fire_brand_ (lol) nor is he advocating anything incredibly radical. Its a mark of how well you swallowed all the right wing rhetoric that you've called him hard left in the past, he is not hard left in any way at all. Stop reading papers and start listening to people. Cos there is a lot of them nodding along thoughtfully to corbynite ideas (which aren't his but merely a continuation of old labs keynsian stuff)



There may be a lot of people nodding thoughtfully along and that is a really good thing.

In fact, I think the best thing about his campaign is that it might get people to think more critically about policy in general and that would be fantastic.  In fact, my impression is that that was the whole reason that he ran in the first place but I think some of his major policies are bonkers.  His fiscal and monetary plans just don't add up on any level - "people's quantitative easing" is bananas and the projections for his increased revenues due to the treasury through tax reform, while the ideas are good, are pie in the sky on a numbers front.

Then, on the foreign policy stuff, it's difficult to take someone seriously who vaguely waves away NATO membership and a nuclear deterrent while also being happy to share the same forum with representatives of organisations that have grand ideas about how to project whatever military power that they might have.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Ed Milliband ran on a left platform? Say what now? Did I miss something?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ever get the feeling that Diamond had plans to go the new Labour/Progress route to a political career?



No chance!  15+ years of posting on here?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

maomao said:


> Don't know about that, though he's a big enough dick, but he certainly seems to have an emotional attachment to a system that allows public schoolboys of low to middling ability to get into law school and then straight into a cushty number at a 'magic circle' law firm.



Charming.

Interestingly, you know fuck all about me but are happy to carp on in your typically smug vindictive way like a proper cunt's coward.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 1, 2015)

Fuck off Diamond. It's just the same post over and over again. We've moved on. Other people have other stuff to say.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

andysays said:


> CFY (the answer is "No", BTW)



Wow.  That is clever big man.

Round of applause for learning how to use the strike through function.

Take you a long time to get your head around that?


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> you know fuck all about me


I know you're a thick cunt.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Fuck off Diamond. It's just the same post over and over again. We've moved on. Other people have other stuff to say.



No, no, no.

I have been off these boards for a while and I won't be back on for a while still but when ignorant fuckers try and have a go, I will have a go back.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Miliband minor campaigned on a left-wing prospectus and failed on that basis.



No, he didn't. He campaigned on a centrist (as opposed to Blairite right-centrist) prospectus, and didn't lose on the policies he campaigned on, but because of the perceptions (assisted by the media) of Labour as economically-inept. 



> To pretend otherwise in the battle of the brothers means that you either think (i) that he was not left-wing enough and might have carried the popular vote if he had gone down a more radical route, and/or (ii) that Miliband major would never have won in any event because he was never going to be left-wing enough.



Miliband Major, had he led the party, would have faced exactly the same issues regarding the questioning of Labour's economic competence, and would have been similarly limited in what he could have done to rebut that questioning.
It's nothing to do with too left-wing or not left-wing enough, and everything to do with being so obsessed with the big narrative that they spent no time protecting their reputation. The Tories had a two year run-up to 2010 to lay the basis of their economic incompetence narrative, and then - wonder of wonders for Smith Square - the Labour Party, including both Milibands, played to that narrative by agreeing that they'd been incompetent, rather than exposing the roots of the problem.	  



> It's time to come to one's senses here.  Labour failed because they were unable to persuade people of their credentials - be they left or right-wing.



They failed because their credentials didn't hold up against a narrative that had 7 years to ferment. 



> To think tacking further left into, admittedly interesting, more radical territory with Corbyn could deliver a proper electoral victory, the like of which the Tories have just achieved, is bonkers.



So explain why it's bonkers. Not just this simplistic "because it's left" crap you keep spouting, or your regurgitation of the _commentariat_, but some actual political analysis that doesn't begin and end with soundbites culled from an _Economist_ editorial.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Bagsy first-in on page 200 of the thread.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Dammit!


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

maomao said:


> I know you're a thick cunt.



Selective quotation - the mark of a spineless moron.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, he didn't. He campaigned on a centrist (as opposed to Blairite right-centrist) prospectus, and didn't lose on the policies he campaigned on, but because of the perceptions (assisted by the media) of Labour as economically-inept.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, I need to retreat here, admittedly.  We are talking about a counterfactual hypothetical and it is always difficult to be 100% certain about these things.

However, what the general election at least _seems _to indicate is that the electorate bought much more into the Tory prospectus, which, by the way, was extremely radically right-wing as against the Labour prospectus, which, by modern electoral standards, definitely _is _left-wing.

Miliband major is to the right of his brother.  He is a centrist.

Miliband minor is not.

To pretend that their respective leaderships would have lead to the same outcome is to come to a pretty odd conclusion altogether and one that is especially worrying for those who identify as centre-left (as do I) or categorically left-wing (as I get the impression that many people here do), and that conclusion is simple - it doesn't matter what Labour does, the Tories are so dominant that veering left or right is immaterial.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 1, 2015)

I was fascinated when Cooper said the UK could take 10,000 migrants in a month but then neither she nor the others would say what total the UK should take, there was a little interesting discussion around that, painfully little on other subjects though it was interesting listening to Corbyn on Nato, Russia and the possibility of a new cold war.


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> the Tories are so dominant that veering left or right is immaterial.


They have a majority of 6 seats. You thick cunt.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

maomao said:


> They have a majority of 6 seats. You thick cunt.



You didn't really understand that argument did you?

Have another think.

e2a - as a basic clue, it's about perception, a difficult idea for most morons because it involves them struggling to walk any distance in someone else's shoes...

e2a no.2 - I notice that you've gone down the selective quotation route yet again so that almost guarantees that you won't ever be able to get it such are your blinkers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Ed Milliband ran on a left platform? Say what now? Did I miss something?



I honestly can't understand this conviction that Ed MildlyBland ran on a left platform, except if your only experience of "left" politics was quantified around Labour's piss-weak Parliamentary red Toryism of the last 20 years.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> ...what the general election at least _seems _to indicate is that the electorate bought much more into the Tory prospectus, which, by the way, was extremely radically right-wing as against the Labour prospectus, which, by modern electoral standards, definitely _is _left-wing.



Considering that only 24% of eligible voters actually voted for the Tories, couldn't the argument be made that it is the nature of the electoral system that led to a Conservative majority rather than that voters "bought much more into the Tory prospectus"?


----------



## Favelado (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You didn't really understand that argument did you?
> 
> Have another think.
> 
> e2a - as a basic clue, it's about perception, a difficult idea for most morons because it involves them struggling to walk any distance in someone else's shoes...



He understood. We all understand your boring posts. We've been over it all. Your position is clear.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I honestly can't understand this conviction that Ed MildlyBland ran on a left platform, except if your only experience of "left" politics was quantified around Labour's piss-weak Parliamentary red Toryism of the last 20 years.



OK, let's step through this.

First, what were the alternatives to Miliband minor within Labour and were they (i) _more _or (ii) _less _leftwing?

Second, what were the alternatives to Labour as a whole that were _more _leftwing and how did they do at the election and why?


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You didn't really understand that argument did you?
> 
> Have another think.
> 
> ...


Fuck off you thick cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK, I need to retreat here, admittedly.  We are talking about a counterfactual hypothetical and it is always difficult to be 100% certain about these things.
> 
> However, what the general election at least _seems _to indicate is that the electorate bought much more into the Tory prospectus, which, by the way, was extremely radically right-wing as against the Labour prospectus, which, by modern electoral standards, definitely _is _left-wing.
> 
> Miliband major is to the right of his brother.  He is a centrist.



No, he isn't. He's a Blairite. He's a right-centrist whose political ideology can be conveniently summed up as "neoliberal but a little bit ameliorationist".



> Miliband minor is not.



No, he's what you claim Miliband Major is - a centrist.



> To pretend that their respective leaderships would have lead to the same outcome is to come to a pretty odd conclusion altogether and one that is especially worrying for those who identify as centre-left (as do I) or categorically left-wing (as I get the impression that many people here do), and that conclusion is simple - it doesn't matter what Labour does, the Tories are so dominant that veering left or right is immaterial.



I'm not pretending anything, I'm extrapolating from the reactions of Miliband Major's fellow-travellers who stayed and took shadow cabinet positions.
As for you identifying as centre-left, compared to whom?


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK, let's step through this.
> 
> First, what were the alternatives to Miliband minor within Labour and were they (i) _more _or (ii) _less _leftwing?
> 
> Second, what were the alternatives to Labour as a whole that were _more _leftwing and how did they do at the election and why?


Fuck off you thick cunt.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Considering that only 24% of eligible voters actually voted for the Tories, couldn't the argument be made that it is the nature of the electoral system that led to a Conservative majority rather than that voters "bought much more into the Tory prospectus"?



This "eligible voter" argument is really, really pernicious.

It subtly veers down vaguely conspiraloon thinking and is very dangerous, being one of the easiest ways to persuade yourself that the whole election was fundamentally gamed.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 1, 2015)

Nah


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This "eligible voter" argument is really, really pernicious.
> 
> It subtly veers down vaguely conspiraloon thinking and is very dangerous, being one of the easiest ways to persuade yourself that the whole election was fundamentally gamed.


Fuck off you thick cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Considering that only 24% of eligible voters actually voted for the Tories, couldn't the argument be made that it is the nature of the electoral system that led to a Conservative majority rather than that voters "bought much more into the Tory prospectus"?



It's a numbers game, and the Tories know it,hence they mention their majority, but not the size of it, and mentioning "winning the popular vote", but not mentioning the degree of "popularity".


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

maomao said:


> Fuck off you thick cunt.



Kisses to you too my dear.


----------



## agricola (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, he isn't. He's a Blairite. He's a right-centrist whose political ideology can be conveniently summed up as "neoliberal but a little bit ameliorationist".



Or as Sergei Lavrov put it: _ "Who the fuck are you..."_


----------



## Favelado (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This "eligible voter" argument is really, really pernicious.
> 
> It subtly veers down vaguely conspiraloon thinking and is very dangerous, being one of the easiest ways to persuade yourself that the whole election was fundamentally gamed.



It's nothing to do with conspiraloons at all. That's a very odd accusation. It's a reflection of the amount of apathy out there. A weird thing to post and one that suggests you don't understand even the most basic things being discussed here.


----------



## JimW (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK, let's step through this....


For the love of God, why don't you step through this?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This "eligible voter" argument is really, really pernicious.
> 
> It subtly veers down vaguely conspiraloon thinking and is very dangerous, being one of the easiest ways to persuade yourself that the whole election was fundamentally gamed.



Eh? I've no idea what your on about with the conspiraloon stuff. The fact is that there is a substantial number of people that stayed at home because they didn't agree with anything that was on offer by any of the parties. 

It's really just a numbers game. If you believe there are more Tory/Lab swing voters than there are disillusioned old-Labour voters who stayed at home, then yes, the way to beat the Tories is to be Tory-lite. If not, then the best strategy is to go back to more traditional labour values.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK, let's step through this.
> 
> First, what were the alternatives to Miliband minor within Labour and were they (i) _more _or (ii) _less _leftwing?



Research these names: Cruddas, McDonnell, Ummuna, Cooper, Balls.
Miliband, alternatives to the left of him, alternatives to the right of him. Centrist.



> Second, what were the alternatives to Labour as a whole that were _more _leftwing and how did they do at the election and why?



Irrelevant question.
A relevant question would be what *Parliamentary or quasi-Parliamentary* alternatives exist(ed). That way one could easily disregard the few "forlorn hope" types with their partially-disguised Trottism, and arrive at the conclusion that even the fucking Lib-Dems were a left-wing alternative to Labour.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, he isn't. He's a Blairite. He's a right-centrist whose political ideology can be conveniently summed up as "neoliberal but a little bit ameliorationist".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not exactly sure what ameliorationist means to be honest but I tip my hat to you - it has a nice ring to it, whatever it is.

I suppose the wider point is this - Labour tacked left and lost.  Now, I'm not suggesting that it was a left-wing prospectus as I suspect you would categorically understand it to be - merely that it was instead a more left-wing prospectus than any that Labour have campaigned on since I have had the vote and Labour lost and, it seems, they lost because of it.

Now, maybe your position is that winning on a Miliband major prospectus would have been an unwanted pyrrhic victory and that the correct medicine to lead to power, the proper remedy, would have been a _proper_ left-wing line that would have lead to power but I see zero evidence for that.

And to clarify - I am almost certainly right of most here, hence the opprobrium typified by any number of posts on the previous pages, and, heaven forfend, I generally take a left of centre libertarian social-democratic point of view.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Eh? I've no idea what your on about with the conspiraloon stuff. The fact is that there is a substantial number of people that stayed at home because they didn't agree with anything that was on offer by any of the parties.
> 
> It's really just a numbers game. If you believe there are more Tory/Lab swing voters than there are disillusioned old-Labour voters who stayed at home, then yes, the way to beat the Tories is to be Tory-lite. If not, then the best strategy is to go back to more traditional labour values.



And given the runes you could read in the returns even in safe Labour constituencies in their midlands and northern heartlands, let alone Scotland, then "trad Labour values" will even serve to keep red Tories like Cooper and Burnham in their seats longer.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Labour tacked left and lost.



The SNP tacked left of Labour and absolutely decimated them.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Eh? I've no idea what your on about with the conspiraloon stuff. The fact is that there is a substantial number of people that stayed at home because they didn't agree with anything that was on offer by any of the parties.
> 
> It's really just a numbers game. If you believe there are more Tory/Lab swing voters than there are disillusioned old-Labour voters who stayed at home, then yes, the way to beat the Tories is to be Tory-lite. If not, then the best strategy is to go back to more traditional labour values.



So there is a mass of silent voters who sat on their hands because they were not sufficiently inspired by more left-wing policies?

Is that your position?

Why did they not vote for anyone at all?


----------



## Favelado (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So there is a mass of silent voters who sat on their hands because they were not sufficiently inspired by more left-wing policies?



Why are you unable to understand what people post? Why do you have to reframe their exact statements with imagined ones?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The SNP tacked left of Labour and absolutely decimated them.



Do you think that the SNP victory was principally about (i) left-wing politics or (ii) nationalism?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Why are you unable to understand what people post? Why do you have to reframe their exact statements with imagined ones?



What exactly is your argument because it is currently very difficult to discern?

Lots of people did not vote because there was not a sufficiently left-wing platform to vote for?

Lots of people who care about politics but who resiled from voting because there was nothing at all that sat well with their views?


----------



## Favelado (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think that the SNP victory was principally about (i) left-wing politics or (ii) nationalism?



Mhairi Black said it best in her maiden speech - "I didn't leave the Labour Party, it left me." Labour abandoned its base and its principals.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> What exactly is your argument because it is currently very difficult to discern?
> 
> Lots of people did not vote because there was not a sufficiently left-wing platform to vote for?
> 
> Lots of people who care about politics but who resiled from voting because there was nothing at all that sat well with their views?



I'm telling you to read people's posts and not misrepresent what they say. It's just disingenuous question after disingenuous question. Give it a rest. Go on holiday, maybe we can have a whip-round.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So there is a mass of silent voters who sat on their hands because they were not sufficiently inspired by more left-wing policies?
> 
> Is that your position?



Yes. That is my position



> Why did they not vote for anyone at all?



Because none of the parties offered what people wanted.

Look at voter throughout the New Labour years. It's some of the lowest rates of turnout in this country's history. 

Look at surveys that examine public opinion on issues such as rail nationalisation. They indicate a much more left-leaning population than politicians like to think. 

Look at how the SNP did on a platform that was well to the left of what Labour offered. The moment that a party became available that wasn't a bog-standard Thatcherite clone party, Scottish voters went for them like crazy.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Mhairi Black said it best in her maiden speech - "I didn't leave the Labour Party, it left me." Labour abandoned its base and its principals.



OK - that is a fair point, but it is worth noting that when Tony Blair won his first general election Mhairi Black was two years old so there is something more than a little disingenuous in that (surprise, surprise being a politician!)...

The wider point being that I would take that statement with a hefty pinch of salt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Not exactly sure what ameliorationist means to be honest but I tip my hat to you - it has a nice ring to it, whatever it is.



Jesus arse-fucking Christ. You hold forth as if you have a modicum of understanding of modern British Parliamentary politics, yet you're "not sure" what "ameliorationist" means, even though the term has been around in PolSci for as long as PolSci has existed. It's the politics of sugar-coating the policies of your opposition, in order that there's a "difference" between parties. "They" want to execute all senior citizens at age 70 by running them over with steam-rollers."We" will do it with a painless lethal injection.  


> I suppose the wider point is this - Labour tacked left and lost.  Now, I'm not suggesting that it was a left-wing prospectus as I suspect you would categorically understand it to be - merely that it was instead a more left-wing prospectus than any that Labour have campaigned on since I have had the vote and Labour lost and, it seems, they lost because of it.



They didn't "tack left". Tacking left of where they were and are would require policies that *reversed* New Labour and Coalition policies. None were offered.Not in 2010 or 2015.



> Now, maybe your position is that winning on a Miliband major prospectus would have been an unwanted pyrrhic victory and that the correct medicine to lead to power, the proper remedy, would have been a _proper_ left-wing line that would have lead to power but I see zero evidence for that.



My position is that a win by either Miliband brother in 2010 would have resulted in a loss in 2015, on the basis of them allowing a continual media narrative that placed their party as "economically-incompetent" to run unchecked.



> And to clarify - I am almost certainly right of most here, hence the opprobrium typified by any number of posts on the previous pages, and, heaven forfend, I generally take a left of centre libertarian social-democratic point of view.



Analyse the words "libertarian" and "social-democratic". Savour the contradictions and, perhaps, discern a small part of the *actual* reason for any opprobrium - you chat shite.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 1, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I'm telling you to read people's posts and not misrepresent what they say. It's just disingenuous question after disingenuous question. Give it a rest. Go on holiday, maybe we can have a whip-round.



I'm not the one selectively quoting peoples' contributions pal...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Mhairi Black said it best in her maiden speech - "I didn't leave the Labour Party, it left me." Labour abandoned its base and its principals.



You beat me to it. Not only were SNP voters motivated strongly by a disillusionment with Labour, even SNP _candidates _were.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 1, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The SNP tacked left of Labour and absolutely decimated them.



And it could hardly be claimed that the ScotNats tacked more than a degree left of centre.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> OK - that is a fair point, but it is worth noting that when Tony Blair won his first general election Mhairi Black was two years old so there is something more than a little disingenuous in that (surprise, surprise being a politician!)...
> 
> The wider point being that I would take that statement with a hefty pinch of salt.



What in the name of fuck? It was the most sincere speech you could expect to see. Disingenuous?
Your poor clients. Are you a defence lawyer? I really hope not. There'll be people doing life for stealing a Snickers if you are.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 1, 2015)

maomao said:


> Fuck off you thick cunt.


Is this the new _"Fuck Off Dwyer"_?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 1, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you think that the SNP victory was principally about (i) left-wing politics or (ii) nationalism?



I think that Scotish Nationalism feeds upon the idea that Westminster parties no longer represent Scottish interests, and that the reason they no longer represent these interests is that they have abandoned old labour values. Nationalism is a symptom of Labour's abandonment of it's principles; it is the form that this sense of abandonment has taken, but it is not the leading force behind the SNP's electoral success.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jesus arse-fucking Christ. You hold forth as if you have a modicum of understanding of modern British Parliamentary politics, yet you're "not sure" what "ameliorationist" means, even though the term has been around in PolSci for as long as PolSci has existed. It's the politics of sugar-coating the policies of your opposition, in order that there's a "difference" between parties. "They" want to execute all senior citizens at age 70 by running them over with steam-rollers."We" will do it with a painless lethal injection.
> 
> 
> They didn't "tack left". Tacking left of where they were and are would require policies that *reversed* New Labour and Coalition policies. None were offered.Not in 2010 or 2015.
> ...



Yep, never heard of that "ameliroationist" term.  Maybe it stands front and foremost in your niche thinking and I do like it and now understand it as a consequence of your explanation, for which many thanks, however it is hardly an essential part of the parliamentary lexicon.

Now, to step through the next few points.

First, was the Labour prospectus of 2015 more left-wing than that of the (i) first, 2010, (ii) second, 2005, (iii) third, 2001, and (iv) 1997 prospectuses, and if not how and why?

I do fully accept your "economically-incompetent" point though.  Labour quite frankly didn't have the cojones to come out swinging and point out that they had steered the ship through extremely troubled water which they had very little responsibility for.  Now, sure, a succession of governments made serious fiscal mistakes but that wasn't the heart of the matter at all, merely an exposed symptom subsequent a serious, systemic crisis.

And, finally, maybe you see a contradiction between the two terms of "libertarian" and "social democratic" - I categorically do not but obviously that is a question of pure ideology.  If people want to give me flack for it - fair enough, that's their choice but I'm certainly not going to retreat from such attacks, such as they are.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I think that Scotish Nationalism feeds upon the idea that Westminster parties no longer represent Scottish interests, and that the reason they no longer represent these interests is that they have abandoned old labour values. Nationalism is a symptom of Labour's abandonment of it's principles; it is the form that this sense of abandonment has taken, but it is not the leading force behind the SNP's electoral success.



Agreed on the first point categorically but not so sure on the second - I think it is a lot more multifarious than that.

I think the important thing about Scottish Nationalism from my pov is that it is basically about self-determination, not any particular governing political direction.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I think the important thing about Scottish Nationalism from my pov is that it is basically about self-determination, not any particular governing political direction.



All nationalism, Scottish or otherwise, is about self-determination. The question you have to ask is what changed between 2010 and 2015 to make the Scots swing so much in favour of the SNP. Was there a sudden upsurge in a desire for more self-determination, or were other factors more important?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 2, 2015)

Just looking at a Mirror report back on the C4 debate, you see the caption on screen with the shot of Corbyn:

"Fit For Work tests cause suicide"

Yet another reason he is storming this - actually standing up for people and calling out disgusting tory policy. 

It will be so heartening to see Labour be what it can be after so many years emasculating itself. I think many of the scoffers and centrists may be in for a surprise.

And, as I said before, when the scum press goes to war on the party, those in the party who continue to sound more like the former than the chosen candidate will need to put on notice for de-selection. 

Who won the latest Labour hustings? It was Jez We Can, says Kevin Maguire


----------



## Calamity1971 (Sep 2, 2015)

Here is a careerist.  Bridget Phillipson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Worked in wearside women in need. Those women will have to rebuild their lives after major abuse. Yet Ms Phillipson abstained from the welfare cuts bill! In need anyone?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Not exactly sure what ameliorationist means to be honest but I tip my hat to you - it has a nice ring to it, whatever it is.
> 
> I suppose the wider point is this - Labour tacked left and lost.  Now, I'm not suggesting that it was a left-wing prospectus as I suspect you would categorically understand it to be - merely that it was instead a more left-wing prospectus than any that Labour have campaigned on since I have had the vote and Labour lost and, it seems, they lost because of it.
> 
> ...



No you don't. If you really think that you do, then it says a lot about the depth of your political ignorance.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s.  Libertarian social democrat is an oxymoron unless you empty libertarian and/or social democracy of all their historic content regarding freedom and the state.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 2, 2015)

,





Diamond said:


> So there is a mass of silent voters who sat on their hands because they were not sufficiently inspired by more left-wing policies?
> 
> Is that your position?
> 
> *Why did they not vote for anyone at all?[/*QUOTE]


Because nobody was addressing their needs; because at best in our electoral arithmetic, no one felt the need to, and at worst they could actually see benefit in marginalizing, vilifying and demonizing some of those needs and the people experiencing them.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> So there is a mass of silent voters who sat on their hands because they were not sufficiently inspired by more left-wing policies?
> 
> Is that your position?
> 
> Why did they not vote for anyone at all?



Systemic apathy to the electoral system and distrust of politicians.


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Wow.  That is clever big man.
> 
> Round of applause for learning how to use the strike through function.
> 
> Take you a long time to get your head around that?



Thanks for the applause, but it's really not necessary.

It did take me a little while to learn, but I persevered and got there in the end. Maybe that could be some encouragement to you in learning how to write comments which actually have some value and don't regularly get you dismissed as a twat who has nothing to say but is determined to say it anyway. 

Although that would require you to acknowledge that you still have something to learn, and the arrogance you constantly display suggests that will be way beyond you, so it's considerably less likely to happen than JC becoming the next PM.


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2015)

In other news, I _still_ haven't heard anything about my attempt to become an affiliated member.

The phone number given here seems to be overwhelmed with calls, so I've sent in an enquiry through the website and asked Unite look into it for me.

Anyone else still waiting?


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 2, 2015)

Well, I've been temporarily de-purged:

Thank you for your email. Please take this email as acknowledgement of receipt of your appeal against the decision of the NEC panel regarding your membership application.

As you have sent us this appeal, you will receive a vote in the current leadership election. If you have already cast your vote, this will be counted. 

As you will appreciate we are dealing with a high volume of correspondence. Please be assured that we will be in touch soon regarding the progress of your appeal.


----------



## campanula (Sep 2, 2015)

Does anyone know the extent of the purges - my postman has just been complaining that he has been purged because of his union membership (not very clear about the entire reason) and this seems to be an increasingly worrying issue (at least for any semblance of democracy). Surely, if these purges are far reaching enough to overturn the obvious results of a Corbyn win, they would render the whole process null and void...or does the electorate (again) have to suck it up and live with it. I can't help feeling a bit sick - even though we know Labour is an omnishambles, I guess a result for any of the robotic contenders absolutely signifies the utter redundancy of even pretending to have any parliamentary engagement...and it is back to peasant's revolts. (which obviously, I am up for - I even have a spare pitchfork)


----------



## campanula (Sep 2, 2015)

And for no reason whatsoever other than a need to get it off my chest and say out loud - 'Diamond is a prick'. I have never felt it necessary to publicly state my disdain for another poster, not even the interminably annoying (and mysteriously absent) BA...but really, Diamond just takes the award for overweening pomposity and a severe lack of originality, imagination or even a smidgeon of self-awareness - no doubt he will be smirking at this reference as proof of his own self importance.

eta - I would probably find him amusing if he was 17...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, no, no.
> 
> I have been off these boards for a while and I won't be back on for a while still but when ignorant fuckers try and have a go, I will have a go back.


i don't know why you bother because you always end up looking stupider than when you began. and you looked pretty fucking stupid then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yep, never heard of that "ameliroationist" term.  Maybe it stands front and foremost in your niche thinking and I do like it and now understand it as a consequence of your explanation, for which many thanks, however it is hardly an essential part of the parliamentary lexicon.



Niche thinking? it's mainstream. Discuss neoliberalism seriously with anyone who knows what they're talking about in the last 30 years, and they'll know exactly what you mean, unless they're pretending to knowledge they don't have. 



> Now, to step through the next few points.
> 
> First, was the Labour prospectus of 2015 more left-wing than that of the (i) first, 2010, (ii) second, 2005, (iii) third, 2001, and (iv) 1997 prospectuses, and if not how and why?



You tell me. I'm not here to do research for you.
I *will* tell you what you'll find, though. You'll find that if you weigh the _pros_ and _cons_ of each "prospectus", then apart from '97 (which had several "left-friendly" policies that were then set aside, such as abolition of JSA and its' replacement with a more "humane" benefit), it all turns out to be much of a muchness. 


> I do fully accept your "economically-incompetent" point though.  Labour quite frankly didn't have the cojones to come out swinging and point out that they had steered the ship through extremely troubled water which they had very little responsibility for.  Now, sure, a succession of governments made serious fiscal mistakes but that wasn't the heart of the matter at all, merely an exposed symptom subsequent a serious, systemic crisis.



It wasn't, sadly, a case of not having the stones, but a political calculation offered by Labour's "brains trust", including the likes of David Miliband, Ed Balls and Lord Mandelson, to look dignified. The cost of their party's dignity was power.



> And, finally, maybe you see a contradiction between the two terms of "libertarian" and "social democratic" - I categorically do not but obviously that is a question of pure ideology.  If people want to give me flack for it - fair enough, that's their choice but I'm certainly not going to retreat from such attacks, such as they are.



Categorically, eh?
Lets put those descriptions in categorical terms:

"Libertarian" - one who follows and/or promotes a doctrine of personal liberty.

"Social democratic" - pertaining to a politico-economic system that promotes a utilitarian democracy across society.

The two don't really go together, even in a liberalistic social democracy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Niche thinking? it's mainstream. Discuss neoliberalism seriously with anyone who knows what they're talking about in the last 30 years, and they'll know exactly what you mean, unless they're pretending to knowledge they don't have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i don't know why you waste your time, it's not like he'll understand what you've said.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No you don't. If you really think that you do, then it says a lot about the depth of your political ignorance.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s.  Libertarian social democrat is an oxymoron unless you empty libertarian and/or social democracy of all their historic content regarding freedom and the state.



Quite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

campanula said:


> And for no reason whatsoever other than a need to get it off my chest and say out loud - 'Diamond is a prick'. I have never felt it necessary to publicly state my disdain for another poster, not even the interminably annoying (and mysteriously absent) BA...but really, Diamond just takes the award for overweening pomposity and a severe lack of originality, imagination or even a smidgeon of self-awareness - no doubt he will be smirking at this reference as proof of his own self importance.
> 
> eta - I would probably find him amusing if he was 17...



Butchersapron isn't "mysteriously absent". There's still cricket being played!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know why you waste your time, it's not like he'll understand what you've said.



I labour under the delusion that some light may one day shine in his benighted noggin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I labour under the delusion that some light may one day shine in his benighted noggin.


only when you open his skull with a wrecking bar.


----------



## campanula (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Butchersapron isn't "mysteriously absent". There's still cricket being played!



What - all day and all night? Continually? There are still bulbs to be planted and weeds to be dug but nothing which prevents me from having the odd rant on a message board...and for such a prolific poster as BA, I did find his absence slightly...odd (although he did manage an inflammatory (and baffling) pm to me before vanishing so perhaps a little r&r was in order)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> only when you open his skull with a wrecking bar.



(((((wrecking bar)))))


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Butchersapron isn't "mysteriously absent". There's still cricket being played!



You sure he's not off campaigning for Liz Kendall? 

And in response to campanula, BA can be annoying at times, but he is far better informed and far better at both constructing and deconstructing an argument than most other posters here. Hopefully he'll be back soon feeling refreshed and ready to go


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2015)

campanula said:


> What - all day and all night? Continually? There are still bulbs to be planted and weeds to be dug but nothing which prevents me from having the odd rant on a message board...and for such a prolific poster as BA, I did find his absence slightly...odd (although he did manage an inflammatory (and baffling) pm to me before vanishing so perhaps a little r&r was in order)



I've also been wondering where he's got to.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 2, 2015)

campanula said:


> And for no reason whatsoever other than a need to get it off my chest and say out loud - 'Diamond is a prick'. I have never felt it necessary to publicly state my disdain for another poster, not even the interminably annoying (and mysteriously absent) BA...but really, Diamond just takes the award for overweening pomposity and a severe lack of originality, imagination or even a smidgeon of self-awareness - no doubt he will be smirking at this reference as proof of his own self importance.
> 
> eta - I would probably find him amusing if he was 17...


He is a prick so please, please everyone stop responding to him. 

And since you mention it, does anyone know where BA has hot to.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 2, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I've also been wondering where he's got to.



Yeah, me too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

emanymton said:


> He is a prick so please, please everyone stop responding to him.
> 
> And since you mention it, does anyone know where BA has hot to.


he's enjoying a well-earned rest in montego bay


----------



## Lurdan (Sep 2, 2015)

Corbyn shares the cover of yesterday's issue of  Libération with Freddie Krueger but on page 2...





(it's almost as if they weren't taking this election entirely seriously)


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jesus arse-fucking Christ. You hold forth as if you have a modicum of understanding of modern British Parliamentary politics, yet you're "not sure" what "ameliorationist" means, even though the term has been around in PolSci for as long as PolSci has existed. It's the politics of sugar-coating the policies of your opposition, in order that there's a "difference" between parties. "



No it's not, you ignorant blowhard.  It's one who believes a problem can be solved gradually.  It's like "reformist."  Most commonly used to designate a position in the anti-slavery campaigns of the C19th.  Fool that you are.


----------



## JimW (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> No it's not, you ignorant blowhard.  It's one who believes a problem can be solved gradually.  It's like "reformist."  Most commonly used to designate a position in the anti-slavery campaigns of the C19th.  Fool that you are.


Google still working your end then, Phil.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

JimW said:


> Google still working your end then, Phil.



Hah I spit on Google.  It's a basic term of political science, everyone knows what it means.  Except VP it seems.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 2, 2015)

JimW said:


> Google still working your end then, Phil.


Charm school's certainly paid off


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2015)

JimW said:


> Google still working your end then, Phil.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Hah I spit on Google.  It's a basic term of political science, everyone knows what it means.  Except VP it seems.


Not sure it's that 'basic' tbh, I'd have thought that terms like reformist, gradualist or possiblist might crop up before that word?


----------



## belboid (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not sure it's that 'basic' tbh, I'd have thought that terms like reformist, gradualist or possiblist might crop up before that word?


for 'basic' read 'somewhat antiquated'


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not sure it's that 'basic' tbh, I'd have thought that terms like reformist, gradualist or possiblist might crop up before that word?



It's basic enough that anyone, such as VP, who is ignorant of its meaning can be discarded from any serious discussion.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2015)

belboid said:


> for 'basic' read 'somewhat antiquated'


if not arcane...it would seem.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> It's basic enough that anyone, such as VP, who is ignorant of its meaning can be discarded from any serious discussion.


Not looking good for Diamond, then?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> if not arcane...it would seem.



Look, this is ridiculous.  It's hardly a challenging or complicated term.  It's not exactly "antidisestablishmentarianism."  It's the sort of word that anyone with the slightest pretense to being halfway informed would know automatically.

And thus we see that Violent Panda is an idiot.


----------



## Cid (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Look, this is ridiculous.  It's hardly a challenging or complicated term.  It's not exactly "antidisestablishmentarianism."  It's the sort of word that anyone with the slightest pretense to being halfway informed would know automatically.
> 
> And thus we see that Violent Panda is an idiot.



What's challenging about antidisestablishmentarianism? Other than having the patience to type it.


----------



## gosub (Sep 2, 2015)

Cid said:


> What's challenging about antidisestablishmentarianism? Other than having the patience to type it.


that would be an ecumenical matter - nothing to do with Labour leadership


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> *Look*, this is ridiculous.  It's hardly a challenging or complicated term.  It's not exactly "antidisestablishmentarianism."  It's the sort of word that anyone with the slightest pretense to being halfway informed would know automatically.


You been watching videos of La Flint?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> You been watching videos of La Flint?



Who was it who used to preface every statement with: "I say this..."  That's rhetoric that is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not looking good for Diamond, then?


it never looks good for diamond.


----------



## chilango (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Look, this is ridiculous.  It's hardly a challenging or complicated term.  It's not exactly "antidisestablishmentarianism."  It's the sort of word that anyone with the slightest pretense to being halfway informed would know automatically.
> 
> And thus we see that Violent Panda is an idiot.



If it's a term that the knowledge of its meaning is evidence of being at least "halfway informed" why (Or indeed how) would one Know it's meaning "automatically"?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

chilango said:


> If it's a term that the knowledge of its meaning is evidence of being at least "halfway informed" why (Or indeed how) would one Know it's meaning "automatically"?



It depends what you mean by "automatically."


----------



## chilango (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> It depends what you mean by "automatically."



Indeed.


----------



## campanula (Sep 2, 2015)

In truth, I had never heard of 'ameliroanionist' either...although I was fairly sure I knew what ameliorationist meant...but generally leave the pedantry to the undisputed top-dog of wordsmithing, Pickmans...and anyway, in the arcane world of political lingo, I am a mere novice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

chilango said:


> If it's a term that the knowledge of its meaning is evidence of being at least "halfway informed" why (Or indeed how) would one Know it's meaning "automatically"?


depends what you mean by know. i thought that dwyer might have picked up on that, being as he's so big on epistemology.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 2, 2015)

Ameliaonanist - wanking to make things a bit more bearable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

campanula said:


> In truth, I had never heard of 'ameliroanionist' either...although I was fairly sure I knew what ameliorationist meant...but generally leave the pedantry to the undisputed top-dog of wordsmithing, Pickmans


i am by no means the top-dog of wordsmithing, there are numerous uberpedants out there who have claimed the title with more justification.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> depends what you mean by know. i thought that dwyer might have picked up on that, being as he's so big on epistemology.



So you don't know the meaning of "epistemology."


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> depends what you mean by know. i thought that dwyer might have picked up on that, being as he's so big on epistemology.





?


----------



## Argonia (Sep 2, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> and its only a few weeks ago that people on this thread thought Corbyn didn't didn't have any hope at all. How things change.


 It's the biggest or at least one of the biggest upsets in betting political history if it does come to pass.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> So you don't know the meaning of "epistemology."


it's that branch of philosophy connected with knowledge. i do _know_ that. but i can _work out_ what ameliarationist or what not is without having previously encountered it, because i know what to ameliorate is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 76099
> 
> ?


dwyer's the one thinking of putting the noose round someone's neck


----------



## campanula (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i am by no means the top-dog of wordsmithing, there are numerous uberpedants out there who have claimed the title with more justification.


Indeed, but they tend not to leap in with such obvious lip-smacking glee over every wayward apostrophe...but as a sneaky pedant myself, no condemnation coming from this quarter.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it's that branch of philosophy connected with knowledge.



It's what philosophers say when they're pissed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> It's what philosophers say when they're pissed.


yeh, they can hold their drink but i bet you're stuck on a short word such as pickle once you've had a mere whiff of the barmaid's apron.


----------



## campanula (Sep 2, 2015)

Argonia said:


> It's the biggest or at least one of the biggest upsets in betting political history if it does come to pass.



The Corbyn nomination maybe, but the appetite of the common person for a more balanced and authentic representation has been glaringly obvious from the minute Blair sidled up to Bush. The whole moving leftwards suicide meme has been utterly incomprehensible to practically anyone with only the merest engagement with the current political climate...or at least, anyone excluded from the exclusive Westminster country club.

All good news for the bookies though.


----------



## LDC (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> It's basic enough that anyone, such as VP, who is ignorant of its meaning can be discarded from any serious discussion.



Wow, your posts constantly stun me with what an arrogant nasty prick you seem to be. I really hope for anyone you know that this is just an internet personality rather than your real self.


----------



## Sue (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond *and* phildwyer on one thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> No it's not, you ignorant blowhard.  It's one who believes a problem can be solved gradually.  It's like "reformist."  Most commonly used to designate a position in the anti-slavery campaigns of the C19th.  Fool that you are.



Said the blowhard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

JimW said:


> Google still working your end then, Phil.



He really shouldn't rely on it quite so much. Some of us still laugh when recalling phil's attempts at knowledge about Freemasonry - googled from loon sites.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Look, this is ridiculous.  It's hardly a challenging or complicated term.  It's not exactly "antidisestablishmentarianism."  It's the sort of word that anyone with the slightest pretense to being halfway informed would know automatically.
> 
> And thus we see that Violent Panda is an idiot.



Yet another thing that you try furiously to "prove", yet never succeed in doing. The reason you don't succeed is that you're a tosser.


----------



## andysays (Sep 2, 2015)

Sue said:


> Diamond *and* phildwyer on one thread.



If only we could get them both confined to the same thread (preferably an otherwise unimportant one, obvs) and just leave the two of them to it...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Ameliaonanist - wanking to make things a bit more bearable.



(((((Amelia)))))


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Wow, your posts constantly stun me with what an arrogant nasty prick you seem to be. I really hope for anyone you know that this is just an internet personality rather than your real self.



Since you apparently have nothing substantive to contribute to our discussion I suggest that you absent yourself therefrom, forthwith.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No you don't. If you really think that you do, then it says a lot about the depth of your political ignorance.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s.  Libertarian social democrat is an oxymoron unless you empty libertarian and/or social democracy of all their historic content regarding freedom and the state.



Thanks for telling me what I think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 76099
> 
> ?



That's "campanology".


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> ,
> Because nobody was addressing their needs; because at best in our electoral arithmetic, no one felt the need to, and at worst they could actually see benefit in marginalizing, vilifying and demonizing some of those needs and the people experiencing them.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Have you got any evidence to back this up?


----------



## campanula (Sep 2, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Wow, your posts constantly stun me with what an arrogant nasty prick you seem to be. I really hope for anyone you know that this is just an internet personality rather than your real self.



There is a fair bit of prickery and fuckery on P&P (which is why I huddle over on surburban with the cooks and gardeners unless feeling brave or ranty)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Thanks for telling me what I think.



He didn't. He told you that the opinion you expressed was factually incorrect unless you altered the meanings of the definitions involved.


----------



## LDC (Sep 2, 2015)

Yeah, huge apologies, I obviously will do immediately as I don't meet your criteria for being able to engage in any 'serious discussion'. I'll also makes sure to pass that on to anyone I know that's involved in political struggles that also doesn't meet your criteria.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

campanula said:


> And for no reason whatsoever other than a need to get it off my chest and say out loud - 'Diamond is a prick'. I have never felt it necessary to publicly state my disdain for another poster, not even the interminably annoying (and mysteriously absent) BA...but really, Diamond just takes the award for overweening pomposity and a severe lack of originality, imagination or even a smidgeon of self-awareness - no doubt he will be smirking at this reference as proof of his own self importance.
> 
> eta - I would probably find him amusing if he was 17...



Thank you very much - that means a great deal to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

Sue said:


> Diamond *and* phildwyer on one thread.


k i s s i n g


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Have you got any evidence to back this up?



Bit of a bare-faced cheek,*you* asking OTHERS for evidence.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Niche thinking? it's mainstream. Discuss neoliberalism seriously with anyone who knows what they're talking about in the last 30 years, and they'll know exactly what you mean, unless they're pretending to knowledge they don't have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do they not go together?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Since you apparently have nothing substantive to contribute to our discussion I suggest that you absent yourself therefrom, forthwith.


strange, your having nothing to contribute never stops you.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, huge apologies, I obviously will do immediately as I don't meet your criteria for being able to engage in any 'serious discussion'.



Oh alright, you can stay.  Provided you first take the required Qualifying Examination.  Are you ready?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> k i s s i n g



Wouldn't a better rhyme to "dwyer and Diamond on the same thread" be "stabbing each other till both are dead"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bit of a bare-faced cheek,*you* asking OTHERS for evidence.


it reminds him he has the honour to put llb after his name


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> dwyer's the one thinking of putting the noose round someone's neck



His own?


----------



## campanula (Sep 2, 2015)

What form would you like this 'evidence' to take?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> His own?


too much to hope for


----------



## LDC (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Oh alright, you can stay.  Provided you first take the required Qualifying Examination.  Are you ready?



I already have my fire starting proficiency badge from the Girl Guides and a E grade in GCSE Classical Civilisation. What other exam certificates could I ever possibly need?

I would have that rescuing a brick from the bottom of a swimming pool one as well, but I had a nasty cold the day of the test.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

Anyways - you will all be pleased to know that my laptop is buggered and I was just mugged an hour or so ago on Hampstead Heath with the fuckers making off with my phone so you won't be hearing from me on any regular basis for a little while.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it reminds him he has the honour to put llb after his name


GDL too, and BA.

Do you bother with any of yours?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I already have my fire starting proficiency badge from the Girl Guides and a E grade in GCSE Classical Civilisation. What other exam certificates could I ever possibly need?



I'll be the judge of that.

Now, in 2,000 words or more discuss the probable impact on dairy farming in Matabeleland of a Nabaningi Sithole victory in the 1980 Rhodesian election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> GDL too, and BA.
> 
> Do you bother with any of yours?


no. you can tell a lot about a man who puts an alphabet of letters after his name, and none of it good.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> no. you can tell a lot about a man who puts an alphabet of letters after his name, and none of it good.



Right, and I do that...?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Wow, your posts constantly stun me with what an arrogant nasty prick you seem to be. I really hope for anyone you know that this is just an internet personality rather than your real self.



He disguises his essential misanthropy by pretending to have been posturing/joking/engaging in banter, but beneath the surface lurks a person completely uncomfortable in his own skin, projecting his self-loathing for...some past academic crime, probably...onto others.

Total and utter "text book case", really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Right, and I do that...?


not sure you need the ellipsis or question mark.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He disguises his essential misanthropy by pretending to have been posturing/joking/engaging in banter, but beneath the surface lurks a person completely uncomfortable in his own skin, projecting his self-loathing for...some past academic crime, probably...onto others.
> 
> Total and utter "text book case", really.


the longer he conceals his phd thesis - it's been more than 20 years now - the longer these rumours will have life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

campanula said:


> There is a fair bit of prickery and fuckery on P&P (which is why I huddle over on surburban with the cooks and gardeners unless feeling brave or ranty)



And, to be fair, dwyer is such a prick that people the world around know to say"fuck off, dwyer" when he starts rectally pontificating.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Right, and I do that...?



No laptop or phone...telekinesis?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the longer he conceals his phd thesis - it's been more than 20 years now - the longer these rumours will have life.



...And the deeper the self-loathing will grow.

So that's okay, then! "All's well that ends well"!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No laptop or phone...telekinesis?



Isn't that what happens when you phone a kinesiologist?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyways - you will all be pleased to know that my laptop is buggered and I was just mugged an hour or so ago on Hampstead Heath with the fuckers making off with my phone so you won't be hearing from me on any regular basis for a little while.


missed this befote. whereabouts on the heath were you? bet it was down by south end green.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...And the deeper the self-loathing will grow.
> 
> So that's okay, then! "All's well that ends well"!



At least I'm not an ameliorationist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, huge apologies, I obviously will do immediately as I don't meet your criteria for being able to engage in any 'serious discussion'. I'll also makes sure to pass that on to anyone I know that's involved in political struggles that also doesn't meet your criteria.



You're an activist, he's a _flaneur_. Why *would* you meet his criteria. He's an academic observer, and you're a do-er. Just give him a two-finger salute!


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...And the deeper the self-loathing will grow.
> 
> So that's okay, then! "All's well that ends well"!


That ended well!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Why do they not go together?



The clue is in the words "personal liberty".


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're an activist, he's a _flaneur_.



While you are a _wankeur._


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2015)

> Owen, this really excellent and useful. I agree with almost everything you say. I think there is an omission in your analysis of how this came about though. Firstly there was an awful lot of work done behind the scenes, much of it online via Red Labour in particular. For 5 years, we have been building the case for working within the Labour Party broadly and inclusively – and to draw the strands of the Labour left together to begin to at least punch our weight. The main effect of Red Labour has been to rebuild confidence in ourselves, though, and to reject the idea that we have to accept defeat and dismal compromise. *That process, which you have led, shouldn’t be underestimated – and in my opinion, it laid the groundwork for the Corbyn campaign. The MP nominations themselves didn’t happen by magic, there was a huge, efficiently organised grassroots campaign which was co-ordinated via the channels we’d set up. *It has also been a bridge to the Corbyn campaign proper – witness the enormously successful #JezWeCan social media campaign. All this can never be a substitute for real, on-the-ground organisation, but it can help hugely. Ultimately, we still have the same fights to fight as you helpfully outline in your “challenges” section, but we have found a democratic tool to fight them – and we shouldn’t underestimate its power.
> 
> Owen, this really excellent and useful.





This is interesting if correct, a reply from Red Labour to Owen Jones's article on medium.com


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> missed this befote. whereabouts on the heath were you? bet it was down by south end green.



Interesting you mention that because that was where the Met and the Heath Constabulary first mentioned.  I'm pretty sure I was followed all the way from Parliament Hill, which is close to South End Green, I think, up to a path towards Kenwood House where they jumped me in a shady wooded area.  It wasn't too bad - they threatened me with a knife that never actually appeared and I suspect did not actually exist but I wasn't going to take my chances.

They only made off with the phone though so it could have been worse.

Still lost a lot of data which is very frustrating.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

treelover said:


> This is interesting if correct, a reply from Red Labour to Owen Jones article on medium.com


why do you think it may be incorrect?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Interesting you mention that because that was where the Met and the Heath Constabulary first mentioned.  I'm pretty sure I was followed all the way from Parliament Hill, which is close to South End Green, I think, up to a path towards Kenwood House where they jumped me in a shady wooded area.  It wasn't too bad - they threatened me with a knife that never actually appeared and I suspect did not actually exist but I wasn't going to take my chances.
> 
> They only made off with the phone though so it could have been worse.
> 
> Still lost a lot of data which is very frustrating.


bet you take the opportunity for an upgrade


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> bet you take the opportunity for an upgrade



I've been due an upgrade for almost a year actually but have been too lazy to pursue it.

They must have realised pretty quickly that they had pilfered a useless Samsung S3 held together with gaffer tape and I wouldn't be surprised if it's now in some Hampstead bin which makes it all the more annoying...


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2015)




----------



## Sue (Sep 2, 2015)

brogdale said:


> No laptop or phone...telekinesis?


Okay, who was it..?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I've been due an upgrade for almost a year actually but have been too lazy to pursue it.
> 
> They must have realised pretty quickly that they had pilfered a useless Samsung S3 held together with gaffer tape and I wouldn't be surprised if it's now in some Hampstead bin which makes it all the more annoying...


you should have pointed out its shortcomings


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I already have my fire starting proficiency badge from the Girl Guides and a E grade in GCSE Classical Civilisation. What other exam certificates could I ever possibly need?
> 
> I would have that rescuing a brick from the bottom of a swimming pool one as well, but I had a nasty cold the day of the test.



I was always vaguely disappointed with my "lifesaver" certificate, because of only saving that bloody rubber brick.


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2015)

Colchester this afternoon, a squaddie town if I recall, He should have a rally in Witney, park his tanks on Cameron's turf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

treelover said:


>


what's that then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

treelover said:


> Colchester this afternoon, a squaddie town if I recall.


didn't you say that just the other day?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I was always vaguely disappointed with my "lifesaver" certificate, because of only saving that bloody rubber brick.


should have left it there to drown


----------



## magneze (Sep 2, 2015)

Is treelover stalking JC?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you should have pointed out its shortcomings



It was hardly the time for a reasoned debate...

Although, having said that, I was once mugged at knife point in East Dulwich a very long time ago and, after the mugger demanded that we beg for our lives with a knife pointed at our heads, he subsequently asked me to perform fellatio on my friend at which point my friend resisted and asked on a sociological basis why this was necessary which triggered a quite polite debate, in the circumstances, as to why he was threatening us with a knife.

He ran off after about 5-10 minutes of this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyways - you will all be pleased to know that my laptop is buggered and I was just mugged an hour or so ago on Hampstead Heath with the fuckers making off with my phone so you won't be hearing from me on any regular basis for a little while.



Sorry to hear you were robbed.
Intrigued to hear you'd sodomised your laptop, though.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Although, having said that, I was once mugged at knife point in East Dulwich a very long time ago and, after the mugger demanded that we beg for our lives with a knife pointed at our heads, he subsequently asked me to perform fellatio on my friend at which point my friend resisted and asked on a sociological basis why this was necessary



What was his reply?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> While you are a _wankeur._



Hmm, everyone is a wanker, phil.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

magneze said:


> Is treelover stalking JC?


boring more than stalking


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, everyone is a wanker, phil.


sorry to see dwyer can't spell the word


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> What was his reply?



He went on for a while about how mugging was the only way that he could get any money - perhaps true - and how he was not a bad person and that this was all just necessary from a structural point of view.

He was not able to justify the attempt at forced sexual violence though and, probably because my friend increasingly pressed home on this point with some insistence, he dashed off in the end.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2015)

Sue said:


> Okay, who was it..?



Not me. I never willingly go north of the Thames. "There be hipsters"!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2015)

treelover said:


> Colchester this afternoon, a squaddie town if I recall, He should have a rally in Witney, park his tanks on Cameron's turf.


you do love your edits


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> boring more than stalking



time for you to take a break from here, join your mate in a bit of purdah.


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

treelover said:


> time for you to take a break from here



And go back to...?


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2015)

I'm posting because its a phenomenon, and as well as discussion on here lot of other people read these boards, J/C has just filled Chelmsford Civic centre and 400 are going already to Margate rally, yes, where UKIP are strong.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 2, 2015)

That's weird. The photo's of the corbyn meetings in leeds and colchester each feature a different one of my ex's. It makes me wonder whether either of them would have stayed with me if Id  worn vests more often.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> That's weird. The photo's of the corbyn meetings in leeds and colchester each feature a different one of my ex's. It makes me wonder whether either of them would have stayed with me if Id  worn vests more often.



Is there any piece of clothing closer to the heart?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyways - you will all be pleased to know that my laptop is buggered and I was just mugged an hour or so ago on Hampstead Heath with the fuckers making off with my phone so you won't be hearing from me on any regular basis for a little while.


And they say crime doesn't pay...


----------



## Diamond (Sep 2, 2015)

existentialist said:


> And they say crime doesn't pay...



Nice


----------



## Fingers (Sep 2, 2015)

Jezza comes down hard on Cameron over his refusal to accept refugees.  Have any of the other come down hard on cameron for anything yet?

Corbyn: Cameron is failing in his duty as a human being over inadequate response to refugee crisis


----------



## existentialist (Sep 2, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Nice


Sorry. 

Still, it's an ill wind...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 2, 2015)

I think that nicking peoples' phones is taking pro-active moderation a bit too far...


----------



## kabbes (Sep 2, 2015)

This thread has really become shit.  Please come back BA.  We need you.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2015)

Funny how you never see butchers and Jeremy Corbyn in the same room together.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 2, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Jezza comes down hard on Cameron over his refusal to accept refugees.  Have any of the other come down hard on cameron for anything yet?
> "
> Corbyn: Cameron is failing in his duty as a human being over inadequate response to refugee crisis


I do wish people would stop calling Corbyn "Jezza" - that just sounds like a name that the Sun has created for a footballer or  popular entertainer. He is Jeremy and I doubt if anyone who knows him has ever called him that.

As for Cameron and his stance on refugees that will not only damage his own reputation but that of the whole country. Corbyn was very right to attack him on that issue.


----------



## rekil (Sep 2, 2015)

BA on board with Communists4Kendall?


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I do wish people would stop calling Corbyn "Jezza" - that just sounds like a name that the Sun has created for a footballer or  popular entertainer. He is Jeremy and I doubt if anyone who knows him has ever called him that.



His mates call him "Jel."


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2015)

C-Byn


----------



## brogdale (Sep 2, 2015)

"_Top Jez! 
The most effectual Top Jez! 
*Who's intellectual close friends get to call him J.C. *
Providing it's with dignity. 

Top Jez! 
The indisputable leader of the gang. 
He's the boss, he's a pip, he's the championship. 
He's the most tip top, 
Top Jez. 

Yes he's a chief, he's a king, 
But above everything, 
He's the most tip top, 
Top Jez. 

Top Jez!"_


----------



## chilango (Sep 2, 2015)

treelover said:


> I'm posting because its a phenomenon, and as well as discussion on here lot of other people read these boards, J/C has just filled Chelmsford Civic centre and 400 are going already to Margate rally, yes, where UKIP are strong.



It would/should be no surprise if Corbyn was doing well in the same places UKIP are doing well.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> Funny how you never see butchers and Jeremy Corbyn in the same room together.



Eventually we all have to settle down and compromise to make ends meet somehow...


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 3, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> His mates call him "Jel."



His "freinds"  call him Jezbollah.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 3, 2015)

His "acquaintances" call him Jez Stain.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> His "acquaintances" call him Jez Stain.



They call the majority of the Labour Party Ab Stain.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Thanks for telling me what I think.



So you can't or won't recognise a rhetorical flourish; how about dealing with the substantive point by defending the proposition that you are a libertarian social democrat?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Have you got any evidence to back this up?



For some of those who didn't vote certainly. If you can be bothered to look it isn't hard to find; if you don't want to look...well that's your less than inspiring choice.

However seeing as you continually choose to ignore the content of my posts (and not just mine it must be said), I'll pay you the same compliment.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2015)

treelover said:


> time for you to take a break from here, join your mate in a bit of purdah.


i'll just have a spot of tiffin if it's all the same to you


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2015)

treelover said:


> I'm posting because its a phenomenon, and as well as discussion on here lot of other people read these boards, J/C has just filled Chelmsford Civic centre and 400 are going already to Margate rally, yes, where UKIP are strong.


yeh. these 400 on their way to the margate rally, where do you get this number?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So you can't or won't recognise a rhetorical flourish; how about dealing with the substantive point by defending the proposition that you are a libertarian social democrat?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I really shouldn't bother, if I were you...


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So you can't or won't recognise a rhetorical flourish; how about dealing with the substantive point by defending the proposition that you are a libertarian social democrat?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Maybe in a new thread?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 3, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I really shouldn't bother, if I were you...



He's on ignore - one of two currently and only four in total all the time I've been here - so my bothering days are over for the time being.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 3, 2015)

Athos said:


> Maybe in a new thread?



Probably not.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## existentialist (Sep 3, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> He's on ignore - one of two currently and only four in total all the time I've been here - so my bothering days are over for the time being.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I find the histrionics and total lack of self-awareness quite amusing, and therefore not especially irritating, so I generally don't keep him on ignore. I try not to reply to his posts too often, though, as all the passive-aggressive whining does begin to grate after a while.

Anyway, Labour leadership.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 3, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Anyway, Labour leadership.



I think it would be a wonderful idea, when are we getting some?


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. these 400 on their way to the margate rally, where do you get this number?



I've already made a similar point on the Jez-mania thread, but I'm not convinced that these reports of turn-outs at JC's appearances are as significant as some (  ) are portraying them, and I think it would be a shame if we descended to squabbling over the details.

That said, I think it's possible that there could be 400 at the Margate gig, but I suggest that most of them will either be established Labour voters/supporters or identifiers-in-some-way with the wider left. Very few of them, I suggest, will be those who feel generally alienated from parliamentary politics, including those who support or might support UKIP (interested if there's any evidence which contradicts this though).

A more significant longer term question is whether a Labour party with JC as leader could begin the process of winning over those who are alienated in significant numbers, though whether or not they're turning up to see him now is not the test of that.

And perhaps an even more significant question is whether the triumphant tour and subsequent election of JC as leader leads to any more general change in the significance of "the left". ATM though, it's too soon to know...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> I've already made a similar point on the Jez-mania thread, but I'm not convinced that these reports of turn-outs at JC's appearances are as significant as some (  ) are portraying them, and I think it would be a shame if we descended to squabbling over the details.
> 
> That said, I think it's possible that there could be 400 at the Margate gig, but I suggest that most of them will either be established Labour voters/supporters or identifiers-in-some-way with the wider left. Very few of them, I suggest, will be those who feel generally alienated from parliamentary politics, including those who support or might support UKIP (interested if there's any evidence which contradicts this though).
> 
> ...


tbh what i think is that treelover's very easily excited by people saying they're going to a facebook event.


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh what i think is that treelover's very easily excited by people saying they're going to a facebook event.



Guess who earlier


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> Guess who earlier



i'm on an auld xp computer and can't see that


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm on an auld xp computer and can't see that



I've sent it in a PM to you so you can check it at your leisure


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I do wish people would stop calling Corbyn "Jezza" - that just sounds like a name that the Sun has created for a footballer or  popular entertainer. He is Jeremy and I doubt if anyone who knows him has ever called him that.
> 
> As for Cameron and his stance on refugees that will not only damage his own reputation but that of the whole country. Corbyn was very right to attack him on that issue.



How about "the Jezster"?


----------



## hash tag (Sep 3, 2015)

Perhaps by using Jezza, they are trying to make him sound cool or perhaps a little more left wing. Perhaps people think Jeremy is a little bit of a right wing name!


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> Guess who earlier





I'm not posting this for you PM, hundreds read these boards, I'm very aware it could be a false dawn, I'm just showing that the numbers attending JC's rallies are significant, but so was the number who attended the later Benn/Public Assemblies, they then disappeared not seen on any significant political activities, this may be different, who can say?


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2015)

treelover said:


> I'm not posting this for you PM, hundreds read these boards, I'm very aware it could be a false dawn, I'm just showing that the numbers attending JC's rallies are significant, but so was the number who attended the later Benn/Public Assemblies, they then disappeared not seen on any significant political activities, this may be different, who can say?



Your earlier post definitely seemed to me to be saying that 400 attending a JC rally in Margate, an area where UKIP have been popular, was of some special significance, otherwise why mention that particular detail?

But the simple numbers attending don't really tell us very much about the wider significance (electoral and otherwise), because we don't know who these people are. They may be (and I suspect they are, admittedly without any evidence for my suspicion) simply the same old same old rather than people newly enthused from a previous position of alienation, apathy or whatever.

Without at least an attempt to examine what might be behind the figures attending, your posts do make it look as if you're simply getting exiting over mere attendance, which in itself means very little.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> I've already made a similar point on the Jez-mania thread, but I'm not convinced that these reports of turn-outs at JC's appearances are as significant as some (  ) are portraying them, and I think it would be a shame if we descended to squabbling over the details.
> 
> That said, I think it's possible that there could be 400 at the Margate gig, but I suggest that most of them will either be established Labour voters/supporters or identifiers-in-some-way with the wider left. Very few of them, I suggest, will be those who feel generally alienated from parliamentary politics, including those who support or might support UKIP (interested if there's any evidence which contradicts this though).
> 
> ...


The people turning up at the meetings are essentially the same people who have been turning up to the various tuc demos over the last few years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2015)

emanymton said:


> The people turning up at the meetings are essentially the same people who have been turning up to the various tuc demos over the last few years.


just travelling round the country on a big farewell tour


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2015)

emanymton said:


> The people turning up at the meetings are essentially the same people who have been turning up to the various tuc demos over the last few years.



That's pretty much what I would expect - do we have anything to back it up?


----------



## lazythursday (Sep 3, 2015)

emanymton said:


> The people turning up at the meetings are essentially the same people who have been turning up to the various tuc demos over the last few years.


At the Leeds event I went to I think this was true of the majority of the attendees but certainly not all. I went with two people who hadn't been to any political events since the Iraq war march, and in front of us was a gang of fidgety teenagers, who had clearly never been to this kind of thing ever before and had come of their own volition. At the very least this process has 'reactivated' a whole load of dormant lefties.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 3, 2015)

I wonder if it will turn even faster to shit than cleggmainia did ....when political reality sets in


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2015)

All the ingredients for Corbyn to lose are there



> The Labour leadership contest seems to share a lot of the characteristics of the 2015 general election. We have the overwhelming enthusiastic social media support for a flawed candidate (that might not end up actually casting their vote), shy Tories*, the polls showing only outcome and betting sentiment heavily in favour of the polling outcome.
> 
> We’ve only had two public polls on this leadership election and the potential sampling and weighting issues with this particular electorate caused by the large surge in new members/£3 members and the purge means we should be very cautious on accepting this polling as being infallible even before we take into account the industry wide polling failure that happened in May.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 3, 2015)

Also Labour leadership race: Yvette Cooper gains ground with bookmakers while Jeremy Corbyn remains out in front


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 3, 2015)

While I'm prepared to believe that waning enthusiasm, smear tactics and people not bothering to follow up on filling in their ballots could damage Corbyn's chances,



J Ed said:


> Last night The Sun reported that



Is like saying "last night a paid schill vomited onto his keyboard." I'd trust the average Swappie over that dismal shitrag where honest reporting on political trends is concerned. I mean don't get me wrong, all papers, including my own, are sometimes guilty of silliness, but the Sun doesn't just dip into gutters, it lives in them.


----------



## Cid (Sep 3, 2015)

J Ed said:


> All the ingredients for Corbyn to lose are there



"We have the overwhelming enthusiastic social media support for a flawed candidate"... Do they mean Ed Miliband? I don't recall much enthusiasm for him, perhaps beyond a slightly odd core. Also did anyone genuinely hope (from a PLP perspective) for more than a labour lead centrist coalition? again beyond the overly optimistic few. I'll grant the result was far 'worse' than expected, I'm not sure that's meaningfully analogous with the Corbyn situation though. The rest of that article sounds like fairly standard anti-Corbyn stuff... Also spins the comres poll (a poll commissioned by the Mail incidentally, although don't know how that might/could affect it).


----------



## Combustible (Sep 3, 2015)

J Ed said:


> All the ingredients for Corbyn to lose are there



Is there any reason to think that those who haven't voted are more likely to be registered supporters than members? Bearing in mind that registered supporters will had to actively sign up and pay £3, while there may be plenty of members who joined a while ago and are now inactive/disinterested/couldn't be bothered to vote.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> That's pretty much what I would expect - do we have anything to back it up?


No evidence really, just my own feeling, but there were a few hundred thousand  from the labour /union left prepared to actively oppose the tories. These are exactly the sort of people who will rally around Corbyn. The numbers even seem to pretty much stack up.


lazythursday said:


> At the Leeds event I went to I think this was true of the majority of the attendees but certainly not all. I went with two people who hadn't been to any political events since the Iraq war march, and in front of us was a gang of fidgety teenagers, who had clearly never been to this kind of thing ever before and had come of their own volition. At the very least this process has 'reactivated' a whole load of dormant lefties.


There will obviously be some new people. And even though they may be in a minority considering the overall numbers it will still be a decent number in absolute terms. The key question is the one Andy posed and this is what if anything will come from this. What impact will this have on the new people. And for that matter the old guard, let's not write them off as unimportant. They are pretty much the core of anything that passes for miltant trade unionism in this country. I am cynical about the whole thing. But one of the reasons I want him to win is that it will feel like a victory for a lot of people, and let's face it by Christ do we need some kind of victory. If he wins hundreds of thousands of trade unionists will go back to work with the heads held a little higher. For all my cynicism and caution this is something new I am very interested to see where it goes.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 3, 2015)

Chuka Umunna now wants everyone to get behind Jeremy Corbyn
Chuka Umunna now wants everyone to get behind Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## red & green (Sep 3, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Chuka Umunna now wants everyone to get behind Jeremy Corbyn
> Chuka Umunna now wants everyone to get behind Jeremy Corbyn



PMSL


----------



## andysays (Sep 3, 2015)

> Umunna also refused to explicitly confirm or deny whether he would accept a position in Corbyn's shadow Cabinet, if he won the election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Chuka Umunna now wants everyone to get behind Jeremy Corbyn
> Chuka Umunna now wants everyone to get behind Jeremy Corbyn


but can you trust cu?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 3, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Chuka Umunna now wants everyone to get behind Jeremy Corbyn
> Chuka Umunna now wants everyone to get behind Jeremy Corbyn


aka he didn't like the idea of not having a cabinet job after all.


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2015)

Chuka only cares about Chuka. Can't face the thought of back bench opposition mediocrity so trying to line himself up a shadow cabinet job by playing nice. Someone should cut his cock off and choke him with it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2015)

Looks like The Resistance failed to resist anything then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Looks like The Resistance failed to resist anything then.


that's cos they're all cunts.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 3, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I find the histrionics and total lack of self-awareness quite amusing, and therefore not especially irritating, so I generally don't keep him on ignore. I try not to reply to his posts too often, though, as all the passive-aggressive whining does begin to grate after a while.
> 
> Anyway, Labour leadership.



Wow.

You celebrate me getting mugged alongside this ridiculously pompous drivel?

Quite an achievement.

I suspect that you are one of the most dangerous types of idiot - i.e. one who is just about eloquent enough to believe that they might have valuable insight but lacking any kind of ability to appraise their own behaviour as a direct result of their lazy arrogance.


----------



## JimW (Sep 3, 2015)

I wish people would stop posting Labour leadership stuff on this thread about Diamond.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2015)

You wouldn't want Chucky as your wingman.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> You wouldn't want Chucky as your wingman.


the only reason he'd have your back was so he could be the first to knife it should it prove to his advantage to do so


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the only reason he'd have your back was so he could be the first to knife it should it prove to his advantage to do so


Well, quite.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the only reason he'd have your back was so he could be the first to knife it should it prove to his advantage to do so


I don't know, he proved remarkably gutless when his moment to challenge for the leadership was there for the taking, perhaps he hopes Corbyn might win the leadership but not make it to the next general election leaving the way free for him ....


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2015)

J Ed said:


> All the ingredients for Corbyn to lose are there


There are some definite parallels with the gen election certainly.  A year, 18 months out I predicted Labour couldn't win the election for what were fairly obvious reasons (not seen as economically credible, hadn't built up much rapport with the electorate, poor leader, tories able to sell a 'it hurt but it's working' message).  Over the intervening year and a half the the polls partly, but not completely persuaded me I was wrong - but the polls were wrong.  Like most people my first reaction to Corbyn was here we go again, last hurrah of the micro-Labour left, not a cat in hells chance etc.  Since then it's certainly been a shock to see the revivalist meetings selling that old time social democracy, to the point where it's assumed he's going to win.  He may well do, but the methodological problems for the pollsters are significant, amid an election where the electorate is still being created/excluded.  To be honest I'd be surprised if he get's a clear margin of victory.  The fact that some 2nd preferences might still break his way, though you'd imagine he won't get too many, might be what delivers the win.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 3, 2015)

Wilf said:


> The fact that *some 2nd preferences might still break his way*, though you'd imagine he won't get too many, might be what delivers the win.



Exactly the same factor might break for Burnham (or even Cooper (??) ) too.

We have no real idea how this complicated shit is *really* going to work do we?

As you said above pretty much ...


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 3, 2015)

They need a chimney gimmick like they do with the popes, maybe with red or blue smoke?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Exactly the same factor might break for Burnham (or even Cooper (??) ) too.
> 
> We have no real idea how this complicated shit is *really* going to work do we?
> 
> As you said above pretty much ...


Yeah, definitely on the first point, they are more likely to get more of the 2nd preferences. And it really is a mad situation, where people have been voting for a week or so, whilst others might still be hoyed off the electoral register.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 3, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> They need a chimney gimmick like they do with the popes, maybe with red or blue smoke?


Beige, beige, beige or pink tinted beige smoke.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 3, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> They need a chimney gimmick like they do with the popes, *maybe with red or blue smoke?*



Or possibly : a bound-to-be-a-massively-successful, also media-friendly 'moderate colourways'-presented mixture?


----------



## hash tag (Sep 4, 2015)

Am I the only one still not to have got their voting paper/email? I've not had a rejection letter either come to that. I chased my voting stuff 2 days ago now!


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Am I the only one still not to have got their voting paper/email? I've not had a rejection letter either come to that. I chased my voting stuff 2 days ago now!



No, you're not.

I also got in touch with the LP and Unite the other day to get them to see if they could sort it out and yesterday someone from Unite's political department said he was looking into it and asked exactly when I signed up.


----------



## campanula (Sep 4, 2015)

met another purgee at my son's housing co-op - disallowed despite 40 years of Labour activism...on the grounds of 'failure to demonstrate appropriate Labour values'...WTF.

I had a sort of smidgeon of hope for a revival of popular leftwing politics but am now convinced that even the groundswell of Corbyn voters (in the absence of any other suitable Leftwing candidate) will make any difference whatsoever - the purges will continue, the voting will be rigged, ballots will mysteriously vanish, oversight will be almost nonexistent and the current status quo of the business party versus the business party2 will remain, in perpetuity, while the electorate is forever shafted by arseholes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Am I the only one still not to have got their voting paper/email? I've not had a rejection letter either come to that. I chased my voting stuff 2 days ago now!


email the returning officer


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2015)

So it turns out that there's no record of my application to join as an affiliate member, possibly because I didn't complete the sign-up process properly  

Interesting to find out that it will still be possible to sign up as an affiliate after the leadership contest is over, and that



			
				Unite's political department said:
			
		

> As an affiliated supporter you’ll still be able to attend Labour meetings and take part in the Party’s policy process


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2015)

andysays said:


> So it turns out that there's no record of my application to join as an affiliate member, possibly because I didn't complete the sign-up process properly
> 
> Interesting to find out that it will still be possible to sign up as an affiliate after the leadership contest is over, and that


that's more than an actual member can do.


----------



## andysays (Sep 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> that's more than an actual member can do.



Oh, such cynicism 

I guess what it means is that affiliate members can attend meetings and have the same input into policy etc as ordinary members, ie not very much at all


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but can you trust cu?



In my personal opinion, no. I used to just disregard the smarm-pot, but ever since he bullshitted about the campaign to save my estate from demolition, claiming it was a Green Party front, and then deleted posts from his facebook page that gave him the lie, I actively distrust the bastard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2015)

maomao said:


> Chuka only cares about Chuka. Can't face the thought of back bench opposition mediocrity so trying to line himself up a shadow cabinet job by playing nice. Someone should cut his cock off and choke him with it.



Corbyn will see through that.
Still, Chuka would be useful, as long as Corbyn bears Chuka's primary motivation in mind.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 4, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but can you trust cu?


I trust him as I trust a fox lurking around a chicken coop.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 4, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I trust him as I trust a fox lurking around a chicken coop.


So that's an absolute trust then? As in, you can completely trust your understanding of his motivations.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 4, 2015)

kabbes said:


> So that's an absolute trust then? As in, you can completely trust your understanding of his motivations.


Perfect trust - I trust him to act in accordance with his nature, no more and no less.


----------



## Argonia (Sep 4, 2015)

Only eight days to go...


----------



## gosub (Sep 4, 2015)

Corbyn's said 'f*** the rich' at 1997 Hyde Park student rally   with outbursts like that, there's no way he can possibly win now.


(I think they've run out of barrel)


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2015)

gosub said:


> Corbyn's said 'f*** the rich' at 1997 Hyde Park student rally   with outbursts like that, there's no way he can possibly win now.
> 
> 
> (I think they've run out of barrel)


Would have been more impressive if he'd called for the masses to eat the rich.


----------



## JHE (Sep 4, 2015)

gosub said:


> Corbyn's said 'f*** the rich' at 1997 Hyde Park student rally   with outbursts like that, there's no way he can possibly win now.



That just doesn't sound like Corbyn.  He may have his faults, but sounding like a member of Class War Encore is not one of them.

(Edited to clarify which post I am responding to.)


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2015)

JHE said:


> That just doesn't sound like Corbyn.  He may have his faults, but sounding like a member of Class War Encore is not one of them.


As I said, it would have been more impressive.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 4, 2015)

gosub said:


> Corbyn's said 'f*** the rich' at 1997 Hyde Park student rally   with outbursts like that, there's no way he can possibly win now.
> 
> (I think they've run out of barrel)



You mean to scrape? It is amazing that the right wing newspapers have to keep looking for things to condemn in Corbyn, this time as far back as 1997. The closer it gets to his election the harder they try. Why are they so scared of him? They must think that his policies will appeal to enough people to endanger the Tory control of parliament.


----------



## JHE (Sep 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> As I said, it would have been more impressive.


I mean he doesn't say fuck this, fuck that, fuck the rich.  It's not his style and I'm sure he wouldn't want to offend his many (mainly working class) constituents who strongly dislike that way of speaking.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2015)

JHE said:


> I mean he doesn't say fuck this, fuck that, fuck the rich.  It's not his style and I'm sure he wouldn't want to offend his many (mainly working class) constituents who strongly dislike that way of speaking.


I didn't suggest he did (or does). What are you on about?


----------



## JHE (Sep 4, 2015)

My comment on Corbyn was not a response to your post suggesting an even sillier but different CWE slogan.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2015)

JHE said:


> My comment on Corbyn was not a response to your post suggesting an even sillier but different CWE slogan.


Strange.


----------



## gosub (Sep 5, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> You mean to scrape? It is amazing that the right wing newspapers have to keep looking for things to condemn in Corbyn, this time as far back as 1997. The closer it gets to his election the harder they try. Why are they so scared of him? They must think that his policies will appeal to enough people to endanger the Tory control of parliament.


Reckon they'd have got more milage if they'd had found a :respect the rich quote.  Can't believe they've thrown everything at this election but looks like they have


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 5, 2015)

gosub said:


> Reckon they'd have got more milage if they'd had found a :respect the rich quote.  Can't believe they've thrown everything at this election but looks like they have


I suppose it because it still the "silly season" until Parliament re-convenes .  They have nothing to talk about.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 5, 2015)

Who said " I ve been friends with Jeremy for years now and you couldn't meet a nicer bloke...." more pertinently, how many times have you heard this
from different speeches, interviews etc in the last week 

I was called by someone from Tom Watson's camp last night. Have you had your voting stuff through yet? There has been a batch thats been messed up, you
should get them by Tuesday!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 5, 2015)

Two days before the election ends.

The professionalism of it all


----------



## Knotted (Sep 5, 2015)

Ramping up the hysteria. Morton Morland's cartoon in the Times:


----------



## Wilf (Sep 5, 2015)

Knotted said:


> Ramping up the hysteria. Morton Morland's cartoon in the Times:


It's a failure of deferred gratification for the right wing press. They desperately want him elected in one sense so they can run loony left stories for the next 5 years and they genuinely think he can't win the next general election. But they can't stop themselves doing everything they can to damage his campaign (as they would see it - I doubt it actually does anything to damage him).


----------



## existentialist (Sep 5, 2015)

Wilf said:


> It's a failure of deferred gratification for the right wing press. They desperately want him elected in one sense so they can run loony left stories for the next 5 years and they genuinely think he can't win the next general election. But they can't stop themselves doing everything they can to damage his campaign (as they would see it - I doubt it actually does anything to damage him).


I'd have thought it more likely that they were (still) dancing to the tune of the government, who have zigzagged from being derisive about JC, to bigging him up almost for a laugh, to a slightly uncomfortable realisation that a) he might actually end up leading the Opposition, and b) an awful lot of people seem to like what he has to say.

Whether or not it adds up in the electoral arithmetic is probably neither here nor there - it's that the existential thing for politicians about being out of step with popular opinion has just kicked in. They're obviously deciding to play the man, not the ball, and hence we start getting all the muckraking, most of which does look a bit desperate - although I suspect I'd be dismayed to find out how many people are taken in by it.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 5, 2015)

I applied to be an affiliate member and received an interesting email from the Labour party the other day which unfortunately I've deleted otherwise I would reproduce it here. essentially it said:

The organisation (Unison) that I am a member of has no record of my membership and furthermore there is no record of me paying the political levy so I am not eligible to vote in the ballot. If I dispute this and could furnish them with the relevant details etc etc.

I hope you can see the glaring contradictions in the first part of that statement. I have told them the same and also told them it looks like vote rigging to me and that I no longer wish to be considered an affiliate member.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 5, 2015)

I had no idea that paying the political levy was a requirement to vote


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 5, 2015)

*I like that cartoon in Knotted's post. It looks like Morton Moreland in his visual research has collected some reference pictures of Wilfred Bramble in his role as Albert Steptoe. The inclusion of microphones labelled RT and Press TV continues the libel that Corbyn is "siding with the enemy" but as he says himself his shoulders are broad. I expect he will laugh at it, especially the comment about Labour waking up screaming. Go Jeremy! *


----------



## Mation (Sep 5, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but can you trust cu?


Wrong thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2015)

Mation said:


> Wrong thread


----------



## FiFi (Sep 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I had no idea that paying the political levy was a requirement to vote


It doesn't seem to be.
I stopped paying the levy a few years ago when Milliband said something stupid about Nurses taking a pay cut to help "pay off the deficit". 
I did wonder if my application for affiliate membership would be rejected because of this, but apparently I'm OK.  I've even been invited to a local branch meeting on Tuesday


----------



## teqniq (Sep 6, 2015)

Well fuck 'em anyway. I had misgivings about applying in the first place. Still, I'd be interested to know how they arrived at their decision. Probably my snotty emails to my MP.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 7, 2015)

Apparently 50% of members/supporters not voted yet:
Labour leadership campaign enters final stage with half of members yet to vote
That's very high, even with all the shenanigans, ballots not being sent out etc.  Hard to tell what these figures represent though and it's got to the point where I can't see how the party could make any reliable statistical claims. At some point last week the party was claiming up to 60,000 could be stopped from voting (subs not up to date, multiple registrations etc.).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 7, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> View attachment 75975


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Apparently 50% of members/supporters not voted yet:
> Labour leadership campaign enters final stage with half of members yet to vote
> That's very high, even with all the shenanigans, ballots not being sent out etc.  Hard to tell what these figures represent though and it's got to the point where I can't see how the party could make any reliable statistical claims. At some point last week the party was claiming up to 60,000 could be stopped from voting (subs not up to date, multiple registrations etc.).




Doesn't that usually help the more 'conservative' candidates, silent majority, etc?

wish I had took up my Unite Community vote now.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> Doesn't that usually help the more 'conservative' candidates, silent majority, etc?
> 
> wish I had took up my Unite Community vote now.


May well be the case.  Impossible to even guestimate in this chaotic election, but you'd imagine corbynistas voted early, on the back of his early rallies and publicity.  People voting over the last few days and into this week could well be voting for the others.  On the other hand, late voters could be people who took a while to get approved/registered, corbyn voters.  Anyway, it will be interesting to see some analysis on the figures, in terms of who voted, 2nd preferences etc - and also to see the full story in terms of the rejections.


----------



## xslavearcx (Sep 7, 2015)

God this elections fair dragging on a bit... 

Fwiw - hope Corbyn wins regardless of what happens afterwards ...


----------



## Ole (Sep 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Apparently 50% of members/supporters not voted yet:
> Labour leadership campaign enters final stage with half of members yet to vote
> That's very high, even with all the shenanigans, ballots not being sent out etc.  Hard to tell what these figures represent though and it's got to the point where I can't see how the party could make any reliable statistical claims. At some point last week the party was claiming up to 60,000 could be stopped from voting (subs not up to date, multiple registrations etc.).



That looks very suspicious to me, but I believe Labour have claimed they will release a full breakdown of the results, after initially saying they wouldn't. Will be interesting to say the least if Corbyn doesn't win.


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2015)

Could be bad news, BBC Panorama have 'found' documents that Corbyn was at the Cairo Conference after the Iraq War, this is the conference where some of us have mentioned that Chris Harman actually signed the Cairo Declaration which authorised armed force to be used against British troops(not sure by whom) , I think it was if the allies blockaded Palestine, quite a few of the European Social Forum were present as well, maybe some now in power across the EU.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2015)




----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2015)

Do expand Froggie.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2015)

He's a labour mp and has been for 32 years, shouldnt be a surprise if hes got some skeletons 

This stuff wont damage him among his supporters within Labour, especially not this late in the game


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 7, 2015)

Why does he hate freedom 

This is the story btw www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34179201


----------



## JHE (Sep 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> Could be bad news, BBC Panorama have 'found' documents that Corbyn was at the Cairo Conference after the Iraq War, this is the conference where some of us have mentioned that Chris Harman actually signed the Cairo Declaration which authorised armed force to be used against British troops(not sure by whom) , I think it was if the allies blockaded Palestine, quite a few of the European Social Forum were present as well, maybe some now in power across the EU.



The Panorama programme looks potentially interesting, though IIRC John Ware specialises in exposing corruption and other wrong-doing, so maybe there'll be an attempt at a shock-horror exposé.

I'm not sure of the significance of his attending this conference in Egypt.  It seems highly unlikely that he has ever explicitly asked anyone to kill British troops and if other people at the same conference did, that's hardly damning of Corbyn.

We all know Corbyn's sympathetic to Irish Republicanism and was before the IRA gave up killing people.  We also know that he's highly indulgent of Islamists and is against Israel.  I doubt there's any great surprise in the programme.  

If I manage to watch it, it'll be to see if there's some insight into the apparent success of his leadership campaign, not to be horrified by his snuggling up to Moss Bros or other loathsome creatures.


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> He's a labour mp and has been for 32 years, shouldnt be a surprise if hes got some skeletons
> 
> This stuff wont damage him among his supporters within Labour, especially not this late in the game




it will affect his credibility though and how he is understood by the public.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> it will affect his credibility though and how he is understood by the public.



Tbh he was/is the chairman of stwc. His connections with this stuff are quite widely known anyway.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2015)

It's not exactly a very strong claim is it? He was at a thing where someone who isn't him said something. It's like saying someone was in school with a racist or something


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2015)

Chris Harman authorised the use of force against British troops? Who does he have authority over? That's pretty fucking hollow.


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2015)

Can't challenge him now anyway, and I wouldn't post it on other more prominent sites.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2015)

Proper hatchet job this Panorama documentary


----------



## oryx (Sep 7, 2015)

Where the fuck does Blunkett get his stupid ideas about 'thuggery' and intimidation in the context of Corbyn from?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 7, 2015)

Followed by uncritical Royalist propaganda hahahaha


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 7, 2015)

treelover said:


> Can't challenge him now anyway, and I wouldn't post it on other more prominent sites.


that's very good of you


----------



## killer b (Sep 7, 2015)

I authorise you to post it on other more prominent sites, treelover


----------



## belboid (Sep 7, 2015)

That was just...crap. Even as far as hatchet jobs go, it was just rubbish. Basically the same guff we've had for the last six weeks, with a weak barb about Cairo thrown in. Meh


----------



## JimW (Sep 7, 2015)

killer b said:


> I authorise you to post it on other more prominent sites, treelover


This may come back to haunt you in some future leadership bid, killer b!


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2015)

I can't decide whether it was or wasn't a hatchet job, it did show the support he has, however it did basically question if he was electable, which I'm not sure is the job of a documentary maker, I look forward to Ware investigating Boris and especially the Dappy affair.

it was certainly a hatchet job on Len though.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 8, 2015)

Two-thirds of people think Jeremy Corbyn is unlikely to win the next election

Two thirds of people think Corbyn is unlikely to win a majority at the next election, according to a poll. 

The Independent conspicuously misses off the figures for the other candidates.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2015)

If corbyn has to start apologising for his stwc links, he should start with the domestic stuff, things like gender segregated meetings, downgrading gay rights etc.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 8, 2015)

Wilf said:


> If corbyn has to start apologising for his stwc links, he should start with the domestic stuff, things like gender segregated meetings, downgrading gay rights etc.



Why should he apologise for his STWC links? Millions of people supported and probably still support them including myself. You are confusing them with some of the Muslim groups who also supported them for obvious reasons. If these groups had gender segregated meetings and downgraded gay rights that is their choice but the issue of the war being illegal and undesirable is not affected by who supports STWC. This is an attempt at the old "guilt by association" charge.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2015)

I'm not suggesting he should apologise, just saying the press would have had more to go on with the domestic stuff if they wanted to play that game. 

Having said that I disagree that the stwc as a national org had no responsibility for things done by it's own members. It was Lindsay German after all who came out with the shibboleths comment. Anyway, I digress. My point was the press are throwing pretty weak punches with this Cairo conference  crap.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 8, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I'm not suggesting he should apologise, just saying the press would have had more to go on with the domestic stuff if they wanted to play that game.
> 
> Having said that I disagree that the stwc as a national org had no responsibility for things done by it's own members. It was Lindsay German after all who came out with the shibboleths comment. Anyway, I digress. My point was the press are throwing pretty weak punches with this Cairo conference  crap.




The STWC is not a membership organisation, it is just a coalition. Lindsay German doesn't represent anyone apart from herself. She was a "convener" whatever that is, and not elected. 

Yes I agree about the weak punches, they are just playing a game called "lets make trouble for Corbyn" because he has been a minority opinion during the years of Blairism and the media assumes that Blairism still holds sway.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2015)

Very favourable article about Corbyn from Peter Hitchens


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Very favourable article about Corbyn from Peter Hitchens


He certainly makes some reasonable points about the style of corbyn and his leadership events.  This was also roughly what I saw in Middlesbrough in terms of who was attending: "I think I spotted a social trend. There were plenty of young people, in their early twenties, many in couples. And there were plenty of people of my age-group – late 50s upwards. But I rather think those in between were more thinly represented."

I suspect Labour have a better chance of winning if he wins and they challenge the Tories from the centre/social democratic left, speaking in reasonably straightforward terms, thinning the spin out.  Certainly more chance than contesting the thing as blairite neoliberal aspirationishts.  However I also suspect, even though he doesn't think about it in terms of class forces, he might also be right about a corbo version of Labour not quite getting there in terms of mass appeal.  We'll see, it will certainly be interesting to see what happens if you get a party leader communicating in a straightforward way, rooted in principle.  I'm not a 3 quidder and actually find it a bit depressing to see thousands of people turning up to these events but nowhere to be seen when it comes to direct class struggle.  Same time it will be interesting and I hope he wins.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 8, 2015)

Bizarre story of Tory Minister simultaneously being a member of Labour (now expelled) + large number still haven't got ballot paper:
Tory minister Ros Altmann expelled from Labour party


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Sep 8, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I'm not a 3 quidder and actually find it a bit depressing to see thousands of people turning up to these events but nowhere to be seen when it comes to direct class struggle.



Good post that Wilf & I think that's exactly the challenge for the Corbyn/Owen Jones/etc project of rebuilding a social democrat party. If the £3 supporters don't join in significant numbers and get their hands dirty in the wards and CLPs then the bubble will burst very quickly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> Could be bad news, BBC Panorama have 'found' documents that Corbyn was at the Cairo Conference after the Iraq War, this is the conference where some of us have mentioned that Chris Harman actually signed the Cairo Declaration which authorised armed force to be used against British troops(not sure by whom) , I think it was if the allies blockaded Palestine, quite a few of the European Social Forum were present as well, maybe some now in power across the EU.



Harman didn't sign a declaration that "authorised" armed force.
He signed a declaration that proposed the use of armed force.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 8, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Two-thirds of people think Jeremy Corbyn is unlikely to win the next election
> 
> Two thirds of people think Corbyn is unlikely to win a majority at the next election, according to a poll.
> 
> The Independent conspicuously misses off the figures for the other candidates.



I think the whole unelectable thing is balls anyway, its his actions in the 4 years after (if?) he's made leader that will show if he's electable or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> it will affect his credibility though and how he is understood by the public.



No more so than the constant media monstering.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2015)

killer b said:


> Chris Harman authorised the use of force against British troops? Who does he have authority over? That's pretty fucking hollow.



He signed a declaration that pretty much just stated that it is legitimate for citizens of an invaded country to resist the invaders. I'm fairly sure such a "right" has been accepted in international law for the last 60 years or so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Proper hatchet job this Panorama documentary



It's John Ware. He has form for partiality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2015)

oryx said:


> Where the fuck does Blunkett get his stupid ideas about 'thuggery' and intimidation in the context of Corbyn from?



Probably recalling what him and some of his mates did in Sheffield back when he was _gauleiter_.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 8, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> I think the whole unelectable thing is balls anyway, its his actions in the 4 years after (if?) he's made leader that will show if he's electable or not.


Time will tell, assuming he is elected leader. I wonder though how he will be able to command his party certainly in parliament to follow him given he himself has been such a rebel. Anyhow it will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 8, 2015)

I was just looking at the wikipedia for Labour Leadership election (wanted the date for resullts) and came across the most car-showroom photo of burnham yet:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2015)

Wilf said:


> He certainly makes some reasonable points about the style of corbyn and his leadership events.  This was also roughly what I saw in Middlesbrough in terms of who was attending: "I think I spotted a social trend. There were plenty of young people, in their early twenties, many in couples. And there were plenty of people of my age-group – late 50s upwards. But I rather think those in between were more thinly represented."
> 
> I suspect Labour have a better chance of winning if he wins and they challenge the Tories from the centre/social democratic left, speaking in reasonably straightforward terms, thinning the spin out.  Certainly more chance than contesting the thing as blairite neoliberal aspirationishts.  However I also suspect, even though he doesn't think about it in terms of class forces, he might also be right about a corbo version of Labour not quite getting there in terms of mass appeal.  We'll see, it will certainly be interesting to see what happens if you get a party leader communicating in a straightforward way, rooted in principle.  I'm not a 3 quidder and actually find it a bit depressing to see thousands of people turning up to these events but nowhere to be seen when it comes to direct class struggle.  Same time it will be interesting and I hope he wins.



"Mass appeal" is also going to depend on just how fucked off the electorate are with the Tories in 2020. On current trends (NHS issues, schools, social security, housing) the Tories may be *relying* on 3-line whips to get legislation through within the near future, with their own MPs rebelling once the effects of "Austerity+" start nipping at their own majorities. It's hard to preserve that helpful meme about being better with the public finances when you're kebabing so many functions that depend on those finances.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2015)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Good post that Wilf & I think that's exactly the challenge for the Corbyn/Owen Jones/etc project of rebuilding a social democrat party. If the £3 supporters don't join in significant numbers and get their hands dirty in the wards and CLPs then the bubble will burst very quickly.



IMO *IF* Corbyn wins and *does* immediately engage in rebuilding Labour as a social democratic party, including re-empowering the membership to propose policy etc, then I believe that they'll get a sufficient number of enthusiastic activists "getting their hands dirty". If they delay internal democracy, then they'll fuck the party, the supporters and themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was just looking at the wikipedia for Labour Leadership election (wanted the date for resullts) and came across the most car-showroom photo of burnham yet:



Would you buy a used car from this dewy-eyed salesman, who's smarming to your missus?


----------



## Supine (Sep 8, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Very favourable article about Corbyn from Peter Hitchens



This quote got me annoyed "It was also (this made it easier for me) free of anything about the wild enthusiasm for comprehensive schools and multiculturalism which Mr Corbyn shares with David Cameron."


----------



## treelover (Sep 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Probably recalling what him and some of his mates did in Sheffield back when he was _gauleiter_.



Caborn could be a right(physical) thug


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was just looking at the wikipedia for Labour Leadership election (wanted the date for resullts) and came across the most car-showroom photo of burnham yet:


back to school with him, get the truant officer out.


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2015)

Supine said:


> This quote got me annoyed "It was also (this made it easier for me) free of anything about the wild enthusiasm for comprehensive schools and multiculturalism which Mr Corbyn shares with David Cameron."



It's Peter Hitchens.


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Time will tell, assuming he is elected leader. I wonder though how he will be able to command his party certainly in parliament to follow him given he himself has been such a rebel. Anyhow it will be interesting to see what happens.



He's already got the support of The Crystals, apparently




> He's a rebel and he'll never ever be any good
> He's a rebel 'cause he never ever does what he should
> But just because he doesn't do what everybody else does
> That's no reason why I can't give him all my love


----------



## Athos (Sep 8, 2015)

andysays said:


> He's already got the support of The Crystals, apparently




A Spector is haunting Europe...


----------



## andysays (Sep 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> A Spector is haunting Europe...


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 8, 2015)

treelover said:


> I can't decide whether it was or wasn't a hatchet job, it did show the support he has, however it did basically question if he was electable, which I'm not sure is the job of a documentary maker, I look forward to Ware investigating Boris and especially the Dappy affair.
> 
> it was certainly a hatchet job on Len though.



He infantilized Corbyn's supporters. Made them look like a lot of breathless and giddy young women going to their first pop concert. 

Ware's a sneering wanker.


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was just looking at the wikipedia for Labour Leadership election (wanted the date for resullts) and came across the most car-showroom photo of burnham yet:




I'll take that one and raise you with this one that I ripped from someone's Facebook profile about 5 years ago.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 8, 2015)

Well my vote turned up at 17.44 and Ive just voted.
Re earlier post Corbyn is not electable; I am not sure that at this moment in time any of them are particularly electable.


----------



## gosub (Sep 8, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Well my vote turned up at 17.44 and Ive just voted.
> Re earlier post Corbyn is not electable; I am not sure that at this moment in time any of them are particularly electable.


Especially after the Tories address the imbalances in constituency size.


----------



## belboid (Sep 8, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Two-thirds of people think Jeremy Corbyn is unlikely to win the next election
> 
> Two thirds of people think Corbyn is unlikely to win a majority at the next election, according to a poll.
> 
> *The Independent conspicuously misses off the figures for the other candidates.*


the full tabs are out now, oddly, they didn't even ask the question.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/septemberdatatables.pdf


----------



## Cid (Sep 8, 2015)

belboid said:


> the full tabs are out now, oddly, they didn't even ask the question.
> http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/septemberdatatables.pdf



It would also be entirely true to say something like 'the majority of people think someone other than Corbyn will do more harm to Labour chances'. It's just a question of how you spin the figures and which ones you use.

e2a: for the other question who would do most harm.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 8, 2015)

The other candidates are capable _at best_ of delivering a single term of coalition/tiny majority government. They suggest that only they can win the election, but it's not as if any of them would walk it.

The range of possibilities with Corbyn is catastrophe all the way over to landslide victory. I like his policies, but he's also a better punt.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 8, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was just looking at the wikipedia for Labour Leadership election (wanted the date for resullts) and came across the most car-showroom photo of burnham yet:


Is it just me, or does he always look as if he is about to burst into tears?

Like a used car salesman might if he hadn't made his target for the week, maybe?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 8, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Is it just me, or does he always look as if he is about to burst into tears?
> 
> Like a used car salesman might if he hadn't made his target for the week, maybe?



He's got a target to meet so he has to suck it up and try not to think about the fact that his wife just left him.

Or maybe he's haunted by the ghosts of several hundred victims of abuse and substandard care at Stafford hospital.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> A Spector is haunting Europe...



That it absolutely first class punnery, mate, well done.


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 9, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Is it just me, or does he always look as if he is about to burst into tears?
> 
> Like a used car salesman might if he hadn't made his target for the week, maybe?



Yes indeed. I think its a consequence of his politics though - you can see the gears whirring behind those matinee idol eyes every time he is asked a question - frantic calculations and triangulations take place to compute the most inoffensive answer.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 9, 2015)

Tory minister expelled by Labour was also a member of Lib Dems


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 9, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tory minister expelled by Labour was also a member of Lib Dems


I'm sure there's a word for people like her and it isn't 'dilettante'.


----------



## agricola (Sep 9, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tory minister expelled by Labour was also a member of Lib Dems





> but a Lib Dem source said: “It’s a bittersweet irony that we’ve had to chuck out the last Lib Dem in government.”


----------



## treelover (Sep 9, 2015)

Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn 'was urged to quit contest' - BBC News

nasty BBC article, saying Corbyn campaign ran out of steam, bizarre.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2015)

unsourced quote from a BBC political reporter. So basically, bullshit.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm sure there's a word for people like her and it isn't 'dilettante'.


It's the political version of Munchausen's Syndrome.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> unsourced quote from a BBC political reporter. So basically, bullshit.


Almost certainly relayed to the bbc by one of the other candidates vassal's.  'Sources close to' - that combination of shithousery and corruption in the world of political journalism.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> unsourced quote from a BBC political reporter. So basically, bullshit.



So what's the mechanism by which the BBC is doing unsourced cynical propaganda hit pieces like that?

... and how is that consistent with this? 

BBC - Mission and values - Inside the BBC


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Almost certainly relayed to the bbc by one of the other candidates vassal's.  'Sources close to' - that combination of shithousery and corruption in the world of political journalism.





> this has gone far enough, time to stop



which deputy head type figure could possibly combine such patronising with a sense of incipient panic? Yvette.


----------



## red & green (Sep 9, 2015)

After panorama hatchet job no surprise but will probably make corbyn voters more determined


----------



## red & green (Sep 9, 2015)

Heard cooper on the radio tonight - talking about a science revolution just like the industrial revolution to create jobs smdh


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> which deputy head type figure could possibly combine such patronising with a sense of incipient panic? Yvette.


The losing candidates should have to do a forfeit.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 9, 2015)

When do we find out the winner by the way?


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 9, 2015)

Saturday.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 9, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Saturday.


Will it be like the golf, Harman putting a green jacket on the winner?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 9, 2015)

Will it be like the Oscars or something - Jim Carey hosting and  Beyonce coming on to announce the winner?

(seriously - what time on saturday and is there live coverage? I want to see  reactions)


----------



## belboid (Sep 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> (seriously - what time on saturday and is there live coverage? I want to see  reactions)


About midday I believe


----------



## moochedit (Sep 10, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Tory minister expelled by Labour was also a member of Lib Dems



have the greens and ukip checked their membership lists?


----------



## treelover (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> which deputy head type figure could possibly combine such patronising with a sense of incipient panic? Yvette.





> Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn was urged by one of his most senior supporters to withdraw from the contest - but the message was rebuffed, the BBC understands.
> 
> BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said the supporter told the left wing MP "a few weeks ago" he had not entered with the intention of winning.



Cooper, not a backer, Diane?

certainly not John McDonnell or Katie Clark


----------



## killer b (Sep 10, 2015)

Or none of them. It's made up. they're even trying to spin the Corbyn campaigns lack of response as some kind of tacit acceptance that it's true - why would they bother responding to something so pathetic?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Will it be like the Oscars or something - Jim Carey hosting and  Beyonce coming on to announce the winner?


Given how it's gone so far, I imagine they've got Mick Fleetwood and Sam Fox lined up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

cheggers


----------



## hash tag (Sep 10, 2015)

Cruddas gave a rare interview on R4 this morning. He was one that encouraged JC to stand and says he has still not made up his mind who to vote for


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Given how it's gone so far, I imagine they've got Mick Fleetwood and Sam Fox lined up.








So Sam's added up the second preferences - and the post of deputy leader goes to .....

BANANARAMA!!!!!


----------



## youngian (Sep 10, 2015)

> Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn was urged by one of his most senior supporters to withdraw from the contest - but the message was rebuffed, the BBC understands.
> BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said the supporter told the left wing MP "a few weeks ago" he had not entered with the intention of winning.


 Well some people have greatness thrust upon them. Not like a BBC political correspondent to miss a well worn cliche like that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2015)

Has anyone seen this despicable load of tosh from The New Statesman?
Ascent of the Submarine: George Osborne talks to Jason Cowley


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Has anyone seen this despicable load of tosh from The New Statesman?
> Ascent of the Submarine: George Osborne talks to Jason Cowley



yeah, the only good bit is osborne putting the boot on on the lib dems, I lolled. The rest is your standard alarmist garbage, talking up smith kinnock and blair as great party reformers in touch with 'what the public want from a labour party'.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Has anyone seen this despicable load of tosh from The New Statesman?
> Ascent of the Submarine: George Osborne talks to Jason Cowley



I put this on the other thread

The union-busting rag has it right front and centre on its website too. The Fabians were not my cup of tea at all but this shames even their not so impressive legacy.

No doubt any complaints about a supposedly left-wing publication giving such a red baiting rant by the chancellor of the fucking Tory government will be met with accusations of 'virtue-signalling' by the likes of Helen Lewis but even from a business point of view it makes no sense. Why now would even the wooliest of Labour 'left' people buy their very expensive magazine? Why not just cut out the middle man and buy the Spectator or the frankly much better Economist? At least when buying The Economist you know that you are supporting unionised workers since it recognises the NUJ, unlike the New $tatesman


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2015)

Osborne is obviously trying to win over those who want to win over anyway with vague ideological commitments that will be quickly discarded in an attempt to detoxify the corporate brand. Just like before the 2010 election, and the New $tatesman is giving him a vehicle to do it. Shameful.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah, the only good bit is osborne putting the boot on on the lib dems, I lolled. The rest is your standard alarmist garbage, talking up smith kinnock and blair as great party reformers in touch with 'what the public want from a labour party'.


The "good work will be undone" message is mischief-making but it also reveals the Tory desire to have a passive opposition. They hate the idea that someone will actually oppose them from the other side of the dispatch box.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I put this on the other thread
> 
> The union-busting rag has it right front and centre on its website too. The Fabians were not my cup of tea at all but this shames even their not so impressive legacy.
> 
> No doubt any complaints about a supposedly left-wing publication giving such a red baiting rant by the chancellor of the fucking Tory government will be met with accusations of 'virtue-signalling' by the likes of Helen Lewis but even from a business point of view it makes no sense. Why now would even the wooliest of Labour 'left' people buy their very expensive magazine? Why not just cut out the middle man and buy the Spectator or the frankly much better Economist? At least when buying The Economist you know that you are supporting unionised workers since it recognises the NUJ, unlike the New $tatesman


The NS's claim to be a 'left-wing' journal has been ringing hollow for a number of years but today, it has truly surpassed itself.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Osborne is obviously trying to win over those who want to win over anyway with vague ideological commitments that will be quickly discarded in an attempt to detoxify the corporate brand. Just like before the 2010 election, and the New $tatesman is giving him a vehicle to do it. Shameful.


Indeed, although the claim that the Tories occupy "the centre ground" is patently untrue given their incessant attacks on the vulnerable, benefit claimants and young people. Osborne's appropriation of the "progressive" label, along with his claim that the Tories are the "workers' party" would have even Baudrillard spitting in disgust.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 'what the public want from a labour party'.



But actually 'what the tories want from a labour party'


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> the Tories are the "workers' party"


anyone can claim that, the fuckin NSDAP claimed to be a party of the worker.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> anyone can claim that, the fuckin NSDAP claimed to be a party of the worker.


My point is that the "workers' party" label is just an empty sign. The claim to be "progressive" is another.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> My point is that the "workers' party" label is just an empty sign. The claim to be "progressive" is another.


I never know what politicians mean when they say "progressive politics", it is the sort of think the David Millibands of this world spout, I suspect it is just a bullshit phrase that means nothing and it always rankles when I hear it uttered.


----------



## flypanam (Sep 10, 2015)

Is Kendell suggesting that labour will split if Corbyn wins? Her speech this morning seems to suggest so.

The labour conservative wing would be dead in the water within months.

*Jack Blanchard*‏@*Jack_Blanchard_* 10 mins10 minutes ago

Liz Kendall: After 2010 Ed Miliband "papered over the cracks" of a split in Labour that had been growing since 1997

*Jack Blanchard*‏@*Jack_Blanchard_* 2 mins2 minutes ago

Kendall: Blairite/Brownite splits in must be "buried once and for all"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> unsourced quote from a BBC political reporter. So basically, bullshit.



Basically some wanker-wonk at Labour Central Office telling an old uni chum at the BBC "I shouldn't be telling you this, but...".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> The losing candidates should have to do a forfeit.



Impaling themselves on the railings outside the Houses of Parliament would be a surefire winner.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Impaling themselves on the railings outside the Houses of Parliament would be a surefire winner.


Their lack of substance would make this a pain free exercise.  Make them recite the old Clause 4 and if they get one syllable wrong, witchfinder Lord's Prayer style, they get locked in John Prescott's underpant hamper for all eternity (Father Ted style).


----------



## Wilf (Sep 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> Cooper, not a backer, Diane?
> 
> certainly not John McDonnell or Katie Clark


Presumably Cruddas:
Corbyn Win 'Would Turn Labour Party Into Trotskyist Tribute Act'


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

rehabilitating blairs legacy he says. Yeah good luck with that


----------



## treelover (Sep 10, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I put this on the other thread
> 
> The union-busting rag has it right front and centre on its website too. The Fabians were not my cup of tea at all but this shames even their not so impressive legacy.
> 
> No doubt any complaints about a supposedly left-wing publication giving such a red baiting rant by the chancellor of the fucking Tory government will be met with accusations of 'virtue-signalling' by the likes of Helen Lewis but even from a business point of view it makes no sense. Why now would even the wooliest of Labour 'left' people buy their very expensive magazine? Why not just cut out the middle man and buy the Spectator or the frankly much better Economist? At least when buying The Economist you know that you are supporting unionised workers since it recognises the NUJ, unlike the New $tatesman




I heard a programme on radio 4(the long view) about the history of the living/minimum wage campaign, the Webbs, Beatrice and Sidney, opposed it and wanted people who didn't work to be put in camps, why have these people(fabians) had so much traction in the LP?


----------



## treelover (Sep 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> So Sam's added up the second preferences - and the post of deputy leader goes to .....
> 
> BANANARAMA!!!!!



Its Mike Raven!

or SEYMOUR! in twenty years time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Their lack of substance would make this a pain free exercise.  Make them recite the old Clause 4 and if they get one syllable wrong, witchfinder Lord's Prayer style, they get locked in John Prescott's underpant hamper for all eternity (Father Ted style).



Sir, I like your style!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> I heard a programme on radio 4(the long view) about the history of the living/minimum wage campaign, the Webbs, Beatrice and Sidney, opposed it and wanted people who didn't work to be put in camps, why have these people(fabians) had so much traction in the LP?



They had their way too.


----------



## treelover (Sep 10, 2015)

I had heard stories about camps in the Fens, but not more, very little material on this, I wonder why?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> I had heard stories about camps in the Fens, but not more, very little material on this, I wonder why?



something of a tangent from the thread but at least one book on the subject - more here


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I was just looking at the wikipedia for Labour Leadership election (wanted the date for resullts) and came across the most car-showroom photo of burnham yet:


 Uncanny


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> So Sam's added up the second preferences - and the post of deputy leader goes to .....
> 
> BANANARAMA!!!!!


 POST OF THE YEAR


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Uncanny


----------



## treelover (Sep 10, 2015)

New Statesman will change its tune if J/C is elected, as to survive they need to be 'insiders'.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 10, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> POST OF THE YEAR


But I set it up, so I get to sit at the same table at the ceremony - and the chance to throw water over John Presott.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> But I set it up, so I get to sit at the same table at the ceremony - and the chance to throw water over John Presott.


only got the chance to throw water? how unfortunate


----------



## laptop (Sep 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> But I set it up, so I get to sit at the same table at the ceremony - and the chance to throw water over John Presott.



What, AGAIN, Mr Nobacon?


----------



## mwgdrwg (Sep 10, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Uncanny



Yah. Good...real good!


----------



## Argonia (Sep 10, 2015)

Quite exciting that finally this contest has reached its denouement...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Quite exciting that finally this contest has reached its denouement...


not yet, when saturday comes


----------



## andysays (Sep 10, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> not yet, when saturday comes



Announcing who's won is when the fun really starts...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 10, 2015)

andysays said:


> Announcing who's won is when the fun really starts...


they've all ruled out firmly a legal challenge to the result apparently. But theres still la resistance and simon danzuk-whatsit who talk like they'll mount an internal coup that is within the party rules. Dunno if they will or if its just frothing and flailing tho


----------



## treelover (Sep 10, 2015)

Bernie Sanders takes the lead over Hillary Clinton in Iowa poll

Meanwhile, over the water, Bernie Sanders overtakes Clinton in poll!

Apparently J/C campaign sold over 100,000 pounds worth of t shirt. 
400,000 in merchandising raised in all


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 10, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I never know what politicians mean when they say "progressive politics", it is the sort of think the David Millibands of this world spout, I suspect it is just a bullshit phrase that means nothing and it always rankles when I hear it uttered.



Spouted by over privileged, public school tossers who have gone straight from uni into a internship and positions within the Labour Party.
Having not the slightest idea what being a worker in this money driven chaos means and then spending years in the background helping produce policies that hoodwink members and supporters into swallowing the bile and lies that this is the progressive way forward, whilst awaiting being parachuted into safe, secure seats in labour stronghold constituencies.
Damn the Blairites and their lies.
I hope they all jump in the Thames.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 10, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/10/bernie-sanders-tops-hillary-clinton-iowa-polls
> 
> Apparently J/C campaign sold over 100,000 pounds worth of t shirt.


was it made of gold?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 10, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> I hope they all jump in the Thames.



(((thames wildlife)))


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 10, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Has anyone seen this despicable load of tosh from The New Statesman?
> Ascent of the Submarine: George Osborne talks to Jason Cowley




Have you mis-linked that? Reads like pure, unadulterated Telegraphese ....


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> . But theres still la resistance and simon danzuk-whatsit who talk like they'll mount an internal coup that is within the party rules. Dunno if they *will or if its just frothing and flailing* tho


 Given his wanking at work admissions, yes.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 11, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Given his wanking at work admissions, yes.



 Who hasn't done that though?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Have you mis-linked that? Reads like pure, unadulterated Telegraphese ....


I wish. The NS has gone very right-wing over the years.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2015)

Why would anyone take George Osborne at face value when he opines about the direction the Labour Party should take? Uttery bizarre - although it's instructive that he's of the same opinion as Blair, Mandelson etc.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 11, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Has anyone seen this despicable load of tosh from The New Statesman?
> Ascent of the Submarine: George Osborne talks to Jason Cowley



What are the plonkers at the NS hoping for?
If Corbyn wins all the Blairites and their Labour Party supporters join the Tories?
The world turned upside down!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

If it's truly progressive, Labour will have voted in a female leader - regardless of her polices


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If it's truly progressive, Labour will have voted in a female leader - regardless of her polices


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

Feminism for them = positive discrimination for right-wing female politicians who will then be allowed to go on to implement policies which disproportionately make the lives of women worse


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Feminism for them = positive discrimination for right-wing female politicians who will then be allowed to go on to implement policies which disproportionately make the lives of women worse


I read a tweet from a woman who's a Labour supporter who claimed she was "the most left-wing person" she knew. She was going to vote for Cooper solely on the basis that she's a woman.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If it's truly progressive, Labour will have voted in a female leader - regardless of her polices



Be progressive by voting for Liz 'bring back workhouses' Kendall? No, no thanks.

Is there an 'Independent going down the pan' thread?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Be progressive by voting for Liz 'bring back workhouses' Kendall? No, no thanks.
> 
> Is there an 'Independent going down the pan' thread?


I thought we generally accepted it has passed the u-bend, run through the condom chandeliers of the sewer system and farted its semi proccesed load into the sea


----------



## belboid (Sep 11, 2015)

Sadiq Khan for Mayor, then


----------



## weltweit (Sep 11, 2015)

Over soon.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 11, 2015)

"If it's truly progressive, Labour will have voted in a female leader - regardless of her polices"

That's a good line, it should go on a poster.


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 11, 2015)

belboid said:


> Sadiq Khan for Mayor, then



Good sign for the Corbyn campaign then hopefully...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> Good sign for the Corbyn campaign then hopefully...



Why?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If it's truly progressive, Labour will have voted in a female leader - regardless of her polices



She's also wrong in terms of this claim (the bit about 1983 being a high water mark):
"When only 1 per cent of the total electorate is an active member of a political party - down from a high water mark of 3.8 per cent in 1983"

See page 6 of this:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05125/SN05125.pdf


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2015)

only one more day of this intolerable contest


----------



## belboid (Sep 11, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> Good sign for the Corbyn campaign then hopefully...


very very sligtly, maybe.

JC seems pleased tho, and confident


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Why?



As the Union backed candidate beat the Blairite?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> only one more day of this intolerable contest



its nothing compared to the mutual bloodletting that will follow Corbyns' victory - it will be _endless_...

everytime a non-Corbynite opens their mouth on any subject it will be 'chaos in the Labour ranks!'. amusing - particularly given Corbyns' attitude to party discipline - but immensley tedious.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

Whagwan said:


> As the Union backed candidate beat the Blairite?



Union backed or not he's hardly very left-wing, also took loads of money from housing developers so it doesn't take a genius to see what he would do during his candidacy


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Feminism for them = positive discrimination for right-wing female politicians who will then be allowed to go on to implement policies which disproportionately make the lives of women worse


Yep, and as the writer's a libdem she's presumably been supporting a government whose cuts have disproportionately hit working class women.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 11, 2015)

Interesting that Jowell did so badly as the perviced wisdom was that Labour needed people like her to win votes in the Tory areas especially the outer London Boroughs


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Interesting that Jowell did so badly as the perviced wisdom was that Labour needed people like her to win votes in the Tory areas especially the outer London Boroughs


because of her looks - opening up the labour party to accusations of sexism like that solicitor


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2015)

Pope Susie Boniface...er, Fleet Street Fox tells us why Corbyn is bad. She's left it a bit late for this hatchet-job. No? 
Why Jeremy Corbyn is the worst person in the world to lead the Labour Party


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Pope Susie Boniface...er, Fleet Street Fox tells us why Corbyn is bad. She's left it a bit late for this hatchet-job. No?
> Why Jeremy Corbyn is the worst person in the world to lead the Labour Party


sounds very teen - 'the worst person _in the world_'


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 11, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Pope Susie Boniface...er, Fleet Street Fox tells us why Corbyn is bad. She's left it a bit late for this hatchet-job. No?
> Why Jeremy Corbyn is the worst person in the world to lead the Labour Party


such a brainfart of wrong lol. This stood out to me as quite ignorant indeed:



> Corbyn's secret is that, just like Nigel, he's not really a politician. He's not big on strategy, he's historically been more interested in trouble than power,



Farage is an able politician. He's taken a kilroy-silk bad joke of a party to a position of respectability (ish) and won near 4 mill votes. Ruthlessly quashed internal coups and hoofed out the mouthiest mentals. Thats before we even look at how well the party has performed in councillors etc.
Farage is a strategist and pretty good at the game he plays. His pragmatism has been on display everytime the cunt boots out some swively eyed sort who brought the party into disrepute. As for the rest, well its all just the usual wannabe arch shit you expect.

If they don't keep the powder dry they'll run out of shit to fling lol


----------



## treelover (Sep 11, 2015)

Ap


Whagwan said:


> Good sign for the Corbyn campaign then hopefully...




Isn't he(Kahn) a bit of a flip flopper like Andy?

Abbot looks devastated in the photos.


----------



## oryx (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If it's truly progressive, Labour will have voted in a female leader - regardless of her polices



Not enough s.

As a socialist feminist, the women I'm bothered about most are the ones affected by cuts in benefits, education and the health service - the single mums, carers, low paid workers etc.

Not those wanting a high level career in politics.

I actually find her comments on age in the article quite offensive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

loving the stance captured here 'take up thy bed and walk, for you have been healed'

if he brings home the bacon on saturday we can look forward to wall-to-wall histrionics from the press, the labour right and all them bubble world twats. Best labour leadership election of my lifetime for sheer lols


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Pope Susie Boniface...er, Fleet Street Fox tells us why Corbyn is bad. She's left it a bit late for this hatchet-job. No?
> Why Jeremy Corbyn is the worst person in the world to lead the Labour Party


A weird piece of shit hurling to be sure. Bizarrely though, in a monkey's and typewriters way, it does point to point to the problem Corbyn will have in trying to revive social democracy.  Many of the levers are no longer there and he's just not going to overturn decades of privatisation, kick the spiv-managers out of the NHS, local government etc.  Regardless of the fact that he'll be leading a party that is in most of it's structures and certainly it's MPs, neo-liberal, I've not heard really creative solutions coming from him.

Edit: for what it's worth, I don't accept the kind of political economy that says structural issues and neoliberal globalisation rule out anything but the Con-New Lab consensus. There's a role for choice and genuine politics. But if you want to do political projects work needs to be done (both Thatcherism and New Lab were a long time in the making).  I don't see much groundwork having been done to revive Corbyn's social democracy.  In that sense at least, the journos are right, it is a kind of protest movement that has unexpectedly come to power (at least in the party).


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 11, 2015)

When I got to the third laboured metaphor I wanted to stamp on my laptop, never mind the rest of the guff Boniface was spouting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> such a brainfart of wrong lol. This stood out to me as quite ignorant indeed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


not to mention this 

1983 traditionally before 1993.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 11, 2015)

Frank's prediction: Corbyn will be just shy of 50% in the first round, and Burnham will claw his way in on second preference votes. The resultant uproar and cries of foul play will largely fail to make the transition from the internet into the real world and will soon die out when it becomes clear that Corbyn himself can't be bothered to make a fuss about it and in fact never really expected to win even when the polls and the bookies all had him as a dead cert.

Burnham's Labour party will continue to be a hollow shell of nothingness, occasionally proposing something slightly progressive in a half-arsed sort of way but never actually winning an argument about anything and never managing to hold Cameron's coke-addled wrecking crew of a goverment to account for anything. Meanwhile the tories, safe in the knowledge that they have no effective opposition, will continue to ransack the country and destroy whatever they can't sell to the lowest bidder, until we've basically become a client state for oligarchs and offshore tycoons.


----------



## JHE (Sep 11, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Frank's prediction: Corbyn will be just shy of 50% in the first round, and Burnham will claw his way in on second preference votes.



My guess is Labour HQ is not conducting the count in complete secrecy and all the candidates - either directly or via people in their campaign teams - have heard how things are going.  Noises from a couple of the non-Corbyn camps seem at least highly consistent with an expected Corbyn win and the fact that the Corbyn team is playing down the scandal of many people who were entitled to vote not getting the opportunity suggests they are pretty confident of having won.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

oddly enough I don't care about the tory reaction to a corbyn victory. They'll just do what they always do (trying to sly in an anti-union bill atm). I want to see the salt tears on the face of labour rightists. Fuck knows where the corbynmobile will go or what will happen but its got to be worth it to see mandleson negging (when did he start sporting hipster glases? I recall him as younger and more raptorish. It comes to us all I suppose)


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2015)

JHE said:


> My guess is Labour HQ is not conducting the count in complete secrecy and all the candidates - either directly or via people in their campaign teams - have heard how things are going.  Noises from a couple of the non-Corbyn camps seem at least highly consistent with an expected Corbyn win and the fact that the Corbyn team is playing down the scandal of many people who were entitled to vote not getting the opportunity suggests they are pretty confident of having won.


I've had a feeling that something like Frank's scenario might be true, or indeed Corbyn getting even less.  However I've been persuaded by the general assumption that Corbyn has won (something like the process I went through on the general election).  However I think yours is a good point, we'd be hearing more noises off if Corbyn hasn't won. Not sure how they run the count (electoral reform society?)?  The electronic 2nd and 3rd preferences are presumably allocated automatically, but there must be a point where the paper ballots are counted and factored in.  That at least must have been observed by the candidates agents, so there would have been a chance for them to see who is winning.


----------



## laptop (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the corbynmobile


----------



## agricola (Sep 11, 2015)

Wilf said:


> But if you want to do political projects work needs to be done (both Thatcherism and New Lab were a long time in the making).  I don't see much groundwork having been done to revive Corbyn's social democracy.  In that sense at least, the journos are right, it is a kind of protest movement that has unexpectedly come to power (at least in the party).



TBH quite a lot of the groundwork has been done simply by the failure of New Labour to do anything meaningful, and the absurdity of the situation whereby the state privatizes most of its functions and then pays more to have them carried out.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

laptop said:


>


less a battle bus and more a holiday in skeggy vehicle


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 11, 2015)

laptop said:


>



Is that Jimmy Saville driving?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Is that Jimmy Saville driving?



Obv a Thatch mobile


----------



## JHE (Sep 11, 2015)

I think there's only one top Labour politician who has a vehicle similar to that:  Margaret Beckett.  I've had a soft spot for her ever since I found out she and her husband love caravaning.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 11, 2015)

laptop said:


>



Not pictured: Andy Burnham's Battle Ambulance and Liz Kendall's Mk III Panzer of Compassion and Aspiration.


----------



## treelover (Sep 11, 2015)

Blimey, no wonder he may win, does anyone know where this is?

Tolpuddle?

btw, apparently Daniel Radcliffe is backing Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Blimey, no wonder he may win, does anyone know where this is?


The mount. You can tell cos just out of shot his team are distributing the loaves and fishes.


----------



## Celyn (Sep 11, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I read a tweet from a woman who's a Labour supporter who claimed she was "the most left-wing person" she knew. She was going to vote for Cooper solely on the basis that she's a woman.



Oh woe.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> less a battle bus and more a holiday in skeggy vehicle



In as much as you go to Skeggy you could end up in a battle!


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Tolpuddle?
> 
> btw, apparently Daniel Radcliffe is backing Corbyn.


Neoliberalism Expelliarmus!


----------



## Wilf (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> The mount. You can tell cos just out of shot his team are distributing the loaves and fishes.


"Blessed are the cheesemakers, provided they are nationalised or working in an ill defined workers co-op"


----------



## belboid (Sep 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Blimey, no wonder he may win, does anyone know where this is?


Burston School Strike Rally


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

JHE said:


> I think there's only one top Labour politician who has a vehicle similar to that:  Margaret Beckett.  I've had a soft spot for her ever since I found out she and her husband love caravaning.


I think corbyn looks like a man who appreciates the four beds and intergral toilet afforded to one who purchases a Corniche Swift


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I think corbyn looks like a man who appreciates the four beds and intergral toilet afforded to one who purchases a Corniche Swift


you're never alone with a corbyn


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

Adorbs Corbs


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 11, 2015)

When Becket was foreign sec, she was apparently not much loved by special branch, who had hoped of accompanying her during the summer recess to some sun drenched location on holiday. Instead they had to follow her about in her caravan as she pitched up at various drab British locations.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> When Becket was foreign sec, she was apparently not much loved by special branch, who had hoped of accompanying her during the summer recess to some sun drenched location on holiday. Instead they had to follow her about in her caravan as she pitched up at various drab British locations.


that was a real lesson in the nature of the enemy that Cameron was tanning his balls in Tuscany while Tottenham burned.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 11, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> When Becket was foreign sec, she was apparently not much loved by special branch, who had hoped of accompanying her during the summer recess to some sun drenched location on holiday. Instead they had to follow her about in her caravan as she pitched up at various drab British locations.



we met her and hubby on a caravan holiday once, she was pitched up next to us. they were both very nice - hubby helped with some electrics and she made tea. it was the House of Cards meets Terry and June.


----------



## laptop (Sep 11, 2015)

kebabking said:


> we met her and hubby on a caravan holiday once, she was pitched up next to us. they were both very nice - hubby helped with some electrics and she made tea. it was the House of Cards meets Terry and June.



But how were her... _entourage_?


----------



## Santino (Sep 11, 2015)

kebabking said:


> it was the House of Cards meets Terry and June.


That episode where they have a threesome?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 11, 2015)

laptop said:


> But how were her... _entourage_?



She didn't have one, this was after she was FCO, probably about 2012. The close protection rozzers i've met we're either lazy or had a wild over-estimation of their abilities...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> oddly enough I don't care about the tory reaction to a corbyn victory. They'll just do what they always do (trying to sly in an anti-union bill atm). I want to see the salt tears on the face of labour rightists. Fuck knows where the corbynmobile will go or what will happen but its got to be worth it to see mandleson negging (when did he start sporting hipster glases? I recall him as younger and more raptorish. It comes to us all I suppose)



Hamface is already playing the "the Labour left are even more economically incompetent than the Labour right" card in the media today. And this from a man whose chancellor buttfucked the economy into a "double-dip" recession.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hamface is already playing the "the Labour left are even more economically incompetent than the Labour right" card in the media today. And this from a man whose chancellor buttfucked the economy into a "double-dip" recession.



Interestingly, the conversations I've had regarding Corbyn aren't so much critical of his economics - which are Keynesian and he could point to a dozen Tory governments that held similar views - but his overseas and defence policies. In truth, he'll be crucified on that platform, by public opinion let alone the media, and the govt have half a dozen defence/foreign affairs issues coming up where a good 70% of the PLP will fundamentally agree with the govt and disagree with Corbyn. It will be interesting to see if he opposes them and whether the PLP takes his directions.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And this from a man whose chancellor buttfucked the economy into a "double-dip" recession.


 
But he did make the right people very rich which is what matters... now remember, Labour can't be trusted with the economy!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

kebabking said:


> Interestingly, the conversations I've had regarding Corbyn aren't so much critical of his economics - which are Keynesian and he could point to a dozen Tory governments that held similar views - but his overseas and defence policies. In truth, he'll be crucified on that platform, by public opinion let alone the media, and the govt have half a dozen defence/foreign affairs issues coming up where a good 70% of the PLP will fundamentally agree with the govt and disagree with Corbyn. It will be interesting to see if he opposes them and whether the PLP takes his directions.



It's interesting that the establishment has chosen to use foreign policy and culture war shit (he hates our troops etc) as a strategy for attacking Corbyn, it makes me think that they are genuinely more afraid of a prominent opposition to neoliberal economics than I thought that they would be.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's interesting that the establishment has chosen to use foreign policy and culture war shit (he hates our troops etc) as a strategy for attacking Corbyn, it makes me think that they are genuinely more afraid of a prominent opposition to neoliberal economics than I thought that they would be.



i think you wildly overstate the 'establishments' attachment to the thatcherism+ policies of the current government. moreover, no one peddles the infantile crap you accuse them of - i'm not sure anyone believes Corbyn hates anyone, he appears to be an extremely nice man who treats everyone he meets with courtesy and respect - they object to him because they believe his viewpoint on ODP is naive in the extreme and will do enormous damage to the UK long term safety and interests.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

its basically what they have. This bloke says you don't have to eat shit no more, there are other ways to deal with deficits that don't include slashing and burning the public sector and will bring back a participatory form of politics, the sort of stuff your dad told you labour used to be about. I'm just suprised they haven't gone full zinoviev yet given the 'friend of the terrorist' stuff hasn't had much traction.

no way the vested interest and MoD is ever letting any government fuck them long term. Stocked full of 'governments come and go, we remain' sorts


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's interesting that the establishment has chosen to use foreign policy and culture war shit (he hates our troops etc) as a strategy for attacking Corbyn, it makes me think that they are genuinely more afraid of a prominent opposition to neoliberal economics than I thought that they would be.



They absolutely are and well done Jezza for making them afraid by shifting public discourse 10 feet to the left.

But he has massive challenges if elected. He can't gaff his way to power by, for example, holding forthright opinions on leaving NATO. He has to both set, but also toe, a party line and look like he means it. That's the Parliamentary game. Absolutely fascinating to see what happens.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2015)

stop calling him jezza. it's revolting.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

I will get C-Byn into common usage on these boards if it kills me  in the process


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2015)

I shall prepare a wreath.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i think you wildly overstate the 'establishments' attachment to the thatcherism+ policies of the current government.



Do I? 'Red Ed' was considered 'too left' for the media establishment and significant parts of the Labour Party itself. What Corbyn isn't proposing isn't massively radical from a disinterested, objective point of view but it is surely to the left of whatever Ed Miliband's tinkering on the edges of neoliberalism would have amounted to.



> moreover, no one peddles the infantile crap you accuse them of - i'm not sure anyone believes Corbyn hates anyone, he appears to be an extremely nice man who treats everyone he meets with courtesy and respect - they object to him because they believe his viewpoint on ODP is naive in the extreme and will do enormous damage to the UK long term safety and interests.



Of course they are peddling it, how many articles have we had about how Corbyn 'loves' 'terrorists', is an anti-Semite and/or backer of anti-Semites? Cameron even explicitly mentioned the 'friends of Hamas' stuff at PMQs this week, and a Panorama programme this week tried to imply that Corbyn called for attacks on British troops even though their 'proof' of this purely guilt by very weak association.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> stop calling him jezza. it's revolting.



Yes, it reminds me of the Kyle monster



DotCommunist said:


> I will get C-Byn into common usage on these boards if it kills me  in the process



I prefer Corbae


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 11, 2015)

killer b said:


> stop calling him jezza. it's revolting.



Corbo.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 11, 2015)

The Corbinator. The Corbmeister General.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

I honestly cannot get over that Osborne interview in the New Statesman.

It is now easily the worst publication in Britain in my eyes, I will buy The Scum before I ever buy the New Statesman and I will _never_ buy The Scum.


----------



## Buckaroo (Sep 11, 2015)

C-Byn Laden


----------



## Santino (Sep 11, 2015)

Corba the Dread


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 11, 2015)

Roy Corbison.


----------



## spliff (Sep 11, 2015)

I would have thought J.C. was enough.

It worked for that other fella.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2015)

as long as no fucker posts 'jez we can' tomorrow lunchtime.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> ...media establishment and significant parts of the Labour Party.. ..articles.. ..Cameron.. ..Panorama..



sorry, i thought you were talking about serious people, rather than wibbling cranks, MP's and the Media - or, if you prefer, wibbling cranks _like_ MP's and the Media.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2015)

Anyway, my prediction: the sudden change in the LP establishment's position in the last week (and Corbyn's positively radiant smile in the Snow interview yesterday) point to a decisive win for Corbyn. I'll stick my neck out and say 60%, just because it'll poetically match the recent Greek referendum results (and probably be followed by a similar level of disappointment)


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 11, 2015)

spliff said:


> I would have thought J.C. was enough.
> 
> It worked for that other fella.



It could be after another famous J.C come next March 15th
I can set the scene J.C stood atop the steps into parliament when his cohorts rush him, his last utterance, et tu Burnham!


----------



## agricola (Sep 11, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> It could be after another famous J.C come next March 15th
> I can set the scene J.C stood atop the steps into parliament when his cohorts rush him, his last utterance, et tu Burnham!



"beware the snides of March"


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2015)

I hold no hope of anything good coming of this whole thing except perhaps the window of public debate moving 3 millimeters or so to the left. But it will be satisfying on some level if a British electorate when presented with the rare opportunity of voting for someone who isn't a complete vapid cunt take that opportunity.


----------



## belboid (Sep 11, 2015)

spliff said:


> I would have thought J.C. was enough.
> 
> It worked for that other fella.


Well, Julian Cope is doing okay, but he ain't likely to get elected to anything very soon.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

RE the current establishment being hostile to anything opposing neoliberalism, well Keynesian strategy is a kind of economic containment with heavy nationalistic overtones. There's simply no way of British EconNat being remotely viable at this juncture in time unless they can push the burden onto external states, because, after all, for Keynesianism to be successful it would still have to include immigrants in its definition of nationhood.

You need a heavy industrial consumer goods export oriented economy and overbloated military sector for this to be remotely feasible. The sad truth is that if someone like Burnam wins it'll probably be better for the labour left - oh the irony!

Keynesianism only really works after the destruction of value and capital, as can be seen from the post-war settlement. But no, ignoramuses and potty-peeing philistines never learn...

The only way Corbynmania could actually work is if the far right gain traction a la UKIP, start severely limiting imigration and (re)constituting a kind of British identity. Without this the economics simply don't follow. You need to kill EU sentiment, as well, preferably get Britain out of the EU. I repeat, these potty-peeing philistines are doomed to reenact the failures of history.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

maomao said:


> I hold no hope of anything good coming of this whole thing except perhaps the window of public debate moving 3 millimeters or so to the left. But it will be satisfying on some level if a British electorate when presented with the rare opportunity of voting for someone who isn't a complete vapid cunt take that opportunity.


If c-byn got in and was able to push forward with a council house building scheme, well it aint the revolution is it but if it makes peoples lives a bit easier in the meantime and gives people work in the building. Thats ok. I can't rail against it. I'll never vote Labour though. They spat on us for too long. Its odd you know, I expect my elders to be more astute and yet so many are straight on the C-Wagon like its a red dawn or some shit. Fuckit, at least PMQ's mightget worth watching again. Lets see if Cam tries to out beard him by growing his own divorce beard. Or a comically long villain tash that he can twirl. Exciting times


----------



## Argonia (Sep 11, 2015)

C-byn


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> If c-byn got in and was able to push forward with a council house building scheme, well it aint the revolution is it but if it makes peoples lives a bit easier in the meantime and gives people work in the building. Thats ok. I can't rail against it. I'll never vote Labour though. They spat on us for too long. Its odd you know, I expect my elders to be more astute and yet so many are straight on the C-Wagon like its a red dawn or some shit. Fuckit, at least PMQ's mightget worth watching again. Lets see if Cam tries to out beard him by growing his own divorce beard. Or a comically long villain tash that he can twirl. Exciting times



I always claim I'm going to vote SCP and end up voting Labour out of pure unadulterated fear, cursing my cowardice in the polling booth. I could probably persuade myself that voting for C-Byn was vaguely positive in some way or other.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

maomao said:


> I always claim I'm going to vote SCP and end up voting Labour out of pure unadulterated fear, cursing my cowardice in the polling booth. I could probably persuade myself that voting for C-Byn was vaguely positive in some way or other.


the price of purity is electoral irrelevance. I'm fine with that, its a rigged game anyway so Spunking Cock M-L is the way forward for me


----------



## TopCat (Sep 11, 2015)

By any means necessary. This Corbyn win could push back on the anti working class cunts.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> If c-byn got in and was able to push forward with a council house building scheme, well it aint the revolution is it but if it makes peoples lives a bit easier in the meantime and gives people work in the building. Thats ok. I can't rail against it. I'll never vote Labour though. They spat on us for too long. Its odd you know, I expect my elders to be more astute and yet so many are straight on the C-Wagon like its a red dawn or some shit. Fuckit, at least PMQ's mightget worth watching again. Lets see if Cam tries to out beard him by growing his own divorce beard. Or a comically long villain tash that he can twirl. Exciting times



Probably what you'll get are heavy-handed council house managers, tight social services - very much regulated and extremely bureaucratised, further disintegration of the DWP, union bureaucracies swelling in their capacity to act and strikebreaking if we get labour in power by 2020 - we have a socialist government in power don't you know, why are you going on strike?

Like, the left wing of capital desire this because it actually enables the continued reproduction of their existence. The left subconsciously wanted the w/c to vote Thatcher en masse in 79 and thus acted as executives of the capitalist state machinery. They need to be liquidated (as in their power needs to be nullified as opposed to literally liquidated, ha)  if you ask me. Everyone from Trotskyists to soc-dems to certain few (but no less vocal) anarchists and autonomists. So yeah we need to organise outside the left and unions if you ask me. It'll be a hard task, but I'd rather that than draining the sap out of people and exhausting their energies.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

TopCat said:


> By any means necessary. This Corbyn win could push back on the anti working class cunts.



It won't. It'll only strengthen them. first as tragedy, then as farce.

The working-class voted them in for good or for bad. That's the main argument that people fail to account for. Ah but we want democracy, but this is what you'll invariably get. The type of participative democracy they talk about is impossible to implement in a system based on prices and exchange and not utility. Electable deligates won't change a friggin thing because the structures still remain and these officials get absorbed into the market firm-form of the nation state.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

If I were part of the Corbyn campaign one of my next moves would be to emulate Podemos' brilliant use of media. They need to set up a news website, definitely a regular maybe weekly podcast, something that keeps people in touch on a day to day basis which can be shared on social media.


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2015)

dialectician said:


> It won't. It'll only strengthen them. first as tragedy, then as farce.
> 
> The working-class voted them in for good or for bad. That's the main argument that people fail to account for. We want democracy, but this is what you'll invariably get. The type of participative democracy they talk about is impossible to implement in a system based on prices and exchange and not utility. Ele ctable deligates won't change a friggin thing because the structures still remain and these officials get absorbed into the market firm-form of the nation state.



Yes, writing angst ridden sub a-level rants on bulletin boards is definitely the way to improve the lot of the much shat-on British working classes.

Oh and: 


dialectician said:


> The left subconsciously wanted the w/c to vote Thatcher en masse in 79 and thus acted as executives of the capitalist state machinery.



Fuck off.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 11, 2015)

dialectician said:


> It won't. It'll only strengthen them. first as tragedy, then as farce.
> 
> The working-class voted them in for good or for bad. That's the main argument that people fail to account for. Ah but we want democracy, but this is what you'll invariably get. The type of participative democracy they talk about is impossible to implement in a system based on prices and exchange and not utility. Electable deligates won't change a friggin thing because the structures still remain and these officials get absorbed into the market firm-form of the nation state.



Yeah, yeah. It's probably not the thread for you then, y'know discussing the possible. Discussing compromising, small gains etc.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

Are you seriously telling me that you don't fear a right-wing backlash if Corbyn fails? Because that's more important to me than small compromises that are bound to fail and are impossible to implement. I'd rather be on the defensive than having to deal with a xenophobic and authoritarian right inclined British public, thank you very much.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Yeah, yeah. It's probably not the thread for you then, y'know discussing the possible. Discussing compromising, small gains etc.


Tbf we're just discussing the labour leadership election.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

maomao said:


> Oh and:
> 
> 
> Fuck off.



Well, it's true. Even that strikebreaking icon Tony Benn (beloved to so many people I won't understand why) served the state, not the w/c. Sending in the army to break strikes in 77 and 78, indeed.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Well, it's true. Even that strikebreaking icon Tony Benn (beloved to so many people I won't understand why) served the state, not the w/c. Sending in the army to break strikes in 76, indeed.



You should try meeting Hilary...


----------



## TopCat (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You should try meeting Hilary...


She is quite fit but.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

TopCat said:


> She is quite fit but.



It's a he. Hilary Benn.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 11, 2015)

Ah not the one Class War stood against then. What's her name? I remember now the fucker you refer to. I got to call him a cunt repeatedly to his face at the Croydon count this summer.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

TopCat said:


> I got to call him a cunt repeatedly to his face at the Croydon count this summer.



Thank you for your service


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 11, 2015)

Is Hilary Benn still a thing? He was a nonentity even by Blairite standards, I kinda thought he'd have simply stopped existing by now through sheer lack of anyone giving a shit one way or another.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 11, 2015)

Corbyn's deffo won then, look at those odds


----------



## TopCat (Sep 11, 2015)

Corbyn is speaking tomorrow at some rally or other. I may go and shout Ray.


----------



## JHE (Sep 11, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn's deffo won then, look at those odds



According to various reports a few weeks ago Paddy Power began paying out on bets that Corbyn would win.  Bookies PAY OUT on Jeremy Corbyn Labour leadership victory


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

Santino said:


> Corba the Dread


J to the bizzle
his beard is grizzle
Smashin his foes
Rallies only treelover knows

Young people the grist to the mill
get ready to swalla a soc/dec pill

You can't touch corbyns swag. Its so swag nye bevan is all 'hold up ey! to mah brother who be yakkin to hard, please don't play'

and so on


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 11, 2015)

I, for one, am really looking forward to the 2020-2030 George Osborne reign of terror.


----------



## killer b (Sep 11, 2015)

interesting article in Jacobin here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/corbyn-blair-britain-leadership-election/


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 11, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Well, it's true. Even that strikebreaking icon Tony Benn (beloved to so many people I won't understand why) served the state, not the w/c. Sending in the army to break strikes in 76, indeed.



_



			One point, however, should be clarified. It is often claimed that Benn prepared troops to break a strike at the Windscale nuclear plant. The truth seems to be rather more complex:


Brian Sedgemore, in his recent book The Secret Constitution (1980), points out that when Tony Benn was Minister of Energy during a strike at Windscale, his civil servants informed him that unless troops were used to move nitrogen across a picket line a “critical nuclear explosion would take place”. Sedgemore diplomatically comments that these warnings were “unfounded”. The Civil Contingencies Unit at the Cabinet Office had prepared a plan “to break the strike with troops, thus leaving Tony Benn as a sort of latter-day Churchill” – The Times, 29 May 1980


Thus it would appear that Benn was set up by civil servants, something which doubtless helped to inspire his later recognition of the power of the state. Yet his only response was to keep his head down and stay in office, believing he could achieve more inside the government than outside appealing to the rank-and-file.
		
Click to expand...

_
Dialectician, just put that quote into a search engine to trace the source.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> _
> _



Seems awfully far fetched to me. Also, 1980, hardly a barometer for neutral thinking on the matter is it?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 11, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Seems awfully far fetched to me. Also, 1980, hardly a barometer for neutral thinking on the matter is it?


Do as I suggest in my edited version and trace the origin of the quote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 11, 2015)

if C-Byn loses I'm calling shennanigans, fix, tammany hall bannana republic lies.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 11, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> _
> _
> 
> Dialectician, just put that quote into a search engine to trace the source.



Yup, as I thought, This garbage from the post-SWP confessional Trot sects 
Of course they're going to say Benn was ill-informed, labour party entryism is a classic tactic of these people! They're hardly going to criticise their own positions are they?

Have this instead

Like I said, the left is and always will be counter-revolutionary. The Trot and post-trot sects are just a more authoritarian, beefed up and violent form of social democracy. Quoting RS21 isn't going to appease any proletarian internationalist communists if that was the intended effect idk?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 11, 2015)

I've just seen this on Twitter.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 11, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Quoting RS21 isn't going to appease any proletarian internationalist communists if that was the intended effect idk?



This is adorable.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 11, 2015)

dunno.

i wasn't very politically active in 1979 (i was at primary school) so not entirely sure.

i'm certainly aware that in 2010 there were some people in varying shades of 'the left' (and i'm not thinking of anyone round here) who wanted a tory victory - i think the 'logic' being that this would remind the general public what a bunch of nasty twunts the tories are, and push the labour party back to its proper place on the left.

i get the feeling it didn't quite work...


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> dunno.
> 
> i wasn't very politically active in 1979 (i was at primary school) so not entirely sure.
> 
> ...


Didn't it?  Look where we are now.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 11, 2015)

Is Butchers coming back?


----------



## panpete (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If I were part of the Corbyn campaign one of my next moves would be to emulate Podemos' brilliant use of media. They need to set up a news website, definitely a regular maybe weekly podcast, something that keeps people in touch on a day to day basis which can be shared on social media.


why dont you suggest it to him, he might like it.
i like corbyn as he has no ego


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

I foresee a win for Corbyn tomorrow (hope so) amid sour grapes, questions being asked about the ballot, & legal challenges which will drag on and on.

The Blairites/New Labour/centrists will not easily accept that the party's grassroots and new supporters want a fresh, honest, anti-austerity approach free of spin and bullshit.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 12, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Didn't it?  Look where we are now.



I'm not arguing that people should have voted Burnham or whatever. I'm just making the point that the inevitable failure of Corbyn (given such a low level of class consciousness at the moment) is bound to have negative repercussions. I find it utterly sickening that the Corbynites won't consider this.

Anti-austerity isn't radical within itself, despite what some might like to think.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> I'm not arguing that people should have voted Burnham or whatever. I'm just making the point that the inevitable failure of Corbyn (given such a low level of class consciousness at the moment) is bound to have negative repercussions. I find it utterly sickening that the Corbynites won't consider this.
> 
> Anti-austerity isn't radical within itself, despite what some might like to think.


Well I find it sickening when smug student radicals choose to direct their ire at the actual working class for being positive about a possible route to more dignified and secure lives rather than attacking the real enemy.

And anti-austerity may be less than radical in the grand scheme of things but after 3+ decades of relentless neoliberalism it's a significant step to the left. Whereas taking the hardest anti-capitalist position available ain't all that radical if you're just farting about on the internet and never had to argue your opinions in a workplace full of racist tory voters.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Not long to wait now? What a choice though - 3 light-weight career politicians and a populist rabble-rouser? Come back Tony, all is forgiven.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Not long to wait now? What a choice though - 3 light-weight career politicians and a *populist rabble-rouser*? Come back Tony, all is forgiven.



Really?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Live coverage of 11am on BBC 2 this morning. 

Followed by live premier league dummy spitting/toys being thrown out of pram ....


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Really?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Yes, _really_ - and it seems to be working!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Not long to wait now? What a choice though - 3 light-weight career politicians and a populist rabble-rouser? Come back Tony, all is forgiven.



Corbyn is the polar opposite of  a "populist rabble-rouser". Hes more like a character in one of those films where the quiet, mild mannered, hapless nobody accidentally ends up as a hero  whilst foiling the machinations of the powerful baddies - and winning the heart of his sweetheart. Played by Norman Wisdom/Jim Dale/Richard Pryor.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Corbyn is the polar opposite of  a "populist rabble-rouser".



He's more trot geography teacher.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Corbyn is the polar opposite of  a "populist rabble-rouser". Hes more like a character in one of those films where the quiet, mild mannered, hapless nobody *accidentally ends up as a hero*  whilst foiling the machinations of the powerful baddies - and winning the heart of his sweetheart. Played by Norman Wisdom/Jim Dale/Richard Pryor.



Much to everybody's surprise . . .  including his!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 12, 2015)

Pretty shit trolling, to be honest.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Yes, _really_ - and it seems to be working!



So how does this populist rabble rousing make it self manifest; just so we all know what we're talking about?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Corbyn is the polar opposite of  a "populist rabble-rouser". Hes more like a character in one of those films where the quiet, mild mannered, hapless nobody accidentally ends up as a hero  whilst foiling the machinations of the powerful baddies - and winning the heart of his sweetheart. Played by Norman Wisdom/Jim Dale/Richard Pryor.



Or Jimmy Stewart.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So how does this populist rabble rousing make it self manifest; just so we all know what we're talking about?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Here's just one of his Defence policies: I don't feel inclined to go through his entire manifesto.

"Bombing Syria will "kill many people" and may not defeat Isil, Jeremy Corbyn has said in the strongest indication yet he will block David Cameron's attempts to launch air strikes in the country. Mr Corbyn has called for _a "radically different international policy", based on "political and not military solutions"."

What does Jeremy Corbyn stand for?_

Essentially he's saying that we should propitiate IS by holding peace talks.






Totally meaningless - unless anyone thinks IS will grab the offer while it's still open? This is not an anti-Corbyn observation because the others will probably have the same thing in mind.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

Oh dear, where do they come from?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Essentially he's saying that we should propitiate IS by holding peace talks.



No he isn't


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh dear, where do they come from?



Are you going to put me right then? Or just throw a pointless snide remark in my direction and run away?


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> No he isn't



What _is_ he suggesting then?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Here's just one of his Defence policies: I don't feel inclined to go through his entire manifesto.
> 
> "Bombing Syria will "kill many people" and may not defeat Isil, Jeremy Corbyn has said in the strongest indication yet he will block David Cameron's attempts to launch air strikes in the country. Mr Corbyn has called for _a "radically different international policy", based on "political and not military solutions"."
> 
> ...



Even if your characterisation was accurate (i.e. Corbyn seeks to 'propitiate IS by holding peace talks'), in what way would that constitute 'populist rabble rousing'? You might want to take a look at opinion polling re. RAF air strikes against ISIS.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Are you going to put me right then? Or just throw a pointless snide remark in my direction and run away?


I think, given the quality of your responses on this thread so far, it's the best I can manage. 

You seem familiar, btw.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Even if your characterisation was accurate (i.e. Corbyn seeks to 'propitiate IS by holding peace talks'), _in what way would that constitute 'populist rabble rousing'?_ You might want to take a look at opinion polling re. RAF air strikes against ISIS.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Saying things in the public arena for no other reason than knowing it's what an audience wants to hear is populist rabble-rousing by any other name.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I think, given the quality of your responses on this thread so far, it's the best I can manage.
> 
> _You seem familiar_, btw.



I probably do - I've been kicked off quite a few boards in my time!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Saying things in the public arena for no other reason than knowing it's what an audience wants to hear is populist rabble-rousing by any other name.



Is it not possible he is saying things he actually believes in?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> What _is_ he suggesting then?



At no point has Corbyn suggested that the peace talks should involve ISIS, from that point onwards I am sure that you can work it out.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Saying things in the public arena for no other reason than knowing it's what an audience wants to hear is populist rabble-rousing by any other name.



Not if it isn't popular; see my reference to public opinion polling.

Also what action is he trying to rouse the rabble to?

Using a political cliche such as 'populist rabble rousing' needs some content to give it real resonance - e.g. it works  in relation to Farage's anti immigration protestations - so far you haven't provided any such content.

All in all your contributions would be better if they were a little clearer and harder edged; a little more diamantine.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> At no point has Corbyn suggested that the peace talks should involve ISIS, from that point onwards I am sure that you can work it out.



Well if he doesn't want to engage IS militarily, then he must mean diplomatically?


----------



## Sifta (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Essentially he's saying that we should propitiate IS by holding peace talks.



"Obama said Russia would have to start using diplomacy rather than force to counter the influence of Islamic State militants. He said the group posed more of a threat to Russia than to the United States because of the country's large Muslim population."

Russia tells Washington: talk to us over Syria or risk 'unintended incidents'


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Well if he doesn't want to engage IS militarily, then he must mean diplomatically?



No. Try again


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not if it isn't popular; see my reference to public opinion polling.
> 
> Also *what action is he trying to rouse the rabble to?*
> 
> ...



In this instance - to make the 'rabble' believe there's a possibility that diplomacy (rather than confrontation) is the solution to stopping IS, when it most certainly isn't?


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> No. Try again



I'll tell you what - instead of playing ridiculous word games, why don't you tell me what you think?


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Loads of SWP parasites outside, not a good look for JC.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 12, 2015)

maomao said:


> Well I find it sickening when smug student radicals choose to direct their ire at the actual working class for being positive about a possible route to more dignified and secure lives rather than attacking the real enemy.
> 
> And anti-austerity may be less than radical in the grand scheme of things but after 3+ decades of relentless neoliberalism it's a significant step to the left. Whereas taking the hardest anti-capitalist position available ain't all that radical if you're just farting about on the internet and never had to argue your opinions in a workplace full of racist tory voters.



Crude workerism, not to mention inherently orientalist, as if the British working-class is mainly composed of Brits. great we haven't moved beyond 1930. Off to the labour party with you and leering at women in pubs. How are you going to appeal to the BME w/c and all those dependent on the wage fund like this?

You were probably a student at one point so you can fuck off with this purer than thou I'm more working-class than you look at me gosh aren't I special snowflake rhetoric. My inability to organise at the moment is none of your concern (not to mention discriminative) but given that you'll probably end up some kind of right winger in your old age and who knows (siding with fash, to preserve your workerism) I shouldn't be surprised.

And the real enemy is labour and the left. The tories are a bunch of incompetent blobs of cowshit. They can't disguise their real motives if they wanted to. You'd make a terrible military strategist.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> In this instance - to make the 'rabble' believe there's a possibility that diplomacy (rather than confrontation) is the solution to stopping IS, when it most certainly isn't?



So he's raising the 'rabble' with an unpopular policy (you still haven't looked at the opinion polling have you?), and he's getting them to believe something. It's all rather more tutting letters to the Guardian than burning torches and pitch forks isn't it? 

Rather than carry on defending your inaccurate use of populist rabble rousing you could have a rethink about how you could rephrase your assertion; maybe something along the lines of 'playing to the left wing gallery' would suit your purposes?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Crude workerism, not to mention inherently orientalist, as if the British working-class is mainly composed of Brits. great we haven't moved beyond 1930. Off to the labour party with you and leering at women in pubs. How are you going to appeal to the BME w/c and all those dependent on the wage fund like this?
> 
> You were probably a student at one point so you can fuck off with this purer than thou I'm more working-class than you look at me gosh aren't I special snowflake rhetoric. My inability to organise at the moment is none of your concern (not to mention discriminative) but given that you'll probably end up some kind of right winger in your old age and who knows (siding with fash) to preserve your workerism) I shouldn't be surprised.



I think you've won us all over with the above; and if you haven't then that's just evidence that we are at best would be right wingers, and at worst enablers of fascism.

Good work - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So he's raising the 'rabble' with an unpopular policy (you still haven't looked at the opinion polling have you?), and he's getting them to believe something. It's all rather more tutting letters to the Guardian than burning torches and pitch forks isn't it?
> 
> Rather than carry on defending your inaccurate use of populist rabble rousing you could have a rethink about how you could rephrase your assertion; _maybe something along the lines of 'playing to the left wing gallery'_ would suit your purposes?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Alright then, delete 'populist rabble rousing' and insert 'left wing gallery'. It's only a question of semantics. Incidentally my views are my own - I'm not persuaded by opinion polls.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Crude workerism,* not to mention inherently orientalist, as if the British working-class is mainly composed of Brits*. great we haven't moved beyond 1930...



Can you explain how the British working class *isn't* composed mainly of Brits?

ETA: and also why you think this distinction is important in relation to the post you're responding to


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Or Jimmy Stewart.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


directed by capra OBVS


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

he - like many other people - is arguing that only way to improve the situation in the region is to engage all the main players in negotiations - i.e. Syria, Iran, the gulf states, the US, Russia - NOT ISIS. 
How is this "rabble rousing"? rabble rousing is whipping up popular sentiment by an appeal to the emotions - i.e. scare mongering about immigrants. Perhaps you should go away and look into what commonly phrases actually like "rabble rousing" (or "trolling") actually mean,


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> Can you explain how the British working class *isn't* composed mainly of Brits?



Fine, white Brits. Whatever. It's like yay we're so against identity politics blah blah oh awesome we love to bring up white racist tories because we're so against identity politics and those are the real w/c and everyone else is some kind of poseur. Wow so well thought out gosh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Alright then, delete 'populist rabble rousing' and insert 'left wing gallery'. It's only a question of semantics. Incidentally* my views are my own* - I'm not persuaded by opinion polls.



funny how they chime with the eye rolling guardian set then aint it


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Alright then, delete 'populist rabble rousing' and insert 'left wing gallery'. It's only a question of semantics. Incidentally my views are my own - I'm not persuaded by opinion polls.



By 'it's only a question of semantics', I suppose you think that they mean the same thing; the point I was making is that they don't...have a think about audience and intention.

The point about the opinion polls isn't in relation to your views. It's about how populist what Corbyn advocates actually is...you do see the difference don't you?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think you've won us all over with the above; and if you haven't then that's just evidence that we are at best would be right wingers, and worst enablers of fascism.
> 
> Good work - Louis MacNeice



What's your point? I wasn't the one casting aspersions against your petty little egos.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

I like the idea that populism/rabble rousing = providing a more nuanced, complex solution to a problem that (some) opinion polls show the majority of the public want to solve in a simplistic way


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> What's your point? I wasn't the one casting aspersions against your petty little egos.



I suspect you're more miffed at my forcing you to reconsider your (misplaced) admiration of JC than the direction of the discussion???

Much like J Ed?


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Fine, white Brits. Whatever. It's like yay we're so against identity politics blah blah oh awesome we love to bring up white racist tories because we're so against identity politics and those are the real w/c and everyone else is some kind of poseur. Wow so well thought out gosh.



Your posts seem to be even more incoherent, jargon-filled and arrogantly assuming you know better than everyone else than usual. 

Maybe you should take a break from slinging ill-considered insults around before you end up becoming as much of a joke as certain other posters I could mention.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Alright then, delete 'populist rabble rousing' and insert 'left wing gallery'. It's only a question of semantics. Incidentally my views are my own - I'm not persuaded by opinion polls.



"playing to the gallery" implies adopting a position to court popularity. What makes you think Corbyn is doing this rather than arguing what he sincerely believes in? Bareing in mind his position is entirely consistent with his arguments and campaigning history since he first became involved in poltics over 40 years ago? i.e. he is  a sincere and committed opponent of militarism - hes chair of the Stop the War Coalition ffs.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> I suspect you're more miffed at my forcing you to reconsider your (misplaced) admiration of JC than the direction of the discussion???
> 
> Much like J Ed?



Don't assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an admirer of JC.

Neither dialectician or J Ed come into this category, and that you think they do merely confirms that you don't know much.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> I suspect you're more miffed at my forcing you to reconsider your (misplaced) admiration of JC than the direction of the discussion???
> 
> Much like J Ed?



I'm not a Corbynite you idiot.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 12, 2015)

Well I'm confused.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> Well I'm confused.


all will become clear around 11.30-12.00


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> all will become clear around 11.30-12.00



Possibly, but either way there's always time for a good barney while we're waiting


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

A mate of mine reckons he knows the result already.



Spoiler



Corbyn has 54% of first round votes.



e2a: I have no idea where he got this from and it could be a load of bollocks.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> Your posts seem to be even more incoherent, jargon-filled and arrogantly assuming you know better than everyone else than usual.
> 
> Maybe you should take a break from slinging ill-considered insults around before you end up becoming as much of a joke as certain other posters I could mention.


]

No, most of the posts here are narcissistic labour left spittle-flecked rage that someone would dare to disagree. If and when I'm proven wrong then you'll have a point. I know it won't happen though. I have history on my side, not some emotional bullshit about how life is going to get better for me because I know it fucking won't. And not for a long time.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Does anyone think that there's a possibility of _literal _Blairite tears?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone think that there's a possibility of _literal _Blairite tears?



I'm gonna watch the BBC coverage for no other reason than to see exactly that.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> "playing to the gallery" implies adopting a position to court popularity. What makes you think Corbyn is doing this rather than arguing what he sincerely believes in? Bareing in mind his position is entirely consistent with his arguments and campaigning history since he first became involved in poltics over 40 years ago? i.e. he is  a sincere and committed opponent of militarism - hes chair of the Stop the War Coalition ffs.




Here's a thing though: Saddam *had* to be stopped in his ambition toward regional expansion; I wonder what the region would be like _now_ had he not been stopped? So Corbyn was wrong. Our mistake was to stay there too long; we should've fucked off as soon as that statue was toppled . . .  there would have been a certain symbolism to it, such as 'Job done - we're outta here.'?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Here's a thing though: Saddam *had* to be stopped in his ambition toward regional expansion; I wonder what the region would be like _now_ had he not been stopped? So Corbyn was wrong. Our mistake was to stay there too long; we should've fucked off as soon as that statue was toppled . . .  there would have been a certain symbolism to it, such as 'Job done - we're outta here.'?


 
You were doing alright up until this point, just got too obvious


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone think that there's a possibility of _literal _Blairite tears?


I do hope so- perhaps a repeat of kinnocks rueful 'britain deserves better'?


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You were doing alright up until this point, just got too obvious



Sorry to fall short in your expectations.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

So few on here for the main event, shows how P/P has declined in popularity?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> all will become clear around 11.30-12.00


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> So few on here for the main event, shows how P/P has declined in popularity?


fuck off.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Here's a thing though: Saddam *had* to be stopped in his ambition toward regional expansion; I wonder what the region would be like _now_ had he not been stopped? So Corbyn was wrong. Our mistake was to stay there too long; we should've fucked off as soon as that statue was toppled . . .  there would have been a certain symbolism to it, such as 'Job done - we're outta here.'?



how about you take your ahistorical nonsense to another thread - or indeed - internet site?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> So few on here for the main event, shows how P/P has declined in popularity?



its better than it was. perhaps few are on here because its a saturday morning, theres nothing to be done or argued about at this late stage, and there are far better things to be done on a sunny morning in september.

i'm on a train, and _very_ bored.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> So few on here for the main event, shows how P/P has declined in popularity?



No one cares


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Crude workerism, not to mention inherently orientalist, as if the British working-class is mainly composed of Brits. great we haven't moved beyond 1930. Off to the labour party with you and leering at women in pubs. How are you going to appeal to the BME w/c and all those dependent on the wage fund like this?
> 
> You were probably a student at one point so you can fuck off with this purer than thou I'm more working-class than you look at me gosh aren't I special snowflake rhetoric. My inability to organise at the moment is none of your concern (not to mention discriminative) but given that you'll probably end up some kind of right winger in your old age and who knows (siding with fash, to preserve your workerism) I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> And the real enemy is labour and the left. The tories are a bunch of incompetent blobs of cowshit. They can't disguise their real motives if they wanted to. You'd make a terrible military strategist.


Just to correct your assumptions because I really can't be arsed with your spittle-flecked diatribe, I'm well into my 40s with no intention of moving any further to the right than I already have and am part of a BME household with a dual heritage kid. And I've worked with plenty of racist Tory voters that weren't white too.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Crude workerism, not to mention inherently orientalist, as if the British working-class is mainly composed of Brits. great we haven't moved beyond 1930. Off to the labour party with you and leering at women in pubs. How are you going to appeal to the BME w/c and all those dependent on the wage fund like this?
> 
> You were probably a student at one point so you can fuck off with this purer than thou I'm more working-class than you look at me gosh aren't I special snowflake rhetoric. My inability to organise at the moment is none of your concern (not to mention discriminative) but given that you'll probably end up some kind of right winger in your old age and who knows (siding with fash, to preserve your workerism) I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> And the real enemy is labour and the left. The tories are a bunch of incompetent blobs of cowshit. They can't disguise their real motives if they wanted to. You'd make a terrible military strategist.


Just to correct your assumptions because I really can't be arsed with your spittle-flecked diatribe, I'm well into my 40s with no intention of moving any further to the right than I already have and am part of a BME household with a dual heritage kid. And I've worked with plenty of racist Tory voters that weren't white too.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

wow. fair and balanced analysis from the bbc. not.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 12, 2015)

Red Cat said:


> No one cares


I don't care but I'm watching


----------



## belboid (Sep 12, 2015)

60%+ in the first ballot. Nice.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> wow. fair and balanced analysis from the bbc. not.



Yeah the delight in the voice of that 'analyst' about the idea of Corbyn being overwhelmed was obvious, they hate him


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

belboid said:


> 60%+ in the first ballot. Nice.



Where are you getting that from?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> I'm not arguing that people should have voted Burnham or whatever. I'm just making the point that the inevitable failure of Corbyn (given such a low level of class consciousness at the moment) is bound to have negative repercussions. I find it utterly sickening that the Corbynites won't consider this.



Of course they won't consider it. They're attempting to practice _realpolitik_ in the world as-it-is (as they see it), not in the world as-they-want-it-to-be.
That requires that they operate on the principle of accommodating capitalism and (as with original post-war social-democratic politics) ameliorating the effects through policy. it doesn't require that they seek and maintain a state of ideological and revolutionary purity. 



> Anti-austerity isn't radical within itself, despite what some might like to think.



The above statement depends entirely on how you define "radical". We aren't all keyed into theoretical insight to the degree that you are, so for some mere resistance of any form is indeed "radical".


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Where are you getting that from?


loads of people (andrew neil etc). others saying not that high.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yeah the delight in the voice of that 'analyst' about the idea of Corbyn being overwhelmed was obvious, they hate him


the cunts had the cheek to sit their and go 'people want a party that isn't just a paler shade of conseravative' like he's imparting deep wisdom. We pay that dicks wages so he can offer up such banal, 7 month old observations as stunning analysis? cheap fucker


----------



## belboid (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Where are you getting that from?


The electoral reform society always ring me with the info before it goes public. 

Well, either that or the bbc live blog thing


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

cant believe hes got 60%. silly numbers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

oh god burnishing the labour legend. Bring out the banners from the days gone by


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> how about you take your ahistorical nonsense to another thread - or indeed - internet site?



Oh dear, I've just disillusioned _another_ Corbyn supporter!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the cunts had the cheek to sit their and go 'people want a party that isn't just a paler shade of conseravative' like he's imparting deep wisdom. We pay that dicks wages so he can offer up such banal, 7 month old observations as stunning analysis? cheap fucker



I liked when earlier they were trying to imply that Corbyn was extreme cos his supporters were singing the Red Flag.

Fancy that, singing a Labour Party song at a Labour Party event. The cheek of it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Pretty blatant dig there from whoever this bloke is.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> cant believe hes got 60%. silly numbers.


I'd like it to be true 'cause it's what I've been brashly predicting for days.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

oryx said:


> I foresee a win for Corbyn tomorrow (hope so) amid sour grapes, questions being asked about the ballot, & legal challenges which will drag on and on.
> 
> The Blairites/New Labour/centrists will not easily accept that the party's grassroots and new supporters want a fresh, honest, anti-austerity approach free of spin and bullshit.



Much as the other runners (also-rans?) profess that they'll just get on with things and not get sucked into internal strife, there are too many members of the PLP invested in Blairism for them to *not* try to wreck Corbyn's leadership (if he wins). Remember that for most of the PLP, this isn't about the possibility that a Labour Party under Corbyn might serve people better, it's about *their* political careers, besides which *our* needs and desires are meaningless (from their perspective). I certainly know (from his own self-serving behaviour and utterances) that this is what my MP thinks.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> wow. fair and balanced analysis from the bbc. not.



Avoid Mockingbird disinfo of establishment media by avoiding establishment media.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Avoid Mockingbird disinfo of establishment media by avoiding establishment media.



Please stop using the term 'disinfo' it makes me feel like I'm on an Alex Jones website


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

harman believes in something? like what?


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Where are you getting that from?



Labour leadership contest live: Will Jeremy Corbyn win? - BBC News


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

tristram hunt looks sad ......


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> tristram hunt looks sad ......



Maybe he can find a picket line that he can cross later to cheer him up


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

sadiq milking his prole medals


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> harman believes in something? like what?



her career?

nice things don't get bought on a lowly MP's salary you know...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Khan doing a nice line in sarcastic applause here.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Did I mention that my parents were immigrants?


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Much as the other runners (also-rans?) profess that they'll just get on with things and not get sucked into internal strife, there are too many members of the PLP invested in Blairism for them to *not* try to wreck Corbyn's leadership (if he wins). Remember that for most of the PLP, this isn't about the possibility that a Labour Party under Corbyn might serve people better, it's about *their* political careers, besides which *our* needs and desires are meaningless (from their perspective). I certainly know (from his own self-serving behaviour and utterances) that this is what my MP thinks.



Equally it's a big challenge for Comrade Corbo if his colleagues wish to pursue a policy he doesn't. He needs to change his previous behaviour of voting against or end up in constant conflict. He has, if he wins, lost the luxury of taking a principled stand always. He will have to go on camera and articulate a party line.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

this is all very collegiate and nostalgic party-love. Knives back out by weds?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

maomao said:


> Well I find it sickening when smug student radicals choose to direct their ire at the actual working class for being positive about a possible route to more dignified and secure lives rather than attacking the real enemy.
> 
> And anti-austerity may be less than radical in the grand scheme of things but after 3+ decades of relentless neoliberalism it's a significant step to the left. Whereas taking the hardest anti-capitalist position available ain't all that radical if you're just farting about on the internet and never had to argue your opinions in a workplace full of racist tory voters.



This is it.
We have to (even anarchists!) exist in "the real world", which means acting against real-world forces and situations with real-world tactics and "solutions", rather than following a revolutionary script. That means working to convince people (or at least providing those people with the info to inform themselves) that there are pragmatic solutions to everyday economic and social problems on both sides of the political divide, and that those pragmatic solutions are eminently doable.
While I'd love to live in an anarchist Utopia, I'm self-aware enough to know that my way of doing things doesn't currently appeal to many, so in the meantime, a shift leftward is an acceptable start to achieving a "better world".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Alright then, delete 'populist rabble rousing' and insert 'left wing gallery'. It's only a question of semantics. Incidentally my views are my own - I'm not persuaded by opinion polls.



I'm not a number I'm a free man


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2015)

"Together we can make a difference... we've only inherited the party... safe secure homes... hardworking people..."

Someone needs to do a bingo card for this guff, it can't have changed much in 100 years.


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

Watching with OH who says it's like watching the FA cup final. 

Reckon if (when?) Corbyn wins there'll be congratulations and back-slapping then the back-stabbing will begin. That's an obvious thing to say I know!

Who do we reckon for deputy?


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> tristram hunt looks sad ......



Yes, but how does he look today?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> this is all very collegiate and nostalgic party-love. Knives back out by weds?



wednesday? what, is there a holiday or something?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> I suspect you're more miffed at my forcing you to reconsider your (misplaced) admiration of JC than the direction of the discussion???
> 
> Much like J Ed?



The scales have fallen from everyone's eyes now. Truly you are an intellectual giant among men.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

Can't imagine Mourinho has to have his assistant appointed by ballot. Let Corbo choose!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Equally it's a big challenge for Comrade Corbo if his colleagues wish to pursue a policy he doesn't. He needs to change his previous behaviour of voting against or end up in constant conflict. He has, if he wins, lost the luxury of taking a principled stand always. He will have to go on camera and articulate a party line.



Of course he will. The fact that so many people in his parliamentary party believe that he won't be able to do so is interesting, at least in the context of what it says about their perceptions of Corbyn's principles.
Personally, I believe he's well-aware that as leader he'll have to reflect broader policy opinion, and that he's capable of doing so, but the current media and political class narrative says not. I wonder why?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Is this bloke an extra from Alien Nation?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course he will. The fact that so many people in his parliamentary party believe that he won't be able to do so is interesting, at least in the context of what it says about their perceptions of Corbyn's principles.
> Personally, I believe he's well-aware that as leader he'll have to reflect broader policy opinion, and that he's capable of doing so, but the current media and political class narrative says not. I wonder why?



problem is he'll have to be moderately convincing at it - if he turns around next month and says he's in favour of NATO membership, or replacing the Trident boats, or extending UK air strikes to IS in Syria, would you believe him?


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

Thank god Angela Eagle is out. More animation in your average corpse.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Sky saying Corbyn won, over 50 percent of vote.

Watson, deputy leader, I wanted Stella


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2015)

554,272 voters
408,470 eligible (?!)
374 spoilt

*Watson gets deputy*

*Round 1*
Watson 160,852 (39.4%)
Creasey 78,100 (19.1%)
Eagle 66,013 (16.2%)
Flint 64,425 (15.8%)
Bradshaw 39,080 (9.6%) --- eliminated
*
Round 2*
Watson 170,589 (42.2%)
Creasey 86,555(21.4%)
Flint 74,581 (18.4%
Eagle 72,517 (17.9%) --- eliminated

*Round 3*
Watson 198,962 (50.7%) --- winrar
Creasey 103,746 (26.4%)
Flint  89,538 (22.8%)


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

Results being announced on R4 - Tom Watson is new Deputy Leader


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Thank god Angela Eagle is out. More animation in your average corpse.




Angela may be shadow chancellor under Corbyn


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

Excellent - blatant anti-Murdoch MP as deputy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

hammer of the parliamentary peeds gets the deputy throne eh


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Sky saying Corbyn won, over 50 percent of vote.
> 
> Watson, deputy leader, I wanted Stella



Perv.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> The scales have fallen from everyone's eyes now. Truly you are an intellectual giant among men.



Honestly, the number of times I've had all that said to me. It almost makes me feel humble!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

oryx said:


> Excellent - blatant anti-Murdoch MP as deputy.


he is a bit blairy mind


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> Results being announced on R4 - Tom Watson is new Deputy Leader



Have you heard of this new fangled thing called TV?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Not long to wait now? What a choice though - 3 light-weight career politicians and a populist rabble-rouser? Come back Tony, all is forgiven.



In your dreams. Blair himself is/was a "lightweight career politician". One who happened to lead the Labour Party at a time when almost anyone could have won against the Tories. What won it for Blair was superficial charm and the ability to convince the boss class that he could out-Tory the Tories, while convincing people to eat that particular shit sandwich.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

oh god watsons humblebrags now. Jog on ya cunt


----------



## gosub (Sep 12, 2015)

oh ffs. They told the media result at 11am, half an hour of talking bollocks so far


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Angela may be shadow chancellor under Corbyn



Interesting, but the prime job for an MP lacking charisma. Look at Gordon Brown.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

C'mon. Get on with the main feature.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

watsons solidarity is worth nothing


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Really?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



One supposes that Evander is measuring Corbyn's "populism" and "rabble-rousing" against his 3 adversaries, in which case he *could* be called such.
In terms of actual populist rabble-rousing though, he's way too wedded to social democracy's predicates to be either.


----------



## tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Interesting, but the prime job for an MP lacking charisma. Look at Gordon Brown.



The last thing I'd want to look at on a Saturday morning.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 12, 2015)

flints sucking on a lemon......

Laurel and Hardy double act ......comedy gold to come


----------



## wtfftw (Sep 12, 2015)

Heh. BBC camera cuts to chuka when Watson is talking about unity.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

I AM GROOT


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

guardians of justice and equality? pull the other one tom


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I AM GROOT


actual lol


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> watsons solidarity is worth nothing



Solidarity with his local cake shop seems strong.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

god Watson is boring as shit


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> god Watson is boring as shit



Init. 'Very brief words' mate, kindly jog on.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> One supposes that Evander is measuring Corbyn's "populism" and "rabble-rousing" against his 3 adversaries, in which case he *could* be called such.
> In terms of actual populist rabble-rousing though, he's way too wedded to social democracy's predicates to be either.



Yes, I did retract that term a bit earlier in the thread.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

he is still talking wtf


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> god Watson is boring as shit


They all are, tbf


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

HOPE


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Crude workerism, not to mention inherently orientalist, as if the British working-class is mainly composed of Brits. great we haven't moved beyond 1930. Off to the labour party with you and leering at women in pubs. How are you going to appeal to the BME w/c and all those dependent on the wage fund like this?
> 
> You were probably a student at one point so you can fuck off with this purer than thou I'm more working-class than you look at me gosh aren't I special snowflake rhetoric. My inability to organise at the moment is none of your concern (not to mention discriminative) but given that you'll probably end up some kind of right winger in your old age and who knows (siding with fash, to preserve your workerism) I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> And the real enemy is labour and the left. The tories are a bunch of incompetent blobs of cowshit. They can't disguise their real motives if they wanted to. You'd make a terrible military strategist.



Crude identity politics and generalised assumptions.
Not what I expect from you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Burnham is not wearing the face of a victorious man.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> he is still talking wtf


he's got a few more cliches to get in yet


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think you've won us all over with the above; and if you haven't then that's just evidence that we are at best would be right wingers, and at worst enablers of fascism.
> 
> Good work - Louis MacNeice



We iz teh fash.


----------



## westcoast1 (Sep 12, 2015)

This is quite exciting even though we know the result.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2015)

bbc cut to Burnham and Cooper as Watso said 'we will win in 2020' - their expressions suggested they thought otherwise. not smiley happy people...


----------



## westcoast1 (Sep 12, 2015)

Who is that asian mp the cameras keep cutting to?


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

COR-BLIMEY!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Alright then, delete 'populist rabble rousing' and insert 'left wing gallery'. It's only a question of semantics. Incidentally my views are my own - I'm not persuaded by opinion polls.



Your opinions (and terminology) are straight out of Right-wing Broadsheet Central. It's quite amusing counting the cliche-content of your posts.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Landslide


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Burnham's gonna cry.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

Never imagined I would see this. A real political earthquake :thumbs :


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Elbowpatch wins


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Burnham's gonna cry.



Definitely a tear in his eye there


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

ooh hes done it


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

New Labour faction curb stomped


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 12, 2015)

59.5% blimey


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Burnham's gonna cry.



Cilla's dead.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Incredible, whats the breakdown?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Need some literal Blairite tears to complete my morning


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

WOW! 

Who would have foreseen this when Miliband stood down?


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

MadeInBedlam said:


> 59.5% blimey



killer b was spot on with his prediction yesterday :thumbs :


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

Ha he's absolutely smashed it! 60% of the vote!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

In your face Tony Blair. In your stupid fucking face.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

rutabowa come sir, collect your crown and be worshipped as a far-seeing god


----------



## belboid (Sep 12, 2015)

Haha, fuck off Kendall. Less popular than a lib dem


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

Lol. Almost 60%. Hope there's tears.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Anyway, my prediction: the sudden change in the LP establishment's position in the last week (and Corbyn's positively radiant smile in the Snow interview yesterday) point to a decisive win for Corbyn. I'll stick my neck out and say 60%, just because it'll poetically match the recent Greek referendum results (and probably be followed by a similar level of disappointment)


uh-huh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

jez we did chants now LOL


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 12, 2015)

Kendal 4.5% ...


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> jez we did chants now LOL


Innit. And he actually said "cheers everyone"


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2015)

Loving it!


----------



## Maharani (Sep 12, 2015)

Woooooohooooooooo.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2015)

545,272 registered
422,664 eligible
207 spoilt
*
Round 1*
Corbyn 251,417 (59.5%)
Burnham 80,462 (19%)
Cooper 71,928 (17%)
Kendall 18,857 (4.5%)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

What is this, Harriet Harman's funeral?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> What is this, Harriet Harman's funeral?


He said "cheers Harriet"


----------



## Flanflinger (Sep 12, 2015)

Osborne just spunked off whilst leaping in the air.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 12, 2015)

A little more fuel  now please


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2015)

Lol start as you mean to go on Corbs, abusing the media - bless him he's having fun


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

MadeInBedlam said:


> 59.5% blimey


on a 70+ turnout as well. Its emphatic.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

now politics becomes interesting again


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 12, 2015)

faint sliver of hope that the future might not be completely fucken bleak.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> What is this, Harriet Harman's funeral?



you don't think she's going to stick around for the bloodletting do you? if she stays out of it there might be another chance for prominance in a year or so...


----------



## SE25 (Sep 12, 2015)

get the fuck in. Let's hope he proves the doubters wrong and the party unite under him instead of making threats etc.


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 12, 2015)

whats the dope on tom watson?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 12, 2015)

Absolute massacre



And he's off to the demo this afternoon, fucking hell.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm loving his magnanimity. The haters gonna hate him lol


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> now politics becomes interesting again


PMQ's might be watchable again, have to see. I just fuckin hate the donkey braying they do. But it might be funny.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> on a 70+ turnout as well. Its emphatic.



Younger people could vote too m8.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2015)

abba


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2015)

They COULD form an Abba tribute act. One beard, one no-beard, one blonde, one brunette.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 12, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Kendal 4.5% ...


Funny that!  And she had Tony Blair's support...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I'm loving his magnanimity. The haters gonna hate him lol



They hate it too, visibly... it is quite funny


----------



## teqniq (Sep 12, 2015)

Yes if Corbyn manages to make Dave and co look like the cunts that they are, which hopefully he will PMQ's could be very entertaining.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 12, 2015)

If only I had the foresight to put £100 on Jez when he was at 100-1


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

I like that he's bigging up the unions and acknowledging them individually, and now disapproving of the TU Bill.


----------



## spartacus mills (Sep 12, 2015)

Burnham looks like he's going to cry, Chuka looks like he's been sick in his mouth.


----------



## xslavearcx (Sep 12, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> If only I had the foresight to put £100 on Jez when he was at 100-1


Read somewhere he was 200-1 at one point...


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Burnham looks like he's going to cry, Chuka looks like he's been sick in his mouth.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> They hate it too, visibly... it is quite funny



i've only got radio atm. please god let that be on iplayer


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

gee wizz, a labour leader who isn't going to union bash as hard as a tory. Thats weird. Its like a time warp


----------



## westcoast1 (Sep 12, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Burnham looks like he's going to cry, Chuka looks like he's been sick in his mouth.


Hopefully the Corbyn mob stamp on chukas face afterwards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> ]
> 
> No, most of the posts here are narcissistic labour left spittle-flecked rage that someone would dare to disagree. If and when I'm proven wrong then you'll have a point. I know it won't happen though. I have history on my side, not some emotional bullshit about how life is going to get better for me because I know it fucking won't. And not for a long time.



"I have history on my side".
I love it when people say that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone think that there's a possibility of _literal _Blairite tears?



I'm hoping so.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 12, 2015)

Santino said:


> They COULD form an Abba tribute act. One beard, one no-beard, one blonde, one brunette.



with none of them getting on...


----------



## Indeliblelink (Sep 12, 2015)

Resignations have begun - 
Copeland MP resigns from front bench politics after Corbyn victory


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> gee wizz, a labour leader who isn't going to union bash as hard as a tory. Thats weird. Its like a time warp


It's about time.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Yes if Corbyn manages to make Dave and co look like the cunts that they are, which hopefully he will PMQ's could be very entertaining.



Well he should find that easy enough - how could he not? God but PMQs is *so* embarrassing.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 12, 2015)

F*ing hell. I could have put £10 when it was 40/1 or something Corbyn, but could feel like 9 out of 10 new members going Corbyn, I would have had £400 to be able to dish out to the urban75 gang at the bookfair for their drinks to save being a bit of a loose screw.



skyscraper101 said:


> If only I had the foresight to put £100 on Jez when he was at 100-1



When he was 100-1 I thought he'd be first in first round then Andy B would be winner with 100% of all transfers second prefs. 

What's the sensible way of doing this political betting lark never placed a bet in my life I think it'd ruin me if I lost the stake or whatever.


----------



## westcoast1 (Sep 12, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Resignations have begun -
> Copeland MP resigns from front bench politics after Corbyn victory


Wasn't he far right?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Resignations have begun -
> Copeland MP resigns from front bench politics after Corbyn victory


And Jamie Reed


----------



## Voley (Sep 12, 2015)

malatesta32 said:


> faint sliver of hope that the future might not be completely fucken bleak.


My thoughts entirely.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> fuck off.



That's "fuck off, eeyore", if you don't mind!


----------



## Indeliblelink (Sep 12, 2015)

that is Jamie Reed


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Saw Bush and the New Statesman cohort go into the Conference Centre, wish I could see their faces.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 12, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Resignations have begun -
> Copeland MP resigns from front bench politics after Corbyn victory


Goodbye and fuck off, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Speaking out against social cleansing of London *tick*


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

great speech , today feels a lil bit brighter


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Well I like this leadership so far


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Please stop using the term 'disinfo' it makes me feel like I'm on an Alex Jones website




What it is is what it is. I don't give a shit if the likes of Jones uses it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 12, 2015)

Time for a song.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Resignations have begun -
> Copeland MP resigns from front bench politics after Corbyn victory



Wahhhh he doesn't want anymore privatisation *throws toys out pram*


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

IS knocking on the door, Eurozone about to implode, immigration into the UK totally out of control, national debt £2.5tr - cometh the hour, cometh the man?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 12, 2015)

I can see ex blairites and libdem vermins setting up a 21stC SDP here.....


----------



## teqniq (Sep 12, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Time for a song.




Perhaps not that one, considering what came next.


----------



## SE25 (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Fine, white Brits. Whatever. It's like yay we're so against identity politics blah blah oh awesome we love to bring up white racist tories because we're so against identity politics and those are the real w/c and everyone else is some kind of poseur. Wow so well thought out gosh.



have a word with yourself you bad weapon


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 12, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Resignations have begun -
> Copeland MP resigns from front bench politics after Corbyn victory



Never heard of him. 

It's like when some old knacker announces his retirement from international football isn't it. While we're here I'd also like to announce I won't be taking on any more Hollywood lead roles.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Cheers wars


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Speaking out against social cleansing of London *tick*


Did a little round of applause in my living room when he said that!


----------



## westcoast1 (Sep 12, 2015)

Lol love the blairites in the audience dying a little inside with every word from Jez


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive


----------



## SE25 (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> In your face Tony Blair. In your stupid fucking face.



have that you war mongering, murderous c-unit

oh what a way to start a weekend. Hope for the Labour party and the working man, Blairites told where to go as they sob into their blue ribbons and the Palace are playing. not bad.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

All we need now is for Boris Johnson to get the Tory leadership and 'Idiocracy' here we are.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

first rebellion, mondays anti union bill? or no?


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

Should I start digging up the rifles now or do we wait for a messenger from headquarters?


----------



## teqniq (Sep 12, 2015)

westcoast1 said:


> Lol love the blairites in the audience dying a little inside with every word from Jez


But they are already undead


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Tankus said:


> flints sucking on a lemon......
> 
> Laurel and Hardy double act ......comedy gold to come



Flint's arrogance was (yet again) her undoing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

JimW said:


> Should I start digging up the rifles now or do we wait for a messenger from headquarters?



Better to have it and not need it IMO.


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

Great speech. 

My OH, who's old enough to remember well, says emphatically - he is NO Michael Foot.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 12, 2015)

Wow! I feel quite inspired! Great speech.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

The unions pulled a blinder on this one, fair play


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Jamie Reed has resigned, prompting widespread cries of, 'who?'


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

It already feels weird to hear a labour party leader talk about social cleansing and how he's going on a demo for refugees. That's weird but in a good way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

jeremy corbyn has a massive, massive mandate. eh? eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Elbowpatch wins



I shall dust off my corduroys and wear them tomorrow as a mark of (slightly amused) homage to Corbyn's win.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Nearly 50% of full party members voted for Corbyn. Nothing much for his enemies to work with there.


----------



## Tankus (Sep 12, 2015)

the ones that got a vote ..that is


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 12, 2015)

This is good shit.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

JC got a majority in the membership as well as the three Quidder's, so a massive mandate to really take the Tories on.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

I think that's one of the best speeches I've ever heard , WE ARE ONE WORLD !


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I shall dust off my corduroys and wear them tomorrow as a mark of (slightly amused) homage to Corbyn's win.


Pics


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

Yeah the looks on blairite faces is priceless


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

Harold Wilson famously said that 'the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing '

I'm glad we finally have a leader who believes that again.


----------



## handy1 (Sep 12, 2015)

Waited 30-odd years to feel like this about Labour


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

I hope he gets rid of Rachel Reeves as shadow works and pensions


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

kebabking said:


> you don't think she's going to stick around for the bloodletting do you? if she stays out of it there might be another chance for prominance in a year or so...



I reckon she'll take a peerage within the next few years.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

So the be nice to refugees rally this afternoon will be his first official appearance as LP leader, yes?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

yes, the wisom of clunkett yay


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

Haha Blunkett through gritted teeth is now on the news.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Blairites absolutely kneecapped. I'd expect at least a couple of them to go rogue in their apoplexy and attempt some kind of rampage.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 12, 2015)

You can send Corbyn congratulations here should you wish

Congratulations Jeremy.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 12, 2015)

Ffs I promised to join labour party now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

ah sour grapes from the clunk. Lol


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

He had a very sharp campaign team including daughter of Sheffield, Cat Fletcher, who began political life as President of Sheffield College.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I'm loving his magnanimity. The haters gonna hate him lol



A brilliant political speech, that. He's praised his opponents, and in doing so neutralised much of the possibility of any other PLP members rallying around the losers.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> He had a very sharp campaign team including daughter of Sheffield, Cat Fletcher, who began political life as President of Sheffield College.


The unions mobilised and won this for him.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

It's a time for terrible regrets really - why didn't I get down the bookies when the odds were so good?


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 12, 2015)

great speech, fuck the media intrusion, up the workers, remember the homeless and desperate, oh and young people, then off to pretty much do an inaugral speech to people on a demo. I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

guardian should be funny on monday.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 12, 2015)

Yay!


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

Have just used blunkett's interview to look at the Daily Cat and Kitten News thread.


----------



## xslavearcx (Sep 12, 2015)

JimW said:


> It's a time for terrible regrets really - why didn't I get down the bookies when the odds were so good?


Think a few of us have had those thoughts...


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

malatesta32 said:


> great speech, fuck the media intrusion, up the workers, remember the homeless and desperate, oh and young people, then off to pretty much do an inaugral speech to people on a demo. I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 12, 2015)

Lol at the faces of the Blarite tossers 

Even if I'm dubious that it will lead to any major shift to the left in the long term (we can hope but I think the right of the party will cause any manner of obstructions), it'll certainly make things interesting again


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> Burnham looks like he's going to cry, Chuka looks like he's been sick in his mouth.



Chuka *always* looks like that when forced to mix with a lower class of person. We're "trash", dontcherknow?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

That Peter Mandelson reaction shot in full:


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 12, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> Ffs I promised to join labour party now.



I'm hoping one can only join on a weekday - that gives me three days (isn) to withdraw from Jeremania. Bit like quitting smoking.


----------



## SE25 (Sep 12, 2015)

lol, what fucking 'baggage'? fuck the BBC


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 12, 2015)

malatesta32 said:


> great speech, fuck the media intrusion, up the workers, remember the homeless and desperate, oh and young people, then off to pretty much do an inaugral speech to people on a demo. I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl.



That speech was amazing, it had everything, I also loved his praise for Ed and the horrific conditions the poor bugger had to cope with


----------



## teqniq (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> guardian should be funny on monday.


I think they are already going for the 'every cloud has a silver lining' angle.

Tom Watson: the stalwart elected deputy to keep Labour grounded


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

Must be sick as dogs at Guardian Towers :thumbs :


----------



## SE25 (Sep 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Must be sick as dogs at Guardian Towers :thumbs :



wankers have shown their true colours since the election.


----------



## tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Corbyn never managed to say the word Socialism in his speech.


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 12, 2015)

the morning star has been on corbyn's side right from the off! bettre than the bleedin' guardian.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Sep 12, 2015)

It's the strangest thing to see a Labour leader talk like that. At 39, I'm too young to have seen it before


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Must be sick as dogs at Guardian Towers :thumbs :


I think we should now bet on whatever horse the groan is agin


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 12, 2015)

fuck off bbc with your "civil war" narrative. The story is a wholesale rejection of blair and all his works.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Time for a song.




You utter cunt!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

BBC reporter asks Ed Miliband "this is a complete annihilation of your party, isn't it?" 

Wow. Fuck off BBC.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 12, 2015)

The man has more personality in his little finger then Milliband has in his whole body.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Jamie Reed has resigned, prompting widespread cries of, 'who?'


he must have typed that letter fast - what sort of move is that? everyone will just think he's a cunt


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> BBC reporter asks Ed Miliband "this is a complete annihilation of your party, isn't it?"
> 
> Wow. Fuck off BBC.


setting out the stall early


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Ed is still a decent bloke, charisma, etc, image shouldn't be everything.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> he must have typed that letter fast - what sort of move is that? everyone will just think he's a cunt



I think it was designed to cause maximum embarrassment, instead it ensured that it would be maximally ignored


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

*Louise Mensch* ‏@LouiseMensch  2m2 minutes ago
News of the day: once again @uklabour elects the only private school educated white man on the ballot  #*Corbyn*

says the privately educated scion of one of the most wealthy aristocratic families in britain lol


----------



## moochedit (Sep 12, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> 545,272 registered
> 422,664 eligible
> 207 spoilt
> *
> ...



breakdown of members, 3 quidders, etc published now...

Results of the Labour Leadership elections


----------



## Sirena (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Pics



By your command, imperious leader!


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2015)

moochedit said:


> breakdown of members, 3 quidders, etc published now...
> 
> Results of the Labour Leadership elections



Wow dat members' mandate


----------



## moochedit (Sep 12, 2015)

Flanflinger said:


> Osborne just spunked off whilst leaping in the air.



pass the mind bleach


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> By your command, imperious leader!


I shall wait with bated breath


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ed is still a decent bloke, charisma, etc, image shouldn't be everything.


I don't doubt that but surely the ability to inspire people should be important.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

malatesta32 said:


> the morning star has been on corbyn's side right from the off! bettre than the bleedin' guardian.


Saw on their Twitter they were doing their first ever Sunday edition to cover this


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> *Louise Mensch* ‏@LouiseMensch  2m2 minutes ago
> News of the day: once again @uklabour elects the only private school educated white man on the ballot  #*Corbyn*
> 
> says the privately educated scion of one of the most wealthy aristocratic families in britain lol


FFS, that's bullshit even by Mensch's standards.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I think it was designed to cause maximum embarrassment, instead it ensured that it would be maximally ignored


Would be funny if noone else followed in resigning. "Guys! GUYS! .... Guys?"


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

oryx said:


> FFS, that's bullshit even by Mensch's standards.


beeb banging a similar drum twice now


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> beeb banging a similar drum twice now


Daft really when you consider Tony Benn


----------



## SE25 (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Ed is still a decent bloke, charisma, etc, image shouldn't be everything.



I think he's a lovely chap. Not a leader but not a bastard either.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Must be sick as dogs at Guardian Towers :thumbs :



I think they're genuinely surprised to find out that nobody listens to them.


----------



## dendrite (Sep 12, 2015)

oryx said:


> FFS, that's bullshit even by Mensch's standards.



Insinuation is meant to point to some substantive analysis but she's just adopted a sneery tone and hoped it made sense. BBC at it too - democratic result is 'not modern'.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

the bbc reporter really is a bit of a dick isnt she ?


----------



## gosub (Sep 12, 2015)

oryx said:


> FFS, that's bullshit even by Mensch's standards.


not really Harman made the same 'point' the other day, on safer ground than on her one woman "searchlight" tweets.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 12, 2015)

Haven't caught up with the thread yet but I actually managed to drag my son out of bed (on a weekend!  ) to watch the coverage with him and my girl.
Fucking great news  and so glad that the results were so clearly in his favour across the board - fucked the spin right up, that did! 
What a good day (and LOL at the resignations - and at the delegate who stormed out shouting shit about OBLITERATION, too  ).


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 12, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think they're genuinely surprised to find out that nobody listens to them.


It is quite inspiring that apparently noone listens to the opinions of any of the mainstream news outlets.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

does she not realise Tony Blair is now hated, no ones going to listen to him


----------



## mauvais (Sep 12, 2015)

I really need to see Tony Blair's face now please. Otherwise I'll have to go to a gallery and throw Ronseal over The Scream.


----------



## Argonia (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm joining the C-Byn bandwagon!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2015)

You gotta love Twitter - "andy burnham looks like" yields:
#*AndyBurnham* *looks like* those knockoff action men you can buy in corner shops for a fiver 
*Andy Burnham* *looks like* a man in a supermarket queue who has been told his coupons expired last year 
*Andy Burnham* *looks like* sad Lego
*Andy Burnham* *looks like* the most default human being ever. Like the default character when you're making someone on a game


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Daft really when you consider Tony Benn


Shame he wasn't here to see this.


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> the bbc reporter really is a bit of a dick isnt she ?



Oxymoron alert!


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

mauvais said:


> I really need to see Tony Blair's face now please. Otherwise I'll have to go to a gallery and throw Ronseal over The Scream.


End the thread now. Nothing more needs to be said after this post [emoji1]


----------



## moochedit (Sep 12, 2015)

dan hodges (being a twat as usual): "Labour hasn't elected the new Karl Marx. They've elected the Left's Sarah Palin. The man can't even string a coherent sentence together."


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Rachel Reeves resigned too. Great.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> Oxymoron alert!



I chose my words wisely, well actually much more politely than I was about to


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

BBC are being fucking atrocious at the moment!


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

tim said:


> Corbyn never managed to say the word Socialism in his speech.



The backlash begins


----------



## westcoast1 (Sep 12, 2015)

Wow the daily mail online are saying the "the 66 year old Marxist throwback who has never ran anything in his life".lol


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> I chose my words wisely, well actually much more politely than I was about to


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Rachel Reeves resigned too. Great.


excellent, she can cross the floor and join dunked-in-shit with her punitive welfare policies


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

I took a look at some of the comments a few mins ago *shudders*


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> *Louise Mensch* ‏@LouiseMensch  2m2 minutes ago
> News of the day: once again @uklabour elects the only private school educated white man on the ballot  #*Corbyn*
> 
> says the privately educated scion of one of the most wealthy aristocratic families in britain lol



what family is she from?


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2015)

malatesta32 said:


> the morning star has been on corbyn's side right from the off! bettre than the bleedin' guardian.



We had a moment of sass about the whole thing while putting the paper to bed last night:


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> BBC are being fucking atrocious at the moment!


where are you listening? bb2 coverage has stopped for cookery


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> where are you listening? bb2 coverage has stopped for cookery


BBC news channel


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Rachel Reeves resigned too. Great.



This is great news for those facing the new onslaught in social security attacks.


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> what family is she from?


Exactly, it's just hypocritical scraping of the barrel in the face of an emphatic victory.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> BBC news channel


ta! I looked on bbc paliament but its some debate about scottish stuff.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> BBC are being fucking atrocious at the moment!


Tories have proved that stick works better than carrot with the beeb. Blair's gov bought their loyalty. Now they're all shitting themselves that if they could possibly be accused of the slightest lefty bias they'll all get thrown in the bin.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

It's really interesting to see this. Even the reporters are a bit unsettled by this it seems.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> what family is she from?


old school anglo-catholic gentry.


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

Kuennsberg - it's going to be fascinating to watch...

Bit more fascinating than you, Laura.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> old school anglo-catholic gentry.



Recusants! hiding priests in holes


----------



## Evander (Sep 12, 2015)

I'll bet Blair thinks he's in the middle of a nightmare?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Recusants! hiding priests in holes


bring me a board and a pile of rocks


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Labour gone into full recruitment mode, all over twitter, etc, 'come and join us'
interesting, Watson's off already.


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

Evander said:


> I'll bet Blair thinks he's in the middle of a nightmare?


He is!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Labour gone into full recruitment mode, all over twitter, etc, 'come and join us'
> interesting, Watson's off already.



Will be interesting to see how many join


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 12, 2015)

BBC news article on the website giving a bio has plagiarised bits from wiki. Whoever did it left references in.


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Labour gone into full recruitment mode, all over twitter, etc, 'come and join us'
> interesting, Watson's off already.


Heard somewhere recently (poss News 24?) that Corbyn's campaign was the only one to have a direct link on the front of their website  to register as a supporter.

If that's true it was a massive failure on the part of the others' campaigns.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

The postie just delivered the mail with a massive grin on his face, as someone had told him that Corbyn won. His grin was even bigger when we told him that Corbyn secured a clear majority of the £3ers and of the membership. Told him "you've got to watch his speech, if only to see the faces on the Blairites".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> BBC news article on the website giving a bio has plagiarised bits from wiki. Whoever did it left references in.



Beeb are a fucking shambles.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Rachel Reeves resigned too. Great.


Jumped before she was pushed. She has no place in Corbyn's plans.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Apparently when John Prescott was asked for his response to Jamie Reed's resignation, he said "who's he?"


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Beeb are a fucking shambles.


Can't even plagiarise properly,  bound to be someone who has had an expensive education too...


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

> When George Osborne watched Ed Miliband winning Labour leadership in 2010, he shouted “Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!” I imagine he had probably passed out by the end of Jeremy Corbyn’s acceptance speech: it was the stuff of Tory fantasy.


Jeremy Corbyn’s acceptance speech was the stuff of Tory dreams - Spectator Blogs

I think they're really underestimating the public's appetite for these policies.


----------



## tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Recusants! hiding priests in holes



Louise keeps Cherie Blair beneath a trapdoor in the Butler's parlour.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> BBC news article on the website giving a bio has plagiarised bits from wiki. Whoever did it left references in.


license fee well spent. Thats whats annoyed me a bit about their 'analysis' and interviewing. Its slapdash shit any one of us could do. Wrong accent, wrong face, wrong school, wrong class. So instead we get these prats offering up yesterdays wisdom as if they've struck gold. Wiki mining twats.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

loads of LP members on Guardian CIF saying they are resigning

who cares, having said that, we may like JC, but the public might not, but and its important, there will now be a proper opposition.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

ed milliband said:
			
		

> I’ll be offering Jeremy Corbyn my support. I hope also that Jeremy Corbyn reaches out to all parts of the party because he has a big job to do to unite the party. Jeremy has won a very clear victory in all sections. I believe we should respect that mandate.
> 
> The task of the leader is to reach all parts of that movement and I believe that’s what Jeremy should do. It’s about the fact that right across our party they voted for Jeremy Corbyn. It’s a massive opportunity for our party.


Ed in Corbyn's shadow cabinet?


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Apparently when John Prescott was asked for his response to Jamie Reed's resignation, he said "who's he?"


Until now I'd have said he was the guy who did the Sex Pistols' artwork.

(different spelling I know!)


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The postie just delivered the mail with a massive grin on his face, as someone had told him that Corbyn won. His grin was even bigger when we told him that Corbyn secured a clear majority of the £3ers and of the membership. Told him "you've got to watch his speech, if only to see the faces on the Blairites".




My older friend who five years ago, had never been on a demo, has now been on loads, despite her daughters disapproval, is over the moon, "at last we have a voice"


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> loads of LP members on Guardian CIF saying they are resigning
> 
> who cares, having said that, we may like JC, but the public might not, but and its important, there will now be a proper opposition.


Good. Fuck 'em. Corbyn got more votes from members than 3 quidders. It's sweet as seeing guardian type pricks with faces like a sad, badly drawn stick man over this result.


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

Good to see the blairites smug smiles wiped - but who will be in the shadow cabinet and chief whip will be telling plus JCs speech was silent on NATO


----------



## ffsear (Sep 12, 2015)

I give him 6 months


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Sad Guardian reader cardi


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Good. Fuck 'em. Corbyn got more votes from members than 3 quidders. It's sweet as seeing guardian type pricks with faces like a sad, badly drawn stick man over this result.


Labour will gain far more members than it loses with JC as leader, I would think. 

As you say, fuck em.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

Tristram Hunt has gone too... Good [emoji1]


----------



## xslavearcx (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Tristram Hunt has gone too... Good [emoji1]


Woot woot


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Tristram Hunt has gone too... Good [emoji1]


Fantastic 

Cheers Tristram


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Jeremy Corbyn’s acceptance speech was the stuff of Tory dreams - Spectator Blogs
> 
> I think they're really underestimating the public's appetite for these policies.


a lot like the PLP who were blindsided by a token donkey jacket man from the 70s, they rely on focus groups and a media echo chamber. So they hear their own shit bouncing back and take it as troof and the will of the people (like they give a shit).I think ashcroft is the tory who tells tories things they don't want to hear about long term future.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

This Is Not Our Victory

Someone's contribution to the debate. Not had a chance to read it yet.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Tristram Hunt has gone too... Good [emoji1]


Tomorrow is another day, but today is a day for smiling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Any chance for scottish labour now? or have they well and truly pissed their chips up there?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

I'd recon the SNP will hold tbf


----------



## dendrite (Sep 12, 2015)

"already xyz resigned....Rachel Reeves, a big hitter..." - desperate repersonalisation of it all into a clubby, policy free melodrama, like a broken terminator unable to reacquire targets and twitching on the floor.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2015)

will be interesting to see what the tory-lite twunts do.  as i see it, their options are

a) stay in the labour party, soak up as many expenses and consultancies as possible and sulk / cause trouble while hoping for a new blairite dawn 

b) as above but ending in being deselected by local parties

c) as above but ending in them being rounded up and sent to the gulags 

d) resign and join the lib dems

e) resign and join the tories 

f) resign and try and form a new party

g) quietly fuck off in to business / PR / media etc


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Sad Guardian reader cardi



Guardian writers, exec, don't YOU MEAN?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Guarian writers, exec, don't YOU MEAN?


Them too.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

dendrite said:


> "already xyz resigned....Rachel Reeves, a big hitter..." - desperate repersonalisation of it all into a clubby, policy free melodrama, like a broken terminator unable to reacquire targets and twitching on the floor.



Does anyone actually like Reeves? I have never heard anyone say a positive word about it, not even from Blairites or the vermin


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> will be interesting to see what the tory-lite twunts do.  as i see it, their options are
> 
> a) stay in the labour party, soak up as many expenses and consultancies as possible and sulk / cause trouble while hoping for a new blairite dawn
> 
> ...



There is also an h.

h) claim they never stopped being socialists, deep down, really...


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone actually like Reeves? I have never heard anyone say a positive word about it, not even from Blairites or the vermin


No.

She's my local MP and she came to a community thing I was organising. Promised to help. Did fuck all. Lying scum.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also an h.
> 
> h) claim they never stopped being socialists, deep down, really...



i think some of them might prefer option (i) which someone suggested a few pages back which is 'go and jump in the thames'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

'big hitters'? 

lol

Hardly anyone's even heard of the fuckers, and even fewer give a shit about anything they say.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone actually like Reeves? I have never heard anyone say a positive word about it, not even from Blairites or the vermin



Strikes me as an even stupider and more unpleasant version of Liz Kendall.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i think some of them might prefer option (i) which someone suggested a few pages back which is 'go and jump in the thames'


We'll see. I've always suspected that many or most 'blairites' were collecting under that banner out of tactics and convenience rather than any kind of conviction.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We'll see. I've always suspected that many or most 'blairites' were collecting under that banner out of tactics and convenience rather than any kind of conviction.



i'm not convinced there was any sort of conviction (other than for expenses fraud) within the whole blairite project...


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

I hope this puts the nail in the coffin of anyone on the left having any respect or time for_ The Guardian_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i'm not convinced there was any sort of conviction (other than for expenses fraud) within the whole blairite project...


Hence some of them at least 'rediscovering the reasons I joined the Labour Party' with JC as leader.


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i'm not convinced there was any sort of conviction (other than for expenses fraud) within the whole blairite project...



There was it was " my career"


----------



## dendrite (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone actually like Reeves? I have never heard anyone say a positive word about it, not even from Blairites or the vermin



Without really paying attention, I never noticed anything else she did making as big a splash as the 'we are not the party of people on benefits' thing, and no one liked that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> f) resign and try and form a new party


The beauty of this landslide is that they will have no way to claim that they represent a significant faction in the LP.


----------



## 03gills (Sep 12, 2015)

The fucking beautiful irony in all of this is that the 'Corbyn vote purge' only further legitimised JC's victory by preventing accusations of Tory infiltration.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Strikes me as an even stupider and more unpleasant version of Liz Kendall.



and that takes a fair bit of doing...


----------



## gosub (Sep 12, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> will be interesting to see what the tory-lite twunts do.  as i see it, their options are
> 
> a) stay in the labour party, soak up as many expenses and consultancies as possible and sulk / cause trouble while hoping for a new blairite dawn
> 
> ...



Will be 50 less seats by the next election, reckon most already know now that they've got 5 years to milk expenses before they will be looking for another job.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

So are the SP/TUSC going to dissolve and join the LP now?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

gosub said:


> Will be 50 seats by the next election, reckon most already know now that they've got 5 years to milk expenses before they will be looking for another job.


What will be 50 seats by the next election?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

back to the forecourt for Burnham


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> back to Tracy Island for Burnham



Cfy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> back to the forecourt for Burnham


He's got a job as shadow health secretary if he wants it, by the sounds of it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> So are the SP/TUSC going to dissolve and join the LP now?



can't see it from the SP really, theres some beastings you don't ever forget. I'm just speculating tho


----------



## gosub (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What will be 50 seats by the next election?


 50 less. edited.  Tories goign to reduce commons to 600mps


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We'll see. I've always suspected that many or most 'blairites' were collecting under that banner out of tactics and convenience rather than any kind of conviction.



Not even that as far as I can see. I haven't heard any of them self describe as Blairites at all, it's always 'modernisers' or something like that. Supposedly pragmatic above all which gives them plenty of wriggle room now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

gosub said:


> 50 less. edited.  Tories goign to reduce commons to 600mps


Ah, I see.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> can't see it from the SP really, theres some beastings you don't ever forget. I'm just speculating tho



I wouldn't either but some people in the party seem to want that


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I wouldn't either but some people in the party seem to want that



Nellist for e.g


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Tristram Hunt has gone too... Good





Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Not even that as far as I can see. I haven't heard any of them self describe as Blairites at all, it's always 'modernisers' or something like that. Supposedly pragmatic above all which gives them plenty of wriggle room now.


Yes, Tristram Hunt is perhaps a good example. His latest tweet: 



> Congratulations to @*jeremycorbyn* for a decisive win in the @*UKLabour* Leadership election. He deserves respect and support as new leader.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

Tom & Jerry leading the Labour Party


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Tom & Jerry leading the Labour Party


----------



## teqniq (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

LOL at Ken Livingstone, when BBC reporter mentions 'big hitters' like Hunt and Reeves resigning: 'what do you mean, big hitters? Most people have never heard of them!'


----------



## redcogs (Sep 12, 2015)

Watching the Labour Party over the next period will be more entertaining than watching the excellent Game of Thrones.

Will there be a John Snow moment, with bitter Blairites plunging daggers in (up to the hilt)?


----------



## moochedit (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> So are the SP/TUSC going to dissolve and join the LP now?



nellist told the cov telegraph they might if certain conditions (like bringing clause 4 back, etc) were met....

Coventry's Dave Nellist welcomes Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party leadership victory

Jeremy Corbyn success could see Labour Party absorb rival TUSC party


----------



## teqniq (Sep 12, 2015)

Trump gets duped into retweeting a pic of Corbyn thinking he's a supporter


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Trump gets duped into retweeting a pic of Corbyn thinking he's a supporter


----------



## Sirena (Sep 12, 2015)

It would be interesting to see if a commonality of interest can supersede sectarian politics

Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) on Twitter


----------



## purves grundy (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


>



Is that really true then? (And is it really as significant as it sounds?)


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

purves grundy said:


> Is that really true then? (And is it really as significant as it sounds?)


There's some quibbling in the comments below the tweet but it seems to be either true, or very near to true.

Significance? None, except he has a massive mandate. Blairites are finished.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> There's some quibbling in the comments below the tweet but it seems to be either true, or very near to true.
> 
> Significance? None, except he has a massive mandate. Blairites are finished.


I think it's hugely significant. None of his opponents can make any claim that he's hijacked the party. 60 per cent of the vote is an enormous mandate in a 4-horse race. Especially with probably the next least Blairite candidate picking up half of the remaining 40 per cent, and the arch-Blairite picking up fewer than one in 20 votes, which is miserable by any standards.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it's hugely significant. None of his opponents can make any claim that he's hijacked the party. 60 per cent of the vote is an enormous mandate in a 4-horse race. Especially with probably the next least Blairite candidate picking up half of the remaining 40 per cent, and the arch-Blairite picking up fewer than one in 20 votes, which is miserable by any standards.


Yeah but he's in a party stuffed with Blairites. It's a problem. You can't win an election on your own. What does he do now?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 12, 2015)

Jamie Reed's resignation seems to be about a fundamental disagreement on nuclear energy policy. He's got Sellafield in his constituency.


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

They will be all falling over themselves now to get in the shadow cabinet


----------



## Knotted (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it's hugely significant. None of his opponents can make any claim that he's hijacked the party. 60 per cent of the vote is an enormous mandate in a 4-horse race. Especially with probably the next least Blairite candidate picking up half of the remaining 40 per cent, and the arch-Blairite picking up fewer than one in 20 votes, which is miserable by any standards.



You'd think but there's always Nick Cohen:
How Jeremy Corbyn's Coup Hijacked Labour


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

oryx said:


> LOL at Ken Livingstone, when BBC reporter mentions 'big hitters' like Hunt and Reeves resigning: 'what do you mean, big hitters? Most people have never heard of them!'


Ken was getting his gloat on hard there


----------



## elbows (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> There's some quibbling in the comments below the tweet but it seems to be either true, or very near to true.
> 
> Significance? None, except he has a massive mandate. Blairites are finished.



Guardian website goes with:

'Trounces rivals with 59% of vote - more than Blair in 1994'

That will do nicely


----------



## tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Yeah but he's in a party stuffed with Blairites. It's a problem. You can't win an election on your own. What does he do now?



Constituency candidate reselections


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

tim said:


> Constituency candidate reselections


I thought he'd distanced himself from that policy?


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 12, 2015)

Can you imagine if you'd been cut off up the Amazon for three months how gobsmacked you'd be if you arrived back today to see Corbyn as Labour leader.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 12, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Jamie Reed's resignation seems to be about a fundamental disagreement on nuclear energy policy. He's got Sellafield in his constituency.


You can still have nuclear submarines etc without nuclear warheads.....


----------



## tim (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I thought he'd distanced himself from that policy?



Who cares what he said then"to the victor go the spoils".


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 12, 2015)

Sirena said:


> You can still have nuclear submarines etc without nuclear warheads.....



The disagreement is more about nuclear power stations I think.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

Well, that didn't take long


----------



## scifisam (Sep 12, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Jamie Reed's resignation seems to be about a fundamental disagreement on nuclear energy policy. He's got Sellafield in his constituency.


Corbyn's anti-nuclear power? Is he? Being anti nuclear weapons does not automatically mean being against them for power too. 

The austerity bill probably won't pass now. Whatever else happens, that's good news.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's got a job as shadow health secretary if he wants it, by the sounds of it.



Well his previous form as health secretary speaks for itself


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Corbyn's anti-nuclear power? Is he? Being anti nuclear weapons does not automatically mean being against them for power too.
> 
> The austerity bill probably won't pass now. Whatever else happens, that's good news.


tbh his resignation letter makes him sound almost deluded



> I will not let anything or anyone from any party stand in the way of the ambitions of my community



That's right, Jamie. Off you pop...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 12, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Corbyn's anti-nuclear power? Is he?



Yes


----------



## Sirena (Sep 12, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The disagreement is more about nuclear power stations I think.



He's dead against Trident but he is fairly neutral on nuclear energy.

He says he does not want any new nuclear power stations and, instead, look at green alternatives.  But that's not any reason for his Sellafield constituents to worry.

Nor does Barrow-in-Furness (a neighbouring constituency) need to worry.  Nuclear-powered submarines will still be built (if you feel the need for submarines you can't deny the advantage of submarines with unlimited power.....) but they will just have conventional warheads.

And they will be bound to be built/housed at Barrow - purely because nuclear stuff is involved.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Well, that didn't take long


i was going to say, i bet it makes the sun front page tommorow


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Yes


'no new nuclear power'

That's a little different. He's not proposing scrapping existing power stations before their end dates.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 12, 2015)

What were the odds on any of these dicks who've resigned front bench positions actually keeping those positions under Corbyn?  Not great, I imagine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> They will be all falling over themselves now to get in the shadow cabinet


Yep. It's a paid position, after all.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. It's a paid position, after all.


Credit cards, chauffeurs the lot.....


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

someone who deosn't drink, in a pub. Highly unusual according to the beeb lol


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 12, 2015)

Oh good lord Socialist Party (analysis of what happens next from their "Corbyn wins" article)...



> *How can onslaught from right be defeated?*
> Jeremy Corbyn will not be able to defeat the onslaught he will face if he remains isolated within the constraints of the right-wing dominated Labour Party machine.
> 
> There are only nine members of the socialist group of MPs of which he is a member. To win he needs to build on the popular movement against austerity that found a voice in his election campaign.
> ...



"We didn't mean it with that whole 'Labour can't be redeemed and we need a new party" thing, can we come back now?"


----------



## Knotted (Sep 12, 2015)

BBC bod:
"Tom Watson will be a pivotal source of ballast..."

Is he calling him a plank?


----------



## elbows (Sep 12, 2015)

Sirena said:


> He says he does not want any new nuclear power stations and, instead, look at green alternatives.  But that's not any reason for his Sellafield constituents to worry.



Although there are plenty of other nuclear tasks going on at Sellafield, it is also one of the sites deemed suitable for a new nuclear power station. For that and other reasons to do with the way the whole industry goes in future, there are clearly still local political and economic considerations at stake.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 12, 2015)

I was wondering - Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP for 32 years, the length of many people's entire working lives.

Is there any identifiable/substantial accomplishment or achievement that he can point to having delivered over the past three decades ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

elbows said:


> Although there are plenty of other nuclear tasks going on at Sellafield, it is also one of the sites deemed suitable for a new nuclear power station. For that and other reasons to do with the way the whole industry goes in future, there are clearly still local political and economic considerations at stake.


Sure, but that's not why he's resigned.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2015)

LOL - i thought this must be from a spoof account at first: 
"


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

From 100-1 to win the Labour leadership to 7-1 to be the next Prime Minister. 3 months is a long time in politics, eh?


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

Really mixed feelings about this...

It's a good indicator that this country isn't as Tory and right wing as people often think and does provide a glimmer of hope.
His election might hopefully drag politics leftwards a bit more, and that no doubt will actually make some peoples lives better.

But I think it's going to re-invigorate the Labour Party, which ultimately is of course a lost cause as a vehicle for radical change.
And I think with this we might well see a significant number of people get back involved in parliamentary politics for while.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Beeb are a fucking shambles.


Now corrected to remove the references, at least.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> I was wondering - Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP for 32 years, the length of many people's entire working lives.
> 
> Is there any identifiable/substantial accomplishment or achievement that he can point to having delivered over the past three decades ?


You can't change anything alone.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> I was wondering - Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP for 32 years, the length of many people's entire working lives.
> 
> Is there any identifiable/substantial accomplishment or achievement that he can point to having delivered over the past three decades ?


Why don't you have a look? You know how to use google don't you?


----------



## Tankus (Sep 12, 2015)

Did anyone notice on the beeb some comrade from the BBC was asking the messiah an awkward question outside a pub about Tristram , Reeves and some other geezer (who ? _twojag's_  )resigning from the shadow cabinet ....and a pair of party apparatchiks immediately tried to shut the questioner down and block the cameraman ....Corbyn was having none of it and continued to address the question .....utterly off the cuff.... unscripted 

hes so far out of the bubblemachine  even the party spad blowers have no control ..... got to be good ..perhaps ?


----------



## Voley (Sep 12, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> LOL - i thought this must be from a spoof account at first:
> "



Yep some tory bloke on the BBC said that about an hour ago. I LOL'd.


----------



## wtfftw (Sep 12, 2015)

Voley said:


> Yep some tory bloke on the BBC said that about an hour ago. I LOL'd.


Yeah. Tory woman on sky as well.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Really mixed feelings about this...
> 
> It's a good indicator that this country isn't as Tory and right wing as people often think and does provide a glimmer of hope.
> His election might hopefully drag politics leftwards a bit more, and that no doubt will actually make some peoples lives better.
> ...


Probably but what were you expecting instead? A violent overthrow of the state in the next 5 years? We all know the labour party are shit but this is something. I've never had even a sniff of anything remotely like this in my entire 34 year existence. Save the pissing on the cornflakes for at least a day will you?


----------



## pesh (Sep 12, 2015)

I've been given the rest of the day off for being 'too happy to be here'


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 12, 2015)

Sirena said:


> You can still have nuclear submarines etc without nuclear warheads.....


Sellafield is neither of those though, it's a massive complex for nuclear waste decommissioning and reprocessing.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 12, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Oh good lord Socialist Party (analysis of what happens next from their "Corbyn wins" article)...
> 
> 
> 
> "We didn't mean it with that whole 'Labour can't be redeemed and we need a new party" thing, can we come back now?"



I strongly disagree, what I see is: TUSC will clearly continue, we are TUSC but we want a large gathering in a nice big building with lots of leftist people who've just become supporters of the LP who soon might be pissed off with their fellow party members, we want to draw them into TUSC (with leaflets about Labour councillors across all sorts of cities enforcing cuts), if we do this well enough we might be able to provoke a left-right split in Labour and TUSC can merge with the left split and become a British Linkspartei.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Why don't you have a look? You know how to use google don't you?



I did actually. I couldn't find anything apart from membership of a few parliamentary select committees. He is a member of lots of non-parliamentary groups and societies.

But I couldn't find anything he has actually _done_.


----------



## rekil (Sep 12, 2015)

Labour chooses white man as leader

Tears from Jonn Elledge (private school, Cambridge)


----------



## Alan G (Sep 12, 2015)

Has anyone done a check on all these pushing the "can't elect Corbyn cos he is a man" line to see how many supported Dianne Abbot in her attempts to run for leadership positions?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> I did actually. I couldn't find anything apart from membership of a few parliamentary select committees. He is a member of lots of non-parliamentary groups and societies.
> 
> But I couldn't find anything he has actually _done_.


He's just won the leadership of the labour party. I'll ask you too, what are you expecting? What would you have liked him to do?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> I was wondering - Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP for 32 years, the length of many people's entire working lives.
> 
> Is there any identifiable/substantial accomplishment or achievement that he can point to having delivered over the past three decades ?


not selling out in that entire 32 year span in parliament is an achievement that few seem to manage.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

free spirit said:


> not selling out in that entire 32 year span in parliament is an achievement that few seem to manage.



Not selling out, or not leaving a Party that should have been left as a bad deal years and years ago?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Does anyone actually like Reeves? I have never heard anyone say a positive word about it, not even from Blairites or the vermin



Like many of her contemporaries, Reeves has very little hinterland. There's not a lot to be positive about, unless you're into neoliberal-lite policy.


----------



## dendrite (Sep 12, 2015)

copliker said:


> Labour chooses white man as leader
> 
> Tears from Jonn Elledge (private school, Cambridge)



Haven't even got their shit together to articulate what if anything they're claiming it signifies. The statement and *~ *15 pictures are supposed to be an articulation all by themselves! One which almost wordlessly makes common sense of sneering at a half million strong democratic event.

I wonder if Elledge will venture some contestable claims about this stuff later on, what it demonstrates about the current Labour party, or whether he'll stay safely pictorial.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Save the pissing on the cornflakes for at least a day will you?



I'll stop pissing on the cornflakes when everybody stops thinking they're coco pops with gold sprinkles on.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 12, 2015)

what I am loving is the complete failure of Labour strategists who must have thought they could turn shit into gold when they got Blair in. Since 2010 they have been fucked by the Tories , SNP and now Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

tonybee giving it large now repeating the 'corbyn has never run anything' line. He's been an elected politician all his adult life, he's got a degree of 'running things' that some stuck up guardian journo simply hasn't


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

copliker said:


> Labour chooses white man as leader
> 
> Tears from Jonn Elledge (private school, Cambridge)



Haven't noticed any of these people who've oh so suddenly embraced diversity raving about the fact that Labour have chosen a man of working class, state-educated, Asian heritage as mayoral candidate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Not selling out, or not leaving a Party that should have been left as a bad deal years and years ago?


You say that. But couldn't it also be said that, by playing the long game, he has come out the other side with a chance to remake that deal?

My position on this is that you don't have to be a Labour supporter, a Corbyn supporter, or even a supporter of parliamentary democracy to think that today is a day to cheer. Today is a day when someone who says stuff that I can relate to has achieved a position within the system that means that this kind of stuff will be said far more in the coming years than it has for decades. 

One thing I think is a massive mistake is to think that this is some kind of a blow to prospects for change in that it might legitimise the system. A right-wing Labour leader just makes everything worse. Moving even further away from a place you want to be just leaves an even longer journey to get there.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Sad Guardian reader cardi



PMSL


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> They will be all falling over themselves now to get in the shadow cabinet



You say "falling over themselves", I say "stabbing each other in the back".


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 12, 2015)

free spirit said:


> not selling out in that entire 32 year span in parliament is an achievement that few seem to manage.


Surely that's something of a negative achievement, as it means that Corbyn has been unable to influence Labour policy in any way at all for the past 32 years.

Surely "selling out" is the more the sort of thing you worry about if you're in a rock band, rather than if you're an elected representative of a major political party that wants to improve the direction and happiness of a country of 65 million people.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

copliker said:


> Labour chooses white man as leader
> 
> Tears from Jonn Elledge (private school, Cambridge)



Worst publication in Britain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I thought he'd distanced himself from that policy?



If he's serious about the re-democratisation of CLPs, then Corbyn's personal view doesn't matter, what matters is whether those CLPs want that power back.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You say that. But couldn't it also be said that, by playing the long game, he has come out the other side with a chance to remake that deal?
> 
> My position on this is that you don't have to be a Labour supporter, a Corbyn supporter, or even a supporter of parliamentary democracy to think that today is a day to cheer. Today is a day when someone who says stuff that I can relate to has achieved a position within the system that means that this kind of stuff will be said far more in the coming years than it has for decades.
> 
> One thing I think is a massive mistake is to think that this is some kind of a blow to prospects for change in that it might legitimise the system. A right-wing Labour leader just makes everything worse. Moving even further away from a place you want to be just leaves an even longer journey to get there.


This in spades.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Knotted said:


> BBC bod:
> "Tom Watson will be a pivotal source of ballast..."
> 
> Is he calling him a plank?



More of a bag of rocks.


----------



## gosub (Sep 12, 2015)

copliker said:


> Labour chooses white man as leader
> 
> Tears from Jonn Elledge (private school, Cambridge)


tbf would have been a few questions asked if they had declared Diane Abbott the winner


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> tonybee giving it large now repeating the 'corbyn has never run anything' line. He's been an elected politician all his adult life, he's got a degree of 'running things' that some stuck up guardian journo simply hasn't


Like Pollee's political career was such a glowing success.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> LOL - i thought this must be from a spoof account at first:
> "




Conservative Central HQ have been farting this out since 11.30. As have assorted Tory "talking heads".


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Conservative Central HQ have been farting this out since 11.30. As have assorted Tory "talking heads".



Expect to hear it constantly for the next few months if not years. Tories love a 'key phrase' these days.


----------



## oryx (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Conservative Central HQ have been farting this out since 11.30. As have assorted Tory "talking heads".



It's going to be the new 'the mess Labour left us' vis a vis the economy.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 12, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> He's just won the leadership of the labour party. I'll ask you too, what are you expecting? What would you have liked him to do?


He seemed pretty lukewarm about it all at first.

From the Guardian:_ '...we decided somebody should put their hat in the ring in order to promote that debate. And, unfortunately, it’s my hat in the ring.”_

_Why did it have to be his hat? “Well, Diane [Abbott] and John [McDonnell] have done it before, so it was my turn.” So he took some persuading? “Yeah. I have never held any appointed office, so in that sense it’s unusual, but if I can promote some causes and debate by doing this, then good. That’s why I’m doing it.” He offers a tiny smile. Blink and you miss it. “At my age I’m not likely to be a long-term contender, am I?” '_

He wasn't too enthused about it. So I suppose I would have liked him to be a bit more inspired by the prospect of leading the Labour Party than just saying, "well Diane has had her turn, so now I suppose it's my go".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

maomao said:


> Expect to hear it constantly for the next few months if not years. Tories love a 'key phrase' these days.



Or, as the Septics call them, "talking points".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> He seemed pretty lukewarm about it all at first.
> 
> From the Guardian:_ '...we decided somebody should put their hat in the ring in order to promote that debate. And, unfortunately, it’s my hat in the ring.”_
> 
> ...


Or, like most of us, he thought he stood no chance whatever of winning, and he was just being honest about his reasons for standing.

I think more or less the opposite from you on this, I think - I very much like the idea of a reluctant leader, who takes a position because there's nobody else to do it. He's the anti-Blair in that regard. _It's not about him_, is more or less what he's saying. It's about the things he wants to be done.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm never voting labour again, the betrayal is not just current it was there from the inception of the party. But it is glorious to see the blairites given a slap. I may have gone 'YOUR BOYS TOOK A HELL OF A BEATING! A HELL OF A BEATING' when the result came in. A sweet sweet temporary victory


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> He seemed pretty lukewarm about it all at first.
> 
> From the Guardian:_ '...we decided somebody should put their hat in the ring in order to promote that debate. And, unfortunately, it’s my hat in the ring.”_
> 
> ...


Something I hear a fair bit on here, and elsewhere, is that being an MP/PM is one of those jobs where the people who want it most are the people you least want to see doing the job. Jokingly, it's been said that only those who don't want the job should be allowed to do it.

Well, here we are...


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2015)

will there be a blairite purge/exodus?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm never voting labour again, the betrayal is not just current it was there from the inception of the party. But it is glorious to see the blairites given a slap. I may have gone 'YOUR BOYS TOOK A HELL OF A BEATING! A HELL OF A BEATING' when the result came in. A sweet sweet temporary victory


You don't have to be a LP supporter, voter, or otherwise pro-Labour to feel some anti-establishment  together with getting some good entertainment today.


----------



## JHE (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> ...the betrayal is not just current it was there from the inception of the party.



_What_ did it betray at its inception?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

JHE said:


> _What_ did it betray at its inception?


the wider labour movement.


----------



## Voley (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm never voting labour again, the betrayal is not just current it was there from the inception of the party. But it is glorious to see the blairites given a slap. I may have gone 'YOUR BOYS TOOK A HELL OF A BEATING! A HELL OF A BEATING' when the result came in. A sweet sweet temporary victory


I thought I'd never vote Labour again after Blair, but I may well vote for Corbyn at the next election. I'll see how he does in the meantime but I like what I've heard him say so far. As is usual with me, it'd be a 'lesser of three evils' vote - the concerns that stethoscope and LynnDoyleCooper both mention above ring true with me - but he's the first mainstream politician I've had any time for in a long while.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Something I hear a fair bit on here, and elsewhere, is that being an MP/PM is one of those jobs where the people who want it most are the people you least want to see doing the job. Jokingly, it's been said that only those who don't want the job should be allowed to do it.
> 
> Well, here we are...


Yep. And he's not in politics to make himself rich or otherwise indulge in vainglory. That's going to take some getting used to around various media outlets. It will not compute.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

Is the Green Party fucked now then?


----------



## Voley (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Is the Green Party fucked now then?


I would've thought so, yeah.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Is the Green Party fucked now then?



Yeah, good question. Fuck knows is my answer, but be interested to hear some well thought out responses!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

I see that Dan Hodges has a 'the day the Labour party died' article at the Torygraph, I wonder how many times the party has died by his estimation, I seem to remember it also died when Ed Miliband voted against turning the RAF into ISIS' airforce.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

What about Lib Dems? Can imagine a few of their hanger-onners will now finally abandon them.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Is the Green Party fucked now then?



I hadn't even considered that but it'll be another great side effect of a Corbyn win


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 12, 2015)

Don't get me wrong - so sure was I of his prospects that I bet actual money on Corbyn when the odds were 5 to 1 against, and so I've won big today.

But, it seems from posters' comments that his career-long _lack_ of achievement and _lack_ of ambition are being held up as virtues. Not typically the attributes of a successful leader.

"_It's about the things he wants to be done._" 32 years is a long time to want to do various things, but not actually get anything done.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

How old is he? He could easily be dead before 2020. Not even joking. (Well, maybe a little.)


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I see that Dan Hodges has a 'the day the Labour party died' article at the Torygraph, I wonder how many times the party has died by his estimation, I seem to remember it also died when Ed Miliband voted against turning the RAF into ISIS' airforce.


That cunt could give Norma Desmond a run for her money.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> Don't get me wrong - so sure was I of his prospects that I bet actual money on Corbyn when the odds were 5 to 1 against, and so I've won big today.
> 
> But, it seems from posters' comments that his career-long _lack_ of achievement and _lack_ of ambition are being held up as virtues. Not typically the attributes of a successful leader.
> 
> "_It's about the things he wants to be done._" 32 years is a long time to want to do various things, but not actually get anything done.


Lack of ambition? He's chair of the STWC - their aims being to stop the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen. And he's pro-nuclear disarmament - another huge aim.

Is someone who gets their modest aims implemented more or less ambitious than someone who aims high and has not yet achieved?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> How old is he? He could easily be dead before 2020. Not even joking.


Then again, maybe he won't die. People die at all ages, sometimes they die rather young.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> "_It's about the things he wants to be done._" 32 years is a long time to want to do various things, but not actually get anything done.


He's never held a position in government or shadow cabinet. That doesn't mean he's never got anything done. It does mean that he is free of the stench of Blairism.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

What had Cameron 'done' before being elected? Osbourne? Blair? Fuck all. Career politicians don't get anything done. Welcome to UK politics.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Then again, maybe he won't die. People die at all ages, sometimes they die rather young.



I think you'll find it's a narrowing of the odds the older you get. Although I do like your suggestion there's something of the vampire about him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Lack of ambition? He's chair of the STWC - their aims being to stop the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen. And he's pro-nuclear disarmament - another huge aim.
> 
> Is someone who gets their modest aims implemented more or less ambitious than someone who aims high and has not yet achieved?


He failed to stop the war!


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He failed to stop the war!


What a loser


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

I'd vote Corbyn in a General Election tomorrow but we'll see how the next 4 and a half years go first.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

Yeah, I have to admit for all my skepticism and moaning, I think I would vote for him in an election too. It'd be my first ever vote, and I think it would make me feel physically sick, but I might just do it...


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 12, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> LOL - i thought this must be from a spoof account at first:
> "




Hide yo kids, hide yo wife.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think you'll find it's a narrowing of the odds the older you get. .


So he gets elected then gets ill and dies. So what? I think you're scraping at the dregs in a very small barrel if you're objecting to him on age grounds.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> What had Cameron 'done' before being elected? Osbourne? Blair? Fuck all. Career politicians don't get anything done. Welcome to UK politics.



Blair was a barrister beforehand. I'll just post this telling snippet about his career from Wikipedia:



> He appears in a number of reported cases, for example as in _Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner_[24] where he represented employers unsuccessfully in an attempt to deny female factory workers their holiday pay.



Yeah


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2015)

what do people mean when they say they'd vote for him? he's not running for president!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

I wonder how much articul8 has had to drink today


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 12, 2015)

Unlike Brown, Cameron and Milliband, I guess Corbyn won't be supporting hard-working families? Or maybe he will. I will watch with interest.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Is the Green Party fucked now then?


nah, reduced numbers, back to what they had, but not dead.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

Average life expectancy is now 81 years in the UK, and that's distorted by the fact that poor people die younger and the rich live longer lives. Corbyn is rich and has had an easy life. Of course that doesn't mean he'll live til 90, but he's got a better chance of doing so than most of us.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, reduced numbers, back to what they had, but not dead.


Or they prosper as their agenda receives wider coverage.  

Biggest potential losers at the next election could be the SNP. A Corbyn-led Labour could get right back up in Scotland.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I have to admit for all my skepticism and moaning, I think I would vote for him in an election too. It'd be my first ever vote, and I think it would make me feel physically sick, but I might just do it...


I'm still loyal to Proleterian Democracy and as such would rather eat my own shite than vote labour. Hary from the left! keep him on his toes!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Or they prosper as their agenda receives wider coverage.
> 
> Biggest potential losers at the next election could be the SNP. A Corbyn-led Labour could get right back up in Scotland.


I recon they've pissed their chips north of hadrians tbf. Snappies will stay.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

He's only 66 ffs


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> what do people mean when they say they'd vote for him? he's not running for president!


They mean they would vote Labour in a General Election in the hope of a government lead by C-Byn. It's not hard.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Average life expectancy is now 81 years in the UK, and that's distorted by the fact that poor people die younger and the rich live longer lives. Corbyn is rich and has had an easy life. Of course that doesn't mean he'll live til 90, but he's got a better chance of doing so than most of us.


He's also a teetotal, non-smoking, non-drug-taking, vegetarian cyclist. 

The boring fucker...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Or they prosper as their agenda receives wider coverage.



Doubtful, if Labour become the party of protest they will absorb all of those votes which would make me happy. Bye bye Green Tories


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> He's only 66 ffs



Innit. He looks a good deal healthier to me than Cameron or a lot of other younger politicians


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also an h.
> 
> h) claim they never stopped being socialists, deep down, really...


aka the Toynbee defence Free to dream, I’d be left of Jeremy Corbyn. 
Though no one can do it as unflinchingly straight-faced as can she


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

ska invita said:


> aka the Toynbee defence Free to dream, I’d be left of Jeremy Corbyn.
> Though no one can do it as unflinchingly straight-faced as can she



Bit fucking rich from an ex-SDPer


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Innit. He looks a good deal healthier to me than Cameron or a lot of other younger politicians


Definitely. That photo of Blair that Rob Ray touched up looks a lot more drawn and unhealthy than JC for instance.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

When's the next PMQs?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2015)

priti patel lol: audioBoom / Tory Minister  Priti Patel gives a lesson on how not to react to a Corbyn victory


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> priti patel lol: audioBoom / Tory Minister  Priti Patel gives a lesson on how not to react to a Corbyn victory


Parrot though she is i 'agree' with Priti - I wouldnt congratulate her for winning whatever it is she has ever won. Too much chuminess between MPs who should be opposed to each other.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

fucking hell toby young just chatting some epic shite


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> fucking hell toby young just chatting some epic shite


no!!


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> He's only 66 ffs



QFT, he's a year younger than Hilary Clinton, and running for/being President is a hell of a lot more physically demanding than being Leader of the Opposition.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Lack of ambition? He's chair of the STWC - their aims being to stop the mightiest war machine the world has ever seen. And he's pro-nuclear disarmament - another huge aim.
> 
> Is someone who gets their modest aims implemented more or less ambitious than someone who aims high and has not yet achieved?



Wasn't the "mightiest war machine the world has ever seen" the Wehrmacht ?

It's an interesting point about ambitions and achievement, and the answer is not obvious. But on balance, surely it's more effective to achieve something, anything, early in the game. Then you build credibility, people take you more seriously, and incrementally you achieve more and more.

Demanding unicorns-for-everybody for your whole adult life, and then inevitably coming up empty is arguably a less effective tactic, although it does facilitate flamboyant virtue signalling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

epic beard guy from NI has his say. Out bearding corbyn by 50% (its gerry)


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> Wasn't the "mightiest war machine the world has ever seen" the Wehrmacht ?
> 
> It's an interesting point about ambitions and achievement, and the answer is not obvious. But on balance, surely it's more effective to achieve something, anything, early in the game. Then you build credibility, people take you more seriously, and incrementally you achieve more and more.
> 
> Demanding unicorns-for-everybody for your whole adult life, and then inevitably coming up empty is arguably a less effective tactic, although it does facilitate flamboyant virtue signalling.


The Wehrmacht would have no chance against the combined UK/US 21st century military, even discounting the nukes.

And as to your bit about acheivement - he's been a politician for over 30 years, voting on how 60 million people live their lives. If becoming an elected representative isn't an achievement enough, what would you say makes someone 'successful'?!


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> Wasn't the "mightiest war machine the world has ever seen" the Wehrmacht ?



In 1939. Hasn't been true since at latest 1944. War machines just keep getting mightier.


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2015)

'virtue signalling'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Guardian columnists are going into mixed metaphor overdrive.



> Blairism is buried beneath the rubble and a different structural and cultural divide has been revealed.





> The Tories, this minister said, had to move fast to destroy Corbyn and to colonise the vast centre ground that he would surely vacate. My instinct was that of the Zen master. We’ll see.
> 
> Yet Corbyn seemed determined to hurl himself into precisely the bear-trap dug by his enemies.





> For experienced old hands, however, uniting behind Corbyn will take the willing suspension of disbelief that he can defy the normal laws of political gravity. The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course they won't consider it. They're attempting to practice _realpolitik_ in the world as-it-is (as they see it), not in the world as-they-want-it-to-be.
> That requires that they operate on the principle of accommodating capitalism and (as with original post-war social-democratic politics) ameliorating the effects through policy. it doesn't require that they seek and maintain a state of ideological and revolutionary purity.
> 
> 
> ...



Right, I understand this. But Keynesianism/post-war socdem at heart is an economically nationalist ideology. Like, I can understand how one could want to employ it for post-war recovery. This has nothing to do with revolutionary purity. even if I was pro-capitalism (which I'm not) Keynesian economics would  be the last thing on my mind to resolve the problems we face. Like you speak of realpolitik but to me it's just unspeakably utopian and the backlash isn't going to be pleasant. Politics aren't a reenactment strategy.

Fuck it, I'll say it, if I was a liberal labour party supporter I would have voted Burnham or Cooper. There we go. Obviously I'm not but you know, I think both of them are far more the realpolitik types than Corbyn.

Anyway enjoy the drinking all.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> Surely that's something of a negative achievement, as it means that Corbyn has been unable to influence Labour policy in any way at all for the past 32 years.
> 
> Surely "selling out" is the more the sort of thing you worry about if you're in a rock band, rather than if you're an elected representative of a major political party that wants to improve the direction and happiness of a country of 65 million people.


That's the sort of logic that resulted in the other 3 candidates failing to vote against the welfare bill. 

As an MP ultimately you have one single vote, all you can ultimately do is use that one single vote as best you can to oppose the crap that's being pushed through parliament. If the rest of parliament decided for some odd reason that the best way to oppose that thing is to abstain, there's not a lot you can do about that as a back bencher.

I don't really give too much of a toss about rock bands selling out, left wing politicians though... that's a very rare and very important trait for me.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 12, 2015)

Leaving aside Urban's occasional squabbles, nuanced and indeed erudite arguments, there is one thing we should all be pleased about. Namely: the main stream media have been turned over good and proper. Be it the vilification from Hodges in the Vermingraph, the personal attacks from the Fail and the relentless belittling by the Guardian, all have been put in their place. Corbyn had no need to go arse licking with Murdoch, no discrete dinners with the London centric journalists. Rather he went and spoke to the people.

The Social Media along with connecting with communities are the ones who have given Corbyn his victory. To think his votes exceeded those of Bliar is not only extraordinary but is a testament to ordinary folks both young and not so young expressing their will against all odds.

Finally, it is good feeling to know that Urban plays a part in the democracy dialogue.

Here's to a brighter future.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> 'virtue signalling'


My new least favourite buzz phrase.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> My new least favourite buzz phrase.



It just seems to mean 'when people who aren't me say that they like stuff that's different to the stuff I like'


----------



## free spirit (Sep 12, 2015)

my facebook feed is in corbyn overdrive.

If it's anything to go by, I reckon most of those who left Labour in protest against the Iraq war will be looking to rejoin / join a Corbyn led Labour party.

The Green Party pages are a bit all over the shop right now too, I suspect much of the Green Surge is going to be heading for the red tsumami.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It just seems to mean 'when people who aren't me say that they like stuff that's different to the stuff I like'


Or "dont say anything about anything important, its not your place"


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Crude identity politics and generalised assumptions.
> Not what I expect from you.



I was obviously being sarcastic...


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

My prediction for five years time if Corbyn is still leader is that so many Labour voters come back that Labour get the most votes but lose under the fptp system. That would be fun.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> BBC news article on the website giving a bio has plagiarised bits from wiki. Whoever did it left references in.



Obviously a rush job after they were taken by surprise - just like the recent GE, absolutely no-one saw this result coming, did they


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

Check out Tristy's gob.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Check out Tristy's gob.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

ska invita said:


>


Separated at birth?


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2015)

I've just joined the Labour Party, they're sending me a membership pack in 7-10 days. When can I expect my customary Urban 75 kicking?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Separated at birth?


Supposedly Prince Harry has withdrawn his support from the Labour party too


----------



## gosub (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> How old is he? He could easily be dead before 2020. Not even joking. (Well, maybe a little.)


 Depends if he looks like winning the General Election.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

YouSir said:


> I've just joined the Labour Party, they're sending me a membership pack in 7-10 days. When can I expect my customary Urban 75 kicking?


Next time they vote en masse for "Tory" policies


----------



## panpete (Sep 12, 2015)

WOOOOHOOOO!!!!!!!
JEREMY CORBYN'S LEADER! JEREMY CORBYN'S LEADER! JEREMY CORBYN'S LEADER! JEREMY CORBYN'S LEADER!
JEREMY CORBYN'S LEADER! JEREMY CORBYN'S LEADER!


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm not optimistic but I will say this JC is a v v good local MP


----------



## BandWagon (Sep 12, 2015)

Just a question here. Will this new leadership lead to a resurgence for Labour in Scotland? Taking on the SNP who are also leftwards leaning? That would be a big help in a GE.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> I'm not optimistic but I will say this JC is a v v good local MP


He was my local MP for a few years. I used to see him at Tufnell Park tube station almost every morning. I'd always gave him a nod and a smile.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 12, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Next time they vote en masse for "Tory" policies



So 7-10 days then?


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> I'm not optimistic but I will say this JC is a v v good local MP


A nasty horrible cunt of my acquaintance who has little good to say about anyone and certainly doesn't vote labour is a constituent of his and couldn't find a bad word to say about him (this was last year, I'm sure he's got a whole routine about how he's an evil nutter by now).


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 12, 2015)

Just in:


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> QFT, he's a year younger than Hilary Clinton, and running for/being President is a hell of a lot more physically demanding than being Leader of the Opposition.


Exactly. And this is nowadays with longer life expectancy. Callaghan became PM at 66/7 and Churchill at 66. Blair appointment resulted in people shifting their expectations to younger but younger doesn't always = better.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Exactly. And this is nowadays with longer life expectancy. Callaghan became PM at 66/7 and Churchill at 66. Blair appointment resulted in people shifting their expectations to younger but younger doesn't always = better.


Well, he would be the oldest ever* PM if he won in 2020.

*Gladstone was older in his final term but he'd been elected three times before.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Well, he would be the oldest ever* PM if he won in 2020.


I know it's not you pointing out this as a problem, but so what? In what way is this any kind of a problem?

The rather splendid former Uruguayan president José Mujica was 74 when he took office.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Well, he would be the oldest ever* PM if he won in 2020.
> 
> *Gladstone was older in his final term but he'd been elected three times before.


Let's not forget that Blair's only 4 years younger than Corbyn either.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 12, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> tristram hunt looks sad ......


I'm sure his ancestors were happy at Agincourt.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Let's not forget that Blair's only 4 years younger than Corbyn either.


As littlebabyjesus alluded, I'm not saying this is a problem, but your comparison is off. Firstly, Blair is 4 years younger than Corbyn now and that's 8 years after his Prime Ministership ended, and 21 years after he was made leader of Labour.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

Errr... I wasn't pointing out his age as a problem, or as a reason not to endorse. More to say that the enthusiasm should be slightly tempered with the reality we don't know how this is going to pan out in the next five years (and more) - and his possible death was a jibe at that.

And if this event (and the last few months) could tell us anything it's that the political future of this country is really quite unpredictable, so all the oh-so-sure assurances that this is simply 'a good thing' might well just be better hanging on and seeing what comes next.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

I bet people wouldn't be dissing JC because of his age if he'd ditched the elbow patch beardie geography teacher look, and had a nice stylish crop


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> As littlebabyjesus alluded, I'm not saying this is a problem, but your comparison is off. Firstly, Blair is 4 years younger than Corbyn now and that's 8 years after his Prime Ministership ended, and 21 years after he was made leader of Labour.


If it's not a problem, why are you making a deal of it?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Errr... I wasn't pointing out his age as a problem, or as a reason not to endorse. More to say that the enthusiasm should be slightly tempered with the reality we don't know how this is going to pan out in the next five years (and more) - and his possible death was a jibe at that.
> 
> And if this event (and the last few months) could tell us anything it's that the political future of this country is really quite unpredictable, so all the oh-so-sure assurances that this is simply 'a good thing' might well just be better hanging on and seeing what comes next.


Enthusiasm should be tempered by lack of confidence in parliamentary politics - not age.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> I bet people wouldn't be dissing JC because of his age if he'd ditched the elbow patch beardie geography teacher look, and had a nice stylish crop


He looks good for his age, I think.  

He looks a fucksight healthier than Blair.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> If it's not a problem, why are you making a deal of it?


I'm not....I'll shut up about it now


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

Who cares what he looks like?


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2015)

It's a funny thing, party background. I let my Labour membership lapse in (I think) 1985. And since then have gone on a long political journey away from parliamentarism and electoralism. But I was still pleased to hear the news of Corbyn's victory.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I'm not....I'll shut up about it now


Nah, apologies. I just get a bit narked with linking age to competence but I know that's not what you were doing.


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Enthusiasm should be tempered by lack of confidence in parliamentary politics - not age.



You missed my point, apologies for not being clearer. But anyway, I agree.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 12, 2015)

Remember also that his plan is not necessarily to ape the conventional pattern of leadership; for instance he's already on about delegating or sharing aspects of the job such as PMQ appearances, and has made all kinds of noises about improving internal party democracy. Few are going to vote for a party that seeks to place a part-time PM of course, but such an approach might cast the spotlight more widely on the party than on him all of the time. I don't know if that directly alters the importance of the man's age, either in PR terms or just in terms of personal capability, but it might contribute towards diminishing it a little.


----------



## rekil (Sep 12, 2015)

The hits just keep coming


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2015)

V.v interesting but rather predictable and totally bonkers outcome for Labour.

How does a leader of a parliamentary party hold any authority at all when he has defied the whip roughly 50 or so times?

In simple terms it's like making Saido Berahino captain of WBA.

And then there is the question of policy - there is scant to no evidence of how his package can be remotely electable.

For better or for worse the UK is simply not a left wing country.

Now you can approach that two ways if you are any way near left of centre - (i) first, you can try and change the consensus and go on the attack or (ii) you can try and introduce left wing policy on a gradual basis by trying to win elections - doing politics essentially.

Corby will not do the second and will be disastrous on the first - there are rumours that he is going to rotate PMQs amongst his deputies every 5 weeks! That means that he will be questioning the Prime Minister extremely little in the course of any parliament...


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> You missed my point, apologies for not being clearer. But anyway, I agree.


It's possible that I didn't miss your point but picked up on your age-related shit instead.


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> V.v interesting but rather predictable and totally bonkers outcome for Labour.
> 
> How does a leader of a parliamentary party hold any authority at all when he has defied the whip roughly 50 or so times?
> 
> ...




Are you a child of thatcher? Because some of us have longer memories


----------



## bendeus (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> V.v interesting but rather predictable and totally bonkers outcome for Labour.
> 
> How does a leader of a parliamentary party hold any authority at all when he has defied the whip roughly 50 or so times?
> 
> ...



1/10 on ratemytroll.com, soz


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> Are you a child of thatcher? Because some of us have longer memories


More likely that he's a child of Blair.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> V.v interesting but rather predictable and totally bonkers outcome for Labour.
> 
> How does a leader of a parliamentary party hold any authority at all when he has defied the whip roughly 50 or so times?
> 
> ...



_Look at me, look at me_


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> More likely that he's a child of Blair.



Same ting


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME I NEED SOME ATTENTION TOO DON'T GIVE IT ALL TO JEREMY


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> V.v interesting but rather predictable and totally bonkers outcome for Labour.
> 
> How does a leader of a parliamentary party hold any authority at all when he has defied the whip roughly 50 or so times?
> 
> ...


The whip system needs to go. Maybe Corbyn will abolish it. Would that make his actions retrospectively OK in your eyes?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> Same ting


I wouldn't describe Thatcher as neoliberal


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Remember also that his plan is not necessarily to ape the conventional pattern of leadership; for instance he's already on about delegating or sharing aspects of the job such as PMQ appearances, and has made all kinds of noises about improving internal party democracy. *Few are going to vote for a party that seeks to place a part-time PM* of course, but such an approach might cast the spotlight more widely on the party than on him all of the time. I don't know if that directly alters the importance of the man's age, either in PR terms or just in terms of personal capability, but it might contribute towards diminishing it a little.


I'm not so sure about that. Again, comparing to José Mujica, Mujica came from a radical left background (armed opposition to a dictatorship, rather different from Corbyn, but then radically different situation, and Corbyn did after all marry a Chilean exile, so there's a link there). Mujica sought from his position on the left to be a unifying president, and to devolve power. Corbyn could also present his programme as a genuine project for devolving power and reaching out to a broad alliance. 

Like Mujica, Corbyn can credibly present himself as someone who does not use spin to obfuscate, does not clothe himself either literally or metaphorically only after consultation with aides, and does not seek personal enrichment. 

On taking office, Mujica said this:



> it is a mistake to think that power comes from above, when it comes from within the hearts of the masses



I think there is at least a chance that Corbyn believes something similar.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2015)

Christ, you lot love a bandwagon...


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

You could never describe Corbyn as hailing from a radical left background tbf. He's a Centrist.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Christ, you lot love a bandwagon...


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You say that. But couldn't it also be said that, by playing the long game, he has come out the other side with a chance to remake that deal?
> 
> My position on this is that you don't have to be a Labour supporter, a Corbyn supporter, or even a supporter of parliamentary democracy to think that today is a day to cheer. Today is a day when someone who says stuff that I can relate to has achieved a position within the system that means that this kind of stuff will be said far more in the coming years than it has for decades.
> 
> One thing I think is a massive mistake is to think that this is some kind of a blow to prospects for change in that it might legitimise the system. A right-wing Labour leader just makes everything worse. Moving even further away from a place you want to be just leaves an even longer journey to get there.



*MULTIPLE LIKES*


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> The whip system needs to go. Maybe Corbyn will abolish it. Would that make his actions retrospectively OK in your eyes?



Without a whip you do not have a party


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Without a whip you do not have a party



Care to,tell us why you take that position ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> You could never describe Corbyn as hailing from a radical left background tbf. He's a Centrist.


Yeah, it's a sign of how far to the right mainstream discourse has gone, I guess, that he is so far to the left of it and yet isn't really radical left.

But I'm in optimistic mode today.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> You could never describe Corbyn as hailing from a radical left background tbf. He's a Centrist.



You seriously think that he is a centrist?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You seriously think that he is a centrist?


Yes.


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You seriously think that he is a centrist?



He is


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 12, 2015)

Has something happened?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> Care to,tell us why you take that position ?



If you can't command any or even the majority of your members to vote according to executive party policy, you do not have a parliamentary party in any meaningful sense whatsoever.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 12, 2015)

Nice to see the pot getting stirred up after all these years, I haven't been this giddy since the three day week!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> Care to,tell us why you take that position ?


he likes to party with a dominatrix of course


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> It's possible that I didn't miss your point but picked up on your age-related shit instead.



Oh fuck off. I don't have any issue with his age. It was an off the cuff comment that was just pointing out we don't know what the fuck is going to happen in the next five years, so pinning all this hope on one person is a bit stupid.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2015)

Ok - Corbyn is a centrist and whips are irrelevant.

They say you learn something new every day but it looks like I've got a wee bonus on that this afternoon...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Nice to see the pot getting stirred up after all these years, I haven't been this giddy since the three day week!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If you can't command any or even the majority of your members to vote according to executive party policy, you do not have a parliamentary party in any meaningful sense whatsoever.


Is it inconceivable to you that a party could operate in any other way? For instance formulating policy using an inclusive, consultative, bottom-up system?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> he likes to party with a dominatrix of course



Who doesn't?

We can go halves next time if you like?


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Oh fuck off. I don't have any issue with his age. I was just pointing out we don't know what the fuck is going to happen in the next five years, so pinning all this hope on one person is a bit stupid.


If you don't have any issue with his age you shouldn't have brought it up. You've gone from age  to oh it was just a jibe, to I haven't got a problem with his age, in about 5 posts. Fuck off yourself.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> I bet people wouldn't be dissing JC because of his age if he'd ditched the elbow patch beardie geography teacher look, and had a nice stylish crop


Geog-core is set to be _in_ in fall 2016, so he might ride that wave afterall


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Without a whip you do not have a party



Well quite. We can't have our representatives going around voting according to the wishes of their consitituents after all. Next thing you know they'll be voting with their consciences, and at that point you might as well just fly a hammer and sickle from Buckingham Palace and start speaking Russian.


----------



## BandWagon (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Christ, you lot love a bandwagon...


Everyone loves me, except you, which is a + +


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Geog-core is set to be _in_ in fall 2016, so he might ride that wave afterall


Totally going to be sewing elbow patches on button's jumpers  the button


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Geog-core is set to be _in_ in fall 2016, so he might ride that wave afterall


My hat was described by someone as a 'Jeremy Corbyn hat' the other week.

Still not sure how to take that. Maybe I'm finally about to become trendy.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well quite. We can't have our representatives going around voting according to the wishes of their consitituents after all. Next thing you know they'll be voting with their consciences, and at that point you might as well just fly a hammer and sickle from Buckingham Palace and start speaking Russian.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not so sure about that. <snip>
> 
> Like Mujica, Corbyn can credibly present himself as someone who does not use spin to obfuscate, does not clothe himself either literally or metaphorically only after consultation with aides, and does not seek personal enrichment.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree, and I think he will derive some success from that, but for better or worse we're not that far removed - and will not be significantly extracted - from the American model whereby the majority's interest is top-down - i.e. we make electoral decisions based primarily on the leader, then the party, then our actual representative mostly a distant last. We care then that we have a single statesman in charge of things, and although noone wants a dictator, I think most would reject someone who wasn't fit or willing to fully embrace that role.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My hat was described by someone as a 'Jeremy Corbyn hat' the other week.
> 
> Still not sure how to take that. Maybe I'm finally about to become trendy.


if looking a bit like JC is your hope of being trendy I wouldnt bet on it


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2015)

The bastard!


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm having an Obama moment here  It's good to have a bit of an uplifting fuck you type moment without being wedded to the politics, you joyless bastards


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

I don't watch Newsnight so I missed this but wtf it's like Brass Eye


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You seriously think that he is a centrist?


You're one of those who believed Ed Milliband was too left-wing to be elected, aren't you?

If so, your lot lost today.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> The bastard!



30 +


----------



## pesh (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Who doesn't?
> 
> We can go halves next time if you like?


It figures you'd be paying for it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nah, reduced numbers, back to what they had, but not dead.



More's the pity.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> 30 +


Can you imagine Tony or Gordon managing to gather that many assorted family and friends at a non-specific broadly regional cuisine establishment?


----------



## pesh (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> I'm having an Obama moment here  It's good to have a bit of an uplifting fuck you type moment without being wedded to the politics, you joyless bastards


I don't really know what to think but I'm glad things seem slightly less bleak than they did yesterday


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I don't watch Newsnight so I missed this but wtf it's like Brass Eye


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Can you imagine Tony or Gordon managing to gather that many assorted family and friends at a non-specific broadly regional cuisine establishment?


Decadence


----------



## LDC (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I don't watch Newsnight so I missed this but wtf it's like Brass Eye




OMFG is that a spoof?


----------



## the button (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> 30 +


Britain's junta-in-waiting


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I don't watch Newsnight so I missed this but wtf it's like Brass Eye



Fuck me. I only made it half-way through that, but did they really try to get him on the basis that he _wouldn't _be prepared to order a nuclear strike?????


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 12, 2015)

Tom Phillips at Buzzfeed peers into his crystal ball to see what the next few years will be like...

What Will Happen Now Jeremy Corbyn Is Labour Leader, According To The Media


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

pesh said:


> I don't really know what to think but I'm glad things seem slightly less bleak than they did yesterday


The "fuck you" vote, electing the unelectable, lifts the spirits eh.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> Wasn't the "mightiest war machine the world has ever seen" the Wehrmacht ?



No.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 12, 2015)

urbanspaceman said:


> Don't get me wrong - so sure was I of his prospects that I bet actual money on Corbyn when the odds were 5 to 1 against, and so I've won big today.
> 
> But, it seems from posters' comments that his career-long _lack_ of achievement and _lack_ of ambition are being held up as virtues. Not typically the attributes of a successful leader.
> 
> "_It's about the things he wants to be done._" 32 years is a long time to want to do various things, but not actually get anything done.



Not read beyond this but it's annoying me...
A _good_ local MP is representing their constituents, as much as (if not more than) they are involved in making huge policy changes in the party which they can claim as their own.
I'd far rather be represented nationally by someone who continually opposes bills that plunge the poorest further into poverty and head us into war (etc etc) and who has quietly and consistently got on with supporting that, than someone who fits the definition of *a leader*, if those qualities don't even count...wtf?!


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I don't watch Newsnight so I missed this but wtf it's like Brass Eye



What the actual fuck was that? You're right, it's Brasseye.

"Do you have the _stuff _to lead the country?"
"We're embarking on a high speed car chase, within the statutory speed limit"
"There's a fug of journalism in here"


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

the button said:


> Britain's junta-in-waiting


Vast swathes of teachers expose their elbow patches


----------



## Belushi (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Vast swathes of teachers expose their elbow patches


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

Just had an email from Corbyn asking what he should put to Cameron at Wednesday's PMQs


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Just had an email from Corbyn asking what he should put to Cameron at Wednesday's PMQs


Tell him to put to him that he's a ham faced cunt and should fall on his sword.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2015)

Anyone here want to hazard a guess about how Corbyn gets into No.10 in 2020?

Any ideas at all???


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Just had an email from Corbyn asking what he should put to Cameron at Wednesday's PMQs



Why can't such a wealthy country provide housing, health care and education for all those who need it...just for starters.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyone here want to hazard a guess about how Corbyn gets into No.10 in 2020?



A police officer opens the door for him then hands him the key?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyone here want to hazard a guess about how Corbyn gets into No.10 in 2020?
> 
> Any ideas at all???



By crywanking to the sound of his flatmate having a threesome?


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well quite. We can't have our representatives going around voting according to the wishes of their consitituents after all. Next thing you know they'll be voting with their consciences, and at that point you might as well just fly a hammer and sickle from Buckingham Palace and start speaking Russian.



Well said brother, was about to post in a similar tone myself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> 30 +


yes, he's a do for his friends in their 20s tomorrow


----------



## red & green (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Just had an email from Corbyn asking what he should put to Cameron at Wednesday's PMQs


He should ask Dave if he was drinking Bolly or claret in Yorkshire last week - or both


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> It's a funny thing, party background. I let my Labour membership lapse in (I think) 1985. And since then have gone on a long political journey away from parliamentarism and electoralism. But I was still pleased to hear the news of Corbyn's victory.


ennit. Even as utterly dissilusioned with parliamentary politics I am, you can't help feel that a good bloke won today, overwhelmingly. Can he ever change the vehicle or system he's in? not likely. But its nice to smile for once when watching the political charades.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyone here want to hazard a guess about how Corbyn gets into No.10 in 2020?
> 
> Any ideas at all???


striding over david cameron's mangled corpse


----------



## existentialist (Sep 12, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What it is is what it is. I don't give a shit if the likes of Jones uses it.


"misinformation", or even "disinformation" would sound a lot less like a conspiranoid term of art...


----------



## free spirit (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyone here want to hazard a guess about how Corbyn gets into No.10 in 2020?
> 
> Any ideas at all???


opposes the tories at every turn, exposes and rips to shreds their economic policies, and proposes a raft of policies that resound with the people of the UK resulting in them voting in such numbers as to result in Labour sweeping into government.

via a campaign with double the number of enthusiastic activists to help with it, and a strong social media campaign....

that sort of thing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 12, 2015)

The Boy said:


> By crywanking to the sound of his flatmate having a threesome?



I'm presuming that Diamond is posting his usual quality contributions. 

((((Ignore))))

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm presuming that Diamond is posting his usual quality contributions.
> 
> ((((Ignore))))
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I'm in such a good mood on this thread, even Diamond's absurdities are cheering me up. 

That he is reduced to spluttering incoherently pleases me greatly.


----------



## panpete (Sep 12, 2015)

YouSir said:


> I've just joined the Labour Party, they're sending me a membership pack in 7-10 days. When can I expect my customary Urban 75 kicking?


If you joined because Jeremy Corbyn is now leader, I would not kick you.
It's nice to see a real human leading them.
Sorry to be a bit pessimistic, but me and a friend were discussing the fact that as Jeremy Corbyn is so left (not a problem to me) it would ensure the tories a third term, because, although Corbyn is gaining more and more suppport as people join, there are still too many people, who are older, own their own homes, and are financially secure under the tories, and often, these are the types of people who walk straight past beggars or people who need help.
There are just too many vast numbers of these people, they are insulated from things like welfare reform, they won't mind taking out health insurance, and many of them will have jobs that pay health care etc.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 12, 2015)

Nonsense - and why not?

Apparently JC is sending out a Thank You email to everybody. He also wants to know what questions he should ask Camoron.

I would like to know which hand Camoron will now use to masturbate?

Elsewhere. Good timing. Radio 4 Tonight 21:00 hours. Hilary Mantel's French Revolution.

What a terrific day!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

panpete said:


> If you joined because Jeremy Corbyn is now leader, I would not kick you.
> It's nice to see a real human leading them.
> Sorry to be a bit pessimistic, but me and a friend were discussing the fact that as Jeremy Corbyn is so left (not a problem to me) it would ensure the tories a third term, because, although Corbyn is gaining more and more suppport as people join, there are still too many people, who are older, own their own homes, and are financially secure under the tories, and often, these are the types of people who walk straight past beggars or people who need help.
> There are just too many vast numbers of these people, they are insulated from things like welfare reform, they won't mind taking out health insurance, and many of them will have jobs that pay health care etc.


Not so sure about that. Many such people now have grown-up children who have little prospect of ever having such security.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm in such a good mood on this thread, even Diamond's absurdities are cheering me up.
> 
> That he is reduced to spluttering incoherently pleases me greatly.


'Reduced to'? 'Continues to......as fucking always' surely?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> No.


I read a convincing argument once that detailed how fearsome the nazi war machine was and how they could have defeated any of the other major powers. Individually. But they took on all comers, so by barabossa they'd fucked it.


----------



## gosub (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyone here want to hazard a guess about how Corbyn gets into No.10 in 2020?
> 
> Any ideas at all???


He takes a second job as a cleaner.


----------



## panpete (Sep 12, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Nonsense - and why not?
> 
> Apparently JC is sending out a Thank You email to everybody. He also wants to know what questions he should ask Camoron.
> 
> ...


I'm all for Corbyn and may even join the party myself, but I still think that socialism is a big minority in this country.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I read a convincing argument once that detailed how fearsome the nazi war machine was and how they could have defeated any of the other major powers. Individually. But they took on all comers, so by barabossa they'd fucked it.



Sounds plausible enough to me but they'd have no chance against today's US military. In fact with developments in weapons/tech you could probably make the case that the modern British military could take them on (well, if it wasn't for all that stuff about having to defy the laws of physics just to come into contact with them).


----------



## panpete (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not so sure about that. Many such people now have grown-up children who have little prospect of ever having such security.


Yeah, they do, but there are still too many of the previous generations still alive, who are insulated and protected.
I agree youngsters have a real bleak prospect to look forward to.
If 'now' was 12th September 2035 I would feel a bit less pessimistic on this issue, because by then, there wont be such a vast swathe of people who are financially secure. Older generations will have died off.
I also realise that there are many very old people who cannot pass anything on to their kids after thier death as all their life savings and assets have been eaten up by private elderly residential care.
I also realise that there are people who are forced to support their younger sons and daughters, financially, and this affects them, but currently, there just seems to be too vast a crowd of people who are more insulated under the tories. I am not talking about the super rich, just people on surburban estates who have no mortgages and dont have to pay rent, and other stuff
I hope I am wrong, I can see points for and against it, it just seems too early right now for me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Just had an email from Corbyn asking what he should put to Cameron at Wednesday's PMQs



Tell him to call Cameron a cunt and osborn a coke addled sociopath.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

panpete said:


> I'm all for Corbyn and may even join the party myself, but I still think that socialism is a big minority in this country.


Lucky he's not proposing socialism then, eh?


----------



## panpete (Sep 12, 2015)

Yeah, tell him to say that the current government we have in power are DANGEROUS and a HAZARD because they are.
Tell him that we don't feel safe under this government.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That he is reduced to spluttering incoherently pleases me greatly.



How can you tell the difference?


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Tell him to call Cameron a cunt and osborn a coke addled sociopath.


I will love it if he calls Cameron a cunt. LOVE it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

panpete said:


> I'm all for Corbyn and may even join the party myself, but I still think that socialism is a big minority in this country.


how big a minority?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well quite. We can't have our representatives going around voting according to the wishes of their consitituents after all. Next thing you know they'll be voting with their consciences, and at that point you might as well just fly a hammer and sickle from Buckingham Palace and start speaking Russian.



No you've not got this at all. Getting crap bills passed using bribery, threats and blackmail is the British parliamentary way.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Freespirit v diamond. Fucking hell. How to suck the life out of a temporary victory


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Freespirit v diamond. Fucking hell. How to suck the life out of a temporary victory


it will be a sweet day when the hammer of ban descends upon the twain


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> If you can't command any or even the majority of your members to vote according to executive party policy, you do not have a parliamentary party in any meaningful sense whatsoever.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it will be a sweet day when the hammer of ban descends upon the twain


Fairweathervain v justvain


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


>


it's ok, there are other solicitors some of whom know something of the law


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Fairweathervain v justvain


fuckchops v shitwank


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Sep 12, 2015)

He's a non drinking vegetarian.Join the dots people.


----------



## peterkro (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Just had an email from Corbyn asking what he should put to Cameron at Wednesday's PMQs


Just had that email as well,now I've just got to figure out why I'm getting spam from Bernie Sanders team same email address as used for Corbyns £3 sign up but using the shortened version of my first name (very common) something odd going on here (I suspect it's to do with having my name separated by a dot and the inability of email providers to differentiate),I've been getting bills from someone in the US using Rodgers as their provider for about five years now.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

mystic pyjamas said:


> He's a non drinking vegetarian.Join the dots people.



He's the head of a crypto-Muslim conspiracy to impose a caliphate on Britain, I knew it


----------



## likesfish (Sep 12, 2015)

tbf if corbyn manages to get loads of people who dont usually vote then its in the bag


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyone here want to hazard a guess about how Corbyn gets into No.10 in 2020?
> 
> Any ideas at all???


He will need to stand for election. That is how he got to be leader of the Labour Party.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck me. I only made it half-way through that, but did they really try to get him on the basis that he _wouldn't _be prepared to order a nuclear strike?????



That and something about eating a "vegetarian sandwich".....something I usually refer to as a simple salad sandwich... and a dark reference to him having " read pamphlets " . And Putin . A paddy power Putin admittedly, but ..Putin .


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Man douses himself in petrol inside Ashton Under Lyne Jobcentre.


Corbyn and the new Labour Party should now call a national demonstration against the brutal welfare reforms, last week a man doused himself in petrol inside Leigh Job Centre. It will be revealing though how much it is supported if it happens.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Man douses himself in petrol inside Ashton Under Lyne Jobcentre.
> 
> 
> Corbyn and the new Labour Party should now call a national demonstration against the brutal welfare reforms, last week a man set himself on fire inside Leigh Job Centre. It will be revealing though how much it is supported if it happens.


You say this as though no-one has spent the last few years calling against welfare reforms


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 12, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Leaving aside Urban's occasional squabbles, nuanced and indeed erudite arguments, there is one thing we should all be pleased about. Namely: the main stream media have been turned over good and proper. Be it the vilification from Hodges in the Vermingraph, the personal attacks from the Fail and the relentless belittling by the Guardian, all have been put in their place. Corbyn had no need to go arse licking with Murdoch, no discrete dinners with the London centric journalists. Rather he went and spoke to the people.
> 
> The Social Media along with connecting with communities are the ones who have given Corbyn his victory. To think his votes exceeded those of Bliar is not only extraordinary but is a testament to ordinary folks both young and not so young expressing their will against all odds.
> 
> ...



"It woz the '(Ur)ban wot won it"


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

peterkro said:


> Just had that email as well,now I've just got to figure out why I'm getting spam from Bernie Sanders team same email address as used for Corbyns £3 sign up but using the shortened version of my first name (very common) something odd going on here (I suspect it's to do with having my name separated by a dot and the inability of email providers to differentiate),I've been getting bills from someone in the US using Rodgers as their provider for about five years now.


Sanders is the Corbyn of America...ever seen them in the same room?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Man douses himself in petrol inside Ashton Under Lyne Jobcentre.
> 
> 
> Corbyn and the new Labour Party should now call a national demonstration against the brutal welfare reforms, last week a man doused himself in petrol inside Leigh Job Centre. It will be revealing though how much it is supported if it happens.


why don't you call a national demo?


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> You say this as though no-one has spent the last few years calling against welfare reforms




They have , but now it needs much more of a co-ordinated and mass response, a resurgent Left and civil society acted with urgency today on the refugee crisis, lets see the same with the savage welfare changes.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> why don't you call a national demo?




why not just fucking respond to the issue, the SWP called a mass protest on the refugee issue, they can do one on the lost lives from social security reforms, I don't care who does it just fucking do it,

and don't shoot the messenger, there is no ego involved here, just lost lives.

I know people around Corbyn, I will ask them.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> I know people around Corbyn, I will ask them.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> They have , but now it needs much more of a co-ordinated and mass response, a resurgent Left and civil society acted with urgency today on the refugee crisis, lets see the same with the savage welfare changes.


Society will act, see Calais. This isn't the same as parliamentary voting shite.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Decadence



Surely four friends (NO MORE THAN  ) in the park, a bag of tinnies and a flask of tea for Jeremy...all the rest nicked for being too drunk on their bicycles back home.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> You say this as though no-one has spent the last few years calling against welfare reforms


This is what treelover does - he berates everyone else for doing nothing, even when we are, whilst posting angry rhetoric and calls to arms.


----------



## Dandred (Sep 12, 2015)

Christ, good news and yet petty who is more left than the other on urban. What a surprise.


----------



## cesare (Sep 12, 2015)

sheothebudworths said:


> Surely four friends (NO MORE THAN  ) in the park, a bag of tinnies and a flask of tea for Jeremy...all the rest nicked for being too drunk on their bicycles back home.


Yeah fucking raise a glass and laugh at the cunts dissecting the politics of it all


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> LOL - i thought this must be from a spoof account at first:
> "





That is what Cameron said, surely a Govt Dept/agency can't be that political, this is really dodgy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> why not just fucking respond to the issue, the SWP called a mass protest on the refugee issue, they can do one on the lost lives from social security reforms, I don't care who does it just fucking do it,
> 
> and don't shoot the messenger, there is no ego involved here, just lost lives.
> 
> I know people around Corbyn, I will ask them.


i did respond to the issue you dull cunt


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 12, 2015)

Just watched his victory speech - fair play  

GE 2020 - labour's for the taking. Fuck you Dave!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 12, 2015)

*clink* cesare IN THE PARK


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> I'm having an Obama moment here  It's good to have a bit of an uplifting fuck you type moment without being wedded to the politics, you joyless bastards



Yeh, me too.

Despite not being a complete idiot politically (honest), when Obama made his inaugural speech my eldest was a baby and I remember the landlord being round fixing something and I had to leave the room because I started crying 

As a unite member I voted for Corbyn. I'm aware of all the arguments against, I'm not into parliamentary politics, but I can't help but feel absolutely fucking delighted about this, even if only for today.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> That is what Cameron said, surely a Govt Dept/agency can't be that political, this is really dodgy.



Eh, CCHQ is purely a party thing.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 12, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Eh, CCHQ is purely a party thing.


I think treelover has got his GCHQ confused with his CCHQ. That suggests he hasn't checked the link.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> That is what Cameron said, surely a Govt Dept/agency can't be that political, this is really dodgy.


CCHQ not GCHQ.


----------



## passenger (Sep 12, 2015)

great news


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I don't watch Newsnight so I missed this but wtf it's like Brass Eye





just noticed Ed Whitby(Ex? AWL) in the vid, wonder if he will get a role?


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I don't watch Newsnight so I missed this but wtf it's like Brass Eye




Stephen Smith is a master of irony/surrealism.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> This is what treelover does - he berates everyone else for doing nothing, even when we are, whilst posting angry rhetoric and calls to arms.



why do you think it is aimed at anyone on here, it isn't, never have, its aimed at largely the liberal left who in the last decade march against everything except this issue.

I am not advocating anything militant either, just civil society creating a new coalition against the reforms.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> I'm having an Obama moment here  It's good to have a bit of an uplifting fuck you type moment without being wedded to the politics, you joyless bastards



Mate of mine has just said the same thing. Unfortunately followed it up with #FreeAtLast


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> Right, I understand this. But Keynesianism/post-war socdem at heart is an economically nationalist ideology.



Given the nature of society and the economy at the time, it couldn't really be anything else, without causing severe social fractures that would have impacted most against the European _proleteriat_ (the UK did, after all, export cheap food into Europe for over a decade after war's end). People had to be convinced that their sacrifices meant something - made them owed something. 



> Like, I can understand how one could want to employ it for post-war recovery. This has nothing to do with revolutionary purity. even if I was pro-capitalism (which I'm not) Keynesian economics would  be the last thing on my mind to resolve the problems we face. Like you speak of realpolitik but to me it's just unspeakably utopian and the backlash isn't going to be pleasant. Politics aren't a reenactment strategy.



I'm not convinced that Corbyn is looking to re-enact anything, merely to try something different. I doubt that he'll be able to achieve social democracy on a national scale, but I do believe he'll reintroduce an element of consideration to party politics that is long-missing - the element that causes policy formulators to ask "what benefits the electorate?".
I agree that some on the left are heralding a new (false, IMO) dawn, and that there will be a backlash. What will govern how severe the backlash is, isn't (in the Blairite sense) "expectations management", so much as how how quickly and clearly Corbyn sets his policy parameters. Blair's people would dissemble until the last moment, hoping to milk the most support. Corbyn hopefully won't do this.



> Fuck it, I'll say it, if I was a liberal labour party supporter I would have voted Burnham or Cooper. There we go. Obviously I'm not but you know, I think both of them are far more the realpolitik types than Corbyn.



If you take _realpolitik_ to mean "shaping the words of policy to convince party A that the legislation helps them, while it actually helps party B", I'd say you were right. In terms of "the art of the possible" and pragmatism though, I don't think either of them would know _realpolitik_ if it bit them savagely on the arse.   



> Anyway enjoy the drinking all.



I've already had my self-imposed limit earlier this week!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

dialectician said:


> I was obviously being sarcastic...



Obviously.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Check out Tristy's gob.



Those Old Etonians really don't like being denied their supposedly-rightful place in the world, do they? 
The boy looks like a bulldog who's just sucked piss off of a thistle.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

> Now his leadership must also reach out to middle-income and middle-class people. His campaign has come up with detailed policies on self-employed people, who lack security and rights. This must be front and centre. As well as pledges on council housing and regulating private rents, he must build on his policies to get people on the housing ladder if that’s what they aspire to, particularly young people. Older people turn out more, and backed the Tories decisively in May. Policies on social care and pensioner poverty, for example, must be offered.
> 
> If Jeremy Corbyn's victory was an incredible political achievement, it was the easy bit | Owen Jones



Owen Jones setting down some 'right' parameters?

actually, a lot of the new Corbynistas support small business, aspiration, etc.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> That is what Cameron said, surely a Govt Dept/agency can't be that political, this is really dodgy.



Indeed . But to me it means that one plank they are seriously going to peruse in the avalanche of smears heading his way is his past ..and present...stances on the Irish and Palestinian causes etc . Stephen Nolans already had a bash at that a few weeks ago . Jez told him he couldn't hear his question because of a noisy train and a bad line and hung up .


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2015)

Worth trying to get more people onto the electoral register, too.


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Just been reading New Statesman, what a rag, it is going to be a key player in trying to undermine JC.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Owen Jones setting down some 'right' parameters?
> 
> actually, a lot of the new Corbynistas support small business, aspiration, etc.



Corbyn has won the leadership without the support of the Guardian, so I hope he won't be paying too much attention to what they and their writers tell him he should do.

And where is the source for your claim about what a lot of new "Corbynistas" support? Why should we pay any attention to someone who thinks CCHQ is a government department?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Diamond said:


> V.v interesting but rather predictable and totally bonkers outcome for Labour.
> 
> How does a leader of a parliamentary party hold any authority at all when he has defied the whip roughly 50 or so times?



500 or so times, and how is defying the whip - an act generally of principle - indicative of his authority, except if you choose to believe the ill-supported contentions of the supporters of his opponents? 



> In simple terms it's like making Saido Berahino captain of WBA.
> 
> And then there is the question of policy - there is scant to no evidence of how his package can be remotely electable.



That'd be the policy he's studiously avoided elucidating, would it? Perhaps you should step away from making assumptions based on what the media is touting, and waiting until the man himself offers some policy pronouncements and/or suggestions.



> For better or for worse the UK is simply not a left wing country.



The UK isn't a country at all, it's a state entity comprised of four countries.



> Now you can approach that two ways if you are any way near left of centre - (i) first, you can try and change the consensus and go on the attack or (ii) you can try and introduce left wing policy on a gradual basis by trying to win elections - doing politics essentially.
> 
> Corby will not do the second and will be disastrous on the first - there are rumours that he is going to rotate PMQs amongst his deputies every 5 weeks! That means that he will be questioning the Prime Minister extremely little in the course of any parliament...



And this reflects on how he "does" politics...how, exactly? For my money, rotating PMQs gives his deputies good exposure to the "cut and thrust" element of Parliamentary politics without tying them into particular policy positions. It's a good non-destructive way to test the mettle of possible successors,and for those possible successors to show the Parliamentary and constituency parties what they're made of.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 12, 2015)

*bites tongue for next few weeks*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> Who cares what he looks like?



My only qualification looks-wise for any male, is that they don't have a pony-tail.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

wayward bob said:


>




That's feckin brilliant


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> *bites tongue for next few weeks*



You won't manage it!


----------



## Zabo (Sep 12, 2015)

[QUOTE="Casually Red, post: 14106660, member: 49433]Stephen Nolans already had a bash at that a few weeks ago . Jez told him he couldn't hear his question because of a noisy train and a bad line and hung up .[/QUOTE]

Heard that and was tempted to raise a complaint with Ofcom. If you recall, the odious twat followed up his JC interview immediately with a Unionist whose son was 'murdered' by the IRA. Talk about bias!

He's on at the moment. I am waiting for the fucktard to drop a big one and get booted off. As a pretend political hack he hasn't a fucking clue.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Those Old Etonians really don't like being denied their supposedly-rightful place in the world, do they?
> The boy looks like a bulldog who's just sucked piss off of a thistle.


its quite funny isn't it. Niether you nor I hold any faith in the labour party or parly politics as a whole but it is so funny to see the labour right looking like they've just had to watch their parents have sex


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> My only qualification looks-wise for any male, is that they don't have a pony-tail.



the absence of a Hitler tache is also generally welcome . Even though we shouldn't immediately leap to conclusions .


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

andysays said:


> Corbyn has won the leadership without the support of the Guardian, so I hope he won't be paying too much attention to what they and their writers tell him he should do.
> 
> And where is the source for your claim about what a lot of new "Corbynistas" support? Why should we pay any attention to someone who thinks CCHQ is a government department?



I got the letter G wrong, ok.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> *bites tongue for next few weeks*


(((your tenner on the car salesman)))


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> (((your tenner on the car salesman)))


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> The whip system needs to go. Maybe Corbyn will abolish it. Would that make his actions retrospectively OK in your eyes?



You forget, comrade, that when the General Secretary abolishes an institution, what replaces it is generally twice as savage.Think Cheka and NKVD. Think NKVD and KGB.


----------



## andysays (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> I got the letter G wrong, ok.



Fair enough, we all make mistakes, though it's good form to actually hold your hand up to them. With you though, it's a constant stream of ill-thought out bollocks which bears absolutely no examination.

So I'll ask you again - where is the source for your claim about what a lot of new "Corbynistas" support?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

Zabo said:


> [QUOTE="Casually Red, post: 14106660, member: 49433]Stephen Nolans already had a bash at that a few weeks ago . Jez told him he couldn't hear his question because of a noisy train and a bad line and hung up .



Heard that and was tempted to raise a complaint with Ofcom. If you recall, the odious twat followed up his JC interview immediately with a Unionist whose son was 'murdered' by the IRA. Talk about bias!

He's on at the moment. I am waiting for the fucktard to drop a big one and get booted off. As a political hack he hasn't a fucking clue.[/QUOTE]

For the life of me I cannot understand how this localised , parochial blight got himself onto the big BBC stage . What the fuck were they thinking ? Like we are well used to what passes for media over here to be vehicles for complete non entities , we dont expect any better and we dont bother complaining, but fuck me . There's no excuse for that happening in Britain . There 60 odd million other people to choose from . Just throw a stone over your shoulder and pik whoever it hits . They'll be way better than that cunt .


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

it does crack me up how bad the labour right lost, it really does. It wasn't even close, his nearest rival barely scraped 19% of the vote. Ho ho ho. Sweaty ballsacks to you all, we've got a beard now. As for mint cakes showing LOL

ah its better than football this. The best bit is how mental the press will be going for the next 4 n a bit years. Rivers of ink.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Totally going to be sewing elbow patches on button's jumpers  the button



Didn't they teach him how to sew in the seminary?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

They were annihilated after wheeling out every big gun, every party grandee and having every media spin doctor brief against him with every type of scaremongering . Ha fucking ha .
They should really fuck off now and go away .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're one of those who believed Ed Milliband was too left-wing to be elected, aren't you?
> 
> If so, your lot lost today.



TBF, Diamond's various pronouncements do tend to be given the lie by history. As you've probably noticed, the fun is in reminding him of them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

I don't want to keep going on about beards all the time (yes I do) but is there any chance Cameron might let his chin go unshorn for a bit? After all, PMQ's is going to be hard work for him when he has a baby's bum of a chin, in the battle of beards he is lagging behind


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> They were annihilated after wheeling out every big gun, every party grandee and having every media spin doctor brief against him with every type of scaremongering . Ha fucking ha .
> They should really fuck off now and go away .



If anything Blair and his ilk and their interventions must have increased Corbyn's vote


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Didn't they teach him how to sew in the seminary?


Only as he shall reap /Biblically-inspired pedantry!
ETA Arse, you correct typos quicker than I type


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't want to keep going on about beards all the time (yes I do) but is there any chance Cameron might let his chin go unshorn for a bit? After all, PMQ's is going to be hard work for him when he has a baby's bum of a chin, in the battle of beards he is lagging behind


He'd look even more like a hanging bollock if he did.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If anything Blair and his ilk and their interventions must have increased Corbyn's vote



Definitely seems like that . He should take the big brush to them and expel them now they've been definitively ignored by such a massive margin . It was their rules which rebounded on them and permitted his election . There's bound to be a few more they brought in that will permit a purge , however symbolic . He should definitely rescind Blair and Mandelsons membership , if only to make a point .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

cesare said:


> Tell him to put to him that he's a ham faced cunt and should fall on his sword.



Or, in "Parliamentary" language:
"Is the Prime Minister aware that his facial hue is reminiscent of boiled ham, that his mien and attitudes are akin to those of the world's most vile tosser, and that a majority of the citizens of the UK wish that he would disembowel himself in a manner similar to _seppuku_?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, he's a do for his friends in their 20s tomorrow



And the senior citizens on Monday, to give them a feed before pensions day.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

its like 'weekend at bernies'. The corpse of the labour left has been exhumed and theres a whole party going on around it in order to secure something or other. Either way, politics just got funnier.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

red & green said:


> He should ask Dave if he was drinking Bolly or claret in Yorkshire last week - or both



Given the encroaching pinkening of Cameron's hammy face, I'd say both, plus Port and the occasional snifter of fine Cognac. I'm betting his nose is a road-map of busted veins, and that he has a make-up artist accompanying him everywhere to disguise it.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> They were annihilated after wheeling out every big gun, every party grandee and having every media spin doctor brief against him with every type of scaremongering . Ha fucking ha .
> They should really fuck off now and go away .



They just didn't get their message across, they'll feel they need redouble their efforts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Just been reading New Statesman, what a rag, it is going to be a key player in trying to undermine JC.



Does anyone read it though? Anyone who wouldn't automatically vote tory anyway?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Indeed . But to me it means that one plank they are seriously going to peruse in the avalanche of smears heading his way is his past ..and present...stances on the Irish and Palestinian causes etc . Stephen Nolans already had a bash at that a few weeks ago . Jez told him he couldn't hear his question because of a noisy train and a bad line and hung up .


they've been hammering the 'friend of the terrorist' angle to no avail for weeks. The response I heard from c-byn that was reasonable was on the lines of 'you don't make peace by ignoring the other side'. Seems fair? right? watch the press run with it hard.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Definitely seems like that . He should take the big brush to them and expel them now they've been definitively ignored by such a massive margin . It was their rules which rebounded on them and permitted his election . There's bound to be a few more they brought in that will permit a purge , however symbolic . He should definitely rescind Blair and Mandelsons membership , if only to make a point .



Absolutely, the sooner the better.

Labour also has many things to sort out locally. In 'Red' Greater Manchester we've had homeless people arrested by Manchester City Council. On top of that a Labour Controlled Authority with a PFI hospital throwing out the League Of Friends in favour of a Starbucks franchise! FFS!


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Does anyone read it though? Anyone who wouldn't automatically vote tory anyway?


About 20,000 or so people read it, far far less than voted for C-Byn. Most probably not habitual Tory voters though. Was originally a Fabian rag.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Absolutely, the sooner the better.
> 
> Labour also has many things to sort out locally. In 'Red' Greater Manchester we've had homeless people arrested by Manchester City Council. On top of that a Labour Controlled Authority with a PFI hospital throwing out the League Of Friends in favour of a Starbucks franchise! FFS!



Scum.

Starbucks frequenting scum


----------



## rekil (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they've been hammering the 'friend of the terrorist' angle to no avail for weeks. The response I heard from c-byn that was reasonable was on the lines of 'you don't make peace by ignoring the other side'. Seems fair? right? watch the press run with it hard.


Another paddy loving 5th columnist.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm still trying to think of a question that JC could ask ham-face other than "why don't you fuck off and die?"


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they've been hammering the 'friend of the terrorist' angle to no avail for weeks. The response I heard from c-byn that was reasonable was on the lines of 'you don't make peace by ignoring the other side'. Seems fair? right? watch the press run with it hard.



A pithy response to it might be...hold on..isn't this the very same smug Tory party who were urging people to vote for me ? That wasn't very responsible was it ? Not if they actually believe this stuff .
For me that sarcastic angle would be a better approach to the hysteria than ever getting bogged down in it .


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> A pithy response to it might be...hold on..isn't this the very same smug Tory party who were urging people to vote for me ? That wasn't very responsible was it ? Not if they actually believe this stuff .
> For me that sarcastic angle would be a better approach to the hysteria than ever getting bogged down in it .


well if we want to be nitpicking about it thatchers gov reached out via clandestine means to PIRA first so this 'terror wrist lover' shit is hypocrisy. O noes he shook hands with a wrong un. They are doing both. Hamas lover, friend to the IRA. Won't stick though, nobody gives a shit, yesterdays news


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> why do you think it is aimed at anyone on here, it isn't, never have, its aimed at largely the liberal left who in the last decade march against everything except this issue.
> 
> I am not advocating anything militant either, just civil society creating a new coalition against the reforms.


Funny, you're always posting about how we're not doing anything. Bit late to try and backpedal now.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 12, 2015)

Not to forget the govts love of saudi arabia


----------



## J Ed (Sep 12, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Not to forget the govts love of saudi arabia



That's the good Islamic State though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> That is what Cameron said, surely a Govt Dept/agency can't be that political, this is really dodgy.



It's *C C H Q*, not GCHQ.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

Sorcery / witchcraft isn't on that list but the punishment is death by beheading in both jurisdictions .

Saudi man executed for 'witchcraft and sorcery' - BBC News

Needless to say mystic meg doesn't have that great a following in either KSA or the caliphate .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> the absence of a Hitler tache is also generally welcome . Even though we shouldn't immediately leap to conclusions .



Imagine some fucker with a pony-tail *and* a Hitler 'tache! You'd almost be obliged, for the sake of the rest of humanity, to give them a shoeing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Definitely seems like that . He should take the big brush to them and expel them now they've been definitively ignored by such a massive margin . It was their rules which rebounded on them and permitted his election . There's bound to be a few more they brought in that will permit a purge , however symbolic . He should definitely rescind Blair and Mandelsons membership , if only to make a point .



As "leader of the opposition", he'll be expected to recommend people for honours. he could "purge" quite a few cunts to the Upper House, and then, when Labour kneecap the Tories in 2020, abolish the House of Lords.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> That's the good Islamic State though



Cameron's Masonic lodge doesn't half have some impressive members - they've got Ronnie Barker and Sanjeev Bhaskar, and got them wearing their full Masonic regalia!


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Absolutely, the sooner the better.
> 
> Labour also has many things to sort out locally. In 'Red' Greater Manchester we've had homeless people arrested by Manchester City Council. On top of that a Labour Controlled Authority with a PFI hospital throwing out the League Of Friends in favour of a Starbucks franchise! FFS!




Didn't Blair say,he would prefer labour lose rather than go Corbyn, much worse 'treason' than any 3 quidder?


----------



## ffsear (Sep 12, 2015)

i'm loving this!   Labour are DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Funny, you're always posting about how we're not doing anything. Bit late to try and backpedal now.




I don't think I have, though I'm sure posters will find examples, I'm aware for instance the work you do around ATOs, etc, advice, etc, apologies if I have individualised it.


----------



## spartacus mills (Sep 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Check out Tristy's gob.


 He looks like he's been hit in the face with a wet copy of the Morning Star.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> Didn't Blair say,he would prefer labour lose rather than go Corbyn, much worse 'treason' than any 3 quidder?



Plus he's also a mass murdering war criminal . Who should be, at the very least, in jail . If corbyns going to talk to people about values he honestly needs to do something about that bastard . Fuck him out .


----------



## JHE (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> i'm loving this!   Labour are DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I understand that some people sincerely think that the election of Corbyn will do the Labour Party great harm, that it will lose a lot of support.  There may be truth in that.  We'll see.  I do think, though, when I read comments like yours, that there's a very big dollop of wishful thinking.  You want the LP dead and tell yourself it is to make yourself happy.

It's far far too early to predict how the LP will do in 2020, but soon enough (in a week or so?) there will be a first indication of the Corbyn effect in the form of an opinion poll conducted after the election of Corbyn.  If you are as confident as you want others to think you are, give us a (rough) prediction.  In the last general election the Labour vote was about 30%, which is bad but far from dead.  Do think that now that Corbyn is leader support is going to fall to 25%, 20%, 15%... ?  What do you expect to show that the LP is dead or moribund?


----------



## ffsear (Sep 12, 2015)

JHE said:


> I understand that some people sincerely think that the election of Corbyn will do the Labour Party great harm, that it will lose a lot of support.  There may be truth in that.  We'll see.  I do think, though, when I read comments like yours, that there's a very big dollop of wishful thinking.  You want the LP dead and tell yourself it is to make yourself happy.
> 
> It's far far too early to predict how the LP will do in 2020, but soon enough (in a week or so?) there will be a first indication of the Corbyn effect in the form of an opinion poll conducted after the election of Corbyn.  If you are as confident as you want others to think you are, give us a (rough) prediction.  In the last general election the Labour vote was about 30%, which is bad but far from dead.  Do think that now that Corbyn is leader support is going to fall to 25%, 20%, 15%... ?  What do you expect to show that the LP is dead or moribund?




i don't give a shit,  i just find it funny!!   Politics is for wankers at the end of the day.


Internet vs Real world = huge difference.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Politics is for wankers at the end of the day


Yeah, let the wankers rule.


----------



## ffsear (Sep 12, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Yeah, let the wankers rule.


 and compete


----------



## treelover (Sep 12, 2015)

It seems like the whole of the Press Corp, with the exception of columnists like Jones and Milne are against Corbyn, that in its self shows the lack of real democracy in this country.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 12, 2015)

Says ffsear the Thatcherite.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> i don't give a shit,  i just find it funny!!   Politics is for wankers at the end of the day.
> 
> 
> Internet vs Real world = huge difference.


Except it isn't internet "vs" real world. The internet _reflects_ the real world...and sometimes influences it.


----------



## ffsear (Sep 12, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Except it isn't internet "vs" real world. The internet _reflects_ the real world...and sometimes influences it.




dream on dreamer!!


----------



## existentialist (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> dream on dreamer!!


Oh, well, if you're just going to be silly...


----------



## ffsear (Sep 12, 2015)

i just wish i'd bet on him.   200/1 shot	..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Internet vs Real world = huge difference.



Real world = landslide Corbyn victory and the Labour party turning decisively away from Thatcherism/Blairism.

That is what has happened today. Tomorrow, who knows? You certainly don't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> i just wish i'd bet on him.   200/1 shot	..


Makes sense.

What's in it for you, eh? 

You didn't bet on him because you didn't think he was going to win. And you were wrong.


----------



## ffsear (Sep 12, 2015)

Best £3 i ever spent.   and that wasn't a bet


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> well if we want to be nitpicking about it thatchers gov reached out via clandestine means to PIRA first so this 'terror wrist lover' shit is hypocrisy. O noes he shook hands with a wrong un. They are doing both. Hamas lover, friend to the IRA. Won't stick though, nobody gives a shit, yesterdays news



Actually a much better tack would be highlighting her governments active arming and directing of loyalist murder gangs . Something a bit more substantial than a handshake . It's been proven now pretty much. And Brig Gordon Kerr was appointed by, and reported directly to, the Tory cabinet .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Best £3 i ever spent


No you didn't.

And it didn't matter either way - this wasn't a bought election, nor a subverted one.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Real world = landslide Corbyn victory and the Labour party turning decisively away from Thatcherism/Blairism.
> 
> That is what has happened today. Tomorrow, who knows? You certainly don't.


The way it looks to me - if we'd ended up with any of the other candidates, the political paradigm was going to remain intact, and the best we might have hoped for would have been a Labour party that continued only so slightly to the left of the Tories, continuing to look towards business and money rather than people.

At least this way, whatever pans out, we have a _chance_ of it being different. And the right-wingers, prophesying doom? Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Real world = landslide Corbyn victory and the Labour party turning decisively away from Thatcherism/Blairism.
> 
> That is what has happened today. Tomorrow, who knows? You certainly don't.



Also the pro Thatcherite labour party definitively wiped out in the Scottish landslide . That's the real world . 2 pro left anti Thatcherite landslides in the space of a few months that have stunned everyone.

Even John fucking major was complaining X factor and strictly come dancing were garnering more votes than mainstream politics .


----------



## hash tag (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## stethoscope (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> i just wish i'd bet on him. 200/1 shot..


----------



## elbows (Sep 12, 2015)

Ha, until just now I was unaware of this happening some days ago when Corbyn came to Nuneaton. A long walk of shame for that Tory press officer!


----------



## Zabo (Sep 12, 2015)

I think all those M.P's who voted for Burnham, Cooper or Kendall should be de-selected because of a serious lack of political judgement.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Best £3 i ever spent.   and that wasn't a bet


I do hope some idiot tories did fork out £3 and vote Corbyn.

They will not have changed the result. All they will have done is give him an even bigger victory and an even clearer mandate. 

I know you're lying, but pretending for a second that you're not, I'll give you one of these


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2015)

another tick in the box for Jeremy from me


----------



## JHE (Sep 12, 2015)

elbows said:


> Ha, until just now I was unaware of this happening some days ago when Corbyn came to Nuneaton. A long walk of shame for that Tory press officer!



What a weird little story.  The Tory walked off as if he had been caught doing something shameful and Crick and his camera crew pursued and questioned him (harassed him, frankly) as if he were some crooked time-share salesman tracked down for having tricked pensioners out of their life savings.  Is it now considered strange and wrong to go to your opponents' public meetings?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 12, 2015)

the obvious question here is that if JC is so crap and unelectable, how come the tories' very rich friends who own the media (and their lapdogs at the BBC) are blatantly so afraid of him that they are going hysterical with smear stories?


----------



## Zabo (Sep 12, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Best £3 i ever spent.   and that wasn't a bet


I can recall the best three quid I ever spent. It was 2006, I was at camber sands. One fifty got me a portion of chips and the other half of the balance went on a pint sized tin of stella. I sat with my chips and my tin with my feet in the sea and watched the sun sink below the horizon as I composed verse in my head which was probably amazing but it didn't get written down so who knows, might have been waste and cliched. Either way it was a fucking good use of three quid. A lot better than your imaginary ho-ho labour sign up anyway. Shit even if you were genuine I still recon my chips/sea/stella is the better deal.


----------



## elbows (Sep 12, 2015)

JHE said:


> What a weird little story.  The Tory walked off as if he had been caught doing something shameful and Crick and his camera crew pursued and questioned him (harassed him, frankly) as if he were some crooked time-share salesman tracked down for having tricked pensioners out of their life savings.  Is it now considered strange and wrong to go to your opponents' public meetings?



Well if nothing else the moral of the story is don't send press officers whose faces are known to journalists to opposition events, because its a really stupid thing to do. Crick isn't going to miss that sort of opportunity.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

JHE said:


> What a weird little story.  The Tory walked off as if he had been caught doing something shameful and Crick and his camera crew pursued and questioned him (harassed him, frankly) as if he were some crooked time-share salesman tracked down for having tricked pensioners out of their life savings.  Is it now considered strange and wrong to go to your opponents' public meetings?


Exactly what I thought. Good practice to attend you'd think.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 12, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> the obvious question here is that if JC is so crap and unelectable, how come the tories' very rich friends who own the media (and their lapdogs at the BBC) are blatantly so afraid of him that they are going hysterical with smear stories?


What they are concerned about is that an alternative narrative is being voiced compared to their usual propaganda. Both the BBC and Channel 4 news are evidently  biased against Corbyn.


----------



## tony.c (Sep 12, 2015)

JimW said:


> Exactly what I thought. Good practice to attend you'd think.


Wasn't the point that he had signed up as a £3 Labour Party member, declaring he supports the principles and aims of the Labour Party?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

JHE said:


> What a weird little story.  The Tory walked off as if he had been caught doing something shameful and Crick and his camera crew pursued and questioned him (harassed him, frankly) as if he were some crooked time-share salesman tracked down for having tricked pensioners out of their life savings.  Is it now considered strange and wrong to go to your opponents' public meetings?



Tbh he brought that on himself by his own behaviour . All he had to do was sit there and say " I'm a press officer..it's my job to be here ? What's your problem ? " . By carrying on like an exposed cowboy builder a d running away he opened the door . Because its cricks job to ask questions .


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Internet vs Real world = huge difference.


real world just voted a leftie in for labour leader. You claim to have three quidded to the cause. You could have had a cone of chips and a can of stella. Its not you I feel for, you are grown and make your own decisions. Its the children. They'll be torn between clubbing together for ten benson or joining the labour party under a childs slate system. I fear for the future I really do.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

tony.c said:


> Wasn't the point that he had signed up as a £3 Labour Party member, declaring he supports the principles and aims of the Labour Party?


That would be a fair point but didn't see it mentioned in the vid, seemed to be just because he was there.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 12, 2015)

treelover said:


> I don't think I have, though I'm sure posters will find examples, I'm aware for instance the work you do around ATOs, etc, advice, etc, apologies if I have individualised it.


Apology accepted but could you please just lay off the breathless rhetoric for a bit when post? Or post in a way that doesn't assume nothing is being done. Thanks.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 12, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What they are concerned about is that an alternative narrative is being voiced compared to their usual propaganda. Both the BBC and Channel 4 news are evidently  biased against Corbyn.



Yup . Useless cock waving , untalented wanker that he was , Russell Brand at least proved that there's a massive desire out there for something quite different to the consensus . While also proving many of those people , and himself , had no idea what they really wanted . Corbyn could well fit the bill forthat entire demographic . Which goes way beyond the usual Tory vs labour thing .
It caught on massively . It could well catch on some more .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

tony.c said:


> Wasn't the point that he had signed up as a £3 Labour Party member, declaring he supports the principles and aims of the Labour Party?


That's not mentioned here in this article about it. Is it mentioned elsewhere? 

According to the article, Crick just recognised him.


----------



## tony.c (Sep 12, 2015)

5QUOTE="JimW, post: 14106963, member: 17555"]That would be a fair point but didn't see it mentioned in the vid, seemed to be just because he was there.[/QUOTE]



littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not mentioned here in this article about it. Is it mentioned elsewhere?
> 
> According to the article, Crick just recognised him.


I thought when I saw the report on C4 News they had introduced it with a bit about various people including Tories joining the Labour Party to get a vote.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

I love the haplessness of the spying. Reading a copy of the Daily Mail and answering to his name immediately.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

don't tell him your name pike


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2015)

tony.c said:


> JimW said:
> 
> 
> > That would be a fair point but didn't see it mentioned in the vid, seemed to be just because he was there.
> ...


Well he certainly acted like he was guilty of something, the daft twat.


----------



## ffsear (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I do hope some idiot tories did fork out £3 and vote Corbyn.
> 
> They will not have changed the result. All they will have done is give him an even bigger victory and an even clearer mandate.
> 
> I know you're lying, but pretending for a second that you're not, I'll give you one of these





Yea,,  cus you got the last election spot on!!!!!!!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> He looks like he's been hit in the face with a wet copy of the Morning Star.


If only.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Those Old Etonians really don't like being denied their supposedly-rightful place in the world, do they?
> The boy looks like a bulldog who's just sucked piss off of a thistle.


He was in Cambridge Footlights too. Almost everything that's wrong with this country is summed up in the body of Tristy.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 12, 2015)

Great picture selection from the Daily Express


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 12, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Great picture selection from the Daily Express


What? No Roman salutes?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm willing to bet that if he survives as leader he'll become Prime Minister.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 12, 2015)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I'm willing to bet that if he survives as leader he'll become Prime Minister.


What are the odds?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 12, 2015)

I'll tell you once I lay my bet.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

weltweit said:


> What are the odds?


Ladbrokes are offering 8-1.

Very good odds, I would think.


----------



## tony.c (Sep 12, 2015)

weltweit said:


> What are the odds?


Will be interesting to see what the bookies offer. If it's the 200/1 they were offering at the start on him becoming leader, I'll have a tenner on it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 12, 2015)

he was 40 to 1 for leader when this started, bet early bet often


----------



## tony.c (Sep 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ladbrokes are offering 8-1.
> 
> Very good odds, I would think.


I might have a punt on that too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

Six months ago, I reckon they'd have given you 1000-1, easy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 12, 2015)

tony.c said:


> I might have a punt on that too.


Reckon that will change very quickly. They do realise he's now leader of the Labour Party? I think it still hasn't sunk in yet for some people.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 13, 2015)

I'm loving this article:

What the Corbyn moment means for the left


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I'll tell you once I lay my bet.




I am deffo putting on a bet, not going to lose out like this time, some folk are going to be quids in.


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

> This week Corbyn will have to determine new positions for the party on difficult issues, including plans for a lower benefit cap contained in the Tory welfare bill as well as appearing for the first time at prime minister’s questions.



from the Observer, why should it be a difficult issue?, its going to hammer the most vulnerable, JC has said he is not going to do the Blarite triangulation thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 13, 2015)

Bet those odds will have halved by Monday.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> from the Observer, why should it be a difficult issue?, its going to hammer the most vulnerable, JC has said he is not going to do the Blarite triangulation thing.


It's difficult because the Observer is arch-Blairite now. They featured Blair on their front page last week warning about Corbyn. In their world, Labour doesn't oppose tory policies, it coopts them.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 13, 2015)

have many Labourites actually quit? IS there a list? Refusing to serve in a shadow cabinet, without being asked to, doesnt  count


----------



## ska invita (Sep 13, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's difficult because the Observer is arch-Blairite now. They featured Blair on their front page last week warning about Corbyn. In their world, Labour doesn't oppose tory policies, it coopts them.


now?
They seems to be the go to source for MI5 to drop bullshit on a sunday for at least 20 years now... such a dodgy paper


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

Apparently, the new leader of the opposition has some belief in the powers of homeopathy.

Doesn this mean we only need to build a millionth of a gulag for the dissenters?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 13, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn addresses Parliament Square refugee rally - BBC News

Speech delivered at the rally. Not something I expected to hear from a LP leader.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 13, 2015)

JimW said:


> Exactly what I thought. Good practice to attend you'd think.


Yeah I don't really get the "story" either. And why did the Tory panic and run away rather than just say "Yep I'm here to see what's said"


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2015)

I hate it when threads grow at such a fast rate. No fucking way I'm reading through all the posts that have appeared since yesterday, so I'll just assume there was a bunfight over Corbyns electability, an obligatory returning poster with a sock-puppet account, someone who picked up on a misspelled word and ran with it for at least 10 posts, and that a quip about saltmines was made.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> a quip about saltmines was made.


not yet but rest assured when the moment is ripe I will be on that gag like a dog on spilt chips


----------



## tony.c (Sep 13, 2015)

Another thing that made me happy was to see Ben Bradshaw get the lowest vote in the deputy leadership elections and get eliminated on the first round.
He is one horrible smarmy Blairite twat.


----------



## MrSki (Sep 13, 2015)

What the papers say.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

I'm suprized to see the lack of 'siezed'. Thats how they describe democratic wins by anyone left of adolf normally


----------



## hash tag (Sep 13, 2015)

The torygragh makes an interesting point; the death of new labour. I suspect they were looking at things in a different light to me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

hash tag said:


> The torygragh makes an interesting point; the death of new labour. I suspect they were looking at things in a different light to me.


it might not be the death of blairism completely, but its certainly a massive slap


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 13, 2015)

Am I right in thinking that neither Corbyn nor Watson will even talk to the Murdoch press on the grounds that they're criminal scum?

ETA - Or is that just some shit Guido Fawkes made up? 

By way of illustration, Watson grilling James 'Lying Shitweasel' Murdoch ...

Tom Watson labels James Murdoch 'mafia boss' - BBC News


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

mad frankie fields crying into his tea lol


----------



## rekil (Sep 13, 2015)

Sky news guy saying that Corbyn "won't be able to avail of some of the big beasts of the party who'll be sitting on the backbenches". Big beasts wtf.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2015)

copliker said:


> Sky news guy saying that Corbyn "won't be able to avail of some of the big beasts of the party who'll be sitting on the backbenches". Big beasts wtf.


They are fucking beasts tbf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

beasts in the manner of janner rather than the animal kingdom


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

Makes em sound like transformers or power rangers

LIARS
NONCES
WARMONGERS
THIEVES

ASSEMBLE!


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

copliker said:


> Sky news guy saying that Corbyn "won't be able to avail of some of the big beasts of the party who'll be sitting on the backbenches". Big beasts wtf.


Posting from my phone which doesn't do smilies but just imagine that I've posted a load of little green grinning fellas.


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

Isn't the red/dead thing out of date by about 26 years?


----------



## Tankus (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm suprized to see the lack of 'siezed'. Thats how they describe democratic wins by anyone left of adolf normally



But ...but.....Adolf was a member of the socialist workers party...... Just how far left do you have to go....?

Maybe Scotland could become Jezzers Sudetenland......there are English speaking people there ....


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2015)

oryx said:


> Posting from my phone which doesn't do smilies but just imagine that I've posted a load of little green grinning fellas.


colon capital d


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

oryx said:


> Isn't the red/dead thing out of date by about 26 years?


Red or Dead do some of the most gorgeous mens footwear. Not cheap, but they look fucking mint

/derail


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Red or Dead do some of the most gorgeous mens footwear. Not cheap, but they look fucking mint
> 
> /derail


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Apparently, the new leader of the opposition has some belief in the powers of homeopathy.
> 
> Doesn this mean we only need to build a millionth of a gulag for the dissenters?


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! 

Say it isn't so. 

Glad I didn't pay £3 to vote for the cunt now.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2015)

copliker said:


> Sky news guy saying that Corbyn "won't be able to avail of some of the big beasts of the party who'll be sitting on the backbenches". Big beasts wtf.


I love the way they keep reporting things like this as though it was a bad thing.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> *Apparently*, the new leader of the opposition has some belief in the powers of homeopathy...



Do you have even a drop of evidence for this assertion?


----------



## teqniq (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> Do you have even a drop of evidence for this assertion?


Maybe he does but it may well be almost undetectable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

I see the beeb are running with the frankly embarrasing clip of Gove trying to do an 'authentic arabic speaker' accent while saying hamas and hizbollah.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I see the beeb are running with the frankly embarrasing clip of Gove trying to do an 'authentic arabic speaker' accent while saying hamas and hizbollah.



Unlike Corbyn who speaks a rusty but passableish Spanish


----------



## hash tag (Sep 13, 2015)

I think jc is a teatotal veggie to boot


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

hash tag said:


> I think jc is a teatotal veggie to boot


its not been confirmed that he also wears sandals but I'm willing to bet as soon as there is a lick of sunshine he is busting out the brown leather badboys


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

ska invita said:


> have many Labourites actually quit? IS there a list? Refusing to serve in a shadow cabinet, without being asked to, doesnt  count



I don't even think people in caretaker positions in the shadow cabinet can 'quit' tbh. Any new leader would have picked his or her own cabinet, so the incumbents would have no reason to assume they would get to keep their jobs.

e2a: The fact that Chris Leslie was shadow chancellor just proves that nobody was taking these temporary shadow cabinet posts seriously.


----------



## rekil (Sep 13, 2015)

The Observer view on Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the Labour leadership



> Ideology can sometimes be an indulgence best deployed by fringe politicians, pundits and activists. But people in need can’t survive on that – they require people to fashion legislation and effect change. And that requires political power. It’s difficult to see how a Corbyn victory makes that more likely.


This again. The great liberal conceit that they're dynamic solution providing go-getters untethered to ye olde ideological swim lanes, and that any of the other 3 shitheads could win an election by continuing to mug its voters and out-filth the tories. As if Corbyn's Labour won't be stuck with this route anyway. 


> But given long-term trends towards fragmentation and the declining importance of class, mainstream parties will be forced to adapt the way they interact with voters or face extinction.


One can only speculate about what horrid experience with oiks led an observer leader writer to rue "the declining importance of class" in the face of decades of evidence pointing to increasingly stratified societies.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> Do you have even a drop of evidence for this assertion?


Jeremy Corbyn signed parliamentary motion in support of homeopathy in 2010

(Just in case you were being serious)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

It's a common argument, particularly from the grauniad-observer axis. It's better to have someone who won't do anything different to the tories but who might get into power than to pick a candidate whose policies you actually support.

As usual, the evidence for the claim that 'Corbyn cannot win a general election' is notable by its absence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Jeremy Corbyn signed parliamentary motion in support of homeopathy in 2010
> 
> (Just in case you were being serious)



This is much worse than having tea and crumpets with Hamas. Quackery ruins lives, zero motherfucking tolerance


----------



## rekil (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Unlike Corbyn who speaks a rusty but passableish Spanish


"militante del partido laborista" sounds cool. I hope it catches on.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Jeremy Corbyn signed parliamentary motion in support of homeopathy in 2010
> 
> (Just in case you were being serious)



Hmm, that's worrying.

(and I was being serious, but working a joke in there too)


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

copliker said:


> "militante del partido laborista" sounds cool. I hope it catches on.



Sindicalista sounds a lot cooler than trade unionist as well imo


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's a common argument, particularly from the grauniad-observer axis. It's better to have someone who won't do anything different to the tories but who might get into power than to pick a candidate whose policies you actually support.



 "A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel"


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2015)

If he's a homeopathy advocate, he can fuck right off


----------



## emanymton (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its not been confirmed that he also wears sandals but I'm willing to bet as soon as there is a lick of sunshine he is busting out the brown leather badboys


With socks as well I bet


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Red or Dead do some of the most gorgeous mens footwear. Not cheap, but they look fucking mint
> 
> /derail


Are you belatedly releasing your inner discokermit?


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

I love how a hint of homeopathy rather than his politics is the decider for support


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Are you belatedly releasing your inner discokermit?


he'd buy the footwear. I just look at pictures of it and wear cheapo ellese trainers instead.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> I love how a hint of homeopathy rather than his politics is the decider for support



That's the thing with homeopathy, it only takes a hint to have a really significant effect


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> I love how a hint of homeopathy rather than his politics is the decider for support


The smaller the hint, the more potent it is


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> That's the thing with homeopathy, it only takes a hint to have a really significant effect


<INSERT ANGRY SMILEY SHOUTING AT SLUGGISH IPAD>


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

Fast on the reply button both of you! Must be something in the water.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> <INSERT ANGRY SMILEY SHOUTING AT SLUGGISH IPAD>


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> drop of evidence






SpookyFrank said:


> This is much worse than having tea and crumpets with Hamas. Quackery ruins lives, zero motherfucking tolerance



You don't hold with the placebo effect then?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 13, 2015)

eerhggh.... just made the mistake of ploughing through the comment peices in the gaurdian. A Great morass of patronising, conceited, condescending guff where they deign to give Corbyn the benefit of their wisdom. Predictably its all about how he should temper his message, appeal to the "centre" and tut-tuttting at his acceptance speech - where he didn't offer anything to people with "aspirations" (wanting a decent home, decent wages and a decent future is not an aspiration apparently).
As well as failing to find anything exciting or positive in a dramatically changed political landscape or even consider that an anti-austerity platform might actually resonate with many people outside the labour left - they conspicuously failed to show the slightest humility in acknowledging  that they completely misread the rise of Corbyn, that the abject failure of their campaign against him suggests that no-one gives a fuck about what they say  and that - really - like the rest of us - they dont have a fucking clue as to what's going to happen next.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> You don't hold with the placebo effect then?



I don't hold with charging sick, vulnerable and (lets be fair to them) stupid people large sums of money for a placebo no.

You can by homeopathic antimalarials ffs. The placebo effect cannot stop you contracting malaria.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

If you don't like Corbyn or his politics then fair enough but him mildly supporting homeopathy five years ago isn't a v good litmus test.


----------



## rekil (Sep 13, 2015)

This is OJ's #payback2015 isn't it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If you don't like Corbyn or his politics then fair enough but him mildly supporting homeopathy five years ago isn't a v good litmus test.



I did like Corbyn and his politics until I found out he supported homeopathy, now I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.


----------



## Chz (Sep 13, 2015)

> As usual, the evidence for the claim that 'Corbyn cannot win a general election' is notable by its absence.


The only one of the many, many things people have said that rings true to me is "Michael Foot couldn't win, and he's no Michael Foot." Which digs to the heart of the matter, if you're a supporter. I'm in favour of the policies (well, most of them), but Corbyn is no leader. He still hasn't managed to regularly engage his brain before his mouth, despite 20+ years as an MP - which tells me he never will be, either. If he manages to win, it will be entirely due to those around him and some massive own-goal from the Tory side. Personally, I see it as Milliband all over again. I hope it's not Foot and the SDP all over again.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2015)

Chz said:


> The only one of the many, many things people have said that rings true to me is "Michael Foot couldn't win, and he's no Michael Foot." Which digs to the heart of the matter, if you're a supporter. I'm in favour of the policies (well, most of them), but Corbyn is no leader. He still hasn't managed to regularly engage his brain before his mouth, despite 20+ years as an MP - which tells me he never will be, either. If he manages to win, it will be entirely due to those around him and some massive own-goal from the Tory side. Personally, I see it as Milliband all over again. I hope it's not Foot and the SDP all over again.


Labour didn't lose in 1984 because of Michael Foot. That's a myth put about by the Tory press and Nu Labour revisionists. It lost because of the Falklands and Thatcher channelling Churchill. Foot was actually quite popular and Labour was doing well in the polls until the Falklands.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't hold with charging sick, vulnerable and (lets be fair to them) stupid people large sums of money for a placebo no.



which is why I presume the idea is to have it on the nhs

Eta - you think that the placebo effect only works on stupid people???? 



> You can by homeopathic antimalarials ffs. The placebo effect cannot stop you contracting malaria.



Didn't say it would. Might cut the UK's drugs bill if prescribed appropriately though. Or don't you hold with the placebo effect?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> You don't hold with the placebo effect then?


It's a myth, isn't it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Eta - you think that the placebo effect only works on stupid people????



No, but I do think only stupid people buy homeopathic remedies.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 13, 2015)

What if Corbyn lays the Libyan disaster, Ukraine murders, and dissing parliament at Camerons door where they belong at question time.
Corbyn can do it while gently reminding Cameron about his exemplary shite refugee policy. Just don't mention Camerons own Oskar Gröning, IDS.
Cameron has had an easy ride from Labour imho.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't hold with charging sick, vulnerable and (lets be fair to them) stupid people large sums of money for a placebo no.



He voted in favour of NHS homeopathic provision once, 5 years ago and doesn't seem to have said anything outright in favour of homeopathy. May just have been voting for provision of alternative medicines on the NHS without having looked into homeopathy in particular. Has anyone got anything more revealing on the matter?


----------



## rekil (Sep 13, 2015)

They have racked up an impressive bodycount tbf.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, but I do think only stupid people buy homeopathic remedies.


In 1954, a paper in The Lancet said that the placebo effect was only useful in treating 'some unintelligent or inadequate patients'.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> which is why I presume the idea is to have it on the nhs
> 
> Eta - you think that the placebo effect only works on stupid people????
> 
> Didn't say it would. Might cut the UK's drugs bill if prescribed appropriately though. Or don't you hold with the placebo effect?



TBH, I'd rather anyone who wanted homeopathic "medicines" had to pay for them themselves than that they were available on the NHS.

And I thought the placebo effect was taking something which you are told actually has a significant dose of some sort of effective substance in it, rather than which you believe has had its water molecules altered by some nonsensical woo. It's a little misleading to mention the placebo effect in relation to homeopathy, IMO


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

Clearly the media missed a trick by not making a HUGE FUSS about this homeopathy malarkey.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, but I do think only stupid people buy homeopathic remedies.



How about someone who believed that a homeopathic remedy helped their headaches? Would they be stupid if they preferred slightly coloured water over painkillers? 

And no I don't believe homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect. I find the ridicule of it slightly strange though - seems like it could be the least-cost remedy to some medical problems.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> Clearly the media missed a trick by not making a HUGE FUSS about this homeopathy malarkey.



Graunid mentioned it a bit, just didn't get much traction. Tories can hardly mention it when Hunt supports it, can they?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> How about someone who believed that a homeopathic remedy helped their headaches? Would they be stupid if they preferred slightly coloured water over painkillers?
> 
> And no I don't believe homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect. I find the ridicule of it slightly strange though - seems like it could be the least-cost remedy to some medical problems.



I get the ridicule, and homeopaths DO take advantage of vulnerable people. Have you seen how much the sugar pills in Boots and Holland and Barett cost? It's like £25+ in some cases.


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Graunid mentioned it a bit, just didn't get much traction. Tories can hardly mention it when Hunt supports it, can they?


It was probably not worth making a fuss over.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> TBH, I'd rather anyone who wanted homeopathic "medicines" had to pay for them themselves than that they were available on the NHS.
> 
> And I thought the placebo effect was taking something which you are told actually has a significant dose of some sort of effective substance in it, rather than which you believe has had its water molecules altered by some nonsensical woo. It's a little misleading to mention the placebo effect in relation to homeopathy, IMO



I don't think you have to be told there is a 'significant' dose, I'm not sure you need to believe it at all - it works on subconscious level I think. 

Errm it's misleading to mention the the placebo effect when it's the placebo effect that causes some people to say that they've had good effects from homeopathy?


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I get the ridicule, and homeopaths DO take advantage of vulnerable people. Have you seen how much the sugar pills in Boots and Holland and Barett cost? It's like £25+ in some cases.



Indeed, best to make it available on the NHS then as that nice Mr. Corbyn seems to believe  drive the charlatans out of business.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> TBH, I'd rather anyone who wanted homeopathic "medicines" had to pay for them themselves than that they were available on the NHS.
> 
> And I thought the placebo effect was taking something which you are told actually has a significant dose of some sort of effective substance in it, rather than which you believe has had its water molecules altered by some nonsensical woo. It's a little misleading to mention the placebo effect in relation to homeopathy, IMO


Why on earth would the science of the false belief matter? You either believe in its capacity to make you better or you don't.

I'm no certainly fan of homeo, but placebos have a place, IMO. Conversely, some of the rabidly anti-homeo people don't do themselves any favours either.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> Clearly the media missed a trick by not making a *HUGE FUSS* about this homeopathy malarkey.



You still haven't really grasped how this homeopathy business works, have you?

(that's the last joke I'm making along these lines, BTW)


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Conversely, some of the rabidly anti-homeo people don't do themselves any favours either.



Yep there's a certain arrogance in the belief that the placebo effect only works on stupid people.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> I don't think you have to be told there is a 'significant' dose, I'm not sure you need to believe it at all - it works on subconscious level I think.
> 
> Errm it's misleading to mention the the placebo effect when it's the placebo effect that causes some people to say that they've had good effects from homeopathy?





mauvais said:


> Why on earth would the science of the false belief matter? You either believe in its capacity to make you better or you don't.
> 
> I'm no certainly fan of homeo, but placebos have a place, IMO. Conversely, some of the rabidly anti-homeo people don't do themselves any favours either.



OK, let me try again.

What I understand by the placebo effect is when someone is given a pill which contains nothing, but which they are told contains a significant amount of a substance (eg aspirin) which has been proven to have a physical effect. Because they genuinely think they've taken something which is significant in reducing headaches, some people will experience a reduction in their headache.

But with homeopathy, the patient *knows* there is no significant amount of any substance. The only way it might be a significant effect is if they actually believe the mystical woo about water molecules re-aligning. In this sense, it's akin to witch-doctory - it only works if you believe something which it's totally irrational to believe.

(of course, there was a time when witch-doctory *was* a rational thing to believe, because it was the generally culturally accepted way of doing things, so I have no doubt that something similar to the placebo effect could and did work in those circumstances, but given our general cultural acceptance of science based medicine and other phenomona, anyone in modern society who believes in homeopathy is, IMO, utterly irrational)

Here, for what it's worth, is the start of the Wiki entry 


> A *placebo* (/pləˈsiboʊ/ _plə-*SEE*-boh_; Latin _placēbō_, "I shall please" from _placeō_, "I please" is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient.



Apologies for the de-rail. I've had more than enough homeopathy for now...


----------



## mauvais (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> What I understand by the placebo effect is when someone is given a pill which contains nothing, but which they are told contains a significant amount of a substance (eg aspirin) which has been proven to have a physical effect. Because they genuinely think they've taken something which is significant in reducing headaches, some people will experience a reduction in their headache.
> 
> But with homeopathy, the patient *knows* there is no significant amount of any substance. The only way it might be a significant effect is if they actually believe the mystical woo about water molecules re-aligning. In this sense, it's akin to witch-doctory - it only works if you believe something which it's totally irrational to believe.


They do believe it, at some level - just as I don't need to be a pharmacology expert to have faith in a medicine. Also, that it is irrational to *you* is not valuable to the patient. Hell, even if it was irrational to the patient themselves, it might not mean anything. If you look at behaviours like OCD and phobias, that something is logically irrational or unscientific is not a helpful remedy.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

mauvais said:


> They do believe it, at some level - just as I don't need to be a pharmacology expert to have faith in a medicine. Also, that it is irrational to *you* is not valuable to the patient. Hell, even if it was irrational to the patient themselves, it might not mean anything. If you look at behaviours like OCD and phobias, that something is logically irrational or unscientific is not a helpful remedy.



Fair enough - I don't regard rationality as something which can simply be individualised - it has a social/cultural context. 

IMO, an individual belief in homeopathy in our social/cultural context, however genuine it might, is utterly irrational and shouldn't be encouraged by any science-based system of collective healthcare. And that really is all I have to say on the subject on this thread...


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

> The London Mayor told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Labour is deranged if it thinks Jeremy Corbyn is the answer to its problems or Britain’s.
> 
> ‘He is a cross between Lenin *and Worzel Gummidge*. His economic policy would leave us penniless and his foreign policy would leave us defenceless.’



Pot and kettle


----------



## free spirit (Sep 13, 2015)

placebo isn't about the believe that a pill has xyz substance in it, it's a belief in the power of whatever they're taking / using to cure or improve whatever illness they have. It's the belief that's important not the precise nature of what they believe in.

Applies to homeopathy as much as placebo pills, also applies to faith healing etc etc.

It's only when a medicine's impact is actually greater than the placebo effect that it can be viewed as directly being medically effective.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 13, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's a myth, isn't it?


not at all - red placebos are more effective than other colours and they've even showed positive response to placebo surgery. if you have a non-uk proxy you can watch this horizon doc.
.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> But with homeopathy, the patient *knows* there is no significant amount of any substance. The only way it might be a significant effect is if they actually believe the mystical woo about water molecules re-aligning. In this sense, it's akin to witch-doctory - it only works if you believe something which it's totally irrational to believe.



Again no, I don't think so. All it needs is (for example) for a doctor in a doctory-type voice to say 'take these, you'll feel better'.

The placebo effect  is nothing like witch doctory at all, so neither need homeopathy be. I see the placebo effect as the mind (in the short term at least) curing the body - nothing to do with stupidity or witch doctors.

And on your point about anti-malarial homeopathy pills btw, drugs companies have said their drugs cure all sorts of things that they've turned out not to cure - should we reject all drugs because of that?



> (of course, there was a time when witch-doctory *was* a rational thing to believe, because it was the generally culturally accepted way of doing things, so I have no doubt that something similar to the placebo effect could and did work in those circumstances, but given our general cultural acceptance of science based medicine and other phenomona, anyone in modern society who believes in homeopathy is, IMO, utterly irrational)



I'd say that anyone who believes that homeopathy has an effect outside the placebo effect hasn't looked at the science. But you're going further than that - you're suggesting that anyone in modern society who believes in the placebo effect is utterly irrational, too. Sorry, you're wrong.

The placebo effect is *fundamental* to science based medicine - every single trial is measured against the placebo effect. (You clearly didn't know that  ).



> Apologies for the de-rail. I've had more than enough homeopathy for now...



Well you brought it up


----------



## free spirit (Sep 13, 2015)

The only real argument in favour of homeopathy on the NHS that I could support would be to treat those who were insistent on needing some form of medical intervention every time they have a sniffle, rather than doling out anti-biotics because they insisted on them.

Vit C tablets would be a better bet for that though.


----------



## JimW (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Labour didn't lose in 1984 because of Michael Foot. That's a myth put about by the Tory press and Nu Labour revisionists. It lost because of the Falklands and Thatcher channelling Churchill. Foot was actually quite popular and Labour was doing well in the polls until the Falklands.


Saw an article linked yesterday that tackled those myths: 1983: the biggest myth in Labour Party history | Red Pepper


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> What if Corbyn lays the Libyan disaster, Ukraine murders, and dissing parliament at Camerons door where they belong at question time.
> Corbyn can do it while gently reminding Cameron about his exemplary shite refugee policy. Just don't mention Camerons own Oskar Gröning, IDS.
> Cameron has had an easy ride from Labour imho.



When you read the tory spiel about their 'well-oiled attack machine' (yes that's a direct quote from CCHQ) it looks like they've got complacent in the absence of any kind of effective opposition. They may be able to attack people, but that doesn't mean they can win arguments against people who refuse to engage in mudslinging.

 It doesn't seem like the concept of actually winning arguments has even occurred to them tbh. It's all about scaring the shit out of people, hence the repetition of the word 'security' in their 'we're all dooooooomed' statement in response to Corbyn's election. It's a direct appeal to people's fears, fears that the papers have been doing their very best to create. But the press has failed to defeat Corbyn, all the Blairite royalty has failed to defeat him, and the tories certainly haven't been able to halt his rise. Hopefully this shows that everyone is getting sick and tired of soundbites and fearmongering, and they want to listen to someone who can talk coherently about things that actually matter. 

I think the tories have underestimated what they're dealing with here. They're also a bit delusional about how strong a grip on power they can possibly have with the backing of only 25% of the electorate.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

free spirit said:


> The only real argument in favour of homeopathy on the NHS that I could support would be to treat those who were insistent on needing some form of medical intervention every time they have a sniffle, rather than doling out anti-biotics because they insisted on them.
> 
> Vit C tablets would be a better bet for that though.



Doctors who prescribe antibiotics to people who don't need them should be struck off, no matter how whiny the patient. Give them fucking sugar pills if you have to fob them off ffs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

ffsear said:


> i'm loving this!   Labour are DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



You've got the political acumen of a brick.
Bless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

spartacus mills said:


> He looks like he's been hit in the face with a wet copy of the Morning Star.



Nah, that's definitely a "somebody's Great Dane has just shat in my shoes" look.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

free spirit said:


> The only real argument in favour of homeopathy on the NHS that I could support would be to treat those who were insistent on needing some form of medical intervention every time they have a sniffle, rather than doling out anti-biotics because they insisted on them.



I'd even disagree with this (although yes of course to cutting anti-biotic use). If you can alleviate symptoms of any (appropriate) sickness that is not life-threatening and isn't going to get any worse while you try different treatments, then I'd be in favour of trying it there, too, if the patient is up for it.

In the great majority of cases where it *doesn't* help, then you try something else - do different alternative treatments that are effective because of the placebo effect work on different people, for example?

But yes I'm happy for the derail to be over.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think the tories have underestimated what they're dealing with here. They're also a bit delusional about how strong a grip on power they can possibly have with the backing of only 25% of the electorate.



24%, actually. That 1% matters.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 13, 2015)

wayward bob said:


> not at all - red placebos are more effective than other colours and they've even showed positive response to placebo surgery. if you have a non-uk proxy you can watch this horizon doc.
> .



Iirc that is the documentary that ends with people being given pills that they are told the truth that they contain nothing active. Most if not all those showed improvement and some get pretty pissed off when they could no longer get them once the trial ended. It also went into how and when Placebos work and what conditions they were effective in treating.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

ska invita said:


> have many Labourites actually quit? IS there a list? Refusing to serve in a shadow cabinet, without being asked to, doesnt  count



TBF, I'm quite pleased about the refusals to serve. It points out to their constituents exactly how careerist their MPs are, and how little of a shit they give about promoting the interests of their constituents.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, I'm quite pleased about the refusals to serve. It points out to their constituents exactly how careerist their MPs are, and how little of a shit they give about promoting the interests of their constituents.



It's all a bit toys-out-the-pram isn't it?

This whole leadership election has provided the Blairites with many excellent opportunities to make themselves look like cunts and they've seized every one.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


>



As I said to mauvais , I'm not interested in pursuing the subject on this thread, but just a few corrections to your most recent post to me.

I'm not saying the placebo effect is the same as witch doctory 

It wasn't me who brought up anti-malarial drugs
I am fully aware that the placebo effect is *fundamental* to science based medicine and that every single trial is measured against the placebo effect
Next time there's a thread specifically about homeopathy, give me a shout and I'll be happy to return to the subject


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson suggests he'll oppose Corbyn over scrapping Trident - Politics live



> Gove claimed that Corbyn’s victory could increase the chances of protests breaking out on the streets.
> There are some people behind [Corbyn] who do have a tradition in politics which is very different to Jeremy Corbyn’s own humane tradition. And I do worry, as we saw even in the last parliament with organisations like UK Uncut, that there are some people who want to bring protest onto the street. I think it’s important that we keep our politics civilised.
> 
> And one other concern that I have is that, actually, if you have a strong opposition leader, if you have a strong alternative prime minister then people are less inclined to take their anger onto the streets; they’re more inclined to see the House of Commons and civilised political discourse as the way to change this county. So there is a danger, I think, to the health of our democracy overall that Labour have not chosen someone who would be their strongest alternative prime minister.



Corbyn threatens to disrupt the harmony and prosperity of the motherland, his dissent sends all the wrong messages to the rabble, we might even see some of them!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I did like Corbyn and his politics until I found out he supported homeopathy, now I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.



IIRC the 2010 vote was about the closure of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, which didn't just offer homeopathy, but other - more scientifically-supported - "alternative" treatments such as herbalism and osteopathy on the NHS.
I believe the hospital was in his constituency, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Labour didn't lose in 1984 because of Michael Foot. That's a myth put about by the Tory press and Nu Labour revisionists. It lost because of the Falklands and Thatcher channelling Churchill. Foot was actually quite popular and Labour was doing well in the polls until the Falklands.



1983.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> IIRC the 2010 vote was about the closure of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, which didn't just offer homeopathy, but other - more scientifically-supported - "alternative" treatments such as herbalism and osteopathy on the NHS.
> I believe the hospital was in his constituency, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Pot and kettle



Unlike most of the rest of the populace of the United Kingdom, Boris hasn't yet realised that he's the exemplar of uselessness and overweening ambition, and a figure of mockery. He still thinks that he's a contender.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's all a bit toys-out-the-pram isn't it?
> 
> This whole leadership election has provided the Blairites with many excellent opportunities to make themselves look like cunts and they've seized every one.



And not daintily, with a single hand, either. They've seized every opportunity two-handed, and held it in a death-grip. Hoist by their own petards, the ambitious careerist mugs.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


>



You may laugh, but once, after an unfortunate setting-oneself-on-fire incident at a festival, I was led to the nearest first aid post. A _herbal_ first aid post. Apart from being unable to figure out how to turn on the lights in their tent, they also manage to pour essential oils into my eyes because it was too dark to see what they were doing  

/tangent


----------



## peterkro (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> IIRC the 2010 vote was about the closure of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, which didn't just offer homeopathy, but other - more scientifically-supported - "alternative" treatments such as herbalism and osteopathy on the NHS.
> I believe the hospital was in his constituency, too.


I went to the RLHH as did quite a few of my friends and whilst I believe Homeopathic medicine is complete bollocks there's an important edict in medicine i.e first rule do no harm and on that basis they were right,straight medicine wanted to prescribe me as a fifteen year old a drug that would have fucked my body so much that pregnancy for a female was a distinct no no.I didn't take it fortunately.
As an aside and I've had this reinforced by lots of people their main diagnostic tool seems to be does your shit float or does it not? Bit odd I thought at the time but hey Calendura cream ain't going to hurt you Methotrexate on the other hand will just not fuck you but any descendants you may have.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

True that, if you get side effects from homeopathy you just have to reduce the concentration a bit.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

Song, celebration, laughter and hope in the pub, with the leader of the opposition.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

Worth a re-visit?

A Very British Coup


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> IIRC the 2010 vote was about the closure of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, which didn't just offer homeopathy, but other - more scientifically-supported - "alternative" treatments such as herbalism and osteopathy on the NHS.
> I believe the hospital was in his constituency, too.


It's in Queen's Square isn't it? Well outside islington north.


----------



## elbows (Sep 13, 2015)

Some more reactions from the BBC live updates page 



> Former Labour minister Frank Field tells Sky's Dermot Murnaghan he nominated Jeremy Corbyn for leader because he wanted to see a great debate about Labour's future - but said this had not materialised.
> 
> What was shocking, suprising...was that the other three candidates...had nothing much to say."
> 
> Mr Field describes Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall's offerings as "thin Blairite gruel".





> Former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown is scathing about Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader. "What they have chosen to do is go back to the old socialism of the past", he tells Murnaghan.
> 
> This is politics followed by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, disastrously...the politics followed by Syriza (in Greece) disastrously...it may have traction with the British people but I doubt it. This is politics of the past for the past, old Labour is now in charge."
> 
> Lord Ashdown says his party now has an opportunity to appeal to people as a "modern, centre left party that's addressing the conditions of today rather than the conditions of the 1950s."


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

lol, hubris. The libs are dead an buried for another generation.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

elbows said:


> Some more reactions from the BBC live updates page





> What was shocking, suprising...was that the other three candidates...had nothing much to say."
> 
> Mr Field describes Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall's offerings as "thin Blairite gruel".


It's very rare that I agree with Frank Field but that's spot on


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

Sad, but true. Fortunatly, largely irrelevant


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

> One of Jeremy Corbyn's main allies, the MP Diane Abbott, has told the BBC it is "a bit odd" people have resigned from jobs in the shadow cabinet before being offered them.



Love it! Sense of entitlement?


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

oryx said:


> Love it! Sense of entitlement?



And we've also got the bizarre spectacle of Umunna not explicitly resigning being dressed up as 

'Corbyn will have to sack me': Defiant Chuka Umunna refuses to resign and challenges new leader to give him the boot

I know there's now an apparent need for new and exciting twists and turns to the story every five minutes, but this is properly ridiculous


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 13, 2015)

quite a bit of homeophobia going on 'ere!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> And we've also got the bizarre spectacle of Umunna not explicitly resigning being dressed up as
> 
> 'Corbyn will have to sack me': Defiant Chuka Umunna refuses to resign and challenges new leader to give him the boot
> 
> I know there's now an apparent need for new and exciting twists and turns to the story every five minutes, but this is properly ridiculous


I think we can expect this 'house divided' stuff to be currencey in the press from this point onwards. If theres any genuine rebellion or internal war expect them to go even more mental.


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> And we've also got the bizarre spectacle of Umunna not explicitly resigning being dressed up as
> 
> 'Corbyn will have to sack me': Defiant Chuka Umunna refuses to resign and challenges new leader to give him the boot
> 
> I know there's now an apparent need for new and exciting twists and turns to the story every five minutes, but this is properly ridiculous


'Daily Fail proves itself moderately useful' shock!

The table of the current shadow cabinet & possible options is quite interesting.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

Chris Leslie was Shadow  Chancellor?? Who knew


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I think we can expect this 'house divided' stuff to be currencey in the press from this point onwards. If theres any genuine rebellion or internal war expect them to go even more mental.



Oh yeah, I'm sure there will be plenty more in the days and weeks to come. It's just that this business of "so-and-so has ruled out being in the SC", "so-and-so has refused to resign until he's forced out" is a little pathetic and transparent, even for shite papers like the Mail.


----------



## red & green (Sep 13, 2015)

The bitter tears of New Labour - it's very amusing


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Chris Leslie was Shadow  Chancellor?? Who knew



is there such a thing as an invisible big beast?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> is there such a thing as an invisible big beast?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


the loch ness monster?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Fortunatly, largely irrelevant




Exactly. The Prime Minister doesn't run the NHS, he/she heads a government that funds the running of the NHS by medical professionals. It's not as if Corbyn, if he were ever to become PM, would be out writing prescriptions for everyone whenever they visit the doctors.

Of course, once Corbyn's purge of the political class is complete, he will have absolute dictatorial power with which to write all the prescriptions he wants. The future is a sandal stomping on a human face forever.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

malatesta32 said:


> quite a bit of homeophobia going on 'ere!



I know, fucking bigeots the lot of them.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

One question I'd like Corbyn to ask Cameron: "Does he think it's right that MPs on all sides of the House have interests in companies that profit from privatisation of the NHS? 

Disgusting practice that should be banned. Of course MPs are going to vote for privatisation if they're going to make money from it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> is there such a thing as an invisible big beast?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


do you read lovecraft? strange angles


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Exactly. The Prime Minister doesn't run the NHS, he/she heads a government that funds the running of the NHS by medical professionals. It's not as if Corbyn, if he were ever to become PM, would be out writing prescriptions for everyone whenever they visit the doctors.
> 
> Of course, once Corbyn's purge of the political class is complete, he will have absolute dictatorial power with which to write all the prescriptions he wants. The future is a sandal stomping on a human face forever.


a mandal. Because as everyone knows corbyns win is a direct endorsment of patriachal society.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewsish Chronicle, has written an anti Corbyn piece for the Daily fucking Mail.

A hate rag who opposed us taking jewish refugees from nazi Germany, whose owner wrote glowing tributes to the Reich. 

What a twat.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2015)

JimW said:


> Saw an article linked yesterday that tackled those myths: 1983: the biggest myth in Labour Party history | Red Pepper


The other myth is the so-called 'Winter of Discontent' in which we're constantly told that the "entire country" was knee deep in unburied corpses and neck deep in piles of uncollected rubbish. That may have happened in London but where I lived there were no piles of rubbish or unburied corpses.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 1983.


So it is. Blair fought the Beaconsfield by-election in 1982 and the media were all over him.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> The other myth is the so-called 'Winter of Discontent' in which we're constantly told that the "entire country" was knee deep in unburied corpses and neck deep in piles of uncollected rubbish. That may have happened in London but where I lived there were no piles of rubbish or unburied corpses.



And 30 million days lost through strikes that year? As opposed to 2 million extra unemployed under Thatcher? So 2*365 = 700+ million days a year lost through unemployment.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewsish Chronicle, has written an anti Corbyn piece for the Daily fucking Mail.
> 
> A hate rag who opposed us taking jewish refugees from nazi Germany, whose owner wrote glowing tributes to the Reich.
> 
> What a twat.


Pollard has plenty of form. He used to write for the Daily Abscess if memory serves.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> TBH, I'd rather anyone who wanted homeopathic "medicines" had to pay for them themselves than that they were available on the NHS.
> 
> And I thought the placebo effect was taking something which you are told actually has a significant dose of some sort of effective substance in it, rather than which you believe has had its water molecules altered by some nonsensical woo. It's a little misleading to mention the placebo effect in relation to homeopathy, IMO



Not all homeopathy is like that. There's some decent herbal treatments that work for people . If medical ganja for ms sufferers is legalised will you be insisting those freeloaders pay for it themselves ? I certainly won't .

Although I agree there's an awful lot of wankers in sandals peddling complete wank too .


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> And 30 million days lost through strikes that year? As opposed to 2 million extra unemployed under Thatcher? So 2*365 = 700+ million days a year lost through unemployment.


I'm not sure where that 30 million figure comes from. Unemployment definitely hit 3 million by 1982.
BBC ON THIS DAY | 26 | 1982: UK unemployment tops three million


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 13, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Not all *homeopathy* is like that. There's some decent *herbal treatments* that work for people . If medical ganja for ms sufferers is legalised will you be insisting those freeloaders pay for it themselves ? I certainly won't .
> 
> Although I agree there's an awful lot of wankers in sandals peddling complete wank too .



Homeopathy and herbal treatments are not the same thing.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> And we've also got the bizarre spectacle of Umunna not explicitly resigning being dressed up as
> 
> 'Corbyn will have to sack me': Defiant Chuka Umunna refuses to resign and challenges new leader to give him the boot
> 
> I know there's now an apparent need for new and exciting twists and turns to the story every five minutes, but this is properly ridiculous




No need to sack the cunt, just tell him it was a zero hour contract and the hidden hand of the free market sadly didn't pick him . Speak to him in his own  Thatcherite language .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Homeopathy and herbal treatments are not the same thing.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



It's all hippies , so therefore it is .

Cheers big ears, 

Casually Red


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm not sure where that 30 million figure comes from. Unemployment definitely hit 3 million by 1982.
> BBC ON THIS DAY | 26 | 1982: UK unemployment tops three million



From Wiki, although I've seen the claim in a few places: "In total in 1979, 29,474,000 working days were lost in industrial disputes, compared with 9,306,000 in 1978."

Yes probably 365*2.5 million working days from extra unemployment (I've got the figures somewhere but cba to find them) so nearly 1,000 million.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 13, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> It's all hippies , so therefore it is .
> 
> Cheers big ears,
> 
> Casually Red



Ah right I see your 'logic' now. Not quite the same as that used to test the efficacy of health care treatments, but if it works for you then stick with it.

Oh and leave my ears out of it; they're not big...I just have a small head.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## gosub (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> From Wiki, although I've seen the claim in a few places: "In total in 1979, 29,474,000 working days were lost in industrial disputes, compared with 9,306,000 in 1978."
> 
> Yes probably* 365**2.5 million working days from extra unemployment (I've got the figures somewhere but cba to find them) so nearly 1,000 million.



Even Iain Duncan Smith doesn't expect people to work every day of the year.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Ah right I see your 'logic' now. Not quite the same as that used to test the efficacy of health care treatments, but if it works for you then stick with it.
> 
> Oh and leave my ears out of it; they're not big...I just have a small head.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



CR's "logic", as is well known here, consists basically of "I don't like it/it's not like me, therefore it's shit".

Not what I would base a health care system around personally, but that probably makes me a hippy or something in his eyes


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

gosub said:


> Even Iain Duncan Smith doesn't expect people to work every day of the year.



NHS Consultants mate, NHS Consultants





but yes fair point


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds said:


> From Wiki, although I've seen the claim in a few places: "In total in 1979, 29,474,000 working days were lost in industrial disputes, compared with 9,306,000 in 1978."
> 
> Yes probably 365*2.5 million working days from extra unemployment (I've got the figures somewhere but cba to find them) so nearly 1,000 million.


The Tories love to use figures to claim that "unions are holding us to ransom".Yet, there's never any mention of the incompetent managers who run businesses and cream off profits for themselves, while paying their workers fuck all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> is there such a thing as an invisible big beast?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Only in season 10 of "Stargate SG-1".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Pollard has plenty of form. He used to write for the Daily Abscess if memory serves.



He went back to taking the Desmond shilling on a part-time freelance-ish basis a couple of years ago.


----------



## Voley (Sep 13, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The future is a sandal stomping on a human face forever.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


> CR's "logic", as is well known here, consists basically of "I don't like it/it's not like me, therefore it's shit".
> 
> Not what I would base a health care system around personally, but that probably makes me a hippy or something in his eyes



Utter nonsense . I like Jeremy corbyn . And yet the sandal wearing bearded veggie isn't remotely a bit like me and he isnt shit . So...au contraire .


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He went back to taking the Desmond shilling on a part-time freelance-ish basis a couple of years ago.


I wonder what his Orthodox readers think of him taking money from a known pornographer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I wonder what his Orthodox readers think of him taking money from a known pornographer?


i imagine many of his reform readers would be unimpressed


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

Worth a punt I felt: 



> You asked for questions to ask David Cameron at PMQs. Can I suggest something like:
> 
> "Around 200 MPs across the House are reported to have financial links to companies involved in healthcare, and so stand to profit from NHS privatization. While it may be right for MPs to have commercial experience they are always free to do voluntary work, and they should not personally profit from the legislation that they pass. Will the Prime Minister join me in stamping out this unethical practice?"
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only in season 10 of "Stargate SG-1".


and "harvey"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I wonder what his Orthodox readers think of him taking money from a known pornographer?



Most of 'em would take a pass on condemning Desmond, as he contributes some wodge to Jewish charities to burnish his "plastic yid" credentials.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

two sheds d'you want to delete your name from yr last post?


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

andysays said:


>



but i meant well


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

JimW said:


> Saw an article linked yesterday that tackled those myths: 1983: the biggest myth in Labour Party history | Red Pepper



Good article that . Blairs comment that wars make prime ministers popular is very telling . Particularly with his thatcher obsession . He was mad to attack Yugoslavia as well . Clinton had to rein him in a bit .


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but i meant well



Nah was appreciated, always worth checking.


----------



## andysays (Sep 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but i meant well



Have a "like" in recognition


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's a common argument, particularly from the grauniad-observer axis. It's better to have someone who won't do anything different to the tories but who might get into power than to pick a candidate whose policies you actually support.
> 
> As usual, the evidence for the claim that 'Corbyn cannot win a general election' is notable by its absence.



Gove has stated pretty clearly that Corbyn can win . Which is why they're going to go full pelt on the scare tactics .

I don't know where this stuff comes from tbf . He has a stonking majority of 30,000 votes or something like that and has been returned as an mp for over 30 years . He's annihilated hands down anyone he's ever ran for election against, internally and externally . He's a winner .

And labour have just reported they've had something like 15,000 people join up in the last 24 hours . The unions aren't talking about breaking away now either . He's energised and mobilised his base . No reason at all why he couldn't win .


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> And labour have just reported they've had something like 15,000 people join up in the last 24 hours . The unions aren't talking about breaking away now either . He's energised and mobilised his base . No reason at all why he couldn't win .



And if the tories really believed he couldn't win then they'd just be resting on their laurels right now, instead of prophesying doom left right and centre.


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2015)

They aren't prophesying doom, they're monstering him in the hope it'll define his leadership. It worked quite well with Miliband, it'll be interesting to see how well it works this time.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)




----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> And if the tories really believed he couldn't win then they'd just be resting on their laurels right now, instead of prophesying doom left right and centre.



The real Tories, like gove,  know class isn't irrelevant . Because theyre class warriors when alls said and done . It's blairites who promote that shit . Labour has spent over 30 years doing its best to demobilise the oiks and attract the Tory and liberal vote instead . If corbyn succeeds in mobilising and energising them again the Tories are in trouble, and they know it .

Corbyns rise has been meteoric , despite having been written off as a joke from the start . He's defied the entire narrative and that alone makes him dangerous . Because all the old perceived wisdoms look..well..old now . As well as untrue . The political narrative itself is fucked . Or at least under threat . And if that's under threat then so is the cosy neo liberal status quo and consensus it has sustained between blue Tories and red Tories .

After what happened so definitively in Scotland combined with labours dreadful showing in the rest of Britain it should really be a no brainer as regards what people in Britain want from their politicians, and corbyn fills that niche perfectly . I'm utterly gobsmacked that the very people who presided over an unmitigated labour disaster, when it should have been an anti austerity penalty kick  , have the brass neck to lecture anyone about making labour unelectable straight off the back of that humiliation . Bunch of jokers .


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

In reference to that Red Pepper piece about 1983

If any tory/echo chamber prick bangs on about Labour and the 1980s, don't hesitate to say that the tories are taking us back to the 1890s.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 13, 2015)

It begins!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2015)




----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 13, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> View attachment 76601



liked for the reply


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> View attachment 76601




That Cameron post itself has a rather threatening air.


----------



## laptop (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> The other myth is the so-called 'Winter of Discontent' in which we're constantly told that the "entire country" was knee deep in unburied corpses and neck deep in piles of uncollected rubbish. That may have happened in London but where I lived there were no piles of rubbish or unburied corpses.



IIRC the corpse allegation was only ever made in reference to Liverpool, or to one cemetery in Liverpool.

But my brain may have been addled by the stench of garbage...


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2015)

Yes sounds like the sort of thing they'd say about ISIS before locking up or bombing the leaders.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2015)

It's not even like they pick an angle of attack or try to toe a similar line. They actually all repeat the exact same sentence like fucking robots in an attempt to plant it into the public consciousness. Pathetic faceless excuses for politicians. There are no words to adequately describe the agony and misery I wish for them.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That Cameron post itself has a rather threatening air.



Thats the idea, and the Tory voters and huge portion of the general public will lap it up

Bill Baily had the right idea anyway, hope to see more from him.


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> It begins!


"U ok, hon?"


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2015)

maomao said:


> It's not even like they pick an angle of attack or try to toe a similar line. They actually all repeat the exact same sentence like fucking robots in an attempt to plant it into the public consciousness. Pathetic faceless excuses for politicians. There are no words to adequately describe the agony and misery I wish for them.


What they don't realise is that the "talking point" strategy, while good in the time of Karl Rove, doesn't work in an arena where everybody's statements appear alongside each other i.e. social media. It doesn't look like a coherent message any more, it looks like spambots.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

fucking david cameron's a real threat to national security etc


----------



## agricola (Sep 13, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Thats the idea, and the Tory voters and huge portion of the general public will lap it up
> 
> Bill Baily had the right idea anyway, hope to see more from him.




Not sure that they will - after all, it is hard for them and _le Resistance _to plausibly chirp away about Corbyn being a threat to national security when they have been getting us involved in wars that result in an ever-increasing terror problem at home, when they have been getting rid of tens of thousands of military personnel, when they have been radically downsizing the emergency services, when they have been selling huge swathes of critical national infrastructure to foreign companies and governments, and when they have been pushing the amount of debt we collectively and individually hold ever upwards.  

They would be on better grounds criticizing him for having a beard; at least none of them have one.


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> fucking david cameron's a real threat to national security etc


U ok, hon?

Sorry. That's really tickled me


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> What they don't realise is that the "talking point" strategy, while good in the time of Karl Rove, doesn't work in an arena where everybody's statements appear alongside each other i.e. social media. It doesn't look like a coherent message any more, it looks like spambots.


it is spambots


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> What they don't realise is that the "talking point" strategy, while good in the time of Karl Rove, doesn't work in an arena where everybody's statements appear alongside each other i.e. social media. It doesn't look like a coherent message any more, it looks like spambots.



They do it on telly and radio as well, I assume that they've factored this in


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2015)

I don't have my own twitter account but my baby daughter just called David Cameron a cunt from hers. 

(wife may kill me)


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 13, 2015)

agricola said:


> Not sure that they will - after all, it is hard for them and _le Resistance _to plausibly chirp away about Corbyn being a threat to national security when they have been getting us involved in wars that result in an ever-increasing terror problem at home, when they have been getting rid of tens of thousands of military personnel, when they have been radically downsizing the emergency services, when they have been selling huge swathes of critical national infrastructure to foreign companies and governments, and when they have been pushing the amount of debt we collectively and individually hold ever upwards.
> 
> They would be on better grounds criticizing him for having a beard; at least none of them have one.



Your thinking logically here, and happily Cameron will blame the entire crock of shit Middle East on Labour, despite him continuing the same fucking policies and even improving them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> U ok, hon?
> 
> Sorry. That's really tickled me


i'm on holiday giving greek people money for wine and food


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm on holiday giving greek people money for wine and food


You lucky, lucky bastard


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> You lucky, lucky bastard


yeh  but back to work next week


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh  but back to work next week


Only a week   You deserve more than a week The Greeks deserve more than a week


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

have we heard anything from blair yet or has he just decided to keep it shut for a change


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

agricola said:


> Not sure that they will - after all, it is hard for them and _le Resistance _to plausibly chirp away about Corbyn being a threat to national security when they have been getting us involved in wars that result in an ever-increasing terror problem at home, when they have been getting rid of tens of thousands of military personnel, when they have been radically downsizing the emergency services, when they have been selling huge swathes of critical national infrastructure to foreign companies and governments, and when they have been pushing the amount of debt we collectively and individually hold ever upwards.
> 
> They would be on better grounds criticizing him for having a beard; at least none of them have one.


none of them have the balls to wear one


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> have we heard anything from blair yet or has he just decided to keep it shut for a change


i live in hope he's ended it all now his legacy's down the gary


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 13, 2015)

I bet he is looking for a good lawyer or a corrupt judge, shouldnt be to hard for him


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

agricola said:


> le Resistance


La. I think (the complexities of gendered language like french are quite beyond me so I may have it arse backward but google says I'm correct)


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> La. I think (the complexities of gendered language like french are quite beyond me so I may have it arse backward but google says I'm correct)



Yes, nouns ending with -e are usually feminine in French


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yes, nouns ending with -e are usually feminine in French


le livre for example


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2015)

and la livre


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 13, 2015)




----------



## equationgirl (Sep 13, 2015)

maomao said:


> I don't have my own twitter account but my baby daughter just called David Cameron a cunt from hers.
> 
> (wife may kill me)


Just say you did it for her.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

agricola said:


> They would be on better grounds criticizing him for having a beard; at least none of them have one.



Oh they're going further than the beard . They're going after the vest now .

Win a Jeremy Corbyn vest - no strings attached - Sun Nation


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Oh they're going further than the beard . They're going after the vest now .
> 
> Win a Jeremy Corbyn vest - no strings attached - Sun Nation



That's not just scraping the barrel, that's shaving off the bits of wood on its bottom!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 13, 2015)

oryx said:


> That's not just scraping the barrel, that's shaving off the bits of wood on its bottom!



Shaving Corbyn's bottom?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 13, 2015)

i hope that JC and the party machine have the sense to laugh at all this crap, not try to spin their way out of it...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 13, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> View attachment 76601


Isn't Spameron on quite dodgy ground with this shit? As someone else has said I just expected 'congrats, looking forward to pmq jousting, blah blah blah' not this red scare arseholery


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

S☼I said:


> Isn't Spameron on quite dodgy ground with this shit? As someone else has said I just expected 'congrats, looking forward to pmq jousting, blah blah blah' not this red scare arseholery



He's engaging in class war .


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Chris Leslie was Shadow  Chancellor?? Who knew


Is he related to John Leslie?


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2015)

S☼I said:


> Isn't Spameron on quite dodgy ground with this shit? As someone else has said I just expected 'congrats, looking forward to pmq jousting, blah blah blah' not this red scare arseholery


What dodgy ground? The scum believe that if they can persuade a decent slice of the British public that a left Labour government is really undesirable then they'll be unchallenged in parliament for decades. And it's going to be fucking hard work getting them out.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 13, 2015)

What's the score with Ivan Lewis going? Who's to replace him?

Ivan Lewis loses shadow NI secretary role in Jeremy Corbyn reshuffle - BBC News


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What's the score with Ivan Lewis going? Who's to replace him?
> 
> Ivan Lewis loses shadow NI secretary role in Jeremy Corbyn reshuffle - BBC News


Send Chuka over there


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> have we heard anything from blair yet or has he just decided to keep it shut for a change



In light of recent events he's got an unsually busy schedule of human sacrifices and incantations to attend to. He simply doesn't have time to address the plebs.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

S☼I said:


> red scare arseholery


how much traction does it really have, in this post cold war era? Gove did a top bit of red baiting during a teachers strike calling them 'trots'. When I related it outraged to a mate he went 'trot? whats that?' and the blokes not thick. Yesterdays men here with yesterdays scare tactics.


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Yesterdays men here with yesterdays scare tactics.



Absolutely.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 13, 2015)

Oh, I'm not saying it'll work, quite the opposite, it's actually ridiculous and seems to be getting the mocking it deserves. They must be at least slightly worried at Tory Central Command.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> U ok, hon?
> 
> Sorry. That's really tickled me


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 13, 2015)

I just meant saying stuff as underhand as this is not what you expect of even a fuckface like Dave


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> Send Chuka over there



Or Tristram Hunt. 

"I say chaps, all this business with the assasinations is simply not on. Surely your differences could be better settled with a nice intramural lacrosse tournament."


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or Tristram Hunt.



He resigned


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or Tristram Hunt.
> 
> "I say chaps, all this business with the assasinations is simply not on. Surely your differences could be better settled with a nice intramural lacrosse tournament."



But Hunt's pre-emptively resigned. Chuka's saying he'll have to be fired first so I reckon give him NI and watch him squirm.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

Has Umunna not resigned as well?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> But Hunt's pre-emptively resigned.



I like that.

I've also pre-emptively resigned as shadow education minister. Any fucker tries to give me that job, I'm covered.


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Has Umunna not resigned as well?


Earlier today he was saying that JC will have to sack him. He might have changed his mind since NI vacated though.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> But Hunt's pre-emptively resigned. Chuka's saying he'll have to be fired first so I reckon give him NI and watch him squirm.




Chuka's gone TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter



> Given these differences, not least on the European referendum, I would find it difficult to abide by the collective responsibility that comes with serving in the Shadow Cabinet. That is why Jeremy and I have agreed I can more effectively support his leadership from the backbenches. In particular, it is my view that we should support the UK remaining a member of the EU, notwithstanding the outcome of any renegotiation by the Prime Minister, and I cannot envisage any circumstances where I would be campaigning alongside those who would argue for us to leave – Jeremy has made it clear to me that he does not wholeheartedly share this view.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

I've also pre-emptively resigned as England football manager, police and crime commissioner for the east midlands and chairman of the Dolly Parton fan club.

e2a: I may still be available for the post of Serena Williams' personal masseur. But it'll cost her.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I like that.
> 
> I've also pre-emptively resigned as shadow education minister. Any fucker tries to give me that job, I'm covered.


Fuck you, you coat tail-riding, bandwagon-jumping hipster motherfucker - I resigned from Education like, in the 80s


----------



## cesare (Sep 13, 2015)

We need to know whether Chuka "mutually agreed" to part ways before or after NI vacated.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 13, 2015)

S☼I said:


> Isn't Spameron on quite dodgy ground with this shit? As someone else has said I just expected 'congrats, looking forward to pmq jousting, blah blah blah' not this red scare arseholery


That's a mark of his (and perhaps his advisors') naïvete.

Occam's Razor runs a close heat between "tell the dopey punters what they want to hear" and "attacking always works" as the main operating principle in Cameron's brain. Personally, I suspect it's the latter. I look forward to him stepping repeatedly and hard on his own dick.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I've also pre-emptively resigned as chairman of the Dolly Parton fan club.



TBF you did have your knockers in that role


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> It begins!



" fuck off you nonce "


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 13, 2015)

existentialist said:


> "attacking always works"



I hear Moscow is quite nice around Christmas time


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 13, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> " fuck off you nonce "



Best comment on there


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Best comment on there



I dunno, I quite enjoyed this one:



> @David_Cameron Shit off you ham mannequin.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I dunno, I quite enjoyed this one:





Another one that had me chuckling was, "fuck off you gammon faced cock valve"


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 13, 2015)

shit gibbon


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

15,500 new members in the last day. 'kin hell.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

Very good piece about the Orwellian fear mongeriing.

This is why David Cameron called Jeremy Corbyn a threat to national security


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 13, 2015)

x


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What's the score with Ivan Lewis going? Who's to replace him?
> 
> Ivan Lewis loses shadow NI secretary role in Jeremy Corbyn reshuffle - BBC News





Wow. Really.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Very good piece about the Orwellian fear mongeriing.
> 
> This is why David Cameron called Jeremy Corbyn a threat to national security


I suspect I know what's going on here.

Some hotshot political historian party apparatchik has gone...

"Jezza == Michael Foot"

"Thatcher beat Foot in the 83 GE on the strength of the Falklands campaign"

"We need a Falklands campaign"

"Oh look, ISIS/refugees/dark-skinned people"

"Jezza likes refugees"

"Therefore, Jezza is a threat to national security"

"We win the next general election"

It's like Underpants Gnomes politics.



(an explanation)


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

All these obviously spurious accusations of anti-Semitism are very dangerous on many levels


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2015)

laptop said:


> IIRC the corpse allegation was only ever made in reference to Liverpool, or to one cemetery in Liverpool.
> 
> But my brain may have been addled by the stench of garbage...


Yet, the Tories were pretty much allowed to rewrite the historical narrative with very little, if any, challenge from Labour. Pathetic.


----------



## agricola (Sep 13, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Chuka's gone TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter



That is magnificently timed at least.  He can come up with no circumstances that he might share a platform with those who want to leave, just a few hours before the Germans give everyone on the continent about three or four of them.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow. Really.




I'm reasonably politically aware yet I've been totally unaware of this punters existence . I  dont even know whether he was a Protestant Jew or a catholic one . Which tends to be the most important thing .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Yet, the Tories were pretty much allowed to rewrite the historical narrative with very little, if any, challenge from Labour. Pathetic.



They agreed with them was why .


----------



## JHE (Sep 13, 2015)

Emily's back.  Rumour has it that Emily Thornberry is in line for an important job in the Shadow Cabinet.  I think she should celebrate by driving to Parliament in a white van with a St George flag flying from the aerial (but of course she won't).


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 13, 2015)




----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Your thinking logically here, and happily Cameron will blame the entire crock of shit Middle East on Labour, despite him continuing the same fucking policies and even improving them.




I have been to a café where a right mix of people congregate from labourites, S/P'ers, anarchists to full on nationalists, the 'self made men' there were going mad about Corbyn, saying "he will sell us out, kow tow to Putin, open the borders, abandon our defence by leaving Nato, etc" It was similar to what I used to hear about Foot, a real visceral hatred, people are picking up on Corbyn, and real divisions, battle lines are being drawn. Many don't see him as the inoffensive social democrat discussed on here.  The Scum had seven pages on Corbyn and his allies, we are about to live in interesting times.


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

oryx said:


> 15,500 new members in the last day. 'kin hell.




I spent time talking to my old neighbours, punks, promoters, graduates, etc in crap jobs, they never used to have 'political direction', like many twenty somethings in this era, but did have a very keen sense of injustice about the world. They are absolutely enthused by Corbyn but they also were intrigued by what I told them about the IWCA.


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow. Really.





That's is truly appalling, I hope Jews For Corbyn and others respond.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> All these obviously spurious accusations of anti-Semitism are very dangerous on many levels



It's partly laziness. 

That said, there is certainly a disturbing rise in hatred of Jewish people, and though the right try to score points from it happening, it is not least they who are responsible. A rising tide in hatred and nastiness of many differences (eg migration status, disability) seems to have lifted all boats. Hate and fear is all these pricks to hide the ceaseless corruption.


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

agricola said:


> That is magnificently timed at least.  He can come up with no circumstances that he might share a platform with those who want to leave, just a few hours before the Germans give everyone on the continent about three or four of them.




Do you mean Germany closing the borders, along with Austria, etc.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2015)

Shadow Cabinet is being dripped out:

Shadow Home Secretary
Andy Burnham MP

Shadow Foreign Secretary
Hilary Benn MP

Shadow Health Secretary
Heidi Alexander MP

Shadow Justice and Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer (thought that was going to be Kier Starmer)


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> I have been to a café where a right mix of people congregate from labouriotes, SP, ers, anarchists to full on nationalists, the 'self made men' there were going mad about Corbyn, saying "he will sell us out, kow tow to Putin, open the borders, abandon our defence by leaving Nato, etc", it was similar to what I used to hear about Foot, a real visceral hatred, people are picking up on Corbyn, and real divisions, battle lines are being drawn, many don't see him as the inoffensive social democrat discussed on here.  The Scum had seven pages on Corbyn and his allies, we are about to live in interesting times.




Aye, defence appeals to people on left and right and after the last 14 years scaremongering and fear inciting anyone who sticks their head up and says "hang on a minute here, we need to rethink what we're doing" is going to get fucking lynched. The middle east is a meat grinder we have our limbs firmly stuck in and its about time someone took a look at it and said we cannot fight ISIS if we are funding the likes of Saudi Arabia and giving them weapons.



TheHoodedClaw said:


> Shadow Cabinet is being dripped out:
> 
> Shadow Home Secretary
> Andy Burnham MP



Ah fuck, I hoped we'd seen the last of the loon.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 13, 2015)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 13, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Ah fuck, I hoped we'd seen the last of the loon.



Loons are far more interseting than Andy Burnham.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 13, 2015)

Andy Burnham shadow home secretary


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Shadow Cabinet is being dripped out:
> 
> Shadow Home Secretary
> Andy Burnham MP
> ...



Blimey, where is Katy Clark, Clive Lewis, etc?, looks like safety first.

waiting for news on shadow works and pension to take on Smith, who gets it will be revealing.


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

cesare said:


> Send Chuka over there



"So, wee man, are ye a Protestant black, or a Catholic black?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or Tristram Hunt.
> 
> "I say chaps, all this business with the assasinations is simply not on. Surely your differences could be better settled with a nice intramural lacrosse tournament."



Ever played lacrosse? Far more concentratedly homicidal than mere sectarian murderation!


----------



## red & green (Sep 13, 2015)

Gawd Heidi Alexander she's a hack - endorsed burnham was whip


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

existentialist said:


> That's a mark of his (and perhaps his advisors') naïvete.
> 
> Occam's Razor runs a close heat between "tell the dopey punters what they want to hear" and "attacking always works" as the main operating principle in Cameron's brain. Personally, I suspect it's the latter. I look forward to him stepping repeatedly and hard on his own dick.



He's still a PR man at heart - thinks that the punters are mug cunts, and that as long as you phrase shit right, you can take Joe Public for a ride.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

yay burnham for hom sec! austin allegros for everyone!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Thats the idea, and the Tory voters and huge portion of the general public will lap it up
> 
> Bill Baily had the right idea anyway, hope to see more from him.





OK, I'm going to be a bit more specific about what I said regarding the sense of threat in Cameron's tweet, and I may be wrong / flamed to think like this, but history gives enough cause for suspicion.

Corbyn's ideas, if implemented, are a serious challenge to NATO and other aspects of the MIC. He is a lifelong campaigner for the likes of CND etc.

If it gets to the point where a government led by him seems disturbingly likely, and some form of attack might damage that prospect, it is not beyond imagination that such an attack may be more likely.

On the other hand, there may have been a meeting some time ago where certain people said something on lines of "Oh well, stuff like Gladio has worked pretty well up till now so let's not bother with it any more"

What I've said here may well never come to pass, or need to. Operation Mockingbird style media is the first port of call...it's been deployed long before yesterdays result.

People who theorise about conspiracies eh?  What are they on about? The sort of people who think MI5 have been involved in covering up kid-fucking or that police spies shag their way through the environmentalist movement. It's absurd.


----------



## agricola (Sep 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Do you mean Germany closing the borders, along with Austria, etc.



That, and not arranging for support for any of the refugees (especially those now shut out, for however long that is) whilst moving from wherever to Germany, and threatening any EU member state that doesn't go along with an obviously doomed policy of trying to distribute refugees across Europe with financial punishment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> All these obviously spurious accusations of anti-Semitism are very dangerous on many levels



And I'm sure that the members of the "Jewish establishment" who are helping these accusations along (I'm looking at you, Board of Deputies of British Jews, you reactionary dogfuckers) are perfectly aware of it, but don't give a toss.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> That's is truly appalling, I hope Jews For Corbyn and others respond.


Eh?  Perhaps he was crap at his job.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 13, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Eh?  Perhaps he was crap at his job.


I think the point was that calling JC out for anti-semitism because he sacked a Jew is truly appalling.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 13, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think the point was that calling JC out for anti-semitism because he sacked a Jew is truly appalling.


Oh I see.....


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

agricola said:


> That, and not arranging for support for any of the refugees (especially those now shut out, for however long that is) whilst moving from wherever to Germany, and threatening any EU member state that doesn't go along with an obviously doomed policy of trying to distribute refugees across Europe with financial punishment.



as all know I have concerns about mass migration, though much much less on refugees, but this terrible, its winter soon, what will they do, Germany should never have made an open ended commitment they can't make. this has the making of the collapse of the EU. I wonder how JC will approach this.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Blimey, where is Katy Clark, Clive Lewis, etc?, looks like safety first.
> 
> waiting for news on shadow works and pension to take on Smith, who gets it will be revealing.


Get the 'big' centrist names in first, show you're broad minded, then get the lefties in.


----------



## tim (Sep 13, 2015)

The lefty rot really has set in. We now have a prominent MP comparing David Cameron's moderate union reforms with the policies of Spanish Fascist leader Geberal Franco!

Details here!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Get the 'big' centrist names in first, show you're broad minded, then get the lefties in.


He's in a strange position. Enormous support from the party, huge mandate, and yet hardly any support from other MPs. 

Burnham was bound to get a job, I would have thought.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> OK, I'm going to be a bit more specific about what I said regarding the sense of threat in Cameron's tweet, and I may be wrong / flamed to think like this, but history gives enough cause for suspicion.
> 
> Corbyn's ideas, if implemented, are a serious challenge to NATO and other aspects of the MIC. He is a lifelong campaigner for the likes of CND etc.



You're kind of missing the point of Corbyn's political philosophy. He doesn't want to be a leader who does top-down presidential-style _diktat_ like Blair and Brown, he wants the policies pursued by himself and his (shadow) cabinet to be based on the majority opinion of the Party membership. This will tend to mean that however vociferous his support for particular causes, it'll be the middle road that gets taken - social democracy in a nutshell.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Get the 'big' centrist names in first, show you're broad minded, then get the lefties in.



Looks like he's also putting in people with ministerial experience in the shadow secretary of state positions, where he can. IMO it's a good strategy insofar as he'll have experienced players facing the Tories across the floor, while being able to "bring on" likely prospects to take over from them at some time in the future.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

tim said:


> The lefty rot really has set in. We now have a prominent MP comparing David Cameron's moderate union reforms with the policies of Spanish Fascist leader Geberal Franco!
> 
> Details here!



Davis is a libertarian, first and foremost, so he pretty much always comes out against policies that appear to be restricting of personal freedom. He was virulently anti-ID cards, too.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Davis is a libertarian, first and foremost, so he pretty much always comes out against policies that appear to be restricting of personal freedom. He was virulently anti-ID cards, too.



Not that much of a libertarian if he thinks the other provisions in the bill are sensible


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think the point was that calling JC out for anti-semitism because he sacked a Jew is truly appalling.



They'll be calling him a racist over poor Chukka next . A vest wearing anti Semitic racist threat to national security .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's in a strange position. Enormous support from the party, huge mandate, and yet hardly any support from other MPs.
> 
> Burnham was bound to get a job, I would have thought.



The "support from MPs" issue will probably resolve itself (bar the bitterness and petulance of the Progress wing of the Party) over the next few months, as MPs get used to that strange thing known as "internal democracy".


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're kind of missing the point of Corbyn's political philosophy. He doesn't want to be a leader who does top-down presidential-style _diktat_ like Blair and Brown, he wants the policies pursued by himself and his (shadow) cabinet to be based on the majority opinion of the Party membership. This will tend to mean that however vociferous his support for particular causes, it'll be the middle road that gets taken - social democracy in a nutshell.



I agree with you, and thus am not missing that point.

I have less confidence that security services/the secret state would share the analysis.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> "So, wee man, are ye a Protestant black, or a Catholic black?"



Chukka ar la ...that nickname will go straight onto him..he's fucked already .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Not that much of a libertarian if he thinks the other provisions in the bill are sensible



He's a right-wing libertarian. In case you haven't noticed, they don't tend to have rational beliefs!


----------



## existentialist (Sep 13, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> OK, I'm going to be a bit more specific about what I said regarding the sense of threat in Cameron's tweet, and I may be wrong / flamed to think like this, but history gives enough cause for suspicion.
> 
> Corbyn's ideas, if implemented, are a serious challenge to NATO and other aspects of the MIC. He is a lifelong campaigner for the likes of CND etc.
> 
> ...


It might be helpful not to use this thread as a convenient hobbyhorse for your, ahh, more...cherished theories, hm?


----------



## red & green (Sep 13, 2015)

John Mc Donnell shadow chancellor


----------



## marty21 (Sep 13, 2015)

Burnham has put himself in a good position to be the next leader whlist the other losers start a big sulk .


----------



## Sirena (Sep 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> Gawd Heidi Alexander she's a hack - endorsed burnham was whip


Hadn't heard of her much at all but she's not too bad from the bits on Youtube.  She comes across as quite real (ie not slick politico).

She's got a fair time to learn her job while she's in opposition.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

John McDonnell as chancellor. Cool.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> John Mc Donnell shadow chancellor



Proper sausage-fest


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

existentialist said:


> It might be helpful not to use this thread as a convenient hobbyhorse for your, ahh, more...cherished theories, hm?



A thread were the UK government are publicly denouncing him as a threat to national security ? That's pretty serious stuff .


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Proper sausage-fest



#notallsausages


----------



## red & green (Sep 13, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Hadn't heard of her much at all but she's not too bad from the bits on Youtube.  She comes across as quite real (ie not slick politico).
> 
> She's got a fair time to learn her job while she's in opposition.



She was on my local council and is my MP - she's a party hack and kept her head down - don't expect much from her - she Will never put her head above the parapet 




and why Lord falconer ?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

Diane Abbot gets communities, that'll bring out the foaming at the mouth racists*

*I don't even like her at all really but jesus the racists hate her so much it makes it worth it basically


----------



## treelover (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> John McDonnell as chancellor. Cool.



John Mc is a pretty sharp cookie though they will dig up his past

Blimey, just can't believe this is happening, JM is shadow chancellor, fucking incredible.


----------



## red & green (Sep 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> John Mc is a pretty sharp cookie though they will dig up his past
> 
> Blimey, just can't believe this is happening, JM is shadow chancellor, fucking incredible.




Hopefully there will be some satisfying takedowns of Osborne


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> and why Lord falconer ?


Experience. Maybe Starmer said no, or he's saving him for Attorney General.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> She was on my local council and is my MP - she's a party hack and kept her head down - don't expect much from her - she Will never put her head above the parapet
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think he wants some big beasts in the cabinet


----------



## Sirena (Sep 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> and why Lord falconer ?



That shocked me too.  A wee sop to the Blairites?


----------



## red & green (Sep 13, 2015)

Falconer is unelected and legitimised Iraq war as well as instigation of legal aid cuts - big beast indeed but the wrong kind - tbh don't really know why I'm getting so annoyed ..lol


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

Whatever happens next we are already in some astonishing uncharted territory.


----------



## Shirl (Sep 13, 2015)

Sirena said:


> That shocked me too.  A wee sop to the Blairites?


I can't imagine he would give a toss about Blairites


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> Falconer is unelected and legitimised Iraq war as well as instigation of legal aid cuts - big beast indeed but the wrong kind - tbh don't really know why I'm getting so annoyed ..lol


Problem is, who the fuck else in the lords is there to be Lord Chancellor?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

Farage just apointed as court jester


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> and why Lord falconer ?



Maybe he's incensed by the colossal fuck-ups at the MoJ, and JC needs someone with some establishment heft to front up on it. Lawyers necessarily have to have some, err, flexibility.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

red & green said:


> Falconer is unelected and legitimised Iraq war as well as instigation of legal aid cuts - big beast indeed but the wrong kind - tbh don't really know why I'm getting so annoyed ..lol



perhaps he has been appointed to widen the gyre


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

No women in the biggest appointments, that'll be held against him.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 13, 2015)

John Mc donald as chancellor is a strong signal. The labour right wing have been loudly warning him off giving him that post ("it will cause an explosion/it will be a declaration of war") and hes called their bluff. What are they going to do other than continue sulking?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 13, 2015)

Shirl said:


> I can't imagine he would give a toss about Blairites


he's got to deal with them. Thats most of the front facing party. Have to give something- unity? right? unity.

unity


the wheels are gonna fall off in 6 months


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> No women in the biggest appointments, that'll be held against him.



Eagle? Alexander? Not aimed @ you btw.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> No women in the biggest appointments, that'll be held against him.



There are a fair few positions left, education especially, I just hope he doesn't appoint Thornberry


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

Diverse teams work better than highly cohesive teams - though they need to be prepared as individuals to compromise and there needs to be a good framework for conflict resolution.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

Chancellor, home and foreign are the 'big beast' offices. With the leader, deputy and mind on mayoral candidate - the other three most prominent roles - all being male, I am a bit surprised he didn't put a woman (probably Eagle) in somewhere more prominent. I suppose he had to show some continuity, giving little choice other than Benn, and Burnham had to be there, giving him rather less wriggle room.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

Tories are already banging on about McDonnell being pro-IRA, question is does anyone give a shit about the IRA anymore even if they believe it?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Tories are already banging on about McDonnell being pro-IRA, question is does anyone give a shit about the IRA anymore even if they believe it?



The cohort of the population who vote in the highest numbers  might do.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Tories are already banging on about McDonnell being pro-IRA, question is does anyone give a shit about the IRA anymore even if they believe it?



Those were the "good old days " now ffs. They gave advance warnings and didn't chop heads off . A golden era .


----------



## Sirena (Sep 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> That's is truly appalling, I hope Jews For Corbyn and others respond.


This might explain why Corbyn did not favour Lewis

Ivan Lewis MP - Correction


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 13, 2015)

And Rosie keeps the whip, that will keep the cheeky grin going.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

remember all the shit Osborne from the press got for his lack of experience?

That's right. Next to fuck all. Some people (not here) need to give their heads a wobble as to what the fuck is happening to this country that a pompous over-fed commentariat can so blithely dictate the terms of "debate" and consensus reality.


----------



## oryx (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Chancellor, home and foreign are the 'big beast' offices. With the leader, deputy and mind on mayoral candidate - the other three most prominent roles - all being male, I am a bit surprised he didn't put a woman (probably Eagle) in somewhere more prominent. I suppose he had to show some continuity, giving little choice other than Benn, and Burnham had to be there, giving him rather less wriggle room.



He hasn't appointed any black, disabled (AFAIK) or openly gay people either but the media won't be jumping on that tomorrow.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

giving Angela Eagle business is a bit of a surprise, low key for a central supporter. Tories will just love her.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

oryx said:


> He hasn't appointed any black, disabled (AFAIK) or openly gay people either but the media won't be jumping on that tomorrow.


Seema Malhotra As shadow chief secretary to the treasury. Ohh, and Angela Eagle, or is that Maria? (e2a - it's Angela)


----------



## marty21 (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> No women in the biggest appointments, that'll be held against him.


True , but 2 possibles refused to serve on his shadow cabinet .


----------



## J Ed (Sep 13, 2015)

Corbyn appoints IRA Queen


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

marty21 said:


> True , but 2 possibles refused to serve on his shadow cabinet .


Yvette Cooper and who?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 13, 2015)

Martin Rowson on David Cameron's 'Corbyn is a threat to national security' claim – cartoon


----------



## marty21 (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Yvette Cooper and who?


Kendall


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Kendall


Nope, doesn't ring a bell.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 13, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> You may laugh, but once, after an unfortunate setting-oneself-on-fire incident at a festival, I was led to the nearest first aid post. A _herbal_ first aid post. Apart from being unable to figure out how to turn on the lights in their tent, they also manage to pour essential oils into my eyes because it was too dark to see what they were doing
> 
> /tangent


[tangent]
I probably know who was running that herbal first aid post too.... tbf they're herbalists not homeopaths, and also are fully trained first aiders. [/tanget]


----------



## red & green (Sep 13, 2015)

Thinking about  it Falconer prob there amongst other things to challenge th odious Gove on human rights act abolition


----------



## existentialist (Sep 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> Nope, doesn't ring a bell.


It's not like she's really important or anything, anyway.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Labour didn't lose in 1984 because of Michael Foot. That's a myth put about by the Tory press and Nu Labour revisionists. It lost because of the Falklands and Thatcher channelling Churchill. Foot was actually quite popular and Labour was doing well in the polls until the Falklands.



A tale doing the rounds on the picket lines 84-85 was that if Exocets had been more effective and more Royal Navy ships were lost she would have disappeared from the pages of history.
Perhaps then we may have still had some industries to keep austerity and strife from the doors of millions of workers. Jeremy Corbyn could have been a front bencher for the last thirty years!


----------



## rekil (Sep 13, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Tories are already banging on about McDonnell being pro-IRA, question is does anyone give a shit about the IRA anymore even if they believe it?


Sinn Fein have been called marxists etc here constantly but their poll figures just get better, around 20% atm. I've suggested that it might be more productive to bang on about how they're just another Labour and will fold similarly. Sometimes I feel that half the posters on here could do a better job of attacking Labour than tories do tbh.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> No women in the biggest appointments, that'll be held against him.



Is the whip not a big appointment?


----------



## Humberto (Sep 14, 2015)

Gromit said:


> Is the whip not a big appointment?



Are you excited?


----------



## gosub (Sep 14, 2015)

Gromit said:


> Is the whip not a big appointment?


the big 3 are Exchequer, Home, Foreign.  with Home being the hospital pass


----------



## Humberto (Sep 14, 2015)

gosub said:


> the big 3 are Exchequer, Home, Foreign.  with Home being the hospital pass



No its not.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

I have no problem with anything he has said but I am starting to think that appointing John McDonnell was a mistake, it really does just give the Tories so much to work with in terms of foreign policy and culture war bullshit.


----------



## Humberto (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I have no problem with anything he has said but I am starting to think that appointing John McDonnell was a mistake, it really does just give the Tories so much to work with in terms of foreign policy and culture war bullshit.



Tories are getting spanked at the minute.


----------



## gosub (Sep 14, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Tories are getting spanked at the minute.



__________C  L  LD U






 13 Aug  38 33 6 15 Con +5





 13 Aug  40 29 8 13 Con +11





 9 Aug	40 31 7 10 Con +9





 26 Jul   40 28 7 10 Con +12


----------



## red & green (Sep 14, 2015)

Abbot moved to international development - wonder who will get DWP?


----------



## Humberto (Sep 14, 2015)

gosub said:


> 13 Aug 38 33 6 15 Con +5
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What does that say? I don't know.


----------



## gosub (Sep 14, 2015)

Humberto said:


> What does that say? I don't know.


That the party you claim is getting "spanked at the moment" is averaging a 9% lead over the last 4 opinion polls


----------



## Humberto (Sep 14, 2015)

I'm gonna call fuckwit


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 14, 2015)

Humberto said:


> I'm gonna call fuckwit



Ach, no need to be so harsh on yourself. Not everyone can read a badly formatted table.


----------



## Humberto (Sep 14, 2015)

shit happens

it was a poor effort


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

gosub said:


> That the party you claim is getting "spanked at the moment" is averaging a 9% lead over the last 4 opinion polls


those ever reliable polls that told us millipede was in like flynn you mean?


----------



## gosub (Sep 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> those ever reliable polls that told us millipede was in like flynn you mean?


Hmm, coz in the period since Labour weren't popular enough to win an election, all everyone's been talking about is how impressive Labour have been....


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

nope, people have been talking up c-byn. Different to thinking lab has a chance. A leader is not a party.


----------



## Humberto (Sep 14, 2015)

gosub can't say anything and never bothered before

Nows your time...


----------



## Humberto (Sep 14, 2015)

wtf? yes


----------



## marty21 (Sep 14, 2015)

gosub said:


> Hmm, coz in the period since Labour weren't popular enough to win an election, all everyone's been talking about is how impressive Labour have been....


Any polls since Corbyn was elected?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 14, 2015)

> But the other leadership candidates Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall, as well as Ms Creagh, Tristram Hunt, Rachel Reeves, Chris Leslie, Jamie Reed, Emma Reynolds and Shabana Mahmood said they would not serve in Mr Corbyn's shadow cabinet.


Jeremy Corbyn gives top jobs to John McDonnell and Andy Burnham - BBC News
barely heard of half of these, I doubt they'll be missed.


----------



## JHE (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Any polls since Corbyn was elected?


A 'snap poll' by Survation for the Mail:  Poll says Labour will lose next two elections

Curiously, either the pollsters didn't ask the standard sort of question (something like _Who would you vote for if there were a general election tomorrow?)_ or the Mail has chosen to omit the result (possibly because it showed no or little change and so doesn't really support the disaster-for-Labour interpretation).

Anyway, here are some results the Mail provides:


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Tories are already banging on about McDonnell being pro-IRA, question is does anyone give a shit about the IRA anymore even if they believe it?



It's a nuanced appointment. The key thing that stopped Milliband breaking through in important English LAB-CON marginals like Nuneaton was that the Shadow Cabinet was insufficiently pro-IRA.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

JHE said:


> A 'snap poll' by Survation for the Mail:  Poll says Labour will lose next two elections
> 
> Curiously, either the pollsters didn't ask the standard sort of question (something like _Who would you vote for if there were a general election tomorrow?)_ or the Mail has chosen to omit the result (possibly because it showed no or little change and so doesn't really support the disaster-for-Labour interpretation).



I'm struggling to see the disaster-for-Labour narrative even in most of those figures. Over 25% of respondents _to a Mail poll_ think Corbyn would make a better PM than Cameron. And nearly a fifth are more likely to vote Labour since Corbyn's election. Be interesting to see how that compares to the proportion of Mail readers who transferred support (or considered it) to Blair back in 94/5.

And as you say, we don't know how many even less persuasively anti-Corbyn results they chose to lose down the back of the sofa.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Labour didn't lose in 1984 because of Michael Foot. That's a myth put about by the Tory press and Nu Labour revisionists. It lost because of the Falklands and Thatcher channelling Churchill. Foot was actually quite popular and Labour was doing well in the polls until the Falklands.


no one lost in 1984 as no election


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I'm struggling to see the disaster-for-Labour narrative even in most of those figures. Over 25% of respondents _to a Mail poll_ think Corbyn would make a better PM than Cameron. And nearly a fifth are more likely to vote Labour since Corbyn's election. Be interesting to see how that compares to the proportion of Mail readers who transferred support (or considered it) to Blair back in 94/5.
> 
> And as you say, we don't know how many even less persuasively anti-Corbyn results they chose to lose down the back of the sofa.


Its a survation poll, so not of mail readers. Either way, the numbers dont look particularly bad to me.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

JHE said:


> A 'snap poll' by Survation for the Mail:  Poll says Labour will lose next two elections
> 
> Curiously, either the pollsters didn't ask the standard sort of question (something like _Who would you vote for if there were a general election tomorrow?)_ or the Mail has chosen to omit the result (possibly because it showed no or little change and so doesn't really support the disaster-for-Labour interpretation).
> 
> Anyway, here are some results the Mail provides:



Some weird questions in there. Especially the second one.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Its a survation poll, so not of mail readers. Either way, the numbers dont look particularly bad to me.



Ok, yes, but there's a reason polls for newspapers tend to bolster that newspaper's editorial line. If those are the cherry-picked most convincing results that the Mail felt were worth publicising from a poll they themselves commissioned, that's quite revealing.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 14, 2015)

It's all to play for. As the public get used to the new figures involved then if the policies and delivery of them are right the polls will shoot up when the Tories cock it up


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

I wonder how today will go in parliament with this debate starting.
Trade Union Bill: Commons to debate government plans - BBC News




How many labour MPs will abstain on this when it comes to a vote?


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> It's all to play for. As the public get used to the new figures involved then if the policies and delivery of them are right the polls will shoot up when the Tories cock it up



I'm actually a bit surprised by how cack-handed the Tories are being atm. Best tactic is to pose as the serious statesmen and dismember his policies while letting the right-wing press off the leash for personal attacks, not drivel about him being a "threat to national security." It just makes them sound panicky. 

I suppose it's been a while since they had to deal with someone who didn't just nod along while muttering "but we should look a bit doleful about it."


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

The commentariat are simultaneously pushing the idea that Corbyn now hates women _and _Jews on the basis of his appointments or non-appointments, they really are willing to say anything about him.


----------



## LDC (Sep 14, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> ...not drivel about him being a "threat to national security." It just makes them sound panicky.



I _really_ hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid given the current situation the sad thing is I think that 'national security threat' is going to actually work for quite a significant section of the population.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2015)

He isn't wrong, you know...


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 14, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I _really_ hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid given the current situation the sad thing is I think that 'national security threat' is going to actually work for quite a significant section of the population.



Mostly that section is core Tory though, I can't see it making much impact outside them long-term, especially when Corbyn's "new democracy" gives him an out on the pacifist side of things.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The commentariat are simultaneously pushing the idea that Corbyn now hates women _and _Jews on the basis of his appointments or non-appointments, they really are willing to say anything about him.



Apparently he is going to abolish the Army according to the headline on the sun, haven't read article of course and wouldn't post link even if able.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2015)

I think McDonnell's going to batter Osborne at the dispatch box. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The commentariat are simultaneously pushing the idea that Corbyn now hates women _and _Jews on the basis of his appointments or non-appointments, they really are willing to say anything about him.


There are no 'mixed race' people in the cabinet. Perhaps I should complain that Corbyn's being racist.


----------



## LDC (Sep 14, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Mostly that section is core Tory though, I can't see it making much impact outside them long-term, especially when Corbyn's "new democracy" gives him an out on the pacifist side of things.



Yeah, generally I think you're right, but there's something deeply fucked up and horrible going on culturally with fear and anxiety in the UK at the moment that crosses party (and other) lines. I've heard a fair few people that I wouldn't consider core Tories express concerns related to this. Anecdotal stuff I know, but there's some funny things going on, and even though this national security thing is laughable, we need to be careful not to dismiss it as well IMO. (And I don't mean pander to it, I mean robustly counter it rather than just laugh at it.) And the Tories know this when they're coming out with this, it isn't flailing around, they know it does chime with some people IMO.

I think one of the issues that the left (of all shades) has to deal with is the reality that politics is largely emotional and practical rather than logical for most people. Anyway, that's another topic...


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I think McDonnell's going to batter Osborne at the dispatch box. I'm looking forward to it.



Hopefully in the same manner Tom Swain did to Norman Tebbit!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> It's all to play for. As the public get used to the new figures involved then if the policies and delivery of them are right the polls will shoot up when the Tories cock it up


That's my take.  tories have just won an election so haven't had time to become unpopular yet among those that voted for them. One striking aspect of the poll is the number of don't knows.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Hopefully in the same manner Tom Swain did to Norman Tebbit!


Now that I'd like to see!


----------



## Stay Beautiful (Sep 14, 2015)

*Luke Akehurst* ‏@lukeakehurst  1d1 day ago
If this wasn't the Shadow Chancellor you wanted, you really need to join Labour First's email list http://eepurl.com/Nzh75

LOL! That'll show 'em!


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 14, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think one of the issues that the left (of all shades) has to deal with is the reality that politics is largely emotional and practical rather than logical for most people. Anyway, that's another topic...



Its all those things for everyone, not one or the other for anyone.


----------



## LDC (Sep 14, 2015)

OK OK I was being simplistic, of course it's all those things for everyone, but I think largely people try and engage on the logical and forget the others, and that's a part of the failure to make gains IMO.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's in a strange position. Enormous support from the party, huge mandate, and yet hardly any support from other MPs.
> 
> Burnham was bound to get a job, I would have thought.



Yup. He did get 20% or so of the leadership vote, so it's fair to give him a role. Cooper might well have been in if she'd wanted to be (but Kendall, no way).

The Beeb article about the appointments is unsurprisingly biased. Can abrely find a positive thing to say about any of them and if you believed them then John McDonnell is the anti-christ.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 14, 2015)

Slightly off topic but that national security tweet of Camerons has been met with derision. The Huff Post has a list of their favourite ones and it's even been published in the comedy section


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

Everything Cameron('s spad) posts on twitter is greeted with derision. The responses there are meaningless.

Re: Cooper, she has taken a role - something to do with refugees I think?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

Stay Beautiful said:


> *Luke Akehurst* ‏@lukeakehurst  1d1 day ago
> If this wasn't the Shadow Chancellor you wanted, you really need to join Labour First's email list http://eepurl.com/Nzh75
> 
> LOL! That'll show 'em!



I signed up, hopefully I can make clear my distress at McDonnell's silence on a major alien mothership landing pad infrastructure building programme


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

this article in the mirror is an interesting read re: 'national security'

This is why David Cameron called Jeremy Corbyn a threat to national security


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

'Shit off you ham mannequin.' made me laugh. Lol at 'meaningless' its twitter ffs, thats a given


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Lol at 'meaningless' its twitter ffs, thats a given


Sure, but if a twitter reaction scraping article is being posted as evidence that the attack has been ridiculed, then I think it's probably necessary to point it out.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Slightly off topic but that national security tweet of Camerons has been met with derision. The Huff Post has a list of their favourite ones and it's even been published in the comedy section



I'd seen the shed one (awesome) but hadn't seen the drone strike one so thanks for link.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 14, 2015)

I just thought some of them were amusing that's all, and not all that happens on Twitter is meaningless.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> I just thought some of them were amusing that's all, and not all that happens on Twitter is meaningless.



The fact Cameron posted the message in the first place is far from meaningless.

Trying to scare the electorate by making use of the sort of language you'd use for terrorists.

Looks like a desperate act of someone who is scared themselves... of losing power that is.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

As fun as it is to see Hamface Dave get mocked over twatter, I imagine a more reliable tool for gauging political opinion is the sniffing of my own turds, or possibly the seeking of wisdom of rogue squirrels in the local park.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 14, 2015)

It's the norwegian blue parrot politics


----------



## JHE (Sep 14, 2015)

Pablo Iglesias, the pony-tailed leader of Podemos, has an article about Corbyn in today's Guardian and El País.

Pablo Iglesias:  Jeremy Corbyn, welcome to Europe’s fight against austerity

Edited to correct description of PI's hairstyle.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

JHE said:


> Pablo Iglesias, the pig-tailed leader of Podemos, has an article about Corbyn in today's Guardian and El País.
> 
> Pablo Iglesias:  Jeremy Corbyn, welcome to Europe’s fight against austerity


pony tail. Pg tails is two bits of hair at the side pony is one at the back.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I wonder how much articul8 has had to drink today


I've just about sobered up now.


----------



## JHE (Sep 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> pony tail. Pg tails is two bits of hair at the side pony is one at the back.



You are absolutely right.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

some interesting analysis here: “Unelectable”: the most meaningless word in Britain | @robfahey


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I _really_ hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid given the current situation the sad thing is I think that 'national security threat' is going to actually work for quite a significant section of the population.



The thing is, the Conservatives' recent experience of endlessly parroting the same line on the Labour party regardless of how little it stands up to scrutiny would lead them to fully expect it to work - it's been working just fine for them over the last few years of 'Labour caused the economic downturn'.  

But that was in the context of an LP which utterly failed to (i) take the fight to the Tories over that narrative or (ii) speak in anything resembling human language to people more widely in a way that might enable them to convey an alternative narrative.  I heard Priti Patel repeat Cameron's text almost word for word three times, in response to three questions none of which it came even close to answering, on BBC News on Saturday. I was struck by how much more vacuous and insulting that kind of politician-speak is going to sound if there's someone in a prominent position actually talking vaguely normal.

We shall see whether JC will be the saviour of the LP, never mind 'The Left', in the longer term, but at least, thank fuck, it looks like we will have an official opposition that is willing to actually challenge some of the Goverment's neo-liberal bullshit assumptions for the first time.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> some interesting analysis here: “Unelectable”: the most meaningless word in Britain | @robfahey



Not a bad analysis. It's pretty funny watching opposition front-bench Blairite and Brownite arseholes refusing to serve the 'unelectable' man who has just beaten three of their own in an election by an almost unprecedented margin.


----------



## ffsear (Sep 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> real world just voted a leftie in for labour leader. You claim to have three quidded to the cause. You could have had a cone of chips and a can of stella. Its not you I feel for, you are grown and make your own decisions. Its the children. They'll be torn between clubbing together for ten benson or joining the labour party under a childs slate system. I fear for the future I really do.





sorry,  i was v.drunk on sat evening!


----------



## Diamond (Sep 14, 2015)

Even a couple of days later, and despite the evident success of Corbyn's campaign, taking a step back, this all doesn't really make sense to me...

The wrong Miliband lead to Corbyn and then almost certainly to electoral suicide.

Fair enough - Corbyn won a democratic landlside in the Labour movement but the suggestion that he might persuade the wider franchise to vote for him on his current platform and with his record, let alone keeping control of the PLP, is simply ludicrous.  Politics is the art of the possible etc...


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 14, 2015)

Fuck off Dwiamond.


----------



## greenfield (Sep 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Even a couple of days later, and despite the evident success of Corbyn's campaign, taking a step back, this all doesn't really make sense to me...
> 
> The wrong Miliband lead to Corbyn and then almost certainly to electoral suicide.
> 
> Fair enough - Corbyn won a democratic landlside in the Labour movement but the suggestion that he might persuade the wider franchise to vote for him on his current platform and with his record, let alone keeping control of the PLP, is simply ludicrous.  Politics is the art of the possible etc...



Fuck off Diamond


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> We shall see whether JC will be the saviour of the LP, never mind 'The Left', in the longer term, but at least, thank fuck, it looks like we will have an official opposition that is willing to actually challenge some of the Goverment's neo-liberal bullshit assumptions for the first time.



wether or not he can win in 2020 doesn't bother me but if he can articulate a message against the depressing 30 years of market worshipping shit I've had on my tele that'll do


Diamond said:


> is simply ludicrous.


you'll have to say why. You could say 'theres an outside chance he'll win but theres no way capital would allow him his head, it'll be syzria mk 2' and I'd think 'he's got an argument here'

but just saying 'ludicrous' does not an argument make


----------



## JHE (Sep 14, 2015)

ffsear said:


> sorry,  i was v.drunk on sat evening!



Don't worry about it.  Once the extremist teetotal veggy cyclist is in No 10, your problems will be solved, whether you like it or not.  The strongest thing you will have access to on a Saturday night is organic carrot juice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2015)

It misses the point to think that people are pleased with JC's victory because it makes Labour more electable. 

It possibly makes Labour worth electing. That's all - a small step, really, but a necessary first one.


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2015)

> ...this all doesn't really make sense to me...



Quoted for truth


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

JHE said:


> Don't worry about it.  Once the extremist teetotal veggy cyclist is in No 10, your problems will be solved, whether you like it or not.  The strongest thing you will have access to on a Saturday night is organic carrot juice.



((( won't somebody think of the carrots! )))


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

JHE said:


> Don't worry about it.  Once the extremist teetotal veggy cyclist is in No 10, your problems will be solved, whether you like it or not.  The strongest thing you will have access to on a Saturday night is organic carrot juice.


 but free beard combs and oils for everyone


----------



## Smangus (Sep 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Politics is the art of the possible etc...


 
Up until relatively recently most everyone  thought that Corbyn winning the leadership was not possible, so what kind of idiotic stance is that?


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It misses the point to think that people are pleased with JC's victory because it makes Labour more electable.
> 
> It possibly makes Labour worth electing. That's all - a small step, really, but a necessary first one.


Plus people might be pleased because of the evident annoyance, sulks, vitriol and general temper tantrums. Which are very entertaining.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 14, 2015)

and still nothing from Tony Blair, he must be either really shitting it or sulking big time


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> and still nothing from Tony Blair, he must be either really shitting it or sulking big time



Probably somewhere being comforted by the ex-wife of a media mogul...


----------



## teqniq (Sep 14, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> and still nothing from Tony Blair, he must be either really shitting it or sulking big time


Maybe even both. One can only but hope.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> and still nothing from Tony Blair, he must be either really shitting it or sulking big time


him and mandleson are locked in a dark room, eyes red rimmed and grimly silent as they work their way through the litre bottles of bells wisky


----------



## teqniq (Sep 14, 2015)

Bells? Not even something half-decent?


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> and still nothing from Tony Blair, he must be either really shitting it or sulking big time


Keeping his head down to minimise the risk of refugee crisis being laid at his door as ME policy comes home to roost.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Fuck off Dwiamond.


not enough likes


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Bells? Not even something half-decent?


The single malts were done by 6pm saturday


----------



## teqniq (Sep 14, 2015)




----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

I expect Blair has simply noted that his (openly expressed) views are no help to his allies, and decided to stfu.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The wrong Miliband lead to Corbyn and then almost certainly to electoral suicide.


It's "led". _Lead_ is something that goes in pencils, pencil neck.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I expect Blair has simply noted that his (openly expressed) views are no help to his allies, and decided to stfu.



i would agree, but i rather fear that Blairs delusional state means he can't accept it. i've no doubt that people who agree with him have been pleading with him to keep his gob shut for years, but he just can't grip that his words, regardless of what they actually are, just fire up a decent-sized section of the electorate to do precisely the opposite.

he's delusional. he was an excellent politician once, he knew what to say, what not to say, and when to do so. that natural talent doesn't just walk off, it has - imo - been driven out of his mind by whatever coping mechanism he's developed to manage his astonishment at going from the most electorally successful Labour leader _ever_, to being a revieled creature.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 14, 2015)

Gleaned from facebook:

 Take a look at these figures:
Yvette Cooper: 355,357
Andy Burnham: 247,522
Liz Kendall: 233,175
Jeremy Corbyn: 157,812
These are pounds spent by the candidates on their election campaign. Seems like one candidagte was value for money!

And

So this makes;

Liz Kendall spent £12.37 per vote she got.
Yvette Cooper spent £4.97 per vote.
Andy Burnham spent £3.08 per vote.
Jeremy Corbyn spent 63 pence per vote.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

He travelled everywhere by train I believe. When he visited Preston he also walked from the train station to the venue (a 15 minute walk).


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

(over a river  )


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I expect Blair has simply noted that his (openly expressed) views are no help to his allies, and decided to stfu.


I'm guessing people have just stopped asking him.

Strikes me that he'll talk to anyone any time, and pays no heed whatever to the effect his talking might have on anyone or anything other than himself and his own interests.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I expect Blair has simply noted that his (openly expressed) views are no help to his allies, and decided to stfu.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm guessing people have just stopped asking him.


you think they've not been chasing him for a comment the last few days? They had to wheel out Charles Clark on Today this morning, they'd love Blair to break cover...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Bells? Not even something half-decent?



I reckon Blair drinks Teacher's, cunt that he is.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 14, 2015)

I reckon they both just stick to Cocktails or something, whiskey would be to good for em.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> you think they've not been chasing him for a comment the last few days? They had to wheel out Charles Clark on Today this morning, they'd love Blair to break cover...


I guess so. But Blair got a full front page in The Observer last week. When he talks, his vainglory demands that kind of profile. Is he being offered that now?


----------



## laptop (Sep 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> him and mandleson are locked in a dark room



Which reminds me of a scurrilous rumour from 1997... who else was supposed to have been in that office, then?


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2015)

> Sky’s Darren McCaffrey doorstepped Jeremy Corbyn as Corbyn was leaving the House of Commons last night after working on his reshuffle. It was not a full-on, Gobby-style, ‘Are you going to resign?’ job, but it irritated Corbyn, who refused to engage with McCaffrey’s questions.
> 
> Benn says Labour ruling out backing an out vote in EU referendum - Politics live




Corbyn avoiding questions from journalists, he is going to be door-stepped a whole lot more, good job he has grown up children, etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> Experience. Maybe Starmer said no, or he's saving him for Attorney General.



TBF, I suspect that Corbyn/his advisors took a look at Starmer's ambitions and his friends, and thought "nah, he'll turn on Corbyn as soon as he's got his feet under the table". A position where he can be controlled, fine. One where he can freewheel though, not fine. Falconer may be a Blairite, but he's also pragmatic and no longer ambitious for himself - a safer pair of hands than Starmer for the time being (he's held the shadow justice brief adequately), as well as signalling to the Progressites that Blairites won't be defenestrated, as long as they "get with the programme".


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I guess so. But Blair got a full front page in The Observer last week. When he talks, his vainglory demands that kind of profile. Is he being offered that now?


Its tony Blair, he can whatever front page he wants ffs.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 14, 2015)

Nick Ferrari was bitching that Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson wouldnt speak to him or the rest of lbc from what i can tell due to him applying and getting a vote ( which he pleaded he did not use ).

I say good luck to them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> No women in the biggest appointments, that'll be held against him.



Well, a couple of the provenly able women had already ruled themselves out of serving in a Corbyn shadow cabinet, so what was he supposed to do,engage in tokenism? 
I expect the media to milk it, though!


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2015)

Caroline Flint now refuses to serve in J/C Cabinet, still going on about welfare to work, she is obsessed with hounding people.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, a couple of the provenly able women had already ruled themselves out of serving in a Corbyn shadow cabinet, so what was he supposed to do,engage in tokenism?
> I expect the media to milk it, though!



A couple of provenly able women and Rachel Reeves.


----------



## LDC (Sep 14, 2015)

International left distracted by shiny new object


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> Caroline Flint now refuses to serve in J/C Cabinet, still going on about welfare to work, she is obsessed with hounding people.



I expect he's delighted that he's under no obligation to give her a job. She's a nasty piece of work and a blatant careerist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> International left distracted by shiny new object



Libcom have managed to stop purging people for long enough to create some actual content I see.

A pity it's the sort of content Buzzfeed would reject as far too smug and completely lacking in originality or wit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Its tony Blair, he can whatever front page he wants ffs.


Yesterday's man puffing impotently? Not that attractive as a paper-seller.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> International left distracted by shiny new object


when did lobon become a poor mans daily mash? thats just making the obvious syzira point in an unfunny way. Good photo of c-byn in the lenin hat tho


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2015)

Sad to see the headlines on the newspaper racks today. Smear, smear, smear.

I liked that JC told journalists off in his speech. I hope he continues to do so.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yesterday's man puffing impotently? Not that attractive as a paper-seller.


Yeah, that's why he got the observer front page last week. 

The media are hassling any old labour beast they can find for a negative comment - Blair remains the biggest. If he's silent (as, I note are Campbell, brown and mandelson, unless I've missed something) its because he's chosen not to, not because they aren't asking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The commentariat are simultaneously pushing the idea that Corbyn now hates women _and _Jews on the basis of his appointments or non-appointments, they really are willing to say anything about him.



((((( frogwoman )))))


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I expect he's delighted that he's under no obligation to give her a job. She's a nasty piece of work and a blatant careerist.



And a Fabian as well as one of the 98 MPs who voted to keep their expenses secret.
It would be tedious having to see her and her entourage of camera carriers every time she attended a meeting too!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Yeah, that's why he got the observer front page last week.


Yes, last week he got The Observer front page. This week, are they, or anyone else he'd accept, offering similar?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> Caroline Flint now refuses to serve in J/C Cabinet, still going on about welfare to work, she is obsessed with hounding people.



That's a bit like Vinnie Jones ruling himself out of coaching your five-year-old child's school football team.  Only a thorough-going cunt would be anything other than delighted.


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2015)

I think Corbyn is taking his time over Works and Pensions Shadow, hopefully its because this is now one of the most important and strategic posts and affects millions.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

Benn says Labour ruling out backing an out vote in EU referendum - Politics live



> The phone calls continued but defence seemed like it had been settled.
> 
> It had been offered to Chris Bryant.
> 
> ...



LOL... Britain invade Russia. On another fucking planet.


----------



## JHE (Sep 14, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> International left distracted by shiny new object



If it weren't for this distraction, the "international left" would be focused on... a bookfair in a London art college?


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

JHE said:


> If it weren't for this distraction, the "international left" would be focused on... a bookfair in a London art college?


They've gone up market now to trendy KingsX


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

Full list of shadow cabinet announced now, these are the latest announcements

Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Owen Smith MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

Maria Eagle MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Shadow Minister for the Constitutional Convention

Jon Trickett MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Lisa Nandy MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Transport

Lilian Greenwood MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Wales

Nia Griffith MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Kerry McCarthy MP

Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities

Kate Green MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Michael Dugher MP

Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Registration

Gloria De Piero MP

Shadow Minister for Mental Health

Luciana Berger MP

Shadow Attorney General

Catherine McKinnell MP

Shadow Minister without Portfolio

Jonathan Ashworth MP

Shadow Minister for Housing and Planning

John Healey MP


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

With a majority female shadow cabinet are they about to start claiming that he hates men now?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

No Diane Abbot then?

e2a: She's been given international development.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, last week he got The Observer front page. This week, are they, or anyone else he'd accept, offering similar?


If that's what he wanted, of course.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

Talk about projection


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

*


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 14, 2015)

I wanted to see Rushanara Ali in there. She's been a good local M.P, voted the right way on Syria and nominated Corbyn, surprised not to see her in tbh


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> With a majority female shadow cabinet are they about to start claiming that he hates men now?



Of course they will, if Corbyn had a farm full of golden egg laying geese and he gave the proceeds to the NHS, they would moan that he didn't serve roast goose to the poor.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> No Diane Abbot then?
> 
> e2a: She's been given international development.



Those are just the newest appointments, her appointment was announced earlier


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2015)

How come the parachuted Luciana Berger got a post, Corbyn's followers are not going to be happy with many of these appointments.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Of course they will, if Corbyn had a farm full of golden egg laying geese and he gave the proceeds to the NHS, they would moan that he didn't serve roast goose to the poor.



Analogy of the month


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> How come the parachuted Luciana Berger got a post, Corbyn's followers are not going to be happy with many of these appointments.



Her name just makes me think of Lucrezia Borgia.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

The actual full list:

Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Party Chair and Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office

Tom Watson MP

Shadow First Secretary of State, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Angela Eagle MP

Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

John McDonnell MP

Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Seema Malhotra MP

Shadow Home Secretary

Andy Burnham MP

Shadow Foreign Secretary

Hilary Benn MP

Opposition Chief Whip

Rosie Winterton MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Health

Heidi Alexander MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Education

Lucy Powell MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Owen Smith MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

Maria Eagle MP

Shadow Lord Chancellor, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Shadow Minister for the Constitutional Convention

Jon Trickett MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Lisa Nandy MP

Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

Chris Bryant MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Transport

Lilian Greenwood MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

Vernon Coaker MP

Shadow Secretary of State for International Development

Diane Abbott MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland

Ian Murray MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Wales

Nia Griffith MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Kerry McCarthy MP

Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities

Kate Green MP

Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Michael Dugher MP

Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Registration

Gloria De Piero MP

Shadow Minister for Mental Health

Luciana Berger MP

Shadow Leader of the House of Lords

Baroness Smith of Basildon

Lords Chief Whip

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Shadow Attorney General

Catherine McKinnell MP

Shadow Minister without Portfolio

Jonathan Ashworth MP

Shadow Minister for Housing and Planning

John Healey MP

Other Announcements:

Yvette Cooper will continue her work on bringing together councils, faith groups, and community groups to respond to the refugee crisis. She will chair Labour’s task force on refugees.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> How come the parachuted Luciana Berger got a post, Corbyn's followers are not going to be happy with many of these appointments.


Because he can't just appoint the people that backed him, like it or not the Labour party is a broad church and it would be idiotic of him not to at least try to reach out beyond his 20 supporters in the PLP.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Shadow Secretary of State for Defence
> 
> Maria Eagle MP


A woman Shadow Defense Secretary. Now there's a first. Hey, Suzanne Moore! Have you seen this?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

For all those that say there aren't enough birds in the shadow cabinet, I point you to the two eagles and a falconer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i would agree, but i rather fear that Blairs delusional state means he can't accept it. i've no doubt that people who agree with him have been pleading with him to keep his gob shut for years, but he just can't grip that his words, regardless of what they actually are, just fire up a decent-sized section of the electorate to do precisely the opposite.
> 
> he's delusional. he was an excellent politician once, *he knew what to say, what not to say, and when to do so*. that natural talent doesn't just walk off, it has - imo - been driven out of his mind by whatever coping mechanism he's developed to manage his astonishment at going from the most electorally successful Labour leader _ever_, to being a revieled creature.



You've just described an actor.


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> How come the parachuted Luciana Berger got a post, Corbyn's followers are not going to be happy with many of these appointments.


somewhat surprising, but she has campaigned around mental health issues a lot, and having that post in a shadow cabinet is pretty fucking good


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> (over a river  )



Blatantly letting people know that he isn't a vampire.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've just described an actor.



no, an actor is given such lines by a writer, and told when to say them by a director - Blair managed the while, 'walking, talking and chewing gum' stuff on his own.

which, for a politician...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I expect he's delighted that he's under no obligation to give her a job. She's a nasty piece of work and a blatant careerist.



Frankly, after her boasting about how she'd steer Corbyn if she won the deputy-leader election, his advisors would have gone in hard to convince him to leave her out in the cold.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2015)

kebabking said:


> no, an actor is given such lines by a writer, and told when to say them by a director - Blair managed the while, 'walking, talking and chewing gum' stuff on his own.
> 
> which, for a politician...



Nope, most of Blair's best moments were scripted, and ruthlessly drilled into him by his press office (a bad habit he learned from Clinton).


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2015)

Owen Smith at DWP, he will be watched closely, can't find too much about his opinions.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, most of Blair's best moments were scripted, and ruthlessly drilled into him by his press office (a bad habit he learned from Clinton).



na, he was better than that - ruthlessly scripted by _his_ press office, made by him in his image, and he did the strategic direction stuff. certainly he put minions to work scripting this or that, but it was Blair who set the objective, what the parameters were, and who either ok'ed what was said or binned it and required a re-write. he was not infalliable, but to claim the whole of his political (in the narrow sense of the word) skill was purely (or even substantially) the work of others is to fall for a characature.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> How come the parachuted Luciana Berger got a post, Corbyn's followers are not going to be happy with many of these appointments.


She's Jewish and a woman, so that's 2 for 1 on the Intersectionality bingo card. 
But yet fuck's nows how she got in.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> somewhat surprising, but she has campaigned around mental health issues a lot, and having that post in a shadow cabinet is pretty fucking good


Bering the only one I have ever encountered in the wild (well an NUS conference I was drafted up to when I was in the SWP) I have a real hatred of her.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

emanymton said:


> Bering the only one I have ever encountered in the wild (well an NUS conference I was drafted up to when I was in the SWP) I have a real hatred of her.



Why?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Her name just makes me think of Lucrezia Borgia.



The Jewish Chronicle will be along in a minute to accuse you of anti-Semitism.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Why?


I can't even remember probably now. 
Mainly around the Israel/Palestinian issue, really pushing the all criticism of Israel is antisemitism line. But everything about her made my skin crawl. I am terrible with names but years latter hers is still clear in my mind and tied directly to hate. It's like an instinctive reaction. It must have been 10 years later when I next heard her name, and I immediately went God I fucking hate her.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> The Jewish Chronicle will be along in a minute to accuse you of anti-Semitism.



But Lucrezia Borgia was a catholic


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

What do we think? Are there enough remnants of the last few front benches (opposition and govt) for any possibility of 'uniting the party' to be realistic? Burnham's probably a good call and, to be fair, one of the less repellent figures of the party's recent past. Maybe Benn too - despite his last name his politics are pretty solidly New Labour.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 14, 2015)

Luciana Berger sounds too much like Lucretia Borgia for my liking.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Luciana Berger sounds too much like Lucretia Borgia for my liking.



It sounds more like Lucretia Borgia to me.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> they would moan that he didn't serve roast goose to the poor.



And if he did, he'd just be confirming that he's a patronising, do-gooding champagne socialist.


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

Shadow Defence Secretary who voted to retain Trident.

Fucking sellout bastard Corbyn


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Benn says Labour ruling out backing an out vote in EU referendum - Politics live
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Britain invade Russia. On another fucking planet.


Robert Silverburg could write the alt. history. It'd have to start with the horrible premise that the empire never died, there was no world wars and british dominance grew swollen to insane hieghts, cowed the US into a status of semi autonomus vassal state. Even then, its still wouldn't be going to be a walkover.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> Fucking sellout bastard Corbyn


48 hours. Not bad.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 14, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> What do we think? Are there enough remnants of the last few front benches (opposition and govt) for any possibility of 'uniting the party' to be realistic? Burnham's probably a good call and, to be fair, one of the less repellent figures of the party's recent past...



i don't think Burnham is a 'flag' in this matter - his flip-flopping on policy between Blair and Brown, and then Miliband, and _then_ the start of the leadership campaign, and _then _once Corbyn started making the running in the leadership campaign, suggests that Burham - like all used car salesmen - will say or think whatever he thinks people what him to say or think. he's not a 'moderate' brought into the big tent, he's a ventriloquists doll.

Maria Eagle at Defence, and Veron Croker at NI are perhaps better examples. how long they stay, given the big defence/FP issues coming in the next two years or so, will be illustrative.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

Just heard Tom Cheal (I think) talking to Stephen Kinnock about Corbyn, Kinnock jnr saying Militant Tendency, that was then this is now sort of response.
Then Tom Cheal says ( slight paraphrase)
'There is Stephen Kinnock whose father Neil booted out militant tendency in the early nineties and paved the way for Blair's victory in 97' 

OMG


----------



## marty21 (Sep 14, 2015)

There has been a lot of chatter on twitter about the lack of female representation in the big shadow cabinet jobs - which is fair enough - but as far as I can tell at least 6 female Labour MPs have refused to serve under Corbyn.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 14, 2015)

Sigh... going to be a long 5 years, a lot of piss-taking going on at work.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> There has been a lot of chatter on twitter about the lack of female representation in the big shadow cabinet jobs - which is fair enough - but as far as I can tell at least 6 female Labour MPs have refused to serve under Corbyn.



Maybe he should have forced them with the threat of Gulags and re-education that I am sure will be the next load of bollocks for the twats to spout!


----------



## marty21 (Sep 14, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Maybe he should have forced them with the threat of Gulags and re-education that I am sure will be the next load of bollocks for the twats to spout!


Who is the Shadow Minister for Gulags and Re-Education btw?


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Who is the Shadow Minister for Gulags and Re-Education btw?



Russell Brand


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> There has been a lot of chatter on twitter about the lack of female representation in the big shadow cabinet jobs - which is fair enough - but as far as I can tell at least 6 female Labour MPs have refused to serve under Corbyn.


BIS, Health, Education and Defence are big roles, aren't they?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

I've thought of another pro-trident argument from the PD position- why not let the capitalists and betrayers of the working class develop a nuclear weapons platform? Update the old equipment?

That way we'd not have to build a workers bomb but merely expropriate one that has already been built from the SLV stolen from the class in the first place?


----------



## redcogs (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> Shadow Defence Secretary who voted to retain Trident.
> 
> Fucking sellout bastard Corbyn



Who do you want, Ghandi?


----------



## marty21 (Sep 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> BIS, Health, Education and Defence are big roles, aren't they?


yep, but the media generally consider Home, Foreign, and Chancellor as the big ones


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> yep, but the media generally consider Home, Foreign, and Chancellor as the big ones


But first ever female Defence, 16 out of 31, and also Yvette Cooper continuing to head up refugee crisis. On balance I think it's pretty balanced given what you said about the numbers of women who deselected themselves.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Who is the Shadow Minister for Gulags and Re-Education btw?



Me, be quiet!


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Who do you want, Ghandi?


van der Lubbe


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

meanwhile, at least Seymour and Friend can keep us amused with their 'its still all shit' position - Pessimism after Corbyn | Salvage


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> meanwhile, at least Seymour and Friend can keep us amused with their 'its still all shit' position - Pessimism after Corbyn | Salvage


"your hope disgusts us"


----------



## marty21 (Sep 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> But first ever female Defence, 16 out of 31, and also Yvette Cooper continuing to head up refugee crisis. On balance I think it's pretty balanced given what you said about the numbers of women who deselected themselves.


get on twitter and tell them


----------



## redcogs (Sep 14, 2015)

The Dutch Guido Fawkes.  What a good choice.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

kebabking said:


> Burham - like all used car salesmen - will say or think whatever he thinks people what him to say or think. he's not a 'moderate' brought into the big tent, he's a ventriloquists doll.



I knew I recognised him from somewhere.


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> get on twitter and tell them


You jest


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Who do you want, Ghandi?



That unprincipled cunt?


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> meanwhile, at least Seymour and Friend can keep us amused with their 'its still all shit' position - Pessimism after Corbyn | Salvage


Seymour has a friend?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 14, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i don't think Burnham is a 'flag' in this matter - his flip-flopping on policy between Blair and Brown, and then Miliband, and _then_ the start of the leadership campaign, and _then _once Corbyn started making the running in the leadership campaign, suggests that Burham - like all used car salesmen - will say or think whatever he thinks people what him to say or think. he's not a 'moderate' brought into the big tent, he's a ventriloquists doll.
> 
> Maria Eagle at Defence, and Veron Croker at NI are perhaps better examples. how long they stay, given the big defence/FP issues coming in the next two years or so, will be illustrative.



Just to stress, I only said 'less repellent than some' of Burnham: that's about as fulsome as I'm willing to go. I'm not really sure what 'moderate' means in the Labour party context these days - 'whatever'll get us elected' seems to be the new 'centre ground', and to be considered anywhere to the right of that you have to be as rabid and swivel-eyed as Flint.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> BIS, Health, Education and Defence are big roles, aren't they?



Plus Angela Eagle is his deputy for taking PMQs when Cameron isn't there.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> But first ever female Defence, 16 out of 31, and also Yvette Cooper continuing to head up refugee crisis. On balance I think it's pretty balanced given what you said about the numbers of women who deselected themselves.



It's astonishing the number of right wing white men who suddenly care so very deeply about the rights of women and bme people.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> meanwhile, at least Seymour and Friend can keep us amused with their 'its still all shit' position - Pessimism after Corbyn | Salvage


this isn't a bad piece, once you get past all the _brainy_ words.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

He did a piece for jacobin that's pretty good too: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-labour-benn-kendall-blair-leadership/


----------



## free spirit (Sep 14, 2015)

There's not been enough laughing at Liz Kendall's 4.5% IMO.


----------



## agricola (Sep 14, 2015)

free spirit said:


> There's not been enough laughing at Liz Kendall's 4.5% IMO.



That is because it represents what the majority of the electorate thinks, at least according to the maquisards.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

free spirit said:


> There's not been enough laughing at Liz Kendall's 4.5% IMO.



For a split second during that excruciating moment when they had to read her result out, I felt kind of sorry for her. Then I just thought 'fuck it, your a tory' and continued laughing.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 14, 2015)

Can you re-size that fucking picture, cynicaleconomy?


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> He did a piece for jacobin that's pretty good too: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-labour-benn-kendall-blair-leadership/


that one is far better, and not just because it doesn't read like a sixth former trying to be clever


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

the value of an editor eh?


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> 48 hours. Not bad.



I refer you to this post made almost exactly 48 hours ago


andysays said:


> The backlash begins



Do keep up at the back


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> Owen Smith at DWP, he will be watched closely, can't find too much about his opinions.



yeah i was wondering what to make of that. Anyone know owt bout him?


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> yeah i was wondering what to make of that. Anyone know owt bout him?


fairly soft left, i think.  Abstained on the Welfare bill tho


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2015)

free spirit said:


> There's not been enough laughing at Liz Kendall's 4.5% IMO.



I remember thinking at the time "that's a lost deposit for Kendall..."


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)




----------



## agricola (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


>



no doubt we can all expect "Jeremy Corbyn and his Hitler cat" headlines tomorrow, then.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


>



So Mr Cameron we meet at last!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


>



Daily Maily caption: Jeremy Corbyn prepares to sacrifice a cat to his lord and master, Beelzebub.

Guardian caption: Jeremy Corybn prepares to sacrifice a cat to his lord and master, Michael Foot.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

You see that's the difference between Jeremy Corbyn and me.
At PMQ's he will put forward reasoned, calm and collected questions and responses, where as I would have a bag full of darts and be throwing them at the bastards opposite and some of those around me as hard as I possibly could!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> You see that's the difference between Jeremy Corbyn and me.
> At PMQ's he will put forward reasoned, calm and collected questions and responses, where as I would have a bag full of darts and be throwing them at the bastards opposite and some of those around me as hard as I possibly could!



If it's pub-themed weaponary you're after then you can't beat the old sock-and-snooker-balls IMO.


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> If it's pub-themed weaponary you're after then you can't beat the old sock-and-snooker-balls IMO.



The nuclear weapon of pub combat


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> If it's pub-themed weaponary you're after then you can't beat the old sock-and-snooker-balls IMO.



I fear I would be thwarted by their footmen and butlers!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> If it's pub-themed weaponary you're after then you can't beat the old sock-and-snooker-balls IMO.


bottle of whisky with beer towel fuse


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

I'm watching BBC Parliament (lol) for the first time in ages while doing the ironing. They are debating the trade union bill and I could be wrong but the Labour MPs seem a lot more emboldened than before and Sajid Javid looks rattled.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

That Javid has the job at all suggests to me that the Tories thought this would be a walkover, he's a total fucking lightweight - guess an angry left-wing leadership wasn't what they were planning for...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm watching BBC Parliament (lol) for the first time in ages while doing the ironing. They are debating the trade union bill and I could be wrong but the Labour MPs seem a lot more emboldened than before and Sajid Javid looks rattled.


they're focusing the outrage over jc's victory on the tories


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> bottle of whisky with beer towel fuse



My dear wife demonstrated how to do this on one of our first dates, I thought she's a keeper.


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

Labour narrowing the Tory poll lead already


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Sep 14, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Worth a re-visit?
> 
> A Very British Coup


A good book


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm watching BBC Parliament (lol) for the first time in ages while doing the ironing. They are debating the trade union bill and I could be wrong but the Labour MPs seem a lot more emboldened than before and Sajid Javid looks rattled.




Incredible to see John McDonnell on the front bench, had to pinch myself,

not that he shouldn't have been much earlier though, he is a smart operator.

I also note the Tory brayers are out in force, but now they will face some real opposition.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 14, 2015)

I think 2 things are really going to be the stretching point for Labour, thats Trident and the past record on Northern Ireland.

Going to be tough to convince people that at the very fucking least we can afford either decent gear for the troops *or* a deadman switch. NI they can't do a fucking thing about.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm watching BBC Parliament (lol) for the first time in ages while doing the ironing. They are debating the trade union bill and I could be wrong but the Labour MPs seem a lot more emboldened than before and Sajid Javid looks rattled.



I'm watching it too. So refreshing to see a labour party defending union rights without any shame whatsoever. I only wish I could see the faces of the careerist Blairite worms, wherever the fuck they are now.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> Incredible to see John McDonnell on the front bench, had to pinch myself,
> 
> not that he shouldn't have been much earlier though, he is a smart operator.
> 
> I also note the Tory brayers are out in force, but now they will face some real opposition.


Angela Eagle is doing an excellent job with the analysis of the Trades Union bill tearing it apart paragraph by paragraph. The carefully orchestrated interventions from the Labour benches are superb and the Tories do seem to be on the back foot. I am enjoying this a lot. What a pity it will not affect the final vote.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

Labours record on NI is delivering the Good Friday Agreement and ending the war. Yes thatch n major had begun the process but blair sealed the deal. Consider the GFA what you like ( I think its a lid on tensions that haven't died), its hardly something labour as a party can be taken to task for in the media. For a brief reading looks like they made the 'peace'. Walls. More potent might be the friend of hamas shite wrt c-byn personally but its not got much traction yet


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Even a couple of days later, and despite the evident success of Corbyn's campaign, taking a step back, this all doesn't really make sense to me...
> 
> The wrong Miliband lead to Corbyn and then almost certainly to electoral suicide.
> 
> Fair enough - Corbyn won a democratic landlside in the Labour movement but the suggestion that he might persuade the wider franchise to vote for him on his current platform and with his record, let alone keeping control of the PLP, is simply ludicrous.  Politics is the art of the possible etc...


Opinions, they say, are like arseholes. Everybody's got one, but nobody wants to look at anyone else's.

In some cases, such as this, there's an additional similarity.


----------



## laptop (Sep 14, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What a pity it will not affect the final vote.



I just found myself pondering whether it was possible to clone David Davis (bcs *"Trade Union Bill Has Echoes Of General Franco’s Fascist Dictatorship, Warns David Davis MP").*

*May I not, on balance, get what I wished for.*


----------



## kebabking (Sep 14, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> I think 2 things are really going to be the stretching point for Labour, thats Trident and the past record on Northern Ireland...



i don't think NI will have any effect whatsoever - though 'helpful' tweets congratulating Corbyn from Gerry and Martin will be reproduced _ad nauseum_ and won't do anything for his acceptability - the crux issues within Labour will be foreign affairs and defence, because its simply not going to be possible to have a policy that a straight majority of Labour MP's will hold to that comes within a million miles of what Corbyn/McDonnell will accept. the EU ref might well end up as damaging to labour discipline as it will to the tories, there'll be a Syria vote, SDSR15/16, at least one more Trident vote, and then a manifesto in 2020 that either 70% of Labour MP's will disown, or that ignores Corbyns views - in which case, why vote for him..

you can ask John Major about the effect of a widespread party disunity on a party's election chances...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> Labour narrowing the Tory poll lead already




Impossible. Labour are unelectable now. High priestess Toynbee said so.


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Angela Eagle is doing an excellent job with the analysis of the Trades Union bill tearing it apart paragraph by paragraph. The carefully orchestrated interventions from the Labour benches are superb and the Tories do seem to be on the back foot. I am enjoying this a lot. What a pity it will not affect the final vote.



Better (way better) than the craven performance of even a month or so ago.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2015)

It does feel like a coup.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

smartest I've seen corbyn there, tie and everyting. Mr Bic is still not his friend tho clearly, and I'm cool with that


----------



## Diamond (Sep 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> smartest I've seen corbyn there, tie and everyting. Mr Bic is still not his friend tho clearly, and I'm cool with that


 
Bit loose on the tie front to be frank.

Didn't Mandelson have a go at Brown one time for always getting his tie knot wrong?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 14, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i don't think NI will have any effect whatsoever - though 'helpful' tweets congratulating Corbyn from Gerry and Martin will be reproduced _ad nauseum_ and won't do anything for his acceptability - the crux issues within Labour will be foreign affairs and defence, because its simply not going to be possible to have a policy that a straight majority of Labour MP's will hold to that comes within a million miles of what Corbyn/McDonnell will accept. the EU ref might well end up as damaging to labour discipline as it will to the tories, there'll be a Syria vote, SDSR15/16, at least one more Trident vote, and then a manifesto in 2020 that either 70% of Labour MP's will disown, or that ignores Corbyns views - in which case, why vote for him..
> 
> you can ask John Major about the effect of a widespread party disunity on a party's election chances...


This genuinely puzzles me. Trident is an irrational thing to want. Strikes me as an emperor's new clothes situation where it just needs someone to point out its idiocy. Will there really be droves of Lab MPs staking their reputations (such as they may be) on backing Trident?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

I wouldn't know, I struggle to get a windsor correct


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bit loose on the tie front to be frank.
> 
> Didn't Mandelson have a go at Brown one time for always getting his tie knot wrong?


does anyone give a fuck?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It does feel like a coup.



Nice to see Diane enjoying her first front-bench nap in a few years.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This genuinely puzzles me. Trident is an irrational thing to want. Strikes me as an emperor's new clothes situation where it just needs someone to point out its idiocy. Will there really be droves of Lab MPs staking their reputations (such as they may be) on backing Trident?



Its an insane thing to think we need considering how close we are to the US and Europe, a far better idea for a deterrent would be an EU backed one, say UK, Germany, France with maybe a couple of others contributing.

Also, for once I have read the comments in a DM article without wanting to shoot myself or others. Its a sign of the end times and I look forward to seeing the four horsemen.

ANDREW PIERCE: How Corbyn has cost us all £3m... so far


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bit loose on the tie front to be frank.



David Cameron knows how to tie a tie properly, and he's a sociopath.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> David Cameron knows how to tie a tie properly, and he's a sociopath.



And tbf, its not like he's ever done much else in his life.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Bit loose on the tie front to be frank.



#stuffposhpeopleactuallycareabout


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

You know anyone who wants to can comment on a DM article yeah? You don't have to be a subscriber.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> ANDREW PIERCE: How Corbyn has cost us all £3m... so far



By...claiming his salary! The very bastard, how dare he 

I bet his expenses bill is massive too. What's that? Lowest expenses claims in the entire HoC? But if we lump in the cost of his office and his staff then it's still loads of money. 

I understand he also breathes oxygen, oxygen that mght otherwise be breathed by decent, hardworking, spittle-flecked Daily Mail hatemongers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> David Cameron knows how to tie a tie properly, and he's a sociopath.


sam cam can. daft dave can't.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> You know anyone who wants to can comment on a DM article yeah? You don't have to be a subscriber.



Yes but normally they are full of poisonous shite.

Daily Mail Comments (@BestoftheMail) on Twitter


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)




----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Yes but normally they are full of poisonous shite.
> 
> Daily Mail Comments (@BestoftheMail) on Twitter


that's certainly true. What do you think's happened here then? Do you think there's a sea change in the views of the readers of the daily mail? or perhaps it might be just that some bored left wingers, astonished by an article that's insane even by the mail's standards, have taken to their comments section for an afternoon's entertainment?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 14, 2015)

I think posters on this forum spend too much time commenting on the Daily Mail. We all know that it is bonkers, if you want to read it that's your choice but don't re-publish its content here, it doesn't need the publicity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think posters on this forum spend too much time commenting on the Daily Mail. We all know that it is bonkers, if you want to read it that's your choice but don't re-publish its content here, it doesn't need the publicity.


what the fuck is this?! in the new age of C-Byn we can no longer offer mild scolding. Let me re-phrase that in line with this era of full communism

'You twats need to stop looking at the daily mail cos its only going to cause you an embolism. Sort it out maggots, lest I have to take my belt off'

*shakes fist*


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


>




What, instead of just having them murdered?


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think posters on this forum spend too much time commenting on the Daily Mail. We all know that it is bonkers, if you want to read it that's your choice but don't re-publish its content here, it doesn't need the publicity.


quite.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

I wonder how many months it will take me to stop laughing it up. If the press comply I think I have about four solid years of pisstaking in me here


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 14, 2015)

So Grauniad/twitter reporting fire at Labour offices... interesting timing.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> So Grauniad/twitter reporting fire at Labour offices... interesting timing.



Good thing the FBU is thinking about re-affiliating...


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

some blairite spad destroying evidence no doubt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> So Grauniad/twitter reporting fire at Labour offices... interesting timing.



Maybe some kind-hearted and public-spirited citizen has taken it upon themselves to neutralise the threat posed to our security by a democratically elected oppoisition party.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

someone emptied the ashtray into the bin without checking for live ones I recon


----------



## two sheds (Sep 14, 2015)

NHA Party pleased with Heidi Alexander appointment to shadow Health secretary



> The landslide victory of Jeremy Corbyn and the welcome appointment of Heidi Alexander do not erase Labour's failure in opposition to defend the NHS since the Health and Social Care Act in 2012 or their own destructive policies of Private Finance Initiative, Unsustainable Provider Regime and the introduction of an internal market that paved the way for the fragmentation and sell-off of our NHS. Labour's involvement in NHS campaigning on policy has previously been limited to opposing parts of the Health and Social Care Act, refusing to examine this past role, accepting only that they may have 'gone too far' with the private sector.



... and from _Homecare_ website: Jeremy Corbyn appoints Heidi Alexander as shadow health secretary



> Ms Alexander was very vocal in her opposition to the closure of Lewisham A&E, highlighting the issue in Parliament.
> 
> In Parliament, she has voted for laws that support equality and human rights. She also voted to stop the Government’s NHS reorganisation and to reduce the amount of income a NHS foundation trust is allowed to make from private patients.
> 
> She has taken a special interest in end-of-life care in the past and chaired the All-Party Paliamentary Group on Choice at the End of Life during the last Parliament.


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

Angela Eagle's extra title due to Labour 'women row', report says

Interesting they aren't allowing comments on this one.  I guess if they were someone would have rapidly pointed out how Corbyn always said he'd appoint a woman to be his deputy in parliament, and that his most prominent female supporter was Angela Eagle.  Sounds to me like they just bumped the announcement up


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 14, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> So Grauniad/twitter reporting fire at Labour offices... interesting timing.



Building next door apparently, but Labour offices evacuated as precautionary.

But the thought of it being desperation from the Blairites did cross my mind for a month


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 14, 2015)

Just seen a Corbynista on my Fb timeline cheerfully proclaim that "a majority of women in the Cabinet* is a landmark moment". Women in top jobs, huzzah

*Not going to point out _Shadow_ Cabinet cos pointless


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> Angela Eagle's extra title due to Labour 'women row', report says
> 
> Interesting they aren't allowing comments on this one.  I guess if they were someone would have rapidly pointed out how Corbyn always said he'd appoint a woman to be his deputy in parliament, and that his most prominent female supporter was Angela Eagle.  Sounds to me like they just bumped the announcement up



Overheard by the same Sky reporter who tried to doorstep Corbyn last night wasn't it? Anyway, sounds all very desperate stuff from Sky to me. One for the 'Guardian is going down the pan' thread for also regurgitating it.


----------



## agricola (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> Angela Eagle's extra title due to Labour 'women row', report says
> 
> Interesting they aren't allowing comments on this one.  I guess if they were someone would have rapidly pointed out how Corbyn always said he'd appoint a woman to be his deputy in parliament, and that his most prominent female supporter was Angela Eagle.  Sounds to me like they just bumped the announcement up



Well exactly - though it could also have been not wanting to have loads of people pointing out that any statement including repeated references to how brilliantly Machiavellian Mandleson is, probably came from the man himself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 14, 2015)

JHE said:


> Don't worry about it.  Once the extremist teetotal veggy cyclist is in No 10, your problems will be solved, whether you like it or not.  The strongest thing you will have access to on a Saturday night is organic carrot juice.



There will still be weed though won't there? Bike riding sandal wearing hippy types always love the weed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> Plus people might be pleased because of the evident annoyance, sulks, vitriol and general temper tantrums. Which are very entertaining.



This pretty much nails why I'm happy about it - plus the potential for labour to act vaguely like an opposition party for the first time in my memory.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 14, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> It's "led". _Lead_ is something that goes in pencils, pencil neck.



By a surprising coincidence that's also what will be going into Diamond's neck come the glorious day.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

S☼I said:


> Just seen a Corbynista on my Fb timeline cheerfully proclaim that "a majority of women in the Cabinet* is a landmark moment". Women in top jobs, huzzah
> 
> *Not going to point out _Shadow_ Cabinet cos pointless



don't be so cynical, it might be like that time Obama won two terms and abolished racism and now everythings brilliant


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

don't tag him ffs.


----------



## andysays (Sep 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Overheard by the same Sky reporter who tried to doorstep Corbyn last night wasn't it? Anyway, sounds all very desperate stuff from Sky to me. One for the 'Guardian is going down the pan' thread for also regurgitating it.



"Overheard" more like


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> don't be so cynical, it might be like that time Obama won two terms and abolished racism and now everythings brilliant


my mate was telling me this afternoon about people in the pub yesterday proclaiming 'finally, we can hope again!'

embarassing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think posters on this forum spend too much time commenting on the Daily Mail. We all know that it is bonkers, if you want to read it that's your choice but don't re-publish its content here, it doesn't need the publicity.


But if people didn't post it here, we wouldn't see it, and it's interesting.


----------



## gosub (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Any polls since Corbyn was elected?





stethoscope said:


> Building next door apparently, but Labour offices evacuated as precautionary.
> 
> But the thought of it being desperation from the Blairites did cross my mind for a month


we're going to need a lot more bugs for this lot.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> my mate was telling me this afternoon about people in the pub yesterday proclaiming 'finally, we can hope again!'
> 
> embarassing.


embarrassing why? because it's naive? because it's neophytes who haven't been involved in party politics over the long haul? because it will make no difference to the political landscape?

i'll hold my hands up to being politically naive, to feeling utterly disenfranchised post 1992, and to feeling just a glimmer of hope that the future might be different in some way.

excuse me if that's embarrassing you...


----------



## Crispy (Sep 14, 2015)

wayward bob said:


> embarrassing why? because it's naive? because it's neophytes who haven't been involved in party politics over the long haul? because it will make no difference to the political landscape?
> 
> i'll hold my hands up to being politically naive, to feeling utterly disenfranchised post 1992, and to feeling just a glimmer of hope that the future might be different in some way.
> 
> excuse me if that's embarrassing you...


Are you off your cynicism pills or something?


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

I just find breathless proclamations like that a bit shit. The same guy (a labour party member of many years) said early on in the campaign that Corbyn is 'our only hope'. That isn't allowing faint glimmers of hope, it's setting himself up for another disappointment.


----------



## JimW (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> my mate was telling me this afternoon about people in the pub yesterday proclaiming 'finally, we can hope again!'
> 
> embarassing.


Maybe they'd just heard the landlord was going to be getting guest ales in regular.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

west lancs camra pub of the year 2014 mate, they already got that covered.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I just find breathless proclamations like that a bit shit. The same guy (a labour party member of many years) said early on in the campaign that Corbyn is 'our only hope'. That isn't allowing faint glimmers of hope, it's setting himself up for another disappointment.


 I voted for Labour in 83 , I didn't think their manifesto was a suicide  note  at the moment this feels different .


----------



## ffsear (Sep 14, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think posters on this forum spend too much time commenting on the Daily Mail. We all know that it is bonkers, if you want to read it that's your choice but don't re-publish its content here, it doesn't need the publicity.




I don't get the  obsession with it either.   Everyone knows what its stands for and its such a cliché to bring it up all the time.   Its as if some posters purposely hunt the internet looking at shit that pisses them off.  Almost a form of self harming IMO!


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> I voted for Labour in 83 , I didn't think their manifesto was a suicide  note


it wasn't tbf.


----------



## SovietArmy (Sep 14, 2015)

I want general elections right now, why wait for another 5 years sure other countries done why not UK.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 14, 2015)

tbf who knows when a vote of no confidence in the present govt is going to come...

i dont know my facts but can the populi do it ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

SovietArmy said:


> I want general elections right now, why wait for another 5 years sure other countries done why not UK.


we have 5 year fixed terms here these days.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

ruffneck23 said:


> tbf who knows when a vote of no confidence in the present govt is going to come...
> 
> i dont know my facts but can the populi do it ?




you could have a tory leadership internal battle but once a party is in its in like fucking flynn for five years


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 14, 2015)

maybe a riot then.. or a revolution


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

Just need to knock a few tory MPs off and Labour win the by-elections, then push for a no confidence vote with the nationalists. 

Redefine 'target' seats hmm?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I just find breathless proclamations like that a bit shit. The same guy (a labour party member of many years) said early on in the campaign that Corbyn is 'our only hope'. That isn't allowing faint glimmers of hope, it's setting himself up for another disappointment.


he does look a bit like ben kenobi tbf


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> it's setting himself up for another disappointment.


disappointment i'm prepared to take, better than having no hope at all.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 14, 2015)

Varoufakis addressing the People's Assembly... with Corbyn and Abbot in attendance. Live stream.

Edit: err just with Abbot I think


----------



## treelover (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> my mate was telling me this afternoon about people in the pub yesterday proclaiming 'finally, we can hope again!'
> 
> embarassing.




Why, this is exactly what my pensioner friend who five years ago, never discussed politics, has said, not winning the election, but some hope, it can go far.

having said that, the media coverage is relentless and it has only just began, Mason is saying some big CLP are already plotting away


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

wayward bob said:


> disappointment i'm prepared to take, better than having no hope at all.


I wasn't talking about you.


----------



## wayward bob (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> I wasn't talking about you.


i don't think i implied that you were i was just addressing the point  i knew there was a reason i don't post in p&p and it's not because i don't give a shit...


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

why don't you post in P&P?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Sep 14, 2015)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> Angela Eagle's extra title due to Labour 'women row', report says
> 
> Interesting they aren't allowing comments on this one.  I guess if they were someone would have rapidly pointed out how Corbyn always said he'd appoint a woman to be his deputy in parliament, and that his most prominent female supporter was Angela Eagle.  Sounds to me like they just bumped the announcement up



This is getting increasingly silly. More women in the shadow cabinet than ever before, and still Corbyn gets criticised for not having enough women on his team


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Varoufakis addressing the People's Assembly... with Corbyn and Abbot in attendance. Live stream.
> 
> Edit: err just with Abbot I think



What time is it supposed to start?


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 14, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What time is it supposed to start?


Been and gone.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> Been and gone.



Oh.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 14, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Oh.


You feel disappointed; I managed to catch the Treasurer of the People's Assembly shaking a bucket at the end, while Varoufakis put his coat on.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> You feel disappointed; I managed to catch the Treasurer of the People's Assembly shaking a bucket at the end, while Varoufakis put his coat on.



It _is _a good coat though.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 14, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> It _is _a good coat though.



Fortunately, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer realises he isn't cool enough to pull that look off.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Varoufakis addressing the People's Assembly... with Corbyn and Abbot in attendance.



Hmmm...was his theme winning and losing power within 7 months?


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Hmmm...was his theme winning and losing power within 7 months?


Longer than the Paris Commune.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 14, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> Been and gone.



I have it playing on rewind or record or whatever. F-Fwd past the noisy tone. 29.00 minutes in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

varoufakis is the very picture of a sexy bald man. Like Meiville used to look like before the pies set in.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> Longer than the Paris Commune.


Has Corbyn put cannon on Parliament Hill?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> don't tag him ffs.


I think he's done his flouncy prance awaywards already - he's shot his flouncebolt on this thread.

He wouldn't come back and do it again. Would he...?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 14, 2015)

John McDonnell interview:


----------



## rekil (Sep 14, 2015)

.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 14, 2015)

Tonight's 'Evening Standard' did a total hatchet job on Corbyn over something like 5 pages.  And, curiously, they were doing a full page spread on Sadiq Khan (mayoral race) so they even tried to spin Sadiq saying he will fight for London into him saying he will fight Corbyn....

It was Sadiq who was one of the key people to put Corbyn forward in the leader race....

And this seems to be appalling from Emily Maitlis (you have to watch it right to the end - or start halfway through....)


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 14, 2015)

very unflappable there, fielded th IRA question well. More of this pls.


----------



## magneze (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is getting increasingly silly. More women in the shadow cabinet than ever before, and still Corbyn gets criticised for not having enough women on his team


Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet – older, more rebellious and less male
*Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet – older, more rebellious and less male*
A statistical analysis shows that Corbyn’s team is older, more female and more rebellious than the last set of Labour shadow ministers

Counting is now "statistical analysis".


----------



## ska invita (Sep 14, 2015)

just logged in to youtube and top of the homepage the promoted video is this


----------



## ska invita (Sep 14, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Tonight's 'Evening Standard' did a total hatchet job on Corbyn over something like 5 pages.  And, curiously, they were doing a full page spread on Sadiq Khan (mayoral race) so they even tried to spin Sadiq saying he will fight for London into him saying he will fight Corbyn....


yeah i saw that
i wonder if we need a corbyn in the media thread? it is quite interesting


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2015)

Oh good grief.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 14, 2015)

ska invita said:


> just logged in to youtube and top of the homepage the promoted video is this



Fuck, but they're scared, aren't they?


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

Maitliss was taking the piss in that Dennis skinner clip. Still, good reaction - the behaviour he's complaining about has been rife the last few days, even if it wasn't happening just then.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Maitliss was taking the piss in that Dennis skinner clip. Still, good reaction - the behaviour he's complaining about has been rife the last few days, even if it wasn't happening just then.


She did say it was a joke but it was delivered to camera in a very straight face.  It's not surprising it can be misinterpreted.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 14, 2015)

And this I love.  It's almost like it's all a game....

Jeremy Corbyn appoints a vegan to deal with Britain's farmers


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is getting increasingly silly. More women in the shadow cabinet than ever before, and still Corbyn gets criticised for not having enough women on his team



Plus he even picked a bloke with a girls name , Hilary . He just can't bloody win.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

Sirena said:


> She did say it was a joke but it was delivered to camera in a very straight face.  It's not surprising it can be misinterpreted.


It wasn't, she was cracking up.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 14, 2015)

.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 14, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Tonight's 'Evening Standard' did a total hatchet job on Corbyn over something like 5 pages.  And, curiously, they were doing a full page spread on Sadiq Khan (mayoral race) so they even tried to spin Sadiq saying he will fight for London into him saying he will fight Corbyn....
> 
> It was Sadiq who was one of the key people to put Corbyn forward in the leader race....
> 
> And this seems to be appalling from Emily Maitlis (you have to watch it right to the end - or start halfway through....)





Do not ever read the Daily Evening Fascist. Flicking through to the quick crossword is allowed, only on occasion.  Join me in my fantasy that whenever you are on an evening train that you run up and down the carriages ripping it out of people's hands and tasmanianing devil shreaking all up in their faces...i'll even dance to the music in my head/heart as I do so... It is the drip, drip stuff of pure frustration and impotence. Fuck them.


----------



## killer b (Sep 14, 2015)

It wasn't a headline, she was finishing the interview on a joke. That does happen all the time.

There's been some real, significant media attacks over the last few days. This wasn't one of them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 14, 2015)

The doom and gloom, fearmongering has been constant...I don't even read newspapers and I know that. FUCK THEM!


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 14, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> What, instead of just having them murdered?



Cop on ffs


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

ska invita said:


> just logged in to youtube and top of the homepage the promoted video is this




That sound you hear in the background there is that of a barrell being scraped. Pathetic.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Fuck, but they're scared, aren't they?



And every time Corbyn doesn't rise to this shit they grow more unhinged, just like the Blairite wing of Labour did.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 14, 2015)

Sirena said:


> And this I love.  It's almost like it's all a game....
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn appoints a vegan to deal with Britain's farmers



Another good appointment. Article on her here:

Kerry McCarthy, vegan animal welfare campaigner, lands Shadow Defra role in Corbyn Cabinet


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 14, 2015)




----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Tonight's 'Evening Standard' did a total hatchet job on Corbyn over something like 5 pages.  And, curiously, they were doing a full page spread on Sadiq Khan (mayoral race) so they even tried to spin Sadiq saying he will fight for London into him saying he will fight Corbyn....
> 
> It was Sadiq who was one of the key people to put Corbyn forward in the leader race....
> 
> And this seems to be appalling from Emily Maitlis (you have to watch it right to the end - or start halfway through....)



I love the end of that. he barks about spinning then walks off.
seeing his back reminded me off all those endings to the incredible hulk:

you're not so lonely any more, dennis


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 15, 2015)

Can you remember ever in the past other PLP members standing up like Skinner and calling these bs reporters down? (perhaps 2 jags, few others though)
If I recall it was nearly always the other way around.

And now that classic gospel number - oh skinner soothe my soul.


----------



## Patteran (Sep 15, 2015)

Interesting response from the Economic Intelligence Unit, acknowledging Corbyn's appeal while suggesting he should be leading a party to the left of a centrist Labour - I'd never come across the voter/politician relationship described in terms of supply & demand before. The marketisation of everything.



> Political supply and demand have moved out of line in the UK. The Venn diagram of political demand contains a gradually proliferating number of circles that intersect in complex ways. The Venn diagram of political supply is still, basically, two large circles that do not overlap. This is not sustainable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

maybe this discussion should continue on a new thread perhaps titled "the corbyn years"


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

They (them bastards) must be shitting their keks over Corbyn winning, otherwise if it were that now labour are unelectable why would there be this constant, hysterical barrage of shite at the man. They would simply sit back, relax and grate some more puffin onto their granary toast!


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

why would they sit back?


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> why would they sit back?



And watch the Labour Party melt away into history, that's if they are certain Corbyn's victory will bring, IMO they are really concerned that something is about to rock their boat.


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> why would they sit back?



It doesn't matter which one of the fab four won. The Conservative party would never just sit back. They would always relentlessly attack the winner on whatever their perceived weakness is;

Jezbollah: terrorist's pal, hates Britain
Burnham: bathed in the blood of the sick children of Stafford
Cooper: has almost certainly fellated Ed Balls
Kendall: season 3 of Borgen was the weakest


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

Why would they sit back though? Why not help them into the abyss? It's politics ffs.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 15, 2015)

Polly goes in to reverse ferret Those who flounce out on Jeremy Corbyn will not escape blame if Labour crashes | Polly Toynbee


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

They are trying to show their compassion as Tories do toward those less fortunate.
I appear to be rambling a bit, I have been awake for over thirty hours.
Will get some sleep and hopefully be less addled later!


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Polly goes in to reverse ferret Those who flounce out on Jeremy Corbyn will not escape blame if Labour crashes | Polly Toynbee


She has first hand experience of the flouncing, not so much of the blame. Unless that's why comments aren't open,


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 15, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Cop on ffs



It's a bit rich the Russian state whingeing about media bias. I don't recall them or Russia Today going too hard on Putin over the polonium murder or the Malaysian airliner.

I don't expect much honesty after they  help Assad to level Raqqa Grozny style either, so if they don't like it they can fuck off back to, er, Russia.

My enemy's enemy is not my friend etc.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe this discussion should continue on a new thread perhaps titled "the corbyn years"



"The Corbyn months?"


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

C-Byn: The Legend Continues


----------



## kebabking (Sep 15, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> And watch the Labour Party melt away into history, that's if they are certain Corbyn's victory will bring, IMO they are really concerned that something is about to rock their boat.



no, more subtle than that. they think that economicly, Corbin has an attractive message - whether its viable or not is entirely another matter, and not really part of this - there are lots of people who's living standards have gone into reverse, lots of middle England who fear for the ability of their children to ever buy their own home, and lots of people (and not just of the Corbyn-ite left) who feel completely ripped off by privatisation and PFI. there are large parts of Tory England that do not believe that saying 'long term economic plan' endlessly means that either you have one, or that its any good _for them._

they think however that Corbyn's weakness - in terms of being in tune with the public - on defence, foreign policy, _interesting_ causes abroad, NATO mebership, Trident, immigration etc.. will probably more than counter-act the popularity of his economic message, and they also - from bitter experience - know that divided parties do not win elections.

they _think_ that Corbyn will lose the next election on his own merits, but not being idiots they aren't going to bet the farm on it, so they want a plan 'B' - and plan 'B' is having the Labour party self-distruct over the above issues. Labour will probably implode over those issues anyway as they are big, important issues and opinions on them are dearly held and not easily compromised over, but the tories take the veiw that a little poke might help the timing of that.

they also take the view that having Corbyn fall in the first 18 months or so, and having his energised, social media savvy supporters wander off into the political desert having got their fingers burnt on the fire of parliamentary politics would be no bad thing..


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe this discussion should continue on a new thread perhaps titled "the corbyn years"


Beginning on Jereday, the First of Corbember, Year 0.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Polly goes in to reverse ferret Those who flounce out on Jeremy Corbyn will not escape blame if Labour crashes | Polly Toynbee



LOL still manages to work it into telling everyone else who they should back. With friends like those eh...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

Not a paper in sight. Corbyn's "green baize" thinking?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

maybe he's having a round of billiards after the meeting


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not a paper in sight. Corbyn's "green beige" thinking?


Green _baize_.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> maybe he's having a round of billiards after the meeting


If so, the prospect seems to be making them fucking miserable.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Green _baize_.


Corrected!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> If so, the prospect seems to be making them fucking miserable.


Watson in particular looks like he knows C-byns gonna hustle him out of his pocket money. Slapped arse of a visage there


----------



## IC3D (Sep 15, 2015)

The look on those faces doesn't instil much confidence


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Watson in particular looks like he knows C-byns gonna hustle him out of his pocket money. Slapped arse of a visage there


also looks like he might have spotted the beer & sarnies on the table over in the corner!


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Watson in particular looks like he knows C-byns gonna hustle him out of his pocket money. Slapped arse of a visage there



Thinks: 'Feckin WATER!'


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 15, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Cooper: has almost certainly fellated Ed Balls



This site has provided me with some horrific mental images over the last 11 years but that's a new low.

"She's a threat to prosperity, she's a threat to national security, and she's a threat to Ed Balls's celibacy"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 15, 2015)

It looks like he's explaining the rules of Soggy Biscuit to an amateur dramatics society which has accidentally double-booked the village hall with the local stroke support group


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> just logged in to youtube and top of the homepage the promoted video is this



That's extraordinary! It reaches the level of piss poor election commercials in America. It has production values of a conspiraloon video too, all sinister etc. Coupled with the sun headline yesterday I'm surprised by how desperate and yet how hysterical and weak the attacks are this early on.

In other news Osbourne's come out and said the appointment of McDonnell has broken decades of economic consensus. That's quite an admission to make!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

good, the consensus has been 'we get steak you get beans and rice if you're lucky'. Trickle down cunts


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> good, the consensus has been 'we get steak you get beans and rice if you're lucky'. Trickle down cunts


Vegetarians do not approve of this message


----------



## Favelado (Sep 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Not a paper in sight. Corbyn's "green baize" thinking?



Maybe it's a green screen and they're going to project cool stuff onto it to make meetings more interesting. How about a Millenium Falcon theme for example? The possibilities are endless and fun.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 15, 2015)

Maybe they could all wear period costume like a holodeck episode of Star Trek?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> good, the consensus has been 'we get steak you get beans and rice if you're lucky'. Trickle down cunts


Indeed. It's the fact it's been said out loud I find extraordinary.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2015)

IC3D said:


> The look on those faces doesn't instil much confidence



That's because Corbyn's just explained that he won't allow his MP's to put prostitutes on their expenses any more.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> In other news Osbourne's come out and said the appointment of McDonnell has broken decades of economic consensus. That's quite an admission to make!



Why should there be consensus? Consensus in this context is just another way of saying 'stitch-up'.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe this discussion should continue on a new thread perhaps titled "the corbyn years"


Years?  You crazy optimist you


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 15, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why should there be consensus? Consensus in this context is just another way of saying 'stitch-up'.


Well yes obviously but it's still existed for 30 odd years. To have the chancellor say, out loud, that's now ended is pretty monumental.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 15, 2015)

Judging by the comments it looks like blairism and toynbism has gone deeper than expected.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

which comments?


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

They used his imagery without permission? Or just a sneaky way to take down the video?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> View attachment 76691
> 
> They used his imagery without permission? Or just a sneaky way to take down the video?



Maybe someone with a brain at tory HQ has pointed out that the video is a massive own goal and removed all trace of it.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 15, 2015)

Heh, I did report it for inciting hatred, same with Camerons tweet


----------



## 03gills (Sep 15, 2015)

Sirena said:


> She did say it was a joke but it was delivered to camera in a very straight face.  It's not surprising it can be misinterpreted.



All I can picture in my head is of the times that I got gobby with my Mum when I was a teenager. She would instantly call me on it & I'd retort like a fucking tool, 'I WAS ONLY JOKING!'


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> no, more subtle than that. they think that economicly, Corbin has an attractive message - whether its viable or not is entirely another matter, and not really part of this - there are lots of people who's living standards have gone into reverse, lots of middle England who fear for the ability of their children to ever buy their own home, and lots of people (and not just of the Corbyn-ite left) who feel completely ripped off by privatisation and PFI. there are large parts of Tory England that do not believe that saying 'long term economic plan' endlessly means that either you have one, or that its any good _for them._
> 
> they think however that Corbyn's weakness - in terms of being in tune with the public - on defence, foreign policy, _interesting_ causes abroad, NATO mebership, Trident, immigration etc.. will probably more than counter-act the popularity of his economic message, and they also - from bitter experience - know that divided parties do not win elections.
> 
> ...




Yes, remember the Tory election poster on Labour's Defence Policy in the 87 election, I think, with a image of a soldier surrendering, it had a massive impact. Foreign and defence policy used to have a major impact on voters, something the CND'ers(I never was) had no awareness or interest in, it could have again, I have already heard people calling JC a 'Putin lover', etc and worrying about the Russians buzzing our airspace.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

IC3D said:


> The look on those faces doesn't instil much confidence



In Corbyn or his shadow cabinet?, Corbyn has a huge mandate to change the party which was remodelled and hollowed out in the last twenty years: apparatchiks, blairites, parachutists, time servers, and even much of the soft left are not going to like it.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Sep 15, 2015)

Sirena said:


> And this I love.  It's almost like it's all a game....
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn appoints a vegan to deal with Britain's farmers


FFS it doesn't matter if she eats meat or not as long as she can do the job. Never mind scraping the barrel they've gone beyond that & out the other side


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

Mechanically recovered barrel meat


----------



## kebabking (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> In Corbyn or his shadow cabinet?, Corbyn has a huge mandate to change the party which was remodelled and hollowed out in the last twenty years: apparatchiks, blairites, parachutists, time servers, and even much of the soft left are not going to like it.



perhaps the concern written across the faces around the table is that the electorate won't like it either... 

Corbyn got 250,000 votes to be leader of the Labour Party. unless he can get between 11 and 12 _million_ votes at the GE in 2020, he'll not change anything outside of the Labour Party, and the Tories will have been in power for 15 years. 

the tories have been here before - they elected 3 leaders on the trot who appealled to their activist base, but who turned the electorate off like a light. Corbyn might do that, he might not - i can't possibly know, and if i did i wouldn't be fucking about on the internet - but it seems obvious what those around his table think.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 15, 2015)

Santino said:


> Beginning on Jereday, the First of Corbember, Year 0.


 The Era of Our Corbyn (E.C)


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Corbyn at the Battle of Britain service, top shirt button undone, tie loose, not trivial in these circumstances, rags will be looking for Michael Foot moments


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Corbyn at the Battle of Britain service, top shirt button undone, tie loose, not trivial in these circumstances, rags will be looking for Michael Foot moments


wtf are you posting this shit for? You're worse than them as you claim to oppose such thinking.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

oh noes an unkempt tie


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

I don't care about his tie, etc, I do care how the media will use it.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

The Michael foot moment is a myth. Who gives a fuck? Corbyn clearly doesn't. Good on him.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 15, 2015)

Edit:- wrong thread,sorry.


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> but it seems obvious what those around his table think.


You mean geniuses behind the 2010 and 2015 electoral campaigns?


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> I don't care about his tie, etc, I do care how the media will use it.



He could be immaculately turned out 24/7, he could shave, primp, preen and wax - they'd still slag him off. No one can do anything about it except for point out again and again how trivial and irrelevant it is. A point most people agree with. Harping on about it like a Daily Mail women's section editor just makes it seem like you do think it matters.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

He clearly said throughout the campaign - and more clearly since - 'fuck you, we aren't going to do it like this anymore'. He couldn't have been much more unequivocal. 

All treelover has said since has been 'oh no! He's not doing it like that anymore!'. No fucking shit.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 15, 2015)

Santino said:


> You mean geniuses behind the 2010 and 2015 electoral campaigns?



well, there is that - but on the flip-side they do know what a failing election campaign, not to mention umpteen million votes they _didn't_ get, looks like.

Corbyn might well do the business - he's engaging, he gives nuanced, involved answers rather than idiot soundbites, he's not photoshop politician and he has the ingegrity that saying the same, unpopular, thing for 30 years gives anyone. but he might also lead the Labour party into a dead end of internal squabbles and ridicule. we shall see...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> Fortunately, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer realises he isn't cool enough to pull that look off.



Wonder if John McD has still got the Harrington he used to wear at the GLC?


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> well, there is that - but on the flip-side they do know what a failing election campaign, not to mention umpteen million votes they _didn't_ get, looks like.
> 
> Corbyn might well do the business - he's engaging, he gives nuanced, involved answers rather than idiot soundbites, he's not photoshop politician and he has the ingegrity that saying the same, unpopular, thing for 30 years gives anyone. but he might also lead the Labour party into a dead end of internal squabbles and ridicule. we shall see...


Another way of looking at it is, if you had to design a lefty-liberal version of B. Johnson or Farage - in the sense of an apparently unconventional media 'personality' whose reputation is undamaged by media slings and arrows - then Corbyn is something you might come up with.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> He clearly said throughout the campaign - and more clearly since - 'fuck you, we aren't going to do it like this anymore'. He couldn't have been much more unequivocal.



He can't do anything else can he. There's no way he can avoid giving the press anything they can jump on, he just has to deal with it instead of letting the fear of it overwhelm him like Miliband did.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> He clearly said throughout the campaign - and more clearly since - 'fuck you, we aren't going to do it like this anymore'. He couldn't have been much more unequivocal.
> 
> All treelover has said since has been 'oh no! He's not doing it like that anymore!'. No fucking shit.




If you were around in the Foot years, this 'stuff' does have an impact/resonance, JC should do the basics, the big stuff he can change as much as he likes.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> If you were around in the Foot years, this 'stuff' does have an impact/resonance, JC should do the basics, the big stuff he can change as much as he likes.


these aren't the foot years.  And your second sentence makes no sense


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

The Westminster machine has been moaning for years that people have become disenfranchised and isolated from politics and in a few months Corbyn has brought more interest and passion about being involved than any 'Big Community' bollocks ever could.
This too is something the Tories do not like.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> these aren't the foot years.  And your second sentence makes no sense




I am saying, why be a hostage to fortune, he can compromise, he has already said he would wear a red poppy, instead of a white one, it doesn't matter to you or me, but it matters to many voters.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

The media too will focus today on how the Battle of Britain and those who served and died were fighting for our freedom.
As long as that freedom didn't involve wearing a tie with the shirt top button undone that is.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> If you were around in the Foot years, this 'stuff' does have an impact/resonance, JC should do the basics, the big stuff he can change as much as he likes.



I think a lot has changed since then.  I work in construction meeting architects and engineers, no one I meet wears a tie, in fact no one even wears a suit unless its some hipster nonsense. Its also rare to refer to anyone using anything other then their first name even if you've never met them.

Formality is not what it was, sure some people won't like it and the press will use it (like they will use everything regardless) but I'm not sure you can compare eras, Foot was a very very long time ago.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> I am saying, why be a hostage to fortune, he can compromise, he has already said he would wear a red poppy, instead of a white one, it doesn't matter to you or me, but it matters to many voters.


he has compromised.  Nothing will be good enough for the tory press, so fuck pandering to them.  you go down that route, you're fucked already. So well done on him for not doing


----------



## laptop (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> LOL still manages to work it into telling everyone else who they should back. With friends like those eh...



More to the point is the segue into setting out what Corbyn MUST do to be deserving of this support.

Total boilerplate. Would work the same substituting the name of any other candidate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Watson in particular looks like he knows C-byns gonna hustle him out of his pocket money. Slapped arse of a visage there



I thought Watso was doing an Alexei Sayle impersonation, TBF, what with the tight suit and skinny tie.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2015)

He had a new whistle on yesterday anyway. What the fuck more do they want?


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> I think a lot has changed since then.  I work in construction meeting architects and engineers, no one I meet wears a tie, in fact no one even wears a suit unless its some hipster nonsense. Its also rare to refer to anyone using anything other then their first name even if you've never met them.
> 
> Formality is not what it was, sure some people won't like it and the press will use it (like they will use everything regardless) but I'm not sure you can compare eras, Foot was a very very long time ago.



Ok, we will see how this pans out, standing down on this one.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought Watso was doing an Alexei Sayle impersonation, TBF, what with the tight suit and skinny tie.



Hello Tom, got a new voter!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Corbyn at the Battle of Britain service, top shirt button undone, tie loose, not trivial in these circumstances, rags will be looking for Michael Foot moments



Fuck how his tie and top button look #endmaleoppression


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 15, 2015)

The top button's a bit of genius on Corbyn's part tbh (though it's probably more a red socks moment than a strategy in his head). His whole scthick is "some have leadership thrust upon them" and it'll serve for saying "fine I'll compromise" while constantly reminding people how slick and robotic his opponents are.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 15, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> He can't do anything else can he. There's no way he can avoid giving the press anything they can jump on, he just has to deal with it instead of letting the fear of it overwhelm him like Miliband did.


 And there's no benefit at all to him trying to suck up to the press. They're going to give him shit in every way possible whether he talks to them or not. It's all going to be very different for the press from now on. The Blairites made them feel all special and cosy. That just isn't an option here and I'm sure they're going to whinge about it even though they all know that if they do get more access they'll all just be dickheads to the Corbyn cabinet.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Polly goes in to reverse ferret Those who flounce out on Jeremy Corbyn will not escape blame if Labour crashes | Polly Toynbee





> Flip-floppers and ditherers nakedly calculating the odds on the least career-damaging course will find themselves left stranded, whatever happens next.



You've just described yourself Polly


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

Anyone know what time Brother Corbyn addresses Conference please?


----------



## peterkro (Sep 15, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Anyone know what time Brother Corbyn addresses Conference please?


Around 3pm I think.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

peterkro said:


> Around 3pm I think.



Thanks, I will try to catch before I leave for work.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought Watso was doing an Alexei Sayle impersonation, TBF, what with the tight suit and skinny tie.


He looks quite like Nick Frost, doesn't he?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 15, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Polly goes in to reverse ferret Those who flounce out on Jeremy Corbyn will not escape blame if Labour crashes | Polly Toynbee



Jump up quick Polly, I know you said this wagon was dirty and dangerous and you'd rather call your driver, but everyone else is on it!







"I'm preparing myself to forgive you"


----------



## agricola (Sep 15, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> The media too will focus today on how the Battle of Britain and those who served and died were fighting for our freedom.
> As long as that freedom didn't involve wearing a tie with the shirt top button undone that is.



That generation must feel this betrayal deeply, or would if they hadn't overwhelmingly voted in favour of the last Labour Party led by an MP from a London constituency.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 15, 2015)

agricola said:


> That generation must feel this betrayal deeply, or would if they hadn't overwhelmingly voted in favour of the last Labour Party led by an MP from a London constituency.


Atlee was last Cockernee Labour leader? wow


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Atlee was last Cockernee Labour leader? wow



And he and his colleagues really changed the shape of things.


----------



## tim (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe this discussion should continue on a new thread perhaps titled "the corbyn years"



The Corbyn fortnight, might be a more realistic thread title.


----------



## tim (Sep 15, 2015)

marty21 said:


> Atlee was last Cockernee Labour leader? wow



He didn't have the privilege of going to Eton or Winchester. He had to make do with Haileybury.


----------



## elbows (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> View attachment 76691
> 
> They used his imagery without permission? Or just a sneaky way to take down the video?



Footage of a particular Corbyn discussion about NATO was used without permission. The person who shot & published the footage originally complained.

The tories could take the video down in an instant if they wanted to without going through that convoluted process. And apparently a version of the video without that piece of footage still exists on their Facebook page.

I'm not 100% sure but I suspect this is the original material:


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)




----------



## The Pale King (Sep 15, 2015)

Great final panel there


----------



## marty21 (Sep 15, 2015)

tim said:


> He didn't have the privilege of going to Eton or Winchester. He had to make do with Haileybury.


 I can see them rolling out the barrels from here


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought Watso was doing an Alexei Sayle impersonation, TBF, what with the tight suit and skinny tie.



I used to talk to Alexei's mum in a pub in the late 80's, you can see where he got his humour and early politics from, she was pretty exceptional.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

tim said:


> He didn't have the privilege of going to Eton or Winchester. He had to make do with Haileybury.



never heard of this public school.


----------



## Patteran (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


>



Barney Farmer's consistently good - & sometimes proper dark. Worth a follow on twitter.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

He's brilliant. Getting better too - more political.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2015)

Hadn't really seen him outside his truly excellent work in Viz. Will keep an eye out.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

he doesn't seem to have an online home outside his twitter account, but he posts new stuff practically every day atm. 'the male online' topically re-words the same strip each time, so he can react very quickly to news stories (like this).

barney farmer (@barneyfarmer) on Twitter


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

christ.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


>



I've seen a few of these on my phone. On a PC I now notice the Daily Male has his breeks down in the second last panel.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

he has them down throughout. his cock is in his hand in the first panel, note.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> he has them down throughout. his cock is in his hand in the first panel, note.



My eyes are well and truly opened.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 15, 2015)

Santino said:


> Beginning on Jereday, the First of Corbember, Year 0.



For a workers' clock!


----------



## rekil (Sep 15, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I've seen a few of these on my phone. On a PC I now notice the Daily Male has his breeks down in the second last panel.


He's usually perving on the mail's celeb sidebars.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> View attachment 76691
> 
> They used his imagery without permission? Or just a sneaky way to take down the video?



I'm pretty sure that the guy who started the counterfire website (back when he was in the SWP and swappies used it like they used to use lenin's tomb) was called Adie Cousins (says the video was taken down cos it contained his copyright content) - if there was stuff on there he'd filmed I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it was him issuing a DMCA.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 15, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He looks quite like Nick Frost, doesn't he?



I'd like to see him take a shortcut.


----------



## elbows (Sep 15, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm pretty sure that the guy who started the counterfire website (back when he was in the SWP and swappies used it like they used to use lenin's tomb) was called Adie Cousins (says the video was taken down cos it contained his copyright content) - if there was stuff on there he'd filmed I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it was him issuing a DMCA.



I was on about this earlier but didn't post any press that went into details. Found some now:

Tories forced to pull Jeremy Corbyn attack video due to breach of copyright


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

> She is a former management consultant who worked for Accenture and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.[5] She founded the Fabian Women's Network and was a previous National Chair of the Young Fabians.[6]



I see a former PWC consultant and Fabian,*Seema Malhotra,*  is now Shadow Chief Sec to the Treasury, an important role.

btw, Tory majority on tax credits was 32, did some LP MP's vote or abstain, or were 'ill' etc?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> he doesn't seem to have an online home outside his twitter account, but he posts new stuff practically every day atm. 'the male online' topically re-words the same strip each time, so he can react very quickly to news stories (like this).
> 
> barney farmer (@barneyfarmer) on Twitter



Him and Healey are legitimately scary sometimes.

Lee Healey (@HealeyCartoons) on Twitter




treelover said:


> I see a former PWC consultant and Fabian,*Seema Malhotra,*  is now Shadow Chief Sec to the Treasury, an important role.



If your looking for a squeaky clean politican you aren't going to get far. He's working with what he's got and what he's got is an institution thats shut off, corrupt, and bogged down in tradition and a revolving door to the finance industry.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

> "Frank Field told MPs: “In one single move [the chancellor] has destroyed his 2020 election strategy because we heard the very powerful speeches the chancellor made saying the Conservative party was in favour of those individuals who got up in the morning, who did grotty jobs for very low pay and they passed the windows of their neighbours whose curtains were still drawn, who were on benefits.
> 
> “Those individuals who still rise to the work motive in this country, which is so important for both economic and human advance, will know as they pass those windows with the curtains drawn they do so on average with £1,300 a year less in their pocket.”
> 
> Government sees off rebellion to win vote on working tax credit cuts




Field really should be in the Tory party, this sort of language is appalling, and if it 'resonates' with a large part of the public its because New labour repeated it ad nauseum, funded massive 'anti benefit fraud' campaigns which were really aimed at the general public, etc and demonised claimants and the unemployed on every available opportunity..


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

> Is it true that the Government only got the 35 majority by effectively cheating-withdrawing pairing at very short notice?



posted elsewhere, is he correct?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> I see a former PWC consultant and Fabian,*Seema Malhotra,*  is now Shadow Chief Sec to the Treasury, an important role.
> 
> btw, Tory majority on tax credits was 32, did some LP MP's vote or abstain, or were 'ill' etc?



Lots of Labour party MPs have staff provided (out of the goodness of their hearts no doubt) by PWC.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> posted elsewhere, is he correct?



There were mutterings about abuses of the pairing system after the last welfare vote. IIRC the allegations came to nothing that time round. Presumably whichever MPs had been cheated out of their votes would go public immediately and the tories would be facing a massive shitstorm.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 15, 2015)

I've taken to tweeting my local Blairite MP, observing that I've noticed their failure to congratulate their new party leader, and asking them to confirm that he has their support... for the lols.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Corbyn at the TUC Conference openly stated there have been a number of suicides as a consequence of the brutal welfare reforms(broadcast on the 10 o clock news on BBC), a call to action, over to you civil society, amnesty, liberty, the churches, the left, etc, you have shown you can mobilise on other recent humanitarian issues.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

> Diane Abbott
> Luciana Berger
> Simon Danczuk
> Thangam Debbonaire
> ...



are the ministers on here allowed to vote, I can't believe Abbot would abstain, that wanker Danczuk, yes.

btw, Owen Smith is appalling on Newsnight, supports the overall benefit cap on social security spending and sounds like he endorses the cap on individual benefit payments, doesn't sound much different than Reeves, technocrat.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 15, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> It's a bit rich the Russian state whingeing about media bias. I don't recall them or Russia Today going too hard on Putin over the polonium murder or the Malaysian airliner.
> 
> I don't expect much honesty after they  help Assad to level Raqqa Grozny style either, so if they don't like it they can fuck off back to, er, Russia.
> 
> My enemy's enemy is not my friend etc.



Oh will you fuck off now you liberal bloody cliche


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> I've taken to tweeting my local Blairite MP, observing that I've noticed their failure to congratulate their new party leader, and asking them to confirm that he has their support... for the lols.



Chris Leslie is my local MP, I haven't seen any signs of him coming out in support of his newly elected leader oddly enough.


----------



## MrSki (Sep 15, 2015)




----------



## eoin_k (Sep 15, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Chris Leslie is my local MP, I haven't seen any signs of him coming out in support of his newly elected leader oddly enough.



As a constituent, I'm sure @ChrisLeslieMP would love to hear from you.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

and some people on here think its immaterial or not a problem.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

JC get someone else, citing the public mood not being in favour of unfettered spending when it was New Labour who helped created this negative mood is not good. JC has frequently spoken for a humane social security system, Owen Smith isn't, time for him to change or go.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 15, 2015)

Corbyn is a bit of a roundhead and they don't do royal ditties.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 15, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Cooper: has almost certainly fellated Ed Balls



i really, really, didn't want to have that thought


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2015)

MrSki said:


>



To sing, or not to sing...


----------



## MrSki (Sep 15, 2015)

Wilf said:


> To sing, or not to sing...



Surely it would be disrespectful to the few who are left to sing an anthem to someone recently pictured giving a Nazi salute?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2015)

MrSki said:


> Surely it would be disrespectful to the few who are left to sing an anthem to someone recently pictured giving a Nazi salute?


Yes, _Brand Queen_ is forever toxic to me.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2015)

Anyway, I bet he was worried it would carry on till the 'crushing rebellious scots' verse.  No way to start winning back votes from Sturgeon.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 15, 2015)

Mcdonnell has announced that Corbyn is convening a London conference for all European anti austerity campaigns. 

Fantastic.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 15, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Oh will you fuck off now you liberal bloody cliche



Yeah yeah I bet 'anti-soviet' was a fave of yours.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 15, 2015)

I don't care what the press are saying. It's a dream come true that a Labour leader is saying the things he says and acting the way he does.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Mcdonnell has announced that Corbyn is convening a London conference for all European anti austerity campaigns.
> 
> Fantastic.



any link?


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 16, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Polly goes in to reverse ferret Those who flounce out on Jeremy Corbyn will not escape blame if Labour crashes | Polly Toynbee



Polly Filla makes an interesting point that 80% of the votes Corbinladen will need for a majority in 2020 have to come from CON to LAB switchers.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 16, 2015)

Think Corbyn had a reasonable day today.  the anti Corbyn establishment press were rather amusing as they sunk to new depths of ridiculous.

One of the ones that amused me was the claim that he never sang the national anthem today. FFS, he is republican, if he sang he would be called a hypocrite.

Oh and oh god, he is alleged to have stolen a sarnie from a war veteran, one that the increasing flapping Guido Faukes was pushing. now he is one establishment luvvie who is currently shaking like a shitting dog.

Corbo's speech at the TUC conference today was what so many wanted to hear. Delivery was ropey for parts, think he is shagged out after the last three month, but pushed all the right buttons for me.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 16, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Polly Filla makes an interesting point that 80% of the votes Corbinladen will need for a majority in 2020 have to come from CON to LAB switchers.


What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

MrSki said:


>



When they say 'outcry' who exactly is crying out? Because none of the people I know would give three fifths of a fuck one way or another who sings the national anthem and who doesn't. They've all got real things to worry about.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2015)

Good for Jeremy. He looked like he didn't know the words and I hope that was true.


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?



Polly doesn't deal with such trivialities as "workings", with her it's all about questionable broad-brush assumptions and appearing to derive definite conclusions from them. Never mind the logic, feel the certainty in her writing.


> Labour needs to win 94 English and Welsh seats. For that, four out of five of the requisite extra Labour votes need to be stolen from the Tories. Even summoning the young, the poor and the alienated will not suffice because most of those available votes are in seats already Labour-owned.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?


Welcome back.  Don't do that again.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?



Welcome back BA!!


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> When they say 'outcry' who exactly is crying out? Because none of the people I know would give three fifths of a fuck one way or another who sings the national anthem and who doesn't. They've all got real things to worry about.



It used to be just the tabloids that used that rhetorical trick but it's all of them now - even Beeb News Channel was headlining their section on it (for which they interviewed only one person - some gonk from the Spectator) 'Corbyn anthem *row*'. What row? Instead of reporting on what happened, they're all reporting on how they've reported it. The media will eat itself....


----------



## cesare (Sep 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?


Did you have a good break? Good that you're back.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?


I thought that  only 24 per cent of the electorate voted for them. Even in tory marginals there should be votes to be had from non tories.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?


I can't yet place any actual workings, but I suspect that this is all of a piece with the notion that, of the 100 seats with lowest turn-out, something like 91 are Labour held already. Hence, if Corbyn's greatest electoral strength were to attract more non-voters back into the process, he would merely pile-up bigger majorities in Labour seats. To make headway into the 100 seats Lab would need to win for power in 2020 they would clearly need to turn 2015 Con voters.

Sorry it's vague; I'll see if I can find some stuff on this.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 16, 2015)

From far away, everything looks fucking mad as 

Tories look like they're trying to win an election, even though they just did. Corbyn appears unruffled and giving very few fucks about anything.

You daft bastards, what the shit is this?


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

the tories are trying to win an election - just putting in the groundwork for 2020


----------



## youngian (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> When they say 'outcry' who exactly is crying out? Because none of the people I know would give three fifths of a fuck one way or another who sings the national anthem and who doesn't. They've all got real things to worry about.


Corbyn could wear a suit everyday like Ed Miliband and sing the queen to the skies every morning it would make no difference to Corbyn's press coverage. Unlike Ed though Corbyn has clear policies and ideas to communicate. How he will reach people over the press noise remains to be seen. Most people do not use social media and those that do for politics are either the converted or using links to national newspaper and TV stations for their news.



treelover said:


> btw, Owen Smith is appalling on Newsnight, supports the overall benefit cap on social security spending and sounds like he endorses the cap on individual benefit payments, doesn't sound much different than Reeves, technocrat.



He's a good performer so I don't know why he was getting himself in an unecessary tangle. Corbyn and McDonnel support caps as well through rent controls or housing expansion.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 16, 2015)

Fingers said:


> One of the ones that amused me was the claim that he never sang the national anthem today. FFS, he is republican, if he sang he would be called a hypocrite.



Indeed.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 16, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Polly Filla makes an interesting point that 80% of the votes Corbinladen will need for a majority in 2020 have to come from CON to LAB switchers.


I'm just not going to click on this, but I bet it says 'the size of the task facing...' doesn't it?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I'm just not going to click on this, but I bet it says 'the size of the task facing...' doesn't it?


Harford's R4 stats programme "More or less" did a piece on the (limited) potential of engaging non-voters given our pluralist, majoritarian electoral system.

BBC Radio 4 - More or Less, Is it worth targeting non-voters?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 16, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Polly Filla makes an interesting point that 80% of the votes Corbinladen will need for a majority in 2020 have to come from CON to LAB switchers.



What about all those who didn't vote or are not even registered to vote?  What about all those who will be able to vote for the first time in 2020?  What about Scotland and all the votes lost to the SNP? What about all the old tories who would have died by then?  We've talked about the tories demographic time bomb on here before.  Those figures sound very crude to say the least.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

Going to be fascinating to see how PMQs pans out this lunchtime.

Might see if I can find somewhere close to work to watch it.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Harford's R4 stats programme "More or less" did a piece on the (limited) potential of engaging non-voters given our pluralist, majoritarian electoral system.
> 
> BBC Radio 4 - More or Less, Is it worth targeting non-voters?


which is basically....yes he could, but it's pretty unlikely


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 16, 2015)

youngian said:


> [Owen Smith]'s a good performer so I don't know why he was getting himself in an unecessary tangle.



Rachel Reeves was one of the most pointless, robotic, content- and ideology-free politicians I've ever witnessed open their mouth and I'd be astounded if she ever persuaded a single waverer to support Labour on anything. So to that extent he doesn't have far to go to outperform the recent past. But this is one area where Labour-under-Corbyn have to start absolutely nailing a clear alternative vision to the Tories _every time they speak_ if they're to attract a larger pool of support.

The 'centrist' Blairite and Brownite factions don't get this because their views and actions are still determined by this sense of having to atone for past mistakes which they've completely internalised because they've heard the Tories beat them up about it so often - and by the belief that the way to do this atonement is to appear _very nearly_ as 'tough' as the Tories.   Milliband's campaign should be all the evidence they need that that wasn't working for the electorate, but for some reason they don't get it yet. I think the only way they might start to get it is if they see an alternative approach demonstrably succeeding in winning them more support.

If Corbyn's put people (Smith or otherwise) in place who aren't going to articulate that alternative approach with confidence, he's going to fail quickly and - worse - his opponents in the PLP are going to draw exactly the wrong conclusions about why that's happened.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?




Great to see you posting again, not that I can account for Pollyannas arithmetic.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 16, 2015)

youngian said:


> Corbyn could wear a suit everyday like Ed Miliband and sing the queen to the skies every morning it would make no difference to Corbyn's press coverage. Unlike Ed though Corbyn has clear policies and ideas to communicate. How he will reach people over the press noise remains to be seen. Most people do not use social media and those that do for politics are either the converted or using links to national newspaper and TV stations for their news.
> 
> 
> 
> He's a good performer so I don't know why he was getting himself in an unecessary tangle. Corbyn and McDonnel support caps as well through rent controls or housing expansion.


 For a 66 year old he seems adept at using social media, more so that 48 year old Dave who posted (or his spad posted) that shite about security threats   Corbyn despite being 66 is appealing to young voters who use social media a lot more and a lot of them haven't voted before


----------



## cesare (Sep 16, 2015)

marty21 said:


> For a 66 year old he seems adept at using social media, more so that 48 year old Dave who posted (or his spad posted) that shite about security threats   Corbyn despite being 66 is appealing to young voters who use social media a lot more and a lot of them haven't voted before


Loads of 66 year olds are quite adept at social media. I just discovered that Duncan Bannatyne is the same age (well, 3 months older tbf) as jezzer for example, and he's also all over twitter like a rash.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 16, 2015)

Just saw him on BBC, they're still calling it a row. It's really woeful stuff. Giving him stick for not saying whether or not he'll sing it in the future. It's a fucking song ffs! If he did come out and say 'I'm a republican' it'll be oooh so you're a republican eh? Wanna get rid of the queen do ya? Hate Britain eh? Damned if he does damned if he doesn't. Nothing on policy at all just pathetic attacks over nothing really but I guess that's all they have.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 16, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just saw him on BBC, they're still calling it a row. It's really woeful stuff. Giving him stick for not saying whether or not he'll sing it in the future. It's a fucking song ffs! If he did come out and say 'I'm a republican' it'll be oooh so you're a republican eh? Wanna get rid of the queen do ya? Hate Britain eh? Damned if he does damned if he doesn't. Nothing on policy at all just pathetic attacks over nothing really but I guess that's all they have.



I wonder how it would impact on how people see him if he just told them to grow the fuck up and spend their time reporting on something that matters. I mean, is there anyone who doesn't think most people in the mainstream media/journalism are massive twats? Wouldn't most people like to see them slapped down like that?


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

Isn't that what he's saying?


----------



## marty21 (Sep 16, 2015)

cesare said:


> Loads of 66 year olds are quite adept at social media. I just discovered that Duncan Bannatyne is the same age (well, 3 months older tbf) as jezzer for example, and he's also all over twitter like a rash.


They don't all use it in a good way


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Isn't that what he's saying?



I suppose so, in a way, but why is he now being said to be 'promising to sing it at future events'? That's just 'confirming' that the media have caught him out doing something shameful.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

youngian said:


> Corbyn could wear a suit everyday like Ed Miliband and sing the queen to the skies every morning it would make no difference to Corbyn's press coverage.



I think he knows this and realises full well that if everyone is going to attack him whatever he does then he might as well keep doing what he's always done.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I suppose so, in a way, but why is he now being said to be 'promising to sing it at future events'? That's just 'confirming' that the media have caught him out doing something shameful.


Ah, I'd not seen that. Depressing if true.


----------



## dolly's gal (Sep 16, 2015)

marty21 said:


> For a 66 year old he seems adept at using social media



presumably he's got someone who does that for him? not that i think he should because he's 66, but because it's pretty much a full time job, and he's already got one of them


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 16, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> I suppose so, in a way, but why is he now being said to be 'promising to sing it at future events'? That's just 'confirming' that the media have caught him out doing something shameful.



Major misstep if true imo, he's selling on being a conviction politician and this is one that causes the press more trouble than him in the long run if he sticks to his guns, because they'll simply come across as bullying someone with principles. Ditching his 30-year republican streak after a few bad headlines though? That'll sink him later on when the Sun calls him a flip-flopping opportunist with no idea what he's doing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Harford's R4 stats programme "More or less" did a piece on the (limited) potential of engaging non-voters given our pluralist, majoritarian electoral system.
> 
> BBC Radio 4 - More or Less, Is it worth targeting non-voters?



Define non-voters though. Plenty of them will be people who used to vote Labour but gave up for obvious, Ed Miliband shaped reasons.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

Not to mention the however many young people who will be elligible to vote in 2020 who weren't in 2015. And the tories must lose a significant chunk of their support in each electoral cycle as large swathes of the 'old and bitter' population die off.


----------



## cesare (Sep 16, 2015)

marty21 said:


> They don't all use it in a good way


Absolutely! cf Dawkins


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

Got to say - really looking forward to this PMQs.

It's going to be fascinating to see the Cameron/Corbyn dynamic for the first time...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Define non-voters though. Plenty of them will be people who used to vote Labour but gave up for obvious, Ed Miliband shaped reasons.


But, psephologically, it doesn't matter about their former motivations or inclinations; if they live in seats already held by Lab their re-engagement with the electoral process will have zero impact on the outcome.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 16, 2015)

what time's it on?


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Define non-voters though. Plenty of them will be people who used to vote Labour but gave up for obvious, Ed Miliband shaped reasons.


people who did not vote in the 2015 general election.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

t-3 minutes


----------



## peterkro (Sep 16, 2015)

rutabowa said:


> what time's it on?


In three minutes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

Well this guy is a fucking plant.


----------



## cesare (Sep 16, 2015)

anyone else having problems streaming parliamentlive.tv?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

cesare said:


> anyone else having problems streaming parliamentlive.tv?



it's on iplayer too but the stream is patchy. Lots of people wathcing I guess.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not to mention the however many young people who will be elligible to vote in 2020 who weren't in 2015. And the tories must lose a significant chunk of their support in each electoral cycle as large swathes of the 'old and bitter' population die off.


The notion that the 'output' of old tory voters exceeds the 'input' of new, younger ones is not borne out by the psephological evidence. The long, historic stability of tory electoral support between the 30-50% range is one of the most remarkable features of our electoral record.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 16, 2015)

He got more cheers from the SNP didn't he? I'm liking the fact PMQs has become a sort of radio phone in though.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

Corbyn has made Cameron address the (claimed) named proposers of the questions. Clever; he can't then attack Corbyn.

The vermin are clearly under orders not to bray at Corbyn. Interesting.


----------



## binka (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not to mention the however many young people who will be elligible to vote in 2020 who weren't in 2015. And the tories must lose a significant chunk of their support in each electoral cycle as large swathes of the 'old and bitter' population die off.


but the young eventually become old and bitter too. plenty of my friends on fb were liking tory shit last election which they weren't doing in the previous one.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

'Unlimited welfare' is the new tory buzz-phrase. Although of course there was no benefit cap a few years ago and benefits sure as fuck weren't unlimited back then.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 16, 2015)

I have to say, very clever structuring from Corbyn at PMQs.


----------



## peterkro (Sep 16, 2015)

Skinner is winding up to grabbing the Ham mannequin by the throat.
TvCatchup parliament channel is streaming fine by the way.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> I have to say, very clever structuring from Corbyn at PMQs.


sadly, the questions are all really straightforward, and a piece of piss for poshboy to answer.  Hopefully that'll get sorted over the next few weeks


----------



## kebabking (Sep 16, 2015)

i agree its a good way of doing it, not only can Cameron not slag him down directly, but he's pushing Cameron far harder than he's been pushed before.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

kebabking said:


> but he's pushing Cameron far harder than he's been pushed before.


sorry, but bollocks


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

Who's this twat?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> sorry, but bollocks



no, perhaps its just how poor Miliband was...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> sorry, but bollocks


Yeah, maybe...but the newbie asserted himself and changed the agenda...a bit. He did not fall flat on his arse, did he?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 16, 2015)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

kebabking said:


> but he's pushing Cameron far harder than he's been pushed before.



Not from where I'm sitting. Today for Corbyn is about setting the tone, about looking like a proper party leader and not fucking anything up.

He's done well not to acknowledge any of Hameron's shite responses. These are all very formulaic, trying to turn everything back to the economy and referring to policies like the 'living wage' which have already been discredited by people who can count.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> sadly, the questions are all really straightforward, and a piece of piss for poshboy to answer.  Hopefully that'll get sorted over the next few weeks



Doesn't really matter tbh, what Corbyn's doing is setting himself up as the means by which people enunciate the difficulties they're facing - "Maria and XXX thousand people say you're doing this wrong" followed by "blah blah economy." He's the avatar of righteous anger over very real problems (and everyone has them), Cameron's the excuse maker. Today without ever having to make a policy point of his own he was the defender of people with housing problems, mental health issues etc against a man whose main response was "get a job."


----------



## cesare (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> it's on iplayer too but the stream is patchy. Lots of people wathcing I guess.


It's much better than parliament tv, cheers


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Doesn't really matter tbh, what Corbyn's doing is setting himself up as the means by which people enunciate the problems they're facing - "Maria and XXX thousand people say you're doing this wrong" followed by "blah blah economy." He's the avatar of righteous anger over very real problems (and everyone has them), Cameron's the excuse maker.


Yes. That's the strength of the strategy...probably taken from the way that leaders have had to react to the public (named) questioning in the televised debates. Corbyn has put Cameron in a position where he will have to account...however ineffectively. As I said, a clever opening gambit. tbh, if I were him, I'd stick with it, but make sure that he had 'named' follow-ups to the inevitable bluster response from ham-head.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 16, 2015)

"Outrage as Corbyn ignores thousands of questions from party members"


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

Maybe not terribly well, but Corbyn bossed the encounter. Cameron does not like 'fact'.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> "Outrage as Corbyn ignores thousands of questions from party members"


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 16, 2015)

Did they really have the Corby MP ask a question just so they could make that joke?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

Using questions from frontline staff in mental health and housing associations is also a good tactic. It's impossible for Cameron to dismiss their concerns without looking like a twat. And frontline mental health staff in particular and the services they work for have been kneecapped by funding cuts and technocrat wankers in the last five years.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

The Octagon said:


> Did they really have the Corby MP ask a question just so they could make that joke?



I'm more concerned about the fact that the people of Corby appear to have elected a foetus to parliament.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 16, 2015)

That was an interesting attack from the flanks, wonder if there was any discussion with the Tories about it or it was purely independent.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Polly Filla makes an interesting point that 80% of the votes Corbinladen will need for a majority in 2020 have to come from CON to LAB switchers.


I pulled some data and did an actual analysis.

Data is here:  Election Resources on the Internet: Parliamentary Elections in the   U.K. - 2015 General Election Constituency Results

I'd like to upload my analysis but it is 391kb zipped and that seems to be too large for this site, unfortunately.

All I did was take each of the 330 Conservative victory seats in 2015 and considered what would happen if x% of the non-voters instead decided to vote Labour, with everything else remaining constant.

At a 0.3% rate of non-voters becoming engaged with Labour, you start to get a swing.  It starts to pick up rapidly from there.
At a 5% rate of non-voters becoming engaged with Labour, you get enough of a swing for the Tories to drop to 316 seats, which would be enough to deny them victory.
At 10%, Tory seats drop to 312.  By 15% it drops to 303.  By 20% it is 290.  This is in the range of Labour largest party, I would have thought.
At 25%, the Tories only have 272 seats, which (depending what happens in Scotland) is likely to see a Labour majority.
So there it is.  Don't know where Polly Nonsense gets her information from but it is certainly possible for Corbyn to win purely on engaging non-voters.  A 15% engagement rate would be an overall turnout of 71%, a 25% engagement takes it up to 75%.  These are high turnouts but not impossible.

That doesn't even start to consider the effect of winning over LibDems, Greens and UKIP (and SNP of course, but that's another issue).  If Corbyn can engage the 4 million UKIP and 1 million Green voters, that would also see him move a long way forward.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 16, 2015)

just tuned in to PMQs. Con Party and DUP have already had a pop at JC in relation to the IRA, nuclear weapons and the national anthem. edit - oh I guess I tuned in late - i missed Corbyn!


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> That was an interesting attack from the flanks, wonder if there was any discussion with the Tories about it or it was purely independent.



What attack?


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I pulled some data and did an actual analysis...



Thanks for that, certainly refutes the idea that the only way for Labour to win is to win over last times Tory voters. As I said before, I don't think Polly deals in anything as esoteric as actual substancial information or analysis of data.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

> SNPs Mhairi Black tweets -
> "Tories sniggering every time Corbyn mentions a member of the public's name. At least they are real people, unlike those the DWP made up."


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> What attack?


DUP on "support" for terrorists. May well be heartfelt, but just wondering if there was any collusion with the Tories (and other parties) to take the swipes the Tories didn't want to take at this stage.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 16, 2015)

treelover said:


>


I have to say, I did think it was amusing, purely for its surrealness if nothing else. It reminded me of a kids TV show where kids write in questions for their favourite sports star.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I pulled some data and did an actual analysis.
> 
> Data is here:  Election Resources on the Internet: Parliamentary Elections in the   U.K. - 2015 General Election Constituency Results
> 
> ...


are you assuming that all those pulled in would vote labour?  If so, I think your projections are very optimistic. Around half non-voters would, probably, vote Labour, so getting the right 25% is quite an ask, its half the available cohort.  It also doesn't take into account spread - lowest turnouts is (generally) in labour held seats where extra votes are (electorally) useless.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> DUP on "support" for terrorists. May well be heartfelt, but just wondering if there was any collusion with the Tories (and other parties) to take the swipes the Tories didn't want to take at this stage.



Nobody mention that massive arms fair we just had where representatives from numerous countries that the UN has condemned for use of child soldiers and gross human rights abuses were invited to come along and fill their boots.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, maybe...but the newbie asserted himself and changed the agenda...a bit. He did not fall flat on his arse, did he?





Rob Ray said:


> Doesn't really matter tbh, what Corbyn's doing is setting himself up as the means by which people enunciate the difficulties they're facing - "Maria and XXX thousand people say you're doing this wrong" followed by "blah blah economy." He's the avatar of righteous anger over very real problems (and everyone has them), Cameron's the excuse maker. Today without ever having to make a policy point of his own he was the defender of people with housing problems, mental health issues etc against a man whose main response was "get a job."


both true statements.  He certainly did okay, didn't give poshboy a chance to hammer him, and asked perfectly reasonable questions. Nothing killer in there tho. What he might well do is make PMQs even more boring, so thast no one pays it any attention.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's her workings - or yours, as you're going to use them? I can't see any?



Ah, the prodigal son returneth, like a dog unto a bonio.


----------



## Rob Ray (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> both true statements.  He certainly did okay, didn't give poshboy a chance to hammer him, and asked perfectly reasonable questions. Nothing killer in there tho. What he might well do is make PMQs even more boring, so thast no one pays it any attention.



Possibly, though tbh it's only been of interest to political wonks prepared to put up with half an hour of execrable public schoolboy shouting for most of my lifetime as it is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Think Corbyn had a reasonable day today.  the anti Corbyn establishment press were rather amusing as they sunk to new depths of ridiculous.
> 
> One of the ones that amused me was the claim that he never sang the national anthem today. FFS, he is republican, if he sang he would be called a hypocrite.
> 
> ...



I used to steal sandwiches from a blind war veteran all the time. Packets of 20 No. 6, too. I used to say to him "grandad, it's a harsh world, but I'm doing this for your own good, to teach you to trust no-one".
Old git used to twat me with his white cane! You just can't help some people!


----------



## binka (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> What he might well do is make PMQs even more boring, so thast no one pays it any attention.


has anyone really paid it any attention anyway? you might occasionally get a 10 second clip on the evening news but other than that it mostly goes unnoticed surely?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

ham head talking up the economic miracle in corby lol. I was there yesterday as I am most weeks. Its the same as it ever was.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> are you assuming that all those pulled in would vote labour?  If so, I think your projections are very optimistic. Around half non-voters would, probably, vote Labour, so getting the right 25% is quite an ask, its half the available cohort.  It also doesn't take into account spread - lowest turnouts is (generally) in labour held seats where extra votes are (electorally) useless.


Yes, it was just showing what is theoretically possible by persuading the disenfranchised and disengaged to vote for him. 

Do I think he can get 40% of non voters to turn out for him whilst leaving Tory votes untouched?  Probably not.  Will he need to though? Hell no, he can persuade Lib Dem, Green, UKIP and even Tory voters to switch in addition. 

If he pursuades just one in five non-voters to come out for him, he's already teetering on the edge of victory.  At that point, a realistic proportion of swing votes would do it.  Either way, the idea that 80% of his votes has to come from Tory swing is just ludicrous.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> are you assuming that all those pulled in would vote labour?  If so, I think your projections are very optimistic. Around half non-voters would, probably, vote Labour, so getting the right 25% is quite an ask, its half the available cohort.  It also doesn't take into account spread - lowest turnouts is (generally) in labour held seats where extra votes are (electorally) useless.


Yes, that's quite right. It's a good effort from Kabbes, but it appears to make some assumptions about the possibility of winning NVs over to Labour. 

Like all GEs the 2020 contest will be won and lost in the key Con/Lab marginals which demographically tend towards higher levels of middle-class/socio-economic voters and lower levels of NV. Both of which make the likelihood of generating large numbers of 'new' Labour voters less tenable.

This sort of 'hope-cast' psephology also overlooks the fact that turning one single swing voter is, electorally, worth double that of any one additional, former NV that can be brought on board.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> But, psephologically, it doesn't matter about their former motivations or inclinations; if they live in seats already held by Lab their re-engagement with the electoral process will have zero impact on the outcome.



Except in terms of size of majority.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except in terms of size of majority.


within the individual constituency, yes. Effect on the overall electoral outcome; zero.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


>




Corbyn has always done this when he's speechifying, but it's a good tactic to use in the HoC - it personalises the issue *and* makes the sniggerers look childish/unprofessional/cuntish.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, that's quite right. It's a good effort from Kabbes, but it appears to make some assumptions about the possibility of winning NVs over to Labour.
> 
> Like all GEs the 2020 contest will be won and lost in the key Con/Lab marginals which demographically tend towards higher levels of middle-class/socio-economic voters and lower levels of NV. Both of which make the likelihood of generating large numbers of 'new' Labour voters less tenable.
> 
> This sort of 'hope-cast' psephology also overlooks the fact that turning one single swing voter is, electorally, worth double that of any one additional, former NV that can be brought on board.


It's a "what-if", not a forecast.  It provides information about options, not assumptions.

One thing it does do, however, is use the actual voter turnout by constituency.  So the demographics of non-voting are baked into the analysis.  Check the data set.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm more concerned about the fact that the people of Corby appear to have elected a foetus to parliament.



TBF, a constituency that elected Louise Mensch are capable of electing anyone and anything.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, a constituency that elected Louise Mensch are capable of electing anyone and anything.



Vote DVD case for 2020?


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nobody mention that massive arms fair we just had where representatives from numerous countries that the UN has condemned for use of child soldiers and gross human rights abuses were invited to come along and fill their boots.





> *JeremyCorbyn4PM* ‏@*JeremyCorbyn4PM*  3 hrs3 hours ago
> 
> Harry Leslie Smith WW2 RAF veteran "i'm not offended by Corbyn not singing, but I am offended by politicians who sell guns to tyrants"


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, a constituency that elected Louise Mensch are capable of electing anyone and anything.


from mensh to sawford to this cunt-they go either way- part of its the boundries, villages/town/estates split and all that


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> It's a "what-if", not a forecast.  It provides information about options, not assumptions.
> 
> One thing it does do, however, is use the actual voter turnout by constituency.  So the demographics of non-voting are baked into the analysis.  Check the data set.


Well OK, but one large assumption that you confirmed was that the 'what-if' was made "..._with everything else remaining constant..". _In itself, that is a very large assumption.

The point is that in the majority of those 330 constituencies it really doesn't matter if Lab re-attracted all the NV...the tories would still win.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 16, 2015)

My review of PMQs: all good by Corbyn, but I dont think Cameron was under any pressure - instead just got to say what he wanted to say without being cross-examined, as JC just moved on after each question to ask another. Still, acting the serious statesman could really work. And anything that stops the braying has to be a good thing.



kabbes said:


> Check the data set


before you wreck yo' set

(going to see the Compton movie tomorrow )


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except in terms of size of majority.



Which does matter in terms of mandate - which is relevant for a party that might be taking a significantly different approach to that of recent years on a wide range of issues.  But that's only any use if you get enough bums on those green sofas in the first place.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> The point is that in the majority of those 330 constituencies it really doesn't matter if Lab re-attracted all the NV...the tories would still win.


in the 100 odd marginals, all the NV's would be way more than Labour needed. I'd like to see how they did there gaining 20% of them (the maximum realistic figure, imo)


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> in the 100 odd marginals, all the NV's would be way more than Labour needed. I'd like to see how they did there gaining 20% of them (the maximum realistic figure, imo)


Yes, it's only the marginals that count. And it's there that the demographics tend to weigh against the left making any serious gains from former NVs. Whilst it is possible to model the effects by projected %, the reality remains...however politically unpalatable, that the Con->Lab swing voter in the marginal remains 'king'.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, it's only the marginals that count. And it's there that the demographics tend to weigh against the left making any serious gains from former NVs.


not from the info I've seen.  Yes, it's more difficult in those places, but still plenty of room to make big gains. Winning 20% would get them about two thirds of the way there, from my very quick calculations


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> not from the info I've seen.  Yes, it's more difficult in those places, but still plenty of room to make big gains. Winning 20% would get them about two thirds of the way there, from my very quick calculations


You mean making a gain of 20% from NV assuming that other parties were to make 0% gain from the same pool?


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

Re PMQs, no-one other than politics jocks gives a shit about the old format - by canvassing questions from the public, Corbyn will bring much more attention to it - they'll actually have some ownership of the questions. I presume he'll be emailing everyone who submitted a question back with the responses (and presumably some criticisms of the responses). It's a great way of engaging.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 16, 2015)

I'd say the only way Corbyn will get elected would be as head of a Labour/SNP coalition - and the issues that Cameron and his crew used against Miliband (the 'dangers of a Labour/SNP coalition) will get trotted out again.


----------



## dolly's gal (Sep 16, 2015)

The Octagon said:


> the Corby MP...



I've been thinking this^^^^^ was a snide new internet name for Corbyn for about an hour.



> I'm more concerned about the fact that the people of Corby appear to have elected a foetus to parliament.



and that "the people of Corby" was the related snide collective internet name for Corbyn supporters.

you're welcome


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Who's this twat?


Who? The chinless cunt who asked a question about the Isle of Wight Zoo? Fucking surreal or what?


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> You mean making a gain of 20% from NV assuming that other parties were to make 0% gain from the same pool?


yup - or gain 20% more from that pool than the tories do (the others being irrelevant).

I would like to see how that pans out, adding in an assumption of 33.333% from the Greens and 15% from UKIP. I suspect they'd still need to get about a third as much again to win overall, but even my assumptions would be enough for a Lab/SNP stitch up coalition


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

Just to flag up that I found a missing ) in a formula that Excel had "helpfully" inserted in the wrong place.  I've adjusted the numbers in the original analysis accordingly.  It makes the swings considerably more in Labour's favour.

It actually only takes a 25% engagement with non-voters (keeping everything else constant) to get to a Labour majority.  And a 15% engagement would start to push Labour into largest party territory.

Apologies for the amateurish error.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> just tuned in to PMQs. Con Party and DUP have already had a pop at JC in relation to the IRA, nuclear weapons and the national anthem. edit - oh I guess I tuned in late - i missed Corbyn!


Nigel Dodds... who seems to forget that his party leader was a member of a Loyalist paramilitary group. He's a fine one to mount his moral high horse.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

Here are the top 50 marginals assuming a 20% Labour engagement with non-voters and no other changes:


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

And here's the same thing assuming a 10% non-voter -> Labour engagement:


----------



## chandlerp (Sep 16, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> For all those that say there aren't enough birds in the shadow cabinet, I point you to the two eagles and a falconer.



Of course, there will never be as many birds in the Labour party as there are in the Tory party given that they are all blue tits.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> yup - or gain 20% more from that pool than the tories do (the others being irrelevant).
> 
> I would like to see how that pans out, adding in an assumption of 33.333% from the Greens and 15% from UKIP. I suspect they'd still need to get about a third as much again to win overall, but even my assumptions would be enough for a Lab/SNP stitch up coalition


Your wish is my command.

10% NV -> Labour plus 33% Green -> Labour and 15% UKIP -> Labour gives a swing of 38 from Tory to Labour (Tories left with 292 seats)

20% NV -> Labour plus 33% Green -> Labour and 15% UKIP -> Labour gives a swing of 67 from Tory to Labour (Tories left with 263 seats)

Any other what-ifs?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 16, 2015)

Didn't find PMQs very entertaining.

I want bear-pit style confrontation, and braying and mooing from our elected representatives, not elbow patch giving it all "I received an email from Gail..." this isn't points of view. Ham face walked it. The Blair v Major years were the best.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

Here is the 10% NV->Labour plus multiple swing option, by the way:


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> Didn't find PMQs very entertaining.
> 
> I want bear-pit style confrontation, and braying and mooing from our elected representatives, not elbow patch giving it all "I received an email from Gail..." this isn't points of view. Ham face walked it. The Blair v Major years were the best.


It depends what you're using it for. Politics-theatre fans are all partisan, everyone else is bored rigid with it. He's using it to engage voters rather than score points.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Your wish is my command.
> 
> 10% NV -> Labour plus 33% Green -> Labour and 15% UKIP -> Labour gives a swing of 38 from Tory to Labour (Tories left with 292 seats)
> 
> ...


many thanks!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> Didn't find PMQs very entertaining.
> 
> I want bear-pit style confrontation, and braying and mooing from our elected representatives, not elbow patch giving it all "I received an email from Gail..." this isn't points of view. Ham face walked it. The Blair v Major years were the best.


experienced fighters will often spend some time circling, feints, fakes and footwork. Testing the opponents game. Thats what this was. Next week c-byns going to open up with a blistering assualt of verbiage that would make 2pac blush


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> c-byns


stop that. Now.  It's even worse than 'Jez'


----------



## Favelado (Sep 16, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> this isn't points of view.



Dear PMQ's, Why oh why oh why..........?


----------



## Favelado (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> stop that. Now.  It's even worse than 'Jez'



J-COR?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes presumably your numbers are assuming that everyone who previously voted labour votes labour again?

ie. that no-one who voted for a Milliband Labour is put off by the Corbyn version.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 16, 2015)

"I have an email here from a Mrs.Trellis in North Wales."


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

This is an interesting one because it shows how close the Tories actually are to a minority government.

No non-voter engagement at all, just a winning back of 15% of UKIP and Greens:


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> kabbes presumably your numbers are assuming that everyone who previously voted labour votes labour again?
> 
> ie. that no-one who voted for a Milliband Labour is put off by the Corbyn version.


Oh yes indeed.  I'm not denying reality is considerably more complicated than the simple uniform swings I am presenting here.

It certainly gives a general feel for the size and shape of the task though: keep existing supporters, engage a modicum of the currently disengaged, win back a small number of Greens and UKIP.  Certainly doesn't seem impossible even without attracting any Tories whatsoever (let alone them being 80% of the new Labour votes!)


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Oh yes indeed.  I'm not denying reality is considerably more complicated than the simple uniform swings I am presenting here.
> 
> It certainly gives a general feel for the size and shape of the task though: keep existing supporters, engage a modicum of the currently disengaged, win back a small number of Greens and UKIP.  Certainly doesn't seem impossible even without attracting any Tories whatsoever (let alone them being 80% of the new Labour votes!)


The non-voters probably include a significant number of 'Labour' voters who simply couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour last time, but didn't go to the Greens, UKIP or LibDem.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> kabbes presumably your numbers are assuming that everyone who previously voted labour votes labour again?
> 
> ie. that no-one who voted for a Milliband Labour is put off by the Corbyn version.


Yes. his assumptions are increase in Lab vote from NV pool Ceteris paribus.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Nigel Dodds... who seems to forget that his party leader was a member of a Loyalist paramilitary group. He's a fine one to mount his moral high horse.



Corbyns rebuttal team could use that one.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

Did anyone submit a question to Corbyn for PMQs? I'd be interested to hear what the follow-up is - the more I think about it, the better an Idea this looks like to me - if he plays it right.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Did anyone submit a question to Corbyn for PMQs? I'd be interested to hear what the follow-up is - the more I think about it, the better an Idea this looks like to me - if he plays it right.



the simplest way it is effective only just occured to me- cameron doesn't get to mug the question off without looking like he's mugging off joe/jane ordinary


----------



## teuchter (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Did anyone submit a question to Corbyn for PMQs? I'd be interested to hear what the follow-up is - the more I think about it, the better an Idea this looks like to me - if he plays it right.


it's a bit of a charade really - if you receive 40,000 questions and choose 6 of them, it doesn't seem much different from making up 6 questions yourself.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 16, 2015)

You can bet there'll already be Tory party staffers submitting pro govt policy emails. I don't see this lasting TBH. Remember 'web cameron' when he was trying to be all hip and down with da youth?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> it's a bit of a charade really


was pmq's ever much else?


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> it's a bit of a charade really - if you receive 40,000 questions and choose 6 of them, it doesn't seem much different from making up 6 questions yourself.


They're hardly likely to be 40,000 different questions though are they. You get 40,000 emails, 10,000 are about housing, 8,000 are about benefit cuts so you lead with housing and benefits while adding a public personalisation which forces Hameron to make the answers polite.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

I've refined the analysis to include swings in seats held by Lib Dems and UKIP.  It obviously doesn't affect Tory held seats, but some of the scenarios discussed actually see Labour win in Lib Dem seats too (e.g. knocking them down to a mighty 5 seat total on the 20%/33%/15% scenario.  Not so octocunt any more.)

It's not letting me post the pictures any more though, saying they are too big.  Not sure why -- it's saying it even for small ones.  Any ideas?

Excitingly, the 10%/33%/15% scenario has Sheffield Hallam falling to Labour...


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> it's a bit of a charade really - if you receive 40,000 questions and choose 6 of them, it doesn't seem much different from making up 6 questions yourself.


absolutely, but you've engaged with 40,000 people. It looks like he's splitting the questions into themes (10,000 on whatever, 8,000 on something else) - which means he can send a relevant response to the whole of each group (I'm assuming that's what the plan is). 

This time perhaps it's mostly Labour supporters & members, but over time that'll spread out. Really canny move, and not particularly difficult to manage either.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

maomao said:


> They're hardly likely to be 40,000 different questions though are they. You get 40,000 emails, 10,000 are about housing, 8,000 are about benefit cuts so you lead with housing and benefits while adding a public personalisation which forces Hameron to make the answers polite.


Absolutely. And it gives him an idea of the issues that are most important to the public each week too.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> You can bet there'll already be Tory party staffers submitting pro govt policy emails. I don't see this lasting TBH. Remember 'web cameron' when he was trying to be all hip and down with da youth?


True, but at least he's got them thinking about this now. They'll be trying to second guess the tactic he'll employ next week; will it be similar or will he go for all 'named' questions on one topic, or maybe abandon that line altogether? Perhaps JC ought to have the correspondents on 'face-time' so that he could ask them live if they were happy with ham-head's reply.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> You can bet there'll already be Tory party staffers submitting pro govt policy emails.


which will be binned.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> it's a bit of a charade really - if you receive 40,000 questions and choose 6 of them, it doesn't seem much different from making up 6 questions yourself.



Yep - it's an easy system to attack.

40,000 questions and you choose the 6 from the same political movement?

It's very hard to see how it is not a case of using a "Joe Bloggs" as a shield for the questions that you wanted to put anyway...


----------



## agricola (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> absolutely, but you've engaged with 40,000 people. It looks like he's splitting the questions into themes (10,000 on whatever, 8,000 on something else) - which means he can send a relevant response to the whole of each group (I'm assuming that's what the plan is).
> 
> This time perhaps it's mostly Labour supporters & members, but over time that'll spread out. Really canny move, and not particularly difficult to manage either.



I agree, but there is quite a lot of scope for hacks / other politicians to interfere with the process by raising false or trap questions; I just hope they have someone going through the ones they pick to make sure they are genuine.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Excitingly, the 10%/33%/15% scenario has Sheffield Hallam falling to Labour...


which could actually happen, as all those tories who lent Clegg their vote to save him will return. That'd be really fucking hilarious


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> It depends what you're using it for. Politics-theatre fans are all partisan, everyone else is bored rigid with it. He's using it to engage voters rather than score points.



And not bollocksing it up is a good place to start. There'll be oh-so-many opportunities to display some well-placed righteous fury - best not to shoot your load at the very first opportunity.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

agricola said:


> I agree, but there is quite a lot of scope for hacks / other politicians to interfere with the process by raising false or trap questions; I just hope they have someone going through the ones they pick to make sure they are genuine.


Why would it matter?

Most questions will be on a few broad themes (housing, immigration, whatever), He's just going to be choosing whichever question is the most useful for interrogating that particular subject that week. He's hardly going to choose the obvious tory plants or trolls. And if he does one time, why does it matter as long as the question is good?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yep - it's an easy system to attack.
> 
> 40,000 questions and you choose the 6 from the same political movement?
> 
> It's very hard to see how it is not a case of using a "Joe Bloggs" as a shield for the questions that you wanted to put anyway...



The reality is probably a combination of picking 6 which are representative of what's been asked most frequently, and picking ones which supported what he wanted to ask anyway.  That doesn't seem particularly Machiavellian to me - only a total tool would pick ones which _didn't_ bear any relation to their own views and questions, just to prove some point about inclusivity/involvement.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> And not bollocksing it up is a good place to start. There'll be oh-so-many opportunities to display some well-placed righteous fury - best not to shoot your load at the very first opportunity.


papers would have been giving it 'raving marxist rants at the pulpit' if c-byn had gone bang at it


----------



## chandlerp (Sep 16, 2015)

Using questions form members of the public is a good idea as Cameron can't take the piss out of them without being seen to be taking the piss out of members of the public.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yep - it's an easy system to attack.
> 
> *40,000 questions and you choose the 6 from the same political movement?*
> 
> It's very hard to see how it is not a case of using a "Joe Bloggs" as a shield for the questions that you wanted to put anyway...



What a strikingly stupid thing to say.

If Cameron was doing this, would you expect him to pick questions that were decidedly left wing in nature? 

And how is it that asking about mental health provision, how your family can afford to eat without using a foodbank, and whether you're going to lose your job or be able to afford a house indicative of a specific political movement? They're issues people across the political spectrum have to deal with. Unless you're a right wing cockwomble who sees dignity and survival for the poor as something radical and to be mocked.

Twat.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 16, 2015)

Measured, low key, apart from the terrorist dig there was nothing for Cameron to latch onto.

Will make any possible spiky confrontations more impactful down the line, no need to go in hard first thing.

Decent, if unspectacular, which I imagine is what they were going for tbh.


----------



## agricola (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Why would it matter?
> 
> Most questions will be on a few broad themes (housing, immigration, whatever), He's just going to be choosing whichever question is the most useful for interrogating that particular subject that week. He's hardly going to choose the obvious tory plants or trolls. And if he does one time, why does it matter as long as the question is good?



Because the media will get yet another stick to beat him with, and because the broader (or more in-line with the theme of the week) the less valuable the exercise is.


----------



## agricola (Sep 16, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> And how is it that asking about mental health provision, how your family can afford to eat without using a foodbank, and whether you're going to lose your job or be able to afford a house indicative of a specific political movement? They're issues people across the political spectrum have to deal with.



Well exactly, and on 99% of the times that thpse issues, or peoples individual experiences, are raised in Parliament it is to an almost empty chamber.  At least the national news and quite a few people watch PMQs.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> What a strikingly stupid thing to say.
> 
> If Cameron was doing this, would you expect him to pick questions that were decidedly left wing in nature?
> 
> ...



It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.


I disagree


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.



Yes it does, it just did you pretentious twat


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

agricola said:


> Because the media will get yet another stick to beat him with, and because the broader (or more in-line with the theme of the week) the less valuable the exercise is.


The headline writes itself doesn't it: _The sun gets Corbyn to ask a question about housing policy_

err. Can't see much mileage there tbh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yep - it's an easy system to attack.
> 
> 40,000 questions and you choose the 6 from the same political movement?
> 
> It's very hard to see how it is not a case of using a "Joe Bloggs" as a shield for the questions that you wanted to put anyway...



Do you have to be a mad leftist to be concerned about the erosion of mental health provision or the spiralling rental market?

You're falling into the classic trap that gets all long-game trolls sooner or later: you're forgetting to keep your bullshit in the realms of the vaguely plausible. Presumably even you have grown bored of yourself at this point so you're trying to up the ante a bit, and in so doing abandoning any pretence of being anything other than a garden variety troll.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.


If he is, as you say 'pretending' to be democratic, then it works perfectly well and logically. Do you read through what you write before hitting the "post reply" button.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Do you have to be a mad leftist to be concerned about the erosion of mental health provision or the spiralling rental market?
> 
> You're falling into the classic trap that gets all long-game trolls sooner or later: you're forgetting to keep your bullshit in the realms of the vaguely plausible. Presumably even you have grown bored of yourself at this point so you're trying to up the ante a bit, and in so doing abandoning any pretence of being anything other than a garden variety troll.



No - they are valid questions and to be frank I have a vested interest in mental health provision as you might find elsewhere on these boards if you took your blinkers off.

They are all good questions but it's the vehicle of "authenticity" in which they are posed which is problematic on a political level.  

Fair enough - it's a clever new tactic and stymies Cameron's ability to go on the attack directly against Corbyn but it is also completely unclear about how he chose these questions.  6 out of 40,000?  That's a pretty broad church from which to select your readers and it is the leader, the executive, who is doing the selection.

It is easy to see how some might interpret that as being incredibly cynical.

This is a fine point - I don't think Corbyn's using it as a completely cynical political vehicle but it is manifestly easy to make the argument that he is cherry picking questions that accord to his views and hiding behind his supporters to avoid direct, confrontational argument as a result, which is really just another way of doing what leaders of the opposition at PMQ have always done but trying to dilute one's personal responsibility and some people might look at that and think it to be a bit cowardly.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.



Perhaps the questions from the right involved things like "Are you a cunt?" "How about we shoot all the [insert minority here]?" "Lets shoot the poor and feast on their flesh, do you agree?"



Diamond said:


> No - they are valid questions and to be frank I have a vested interest in mental health provision



I'm glad you mentioned that...


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.



I think you're missing the point.

It's not about being "democratic" in the sense of giving absolutely anyone a voice, no matter who they are or what their question might be, just as the Leadership election wasn't about giving absolutely anyone a vote, no matter who they were or what their political stance might be.

It's explicitly about giving individual Labour supporters a voice, the sort of voice that has pretty much been denied them by Labour leaderships over the past couple of decades. It's a small thing, but potentially a very significant and clever as a sign of things to come.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No - they are valid questions and to be frank I have a vested interest in mental health provision as you might find elsewhere on these boards if you took your blinkers off.
> 
> They are all good questions but it's the vehicle of "authenticity" in which they are posed which is problematic on a political level.
> 
> ...


big man politics again, throwing it open to the floor is democracy basically. You seem to want a CEO rather than the leader of a party whose whole shtick has been about iincreasing other peoples voices within the party constructs


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

I think it's clever and it's interesting but the idea that these are some sort of "people's PMQs" rather than "Corbyn's PMQs" is not very persuasive and open to attack as a result.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> and open to attack as a result.


From you, yes.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

this is pretty weak, can we just not bother?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.


You could easily demonstrate how you went about it, though. x thousand questions on this theme this week, so that's what I'm leading off with. 

And the tories would meddle with the process at their peril. They would look like such wankers if they got caught sending false questions. They would be shown to be acting against the democratic process.


----------



## agricola (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> The headline writes itself doesn't it: _The sun gets Corbyn to ask a question about housing policy_
> 
> err. Can't see much mileage there tbh.



That's not what they will do, though.  The_y_'ll use an example of someone suitably disgraceful and get him to ask a question on their behalf, probably after giving Dave the facts of who the person is beforehand.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 16, 2015)

"I had an email from Jamie in Stevanage who asks "What's your favourite dinosaur"?"


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I think it's clever and it's interesting but the idea that these are some sort of "people's PMQs" rather than "Corbyn's PMQs" is not very persuasive and open to attack as a result.



I'm not sure where you've got the idea that they are supposed to be "people's PMQs" from, tbh.

They are still explicitly the leader of the opposition's questions, it just so happens that the Labour leader of the opposition has emailed registered Labour supporters to invite them to submit questions for Cameron for him to ask on their behalf.

This also deals with the issue of rogue questions from other parties or media orgs etc - unless they are registered Labour supporters, they won't have been invited to submit questions. It's really not that hard to understand how it works...


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

agricola said:


> That's not what they will do, though.  The_y_'ll use an example of someone suitably disgraceful and get him to ask a question on their behalf, probably after giving Dave the facts of who the person is beforehand.


_we pretended to be Fred West, and got Corbyn to ask a question about housing policy!
_
Still can't see it.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You could easily demonstrate how you went about it, though. x thousand questions on this theme this week, so that's what I'm leading off with.
> 
> And the tories would meddle with the process at their peril. They would look like such wankers if they got caught sending false questions. They would be shown to be acting against the democratic process.



Yep, you would probably have to have a team of around 20-30 people working round the clock on document review and a good number of analysts and infrastructure to get through 40,000 emails in a matter of 4 working days to get you there though - an entirely possible but extremely challenging task.

Unless you went down a different route of simply having a poll - but then that runs up against the problem that you set the options in the first instance so they don't really emanate from the public.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No - they are valid questions and to be frank I have a vested interest in mental health provision as you might find elsewhere on these boards if you took your blinkers off.



Then maybe stop attacking Corbyn for mentioning the parlous state MH provision is currently in?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm not sure where you've got the idea that they are supposed to be "people's PMQs" from, tbh.
> 
> They are still explicitly the leader of the opposition's questions, it just so happens that the Labour leader of the opposition has emailed registered Labour supporters to invite them to submit questions for Cameron for him to ask on their behalf.
> 
> This also deals with the issue of rogue questions from other parties or media orgs etc - unless they are registered Labour supporters, they won't have been invited to submit questions. It's really not that hard to understand how it works...



My impression, and I could be wrong on this, is that the "crowd-sourcing" element is supposed to demonstrate some kind of broader mandate than a leader of the opposition just choosing his own questions and that there is some greater legitimacy in that.  But when you have 40,000 options to choose from then it's exactly the same thing.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

the emails could be scanned and sorted automatically, then a few hundred reviewed manually. It's not a difficult job.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> _we pretended to be Fred West, and got Corbyn to ask a question about housing policy!
> _
> Still can't see it.



The risks of such a scheme backfiring, especially after the DWP's imaginary rentaquote people, surely outweigh the potential gain.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then maybe stop attacking Corbyn for mentioning the parlous state MH provision is currently in?



Do you want to demonstrate where I have done that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Yep, you would probably have to have a team of around 20-30 people working round the clock on document review and a good number of analysts and infrastructure to get through 40,000 emails in a matter of 4 working days to get you there though - an entirely possible but extremely challenging task.
> 
> Unless you went down a different route of simply having a poll - but then that runs up against the problem that you set the options in the first instance so they don't really emanate from the public.


Yo wouldn't have to ask everyone every time. You could have a union week, for instance, or other themes for which you invited responses.

There could be a prize for question of the week.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Corbyns rebuttal team could use that one.


Maybe he should hire me. Just a thought. 


I'm not joining the fucking Labour Party though.


----------



## andysays (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> My impression, and I could be wrong on this, is that the "crowd-sourcing" element is supposed to demonstrate some kind of broader mandate than a leader of the opposition just choosing his own questions and that there is some greater legitimacy in that.  But when you have 40,000 options to choose from then it's exactly the same thing.



I don't know where you've got that impression from, but I think it's the wrong one.

They are explicitly questions from Labour party supporters, and the idea of doing it this way was announced a while ago and probably mentioned on this very thread.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.


What's the relationship between authenticity and methodology? 

As for your perception of logicality. Do please explain.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

Please dont.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Please dont.


I suspect Diamond will just spout a load of mumbo-jumbo he's pulled from his arse.


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

yes. that's how it goes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

maybe cameron will adopt the same tactic and tell us all about that time he met someone again?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2015)

Either that or use his dead son.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 16, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> What's the relationship between authenticity and methodology?
> 
> As for your perception of logicality. Do please explain.



The self-effacing leader representing the whole of the party, not simply himself as the executive, chooses 6 questions by executive authority to his liking from 40,000 submitted without explaining his methodology on the basis that there is a more authentic grassroots element to the process...


----------



## YouSir (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The self-effacing leader representing the whole of the party, not simply himself as the executive, chooses 6 questions by executive authority to his liking from 40,000 submitted without explaining his methodology on the basis that there is a more authentic grassroots element to the process...



You assume. Though judging by the numbers he cited I'd say he took examples of the most popular questions. Most people probably would. Though evidently not you.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> maybe cameron will adopt the same tactic and tell us all about that time he met someone again?



"I once met a black man, he was aged 6, he'd spent the last 30 years in the navy, it was in Plymouth"


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> _we pretended to be Fred West, and got Corbyn to ask a question about housing policy!
> _
> Still can't see it.


Trump fell for it a couple of times


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The self-effacing leader representing the whole of the party, not simply himself as the executive, chooses 6 questions by executive authority to his liking from 40,000 submitted without explaining his methodology on the basis that there is a more authentic grassroots element to the process...


Thanks for your screed. Your points have been noted.

I guess the idea of a people's democracy in which the legislature and the executive are held to account doesn't appeal to you. Am I getting warm?


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.



It wasn't an exercise in proving a democratic process? Simply reflecting the (quite believable) main themes of the responses?

(Unless I'm missing something?)


----------



## Crispy (Sep 16, 2015)

Like reading out tweets on breakfast tv


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn changed PMQs for the better, says the woman who suggested his first question



> Marie, from Putney, had suggested that the new Labour leader ask about solving the UK’s housing crisis after he opened his door to ideas from members of the public.
> “I think Jeremy put that point over very well today. I liked the way he did it, and in a calm and collective way he was quite censorious of the prime minister,”


----------



## emanymton (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Just to flag up that I found a missing ) in a formula that Excel had "helpfully" inserted in the wrong place.  I've adjusted the numbers in the original analysis accordingly.  It makes the swings considerably more in Labour's favour.
> 
> It actually only takes a 25% engagement with non-voters (keeping everything else constant) to get to a Labour majority.  And a 15% engagement would start to push Labour into largest party territory.
> 
> Apologies for the amateurish error.


What is it you do for a living again? 

I though they seemed a bit large.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 16, 2015)

...


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The self-effacing leader representing the whole of the party, not simply himself as the executive, chooses 6 questions by executive authority to his liking from 40,000 submitted without explaining his methodology on the basis that there is a more authentic grassroots element to the process...



I bet he sat in his castle laughing at the stupid proles he'd tricked whilst wiping pheasant juice off his chin on the back of a disabled child.

FFS, I think you've got whatever slim mileage you're going to get out of this 'issue' - as everyone else seems to grasp, it was a small and very preliminary step in the right direction in terms of involving a broader base of people in what goes on in a political party - nothing more, and never presented as the be-all and end-all of bottom-up policy-making from here on in, some vast exercise in rigorous, scientifically verifiable data-gathering and -refining.

And it's so obvious that it's hardly worth commenting on that, whatever his style and convictions, Corbyn is still a politician and was hardly likely to do it if it was going to land him with the necessity of asking lots of questions he didn't really agree with or that weren't really about the issues of the day on his first ever PMQs.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 16, 2015)

i asked corbyn to ask, ''why don't you piss off, cameron, you cunt?''

predictably he didn't read it out. this is a lesson in the limits of reformist politics.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2015)

discokermit said:


> i asked corbyn to ask, ''why don't you piss off, cameron, you cunt?''
> 
> predictably he didn't read it out. this is a lesson in the limits of reformist politics.


There were probably a good 39,994 emails on the same theme.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 16, 2015)

PMQs is now on the Parliament YouTube account


----------



## discokermit (Sep 16, 2015)

maomao said:


> There were probably a good 39,994 emails on the same theme.


goodness me. this man has no regard for even a figleaf of democracy! what a swizz!


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 16, 2015)

maomao said:


> There were probably a good 39,994 emails on the same theme.


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> PMQs is now on the Parliament YouTube account




I haven't seen PMQs for ages. Corbyn is about the only one I wouldn't happily throw under the guillotine after a viewing of that. I think he actually comes over quite well.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 16, 2015)

I took part in this and requested he asks Cameron if IDS sleeps at night, but I suspect a lot of people asked that as well.


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 16, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> "I had an email from Jamie in Stevanage who asks "What's your favourite dinosaur"?"



Allosaurus. One scary bastard.


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

He's given the BBC an interview:



> Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has told the BBC that he will not campaign for Britain to leave the EU.
> 
> Mr Corbyn said that while policy was "developing" he could not foresee a situation where Labour would campaign for a "Brexit" under his leadership.
> 
> ...



Jeremy Corbyn: Labour won't back EU exit - BBC News


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.



Christ you're a boring irritating bastard.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 16, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Christ you're a boring irritating bastard.



How dare you sir!
Diamond has a wit as sharp as the eponymous crystalline allotrope of carbon. I, for one, should feel privileged to have such an incisive and eloquent  mind advocate my case.


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

C4 news interview:


----------



## Weller (Sep 16, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Christ you're a boring irritating bastard.



I thought politics had just got a bit more polite today


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 16, 2015)

Weller said:


> I thought politics had just got a bit more polite today



That is the polite way of responding to Diamond.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 16, 2015)

Weller said:


> I thought politics had just got a bit more polite today


It has. He's not going to have to use a straw to eat his next meal


----------



## agricola (Sep 16, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Christ you're a boring irritating bastard.



Careful, that is how Judas got started.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

agricola said:


> Careful, that is how Judas got started.



Yeah but I don't reckon Jesus got started by acting like Diamond.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

Or the central tenet of Christianity would be: _Thou shalt behave in all things as befits the end of a bell._


----------



## YouSir (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Or the central tenet of Christianity would be: _Thou shalt behave in all things as befits the end of a bell._


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Did anyone submit a question to Corbyn for PMQs? I'd be interested to hear what the follow-up is - the more I think about it, the better an Idea this looks like to me - if he plays it right.




There is definitely something of the Harry Perkins about Corbyn,


----------



## magneze (Sep 16, 2015)

Diamond said:


> It is a question of authenticity/methodology - pretending that you are being democratic by executively selecting questions from a raft of your supporters doesn't logically work unless you can demonstrate the way you have gone about it.


Bollocks


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Did anyone submit a question to Corbyn for PMQs? I'd be interested to hear what the follow-up is - the more I think about it, the better an Idea this looks like to me - if he plays it right.


I like the idea, but listening a bit to today's exchanges, the weaknesses of it were also apparent. Cameron did get a soft ride with the absence of specific follow-up questions that disputed Cameron's claims or doubted his explanations. 

Dunno how important pmqs are nowadays really, but I'd have thought that at some point Corbyn will have to go into battle at them, to express disgust and anger at the responses to his questions. But then I'm in a bit of a minority in that I used to quite like the spectacle of 'yah-boo' politics in the commons.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Re PMQs, no-one other than politics jocks gives a shit about the old format - by canvassing questions from the public, Corbyn will bring much more attention to it - they'll actually have some ownership of the questions. I presume he'll be emailing everyone who submitted a question back with the responses (and presumably some criticisms of the responses). It's a great way of engaging.


Yeah, according to pricks like White and co Hauge always "beat" Blair but who outside them gave a fuck.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Re PMQs, no-one other than politics jocks gives a shit about the old format - by canvassing questions from the public, Corbyn will bring much more attention to it - they'll actually have some ownership of the questions. I presume he'll be emailing everyone who submitted a question back with the responses (and presumably some criticisms of the responses). It's a great way of engaging.


Yeah, this is exactly right.  I got this email tonight:

***

  Dear kabbes — it's so brilliant to be part of this extraordinary, democratic movement with you.

Since Saturday evening, I have received an incredible 40,192 questions from people across our country to ask David Cameron at PMQs.

I put six of these to David Cameron this afternoon in Parliament.

WATCH: I put your questions to David Cameron at PMQs
READ: Here are the questions that I asked

I am so proud to have had the chance to stand up and put the experiences and questions of ordinary people directly to David Cameron. They need to be heard. We have shown there is a way to bring the people right into the heart of Westminster.

I promise that I am going to keep doing politics differently; and I hope that you will continue on this journey with me.

Thanks,

Jeremy Corbyn


*Join us, Kabbes*

Thousands of people are joining the Labour Party to support Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson. If you believe in Labour values of fairness, justice and social equality then join us now. Every new member makes our movement stronger and it takes just two minutes to join. 

Become a member.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2015)

It's amazing the disconnect between that ^^ and the crap emerging from every media outlet. On World Service today - normally the more sensible branch of the BBC - a reporter described Corbyn as the 'most left-wing Labour leader in 100 years', and went on to detail how Corbyn faced the task of persuading the British people to become more left-wing like him.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 16, 2015)

When was this world service. I'd like to have a listen. It would be wrong to complain about something I haven't heard.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> When was this world service. I'd like to have a listen. It would be wrong to complain about something I haven't heard.


It was this evening around 6.30. I was only half-listening. It was just before a section on US politics, if that helps.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, this is exactly right.  I got this email tonight:
> 
> ***
> 
> ...



So did I!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2015)

I can't face trawling this thread for quotes, but I think a few people on here (as well as in the media) have not quite grasped what JC's approach to policy is.

He's made it clear that he's not coming in with "this is what I think / say - therefore this is now party policy", he's said he is going to make the party membership more involved with policy making.

To be fair, I think this might be a bit of a strange concept to some of the blairite MPs as well...


----------



## agricola (Sep 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's amazing the disconnect between that ^^ and the crap emerging from every media outlet. On World Service today - normally the more sensible branch of the BBC - a reporter described Corbyn as the 'most left-wing Labour leader in 100 years', and went on to detail how Corbyn faced the task of persuading the British people to become more left-wing like him.



This is the same news organization that said people were describing the Germanwings crash as "the darkest day in Germany's history", though - you shouldn't expect that much from them.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like the idea, but listening a bit to today's exchanges, the weaknesses of it were also apparent. Cameron did get a soft ride with the absence of specific follow-up questions that disputed Cameron's claims or doubted his explanations.
> 
> Dunno how important pmqs are nowadays really, but I'd have thought that at some point Corbyn will have to go into battle at them, to express disgust and anger at the responses to his questions. But then I'm in a bit of a minority in that I used to quite like the spectacle of 'yah-boo' politics in the commons.


The thing is, it doesn't have to devolve into yah-boo politics, there could just be a measured "actually Dave, yer wrong there". Except, of course, not in the Commons.


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 16, 2015)

Sadly It's the 'office' which will hobble him.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 16, 2015)

Doing the "Jimmy from Norwich wrote in to ask" performance just seems unecessary to me. Ask people to email with their questions, look at them, decide which are the themes you want to concentrate on, formulate your questions and ask them in your own words. That's all that's really happening anyway - attaching the question to a real-but-may-as-well-be-fictional person is just for show. The problem I can see with it is that it gives the impression he's submitting anecdotal evidence - something which the tories are rightly frequently attacked for on here. Pretty sure one of today's was basically that - someone writes in to say they work for an organisation where there are job cuts due to local authority funding cuts. That's anecdotal and weak. The same point could be made much more strongly by saying "nationwide these organisations are cutting X percent of their staff due to funding cuts of Y amount to local authorities". Asking Cameron a question based on one person's particular circumstances just invites him to reply with anecdotes of his own.


----------



## miktheword (Sep 16, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I can't face trawling this thread for quotes, but I think a few people on here (as well as in the media) have not quite grasped what JC's approach to policy is.
> 
> He's made it clear that he's not coming in with "this is what I think / say - therefore this is now party policy", he's said he is going to make the party membership more involved with policy making.
> 
> To be fair, I think this might be a bit of a strange concept to some of the blairite MPs as well...






agreed, and he can vary his approach to keep them guessing..it's one tactic, that's all..mirroring the broader democratic 'bottom up..members will determine policy' point you make about Corbyn's approach, it may come eventually to some in Labour, how easy it was for JC to communicate with ordinary people, in contrast to hearing post election, that their 'machine' couldn't even get in touch with ONE minimum wage worker, when they wanted to.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, this is exactly right.  I got this email tonight:
> 
> ***
> 
> ...


I got it too. I'm very interested to know how they got my email address seeing as I never gave it to them.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 17, 2015)

To me what's really come out of these last few days is the utter contempt that virtually the entire political and media class have for democracy.  Of course this has been obvious for years but its really on display at the moment. 

The idea that corbyn is going to have a bottom up approach to policy within the  party he leads is completely alien to them. All this anthem shit is very telling too. Didn't people who fought in the battle of Britain fight for freedom? Freedom to, I dunno, not sing a fucking song if you don't want to?


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 17, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> ... Freedom to, I dunno, not sing a fucking song if you don't want to?


It is more Orwellian than that. We are only free to elect politicians who gladly express our fealty to a monarch.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Doing the "Jimmy from Norwich wrote in to ask" performance just seems unecessary to me. Ask people to email with their questions, look at them, decide which are the themes you want to concentrate on, formulate your questions and ask them in your own words. That's all that's really happening anyway - attaching the question to a real-but-may-as-well-be-fictional person is just for show. The problem I can see with it is that it gives the impression he's submitting anecdotal evidence - something which the tories are rightly frequently attacked for on here. Pretty sure one of today's was basically that - someone writes in to say they work for an organisation where there are job cuts due to local authority funding cuts. That's anecdotal and weak. The same point could be made much more strongly by saying "nationwide these organisations are cutting X percent of their staff due to funding cuts of Y amount to local authorities". Asking Cameron a question based on one person's particular circumstances just invites him to reply with anecdotes of his own.



I don't think he's going to do 'Jimmy from Norwich' every week tbh. Hopefully he will still listen to people's input on what sort of questions he should be asking, but in the long run he'll want to set his own agenda as well.

But I agree that sometimes big numbers wil be more useful than anecdotes. Talking about the tax credit cut for example, and how many people will be worse off and by how much money. Corbyn did will to quote from the IFS though, when calling bullshit on Hameron's 'living wage' nonsense.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is the same news organization that said people were describing the Germanwings crash as "the darkest day in Germany's history", though - you shouldn't expect that much from them.



And 'Josef Fritzl, the most infamous Austrian monster.'


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 17, 2015)

The media are still looking for things to criticise Corbyn for. It seems he had an affair with Dianne Abbot in the 70s at a time when he was separating from his wife, so nothing really bad there, it was all open. Abbot looked surpisingly good in the picture.

One 'journalist' upbraids him for wearing a beige suit in PMQs along with a yellow brown tie saying it doesn't go. Well it does go quite well and in any case it wasn't a suit but a jacket with black trousers - sloppy journalism.

They are reporting that he has said in a tv interview that he will not campaign to get out of the EU, so that fox has been shot.

He also did not think the party would not want to leave NATO, thus avoiding another prepared mantrap and showed him deferring to the views of party members rather than being a one-man-band. He has given himself plenty of wriggle room now.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 17, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Abbot looked surpisingly good in the picture.



How did Corbyn look?


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The media are still looking for things to criticise Corbyn for. It seems he had an affair with Dianne Abbot in the 70s at a time when he was separating from his wife, so nothing really bad there, it was all open. Abbot looked surpisingly good in the picture.
> 
> One 'journalist' upbraids him for wearing a beige suit in PMQs along with a yellow brown tie saying it doesn't go. Well it does go quite well and in any case it wasn't a suit but a jacket with black trousers - sloppy journalism.
> 
> ...



The media will *always* be looking for things to criticise Corbyn for, for as long as he's Labour leader.

I don't think they've come up with anything so far which will really hurt him among those who already support him, or even those whose support he's realistically hoping to win. The fact that they're paying so much attention to what he's wearing suggests they haven't got much of any real substance - normally it's women who get comments and criticism for what they wear or what they look like, a tendency your post nicely parodys (it was a parody, right?)


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

Latest Snow interview is worth watching. Seems pretty wry over the clusterfuck of the last few days.


----------



## chandlerp (Sep 17, 2015)

So far, given the nature of the press attacks, I think he's doing rather well.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2015)

chandlerp said:


> So far, given the nature of the press attacks, I think he's doing rather well.


Yes, but given that everything that we've seen thus far has been superficial 'froth'. If Corbyn's leadership is to have any meaning for Labourism he, and his supporters, will have to capture the policy-making machinery and effect change to the party's programme.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

Yeah, for all the talk of mandate and new members, how are these going to utilised to push through change? Most of the new members are (if my own acquaintance is typical) new to the world of party politics, and it's only going to take a couple of branch meetings before they get fucked off with it all and drop out.

I'm sure there's ways of keeping them enthused and involved, but I've not seen any evidence of them being used yet. Suppose they've been busy the last few days, mind (Althought there's apparently some kind of north-west activist event on Saturday - suppose that might be the start of it)


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> If Corbyn's leadership is to have any meaning for Labourism he, and his supporters, will have to capture the policy-making machinery and effect change to the party's programme.



That's a bit of a truism: I can't imagine anyone - supporter, detractor or interested bystander - would argue otherwise.

And it's only Day 5 of this brave new world - any attempt to look like he'd aready done anything significant about 'capturing the policy-making machinery' at such an early stage would look like showboating and I think would rightly engender suspicion.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> That's a bit of a truism: I can't imagine anyone - supporter, detractor or interested bystander - would argue otherwise.
> 
> And it's only Day 5 of this brave new world - any attempt to look like he'd aready done anything significant about 'capturing the policy-making machinery' at such an early stage would look like showboating and I think would rightly engender suspicion.


Truism or not, any 'judgements' we might make about Corbyn will inevitably be based upon the superficial until and unless he commands the policy agenda. Otherwise he remains a charming man in charge of a charmless, neo-liberal party.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 17, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> ...He also did not think the party would not want to leave NATO, thus avoiding another prepared mantrap and showed him deferring to the views of party members rather than being a one-man-band. He has given himself plenty of wriggle room now.



but he's also creating another trap for himself further down the line - if all he's going to do is allow other people (however construed) to decide policy, and in a number of fields set policies that are diametrically opposed to not just his stated and long held views, but views he actually campaigned on, then the people who voted for him will ask what the point of electing him was.

if Labour, assuming Corbyn is still there - and its not clear if thats his plan - go into the 2020 election on a manifesto of remaining in NATO, retaining Trident and pushing through Successor (as an example of policies he is known to oppose, but his party favours), then the 'is this credible?' question will be asked, and the answer is that its not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

kebabking said:


> but he's also creating another trap for himself further down the line - if all he's going to do is allow other people (however construed) to decide policy, and in a number of fields set policies that are diametrically opposed to not just his stated and long held views, but views he actually campaigned on, then the people who voted for him will ask what the point of electing him was.


He has answered that. To make the case, to attempt persuasion, but ultimately to accept the democratic consensus. He's being pretty consistent about this  - 'it's not all about me'.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

new *‘director of policy and rebuttal’*

Corbyn aide Neale Coleman 'paid more than prime minister' | Political Scrapbook


----------



## Pingu (Sep 17, 2015)

as an apolitical penguin I have to say I am finding this Corbyn chap a bit of fresh air. hes not just a clone of the chappie who leads the other party (but with a different coloured tie) and seems to actually have some convictions that go beyond - "get elected". As someone who is likely to be worse off if he ever gets to form a government I still agree with some of what he says, especially in the welfare/housing etc areas.

cant see him forming a government though but hes definitely given British politics a kick up the hooh hah. if he can get me interested in politics then maybe more will get interested too


----------



## Trappist (Sep 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> If Corbyn's leadership is to have any meaning for Labourism he, and his supporters, will have to capture the policy-making machinery and effect change to the party's programme.



Erm, hasn't he already done that by being elected leader?

I thought a major part of the New Labour coup was an end to any democratic input into the manifesto. From other comments it seems he's trying to push that back. But

A cautionary note - back in '83 Labour had unilateral nuclear disarmament as part of its manifesto. Labour members told me their canvassing was going pretty well until the day Dennis Healey announced his opposition to it. They said the resultant confusion had an immediate effect on their returns.

The point isn't about whether or not Labour could have won in '83, it's that Labour's right would rather a Tory victory than implement a radical programme and the current PLP is well to the right of Healey.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Sep 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> How did Corbyn look?


Find out in our saucy pictures on pages 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9!


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

Corbyn is listed as speaking at a rally at the tory conference on Monday 5th - that's pretty hardcore...


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Truism or not, any 'judgements' we might make about Corbyn will inevitably be based upon the superficial until and unless he commands the policy agenda. Otherwise he remains a charming man in charge of a charmless, neo-liberal party.



Punctured bicycle on a hillside desolate
Will nature make an effective Labour party leader of me yet...


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 17, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Truism or not, any 'judgements' we might make about Corbyn will inevitably be based upon the superficial until and unless he commands the policy agenda. Otherwise he remains a charming man in charge of a charmless, neo-liberal party.



Sure. Over the last however-many (different discussion!) years of neo-liberal/centre-right consensus a large proportion of people, who pay passing attention at best to politics, will have got very used to having nothing but superficial differences on which to distinguish one politician from another: If Labour-under-Corbyn does succeed in putting forward something substantively different (and I'm sceptical on that for now), having some actually material choices at voting time will be inspiring for many, but maybe also unsetting and scary for others - it's the latter that the media are mainly playing on for now: better the devil you know.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 17, 2015)

From watching the Snow interview it's obvious he will never back Trident and he's still completely with the CND. My prediction, given that Watson, Burnham and no doubt many others in Labour support it, is that it'll go to a free vote and Corb will vote against. My fear is that with very little, if any, Tory rebellion and half of Labour signed up, there won't be nearly enough votes against to get it scrapped.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 17, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Mcdonnell has announced that Corbyn is convening a London conference for all European anti austerity campaigns.
> 
> Fantastic.


Any more on this? A quick search didn't yield anything.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

skyscraper101 said:


> From watching the Snow interview it's obvious he will never back Trident and he's still completely with the CND. My prediction, given that Watson, Burnham and no doubt many others in Labour support it, is that it'll go to a free vote and Corb will vote against. My fear is that with very little, if any, Tory rebellion and half of Labour signed up, there won't be nearly enough votes against to get it scrapped.



That is why he should oppose it based solely on the military being able to have far more capability if the money spent on Trident went towards the rest of the forces instead.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 17, 2015)

kebabking said:


> but he's also creating another trap for himself further down the line - if all he's going to do is allow other people (however construed) to decide policy, and in a number of fields set policies that are diametrically opposed to not just his stated and long held views, but views he actually campaigned on, then the people who voted for him will ask what the point of electing him was.
> 
> if Labour, assuming Corbyn is still there - and its not clear if thats his plan - go into the 2020 election on a manifesto of remaining in NATO, retaining Trident and pushing through Successor (as an example of policies he is known to oppose, but his party favours), then the 'is this credible?' question will be asked, and the answer is that its not.



I think you're right, but then he's predicated his leadership candidacy from the start on the idea that there ought to be someone putting forward alternatives 'from the left' of what everyone else was saying - not, presumably, at the start thinking that that would ever attract as much enthusiasm as it did. Now that it has, in a sense he's presenting himself in exactly the same way - not 'Now I'm in charge there are going to be some changes round here' but to continue to press (hopefully with a bit of steel as well as his obvious earnestness and decency, if he wants to really persuade people) for his views to be taken up as policy by the party. If the PLP really forces him to back down on everything that matters and continues to prefer Tory-lite, it's obviously not the right vehicle for such views anyway, and wouldn't be more so if Corbyn had instead imposed them in a much more top-down way.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> That is why he should oppose it based solely on the military being able to have far more capability if the money spent on Trident went towards the rest of the forces instead.



He should, and I would agree. I just think that he'll either put it to a free vote, or even if he doesn't, he won't get enough support to have the bill defeated.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 17, 2015)

.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> That is why he should oppose it based solely on the military being able to have far more capability if the money spent on Trident went towards the rest of the forces instead.



I strongly disagree. I would hope that JC would want to renegotiate the UK's position in the world, and that would include not being a heavily armed, aggressive military power. The money earmarked for Trident must not just be ploughed into other arms instead.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I strongly disagree. I would hope that JC would want to renegotiate the UK's position in the world, and that would include not being a heavily armed, aggressive military power. The money earmarked for Trident must not just be ploughed into other arms instead.



There is zero chance of that happening, though - whereas the alternative (of an expanded conventional military) will put quite a bit of pressure on the other side to explain why it is that we have four SSBN bimbling about when we cannot afford to have two aircraft carriers in service at the same time, or why the RAF is forced into the position that they were in Cyprus when the anti-ISIS campaign started.  

Ironically expanding the conventional military as an alternative to Trident is also a much better way of reducing militarism as well, given that successive governments invariably cut the things down the years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

Well this is the step-by-step process by which the likes of Corbyn lose the likes of me. Take head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, with active soldiers killing and dying somewhere in the world every day of every year. It is an extremist position to advocate that idea.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> ...explain why it is that we have four SSBN bimbling about when we cannot afford to have two aircraft carriers in service at the same time...



Cameron announced, and its been policy - including manning assumptions etc... since 2013 that both carriers will be commissioned and both will be operated at the same time. there will be times when only one is in business because of re-fits etc.. but both carriers will be on strength, and the RN will be manned for both.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 17, 2015)

kebabking said:


> Cameron announced, and its been policy - including manning assumptions etc... since 2013 that both carriers will be commissioned and both will be operated at the same time. there will be times when only one is in business because of re-fits etc.. but both carriers will be on strength, and the RN will be manned for both.



Pity about the planes though *stirs pot* 



littlebabyjesus said:


> Well this is the step-by-step process by which the likes of Corbyn lose the likes of me. Take head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, with active soldiers killing and dying somewhere in the world every day of every year. It is an extremist position to advocate that idea.



You cannot take this issues head on, they are far to attractive and the propaganda has been far to ingrained to come right out and say "Stop being murdering fuckwits" you do have to take them on with logical arguments and give gradual alternatives.

Trident + 2 Aircraft Carriers + Decent Army is way to much for us to afford, by making it seem reasonable to scrap Trident you then only have to deal with the other branches, branches which over the years get cut to fuck anyway by whoever is in charge.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

kebabking said:


> Cameron announced, and its been policy - including manning assumptions etc... since 2013 that both carriers will be commissioned and both will be operated at the same time. there will be times when only one is in business because of re-fits etc.. but both carriers will be on strength, and the RN will be manned for both.



That may be what he announced, but they still haven't done much about it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> You cannot take this issues head on, they are far to attractive and the propaganda has been far to ingrained to come right out and say "Stop being murdering fuckwits" you do have to take them on with logical arguments and give gradual alternatives.



It's an issue that you have to take head-on, and I don't agree about the propaganda. I would say, rather, that the propaganda has been so ubiquitous that it's easy to forget how many people do not swallow it.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> That may be what he announced, but they still haven't done much about it.



its an idiot comment from a group of idiots.

PoW won't be ready for initial flying training until 2020, so buying aircraft in 2015 that will sit in a hanger and rot for 7 years - while paying interest on the capital used to buy them, is about the dumbest idea in the history, of well... politicians.

the first 48 (ordered by the end of 2015 or so, with production slots already earmarked) will be used to provide the 'so, how do we fight this thing?' training and the air group for the first carrier, as we get towards 2018 or so the next block of 48 will be ordered which will be the second air group and the first tranche of replacements for the Tornado GR4. in 2022 or so the next block will be ordered.


----------



## binka (Sep 17, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> tristram hunt looks sad ......


from a text my dad sent me last night (my dad being lrc & union shop steward from a constituency not a million miles away...)

"tristram hunt is next we need a fair selection in stoke"


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

kebabking said:


> its an idiot comment from a group of idiots.
> 
> PoW won't be ready for initial flying training until 2020, so buying aircraft in 2015 that will sit in a hanger and rot for 7 years - while paying interest on the capital used to buy them, is about the dumbest idea in the history, of well... politicians.
> 
> the first 48 (ordered by the end of 2015 or so, with production slots already earmarked) will be used to provide the 'so, how do we fight this thing?' training and the air group for the first carrier, as we get towards 2018 or so the next block of 48 will be ordered which will be the second air group and the first tranche of replacements for the Tornado GR4. in 2022 or so the next block will be ordered.



Given this (and previous) Government's record on following through on its promises, you will perhaps forgive me if I believe that when I see it.


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well this is the step-by-step process by which the likes of Corbyn lose the likes of me. Take head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, with active soldiers killing and dying somewhere in the world every day of every year. It is an extremist position to advocate that idea.



I would also like the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war to be challenged, but we have to remember that we're still talking about the Labour party here, and however much JC wants to shake things up, there are limits to what he can do as party leader while having to carry not just the membership but also the existing PLP with him (I suspect those limits may eventually prove to be his undoing, but we'll have to wait and see).

Unless you want to be an impossiblist, there's very little point either expecting him to do the impossible or criticising him when he fails to do it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

It's impossiblist to challenge the idea of permanent war?


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's impossiblist to challenge the idea of permanent war?



I think it's impossiblist to expect the leader of the Labour party to do it right now, before he's done anything to consolidate his position within the party (and maybe even then).

All I'm saying is that if you genuinely expect Corbyn to do this, your expectations are a little naive and you will be pretty disappointed pretty quickly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

andysays said:


> I think it's impossiblist to expect the leader of the Labour party to do it right now, before he's done anything to consolidate his position within the party (and maybe even then).
> 
> All I'm saying is that if you genuinely expect Corbyn to do this, your expectations are a little naive and you will be pretty disappointed pretty quickly.


I genuinely expect every reasonable person to challenge that idea. And there are clusterfucks across the world right now to illustrate its catastrophic results. This is too important not to demand.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

The extremist neoliberal militarist agenda is too deeply ingrained to be challenged... Their propaganda has won... 

This is New Labour thinking. Bring back Blair, he won elections.


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I genuinely expect every reasonable person to challenge that idea. And there are clusterfucks across the world right now to illustrate its catastrophic results. This is too important not to demand.



As I said before, I think your expectations are a little naive and you will be pretty disappointed pretty quickly


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

andysays said:


> As I said before, I think your expectations are a little naive and you will be pretty disappointed pretty quickly


Where did I say anything about my expectations?

What I said is what I want him to demand, and also indicated a way in which to demand it. This is about what _I demand_ and will continue to demand and make the case for.

Corbyn isn't *my* candidate here. He's just a lot better and nearer to me than any other mainstream leader in this  country this century.


Is it ok to me if he compromises in a way that will leave people dead? No. And I don't think it should be ok to anyone.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 17, 2015)

Interesting in relation to the 'labour's too left' and/or 'the country is tory' narratives being put forward here and elsewhere: Ed Miliband did not lose election because he was too left wing - study - BBC News

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 17, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Any more on this? A quick search didn't yield anything.




Me either, it was something I picked up on Twitter and posted in possibly over-enthusiastic haste. Apologies. Damn good idea tho. Wouldn't put it past them.


----------



## gosub (Sep 17, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The media are still looking for things to criticise Corbyn for. It seems he had an affair with Dianne Abbot in the 70s at a time when he was separating from his wife, so nothing really bad there, it was all open. Abbot looked surpisingly good in the picture.
> 
> One 'journalist' upbraids him for wearing a beige suit in PMQs along with a yellow brown tie saying it doesn't go. Well it does go quite well and in any case it wasn't a suit but a jacket with black trousers - sloppy journalism.
> 
> ...


Silly fox to shoot. As an outist i'll tell you half the stuff he said he wanted to do during his leadership campaign the EU will block.   But the position that seemed to exist earlier in the week made more sense for a left perspective, might not be in and trade unions saying they want out if social chapter gone, was a good way to signal to EUropean partners not to let Cameron have too much wiggle room in his renegotiation.......hollow threat it seems now less than a week later.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I genuinely expect every reasonable person to challenge that idea. And there are clusterfucks across the world right now to illustrate its catastrophic results. This is too important not to demand.



Surely its too important an issue to insist on having a policy which has zero chance of success, though?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> Surely its too important an issue to insist on having a policy which has zero chance of success, though?


I would challenge the idea that it has zero chance of success. You make the case. You illustrate your case with the catastrophic results of current policy.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would challenge the idea that it has zero chance of success. You make the case. You illustrate your case with the catastrophic results of current policy.



... but current (and indeed post-war) policy has been to progressively degrade the conventional forces in favour of building and maintaining a "strategic" nuclear force, something that was slightly understandable in the Cold War but which is a nonsense now.  This has led us to the stage where we cannot afford to or have the capability to fight wars properly, and so instead have to rely on airstrikes and proxies - hence all the catastrophic results.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

It is an extremist position to want to start wars. Corbyn himself has campaigned for years against this extremist position, and has just won a landslide election in part on the back of that. To abandon that opposition to extremism now would be perverse.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is an extremist position to want to start wars. Corbyn himself has campaigned for years against this extremist position, and has just won a landslide election in part on the back of that. To abandon that opposition to extremism now would be perverse.



Who wants to start wars?  Arguing for the NHS to be capable and well-funded doesn't mean that you are arguing for people to get sick and die.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> Who wants to start wars?  .


Tony Blair and David Cameron, for two. 

You say 'capable'. Capable of what, against whom?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> hence all the catastrophic results.


And I don't agree with this at all. It is not lack of funding that caused the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. A better-funded British army would probably just have done even more damage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

Favelado said:


> J-COR?



Jezcor.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And I don't agree with this at all. It is not lack of funding that caused the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. A better-funded British army would probably just have done even more damage.



Not really.  The disaster in Iraq was caused by the initial decision, but it was made considerably worse by the lack of resources available, and the awful political leadership.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> What a strikingly stupid thing to say.



It's Diamond. Stupid is what he does.



> If Cameron was doing this, would you expect him to pick questions that were decidedly left wing in nature?



Like any politician, Cameron (stupid though we may think he is)/his people would choose whichever question was the most apt vehicle for the point to be made, "left" and "right" be damned.



> And how is it that asking about mental health provision, how your family can afford to eat without using a foodbank, and whether you're going to lose your job or be able to afford a house indicative of a specific political movement?



It isn't. Diamond appears to be labouring under the delusion that Corbyn/his people will only be soliciting questions from party members.



> They're issues people across the political spectrum have to deal with. Unless you're a right wing cockwomble who sees dignity and survival for the poor as something radical and to be mocked.
> 
> Twat.



Succinct and accurate.


----------



## dendrite (Sep 17, 2015)

Belushi said:


> How did Corbyn look?



Foxy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No - they are valid questions and to be frank I have a vested interest in mental health provision as you might find elsewhere on these boards if you took your blinkers off.
> 
> They are all good questions but it's the vehicle of "authenticity" in which they are posed which is problematic on a political level.
> 
> ...



Of course he's cherry-picking questions, and people submitting questions are going to be well-aware that with the opportunity to only place 6 questions once a week, those questions will be selected to reflect the concerns of the opposition front bench.
Dressing democracy up as cynical avoidance of confrontation highlights your claim to be "of the left" for the bullshit it is.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The media are still looking for things to criticise Corbyn for. It seems he had an affair with Dianne Abbot in the 70s at a time when he was separating from his wife, so nothing really bad there, it was all open. Abbot looked surpisingly good in the picture.
> 
> One 'journalist' upbraids him for wearing a beige suit in PMQs along with a yellow brown tie saying it doesn't go. Well it does go quite well and in any case it wasn't a suit but a jacket with black trousers - sloppy journalism.
> 
> ...



Do you have a link?, bit intrigued.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> the emails could be scanned and sorted automatically, then a few hundred reviewed manually. It's not a difficult job.



Yep. The state uses similar sorting algorithms to parse emails and phone calls down Cheltenham way, and they manage millions a day.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course he's cherry-picking questions, and people submitting questions are going to be well-aware that with the opportunity to only place 6 questions once a week, those questions will be selected to reflect the concerns of the opposition front bench.
> Dressing democracy up as cynical avoidance of confrontation highlights your claim to be "of the left" for the bullshit it is.



Do you genuinely not see the tension between, on the one hand, the broad populist representative speaking with a single authority and, on the other hand, picking 6 questions out of 40,000 that that same person just happens to like?

Let's make it more simple - popular decentralised movement v one individual's determination.

There is a deep hypocrisy there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Christ you're a boring irritating bastard.



He isn't the Messiah. He isn't even a very naughty boy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I can't face trawling this thread for quotes, but I think a few people on here (as well as in the media) have not quite grasped what JC's approach to policy is.
> 
> He's made it clear that he's not coming in with "this is what I think / say - therefore this is now party policy", he's said he is going to make the party membership more involved with policy making.
> 
> To be fair, I think this might be a bit of a strange concept to some of the blairite MPs as well...



Yep. they're used to "democratic centralism"/presidentialism, not to any iteration (however dilute) of actual democracy.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Erm, hasn't he already done that by being elected leader?
> 
> I thought a major part of the New Labour coup was an end to any democratic input into the manifesto. From other comments it seems he's trying to push that back.


Well, unless I've missed something (quite possible) LP policy put to conference is still determined by its policy commissions made up of members from the National Policy Forum, the ShadCab and the NEC. I'm certain that Corbyn will struggle to impose his views on some, or all, of those sub-sets within the party.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Interesting in relation to the 'labour's too left' and/or 'the country is tory' narratives being put forward here and elsewhere: Ed Miliband did not lose election because he was too left wing - study - BBC News
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I have thought this for a while, Sunday Politics went to to the South West and blind tested  'socialist' policies like rail nationalisation, and taxing the bankers more, most 'voted yes to these policies but were mortified when they were 'informed' they were socialist policies. Ed was too hesitant, too cautious, the shadow cabinet largely invisible and for many he just wasn't up to their view of what is a P/M, God knows why Cameron is.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

One area that Corbyn could park his tanks is in rural areas, start policies to support farmers and agricultural workers, support subsidised public transport, fibre broadband or the latest tech, increase mental health support in these areas, anti-hunting may be a hinderance though.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> he just wasn't up to their view of what is a P/M, God knows why Cameron is.


The article says - he isn't. he was just seen as less-bad than Miliband.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

is 'parking his tanks' a thing now?

I parked a massive tank in the toilet after lunch, if you must know.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> God knows why Cameron is.



Because the Labour party has no teeth and he's safely boring and clean enough to appeal to the core Tory voter.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> new *‘director of policy and rebuttal’*
> 
> Corbyn aide Neale Coleman 'paid more than prime minister' | Political Scrapbook



Livingstone/Socialist Action?


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2015)

More good news following on from Corbyn's win - Nick Cohen has resigned from 'the left'

Which is a bit like me resigning from Manchester United


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

kebabking said:


> but he's also creating another trap for himself further down the line - if all he's going to do is allow other people (however construed) to decide policy, and in a number of fields set policies that are diametrically opposed to not just his stated and long held views, but views he actually campaigned on, then the people who voted for him will ask what the point of electing him was.
> 
> if Labour, assuming Corbyn is still there - and its not clear if thats his plan - go into the 2020 election on a manifesto of remaining in NATO, retaining Trident and pushing through Successor (as an example of policies he is known to oppose, but his party favours), then the 'is this credible?' question will be asked, and the answer is that its not.



I think you're missing the (fairly obvious  ) point that "what the party favours" isn't a static list of desires, but a set of wishes that will change as party democracy takes hold.For the last 20+ years "what the party favours" has meant "what big business wants, and what focus groups tell us we can get away with if we spin it properly". Take the slavish kowtowing to neoliberalism even partly out of the question, and the meaning changes.
As for enacting policies he doesn't support/doesn't want to support, that's been the lot of politicians in power for a long time. Sometimes you have to do stuff you don't want to do, but are deemed/can be shown to be socially and/or economically necessary. Trident falls under (IMO) jobs-retention and skills retention, so a *degree* of economic necessity (if you buy into the argument that in peacetime one needs to retain the ability the knowledge and skills to create devices of war),and as for remaining in NATO, well Corbyn is a social democrat. he will bow to the wishes of the majority. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's actually a damn sight more honourable than the degree of rule by decree _a la_ some of Blair's shite.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> is 'parking his tanks' a thing now?



Only if we're talking about an out-and-out Stalinist like Corbyn.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

agricola said:


> That is why he should oppose it based solely on the military being able to have far more capability if the money spent on Trident went towards the rest of the forces instead.


It'd be good (IMO) if a small part of the funding went toward boosting the NHS in areas were the consequences of soldiering put a burden on current resources.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ias for remaining in NATO, well Corbyn is a social democrat. he will bow to the wishes of the majority. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's actually a damn sight more honourable than the degree of rule by decree _a la_ some of Blair's shite.


This is about right, and ironically not insisting that everything agreed is what he wants gives him the freedom to say what he actually thinks far more than the likes of Blair ever could.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> More good news following on from Corbyn's win - Nick Cohen has resigned from 'the left'



Aint no violin small enough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well this is the step-by-step process by which the likes of Corbyn lose the likes of me. Take head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, with active soldiers killing and dying somewhere in the world every day of every year. It is an extremist position to advocate that idea.



Nope, it's bog-standard post-Treaty of Westphalia nation-stateism. It's about as extremist as the idea of a social contract, for a state to reserve unto itself the right and means to defend itself and its' citizenry.
What *is* "extremist" IMO is the normalisation of the use of those means for power projection purposes.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> More good news following on from Corbyn's win - Nick Cohen has resigned from 'the left'
> 
> Which is a bit like me resigning from Manchester United



He's been 'resigning' from the left since the early 2000s and being paid to do it. I wish I could make a living from writing the same article over and over.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> He's been 'resigning' from the left since the early 2000s and being paid to do it. I wish I could make a living from writing the same article over and over.



The left 'abandoned' him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's impossiblist to challenge the idea of permanent war?



Under capitalism, and with the current state of human ethical and cognitive development? Yup.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, it's bog-standard post-Treaty of Westphalia nation-stateism. It's about as extremist as the idea of a social contract, for a state to reserve unto itself the right and means to defend itself and its' citizenry.
> *What is "extremist" IMO is the normalisation of the use of those means for power projection purposes.*


That's the part I was talking of with my mention of 'permanent war'. I'm not discussing anything as radical as disbanding the army.

We are beyond 'permanent preparedness for war'. We are permanently actively _at war_.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

Isn't it odd how you can make a living in the media as an ex-leftist, and talk about basically nothing else, but you can't do the same as an ex-right winger.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> More good news following on from Corbyn's win - Nick Cohen has resigned from 'the left'
> 
> Which is a bit like me resigning from Manchester United



On behalf of the left, and indeed all mankind, let me be the first to say, 'we don't care, go away'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Do you genuinely not see the tension between, on the one hand, the broad populist representative speaking with a single authority and, on the other hand, picking 6 questions out of 40,000 that that same person just happens to like?



Yes, of course there's a tension between 40,000 questions, of which you can only choose 6 to ask. Why are you assuming, though, that he'll be picking questions that he "just happens to like", rather than (as I mentioned) ones that reflect the needs of the front bench (which aren't the same thing, however you try to spin it).




> Let's make it more simple - popular decentralised movement v one individual's determination.
> 
> There is a deep hypocrisy there.



No,there isn't,because your "one individual's determination" is a convenient fiction (for you) that you can't substantiate (unless you have access to a Corbyn statement outlining how he and he alone will choose which questions to ask, in which case the right-wing media will be beating a path to your door).


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, of course there's a tension between 40,000 questions, of which you can only choose 6 to ask. Why are you assuming, though, that he'll be picking questions that he "just happens to like", rather than (as I mentioned) ones that reflect the needs of the front bench (which aren't the same thing, however you try to spin it).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, wait a second - he is choosing the questions.

There may be a multitude of paths open to him in those 40,000 but he is choosing which one he prefers to take and to pretend otherwise appears to be hypocritical.

And on, your second point, there is no explanation whatsoever about how these questions have been selected.

To be frank, it is not a major criticism but there's something fundamentally wrong when you try and dress up questions that you have chosen from 40,000 as being simply representative of 40,000, rather than the leader's views, when you are the one who has selected 6 of them.


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2015)

The wider point is that it feels like a retreat from leadership.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 17, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The left 'abandoned' him.



The media just keep rollin em out.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 17, 2015)

I've just picked up a copy of _Blacklisted: The Secret War Between Big Business and Union Activists_ and it has kept me amused all day to have a copy of a decent book with a forward by the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 17, 2015)

binka said:


> from a text my dad sent me last night (my dad being lrc & union shop steward from a constituency not a million miles away...)
> 
> "tristram hunt is next we need a fair selection in stoke"



With his shad cab chances scuppered for the foreseeable, I can't see him hanging around. He'll be gone by 2020, if not sooner.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> The wider point is that it feels like a retreat from leadership.


Different kind of leadership - genuinely collegiate if he continues as he is. Not a retreat, it's just you're not used to that style of leading - it can be extremely effective.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> With his shad cab chances scuppered for the foreseeable, I can't see him hanging around. He'll be gone by 2020, if not sooner.


Oh god, he'll write a book about it, won't he?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Different kind of leadership - genuinely collegiate if he continues as he is. Not a retreat, it's just you're not used to that style of leading - it can be extremely effective.



But it's not really, is it?

Someone has to take the decisions and it is disingenuous to pretend that he isn't doing that.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

> UK Jewish leaders seek clarification on Jeremy Corbyn's policies
> 
> Community wants ‘straight answers to straight questions’ amid concerns over Labour leader’s stance on Israel, faith schools and antisemitism
> 
> UK Jewish leaders seek clarification on Jeremy Corbyn's policies



Pretty heavy stuff


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh god, he'll write a book about it, won't he?


"_The non-frock-coated cunt"_?


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

> Arkush said specific questions included whether Corbyn repudiated the ideology and behaviour of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon; whether he would condemn antisemitism on the far left as well as the far right; whether Labour would continue to oppose a boycott of Israel; and whether the party would continue to support and protect faith schools.



Not too sure of my own position on this, but is a boycott of Israel intrinsically anti-semitic?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

Looks like some 'community leaders' have decided that they are going to join in with the smearing, using spurious accusations of anti-Semitism to do it. Scary, dangerous stuff.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Pretty heavy stuff


He should tell them that the state of Israel is a terrorist state, they can keep their 'faith' schools if they want to pay for them (no more state funding of exclusion) and that he is not antisemitic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Not too sure of my own position on this, but is a boycott of Israel intrinsically anti-semitic?


No.

No more than a boycott of Apartheid South Africa was intrinsically anti-white people.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

If criticising and advocating against Israel's illegal occupation is anti-Semitic shoul we not also consider criticisms of Hezbollah to be Islamophobic.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If criticising and advocating against Israel's illegal occupation is anti-Semitic shoul we not also consider criticisms of Hezbollah to be Islamophobic.


Christ, you'll be signing that petition to get the BBC to describe Cameron as 'the right-wing Prime Minister' at this rate!


----------



## Supine (Sep 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> new *‘director of policy and rebuttal’*
> 
> Corbyn aide Neale Coleman 'paid more than prime minister' | Political Scrapbook



Not sure if they changed the title or you misquoted but the article says 'currently paid more than prime minister'. It's a reference to his work elsewhere and not how much the jez gravy train will earn him. (pedant mode).

Managed to watch PMQ's at last. He came over well with the questions, but he needs to sort out some varifocal lenses. It may sound petty but image is important to win an election. If he wants to lead the country and not just his party he needs to sort that stuff out. Fingers crossed he will.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

Bigots will point to this, they probably already are doing so, whenever they want to delegitimise genuine concerns about anti-Semitism. "Oh yeah pull the other one, I'm sure he just wants Israel to obey international law..."


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> If criticising and advocating against Israel's illegal occupation is anti-Semitic shoul we not also consider criticisms of Hezbollah to be Islamophobic.



Pedantically speaking, of course criticism of Hamas or Hezbollah can be seen as anti-semitic as well.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Pretty heavy stuff


what is this bullshit? 



> “Thousands of years of persecution have given Jewish people a sixth sense, and with Corbyn the alarm bells are ringing extremely loudly. There is a way in which he frames his views that makes me feel very uncomfortable. When I listen to Corbyn speak on almost any issue, I get the feeling this is a man who doesn’t like my community.”


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

> Lots of requests for clarifications from Corbyn. He should release a FAQ.



posted elsewhere


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

Supine said:


> Not sure if they changed the title or you misquoted but the article says 'currently paid more than prime minister'. It's a reference to his work elsewhere and not how much the jez gravy train will earn him. (pedant mode).
> 
> Managed to watch PMQ's at last. He came over well with the questions, but he needs to sort out some varifocal lenses. It may sound petty but image is important to win an election. If he wants to lead the country and not just his party he needs to sort that stuff out. Fingers crossed he will.


I didn't misquote it, that's the title of the webpage as truncated by urban - I just posted the link.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

How do you even deal with this stuff? Like the accusations of misogyny it's just based on nothing other than the volume and repetition of lies, seriously the media in this country no longer resembles that of a liberal Western democracy, this is the sort of stuff you'd expect from a country fighting a violent insurgency.


----------



## laptop (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Not too sure of my own position on this, but is a boycott of Israel intrinsically anti-semitic?



Sigh. The only argument that it is is the Zionist argument that the interests of Jews are identical with the interests of the state of Israel. 

Which rapidly becomes a circular argument...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

Also when is The Board of Deputies of British Jews going to condemn the British born fighters they claim to represent who fight with an army which engages in war crimes on a daily basis?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> How do you even deal with this stuff? Like the accusations of misogyny it's just based on nothing other than the volume and repetition of lies, seriously the media in this country no longer resembles that of a liberal Western democracy, this is the sort of stuff you'd expect from a country fighting a violent insurgency.


Tricky.

At some point, I would suggest that he will have to stress the place Israelis will have in any future peace solution. 

I don't know JC's record on this. Does he advocate a a 2-state solution (which can never work) or 1-state (which would piss off certain people and make them shout 'anti-semite').


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where did I say anything about my expectations?..



You did explicitly say anything about your expectations, but I interpret this



littlebabyjesus said:


> *Well this is the step-by-step process by which the likes of Corbyn lose the likes of me.* Take head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, with active soldiers killing and dying somewhere in the world every day of every year. It is an extremist position to advocate that idea.



as meaning that until the point at which Corbyn makes it clear that he won't immediately be taking head-on the idea that we should be in a state of permanent war, that he has you in some sense, that you are his to lose over this point or another.

Maybe this is a quibble or something, but I'm trying to argue that it should already be fairly clear that there are many things which you, me and others here would like him and "his" Labour party to do, but which it's perfectly obvious he and they won't do, and it's pointless to blame him when he doesn't do them; it's more sensible to be realistic now about the limits of what he and they might do. 

(I hope that makes some sort of sense now)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

andysays said:


> Maybe this is a quibble or something, but I'm trying to argue that it should already be fairly clear that there are many things which you, me and others here would like him and "his" Labour party to do, but which it's perfectly obvious he and they won't do, and it's pointless to blame him when he doesn't do them; it's more sensible to be realistic now about the limits of what he and they might do.


And clearly we disagree as to what those limits might be. For me, that doesn't mean that I can't expect him to do anything other than plough the money saved from scrapping Trident into other weapons. I expect that money to go into schools, hospitals, homes, etc.

I don't expect him to disband the British army even if I might want that. I do expect him to move Britain away from permanent war.


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...It isn't. Diamond appears to be labouring under the delusion that Corbyn/his people will only be soliciting questions from party members...



Don't want to quibble, but unless I've misunderstood, so far he has only solicited questions from party members, affiliated members and £3 sign-ups (although clearly that might change in future)


----------



## andysays (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *And clearly we disagree as to what those limits might be*. For me, that doesn't mean that I can't expect him to do anything other than plough the money saved from scrapping Trident into other weapons. I expect that money to go into schools, hospitals, homes, etc.
> 
> I don't expect him to disband the British army even if I might want that. I do expect him to move Britain away from permanent war.



Fairy nuff


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Doing the "Jimmy from Norwich wrote in to ask" performance just seems unecessary to me. Ask people to email with their questions, look at them, decide which are the themes you want to concentrate on, formulate your questions and ask them in your own words. That's all that's really happening anyway - attaching the question to a real-but-may-as-well-be-fictional person is just for show. The problem I can see with it is that it gives the impression he's submitting anecdotal evidence - something which the tories are rightly frequently attacked for on here. Pretty sure one of today's was basically that - someone writes in to say they work for an organisation where there are job cuts due to local authority funding cuts. That's anecdotal and weak. The same point could be made much more strongly by saying "nationwide these organisations are cutting X percent of their staff due to funding cuts of Y amount to local authorities". Asking Cameron a question based on one person's particular circumstances just invites him to reply with anecdotes of his own.



I think there is space for that to happen.  JC has not committed to following this same format at each PMQ.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 17, 2015)

Jon Snow and John McDonnell


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where did I say anything about my expectations?
> 
> What I said is what I want him to demand, and also indicated a way in which to demand it. This is about what _I demand_ and will continue to demand and make the case for.
> 
> ...


this century sounds good but doesn't cover much ground.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> this century sounds good but doesn't cover much ground.


Quite so. I'm reserving judgement on anything else. The way this thread is turning already is a reminder for me of the limits to this process.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, wait a second - he is choosing the questions.
> 
> There may be a multitude of paths open to him in those 40,000 but he is choosing which one he prefers to take and to pretend otherwise appears to be hypocritical.
> 
> ...



You've so entirely missed my point,that it can only be deliberate.
*You* contend that Corbyn chooses the questions.
*I* contend that we don't (and as yet can't) know that, and that you have no basis on which to substantiate your claim/personal opinion.

No-one is dressing anything up, no-one is pretending *anything*, apart from you.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 17, 2015)

Liberals try and poach the Blairites:
Lib Dem leader playing 'agony aunt' to distressed Labour MPs
Truly a case of the unspeakable pursuing the uneatable.

Of course some Libdems have a history of eating shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Pretty heavy stuff



Heavy my arse. This is more arsery by the UK "Jewish establishment", attempting to badger nybroC into taking sides - something he's *never *done against Jews, only against the state of Israel.
Fuck them, with a shitty stick.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Looks like some 'community leaders' have decided that they are going to join in with the smearing, using spurious accusations of anti-Semitism to do it. Scary, dangerous stuff.



Not so much sneering as attempted manipulation through insinuation. It's cheap, nasty and Livingstone showed how to deal with the petty bastards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> what is this bullshit?



It's bullshit.
The only "sense" around is the poor political sense to try this on.


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2015)

Diamond said:


> No, wait a second - he is choosing the questions.
> 
> There may be a multitude of paths open to him in those 40,000 but he is choosing which one he prefers to take and to pretend otherwise appears to be hypocritical.
> 
> ...



Did you actually watch PMQs? For a number of the questions he gave figures for how many questions were received about the subjects chosen:



> Two-and-a-half thousand people emailed me about the housing crisis in this country. I ask one from a woman called Marie





> I received more than 1,000 questions about tax credits. Paul, for example, asks this very heartfelt question





> I received over 1,000 questions on the situation facing our mental health services and people who suffer from mental health conditions. This is a very serious situation across the whole country and I want to put to the Prime Minister a question that was put to me very simply from Gail



I don't think your point has any traction, not least because those who want to criticise Corbyn at this stage have much bigger fish to fry, and I haven't seen anyone else detect the level of hypocrisy you seem to think you've exposed. I suspect the reason is simple: its all relative. Compared to the previous style of PMQ's, and previous extent to which Labour reached out to canvas opinion, the democratic gimmick will shine, especially on week one. And he said he was going to try this stuff this week, he didn't promise that this format will become the new weekly standard.

I don't know what standard you are trying to hold him to given that people know they are still dealing with representative democracy and not direct democracy. Corbyn is not pretending that something really radical has happened such as replacing the house of lords with a digital chamber of the masses.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2015)

Diamond perhaps you should steer clear of threads in which thinking is required.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> Diamond perhaps you should steer clear of threads



*coughs*


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2015)

Diamond perhaps you should just shut up and fuck off.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

Look at this shit


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Look at this shit


will corbyn throw the money-lenders out of the temple?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> will corbyn throw the money-lenders out of the temple?



Worth remembering that those who are throwing their toys out of the pram are doing so because they think that they won't be able to do this shit anymore.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

is that in the official conference? If not, I can't see them being able to stop it happening at fringe events...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

Well it has the Labour Party logo on it.

They might as well invite the BNP too, maybe Golden Dawn for a bit of internationalism


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

Where's the LP logo? I think it's just a Policy Exchange event.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

I think you're prolly right.

LP members should picket it then in that case


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

Policy Exchange is an _*independent, non-partisan*_ educational charity seeking_* free market* _and localist solutions to public policy questions.

uh huh.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Jon Snow and John McDonnell





Can't believe he is on Question Time tonight.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Look at this shit



lets start spamming social media demanding that this is cancelled, will be a sign if it is.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

who's going to cancel it?


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

> Onwurah went on to gain a degree in Electrical Engineering from Imperial College London in 1987.[6] She worked in hardware and software development, product management, market development and strategy for a variety of mainly private sector companies in a number of different countries – Britain, France, US, Nigeria and Denmark while studying for an MBA at Manchester Business School.




Why is Chi Onwurah speaking at this event, this may explain it.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> lets start spamming social media demanding that this is cancelled, will be a sign if it is.



I don't think you understand how fringe events work.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

Who cares? 

We'll see who is there at next year's conference...


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

I wasn't aware it was a fringe event, we could ask why Chi is speaking at an ATOS sponsored event, especially those in her seat.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Who cares?
> 
> We'll see who is there at next year's conference...




People who have had family die as a consequence of the ATOS regime.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> People who have had family die as a consequence of the ATOS regime.


I'm not defending it. I'm just asking 'who cares'. It's not surprising that they should be there. It will be interesting to watch what happens at the conference this year, but I'm more interested in how conference will look after 2 or 3 years of the Corbyn/McDonnell at the helm.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

Ok.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

policy exchange are michael gove's thinktank btw. proper vermin


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> policy exchange are michael gove's thinktank btw. proper vermin



If only there was some photograph showing them all together.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 17, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Jon Snow and John McDonnell



Thanks for that, it was a good watch.

I've gotta say McDonnell comes across as a good sort. I know he's been mentioned on here for years, long before Corbyn-mania hit the mainstream, but that's the first time I've heard him speak. Snow let him talk, while managing to ask him some potentially difficult questions and his answers were all encouraging. He even managed to 'defend' the IRA stuff relatively well, though, of course, that's not likely to be the end of that being brought up.

Liked the stuff about democratising workplaces. Good stuff, looking forward to QT.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Jon Snow and John McDonnell



Spend the Trident money on health and education.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

It's still weird hearing Labour leaders talking about socialism again.


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2015)

All the same, anything from Labour with the word new in it trips a switch in my mind 

#newkindofpolitics #newkindofdanger #betterredthanredeyes


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

McDonnell is superb on QT, his apology for his comments on the IRA drew massive support from the audience, I remember when on the times I met him I though he had something special.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 17, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Thanks for that, it was a good watch.


It really was. So incredibly refeshing to hear these things come out of the mouth of a front bench politician.

I feel all giddy like I stood up too fast. It will pass.


----------



## Mation (Sep 18, 2015)

Crispy said:


> It really was. So incredibly refeshing to hear these things come out of the mouth of a front bench politician.
> 
> I feel all giddy like I stood up too fast. It will pass.


I thought he handled that brilliantly ("gradual change" wince aside). He's a very sound man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> lets start spamming social media demanding that this is cancelled, will be a sign if it is.


an omen or portent d'you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> McDonnell is superb on QT, his apology for his comments on the IRA drew massive support from the audience, I remember when on the times I met him I though he had something special.


i wonder if he reciprocated


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I don't think you understand how fringe events work.


t doesn't


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2015)

Aaron Bastani: Labour’s Future

This is about right Imo. I reckon most of the plp aren't committed blairites, more soft left liberals: and which way they jump decides whether corbyn thrives.


----------



## youngian (Sep 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> Aaron Bastani: Labour’s Future
> 
> This is about right Imo. I reckon most of the plp aren't committed blairites, more soft left liberals: and which way they jump decides whether corbyn thrives.


That's refelcted in the party by the election of Tom Watson and Khan rather than Corbyn's preferred choices. Watson is the sort of person who can bang heads together and be a hatchet man if need be. And as Labour has been a bit sentimental about removing useless leaders you can see why he was elected as deputy if Corbyn goes tits up pretty quickly.


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2015)

Who was Corbyn's choice for Mayor? He never endorsed Abbott did he? 

Well, you wouldn't...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2015)

I see alistar darling, saviour of labour in scotland *snigger* has had his say

Alistair Darling: I don't know what Jeremy Corbyn stands for - BBC News


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 18, 2015)

They keep wheeling them out, don't they? 

We should have bets on who will be next. Is that all of the Blairites now?


----------



## FiFi (Sep 18, 2015)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> They keep wheeling them out, don't they?
> 
> We should have bets on who will be next. Is that all of the Blairites now?


Blair himself has been quiet so far!


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2015)

Ironic that _Alastair Darling_ doesn't know what Corbyn stands for.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> Ironic that _Alastair Darling_ doesn't know what Corbyn stands for.



Given how long Corbyn has been a Labour MP for Darling should be embarrassed by that statement.  It just goes to show how much contempt the careerist front benchers have for normal back bench MP's.


----------



## JimW (Sep 18, 2015)

Saw on Twitter that Labour held two wards in Haringey yesterday with a big increase in vote share, suggested might be a corbyn effect. Looking at the council page still a usual low turn-out.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2015)

JimW said:


> Saw on Twitter that Labour held two wards in Haringey yesterday with a big increase in vote share, suggested might be a corbyn effect. Looking at the council page still a usual low turn-out.


Or might be a Norf London, Labour heart-land, Corbyn effect?


----------



## JimW (Sep 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Or might be a Norf London, Labour heart-land, Corbyn effect?


Yeah, not exactly a bellwether, but you can only beat the team in front of you, Gary.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 18, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Liberals try and poach the Blairites:
> Lib Dem leader playing 'agony aunt' to distressed Labour MPs
> Truly a case of the unspeakable pursuing the uneatable.
> 
> Of course some Libdems have a history of eating shit.



It's a bit like when some vile multinational threatens to move its operations offshore if they're forced to pay tax.

GO, YOU FUCKING CUNTS. YOU HAVE OUR BLESSING!

Lib Dems and Blairites - two groups of shallow, slippery, careerist arseholes who thoroughly deserve each other.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 18, 2015)

Clive Lewis gets energy, he seems like a good un to me

He's pro-nationalisation


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Clive Lewis gets energy, he seems like a good un to me
> 
> He's pro-nationalisation


But you don't say where he gets his energy from. Oh I geddit, you mean Energy.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 18, 2015)

The only decent Sheffield MP Louise Haigh gets Shadow Digital Minister


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I see alistar darling, saviour of labour in scotland *snigger* has had his say
> 
> Alistair Darling: I don't know what Jeremy Corbyn stands for - BBC News


Corbyn 'has capitalised on public mistrust of politicians' = we know that you know we're cunts but you're fucking dreaming if you think you're getting rid of us you fucking pleb cunts.


----------



## treelover (Sep 18, 2015)

Pat McFadden, ultra blarite, but comes from a communist family, is still in the shadow cabinet.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 19, 2015)

JimW said:


> Saw on Twitter that Labour held two wards in Haringey yesterday with a big increase in vote share, suggested might be a corbyn effect. Looking at the council page still a usual low turn-out.


The Corbyn Effect is an excellent paranoid conspiracy thriller made in the 70s starring Donald Sutherland.


----------



## laptop (Sep 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The Corbyn Effect is an excellent paranoid conspiracy thriller made in the 70s starring Donald Sutherland.



Went to look on imdb.com


----------



## Santino (Sep 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The Corbyn Effect is an excellent paranoid conspiracy thriller made in the 70s starring Donald Sutherland.


Famously bleak ending. The opening music has a great guitar riff by Stockwell Fudge.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 19, 2015)

Not great

No poll bounce for Jeremy Corbyn | John Rentoul | Independent Eagle Eye Blogs


Con	  42% (+2)
Lab	   30% (+1)
UKIP	 13% (0)
Lib Dem  7% (-1)
Green   3% (-1)


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Not great
> 
> No poll bounce for Jeremy Corbyn | John Rentoul | Independent Eagle Eye Blogs
> 
> ...


Are those 30% unaware that Lab are led by a terrorist supporting, atheist, republican, marxist pacifist?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 19, 2015)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> They keep wheeling them out, don't they?
> 
> We should have bets on who will be next. Is that all of the Blairites now?


I await the judgement of Hazel Blears.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

la resistance lives on:




			
				guardian said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, mainstream Labour MPs, including the deputy leadership candidate, Stella Creasy, gathered in London for what one MP billed as the first meeting for some of the party’s moderates to plan an alternative to Corbyn’s economic platform.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> la resistance lives on:



"Listen very closely mes amis as I shall say this only once..."


----------



## J Ed (Sep 20, 2015)

Lower than the lower than vermin


----------



## J Ed (Sep 20, 2015)

Apparently in Britain if you want to avoid being called anti-Semitic, at least by the Jewish Chronicle, you have to pledge not only not to criticise Israel but to actively encourage business with Israel and Sadiq Khan is just the man to do that.

It's weird that a new McCarthyism on anti-Israel sentiment seems to be increasing while in wider society AFAIK there has been no decline in public support for treating Palestinians as human beings.


----------



## Riklet (Sep 20, 2015)

Quite rightly he's staying quiet on some topics, like Israel for the moment. He does need to smarten up, get some nice suits, a tie and sort it out a bit though.

Plenty of people cant imagine Corbyn as PM. Needs to play the game a bit better. So far it's just the same old labour mistakes repeating themselves.  Michael Foot and his donkey jacket at rememberance sunday, anyone?


----------



## Belushi (Sep 20, 2015)

Riklet said:


> So far it's just the same old labour mistakes repeating themselves.  Michael Foot and his donkey jacket at rememberance sunday, anyone?



You realise he never actually wore a donkey jacket at the cenotaph?


----------



## belboid (Sep 20, 2015)

Riklet said:


> Michael Foot and his donkey jacket at rememberance sunday, anyone?


The one that the press made up? Yes, I remember that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

I think the image stuff is overplayed. Sure he looks a bit casual but its not like he's turned up in jeans and an old band t-shirt.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 20, 2015)

Riklet said:


> Quite rightly he's staying quiet on some topics, like Israel for the moment. He does need to smarten up, get some nice suits, a tie and sort it out a bit though.
> 
> Plenty of people cant imagine Corbyn as PM. Needs to play the game a bit better. So far it's just the same old labour mistakes repeating themselves.  Michael Foot and his donkey jacket at rememberance sunday, anyone?


I have on several occasions mentioned the spurious news story about Foot's donkey jacket. It was no such thing but it was a short woollen coat (in green if I remember) and came from a Saville Row taylor. Foot was fairly infirm by then with a foot injury and it made him stoop as he walked with his walking stick.
This gave him an inelegant look which the papers wanted to comment on so made up the donkey jacket tale. These examples of disinformation continue for years because the papers use their old copy as "research sources".

In 2010 the Telegraph corrected this story. Michael Foot and the donkey jacket that wasn't


----------



## Belushi (Sep 20, 2015)

Good piece by my favourite right wing loon, Peter Hitchens, on the subject of Corbyn's image this morning

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Not great
> 
> No poll bounce for Jeremy Corbyn | John Rentoul | Independent Eagle Eye Blogs
> 
> ...



I think that's OK to be honest. Obviously he needs to win more people over at some point but there's no sign of the collapse that the press are obviously hoping for.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 20, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Good piece by my favourite right wing loon, Peter Hitchens, on the subject of Corbyn's image this morning
> 
> Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog


though his next piece is awful


----------



## free spirit (Sep 20, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I think that's OK to be honest. Obviously he needs to win more people over at some point but there's no sign of the collapse that the press are obviously hoping for.


I was thinking that. 

Given that the press have been gunning for him for weeks, and pouncing on every slight misstep this week, I think that's a pretty good result.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

> The world’s full of countries where you have to salute the leader and sing the party song in public. This isn’t one of them, so to hell with all the superpatriots who condemned Jeremy Corbyn for not singing God Save The Queen.



heh, for a right wing gob, he's got a good point here


----------



## Belushi (Sep 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> though his next piece is awful



Well he is a nut job   I don't mind Hitchens, he's wrong about most things but at least he's sincere.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 20, 2015)

More reverse ferreting at the Observer this time, they're beginning to realise how wrong they got it

Why I take issue with the Observer's stance on Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## treelover (Sep 20, 2015)

Anyone have access to The Times?, apparently there is some dodgy reporting of Wilson style plotting by army chiefs if Corbyn becomes PM.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

treelover said:


> Anyone have access to The Times?, apparently there is some dodgy reporting of Wilson style plotting by army chiefs if Corbyn becomes PM.


its just an unsourced quote in a tweet an 'un-named general', my guess would be the dark mutterings of some three sheets to the wind cold war era duffer with his arse parked in a club seat.


----------



## treelover (Sep 20, 2015)

> Seconded. The Corbyn victory, and the reasons behind it, need far more consideration than they've been getting, particularly from more mainstream Labour MPs and their few supporters in the media. A quarter of a million people have been dismissed as "an emotional spasm", "needing a heart transplant", "morons", "immature" etc. And not just any old quarter of a million people, but the sort of people who actively think about, and participate in, politics, through a political party. In other words, an actual sophisticated, engaged, passionate electorate.
> 
> The question which the endlessly whining and abusive Blairites, currently doing everything they can to ignore this phenomenon, should really be asking themselves is this : has Labour reached the very limits of how far right they can travel, before they lose not only the right to call themselves a social democratic party of the centre-left, but also their bedrock of support ?
> 
> ...



This is well worth reading, very incisive, posted on CIF by disappointed idealist.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 20, 2015)

RT-CIA & MI5 have to target #Corbyn due to NATO,Trident positions etc.Plain fact, not paranoia. Media are doing an Op Mockingbird on him


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

this is (presumably) the times piece - make of it what you will. Looks like speculation on the unnamed general's part rather than an actual threat.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 20, 2015)

mass resignations eh?

actually that last bit reads as if they're threatening a military coup in the event of a Corbyn victory, which to me makes them the biggest threat to the UK's national security.


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

No-one is threatening anything in that piece, it's pure speculation.


----------



## andysays (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> this is (presumably) the times piece - make of it what you will. Looks like speculation on the unnamed general's part rather than an actual threat.



I think there's a significant bit of implicit threat in there as well, though it's impossible to say if it's a genuine threat or just the speculative growling of one anonymous "senior serving general"


----------



## scifisam (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> No-one is threatening anything in that piece, it's pure speculation.



Speculation that there'd be a military coup and it'd be justifiable. That is very similar to a threat.

The Tories have massively cut the armed forces, so they should be "mutinying" now really.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> No-one is threatening anything in that piece, it's pure speculation.


"The army wouldn't just stand for it. The general staff would not allow the prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that"

That looks like a pretty clear threat to me. 

Whether the person making that threat is in any position to carry it out is another matter, but the threat is there alright.


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

'They' are threatening nothing. It's speculation by a single unidentified 'senior serving general'. Might be bullshit, might be true - but either way it isn't a threat.


----------



## treelover (Sep 20, 2015)

Statement of intent here, no Blairite triangulation, good on her.

though I reckon we do need to set up an 'Owen Smith' watch.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 20, 2015)

andysays said:


> I think there's a significant bit of implicit threat in there as well, though it's impossible to say if it's a genuine threat or just the speculative growling of one anonymous "senior serving general"


A similar story in the Daily Heil. 
Army top brass warn of a MUTINY if Corbyn becomes Prime Minister

Once again, the sub's gone AWOL.


> He said the *arm* would be forced to take 'direct action' against Mr Corbyn



There's some serious spinning going on here.


> The senior serving general, speaking anonymously to the Sunday Times, said Mr Corbyn's victory has been greeted with 'wholesale dismay' in the army.
> 
> He added: 'There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a *mutiny*.
> 
> ...



So who is this general? It can't be Walter Walker because he's dead.



Read more: Army top brass warn of a MUTINY if Corbyn becomes Prime Minister 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> 'They' are threatening nothing. It's speculation by a single unidentified 'senior serving general'. Might be bullshit, might be true - but either way it isn't a threat.



It is a threat. It may be a silly one made by someone with no clue or ability to bring it about, but its still a threat being made.


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> RT-CIA & MI5 have to target #Corbyn due to NATO,Trident positions etc.Plain fact, not paranoia. Media are doing an Op Mockingbird on him



I'm surprised we haven't had much speculation about how at the USA would go to prevent Corbyn taking power either. Plenty of time for that I suppose.


----------



## laptop (Sep 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> It is a threat. It may be a silly one made by someone with no clue or ability to bring it about, but its still a threat being made.



Refreshment had been taken, I'll wager.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 20, 2015)

laptop said:


> Refreshment had been taken, I'll wager.


The irony is that it is not the Labour Party that has cut back on the military but always the Tories going back over the years. Check out Sir John Knott and the 1981 Defence White Paper.


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> It is a threat. It may be a silly one made by someone with no clue or ability to bring it about, but its still a threat being made.


it's a pissed up old gobby fuck shooting his mouth off.


----------



## agricola (Sep 20, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The irony is that it is not the Labour Party that has cut back on the military but always the Tories going back over the years. Check out Sir John Knott and the 1981 Defence White Paper.



Indeed.  If Galtieri had just waited a couple of years, Nott would have taken out more of the Royal Navy than the exocets did.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> it's a pissed up old gobby fuck shooting his mouth off.


It most definitely is, but it's also propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. Along similar lines to the shite about him not singing the national anthem in the Fail which someone has already taken them to task over


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

It's propaganda rustled up by The Times though, no one serious in the army or state would be so crude.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 20, 2015)

Oh yes it's a concerted effort by the Murdoch press and their fellow vermin but they've never really been known for doing subtle have they? I hope they come badly unstuck. As an aside I'm pleased to recount that my local Spar who've been doing a promotion involving a free Sun on Sundays (which did not seem to be optional - ie they scanned it whether or not you were going to take it or not) are now no longer doing so - I had complained about this a few weeks ago.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 20, 2015)

Are people seriously arguing that there could be a coup or interference by the US to stop corbyn getting into power? You don't think that they could be pulled to the right before that happens?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 20, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Well he is a nut job   I don't mind Hitchens, he's wrong about most things but at least he's sincere.


He'd be the old Tory relative you think is generally wrong and you sometimes have a real argument, but they're basically an okay person and you can have a drink with them, as opposed to the nasty racist one that you don't ever want to be in the same room as.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Are people seriously arguing that there could be a coup or interference by the US to stop corbyn getting into power? You don't think that they could be pulled to the right before that happens?


I don't think anyone takes it seriously do they? Is the equivalent of some wheezy cunt giving it 'I swear if xxxx happens I'll do time!!!1!' while sloshed.


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

I think Corbyn would have a number of... challenges, were he to get into power. While I wouldn't rule out the army moving against him, I doubt very much it would be one of the immediate challenges. There's a whole load of more likely and more significant things he'd face before that would become an issue.


----------



## andysays (Sep 20, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Are people seriously arguing that there could be a coup or interference by the US to stop corbyn getting into power? You don't think that they could be pulled to the right before that happens?



Not sure whether to take this particular story seriously or not, but if there is anything to it, it's more about adding to the general air of hostility against Corbyn and thereby stopping him becoming PM, rather than genuinely letting us all in on what the top brass would do in those circumstances.

It's like the warnings that Corbyn would face a coup of Labour MPs if he became leader - if they were really planning that they would have kept it quiet - it was all about trying to prevent him becoming leader in the first place.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> I think Corbyn would have a number of... challenges, were he to get into power. While I wouldn't rule out the army moving against him, I doubt very much it would be one of the immediate challenges. There's a whole load of more likely and more significant things he'd face before that would become an issue.


capital strikes perhaps. Similar economic coersions. Not that I think we will see J-Cor in No 10, I still think he'll be ousted as leader sooner or later.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 20, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Are people seriously arguing that there could be a coup or interference by the US to stop corbyn getting into power? You don't think that they could be pulled to the right before that happens?


I'm just pointing out that someone who's attempting to paint Corbyn as a threat to national security is in the same statement also basically threatening a coup against him if he did get elected Prime Minister, but presumably doesn't see that it's actually them that is the threat to national security.

I would be very surprised if elements of the secret state didn't organise against him (as they did against Harold Wilson), though I doubt it'd take the form of an actual armed coup. The British establishment tends to be a bit more subtle than that, and they'd probably not be successful, but would help destabilise his government (if he ever get's that chance).


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Are people seriously arguing that there could be a coup or interference by the US to stop corbyn getting into power? You don't think that they could be pulled to the right before that happens?



There would be interference if it came to it, but there are indeed so many ways it could be derailed before reaching that point. I mentioned the US because I have no doubt they'd take a keen interest, but there wouldn't be any need for them to get involved directly when there are so many forces native to this land who would be up for the task first. It would be a last resort if people across a broader range of society were swinging well to the left  in a way that threatened all sorts of US interests.

I don't really think that game has even begun, not when it comes to the likes of Corbyn taking power. Because at this stage the threat is not of him getting into power, its that the 'spectrum of legitimate debate' as tightly defined by the media and political classes might be widened, against the flow of the last 36ish years.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

elbows said:


> There would be interference if it came to it, but there are indeed so many ways it could be derailed before reaching that point. I mentioned the US because I have no doubt they'd take a keen interest, but there wouldn't be any need for them to get involved directly when there are so many forces native to this land who would be up for the task first. It would be a last resort if people across a broader range of society were swinging well to the left  in a way that threatened all sorts of US interests.
> 
> I don't really think that game has even begun, not when it comes to the likes of Corbyn taking power. Because at this stage the threat is not of him getting into power, its that the 'spectrum of legitimate debate' as tightly defined by the media and political classes might be widened, against the flow of the last 36ish years.


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> I would be very surprised if elements of the secret state didn't organise against him (as they did against Harold Wilson), though I doubt it'd take the form of an actual armed coup. The British establishment tends to be a bit more subtle than that, and they'd probably not be successful, but would help destabilise his government (if he ever get's that chance).



It would be a last resort because it would damage some of the 'powerful illusions' that keep our form of democracy on the track. As such it is hard to talk about theoreticals of it too much without sounding silly, especially at this very early stage. It could also get messy around those awkward questions of constitution and loyalty when it comes to the royals.

Infinitely more likely to be fought with the idea that the pen is mightier than the sword.


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2015)

Yes Chomskys thoughts on that sort of thing were my inspiration.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




The past week really has been an amazing example of the propaganda model in action.

If anyone here hasn't read Manufacturing Consent then now is a great time to start!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 20, 2015)

Also this interview is amazing, Chomsky gives a bewildered Marr the run around in an interview in which Marr has clearly not grasped the propaganda model at all or his role within it


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

Manufacturing Consent was a set text when I was studying journalism, but it seemed to go over most people's heads...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

wow does marr come off thick there


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2015)

Also when referring to the coup plotting, dodgy army deployments within the uk and MI5 etc dirty tricks of the 1970's, its important to consider the context. On the one hand it presents us with interesting info that should guard against complacency that 'it can't happen here'. But the fact they didn't pull the trigger on it, even in those extremely lively times where a great deal was at stake, indicates how much of a last resort it is.

Of course the other crucial difference is that they were shitting themselves in the 1970's because the masses were taking matters into their own hands. And the political parties didn't have a handle on it, with games of 'release political pressure valve via the other party getting in' not working very well.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> wow does marr come off thick there


Very amusing how Marr's (expressed) appreciation of the linear political spectrum as it applies to the UK press completely makes Chom's point.


----------



## rekil (Sep 20, 2015)

What....


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

it's a Black Mirror reference.


----------



## rekil (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> it's a Black Mirror reference.


It's a Mail story...I can't stop laughing.



> A distinguished Oxford contemporary claims Cameron once took part in an outrageous initiation ceremony at a Piers Gaveston event, involving a dead pig. His extraordinary suggestion is that the future PM inserted a private part of his anatomy into the animal’s mouth.
> 
> The source — himself an MP — first made the allegation out of the blue at a business dinner in June 2014. Lowering his voice, he claimed to have seen photographic evidence of this disgusting ritual.
> 
> My co-author Isabel Oakeshott and I initially assumed this was a joke. It was therefore a surprise when, some weeks later, the MP repeated the allegation.





> A distinguished Oxford contemporary claims Cameron once took part in an outrageous initiation ceremony involving a dead pig while at university. The PM is pictured holding a pig in recent years
> 
> Some months later, he repeated it a third time, providing a little more detail. The pig’s head, he claimed, had been resting on the lap of a Piers Gaveston society member while Cameron performed the act.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> it's a Black Mirror reference.



It's real.

Gloriously real.


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

wtf?


----------



## JimW (Sep 20, 2015)

It'll be Corbyn's fault somehow. The veggie twat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

thats one hogroast  I'd rather take a pass on as the ameridem say


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 20, 2015)

You twitter prudes are missing some glorious piss-taking on there right now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> it's a pissed up old gobby fuck shooting his mouth off.


Probably. But people thought Wilson was just being paranoid.


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> You twitter prudes are missing some glorious piss-taking on there right now.


you're not wrong. there's literally nothing there but a stream of pig jokes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> you're not wrong. there's literally nothing there but a stream of pig jokes.


would you say there has been a rash(ers) of such porcine based humour?


----------



## Belushi (Sep 21, 2015)

Whatever the truth of it he will now be remembered as the Prime Minister who had necrophiliac sex with a pig :thumbs :


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2015)

i think i may have been disturbing my housemates with my cackling just now


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> i think i may have been disturbing my housemates with my crackling just now


cfy


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Whatever the truth of it he will now be remembered as the Prime Minister who had necrophiliac sex with a pig :thumbs :


not only necrophilia and bestiality but incest too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

camerons new spad:


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2015)

omfg


----------



## JimW (Sep 21, 2015)

I enjoyed this one:


> Nick Clegg morosely reflects that he once fingered a deer. But no one will ever care.


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2015)

I'm imagining PMQs this week:

_I recieved 250,000 emails about this topic..._


----------



## Belushi (Sep 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> I'm imagining PMQs this week:
> 
> _I recieved 250,000 emails about this topic..._


----------



## agricola (Sep 21, 2015)

At what point did Ed Miliband find out about this?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 21, 2015)

What a sick fuck, what kind of sociopath fucks a dead pig


----------



## rekil (Sep 21, 2015)

Just as good are the aftershocks of weirdos lining up to defend pigfucking as the type of thing everybody does when they're young.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

now we all know why this ham face looks so horrified at its fate


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What a sick fuck, what kind of sociopath fucks a dead pig


Corbyn's sexual stuff: took a fellow young councillor and lover on a bike tour of the DDR, had a great time. 

Cameron: facefucked a dead pigs head


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2015)

copliker said:


> Just as good are the aftershocks of weirdos lining up to defend pigfucking as the type of thing everybody does when they're young.



Mensch being one of them. She's currently saying what else do you expect when a young student gets drunk?

God that woman.


----------



## elbows (Sep 21, 2015)

Cameron has already been likened to ham. I can only assume these piggy revelations will act as some kind of ham joke multiplier. The best is yet to come.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2015)




----------



## J Ed (Sep 21, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Mensch being one of them. She's currently saying what else do you expect when a young student gets drunk?
> 
> God that woman.



Yes we all experiment at one time or another with fucking dead animal corpses oh wait no we don't wtf


----------



## JimW (Sep 21, 2015)

Why don't young people join social clubs with pig-fucking as the entry barrier?


----------



## Belushi (Sep 21, 2015)

copliker said:


> Just as good are the aftershocks of weirdos lining up to defend pigfucking as the type of thing everybody does when they're young.



It wouldn't surprise me with the upper classes.


----------



## rekil (Sep 21, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

Vintage Paw said:


> Mensch being one of them. She's currently saying *what else do you expect when a young student gets drunk?*
> 
> God that woman.




she's right of course, throughout human history whenever a student has got pissed he's fucked a dead pig mouth. Aristotle railed against such practises as I recall.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 21, 2015)

Corbyn gets to be PM now doesn't he?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2015)




----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2015)

2020 campaign poster of Cameron with his tinkle inside a pig's gob and the words

*VOTE LABOUR*

Corbyn majority of 200*.*


----------



## rekil (Sep 21, 2015)

Supposed to be up in 5 hours but it's still too funny. Fuck this.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2015)

even the lib dems are joining in

eta arse, already posted


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2015)

copliker said:


> Supposed to be up in 5 hours but it's still too funny. Fuck this.


me too!


----------



## free spirit (Sep 21, 2015)

this'll get lost among the piggate posts, but Corbyn's social media team just posted up his stats for last week and they're pretty impressive.

5.8 million total post reach, 684,000 people engaged, 1.4 million post clicks. I'm fairly sure that his page is doing significantly better than the main Labour page, so if they're able to keep this up it really gives him a good power base and communications method that bypasses both the media and the mainstream labour communications channels.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

I wonder if he quoted that line from Deliverance while he was sticking his penis into the mouth of a dead pigs head


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2015)

How the fuck do you come back from this ffs.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> How the fuck do you come back from this ffs.


laugh it off


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 21, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> laugh it off



Politics is in that place right now where I think he could actually do that. Honestly, I think he'll come out just fine.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2015)

If there are photos though?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> If there are photos though?


where are you getting this photos thing?


----------



## Belushi (Sep 21, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> where are you getting this photos thing?



The Mail story alleges there's a photo of the deed in existence


----------



## JimW (Sep 21, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> If there are photos though?


They'll have to get the pig to sign a consent.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2015)

Oh please let this destroy the government. Please.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2015)

Ashcroft says his source has seen a photo of it.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2015)

JimW said:


> They'll have to get the pig a consent.



think that ship has sailed already.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

is it wrong that I wan't to know if it was flaccid going in or engorged? Because the former while total lol is rugby lad shit magnified through the public school lense and toffy drinking club boy culture therein. Still funny. But if he was sporting a woody at the time? well, well thats quite different


----------



## JimW (Sep 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> is it wrong that I wan't to know if it was flaccid going in or engorged? Because the former while total lol is ruby lad shit magnified through the public school lense and toffy drinking club boy culture therein. Still funny. But if he was sporting a woody at the time? well, well thats quite different


It's wrongness all the way down here


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> is it wrong that I wan't to know if it was flaccid going in or engorged? Because the former while total lol is ruby lad shit magnified through the public school lense and toffy drinking club boy culture therein. Still funny. But if he was sporting a woody at the time? well, well thats quite different


The Clinton defence


----------



## gawkrodger (Sep 21, 2015)

Diane Abbott has been joining in the fun on twitter


----------



## rekil (Sep 21, 2015)

gawkrodger said:


> Diane Abbott has been joining in the fun on twitter


Nah that was a shit parody account.


----------



## gawkrodger (Sep 21, 2015)

How disappointing


----------



## Trappist (Sep 21, 2015)

So was this a special treat for Cameron or was he getting Boris's sloppy seconds?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2015)

Corbyn Resigns From Stop The War Coalition After Fresh Queen Controversy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> A similar story in the Daily Heil.
> Army top brass warn of a MUTINY if Corbyn becomes Prime Minister
> 
> Once again, the sub's gone AWOL.
> ...



There's a fairly ignorant assumption on the part of the Mail, the Times and the general, that the other ranks will follow directions from senior officers that are clearly illegal. As soldiers can be CMed for failing to disobey illegal orders, such an assumption is what is known as "a bag of arse".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2015)

laptop said:


> Refreshment had been taken, I'll wager.



Half a dozen _chota pegs_ (probably gin) taken post-the sunday roast beef and red wine, and the after-dinner port and brandy. Pretty much any afternoon at the Carlton Club.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> Manufacturing Consent was a set text when I was studying journalism, but it seemed to go over most people's heads...



Cognitive dissonance?


----------



## killer b (Sep 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cognitive dissonance?


stupidity. In third year of a journalism degree course, we were asked to analyse an article from the Express, and one of my peers said 'the express? that's a left wing paper isn't it?'


----------



## laptop (Sep 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Half a dozen _chota pegs_ (probably gin) taken post-the sunday roast beef and red wine, and the after-dinner port and brandy. Pretty much any afternoon at the Carlton Club.



That's the sort of thing I had in mind, yes. Unless the CC was too public and they were in a corner of level minus 3 at the Cheshire Cheese. The bit that reminds me of the hidden, deserted Syriac chapel in the church of the holy sepulchre.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> stupidity. In third year of a journalism degree course, we were asked to analyse an article from the Express, and one of my peers said 'the express? that's a left wing paper isn't it?'



 Jesus pig-fucking Christ!  You'd have to be either deluded, or substantially to the right of the readership of _The Daily Telegraph_, for that to be the case!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a fairly ignorant assumption on the part of the Mail, the Times and the general, that the other ranks will follow directions from senior officers that are clearly illegal. As soldiers can be CMed for failing to disobey illegal orders, such an assumption is what is known as "a bag of arse".



Quite. Mutinies never come from above, they always come from below.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> it's a Black Mirror reference.


How innocent we once were...


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Quite. Mutinies never come from above, they always come from below.


Not in the British Army:
Curragh incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> stupidity. In third year of a journalism degree course, we were asked to analyse an article from the Express, and one of my peers said 'the express? that's a left wing paper isn't it?'


Perhaps the student in question was dyslexic, didn't know right from left or maybe arse from elbow.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2015)

eoin_k said:


> Not in the British Army:
> Curragh incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ah, okay. I was thinking more of the Invergordon Mutiny and similar.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 21, 2015)

This is great, names and details the silver spoon clowns who keep getting it wrong.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 21, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Corbyn Resigns From Stop The War Coalition After Fresh Queen Controversy



Sad, the slow crumbling under pressure of a decent man.

And fair point, there is a reason why politicians are bland I guess.

Do hope the statement is the truth though:



> He told Sky News: "It was always agreed that if Jeremy was selected (as Labour leader) he would step down in a number of roles, one of which was chairman of the Stop The War Coalition.
> 
> "This is due to the number of engagements and commitments that come with being the leader of the Opposition."


----------



## Trappist (Sep 22, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Quite. Mutinies never come from above, they always come from below.



A rose by any other name...

Examples of how not and how to:

Algiers putsch of 1961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greek military junta of 1967–74 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the absence of cosy chats with journos months/years before


----------



## gawkrodger (Sep 22, 2015)

I see a Lib Dem councillor has just resigned and gone over to Labour, explicitly because of Corbyn


----------



## youngian (Sep 22, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is great, names and details the silver spoon clowns who keep getting it wrong.



Another quality contribution from Bastani. With Crick its questionable if he's actually well with his obsessive anti-Corbyn Tweeting. He's turning into Louise Mensch.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 22, 2015)

Great interview with Caroline Lucas, starts off with concilliatory noises towards Corbyns Labour


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 23, 2015)

gawkrodger said:


> I see a Lib Dem councillor has just resigned and gone over to Labour, explicitly because of Corbyn





presume s/he has been in some sort of trance since early 2010 and just woken up?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 23, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> presume s/he has been in some sort of trance since early 2010 and just woken up?



Saw better long term job prospects, that's all.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 23, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Saw better long term job prospects, that's all.



would it be wrong to hope that their new local party de-selects them at the first possible opportunity?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 23, 2015)

After the election the party was demoralised and imho hadn't a clue what to do. The party had been in a sorry state for such a long time, the heart was hollowed out.
Along comes Corbyn and brings new heart, new members but as the PLP see it, retro grade policies.
I suppose the PLP has principals but they have no chance of keeping all those new members if they win out with their policies, why not give Corbyn and peace not war a chance. Why not just talk to the man for the parties sake, for our sake.
I can't see any sign though of the leader having the talent to heal the rift in the party at present, maybe it will come good at the conference but that seems remote.
The PLP don't want to talk, do they? And he is even having a job keeping his cabinet in line and are pulling him to the right, away from peace.
Now all the pundits seem to be saying Labour are unelectable because of squabbling and may well be for a generation.
I fail to see where any determination to bang heads together will come from, seeing as there are so many against him.
Will Tom Watson come to the rescue? I really hope so but suspect not.

I'm a bit .


----------



## Santino (Sep 23, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> After the election the party was demoralised and imho hadn't a clue what to do. The party had been in a sorry state for such a long time, the heart was hollowed out.
> Along comes Corbyn and brings new heart, new members but as the PLP see it, retro grade policies.
> I suppose the PLP has principals but they have no chance of keeping all those new members if they win out with their policies, why not give Corbyn and peace not war a chance. Why not just talk to the man for the parties sake, for our sake.
> I can't see any sign though of the leader having the talent to heal the rift in the party at present, maybe it will come good at the conference but that seems remote.
> ...


Hasn't fucked a pig though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 23, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Tom Watson come to the rescue


he's of the blair mould. Fuck him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2015)

Santino said:


> Hasn't fucked a pig though.


give him time.


----------



## treelover (Sep 23, 2015)




----------



## billy_bob (Sep 23, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Saw better long term job prospects, that's all.



Apparently even fucking a dead pig results in better long-term job prospects than remaining in the Lib Dems.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 23, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Corbyn Resigns From Stop The War Coalition After Fresh Queen Controversy


Wow, misleading headline or what. The only Queen controversy that could actually force Corbyn to leave any organisation would be if he said Freddy couldn't sing.


----------



## 03gills (Sep 24, 2015)

Quote from JC's interview with the NS:




> When I ask about his relations with the media, Corbyn laments that they have not paid “the slightest” attention to his demand in his victory speech for them to leave his family alone. He says: *“I don’t expect any fair treatment from some of our media to me personally. That goes with the job. I have already said and will continue to say that I won’t respond to personal abuse and I never make any personal abuse, ever, to anybody. I just don’t do that kind of politics.*
> 
> “What I find appalling is the intrusive nature towards my extended family. I have asked them [the media] to respect the privacy of people. They don’t. I just find it depressing. But I have to say a big thank you to all of my extended family, some of whom I’d never met before, some of whose existence I was barely aware of before. Thank you for your kindness and solidarity and I’m sorry for what you’ve been put through.”



He's just so not taking the bait from these fuckers, I love him even more right now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2015)

lots of padding here but I'll quote the quote that I found amusing:

The Corbyn earthquake – how Labour’s leadership contest shook the party to its foundations | Patrick Wintour and Nicholas Watt



> Months later, one leading figure in a rival campaign could barely control their rage: “To have [the close of nominations] at 12 o’clock on a Monday – we must have been on fucking crack cocaine. You can’t get to anyone, so people were wandering in after a weekend of spending time with their bloody constituency secretary or their leftwing wife, they just fucking wander off the train and hadn’t even had a cup of tea in the tea room by 12 o’clock on a Monday. They go straight down to the PLP office and do something stupid. The people that are around on a Monday morning are the London lot – and for fuck’s sake, it’s the home of the left, it’s all the fucking mayoral candidates and deputy leader candidates.”



oh and



> Shell-shocked members of the shadow cabinet, some on the verge of tears, gathered together in small groups in the foyer


 LOL


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 25, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> lots of padding here but I'll quote the quote that I found amusing:
> 
> 
> 
> > Months later, one leading figure in a rival campaign could barely control their rage: “To have [the close of nominations] at 12 o’clock on a Monday – we must have been on fucking crack cocaine. You can’t get to anyone, so people were wandering in after a weekend of spending time with their bloody constituency secretary or their leftwing wife, they just fucking wander off the train and hadn’t even had a cup of tea in the tea room by 12 o’clock on a Monday. They go straight down to the PLP office and do something stupid. The people that are around on a Monday morning are the London lot – and for fuck’s sake, it’s the home of the left, it’s all the fucking mayoral candidates and deputy leader candidates.



Fucking leftwing MPs, listening to their _women _before they vote


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Fucking leftwing MPs, listening to their _women _before they vote


blates trying to channel malcom tucker


----------



## teqniq (Sep 25, 2015)




----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 25, 2015)

> “We were trying hard to persuade people you didn’t have to choose between your heart and your head,” Cooper said, reflecting on how Corbyn’s entry into the race seemed to have changed the mindset of Labour members. “But the debate became dangerously polarised between choosing your principles or choosing power.”



Still absolutely no idea.

As far as the debate became about principles v power that was because her wing of the party tried to make it like that, over and over again. What they still seem to be missing is the point that the right seemed to offer no principles for no power.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> give him time.



Even a stopped clock fucks a pig twice a day?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Even a stopped clock fucks a pig twice a day?


something the swiss clockmakers might be better able to assist you with.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Apparently even fucking a dead pig results in better long-term job prospects than remaining in the Lib Dems.


BEING the dead pig results in better long-term job prospects than remaining in the Lib Dems.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 25, 2015)

> *Mandelson: it’s too early to force Jeremy Corbyn out*



Slackers; it's nearly 2 weeks, after all.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 25, 2015)

Wilf said:


> BEING the dead pig results in better long-term job prospects than remaining in the Lib Dems.



Judging from the 2010-15 period, being the dead pig results in exactly identical job prospects to being a Lib Dem.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Slackers; it's nearly 2 weeks, after all.



Ah, he only means because they'll look like cunts if they do it now.

And I thought for a moment he'd had a conversion


----------



## brogdale (Sep 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Ah, he only means because they'll look like cunts if they do it now.
> 
> And I thought for a moment he'd had a conversion


"*heart transplant*"


----------



## laptop (Sep 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> "*heart transplant*"



Doesn't that sort-of imply the previous presence of a similar organ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2015)

laptop said:


> Doesn't that sort-of imply the previous presence of a similar organ?


i don't see why. the 'transplant' only means to move something to somewhere else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Ah, he only means because they'll look like cunts if they do it now.
> 
> And I thought for a moment he'd had a conversion


a pointed stick shoved up his jacksey


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't see why. the 'transplant' only means to move something to somewhere else.



Yea like how the Prime Monster transplanted his penis into a dead pig's mouth


----------



## laptop (Sep 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't see why. the 'transplant' only means to move something to somewhere else.



I was thinking "heart graft" should be introduced into the discourse, for clarity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yea like how the Prime Monster transplanted his penis into a dead pig's mouth


sadly there was no chance of the pig transplanting it to its stomach.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Slackers; it's nearly 2 weeks, after all.


mandleson basically giving it 'keep your powder dry and give him enough rope'. Interesting timing with that red shift paper thats come out


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2015)

John McDonnell: Labour will match Osborne and live within our means



> John McDonnell, the new shadow chancellor, will tell the Labour conference that Britain must always live within its means as he announces that the party will vote in favour of a new fiscal charter proposed by George Osborne.
> 
> In a sign of the new Labour leadership’s determination to restore the party’s credibility on the economy, McDonnell has told the Guardian that the party will manage the economy carefully.
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 25, 2015)

:/


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

-___-


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 25, 2015)

What a fucking surprise.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2015)

I think that they are trying to emulate how Syriza appropriated the language of austerity


----------



## agricola (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> John McDonnell: Labour will match Osborne and live within our means



Emphatically the right thing to do - he can now go on and ask why Osborne thinks its fiscally responsible to borrow at a much higher rate of interest via PFI (as opposed to normal borrowing), or why they are signing up to pay at least twice the going rate for electricity in the Hinckley C deal, or why they are paying far more in rents to private landlords to house people than it would cost to build council homes, or any one of a load of other things.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 25, 2015)

Lol. I am surprised.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 25, 2015)

agricola said:


> Emphatically the right thing to do - he can now go on and ask why Osborne thinks its fiscally responsible to borrow at a much higher rate of interest via PFI (as opposed to normal borrowing), or why they are signing up to pay at least twice the going rate for electricity in the Hinckley C deal, or why they are paying far more in rents to private landlords to house people than it would cost to build council homes, or any one of a load of other things.


Technically he could. He won't though will he? This isn't a cunning trick.


----------



## agricola (Sep 25, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Technically he could. He won't though will he? This isn't a cunning trick.



Why wouldn't he?  It is Osborne's weakest point, it makes a mug of "the resistance" - who would (and did) sign up to exactly the same things, and he would be correct to highlight all of it.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 25, 2015)

Grotesque. Creating a scaffold for your execution if/when you are in government post-2020 and you have to break the rules.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> John McDonnell: Labour will match Osborne and live within our means


Unless I'm missing something pretty fundamental...they're signing up to something that is utterly meaningless, yeah? 
If you can determine the means within which "we have to live', what is the point? Or maybe that is the point?

I presume this is just about (future) damage limitation?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 25, 2015)

For goodness' sake! THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH RUNNING A DEFICIT!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2015)

sihhi said:


> Grotesque. Creating a scaffold for your execution if/when you are in government post-2020 and you have to break the rules.



Yes, no one would be able or want to actually implement the 'If I go out in Leeds with a tenner and have four pints I can't have a fifth' economics once in power. I think that they have just decided that this idea of economics has become so commonsensical it is impossible to get power without appropriating the rhetoric surrounding it, whether this will be enough to get them into power or give them a chance of getting into power is another question as is whether it is ethical.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 25, 2015)

Osborne's fiscal charter wants a surplus in 2020 and a general overall budget surplus. 

By the rules of Labourist socialism, there should be a deficit - and a hefty one until the year 2400 or so that's the level of social need that's unmet that needs to be processed via Labour's step-by-step reforms. 

It's slow-burn (as opposed to Tory big bang) neoliberalism and not reversing the cuts that have happened over the past 10 years.


----------



## youngian (Sep 25, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> For goodness' sake! THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH RUNNING A DEFICIT!


No there isn't and Osborne is happy to run one. Unfortunately he's better at convincing a public that thinks running a deficit is economic nonsense that he is Mr balance-the-books. All McDonnell is doing is playing the game and redefining spending as capital investment. The small group of voters who decide elections don't know shit about economics, its all a question of whose gib they most like the cut of.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yes, no one would be able or want to actually implement the 'If I go out in Leeds with a tenner and have four pints I can't have a fifth' economics once in power. I think that they have just decided that this idea of economics has become so commonsensical it is impossible to get power without *appropriating the rhetoric *surrounding it, whether this will be enough to get them into power or give them a chance of getting into power is another question as is whether it is ethical.



I don't get ethics or rhetoric, to me, Labour's about persuading some sectors of the business class to back you (instead of the Tories) and some C2 voters who normally swing elections in this country, it's about signalling that you're going to defend those interests.

By 'appropriate' do you mean 'use'?


----------



## sihhi (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I think that they are trying to emulate how Syriza appropriated the language of austerity



Syriza, die Linke, the old PCI, the new Rifundazione, the Mongolian People's Party, the CPI - leftism delivering neoliberalism in coalition with others.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2015)

sihhi said:


> I don't get ethics or rhetoric, to me, Labour's about persuading some sectors of the business class to back you (instead of the Tories) and some C2 voters who normally swing elections in this country, it's about signalling that you're going to defend those interests.
> 
> By 'appropriate' do you mean 'use'?



Yes, use something that you would expect the Tories to use.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2015)

sihhi said:


> Syriza, die Linke, the old PCI, the new Rifundazione, the Mongolian People's Party, the CPI - leftism delivering neoliberalism in coalition with others.



I don't know enough about Die Linke or the Mongolian People's Party to comment on those cases but no argument on the others.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I don't know enough about the Mongolian People's Party to comment.



Just what the fuck are you even _doing_ in P&P without such knowledge?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 25, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Just what the fuck are you even _doing_ in P&P without such knowledge?



Honestly after doing a bit of googling it seems like an intriguing case, I didn't really know that the really existing socialism > 'social democracy' pathway was a thing anywhere in Asia.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I don't know enough about Die Linke or the Mongolian People's Party to comment on those cases but no argument on the others.



You know about die Linke if you know about Greece and at the Lander level they always do what the SPD requests, the MPP were Mongolia's Communist Party (pre-1990) after the crisis of 2008 they privatised and imposed short-term contracts on their mines - key industry - before selling them off, just how Syriza in Greece has done the same to its ports - its key industry.


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2015)

I read an article the other day that discussed how the (supposedly left/labour) NZ govt of the late 70s pushed through neoliberal reforms at a rate Thatcher would blush at, just a sec...


----------



## youngian (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I think that they have just decided that this idea of economics has become so commonsensical it is impossible to get power without appropriating the rhetoric surrounding it


And McDonnell and Livingstone have been appropriating this kind of language successfully since the GLC days. If McDonnell can convince posters on Urban that he is some kind of austere closet monetarist than he's got a good chance of getting the attention of swing voters who think deficit spending is a load of mumbo-jumbo.

But full marks to Yanis Varoufakis here for despatching this pub bore who has no idea what he's talking about but is how most people think about macroeconomics


----------



## sihhi (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Honestly after doing a bit of googling it seems like an intriguing case, I didn't really know that the really existing socialism > 'social democracy' pathway was a thing anywhere in Asia.



This is in part how it was done:

_Battushig Batbold _[socialist PM's son]_, who’s in his early 20s, is a metals-and-mining investment analyst at Morgan Stanley, just right for work in resource-rich Mongolia.

Mr. Batbold, based in London, has been spotted going to meetings in Mongolia, so it seems Morgan Stanley is putting its prestigious hire in front of clients quickly, a rare opportunity for an entry-level banker. Mr. Batbold joined the U.S. firm in November 2009 according to his online LinkedIn profile.

The hurry might have something to do with the sale of half the shares in the state-owned holding company for the world’s second-largest coal deposit, Erdenes-Tavan Tolgoi Co. The Tavan Tolgoi deposit is located in the South Gobi desert, near China’s northern border.

Bankers are pitching for a mandate to carry out the share sale this week and early next week, said one person familiar with the matter.

Mongolian resource companies have already been raising money abroad. Coking-coal producer Mongolia Mining Corp., the first Mongolia-based company to go public in Hong Kong, in October raised HK$5.8 billion (US$745.3 million) in an offering managed by Citigroup Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. SouthGobi Energy Resources Ltd., which mines coal in Mongolia but is headquartered in Canada, raised US$442 million in a Hong Kong IPO in January 2010. Citigroup and Macquarie Securities Ltd. handled that deal.

Mr. Batbold’s dad, the prime minister, is viewed as more business-friendly than his predecessors. He used to run a trading company, Altai Trading Co., which had among its interests a gold-mining joint venture. He has five children with his second wife.
_

It's on my mind because of the current right-wing government carrying on the previous  MPP government policies

_Mongolia’s growing budget deficit is forcing the government to consider the sale of state-owned enterprises, tax hikes on petroleum imports and other measures to boost income.
The shortfall in revenue may reach 1 trillion tugrik ($500 million) by the end of the year, up from 600 billion tugrik in the first eight months of 2015, according to comments by Minister of Finance Bolor Bayarbaatar, posted on a government website.
The nation’s economy and the government budget has been hit hard by the end of the commodity boom, a slowdown in China and a drying up of foreign investment. Tax revenue dropped as Mongolia’s growth slowed to 3 percent in the first half of 2015 compared to 8.2 percent in the same period a year ago.
“We need to conserve our spending and tighten our belts during this time of decreasing income,” said Prime Minister Saikhanbileg Chimed, according to comments posted on the same website. Raising duties on petroleum imports and the privatization of state-owned entities are two options for Mongolia to plug its budget deficit, he said, adding that spending cuts could come through decreasing the wages of senior government officials during the final three months of the year._


Whatever John McDonnell says about the deficit the chancellor following him will execute right to the bone - opening up Labour's plans to the Office of Budget Responsibility means the death of any social programme.


----------



## peterkro (Sep 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> I read an article the other day that discussed how the (supposedly left/labour) NZ govt of the late 70s pushed through neoliberal reforms at a rate Thatcher would blush at, just a sec...


Rogernomics:
Rogernomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> John McDonnell: Labour will match Osborne and live within our means




Syriza Mk2?


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Yes, no one would be able or want to actually implement the 'If I go out in Leeds with a tenner and have four pints I can't have a fifth' economics once in power. I think that they have just decided that this idea of economics has become so commonsensical it is impossible to get power without appropriating the rhetoric surrounding it, whether this will be enough to get them into power or give them a chance of getting into power is another question as is whether it is ethical.



So, perhaps we can see the same stance on social security, "this is how it is, you can't go against public opinion", if they did accept the current paradigm, it would be a massive betrayal.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 26, 2015)

Thats why you should always be cynical because then you wont be disappointed and if it turns out good you can be pleasantly surprised .


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Thats why you should always be cynical because then you wont be disappointed and if it turns out good you can be pleasantly surprised .



It's not the despair, it's the hope I can't stand...


----------



## agricola (Sep 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Slackers; it's nearly 2 weeks, after all.



Here is the actual text of that memo, in case people haven't seen it already.   It is magnificent throughout, but perhaps the best bit is right at the start:



> Amongst party members, the leadership contest did not produce a landslide for Corbyn. Fewer voted for him than for the others.
> 
> The three mainstream candidates between them got 123,769 votes and Corbyn received 121,751 votes.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Honestly after doing a bit of googling it seems like an intriguing case, I didn't really know that the really existing socialism > 'social democracy' pathway was a thing anywhere in Asia.



I don't think this is surprising at all. In essence third world revolutions were pathways to social democracy via violent and revolutionary means. Of course given their peripheral status in the tripartite division of the world at the time they had to consciously and bloodily manage the process of accumulation by breaking the back of the peasantry.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2015)

agricola said:


> Here is the actual text of that memo, in case people haven't seen it already.   It is magnificent throughout, but perhaps the best bit is right at the start:


You're right, that's wonderful.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 26, 2015)

Good article by Mhairi Black in today's National.
Mhairi Black: The election  of Corbyn changes nothing


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> Thats why you should always be cynical because then you wont be disappointed and if it turns out good you can be pleasantly surprised .



Better a surprised pessimist than a downcast optimist.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 26, 2015)

politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Polling shows the Labour Party brand in big trouble

Thoughts anyone?


----------



## agricola (Sep 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Polling shows the Labour Party brand in big trouble
> 
> Thoughts anyone?



Not sure it should be that much of a surprise - the media have been uniformly negative ever since he became something other than a joke candidate, the cretinry at the top of the party is openly (and ludicrously) at war with their elected-by-a-landslide leader, and (perhaps most importantly) Corbyn has only had two or three chances to put across his views without them being spun as extremism / a threat to national security etc etc.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Polling shows the Labour Party brand in big trouble
> 
> Thoughts anyone?



It's odd what gets emphasised in these analyses. Looking through the data you can see Labour closing the gap on the Conservative's lead (34%-39%), Corbyn having a better personal rating than Cameron who in turn has a better rating than his party, over 50% saying Labour understands the problems facing Britain, a whopping 29% of the population saying the Tories are extreme. It would be breathless Corbynism to cherry pick in that way of course. But really it's just a mixed bag of results whose real meaning is difficult to gauge. Big but unsurprising result is that people think Labour is divided, but then it certainly is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 26, 2015)

agricola said:


> Not sure it should be that much of a surprise - the media have been uniformly negative ever since he became something other than a joke candidate, the cretinry at the top of the party is openly (and ludicrously) at war with their elected-by-a-landslide leader, and (perhaps most importantly) Corbyn has only had two or three chances to put across his views without them being spun as extremism / a threat to national security etc etc.


I'll be interested to see some numbers again after the party conference. I'm sure the press will have a field day with something or other but its a chance for his first major set of speeches since the acceptance.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2015)

Even worse look at this nutter trying to predict Labour's fortunes from a handful of unremarkable council elections.

And what about attracting actual votes from among those who voted for other parties in 2015? Well, here there's some solid votes in ballot boxes to go on. Last week there were two council by-elections in Haringey, one in Ayr, one in rural North Yorkshire, and one in Cambridgeshire. Labour seems to have attracted votes from the Greens to increase their large majorities in the first two contests, remained in third place in Ayr East, and got nowhere in Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire. The move from the Greens, combined with numbers buried on page three of the ORB report showing 'others' (often Greens) shifting over to them, seems concrete and well-evidenced. But Labour stood still in Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire - while the Liberal Democrats pushed onwards with their local revival - and went backwards in Ayr. Labour's votes may be collecting exactly where the party doesn't need them: in liberal, multi-ethnic areas of big cities, where they're already well ahead. That bodes ill for them.


----------



## voiceofreason (Sep 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Polling shows the Labour Party brand in big trouble
> 
> Thoughts anyone?



Labour support's been holding up reasonably well in the face of the concerted efforts of the media to persuade us that Corbyn eats babies. Let's see what happens after Conference when people will get to see a good deal more of Corbyn and also get to hear more about how he intends to put his vision into practice and transform the Labour Party. He could get a positive bounce, but it could go the other way, if Labour is perceived to be hopelessly divided and Corbyn not in control.


----------



## youngian (Sep 26, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Good article by Mhairi Black in today's National.
> Mhairi Black: The election  of Corbyn changes nothing





> I am pleased to see a socialist in a position of influence in England just as I would anywhere else in the world, but one in five of our children still lives in poverty due to the policies of this English-elected Conservative government.



Holyrood has tax raising powers, they could raise income tax on former Tories and Lib-Dems in Salmond's heartlands to alleviate child poverty but decide not to as its too politically risky. Just like Labour and the Tories in England. And the SNP want more tax raising powers on top of the ones they don't use to reverse Tory policies. Not to alleviate child poverty but to join Ireland and Osborne in a neo-liberal Dutch auction in corporation tax. And as Corbyn outflanks the SNP from the left and the Scottish Tories are polling up to 25% at the other end of the spectrum, where is the SNP going? Their game changers for a second referendum that they announced the weekend Corbyn was elected was just reheating existing policies in order to grab headlines. If constitutional concerns and Saltire waving become the SNP's only sell they'll end back where they started; Nigel Farage in kilts.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 26, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> politicalbetting.com  » Blog Archive   » Polling shows the Labour Party brand in big trouble
> 
> Thoughts anyone?



I've always been sceptical about Corbyn's chances of 'saving' the party from itself and it wouldn't particularly surprise me if polling did show that (not because people don't like Corbyn or his policies so much as because the LP's the wrong vehicle for them and too many of the people steering it have a vested interest in keeping it that way). But:

(i) as with previous polls that have been linked on this thread, and as Knotted suggests, the stats don't conclusively bear out the Disaster For The Left!!! narrative of the story that they're embedded in, and that pundits across the media spectrum seem determined to find.

(ii) it does seem that the more questions these polls ask, the less the answers tell us.  The results are always 'read' for us in a way that assumes people are rational and consistent beings with a coherent ideology and a clear understanding of what they themselves look for or admire in a politician or a political party. And of course that's rubbish - most people's views on these things are full of inherent contradictions and fairly subject to change. Only 'who are you going to vote for?' really matters, but of course you can't assume you've got a straight answer from people even about that one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2015)

It's a good summary from Knotted. I'd have been surprised if labour had enjoyed a massive upswing from JC's election. The tories have just won an election, after all. But any optimism I got from his election was the hope that in the coming years a case would be made for a real, socialist(ish, at least) alternative. Only with time and events can that become popular, I think. And it remains only a hope, not an expectation - the noises about deficit elimination remain, the agenda around debt still being set by those who spin the 2008 crisis as a crisis brought on by public debt. 

Plus I do fear that there is still a considerable number of people who feel they are doing well under the tories and are willing to let the poor go to the wall as long as that remains the case. Another house price crash might cure that, as I'm always rather surprised and depressed by the number of people who are chuffed that house prices keep going up and up and up, seemingly unable to see or just indifferent to the wider consequences. Feelings of solidarity with fellow citizens are at a very low ebb in certain quarters, not all of them natural tory voters. 

But some kind of different case will be made by Corbyn and McDonnell in particular. I hope. And so there is a chance that that different case will make a difference. I hope. But it's going to take years, and possibly favourable events, to make it happen. Way too early to tell anything at all about how things will be at the next election. All kinds of things may have happened by then. All Corbyn's election represents is a _possibility_. A crack, at least. But nothing more yet.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 26, 2015)

As an aside, anybody else get rage when everything is regarded as a 'brand' these days?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 26, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> As a side, anybody else get rage when everything is regarded as a 'brand' these days?


Yep. And anyone using that term doesn't understand at all why Corbyn was elected in the first place. It's marketing speak for a politics devoid of principle or ideology, and it assumes that the electorate doesn't care about either of those things, but that then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if the major parties believe it is true. As I said above, Corbyn represents a hope that Labour will move away from that.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 26, 2015)

So Corbyn's going to put policy making out to the wider membership, then.

That, if true (as reported on BBC radio news) sounds very promising.


----------



## andysays (Sep 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So Corbyn's going to put policy making out to the wider membership, then.
> 
> That, if true (as reported on BBC radio news) sounds very promising.



See here


> Labour is to overhaul its policy-making process in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership victory.
> 
> A review to be unveiled at the party's annual conference in Brighton could lead to the end of the National Policy Forum and give power over policies to its members and registered supporters.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So Corbyn's going to put policy making out to the wider membership, then.
> 
> That, if true (as reported on BBC radio news) sounds very promising.



It seems to me that what is being attempted and/or suggested is a sort of Podemos in reverse. A political party decentralising power to assemblies rather than assemblies forming a political party.

Some questions that occur to me about the idea...

1) Will this actually amount to anything in the end or is it just window dressing?
2) How will Labour get people outside of the Labour Left and wider left to participate? That imo is absolutely crucial to their success, and the wider success of the project.
3) Has this strategy, Podemos in reverse or whatever you want to call it, ever been tried before?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It seems to me that what is being attempted and/or suggested is a sort of Podemos in reverse. A political party decentralising power to assemblies rather than assemblies forming a political party.
> 
> Some questions that occur to me about the idea...
> 
> ...


JC had little choice than attempt this tbh. With the extant policy forums involving so much PLP without such a reform he'd have no chance of putting his policies to conference. Your 'reverse Podemos' idea is good.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2015)

John McDonnell's position is not a U turn since Corbyn's election. Its exactly the same as he took back in early august: 

Jeremy Corbyn would clear the deficit – but not by hitting the poor | John McDonnell


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 26, 2015)

youngian said:


> And McDonnell and Livingstone have been appropriating this kind of language successfully since the GLC days. If McDonnell can convince posters on Urban that he is some kind of austere closet monetarist than he's got a good chance of getting the attention of swing voters who think deficit spending is a load of mumbo-jumbo.
> 
> But full marks to Yanis Varoufakis here for despatching this pub bore who has no idea what he's talking about but is how most people think about macroeconomics




loool. That clown reminds me of this Mash article:

Pompous arse taking tough stance on Greece


----------



## youngian (Sep 26, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> loool. That clown reminds me of this Mash article:
> 
> Pompous arse taking tough stance on Greece


 

Do you think Roy's against taking Syrian refugees because we should 'look after our own' and charity begins at home. Despite never showing an ounce of compassion toward his fellow citizens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2015)

youngian said:


> Holyrood has tax raising powers, they could raise income tax on former Tories and Lib-Dems in Salmond's heartlands to alleviate child poverty but decide not to as its too politically risky. Just like Labour and the Tories in England. And the SNP want more tax raising powers on top of the ones they don't use to reverse Tory policies. Not to alleviate child poverty but to join Ireland and Osborne in a neo-liberal Dutch auction in corporation tax. And as Corbyn outflanks the SNP from the left and the Scottish Tories are polling up to 25% at the other end of the spectrum, where is the SNP going? Their game changers for a second referendum that they announced the weekend Corbyn was elected was just reheating existing policies in order to grab headlines. If constitutional concerns and Saltire waving become the SNP's only sell they'll end back where they started; Nigel Farage in kilts.



I thought that Holyrood's tax-raising powers were/are truncated - that they can't raise or distribute tax in certain areas of the economy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> See here



Basically reinstating what New Labour removed.
Something else making Mandelson shit hot biscuits is all to the good!


----------



## seventh bullet (Sep 27, 2015)

dialectician said:


> I don't think this is surprising at all. In essence third world revolutions were pathways to social democracy via violent and revolutionary means. Of course given their peripheral status in the tripartite division of the world at the time they had to consciously and bloodily manage the process of accumulation by breaking the back of the peasantry.



Aren't you referring to national liberation movements in what later came to be called the 'third world'?  

The MPR was a modestly developed satellite for its long existence as a Soviet-guided republic following the Russian civil war and the trauma of that development is closely linked with the USSR's own.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Sep 27, 2015)

seventh bullet said:


> Aren't you referring to national liberation movements in what later came to be called the 'third world'?
> 
> The MPR was a modestly developed satellite for its long existence as a Soviet-guided republic following the Russian civil war and the trauma of that development is closely linked with the USSR's own.



Yes, national liberation struggles that later became known as, or were perceived by the left as being, third world decolonial revolutions (on the road to) but not specifically proletarian revolutions.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 27, 2015)

Corbyn's currently on The Andrew Marr Show.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2015)

what a wanker marr looks in the title sequence


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2015)

who the fuck are these wiseacres


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2015)

Hey, Cameron...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2015)

Farage has recovered his powers I see. Strong on europe.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2015)

now see how long I can put up with andrew niel and john prescott for


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2015)

great, helen lewis.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 27, 2015)

Corbyn reveals big names in new Economic Advisory Committee | LabourList



> Famous economists Thomas Piketty, David Blanchflower and Ann Pettifor are among the names to have joined Labour’s Economic Advisory Committee, the party have today revealed.
> 
> The group will be convened by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and will report to leader Jeremy Corbyn. They will meet four times a year to discuss ideas to be fed into Labour’s official economic strategy. The committee will be made up of:
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Sep 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So Corbyn's going to put policy making out to the wider membership, then.
> 
> That, if true (as reported on BBC radio news) sounds very promising.


What, you mean my cat can get involved?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 27, 2015)

Some huge names there, particularly Stiglitz. They are all Keynesians/post-Keynesians though, aren't they?


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It seems to me that what is being attempted and/or suggested is a sort of Podemos in reverse. A political party decentralising power to assemblies rather than assemblies forming a political party.
> 
> Some questions that occur to me about the idea...
> 
> ...




the liberal left main issues are refugees(at present, they will move on), Trident, Fracking, UK action on Syria(against)

these are not the priorities of the wider public, whatever their merits.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2015)

> Labour’s left gets organised and creates brand-new socialist youth group
> 
> _By Staff Reporter_
> 
> ...





Meanwhile, as time goes backwards, Labour Party Young Socialists are reformed.

sort of, they rejected bringing back clause 4, but support open borders.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2015)

Some serious looking youth there.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 27, 2015)

Tristam Hunt quoting Gramsci in the Graunid lol

Reminds me of when Gove did it


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2015)

just saw that, is that a mea culpa by Hunt?, or a tactical move by him as he sees which way the wind is blowing, for now.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2015)

> About us
> 
> *The Shadow Cabinet*
> 
> ...




The New Left? , wonder how long they will take to do an Owen Jones.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Some huge names there, particularly Stiglitz. They are all Keynesians/post-Keynesians though, aren't they?


Yes and yes (I think).


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> just saw that, is that a mea culpa by Hunt?, or a tactical move by him as he sees which way the wind is blowing, for now.


What a fucking slimy piece of shit he is.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Tristam Hunt quoting Gramsci in the Graunid lol
> 
> Reminds me of when Gove did it


excepting Govey's more left of centre.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Some serious looking youth there.


Where was that held? Someone there looks suspiciously like son & heir!


----------



## free spirit (Sep 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Some huge names there, particularly Stiglitz. They are all Keynesians/post-Keynesians though, aren't they?


That's their base starting point, but there's a common theme between them about rejection of the basis for neoliberalism, austerity, and particular about the negative economic consequences of rising inequality, low pay levels, and the increasing concentration of wealth to the already very wealthy.

Basically it's a list containing several very respected maverick economsts who've not been afraid to take public stands against the consensus in the past, have produced detailed statistical work themselves analysing various aspects of the current economic situation and formulated policy positions from that basis that go against the existing long held consensus.

They're not marxists, but their economic policies if enacted would result in huge improvements in living conditions for those at the bottom of the pile, rising wage levels, higher top level taxation and redistribution of wealth from the top, significantly decreased inequality (and decreasing inequality being seen as a major target of the economic policies), and hopefully an end to (at least a reduction in) the boom and bust cycles of neoliberalist economics.

At least that's true of the 3 on that list I'm aware.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 27, 2015)

It's also a clever move politically (as long as they take the advice of the committee) as it means that for Osbourne to attack their economic policies, he'll be attacking the economic policies developed and approved by a committee of world renowned economists, including a nobel prize winner, and probably the most popularly read economist of the last few years.

and he has a history degree, coupled with fuck all relevant experience prior to becoming chancellor.

Also interesting that the group doesn't include Richard Murphy, who'd been touting himself for the last few weeks as being the author of corbynomics / reckoned they'd borrowed much of their policies from his work.


----------



## agricola (Sep 27, 2015)

Labour moderates take to the streets!


----------



## laptop (Sep 27, 2015)

agricola said:


> Labour moderates take to the streets!



What do we want?

As little as possible!​
When do we want it?

After public opinion has turned against our leader!​


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2015)

agricola said:


> Labour moderates take to the streets!




> Making her first political appearance since returning from maternity leave, Reeves said *“we will be back” and should go on the doorstep to say the leadership does not represent the party.* Richard Angell, the Progress director, got the biggest cheer of the meeting by saying: “We need to rally against the Trots”.


Interesting position from Reeves, there. The party somehow managed to elect a leadership that does not represent them. 

Hmmm...gnomic.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ​Interesting position from Reeves, there. The party somehow managed to elect a leadership that does not represent them.
> 
> Hmmm...gnomic.


tbf that's the message most of the labour party were giving round here last election, except in the opposite direction.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2015)

free spirit said:


> tbf that's the message most of the labour party were giving round here last election, except in the opposite direction.


Rather different electoral constituency, though. It's a bit of stretch for Reeves to say, following what has just happened, that Corbyn does not represent *the party. *Certainly not the PLP, but she said _party_*.*


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 27, 2015)

agricola said:


> Labour moderates take to the streets!


These are the same 'moderates' who lost 2 elections on the trot. Oh, aye. Self-reflexivity is a foreign country to these numpties.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Rather different electoral constituency, though. It's a bit of stretch for Reeves to say, following what has just happened, that Corbyn does not represent *the party. *Certainly not the PLP, but she said _party_*.*


ah, but to her and her ilk the PLP are the party, the membership are merely the plebs who're there to get the leaflets distributed to maintain the PLP in their rightful positions.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 27, 2015)

free spirit said:


> ah, but to her and her ilk the PLP are the party, the membership are merely the plebs who're there to get the leaflets distributed to maintain the PLP in their rightful positions.



Yeah,


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> The New Left? , wonder how long they will take to do an Owen Jones.


It's easy to laugh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2015)

> We need to rally against the Trots”.



they really think they've been blindsided by trots. Its a total case of denial.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they really think they've been blindsided by trots. Its a total case of denial.



These are not intelligent people. I honestly have come to think that, I used to think that they were evil but very smart but now it's clear that the bulk of the Blairites are thick and evil.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2015)

Reeves has outed herself there, surprised she never back stabbed, etc,

Looks like NOLS reborn.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2015)

> There were signs of a grassroots fightback against Corbyn when Labour First, the long-standing rightwing group, *had to hold a chaotic fringe meeting in the street* due to the large numbers attending. Former shadow cabinet members Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper, Ivan Lewis and Liam Byrne addressed the meeting, as well as the deputy leader Tom Watson, who urged unity.



Any images?


----------



## laptop (Sep 27, 2015)

Richard Angell said:
			
		

> “We need to rally against the Trots”.



*Proper* Trots. Entrists.

Deeeep entrists.

Many so deep that they are not themselves aware that they are Trots.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2015)

laptop said:


> *Proper* Trots. Entrists.
> 
> Deeeep entrists.
> 
> Many so deep that they are not themselves aware that they are Trots.


Manchurian Candidates, simply waiting for Rees or Callinicos to call with trigger words and turn them back into full leonbots


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 27, 2015)

Quick obseveration: A lot of Corbyn admirers seem to be getting their knowledge of his ideas/style etc. from watching his speeches and interviews online, without commentary or editing.

This means they / we are consuming his output differently from many who still look to mainstream presentation of "news", which will give perhaps a 15 second context-free clip preceeded and superceeded by a reporter telling people why it's so controversial, with the strong barely between-lines message of "unelectable".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ​Interesting position from Reeves, there. The party somehow managed to elect a leadership that does not represent them.
> 
> Hmmm...gnomic.



As ever, she's talking about the only party that matters to her - the *Parliamentary* Labour Party. She doesn't give a shit for the rest of it, especially not the CLPs.

As for that Progress fuckwit's comment about "the Trots", looks like he's another know-nothing cunt who hasn't got a clue what a Trot actually is, and assigns the label to anyone to his left (which includes Oswald Mosley, on Progress's metrics).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> These are not intelligent people. I honestly have come to think that, I used to think that they were evil but very smart but now it's clear that the bulk of the Blairites are thick and evil.



Many of them are intelligent.
What most of them lack is even the modicum of sense they were born with.


----------



## tim (Sep 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> excepting Govey's more left of centre.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 27, 2015)

tim said:


>



To be fair I have never seen a picture of Hunt on a picket line, and we know that he proudly crosses them.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 28, 2015)

These Labour "moderates" are way more scared of a Corbyn victory than a loss.  Can you imagine how disastrous for them it would be for them if he actually showed that his way is what the country wants?  Their one plank they stand on would be removed from under them.  It would be 50 years before they got their bandwagon rolling again.

Much better for them that Corbyn loses as heavily as possible.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 28, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn loses the battle on Trident after trade unionists side with Labour MPs to block the move



> Jeremy Corbyn will avoid a divisive vote on the Labour party’s policy on Britain’s nuclear deterrent at its conference this week after major unions said they would block the new leader’s attempts to adopt an anti-Trident stance.
> 
> Labour party delegates were expected to vote on whether to renew Trident nuclear weapons or scrap them as party policy on 30 September, but the motion failed to win the support needed from activists in a ballot selecting which topics the party will debate at its conference in Brighton.  ...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 28, 2015)

Twats the lot of em


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ​Interesting position from Reeves, there. The party somehow managed to elect a leadership that does not represent them.
> 
> Hmmm...gnomic.



Also interesting in that at this point it's far from clear that Reeves wouldn't be doing Corbyn et al a massive favour if she and all her fellow automatons start turning up on doorsteps hectoring people about how _they _certainly don't support those imposters on the shadow front bench talking about social justice, rail renationalisation and all that crap.

I doubt 'the Blairites don't like them' is enough by itself to convince the average floating voter to support Labour under its new leadership, but the last GE results suggest it would at least be a step in the right direction.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> To be fair I have never seen a picture of Hunt on a picket line, and we know that he proudly crosses them.



Just demonstrates what a colossal fucker Tristram Hunt must be, if he inclines anyone to be fair to Gove.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 28, 2015)

"Tristram Hunt told fellow Blairites: “We might feel like a pig’s head at the Piers Gaveston club but we must get the taste of defeat out of our mouths”


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 28, 2015)

I really wish politicians would restrain from making jokes.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 28, 2015)

What, so he _really_ said that? I was kinda hoping it was an Urbanite windup.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Jeremy Corbyn loses the battle on Trident after trade unionists side with Labour MPs to block the move


I'm no fan of bombs that could end humanity as we know it. We all watched Threads and read horrific post-apocalypse novels. But its gone now isn't it? the chance to end the Bomb. Maybe in the 50s or 60s it could have been done, but now? I wouldn't trust a single nuclear armed state on earth to really de-arm. Genie out of bottle. They'd all be keeping a few back just in case. Its laudable and I admire his principles but its pissing in the wind. We all live scant moments from some psychopathic ruler destroying the entire planet. I'm not ok with that, but its been the reality I grew up with. Might as well petition Superman to come disarm us all like he does in Quest For Peace. Yesterdays battle maybe.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 28, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I really wish politicians would restrain from making jokes.



Especially shaky ground for Hunt, who has the look of someone who took part in his fair share of elitist initiation rituals in his youth.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm no fan of bombs that could end humanity as we know it. We all watched Threads and read horrific post-apocalypse novels. But its gone now isn't it? the chance to end the Bomb. Maybe in the 50s or 60s it could have been done, but now? I wouldn't trust a single nuclear armed state on earth to really de-arm. Genie out of bottle. They'd all be keeping a few back just in case. Its laudable and I admire his principles but its pissing in the wind. We all live scant moments from some psychopathic ruler destroying the entire planet. I'm not ok with that, but its been the reality I grew up with. Might as well petition Superman to come disarm us all like he does in Quest For Peace. Yesterdays battle maybe.



Yeah ok fair enough, but I caught one of the concerned union leaders on the radio yesterday wittering on about 'protecting member's jobs' and thought, nah that's not anything like the whole story is it?


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm no fan of bombs that could end humanity as we know it. We all watched Threads and read horrific post-apocalypse novels. But its gone now isn't it? the chance to end the Bomb. Maybe in the 50s or 60s it could have been done, but now? I wouldn't trust a single nuclear armed state on earth to really de-arm. Genie out of bottle. They'd all be keeping a few back just in case. Its laudable and I admire his principles but its pissing in the wind. We all live scant moments from some psychopathic ruler destroying the entire planet. I'm not ok with that, but its been the reality I grew up with. Might as well petition Superman to come disarm us all like he does in Quest For Peace. Yesterdays battle maybe.



I kind of agree - reluctantly, I suppose. But mainly at the moment I keep thinking that if I was Corbyn or one of his team, I'd be focusing EVERYTHING on sorting out and then never shutting up about the alternative economic message. Whether that proves to be enough to turn on the voters we'll have to wait and see, but without it all the other stuff, laudable thought it might be, is something of a sideshow and will never be enough to keep the wheels on this thing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Yeah ok fair enough but I caught one of the concerned union leaders on the radio yesterday wittering on about 'protecting member's jobs' and thought nah that's not anything like the whole story is it?



on the marr show yesterday cbyn was emphatic about diversifying the defense production so that it would not affect jobs.

but no, far from the full story. I sometimes wonder if trident isn't just in place to justify a UK voice on the UNSC.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> on the marr show yesterday cbyn was emphatic about diversifying the defense production so that it would not affect jobs.
> 
> but no, far from the full story. I sometimes wonder if trident isn't just in place to justify a UK voice on the UNSC.


Yeah I think it's pretty much a vanity thing and a pretty fucking expensive one at that, also there are lots of military contractors both here and across the pond to keep sweet.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> on the marr show yesterday cbyn was emphatic about diversifying the defense production so that it would not affect jobs.
> 
> but no, far from the full story. I sometimes wonder if trident isn't just in place to justify a UK voice on the UNSC.


That was on of the reasons for Britain refusing to cancel the original H bombs back in the 50's when Labour was in power. It was described as "being able to punch over our weight" in international relations.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That was on of the reasons for Britain refusing to cancel the original H bombs back in the 50's when Labour was in power. It was described as "being able to punch over our weight" in international relations.




Its another thing we can lay at the door of capitalists as well. That arms race, the minuteman, the tsarina, the deafening of whales. The stockpiles, the poorly looked after silos, the stock of planet-slayers laid in. All their fault.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2015)

oddly enough serial rapist, torturer and all round scum fucker Lavrenty Beria was overseeing the USSR's crash course rush to produce nuclear warheads post ww2.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Also interesting in that at this point it's far from clear that Reeves wouldn't be doing Corbyn et al a massive favour if she and all her fellow automatons start turning up on doorsteps hectoring people about how _they _certainly don't support those imposters on the shadow front bench talking about social justice, rail renationalisation and all that crap.
> 
> I doubt 'the Blairites don't like them' is enough by itself to convince the average floating voter to support Labour under its new leadership, but the last GE results suggest it would at least be a step in the right direction.


It's another 4 and a half years before these figures darken any doorsteps of the 'little people'.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2015)

Brilliant one from the state broadcaster (R4's 'PM' "News" programme)...
_John McDonnell, Labour's left-wing, Shadow Chancellor who once said that Karl Marx' 'Capital' was essential reading..."_​Like it is somehow not?


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2015)

...and a cracking headline from the increasingly hysterical Barclay brothers Bugle.



> *Labour won’t admit it, but most people don't really care about tax avoidance*


Important to remember that when asked if he was a tax exile, Sir Frederick stated that he lived in the Channel Islands for health reasons.


----------



## teqniq (Sep 28, 2015)

If there's one thing I get really annoyed about it's corporate tax avoidance.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...and a cracking headline from the increasingly hysterical Barclay brothers Bugle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm looking forward to the T's next revelation: that we all secretly admire people with two or more homes as our obvious social betters, maybe?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 28, 2015)

'no you cannot build a helipad on sark'

'we've built this pavillion that in no way resembles a helipad'

'its a helipad, don't try to mug us off'

etc etc

basically both of them should be drowned ina bath of piss


----------



## Favelado (Sep 28, 2015)

I suppose they have a point to the extent that after years of the longest-lasting, widespread, and most pernicious propaganda campaigns in British history, people are unduly worried about the relative pittance of state benefit fraud in comparison to the Mariana Trench filling amounts of cash that cunts like the Barclays manage to nefariously trouser.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

So Corbyn seems to have upset the SNP by saying they are privatising Calmac and Scotrail.

Which does seem to be nonsense given that the railways were privatised before the Scottish Government even came into existence, and as far as Calmac is concerned, this is due to EU legislation and outwith the powers of the Scottish Government to stop.

Or is it not as simple as that?


----------



## laptop (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Or is it not as simple as that?



In conference season, _everything_ is a symbol.


----------



## gosub (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So Corbyn seems to have upset the SNP by saying they are privatising Calmac and Scotrail.
> 
> Which does seem to be nonsense given that the railways were privatised before the Scottish Government even came into existence, and as far as Calmac is concerned, this is due to EU legislation and outwith the powers of the Scottish Government to stop.
> 
> Or is it not as simple as that?



iirc the contracts are for retender, SNP said they wanted publicly owned bodies to be able to bid, which currently isn't allowed, and last UK government wouldn't change the rules, Millband (messy eater, looked a bit like Wallace from Wallace and Gromit) said he was going to change the rules, but he didn't win the election, partially coz Labour is an endangered species in Scotland


----------



## Zabo (Sep 28, 2015)

Oops!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 'no you cannot build a helipad on sark'
> 
> 'we've built this pavillion that in no way resembles a helipad'
> 
> ...



But Sark News said the people of the island are crying out for helicopter facillities. Sark News in no way affiliated of course, with the Barclay brothers who own it.


----------



## belboid (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So Corbyn seems to have upset the SNP by saying they are privatising Calmac and Scotrail.
> 
> Which does seem to be nonsense given that the railways were privatised before the Scottish Government even came into existence, and as far as Calmac is concerned, this is due to EU legislation and outwith the powers of the Scottish Government to stop.
> 
> Or is it not as simple as that?


It is privatisation, and the SNP called it that when they were in opposition,  but now they pretend it isn't. And they did sod all to bias the tender process in favour of the existing providers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> It is privatisation, and the SNP called it that when they were in opposition,  but now they pretend it isn't. And they did sod all to bias the tender process in favour of the existing providers.


And vice versa: Labour, when they were in power in Holyrood, said what the SNP are saying now. 

So, it's amusing to see social media awash with people arguing the opposite of what their parties were arguing last time the tender went out.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

belboid said:


> It is privatisation, and the SNP called it that when they were in opposition,  but now they pretend it isn't. And they did sod all to bias the tender process in favour of the existing providers.


I don't understand the full story/details of the Calmac situation.

But as far as the railways are concerned - it was not the SNP that privatised Scotrail. That happened years prior to them having any power. And the existing provider, before Scotrail passed to Abellio, was a private company.

It would be true to say that they have not renationalised the railways. But it seems pretty clear that they have not privatised them.


----------



## belboid (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand the full story/details of the Calmac situation.
> 
> But as far as the railways are concerned - it was not the SNP that privatised Scotrail. That happened years prior to them having any power. And the existing provider, before Scotrail passed to Abellio, was a private company.
> 
> It would be true to say that they have not renationalised the railways. But it seems pretty clear that they have not privatised them.


They were already in private hands, that is true, far point. But the SNP had the opportunity both to delay the tender, and to bias it.  They didn't, they went along with placing the railway in the hands of a foreign nationalised company. As left wing as as a hamsters fart.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 28, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Jeremy Corbyn loses the battle on Trident after trade unionists side with Labour MPs to block the move



Trade unionism at its worst.


----------



## belboid (Sep 28, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Trade unionism at its worst.


Trade union bureaucracy happy to behave in its traditional manner once again.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> They were already in private hands, that is true, far point. But the SNP had the opportunity both to delay the tender, and to bias it.  They didn't, they went along with placing the railway in the hands of a foreign nationalised company. As left wing as as a hamsters fart.


I'd agree that the "leftwingedness" of the SNP is merely relative, but it's not the case that they could do much about the railway tender. First, as you rightly say, it was privatised by a 1993 Act (which Labour did not repeal while in power under Blair or Brown), but secondly, Holyrood doesn't have any power to do anything other than administer the process - the actions you suggest are reserved powers: Holyrood is prohibited by the remit of the Scotland Act (1998), which established devolution, from doing anything of the sort. (Anything not specifically reserved in that Act were devolved. These powers were reserved. Only Westminster has the power to vary the terms of the '93 Act).

It was suggested at the time of the tender that the SNP government should lobby Westminster to delay the tendering process until after the new powers of the forthcoming Scotland Bill (2015-16) were known. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. I don't know. But it would have been to no avail anyway: the new Bill doesn't devolve those powers either. (Though it does give power over road signs).

This is why those of us who voted Yes did so: so that Holyrood *would* have those powers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 29, 2015)

The question should be asked of Corbyn, who was this “flags don’t build houses” line aimed at? 

Was it at Yes voters who had deserted Labour in Scotland?  Well, if it was, it was a bad aim.  First of all, if it’s aimed at people to whom flags matter, then they won’t be won back by such phrases.  Flags matter to them.  

But actually, all the evidence suggests that for most of us who voted Yes, it wasn’t about flags.  It was about practicalities.  Exactly about things like building houses and nationalising rail.  It was about doing things: getting rid of Trident, for example.  No, flags don’t build houses.  But Labour doesn’t build houses either.  When in power in Holyrood, Labour built (and the estimates vary) either 6 or 7 council houses.  Either way, it was less than 8.  And don’t forget, Labour were in power in Westminster at that time, too.  They could have repealed the 1985 Housing Act, they could have ended Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (which actually stalled under the Tories), but instead they intensified it, they could have repealed or amended the 1989 Housing Finance Act (which ring fenced the Housing Revenue Account, ensuring most of the profits on housing sales could not be used by local authorities on housing), but they didn’t.

Labour sold off more council houses than the Tories, transferred more estates than the Tories, and took more from tenants’ rents than the Tories. Indeed, Labour actually built fewer ‘social homes’ on average than Thatcher and Major.

So, not only did they not get rid of the Tories’ policies when they had the chance, in the only parliament that has the power to – Westminster - they intensified them.

The SNP hasn’t so much won over Labour’s voters, as Labour has lost them with a record like the above, in Westminster, in Holyrood and in local government.

Corbyn will not win back Scottish Labour’s lost voters if he really thinks they have been won over by the SNP with “talk of flags”.  Labour has lost the Scottish vote by being complacent, by being remote from its former support, and by being displaying an arrogant entitlement.  (Watch John Harris’ films from the General Election).  And by never doing the things it promises in its rhetoric: Labour didn’t build houses.

So for Corbyn to oppose the Yes vote, as he did, then to say “flags don’t build houses” is more than a little irritating.  What are we supposed to do, Jez?  Scotland voted No, but will Labour deliver?  Why should we think so? The evidence doesn’t support any such hope.

Corbyn may have said the right things in his leadership campaign, but when it comes down to it, he is giving his New Labour PLP free votes left, right and centre.  Mainly, it has to be said, right. 

So who was soundbite about flags not building houses for?  Probably just a demoralized PLP.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 29, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> But actually, all the evidence suggests that for most of us who voted Yes, it wasn’t about flags.  It was about practicalities.



Yep, and this has been demonstrated in at least one study. What's interesting is that the opposite idea, that there has just been a dramatic increase in Scottish Nationalism, has been parroted very many times by the right of Labour but I suppose they would have to say and think that, if they came to the opposite conclusion then they might conclude that there is no point to them and that they should cease to exist.


----------



## belboid (Sep 29, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I'd agree that the "leftwingedness" of the SNP is merely relative, but it's not the case that they could do much about the railway tender. First, as you rightly say, it was privatised by a 1993 Act (which Labour did not repeal while in power under Blair or Brown), but secondly, Holyrood doesn't have any power to do anything other than administer the process - the actions you suggest are reserved powers: Holyrood is prohibited by the remit of the Scotland Act (1998), which established devolution, from doing anything of the sort. (Anything not specifically reserved in that Act were devolved. These powers were reserved. Only Westminster has the power to vary the terms of the '93 Act).
> 
> It was suggested at the time of the tender that the SNP government should lobby Westminster to delay the tendering process until after the new powers of the forthcoming Scotland Bill (2015-16) were known. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. I don't know. But it would have been to no avail anyway: the new Bill doesn't devolve those powers either. (Though it does give power over road signs).
> 
> This is why those of us who voted Yes did so: so that Holyrood *would* have those powers.


you dont need to vary the terms of the 93 act. It is still perfectly possible to insert clauses into the tender, and even to delay it (at least according to the Scottish Greens, who have followed the whole saga closer than I).  But then, they do still rely on money from train operating homophobe Brian Souter, don't they?

The SNP have done nothing for the vast majority of Scots, no redistribution measures, nothing. Nothing but rhetoric.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> you dont need to vary the terms of the 93 act. It is still perfectly possible to insert clauses into the tender, and even to delay it (at least according to the Scottish Greens, who have followed the whole saga closer than I).  But then, they do still rely on money from train operating homophobe Brian Souter, don't they?
> 
> The SNP have done nothing for the vast majority of Scots, no redistribution measures, nothing. Nothing but rhetoric.


yeh. but prior to the snp rhetoric was in short supply in scotland.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 29, 2015)

belboid said:


> you dont need to vary the terms of the 93 act. It is still perfectly possible to insert clauses into the tender, and even to delay it (at least according to the Scottish Greens, who have followed the whole saga closer than I).  But then, they do still rely on money from train operating homophobe Brian Souter, don't they?
> 
> The SNP have done nothing for the vast majority of Scots, no redistribution measures, nothing. Nothing but rhetoric.


I have no intention of excusing the SNP, especially where they are at fault.  But the Scottish Greens know that only _legally competent_ clauses may be inserted.  Their proposal, as I understood it, was to delay the tender (which as I understand it the Scottish government can't do of its own volition, but needs Westminster's OK to do, and which anyway was to await what?  The Scotland Bill?  No new relevant powers there), and for Westminster to pass legislation to allow the Scottish government to establish its own body to run Scotrail.  This again needs Westminster approval, and Westminster (then Coalition run) said (through the mouthpiece of Lib Dem Scottish Minister Carmichael) that it would be against EU legislation for them to do so.

So I supported the Scottish Greens' idea, but knew it wouldn't happen because both of the steps required Westminster approval.  I believe Carolyn Lucas launched a Private Members Bill on the matter in Westminster, but it fell. 

The bidders for the franchise were Abellio, Arriva, FirstGroup, MTR and National Express.  Abellio (a Dutch government-owned company) won.  As far as I know Souter has no holdings in any of these companies.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 29, 2015)

The Labour party will now "automatically" support all strikes taken by trade unions, the new shadow chancellor said last night.

Wow


----------



## J Ed (Sep 29, 2015)

> John McDonnell told a conference fringe meeting that Labour would have "absolute solidarity" with all actions taken by the trade union movement.
> 
> He said the party needed to become a "resistance movement".
> 
> "And that means absolute solidarity. The view now is straightforward and I tell you this: If there is industrial action taking place then we should automatically now, automatically come alongside our brothers and sisters in the trade unions and support them."


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2015)

This utterly deranged piece in the Financial Times has just been quoted by the graun. I dunno where to start.



> Mr Corbyn’s rise to eminence is not a verdict against Britain’s social failures. His movement is not, as it claims, a howl at inequality and questing militarism that has been gathering wind under complacent elites for years. Corbynism is not an expression of how bad things have become but how comfortable they are. Whatever our era ends up being called — late capitalism, high modernity — it has thrown up a class of people who can afford to treat politics as a source of gaiety and affirmation.
> 
> The electors who were decisive in giving him the run of the Labour party tend not to be working class or doctrinally socialist or even very political, though all three types exist in his ranks. They are public-sector professionals or students on their way to becoming the same. They are comfortable, more likely to live in London than the post-industrial north, more likely to read the broadsheet Guardian than the tabloid Mirror. And they are candid about the psychology of their movement.
> 
> When a Corbynite says there is more to politics than winning elections, they tacitly concede that Britain is tolerable as it is, at least for them. If it were not, the acquisition of power would be the alpha and omega of their cause.


----------



## belboid (Sep 29, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The Labour party will now "automatically" support all strikes taken by trade unions, the new shadow chancellor said last night.
> 
> Wow


oddly, the link I saw to that (which I now cant find, natch) had it as The Labour Party will NOT automatically support all strikes


----------



## Wilf (Sep 29, 2015)

Corbyn's campaign presented social democracy as a benign process, a chance to use the state and taxation for good. Now he's made it, MCDonnell's budgeting stance is a reminder that social democracy is a means of managing capitalism.  I'm glad he won, but there's no real mould breaking going on, no sense that it's a political project designed to break or even bend the logic of capital.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn's campaign presented social democracy as a benign process, a chance to use the state and taxation for good. Now he's made it, MCDonnell's budgeting stance is a reminder that social democracy is a means of managing capitalism.  I'm glad he won, but there's no real mould breaking going on, no sense that it's a political project designed to break or even bend the logic of capital.


that's because it's not a political project designed to break or even bend the logic of capital.


----------



## mk12 (Sep 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> that's because it's not a political project designed to break or even bend the logic of capital.


Exactly. I doubt there were many amongst those who voted for Corbyn who thought that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would seek to overthrow capitalism. It seems odd to criticise a party for not doing something that it never intended to do in the first place.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 29, 2015)

mk12 said:


> Exactly. I doubt there were many amongst those who voted for Corbyn who thought that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would seek to overthrow capitalism. It seems odd to criticise a party for not doing something that it never intended to do in the first place.


Yeah, but I don't think that's the issue. No one would or should have had any illusions that Corby was going to seek real change at the system level - absolutely, that's not disputed.  However amid the 'optimism' of the campaign there was a, not surprising, focus on what could be done, the positive stuff. However this is all a reminder that social democracy isn't an alternative to capital, to the logic of the market, to the 'imperatives' of the deficit.  It's not that he's betraying social democracy - he's doing it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 29, 2015)

mcdonnel talked a good talk.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> This utterly deranged piece in the Financial Times has just been quoted by the graun. I dunno where to start.



Quite baffling. It feels slightly like they're saying that having principles is a bourgeois luxury. Which even if it made sense would be an odd line of attack coming from the FT.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 29, 2015)

Nice choice of music following Corbyn's speech: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...xoH06gJBZ9l3kH4b2Gg3tQ&bvm=bv.103627116,d.bGQ

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2015)

Some glorious post-speech whinging on BBC News right now.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 29, 2015)

I like the way they got a morbidly obese word-slurring UKIP guy (and was that a goitre?) to represent the 'Typical Northerner' point of view


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I like the way they got a morbidly obese word-slurring UKIP guy (and was that a goitre?) to represent the 'Typical Northerner' point of view



... and (on the Daily Politics at least) they let Lance Price cry his bitter albeit hilarious tears all over the speech, with nary an intervention from someone on the pro-Corbyn side.


----------



## The Pale King (Sep 29, 2015)

agricola said:


> ... and (on the Daily Politics at least) they let Lance Price cry his bitter albeit hilarious tears all over the speech, with nary an intervention from someone on the pro-Corbyn side.


 
Truly unbelievable - it was a good speech and they got this no-mark malcontent to rubbish it with no comeback.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 29, 2015)

agricola said:


> ... and (on the Daily Politics at least) they let Lance Price cry his bitter albeit hilarious tears all over the speech, with nary an intervention from someone on the pro-Corbyn side.



Yep, I think he was meant to be the 'pro-labour' response

I've never heard of him, but his online bio suggests an embittered Blairite wank-stain of some kind


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> mcdonnel talked a good talk.


he always does


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 29, 2015)

lol at c-byns outro music.


----------



## Azrael (Sep 29, 2015)

Wilf said:


> [...] No one would or should have had any illusions that Corby was going to seek real change at the system level - absolutely, that's not disputed.  However amid the 'optimism' of the campaign there was a, not surprising, focus on what could be done, the positive stuff. However this is all a reminder that social democracy isn't an alternative to capital, to the logic of the market, to the 'imperatives' of the deficit.  It's not that he's betraying social democracy - he's doing it.


Moving from dog-eat-dog neoliberalism to a mixed-economy is, surely, major systemic change, the difference between a "right to work" state of the Union, and Scandinavia/Germany.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 29, 2015)

tory echo chamber commentariat are frothing. They don't get it, left behind on what's been happening among the masses in recent years, while they were braying at their jerk-circle dinner parties


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2015)

Laura Kuenssberg came out with this:

Labour conference: An activist's speech from leader Corbyn? - BBC News



> He hardly mentioned how to balance the books, there was little appeal to those outside the party.



Yeah nobody outside Labour could possibly care that he said that the people of Britain didn't have to take what they were given, or that there is an alternative. People don't want an alternative, they want to be patronised with a mild variation of the usual script. Fuck off BBC.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 29, 2015)

Laura Kuenssberg, Norman Smith, Nick Robinson - wished they'd fuck off the lot of 'em.


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2015)

Trident, Syria, Refugees, Peace, Anti-Imperialism, Human Rights, all laudable, but not going to win over the wider public,

I may have missed it only the G, but was there anything about sanctions, sucidies, etc?

I know he did mention housing, mental health.


----------



## belboid (Sep 29, 2015)

welfare would no more win over the 'wider public' than the things you mention, so he probly shouldn't bang on about that, by your logic.


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2015)

If he'd won over the 'wider public' via this years conference then we'd probably just be treated to a load of shit about how he's peaked too soon anyway.

This far away from a general election, and considering the shift in Labour and the issues it has to deal with when changing, I think its fine for this years conference to be inward looking anyway.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 29, 2015)

I liked what he said today. Policies can wait until later - plenty of time. It was about him setting a clear marker as to the Party he is going to lead. The rapturous applause vindicated not only his own personal philosophy but sent out a clear message to his detractors both inside and outside of the party.

As for the media, they need to wake up. They need to realise they are no longer the only conduit between a previous and indeed an existing self-serving elite and the public. They need to realise the Social Media will play an important part in the future. I hope the days of their feeding from the trough from the likes of Campbell and McBride are long gone. Likewise I hope the instructions and threats from the master to toe the line are also gone.

We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how the 'tired media' respond. No doubt the Guardian with its bloated stable of anti-Corbyn hacks will have much fat to spit out given they have been on a loser since he was nominated.

One can only hope for a brighter future and for the full engagement of communities across the land.


----------



## oryx (Sep 29, 2015)

elbows said:


> Laura Kuenssberg came out with this:
> 
> Labour conference: An activist's speech from leader Corbyn? - BBC News
> 
> ...


 re the Kuenssberg quote - did McDonnell not set out yesterday how they proposed to 'balance the books'?


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2015)

Zabo said:


> As for the media, they need to wake up. They need to realise they are no longer the only conduit between a previous and indeed an existing self-serving elite and the public. They need to realise the Social Media will play an important part in the future.



Already known to them and the powers that be. A number of government papers around this decade or last that were crying about a decline in audience for traditional 'trusted' 'quality' news sources.

And this fun from the BBC in April last year:



> A review of the BBC's news output has found it to be "trusted and highly regarded by audiences" but suggests some viewers can find it "distant".
> 
> Conducted by the BBC Trust, the review also expresses concern that "younger audiences' use of broadcast news is continuing to decline".
> 
> It says "there is a risk that they may not turn to the BBC as they get older, as has traditionally been the case."



BBC News 'can feel distant', says Trust report - BBC News


----------



## gosub (Sep 29, 2015)

Zabo said:


> I liked what he said today. Policies can wait until later - plenty of time. It was about him setting a clear marker as to the Party he is going to lead. The rapturous applause vindicated not only his own personal philosophy but sent out a clear message to his detractors both inside and outside of the party.
> 
> As for the media, they need to wake up. They need to realise they are no longer the only conduit between a previous and indeed an existing self-serving elite and the public. They need to realise the Social Media will play an important part in the future. I hope the days of their feeding from the trough from the likes of Campbell and McBride are long gone. Likewise I hope the instructions and threats from the master to toe the line are also gone.
> 
> ...



mainstream media is still king.  Less so than it was, but still king.  A lot of social media just acts as an echo chamber which can be useful but unhelpful in equal measures, what you think is widespread is rebounding around the faithful.  Create a platform that's  consistent, coherent, articulate and cuts through to the bloke on the street, chances are mainstream media will end up putting you on the payroll.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 29, 2015)

elbows said:


> Already known to them and the powers that be. A number of government papers around this decade or last that were crying about a decline in audience for traditional 'trusted' 'quality' news sources.
> 
> And this fun from the BBC in April last year:
> 
> BBC News 'can feel distant', says Trust report - BBC News



Years ago there was a Media Watch organisation. I think it was based in Glasgow(?). It needs to be reactivated. I've been doing my own monitoring of the main R4 and R5 news. It is incredible how many 'right-wing' commentators they have as so called 'guests'. Last night was a prime example with Rhod Sharp. He was discussing the Syrian conflict with none other than a military attaché from some American Naval School. Talk about right wing! And of course there was nobody to offer a counter argument. Who needs balance?

As for Kuenssberg, Smith, Robinson and Peinar. They like excitement and if I may be impolite: shit stirring. They seem to have forgotten what their precise role is and have confused it with making themselves 'the star' of the programme. As for today, the guest 'independent' commentator on the R5 Party coverage was non other than Dan Hodges!

I recall the Spitting Image of the press portrayed as pigs if anybody can remember them?


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2015)

Alex Massie in "The scandal that lasted an hour".


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2015)

Zabo said:


> I recall the Spitting Image of the press portrayed as pigs if anybody can remember them?



And vultures.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 29, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Years ago there was a Media Watch organisation. I think it was based in Glasgow(?). It needs to be reactivated. I've been doing my own monitoring of the main R4 and R5 news. It is incredible how many 'right-wing' commentators they have as so called 'guests'. Last night was a prime example with Rhod Sharp. He was discussing the Syrian conflict with none other than a military attaché from some American Naval School. Talk about right wing! And of course there was nobody to offer a counter argument. Who needs balance?
> 
> As for Kuenssberg, Smith, Robinson and Peinar. They like excitement and if I may be impolite: shit stirring. They seem to have forgotten what their precise role is and have confused it with making themselves 'the star' of the programme. As for today, the guest 'independent' commentator on the R5 Party coverage was non other than Dan Hodges!
> 
> I recall the Spitting Image of the press portrayed as pigs if anybody can remember them?



Media Lens - Media Lens - News Analysis and Media Criticism


----------



## J Ed (Sep 29, 2015)

Ever since the election I've thought about the term which is used in the Spanish speaking world to describe media monstering of leftist parties on behalf of the oligarchy, t_errorismo mediático _or media terrorism, maybe it's time for people to start to think of the media's behaviour in this country in the same way.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 29, 2015)

Cheers J Ed.


----------



## Fingers (Sep 29, 2015)

Lance Price, former advisor to Blair.  loved watching his arse cheeks clench and his face screw up after the Corbyn speech

Meanwhile the Standard are spitting bricks of shit now the conference went well

Now we will see what Jeremy Corbyn is really made of


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yep, I think he was meant to be the 'pro-labour' response
> 
> I've never heard of him, but his online bio suggests an embittered Blairite wank-stain of some kind




One of Blairs spin doctors, afaik.


----------



## JimW (Sep 29, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Media Lens - Media Lens - News Analysis and Media Criticism


Think Zabo has the Glasgow Media Group in mind, if I have the right lot they did some good coverage of bias in reporting of industrial disputes etc.


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> tory echo chamber commentariat are frothing. They don't get it, left behind on what's been happening among the masses in recent years, while they were braying at their jerk-circle dinner parties




Er, they have just won the election.


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Years ago there was a Media Watch organisation. I think it was based in Glasgow(?). It needs to be reactivated. I've been doing my own monitoring of the main R4 and R5 news. It is incredible how many 'right-wing' commentators they have as so called 'guests'. Last night was a prime example with Rhod Sharp. He was discussing the Syrian conflict with none other than a military attaché from some American Naval School. Talk about right wing! And of course there was nobody to offer a counter argument. Who needs balance?
> 
> As for Kuenssberg, Smith, Robinson and Peinar. They like excitement and if I may be impolite: shit stirring. They seem to have forgotten what their precise role is and have confused it with making themselves 'the star' of the programme. As for today, the guest 'independent' commentator on the R5 Party coverage was non other than Dan Hodges!
> 
> I recall the Spitting Image of the press portrayed as pigs if anybody can remember them?




Greg Philo's Glasgow University Media Group, did the seminal 'Bad News' report, they did one very recently on how disabled people are being demonised by the media and the consequences(like to think I helped spur that on) sadly as usual not much reaction from civil society, etc.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 29, 2015)

treelover said:


> Er, they have just won the election.



With 24% of the electorate standing behind them.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 29, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Ever since the election I've thought about the term which is used in the Spanish speaking world to describe media monstering of leftist parties on behalf of the oligarchy, t_errorismo mediático _or media terrorism, maybe it's time for people to start to think of the media's behaviour in this country in the same way.


Yes, that's rather good. Perhaps _*terrorismo mediático oligarca*?_


----------



## treelover (Sep 29, 2015)

Decent Ch4 News package on Corbyn and his work in Islington, interviewing supporters, constituents, etc, including a heavy metal band who endorse him!

also a 90 year WW2 Vet, who "Being jewish and a Zionist", said "he wouldn't never vote for him", and claimed he was physically assaulted.


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, that's rather good. Perhaps _*terrorismo mediático oligarca*?_


Chomsky & Herman call it_ flak_


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 30, 2015)

treelover said:


> Er, they have just won the election.



I was reffering to them totally not getting the movement that built toward capturing the Labour leadership. You are right about the election (it will have fuelled their arrogance and complacency too), but that's not what I was talking about.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 30, 2015)

The dangerous lunatic manhandled a hysterical disabled woman off the stage today


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Laura Kuenssberg, Norman Smith, Nick Robinson - wished they'd fuck off the lot of 'em.


A proper triumvirate of shite.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Years ago there was a Media Watch organisation. I think it was based in Glasgow(?).


It still exists. It's run by Greg Philo afaik. I'd love to get a job with them.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 30, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> It still exists. It's run by Greg Philo afaik. I'd love to get a job with them.


Glasgow Media Group is the name: Home

Zabo


----------



## J Ed (Sep 30, 2015)

Manufacturing consent.... badly


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Manufacturing consent.... badly



I only got 0.54 into that and I couldn't take any more. Terrible. Simply terrible.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 30, 2015)

Honestly for me it isn't even the words, as stupid as they are, it's the facial expressions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2015)

Thought Eamonn Holmes died years ago, but it turns out he's been hiding on a channel I never watch


----------



## Santino (Sep 30, 2015)




----------



## KeeperofDragons (Sep 30, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I only got 0.54 into that and I couldn't take any more. Terrible. Simply terrible.


I only got to 49 seconds, did I miss anything???


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 30, 2015)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I only got to 49 seconds, did I miss anything???


No.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 30, 2015)

I got no seconds into it. It said Sky News; that's all I need to know.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 30, 2015)

Getaway before Corbyn's speech apparently..


----------



## brogdale (Sep 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Getaway before Corbyn's speech apparently..


Obviously very busy people. Wonder what drew them away?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 30, 2015)

Corbyn trampled under foot by warmongers, so it looks like downward from here on in.


----------



## treelover (Sep 30, 2015)

Yes, hit the fan today, Corbyn saying he "won't press the red button" is a red rag to the Sun, etc.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 30, 2015)

Cameron wouldn't press the button either. Neither would any of the talking heads on TV. Well, Maybe Kay Burley.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 30, 2015)

treelover said:


> Yes, hit the fan today, Corbyn saying he "won't press the red button" is a red rag to the Sun, etc.



or, to be more accurate, a red rag to well over half the PLP and almost all the shadow cabinet, a large wedge of the unions, and a significant majority of the electorate.

but yes, its all the _meeja....._


----------



## tony.c (Sep 30, 2015)

I don't usually watch party political broadcasts, but Corbyn came across quite well on ITV a moment ago.


----------



## youngian (Sep 30, 2015)

Blair said he'd fire a nuclear warhead in the mid 90s. At the time I thought he was just batting the issue away for the sake of electoral expediency. Its not as if he is some kind of messianic nutter.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 30, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Corbyn trampled under foot by warmongers, so it looks like downward from here on in.


Don't agree , he's playing it well , he needed support to bin Trident , clearly hasn't got it , so hasn't made a fuss and tried to spin it , moves on , we'll see more of him in the battles he thinks he can win , no point wasting time on those he can't.


----------



## laptop (Sep 30, 2015)

kebabking said:


> or, to be more accurate, a red rag to well over half the PLP and almost all the shadow cabinet, a large wedge of the unions, and a significant majority of the electorate.
> 
> but yes, its all the _meeja....._



What on earth posessed Corbyn to say that? Does he have some kind of Christian impulse to testify, brother?

What would have been wrong with "As I understand it, the whole point of 'deterrence' is to keep everyone guessing!"?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 30, 2015)

treelover said:


> Yes, hit the fan today, Corbyn saying he "won't press the red button" is a red rag to the Sun, etc.



So what? The Sun hates him anyway. Corbyn basically just saying what he's always believed about Trident (which I agree with). So all this fake shock and outrage amongst Blairites and the media, frankly is a load of toss.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 30, 2015)

Had a bit of a Twitter exchange with Mathew Godwin  about immigration and Corbyn. He described Corbyn as outdated and Marxist lol.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 30, 2015)

If he doesn't big up the army then he will be walked on. Much as he dislikes it, we do need protection and he especially should shout that.
He wants to get caught.


----------



## agricola (Sep 30, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Getaway before Corbyn's speech apparently..



It probably felt like the last flight out of Saigon for them, bless.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 30, 2015)

agricola said:


> It probably felt like the last flight out of Saigon for them, bless.


 
I thought they would be circling overhead.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 30, 2015)

Liz Kendall has just appeared in the suggestions of people I might want to follow on twitter.


----------



## agricola (Sep 30, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I thought they would be circling overhead.



If they were flying the helicopters, yes - circling just out of range whilst bleating over the loudspeakers about how everyone must embrace change, "own the now" and other platitudes.


----------



## laptop (Sep 30, 2015)

agricola said:


> "own the now"



Can we get a timeshare?


----------



## gosub (Sep 30, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Cameron wouldn't press the button either. Neither would any of the talking heads on TV. Well, Maybe Kay Burley.


Its the Captian on a sub who gets to press the button, all a PM gets to do is write a letter for the captain to read.  

Should of  just said in the event of a nuclear war, he wouldn't stand for re-elction. Which is fair enough, very few people would vote for him after that.

 He could say he'd resign but that would mean giving up a place in the bunker.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 30, 2015)

laptop said:


> What on earth posessed Corbyn to say that? Does he have some kind of Christian impulse to testify, brother?
> 
> What would have been wrong with "As I understand it, the whole point of 'deterrence' is to keep everyone guessing!"?



Or with 'yes but it needs to be autonomous so we can deter Israel'


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 30, 2015)

Wouldn't pressing the button pretty much always be an exercise of cataclysmic futility in the endgame of a civilisation destroying war? In which case utterly pointless and this is showboating macho bullshit. 

Unless we want leaders prepared to use it against a renegade Scout troup or something


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 30, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> Wouldn't pressing the button pretty much always be an exercise of cataclysmic futility in the endgame of a civilisation destroying war? In which case utterly pointless and this is showboating macho bullshit.
> 
> Unless we want leaders prepared to use it against a renegade Scout troup or something



Its basically a way of saying "look, we can end each other with a button, lets stick to proxy wars that way no real damage gets done to anyone that votes"

Its partly why so many countries are so keen on stopping everyone else getting nukes...


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 30, 2015)

tridents sposed to be a preventative measure anyways, so those with evil nuclear intent know that there is a retaliation lurking around the ocean somewhere. C-byn wouldn't get consulted on the press because he'd have been nuked.


----------



## laptop (Sep 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> tridents sposed to be a preventative measure anyways, so those with evil nuclear intent know that there is a retaliation lurking around the ocean somewhere. C-byn wouldn't get consulted on the press because he'd have been nuked.




In fact...

Last I heard, standing orders on a strategic sub were: pop up every few days and see
a) whether you've been sent any orders; and
b) whether you can receive Radio 2; if it goes off air for a fortnight, assume the Home Country is glowing green glass and NUKE!!!

Obvious fail-proof retaliation strategy. No Prime Minister required.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 30, 2015)

READY
>10 START "THERMONUCLEAR WAR"
>20 GOTO 10
>RUN_


----------



## yield (Sep 30, 2015)

laptop said:


> In fact...
> 
> Last I heard, standing orders on a strategic sub were: pop up every few days and see
> a) whether you've been sent any orders; and
> ...


Radio 4's Today programme surely?


----------



## laptop (Sep 30, 2015)

yield said:


> Radio 4's Today programme surely?



Not since the Droitwich long-wave transmitter switched from Radio 4 to Radio 2. As I recall it.


----------



## laptop (Sep 30, 2015)

laptop said:


> Not since the Droitwich long-wave transmitter switched from Radio 4 to Radio 2. As I recall it.



Seems you were right and the switch was the other way around. No mention of the nuclear function at Droitwich Transmitting Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 30, 2015)

laptop said:


> Seems you were right and the switch was the other way around. No mention of the nuclear function at Droitwich Transmitting Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's still 4 that has the shipping forecast so makes sense to be that.

Be interesting to see how JC's statement of the only thing a sane person should ever say will go down. Pleased he said it.


----------



## laptop (Sep 30, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Be interesting to see how JC's statement of the only thing a sane person should ever say will go down. Pleased he said it.



Grudging respect from BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins:



> Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain's potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.
> 
> Or, perhaps, put it like this: a man with a lifetime commitment to scrapping Britain's deterrent promised not to kill untold thousands of innocent people if he had the opportunity.
> 
> ...



"choose not to be so frank" == "are lying cunts"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 30, 2015)

In some ways I hope people do run with the 'potential enemies who leave us alone cos we've got the bomb' line. Who are they exactly?


----------



## gosub (Oct 1, 2015)

laptop said:


> In fact...
> 
> Last I heard, standing orders on a strategic sub were: pop up every few days and see
> a) whether you've been sent any orders; and
> ...


no its if you can't hear open the letter.	 Otherwise Chris Evans ability to negotiate a payrise would be unparalleled


----------



## laptop (Oct 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> no its if you can't hear open the letter.




And the letter says...


----------



## gosub (Oct 1, 2015)

laptop said:


> And the letter says...



a) Nuke
b) its your decision
c) As an avide reader of Neville Shute, enjoy Australia


----------



## laptop (Oct 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> a) Nuke
> b) its your decision
> c) As an avide reader of Neville Shute, enjoy Australia



d) If I told you I'd have to kill you. To maintain the mystique of deterrence. Nothing personal.


----------



## gosub (Oct 1, 2015)

laptop said:


> d) If I told you I'd have to kill you. To maintain the mystique of deterrence. Nothing personal.


the mystique of deterrence ...in an envelope, in a safe to be opened two weeks after radio contact is lost.  Nope, (a-c)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 1, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The dangerous lunatic m anhandled a hysterical disabled woman off the stage today
> View attachment 77409


Or helped to unhook her wheelchair from being jammed in the presentation desk. It helps if you have seen the television coverage of this event.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 1, 2015)

thats the joke.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 1, 2015)




----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 1, 2015)

Just drone the leaders with little nukes the plebs are not worth blowing up.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Or helped to unhook her wheelchair from being jammed in the presentation desk. It helps if you have seen the television coverage of this event.


I don't know what you saw, but she's clearly being manhandled. Look at his eyes: he's up to no good; it's Marxist mischief he has planned by the looks of him, too.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 1, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


>



Needs the follow-up:


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2015)

laptop said:


> What on earth posessed Corbyn to say that? Does he have some kind of Christian impulse to testify, brother?
> 
> What would have been wrong with "As I understand it, the whole point of 'deterrence' is to keep everyone guessing!"?


the problem with a policy of straight talking without soundbites is that it leaves the commentariat to find and pounce upon any bits it pleases.  The Blair/Campbell approach ensured that headlines were dominated by the carefully crafted soundbite they'd chosen, to the extent that years later everyone can finish off the phrase "tough on ..."

Whether anyone likes it or not, it's not a particularly realistic media policy.


----------



## chandlerp (Oct 1, 2015)

Those people going on and on about it being a deterrant really have not got a clue about the current threats in the world.

The only people that would launch a nuclear weapon are those who couldn't give a shit that they would be destroyed in return.  Would, in fact, welcome the martyrdom.  Mutually assured destruction is not something would bother them a jot.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 1, 2015)

newbie said:


> the problem with a policy of straight talking without soundbites is that it leaves the commentariat to find and pounce upon any bits it pleases.  The Blair/Campbell approach ensured that headlines were dominated by the carefully crafted soundbite they'd chosen, to the extent that years later everyone can finish off the phrase "tough on ..."
> 
> Whether anyone likes it or not, it's not a particularly realistic media policy.



That's not really true is it - the commentariat and media have always pounced on whether someone says something straight, or cleverly crafted, or even not at all. God help us that we have more Blairite and Campbell style spin and soundbytes. Sorry, but I'd rather have straight talking but people who actually believe in something, than liberals too scared by what the media might say/interpret it as.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

chandlerp said:


> Those people going on and on about it being a deterrant really have not got a clue about the current threats in the world.
> 
> The only people that would launch a nuclear weapon are those who couldn't give a shit that they would be destroyed in return.  Would, in fact, welcome the martyrdom.  Mutually assured destruction is not something would bother them a jot.


Never mind who *has* nuclear capability, deterrence means those *without* it are also deterred. Everyone knows the Danish have long coveted our yeast extract manufacturing plants. Without Trident we'd all be putting Marmite on round rusks from packets and eating sandwiches without a top slice of bread.   

The people of Burton on Trent have good reason to be grateful for Trident!


----------



## newbie (Oct 1, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> That's not really true is it - the commentariat and media have always pounced on whether someone says something straight, or cleverly crafted, or even not at all. God help us that we have more Blairite and Campbell style spin and soundbytes. Sorry, but I'd rather have straight talking but people who actually believe in something, than liberals too scared by what the media might say/interpret it as.


aye, but straight talking of the type under discussion presents far too many hostages to fortune and achieves, well what?  Those of us opposed to Trident nod sagely, and the ones who believe this country is but seconds from annihilation will have their prejudices about Corbyn confirmed. How does that help anything or anybody? Seems to me to be likely to simply harden the opposition to his policies and approach. He's a politician, and now very prominent and polarising, so needs to choose his battles, positions and words with care.  If that involves tactical ambiguity, as Laptop suggested, in order to reframe the debate then that's simply a practical recognition that he can't win every argument now, this week.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 1, 2015)

a friend phoned me yesterday. she's self employed, the money is fairly good (though not so good when you consider the seventy plus hours a week when in work and weeks or months without work in between), she bought a flat in london with some money from a dead aunt and some from her mom but still had to have a lodger to pay the mortgage. she hardly ever votes but last time voted tory.
anyway, she told me she was moving towards labour, couldn't believe she had voted tory and wanted to know what i thought about corbyn!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 1, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Never mind who *has* nuclear capability, deterrence means those *without* it are also deterred. Everyone knows the Danish have long coveted our yeast extract manufacturing plants. Without Trident we'd all be putting Marmite on round rusks from packets and eating sandwiches without a top slice of bread.
> 
> The people of Burton on Trent have good reason to be grateful for Trident!



Sealand is just waiting for us to disarm the nukes, when we do... god help us all.


----------



## Athos (Oct 1, 2015)

newbie said:


> The Blair/Campbell approach ensured that headlines were dominated by the carefully crafted soundbite they'd chosen, to the extent that years later everyone can finish off the phrase "tough on ..."


 ... crime; toff on the corpses of swine.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 1, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> That's not really true is it - the commentariat and media have always pounced on whether someone says something straight, or cleverly crafted, or even not at all. God help us that we have more Blairite and Campbell style spin and soundbytes. Sorry, but I'd rather have straight talking but people who actually believe in something, than liberals too scared by what the media might say/interpret it as.



Yes and no. People are considerably less reliant on the mainstream media than they were in Blair and Campbell's heyday, so even when they more or less unite in their selective reporting, other interpretations - and of course the full uninterpreted text of the actual speech - are readily available too.  

I'm not suggesting that that mainstream monopoly has no power or that it can safely be completely ignored, but I think its worth considering, as Corbyn's camp seem to be seriously doing, whether people might actually respond positively to an entirely different and less cynical communication strategy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Sealand is just waiting for us to disarm the nukes, when we do... god help us all.


Exactly. Have they invaded us while we've had nukes? 

It works.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 1, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Exactly. Have they invaded us while we've had nukes?
> 
> It works.



Costa Rica has no army so they are unable to protect themselves at all, they are constantly invaded by marauding pirates


----------



## teqniq (Oct 1, 2015)

Arrrrrrrrr.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 1, 2015)

If we surrender Trident does everyone realise who will still have nukes?

That's right, the French. Let's think about that for a moment.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Costa Rica has no army so they are unable to protect themselves at all, they are constantly invaded by marauding pirates


Don't be silly. Nobody invades them because they don't have Marmite.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

Belushi said:


> If we surrender Trident does everyone realise who will still have nukes?
> 
> That's right, the French. Let's think about that for a moment.


Sorry, you Southerners are on your own there. In Scotland, we like the French and they like us. 

Bury my heart at Aubigny.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 1, 2015)

I'm well up for being an English collaborator in some sort of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact scenario where Scotland and France divvy up England, Northern Ireland and Wales


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2015)

Belushi said:


> If we surrender Trident does everyone realise who will still have nukes?
> 
> That's right, the French. Let's think about that for a moment.


has phildwyer nicked your log in?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 1, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> has phildwyer nicked your log in?



I've started reading the Telegraph site instead of the Guardian :thumbs :


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

I hope there's a baffled spook in M15 reading this thread this morning trying to work out the current thinking of the domestic extremist left.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 1, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I hope there's a baffled spook in M15 reading this thread this morning trying to work out the current thinking of the domestic extremist left.



It's true, I am! 
Oops.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> It's true, I am!
> Oops.


I'll PM you my new pamphlet: Fields, Marmite Factories and Juggling Workshops.


----------



## youngian (Oct 1, 2015)

Belushi said:


> If we surrender Trident does everyone realise who will still have nukes?
> 
> That's right, the French. Let's think about that for a moment.


France can at least claim honestly to possess an independent nuclear deterrent. Trident is technically dependent in the long run on American good will. In a post Cold War world where balance of power interests are shifting, its not an implausible scenario that an erratic US president (Cruz, Trump, Jeb Bush!!!) would use Trident support as a bargaining in a future spat with the UK/Europe. Oh and Russia (and therefore its grim allies) know where Trident subs are anyway so its next to useless.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 1, 2015)

youngian said:


> Oh and Russia (and therefore its grim allies) know where Trident subs are anyway so its next to useless.



How do they know?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

NoXion said:


> How do they know?


Easy, you leave an iPhone on board with Find iPhone activated.


----------



## youngian (Oct 1, 2015)

NoXion said:


> How do they know?


Nimrod cuts 'have allowed Russian submarines to spy on Trident'


> Russian submarines are likely to have gathered valuable intelligence on Britain’s nuclear deterrent since the Government scrapped maritime patrol aircraft needed to track them, senior RAF figures warn.
> 
> Britain’s lack of submarine-hunting planes after the Nimrod fleet was axed has left Trident vulnerable to Russian spying which could “prejudice the security and effectiveness” of the deterrent, they argue.



Cat and mouse nuclear sub games are as old as their invention. And lets say the Navy conclude that the Russians probably no longer know where Trident subs are due to the latest cloaking and jamming devices in a never ending nuclear escalation game, that is a guestimation. As a consequence Trident is not an ultimate guarantee of secuirty even if you believe in nuclear deterrence.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 1, 2015)

youngian said:


> Nimrod cuts 'have allowed Russian submarines to spy on Trident'
> 
> 
> Cat and mouse nuclear sub games are as old as their invention. And lets say the Navy conclude that the Russians probably no longer know where Trident subs are due to the latest cloaking and jamming devices in a never ending nuclear escalation game, that is a guestimation. As a consequence Trident is not an ultimate guarantee of secuirty even if you believe in nuclear deterrence.



the issues the RN have had with Russian SSN's attempting to track the bombers is with the transit, in shallow water, between the firth of Clyde and deeper water where the bombers can disapear on their way to their patrol areas. thats a relatively small part of the sailing period, perhaps two or three days at each end of a 90 day patrol cycle. 

its worth noting that the patrol cycle is designed in such a way that the bombers don't swap being the 'live' boat until the new boat is in its deep water patrol area, so having Russian SSN having a firing solution on an outgoing boat in shallow water has no effect on the live boat and its ability to fire.

moreover, just as its a guestimation as to how well - or not - the bombers can be tracked/followed, its also a guestimation on the Russian Navy's part as to how effective it would be at intercepting the missile boats before they could fire, particularly as there are almost always two armed boats at sea, even if only one of them is the designated 'live' boat. no one with half a brain - and the Russians are not stupid - is going to bet their countries survival on the basis of a guestimation and knowing that that guestimation could well be wrong.

fortunately, it appears almost certain that the government will, in the upcoming SDSR, accept that MPA/ASW is a critical capability gap and purchace an 'off the shelf' replacement for Nimrod - the choices being the Japanese P-1, which was at Fairford in the summer and had government minsters and senior RAF officers crawling all over it, and the US Navy's P-8, which has a significant number of RAF and RN ASW people on exchange tours...


----------



## killer b (Oct 1, 2015)

Ooh, I like how this is going. Can we talk about tanks next?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 1, 2015)

NoXion said:


> How do they know?



We outsourced Trident to the lowest bidder, nice Mr Leftinski provides us with accurate figures as to where our subs are.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 1, 2015)

Having Trident is paying 'subs' to a group you cannot afford to be a member of!
 Like Unison for example.


----------



## treelover (Oct 1, 2015)

> fortunately, it appears almost certain that the government will, in the upcoming SDSR, accept that MPA/ASW is a critical capability gap and purchace an 'off the shelf' replacement for Nimrod - the choices being the Japanese P-1, which was at Fairford in the summer and had government minsters and senior RAF officers crawling all over it, and the US Navy's P-8, which has a significant number of RAF and RN ASW people on exchange tours...



Boys with their toys?


----------



## kebabking (Oct 1, 2015)

treelover said:


> Boys with their toys?



ah yes, because we only buy stuff for excitable people to play with - a new MPA is like a racing car, it has no wider function whatsoever.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 1, 2015)

could re work eva cassidy classic 'fields of gold' into an anti-nuclear song. Fields of glass. 'You can't see tthe sun, in a dust choked sky as we walk on fields of glass.'

needs work. Gotta work in 'coughing up your teeth' in there somewhere...


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 1, 2015)

kebabking said:


> fortunately, it appears almost certain that the government will, in the upcoming SDSR, accept that MPA/ASW is a critical capability gap and purchace an 'off the shelf' replacement for Nimrod - the choices being the Japanese P-1, which was at Fairford in the summer and had government minsters and senior RAF officers crawling all over it, and the US Navy's P-8, which has a significant number of RAF and RN ASW people on exchange tours...



There is 0% chance of a P1 procurement due to a) no English SOPs, tech docs, etc., b) unique engine (IHI F7) that is only used on that a/c and c) no opportunity for crew exchanges, common training and tactical development.

I don't think there will even be a P8 buy as the UK have managed 5 years without an MPA platform and the world hasn't ended


----------



## laptop (Oct 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm well up for being an English collaborator in some sort of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact scenario where Scotland and France divvy up England, Northern Ireland and Wales



Everything inside le _M-vingt-cinq_ goes to France, _si_?


----------



## 2hats (Oct 1, 2015)

chandlerp said:


> The only people that would launch a nuclear weapon are those who couldn't give a shit that they would be destroyed in return.



The nuclear 'deterrent' is ultimately a tool of mass suicide, as well as genocide.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 1, 2015)

2hats said:


> The nuclear 'deterrent' is ultimately a tool of mass suicide, as well as genocide.


That's the thing with the deterrence argument. Its defenders can point to it working right up to the day when it doesn't.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 1, 2015)

This Trident issue really has the ring of something the preachy reactionary filth are going to cling to for years on end.

Warmonger twats like Murdoch (who have their bunkers prepared) preach that "responsible leaders" are primarily defined by beinng prepared to kill 10,000,000s, condemning future civilisation and nature to horrendous radioactivity: Fuckwit anti humans, self appointed experts in moral philosophy who think we're thick as mince.

We mustn't vote to treat the self employed properly. We mustnt vote to stop disabled people being driven to suicide. Because that would mean we might not be willing to kill 10s of millions of innocent people. These are moral imperatives. And people will buy into them.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 1, 2015)

I don't know if this has been posted yet....

The poll that the Telegraph are running has a 'vote' option that I think may surprise the newspaper...

Jeremy Corbyn faces revolt over vow to never use nuclear deterrents


----------



## Wilf (Oct 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> could re work eva cassidy classic 'fields of gold' into an anti-nuclear song. Fields of glass. 'You can't see tthe sun, in a dust choked sky as we walk on fields of glass.'
> 
> needs work. Gotta work in 'coughing up your teeth' in there somewhere...


So she took her love for to gaze awhile,
 Among the fields of barley
 In his arms she fell as HER HAIR CAME DOWN
 Among the fields of gold.

Already done. 

p.s. like you I will maintain the fiction that it is an Eva Cassidy song. The truth is too much to bear.


----------



## laptop (Oct 1, 2015)

Sirena said:


> The poll that the _Telegraph_ are running has a 'vote' option that I think may surprise the newspaper...
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn faces revolt over vow to never use nuclear deterrents





Spoiler: Clicky



84% at this moment!


----------



## killer b (Oct 1, 2015)

online newspaper polls are well known for their accuracy in reflecting the views of the newspaper's readership and indeed, the public at large.


----------



## laptop (Oct 1, 2015)

killer b said:


> online newspaper polls are well known for their accuracy in reflecting the views of the newspaper's readership and indeed, the public at large.



Especially those which get linked to from nests of baby-eating anarchists.


----------



## killer b (Oct 1, 2015)

and leftish twitterers


----------



## killer b (Oct 1, 2015)

for their next trick, a change.org petition to sack Paul Dacre will definitely result in him being hounded from the Daily Mail offices.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 1, 2015)

Petitions can be really effective when they support exactly what the rich and powerful wanted to do in the first place.


----------



## killer b (Oct 1, 2015)

oh look. this just popped up on my fb.



> Some helpful advice from a supporter - a great way to get this petition circulating widely is to share on comments on relevant online newspaper articles! For those of you that have the time ....


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2015)

LOL:
Leader of UK ‘must be prepared to kill everyone’


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

killer b said:


> oh look. this just popped up on my fb.


I didn't sign because I don't give him my unconditional support. His "anti Trident" stance is falling apart. Exactly how anti Trident a PM would he be with a pro Trident defence secretary and cabinet? Exactly how anti Trident is Labour if the majority of the PLP will vote for Trident renewal. 

It's lovely that Corbyn's personal stance is anti Trident, but that's no earthly fucking use to anyone if his party's stance is different.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 1, 2015)

Plus the union stance.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 1, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I didn't sign because I don't give him my unconditional support. His "anti Trident" stance is falling apart. Exactly how anti Trident a PM would he be with a pro Trident defence secretary and cabinet? Exactly how anti Trident is Labour if the majority of the PLP will vote for Trident renewal.
> 
> It's lovely that Corbyn's personal stance is anti Trident, but that's no earthly fucking use to anyone if his party's stance is different.



It should be put the the wider membership.  They must not loose sight that they are there to represent us.


----------



## killer b (Oct 1, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> I didn't sign because I don't give him my unconditional support. His "anti Trident" stance is falling apart. Exactly how anti Trident a PM would he be with a pro Trident defence secretary and cabinet? Exactly how anti Trident is Labour if the majority of the PLP will vote for Trident renewal.
> 
> It's lovely that Corbyn's personal stance is anti Trident, but that's no earthly fucking use to anyone if his party's stance is different.


I didn't sign it 'cause 38degrees can eat a bowl of dicks.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 1, 2015)

killer b said:


> I didn't sign it 'cause 38degrees can eat a bowl of dicks.


Yeah. Did they save the bees yet? Liberal slackers.


----------



## laptop (Oct 1, 2015)

> I can recall no head of the army and no serious academic strategist with any time for the Trident missile. It was a great hunk of useless weaponry. It was merely a token of support for an American nuclear response, though one that made Britain vulnerable to a nuclear exchange.





Spoiler: That's, err...



Simon Jenkins - not very expected?


----------



## killer b (Oct 1, 2015)

bizarre isn't it? every word is pretty much nailed on.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I'm well up for being an English collaborator in some sort of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact scenario where Scotland and France divvy up England, Northern Ireland and Wales




So long as the French don't have any powers to abolish vegetarians' abilities to survive.

Which is a highly effective policy, mostly, in France


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2015)

And as for French 'policy' and 'awareness' about beer .....


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2015)

laptop said:


> Spoiler: That's, err...
> 
> 
> 
> Simon Jenkins - not very expected?




About three years ago, he argued pretty forcefully for abolishing the MoD and the UK's armed forces.

Will try and find that article ...

ETA : In fact it was five years ago (June 2010), and yes,  he proposed abolishing all the armed forces

A theme which he developed further in November that year (and very well, IMO) in this article : Does Britain really need the military?

(_Almost_ all the time, on other subjects, I think he's a demented right wing fruitcake ...... )


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 2, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> So long as the French don't have any powers to abolish vegetarians' abilities to survive.
> 
> Which is a highly effective policy, mostly, in France


The French *don't* have any powers to abolish vegetarians' ability to survive.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 2, 2015)

I got bored and made a mockup of Corbyn for the next Civ game.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 2, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> The French *don't* have any powers to abolish vegetarians' ability to survive.




You know I was taking the complete piss, don't you?  and hence, as in my previous post, 

But in _actually existing effect_, in many parts of France, they *might as well have* 

Oh yeah, and ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 2, 2015)

Quelle fromage!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 2, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Quelle fromage!




They love vegans too, I've heard. Them Frenchies


----------



## kabbes (Oct 3, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> And as for French 'policy' and 'awareness' about beer .....


Is there any subject you won't reduce to beer?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 3, 2015)

Did you say 'reduce'?   

(That one was only a PS to my outburst against the French Reign of Terror against veggies and vegans tbf  )


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2015)

weren't you contemplating voting Lib Dem the other month because some MP liked a pint of ale?


----------



## tony.c (Oct 3, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> They love vegans too, I've heard. Them Frenchies


Cheese eating surrender monkeys!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> weren't you contemplating voting Lib Dem the other month because some MP liked a pint of ale?



That's an exaggeration, I would *never* _actually have voted_ for him in Leeds, where I don't live anyway.

Mulholland had a genuinely good CAMRA-related record was all. Kept his seat amazingly -- must have been a Yorkshire beerdrinkers' personal vote factor


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2015)

either way, your need to swing every topic round to beer is a tiresome habit.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> either way, your need to swing every topic round to beer is a tiresome habit.


It really is, you know.  We get that good beer is nice, but not everything boils down to a man only being worthwhile if he likes the same drink that you like.


----------



## youngian (Oct 3, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This Trident issue really has the ring of something the preachy reactionary filth are going to cling to for years on end.
> 
> Warmonger twats like Murdoch (who have their bunkers prepared) preach that "responsible leaders" are primarily defined by beinng prepared to kill 10,000,000s, condemning future civilisation and nature to horrendous radioactivity: Fuckwit anti humans, self appointed experts in moral philosophy who think we're thick as mince.


Only as long as they are onside if not they don't like it up 'em. If you want to take on the Murdochs of this world thats the only language they understand; Murdoch pulls a knife you reach for a gun. And I'd rather have Tom Watson in my corner firing metaphorical Tridents at Newscorp than Corbyn. The arguments for upgrading the real Trident are still a load of nonsense though.


----------



## poului (Oct 3, 2015)

Labour take a council seat off the Tories.

Boost for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour win seat on Tory-controlled council


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 3, 2015)

poului said:


> Labour take a council seat off the Tories.
> 
> Boost for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour win seat on Tory-controlled council


 
An unwanted  present for the PLP.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 3, 2015)

kabbes said:


> It really is, you know.  We get that good beer is nice, but not everything boils down to a man only being worthwhile if he likes the same drink that you like.


Beer, for one thing, boils down to whisky.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> either way, your need to swing every topic round to beer is a tiresome habit.


Swing is one of those words difficult to define to someone who doesn't have an innate appreciation of jazz. Swing the quality, that is. Swing the sub genre of jazz is relatively straightforward.


----------



## killer b (Oct 3, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> An unwanted  present for the PLP.


Its pretty meaningless tbh. A few extra enthusiastic labour voters is enough to swing a low turnout council byelection without it making any kind of impact on national trends


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 3, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Swing is one of those words difficult to define to someone who doesn't have an innate appreciation of jazz. Swing the quality, that is. Swing the sub genre of jazz is relatively straightforward.



And  its absence renders a topic meaningless.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 3, 2015)

I think Corbyn is ready to fall on his sword anyway and I don't think it would matter to the PLP if it was a big scalp.
Virtual end of thread when all said and done.


----------



## Sirena (Oct 3, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Beer, for one thing, boils down to whisky.


Evaporates up rather than boils down...


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 3, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Evaporates up rather than boils down...


<Fixes Sirena with a cold hard stare.>


----------



## Sirena (Oct 3, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> <Fixes Sirena with a cold hard stare.>


I was aware it would spoil the elegance of your turn of phrase....


----------



## treelover (Oct 3, 2015)

> Jeremy Corbyn joins hen party on train – and delivers a speech
> 
> ‘He was a big hit,’ fellow passenger says of Labour leader, who follows predecessor Ed Miliband in becoming focus of a hen party
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn joins hen party on train – and delivers a speech



Corbyn, a big hit with the ladies on the West Coast mainline apparently.


----------



## Santino (Oct 3, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I think Corbyn is ready to fall on his sword anyway and I don't think it would matter to the PLP if it was a big scalp.
> Virtual end of thread when all said and done.


You what?


----------



## treelover (Oct 3, 2015)

Times article on the social media campaign.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 3, 2015)

You what?
He doesn't fill me with confidence


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 3, 2015)

A little old, so apologies if this was covered already, but I did enjoy Alan Sugar's rant.


----------



## Santino (Oct 3, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> You what?
> He doesn't fill me with confidence


You think he's ready to quit already?


----------



## susie12 (Oct 3, 2015)

Fall on his sword?  You must be joking.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 3, 2015)

He has decided a question, I will not push the nuclear button.
First for a chance to push the button you have to be in power.
He has given away a world stage bargaining chip.
He has let a reporter get the better of him.
He could have said to use the button is a state secret and will remain so.
It'll take years to replace jobs and decommission so why show your hand?
As was said on Question Time he has ruled out talking about it with his party, no means no.
He has had 30 years to think and debate about this stuff.
Lastly he knows he's made a big mistake, this nice man will not win, I think he knows this.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 3, 2015)

He's made a mistake by saying he's not prepared to kill everyone on the planet if he ever becomes world leader?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> He has decided a question, I will not push the nuclear button.
> First for a chance to push the button you have to be in power.
> He has given away a world stage bargaining chip.
> He has let a reporter get the better of him.
> ...


Drivel.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 3, 2015)

currently circulating


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Drivel.


 


Orang Utan said:


> He's made a mistake by saying he's not prepared to kill everyone on the planet if he ever becomes world leader?


 

Bloody students, worse than bleeding Masons.



He is a politician the clue is in the name


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 4, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> He is a politician the clue is in the name



To be a politician is to be able to commit mass murder, or to lie that you are able to do so? 

We need better politics and better politicians than that.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## voiceofreason (Oct 4, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> He has let a reporter get the better of him.
> He could have said to use the button is a state secret and will remain so.



Mate, Corbyn is a lifelong member of CND and has spoken in favour of nuclear disarmament on countless occasions. He's just been overwhelmingly elected on a programme of anti-austerity, justice and peace. The whole reason why he's leader is because he's someone who stands up for his beliefs, and for doing the right thing. For him to say now that he might consider pressing the button would have no credibility, it would be laughed out of court. It would also damage him politically because that's not why people support him.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 4, 2015)

treelover said:


> Times article on the social media campaign.


Where's he going with that baby?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 4, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> Where's he going with that baby?


russia


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 4, 2015)

voiceofreason said:


> Mate, Corbyn is a lifelong member of CND and has spoken in favour of nuclear disarmament on countless occasions. He's just been overwhelmingly elected on a programme of anti-austerity, justice and peace. The whole reason why he's leader is because he's someone who stands up for his beliefs, and for doing the right thing. For him to say now that he might consider pressing the button would have no credibility, it would be laughed out of court. It would also damage him politically because that's not why people support him.


 
I understand and I'm with him and his beliefs all the the way. You don't have to lie to hang on to principles, you can be a politician and keep answers neutral.
He had most of his party come out against him straight away(can't row back), now all he has to do is persuade the rest of the country that he wont protect them. 
Follow his logic and he can't remain in Nato, good luck with that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I understand and I'm with him and his beliefs all the the way. You don't have to lie to hang on to principles, you can be a politician and keep answers neutral.
> He had most of his party come out against him straight away(can't row back), now all he has to do is persuade the rest of the country that he wont protect them.
> Follow his logic and he can't remain in Nato, good luck with that.


Marvelous strategy - when posed a yes/no question, make it it look like you want to tell the truth but haven't the principles to do so.


----------



## Supine (Oct 4, 2015)

I agree with JC on ruling out the use of nuclear weapons but he really shouldn't have said it. 

He has a fundamental misunderstanding of leadership and politics if he thinks he can say this and lead the country. He is a breath of fresh air but i cant see it being enough to win an election unfortunately. Even against a pig fucker who screws as many of the population as he can.

I wish I didnt think this, because with leadership skills I think he would make a good prime minister. Shoot me now but he needs a world class spin doctor asap.


----------



## Supine (Oct 4, 2015)

I agree with JC on ruling out the use of nuclear weapons but he really shouldn't have said it. 

He has a fundamental misunderstanding of leadership and politics if he thinks he can say this and lead the country. He is a breath of fresh air but i cant see it being enough to win an election unfortunately. Even against a pig fucker who screws as many of the population as he can.

I wish I didnt think this, because with leadership skills I think he would make a good prime minister. Shoot me now but he needs a world class spin doctor asap.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 4, 2015)

Spin doctors are partly what got Labour in trouble in the first place. Squeaky-shoed rats who drove its rhetoric so far into the realms of beige that former members and voters were going Green, Ukip, SNP and Tory just to find a voice which actually sounded like it was meant.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 4, 2015)

Are people really complaining about a politician being honest?


----------



## Santino (Oct 4, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Are people really complaining about a politician being honest?


They can handle the honesty but other people can't. Other people need to be lied to, for their own good.


----------



## agricola (Oct 4, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Are people really complaining about a politician being honest?



They were complaining about him turning down a free junket to go and watch the rugby just so that he could hold his regular surgery not so long ago.


----------



## laptop (Oct 4, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Are people really complaining about a politician being honest?



I was just wondering about that 

The statment on nukes lies where politics meets diplomacy. It is the conventional wisdom that diplomats speak in a deeply coded argot. 

I am now trying to imagine a diplomatic conference at which everyone says what they really think


----------



## laptop (Oct 4, 2015)

laptop said:


> I was just wondering about that
> 
> The statment on nukes lies where politics meets diplomacy. It is the conventional wisdom that diplomats speak in a deeply coded argot.
> 
> I am now trying to imagine a diplomatic conference at which everyone says what they really think



Still puzzling...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2015)

As well as just being an honest answer, the statement on nukes is surely also a challenge to the pro-nuclear faction in his party: 'Well, would you press that button? Would you? And if not, wtsufferingf are you pro-Trident for?'

I reckon he's going to win the argument on Trident within the Labour Party. And I think this statement forms a big part of that.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 4, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As well as just being an honest answer, the statement on nukes is surely also a challenge to the pro-nuclear faction in his party: 'Well, would you press that button? Would you? And if not, wtsufferingf are you pro-Trident for?'
> 
> I reckon he's going to win the argument on Trident within the Labour Party. And I think this statement forms a big part of that.



I reckon he isn't goint to win the argument and the Labour Party are going to have an official position of keeping trident while their leader promises never to use it. A position that pleases exactly nobody.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 4, 2015)

Knotted said:


> I reckon he isn't goint to win the argument and the Labour Party are going to have an official position of keeping trident while their leader promises never to use it. A position that pleases exactly nobody.


Well, one of us will be right. 

McDonnell's firmly anti-Trident, too, and has already stated on national TV that the money would be better spent on schools and hospitals. Be odd to have the leader opposing it on principle and the shadow chancellor saying it's a waste of money, and to still commit to keeping it.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Marvelous strategy - when posed a yes/no question, make it it look like you want to tell the truth but haven't the principles to do so.


I was going to explain again but sod that, lets just wait and see.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 4, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Are people really complaining about a politician being honest?


 
No


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 4, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> No


Wtf are you on about then? You seem to require politicians to be dishonest, cos that's what they do.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 5, 2015)

No:- just be smart like the opposition who get rat fink Addonis to jump ship.
You fuckin clown, how many more times
Ok clown NATO  has nuclear weapons. Are you telling me or anyone he is going to leave Nato because Britain will not go for that.
Will he stay in Nato and have other countries use the bomb for us. HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED TO OFFICE.
You are annoying!


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 5, 2015)

After all the moaning by the Blairites about how people were being beastly to them and unfair it was to call them Red Tories, one of Blairs bessie mates, Lord Adonis, is off to work for Osbourne.


----------



## killer b (Oct 5, 2015)

He's keeping his LP membership but resigning the whip - sounds like the kind of thing that would get the rank & file expelled.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> No:- just be smart like the opposition who get rat fink Addonis to jump ship.
> You fuckin clown, how many more times
> Ok clown NATO  has nuclear weapons. Are you telling me or anyone he is going to leave Nato because Britain will not go for that.
> Will he stay in Nato and have other countries use the bomb for us. HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED TO OFFICE.
> You are annoying!



Are there NATO countries which don't have nuclear weapons?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Oct 5, 2015)

killer b said:


> He's keeping his LP membership but resigning the whip - sounds like the kind of thing that would get the rank & file expelled.


There's always a lot of stress when you move house, but it reduces if you only move next door.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 5, 2015)

killer b said:


> He's keeping his LP membership but resigning the whip - sounds like the kind of thing that would get the rank & file expelled.


Seems to be joining his _*fourth *_political party! Started out SDP, became a LD, defected to New Labour and now snuggles up with the vermin.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 5, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> clown NATO


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Seems to be joining his _*fourth *_political party! Started out SDP, became a LD, defected to New Labour and now snuggles up with the vermin.



This is modern politics rather summed up for me.


----------



## killer b (Oct 5, 2015)

has anyone posted this Corbyn choose your own adventure?

Can You Survive A Week As Jeremy Corbyn?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 5, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Seems to be joining his _*fourth *_political party! Started out SDP, became a LD, defected to New Labour and now snuggles up with the vermin.


Born in 63, was an sdp councillor in 87.  So, at a guess he must have joined the sdp when he was 22ish.  So, what would an idealistic 22 year old do as their first step in politics? How would they put the wild dreams of youth into practice.  Join the sdp. THE FUCKING SDP!!!!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 5, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> After all the moaning by the Blairites about how people were being beastly to them and unfair it was to call them Red Tories, one of Blairs bessie mates, Lord Adonis, is off to work for Osbourne.



Always struck me as the least appropriately-named person of all time.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 5, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> No:- just be smart like the opposition who get rat fink Addonis to jump ship.
> You fuckin clown, how many more times
> Ok clown NATO  has nuclear weapons. Are you telling me or anyone he is going to leave Nato because Britain will not go for that.
> Will he stay in Nato and have other countries use the bomb for us. HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED TO OFFICE.
> You are annoying!


funny thing is, it's you that's annoying.
why don't you calm down a bit and try being less of a tit?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> He has decided a question, I will not push the nuclear button.
> First for a chance to push the button you have to be in power.
> He has given away a world stage bargaining chip.
> He has let a reporter get the better of him.
> ...



How about thinking strategically for once?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I understand and I'm with him and his beliefs all the the way. You don't have to lie to hang on to principles, you can be apologies Iitician and keep answers neutral.
> He had most of his party come out against him straight away(can't row back), now all he has to do is persuade the rest of the country that he wont protect them.
> Follow his logic and he can't remain in Nato, good luck with that.



The parliamentary party, not the national party, are where his troubles currently lie. The views of two don't currently coincide. Given Corbyn's push for greater party democracy, it is likely that MPs will find their views moved into line with those of their constituency parties rather than the other way around.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> No:- just be smart like the opposition who get rat fink Addonis to jump ship.
> You fuckin clown, how many more times
> Ok clown NATO  has nuclear weapons. Are you telling me or anyone he is going to leave Nato because Britain will not go for that.
> Will he stay in Nato and have other countries use the bomb for us. HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED TO OFFICE.
> You are annoying!


NATO doesn't have nuclear weapons, you cock. Some NATO members do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The parliamentary party, not the national party, are where his troubles currently lie. The views of two don't currently coincide. Given Corbyn's push for greater party democracy, it is likely that MPs will find their views moved into line with those of their constituency parties rather than the other way around.


Yep, that's my take. My guess is that a concession to the warmongers by agreeing to stay in NATO will be granted in return for abandoning nukes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> NATO doesn't have nuclear weapons, you cock. Some NATO members do.


The logic is straight out of strangelove. 

Oh woe. How can we be saved? Who, oh who, will drop the bomb for us?


----------



## Knotted (Oct 5, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> No:- just be smart like the opposition who get rat fink Addonis to jump ship.
> You fuckin clown, how many more times
> Ok clown NATO  has nuclear weapons. Are you telling me or anyone he is going to leave Nato because Britain will not go for that.
> Will he stay in Nato and have other countries use the bomb for us. HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED TO OFFICE.
> You are annoying!


 
Congratulations you make less sense than Diamond. There should be a medal for that.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> Spin doctors are partly what got Labour in trouble in the first place.



Them and focus groups.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> How about thinking strategically for once?


 
You mean by alienating and compromising the majority of his cabinet.
Strategically, after 30odd years of thought, would be, how to brush off a reporter looking for a yes or no answer.
Strategy would be to give your colleagues a hearing.
Strategy would be to keep Trident until you are in power.

Can he tell the country what will happen militarily in the future and who will be our allies going forward?

We are open to blockade


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> NATO doesn't have nuclear weapons, you cock. Some NATO members do.


 
This is such a stupid comment it doesn't warrant a answer. I've watched and admired your posts, but this


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 6, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> You mean by alienating and compromising the majority of his cabinet.
> Strategically, *after 30odd years of thought, would be, how to brush off a reporter looking for a yes or no answer*.
> Strategy would be to give your colleagues a hearing.
> Strategy would be to keep Trident until you are in power.
> ...



You'd have been delighted with Cameron's performance on Radio4 this morning; tax credit robbery, destruction of Libya...apparently not the right questions...only they are for those facing have their already low incomes reduced, or their country 'run' by warring militias.

Of course you're right, the ability to brush off a reporter is just what is needed.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 6, 2015)

Just been watching Cameron get interviewed on Sky. The contrast between the way they treat hamcock and the way they treated Corbyn during the Labour conference is unbelievable.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 6, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Just been watching Cameron get interviewed on Sky. The contrast between the way they treat hamcock and the way they treated Corbyn during the Labour conference is unbelievable.


It's almost as though they're biased.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> You mean by alienating and compromising the majority of his cabinet.
> Strategically, after 30odd years of thought, would be, how to brush off a reporter looking for a yes or no answer.
> Strategy would be to give your colleagues a hearing.
> Strategy would be to keep Trident until you are in power.
> ...


Can't you feel the air? There's too much paranoia.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> This is such a stupid comment it doesn't warrant a answer. I've watched and admired your posts, but this


You're a dick. NATO as a body has no control over the nuclear weapons of member states. Only those member states have control, and they can only deploy them on their own behalf, not on NATO's behalf. This isn't like deploying fighter planes or drones.


----------



## gosub (Oct 7, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're a dick. NATO as a body has no control over the nuclear weapons of member states. Only those member states have control, and they can only deploy them on their own behalf, not on NATO's behalf. This isn't like deploying fighter planes or drones.



Hmmm If a NATO member got nuked, they be screaming "ARTICLE 5" down the phone to Shape.  As you say, the other members would take a view


----------



## J Ed (Oct 7, 2015)

Wouldn't see Brown or Balls doing this


----------



## tim (Oct 7, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Seems to be joining his _*fourth *_political party! Started out SDP, became a LD, defected to New Labour and now snuggles up with the vermin.



Adonis is our greatest trainspotter, he'll snuggle up to anyone who'll let him play with the nation's choo-choos


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 7, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wouldn't see Brown or Balls doing this





i'm trying to remember the last time any labour front bencher did or said anything in support of any striking workers other than some flannel about management ought to sit down and talk to them.

any ideas?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 7, 2015)

killer b said:
			
		

> either way, your need to swing every topic round to beer is a tiresome *habit*



Got your subtle point.

I actually agree with you about beer not being the be-all and end-all as it goes. Genuinely.

But do take some notice as well, of other, beer-unrelated, topics I contibute on, please

(just objecting to 'every', there)



kabbes said:


> It really is, you know.  We get that good beer is nice, but not everything boils down to a man *only being worthwhile* if he likes the same drink that you like.



Drink what you want. I'm not dictating.

Nor did I claim he was worthwhile _politically_, Mr Selective -- never stated I'd ever vote for him.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 7, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> i'm trying to remember the last time any labour front bencher did or said anything in support of any striking workers other than some flannel about management ought to sit down and talk to them.
> 
> any ideas?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> [Re Andrew Adonis]
> 
> Born in 63, was an sdp councillor in 87.  So, at a guess he must have joined the sdp when he was 22ish.  So, what would an idealistic 22 year old do as their first step in politics? How would they put the wild dreams of youth into practice.  Join the sdp. THE FUCKING SDP!!!!



He's a year, or a bit less, younger than me. Definitely older though really.


----------



## tim (Oct 7, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wouldn't see Brown or Balls doing this



This brave Comrade, however, was willing to take on the capitalists


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're a dick. NATO as a body has no control over the nuclear weapons of member states. Only those member states have control, and they can only deploy them on their own behalf, not on NATO's behalf. This isn't like deploying fighter planes or drones.


 
If he is anti nuclear how on earth can he belong too, and want protection from, an organisation that has them.
Corbyn would want Nato to rid itself of nuclear weapons, would it not be the height of hypocrisy for him to do otherwise.							 

Lack of diplomacy has a cost. I know he has already found that out from his own people.
Can't you see, at all, any trouble coming?

Corbyn will find out when back in the commons, Mr nice doesn't cut it.
What is he going to say to a reporter, when asked ( as he surely will be ) what is his stance on Nato.

VP  Says: Can't you feel the air? There's too much paranoia.
So you can tell us what military problems Britain will face in the next 5 years, go on then clever DICK, tell us all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 8, 2015)

You're quite mad.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 8, 2015)

You're also not listening to VP. Only the US, France and the UK have nukes out of NATO members, and there is no way any of them would drop a _nuke_ to defend any fellow member. I would hope there is no way any of them would drop a nuke full stop, but the US has done so twice already, so I can't guarantee it.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're quite mad.


 
psychiatry not your strong  point is it?, nor discussion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> psychiatry not your strong  point is it?, nor discussion.


I fear you're mad in a way that no psychiatrist could help you with.

But I'll play if you like. Outline for me a hypothetical situation in which it would be the rational, sane thing to do to drop a nuclear bomb.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're also not listening to VP. Only the US, France and the UK have nukes out of NATO members, and there is no way any of them would drop a _nuke_ to defend any fellow member. I would hope there is no way any of them would drop a nuke full stop, but the US has done so twice already, so I can't guarantee it.


 
I am reading and understand but Nato is an umbrella organisation, don't tell me that countries will only use certain weapons to protect members that is rubbish.
You can't guarantee what you contend.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

Littlebabyjesus :
I'm anti- nuclear you prat
How old are you? 10


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 8, 2015)

Old enough to remember the Cold War and the real, present danger that nuclear weapons were felt to be at that time. Old enough to have joined CND as a response to the madness.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I am reading and understand but Nato is an umbrella organisation, don't tell me that countries will only use certain weapons to protect members that is rubbish.
> You can't guarantee what you contend.


If what you say were true, that would be all the more reason to get rid of nuclear weapons. One fewer country able to intervene with nukes on behalf of another. Who knows what mad fucker might be in charge here in the future - we might get another Blair.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> If he is anti nuclear how on earth can he belong too, and want protection from, an organisation that has them.
> Corbyn would want Nato to rid itself of nuclear weapons, would it not be the height of hypocrisy for him to do otherwise.
> 
> Lack of diplomacy has a cost. I know he has already found that out from his own people.
> ...



Suggest you read some stuff _actually discussing_ the pros and cons of Trident.

Posted already, but here's some half-way sensible/informative stuff about it from an actual Tory

Or would you rather discuss Corbyn than his politics?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

edit:-
wrong button


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Suggest you read some stuff _actually discussing_ the pros and cons of Trident.
> 
> Posted already, but here's some half-way sensible/informative stuff about it from an actual Tory
> 
> Or would you rather discuss Corbyn than his politics?


 
I'm not interested in trident.
I said Corbyn made a mess confirming he would not press the button. He should have used Diplomacy to shrug if off and stay in the position he has been in for the last 40 years.
His cabinet didn't know he was going to do it, the man is not up to the job.

If you think he has done no harm to his and Labours chances then fine I respect that, but I do.


----------



## belboid (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> He should have used Diplomacy to shrug if off and stay in the position he has been in for the last 40 years.


but....he isn't. I think the Russkies have about enough info to work out that lifelong pacifist and CND member Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't press the button.


----------



## xenon (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> edit:-
> wrong button


Nurse! The irony, it burns.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

belboid said:


> but....he isn't. I think the Russkies have about enough info to work out that lifelong pacifist and CND member Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't press the button.


 
It's dropping his party in the doo doo. Did Corbyn say to them my way or the highway, no! he said lets talk about it, but I've made my mind up so lets not talk about it.
Burham said he would resign if he left Nato, so Corbyn talked about that and backed down.
Why didn't he talk to his cabinet about Trident ?, they were in shock, are reporters more important to him?

Russia? Are you another one who knows exactly who will be an enemy?
Everyone knows where Corbyn stands but he said everything would be discussed, was that a lie?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

xenon said:


> Nurse! The irony, it burns.


 

Troll


----------



## xenon (Oct 8, 2015)

Nuclear weapons.  Military geniuses, tacticians. Whatever.  They amount to if you kill me I will totally kill you back.


----------



## xenon (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Troll


 Shut up you tit.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

xenon said:


> Nuclear weapons. Military geniuses, tacticians. Whatever. They amount to if you kill me I will totally kill you back


 
What has this to do with Corbyn not talking to his colleagues ?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 8, 2015)

Troll


----------



## xenon (Oct 8, 2015)

You don't know what a troll is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Troll


should be your tagline


----------



## tim (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Why didn't he talk to his cabinet about Trident ?, they were in shock, are reporters more important to him?


I doubt that Corbyn giving a predictable answer to a predictable question would shock anyone.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 8, 2015)

tim said:


> I doubt that Corbyn giving a predictable answer to a predictable question would shock anyone.



He's hardly made a secret of his views over all these years, and we know that the intent is to use a wedge strategy to split him from his core support via charges of hypocrisy, so suddenly spin-doctoring stuff everybody knows he regards as matters of principle would be a foolish move.

I'd argue that core is much more important than pandering to people who are trying to stitch him up anyway and don't actually care what he says except as potential material to smear him with (i.e. the Tories, the Blairites and their owners media)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> It's dropping his party in the doo doo. Did Corbyn say to them my way or the highway, no! he said lets talk about it, but I've made my mind up so lets not talk about it.
> Burham said he would resign if he left Nato, so Corbyn talked about that and backed down.
> Why didn't he talk to his cabinet about Trident ?, *they were in shock*, are reporters more important to him?
> 
> ...



Really? They were shocked that someone with 4 decades of anti-nuclear weapons activism under their belt says they wouldn't authorise the use of nuclear weapons?

And you would rather he prevaricated, sidestepped and avoided the all too obvious answer to the nuclear question; that would be good politics in your book. Go and have a listen to Nicky Morgan from yesterday's PM programme; she does just what you're wanting (prevaricates, sidesteps and avoids). Perhaps you think she's being a good politician; I think she comes across as a disingenuous huckster.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 8, 2015)

Corbyn too busy to attend Privy Council meeting, same as most of the six hundred odd other Privy Councillors. Obviously he's snubbing the queen. Tory twat Alan Duncan says:

He wants to put politics before the monarchy!

No shit!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Corbyn too busy to attend Privy Council meeting, same as most of the six hundred odd other Privy Councillors. Obviously he's snubbing the queen. Tory twat Alan Duncan says:
> 
> He wants to put politics before the monarchy!
> 
> No shit!



Interestingly Cameron only took up his Privy Council place three months after become Tory leader...three months! How rude; perhaps Alan Duncan should have a word?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 8, 2015)

And this rubbish is on the front page of the BBC website and the Guardian...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 8, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Interestingly Cameron only took up his Privy Council place three months after become Tory leader...three months! How rude; perhaps Alan Duncan should have a word?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




Probably fucked one of her corgis too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Probably fucked one of her corgis too.



in the mouth


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And this rubbish is on the front page of the BBC website and the Guardian...


four more years of this nonsense


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Corbyn too busy to attend Privy Council meeting, same as most of the six hundred odd other Privy Councillors. Obviously he's snubbing the queen. Tory twat Alan Duncan says:
> 
> He wants to put politics before the monarchy!
> 
> No shit!


THIS IS NO PARLIAMENT!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 8, 2015)

nice of them to name the council after an olde worle word for the cludgie


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> If he is anti nuclear how on earth can he belong too, and want protection from, an organisation that has them.
> Corbyn would want Nato to rid itself of nuclear weapons, would it not be the height of hypocrisy for him to do otherwise.
> 
> Lack of diplomacy has a cost. I know he has already found that out from his own people.
> ...


What VP said was a line from a song called "Holidays in the Sun" - a comment on the perceived political situation 38 years ago. Your paranoia about problems echoes the rubbish that the press were pumping out back then.
A few facts for you:
Corbyn is a social democrat and the elected leader of the Labour Party. That means that regardless of his personal preferences, he will follow the will of the majority.
The fact that Corbyn is bent on re-democratising the Labour Party means that the will of the re-empowered membership may well neutralise the union and PLP-led decisions on Trident and NATO.
You're an idiot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 8, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I am reading and understand but Nato is an umbrella organisation, don't tell me that countries will only use certain weapons to protect members that is rubbish.
> You can't guarantee what you contend.


NATO is an administrative organisation. For every type of action that can be undertaken in NATO's name, there is a protocol. NATO has no protocol for the use of ANY radiological weapons by member states. 
Still, better to believe the wibblings of the deluded, than to keep in mind the bureaucratic shit-storm NATO gave itself last time it attempted to establish a new protocol - as I recall it took about 10 months, and that was to use conventional air-dropped weapons.


----------



## Dowie (Oct 8, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're also not listening to VP. Only the US, France and the UK have nukes out of NATO members, and there is no way any of them would drop a _nuke_ to defend any fellow member. I would hope there is no way any of them would drop a nuke full stop, but the US has done so twice already, so I can't guarantee it.



technically yes - but the US has nukes in various countries with the idea that some of them can be deployed by other NATO members - there are nuclear sharing arrangements with a few countries including Turkey, Germany etc... They remain under US control and guarded by US troops but the idea is that they can be deployed by the host country with US permission/on behalf of the US.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> NATO is an administrative organisation. For every type of action that can be undertaken in NATO's name, there is a protocol. NATO has no protocol for the use of ANY radiological weapons by member states.



I'm not sure that any member NATO has weapons specifically or primarily designed to disperse radiation or radioactive materials at a target. Unless you meant nuclear rather than radiological.

Edit: unless one of them has neutron bombs.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 9, 2015)

Labour First is a thing, a terrible Luke Nukem Akehurst Secretaried thing...



> But Labour first said creating this organisation “looks divisive” and said it was concerned that its “warm words” on improving internal party democracy was a disguise to “mobilise factionally within Labour”.
> 
> It claimed the “veteran Bennite organisers” of the campaign group would use it to deselect MPs and councillors who “are not judged ‘politically correct’”.
> 
> ...



The Labour party's left and right are at war already

The fucking irony detector's going to take YEARS to fix


----------



## J Ed (Oct 9, 2015)

Blairites have zero self-awareness.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 9, 2015)

yeah right, organise in every town. Labours been absent for fucking years in its granted for heartlands. When they com knocking for my vote it was two old boys and I'm not being ageist but pension age. As if the 'moderates' will be going out doorknocking and shit. Fucking chancers. They can all burn.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Oct 9, 2015)

Lucky you, in Toxteth here I've been waiting 14 years to see a Labour poverty pimp asking for votes round the doors, but as yet still waiting to see a Labour Red Tory...


----------



## agricola (Oct 10, 2015)

"More than 50" Labour MP's are set to defy Corbyn, in order to start a war with the Russians.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 10, 2015)

agricola said:


> "More than 50" Labour MP's are set to defy Corbyn, in order to start a war with the Russians.


Led by the ex-policy head of Oxfam.

It's instructive, I think, that the very idea that you go to the UN to try to sort something is dismissed.

Good to hear that these will be ethical bombs, though. Best kind of bomb, the ethical bomb.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 10, 2015)

littlebabyjesus You cynic, you. last I heard they were environmentally friendly too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 10, 2015)

biodegradable bombs. 

They also biodegrade everything they blow up.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2015)

Labour to vote against fiscal charter | Paul Mason | Paul Mason

...for the best really, especially since it looks like Tories will be voting against and they can potentially cause an upset.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 12, 2015)

Anything known about how many possible Tory rebels? 

Or Labour ones maybe? 

That's quite a turnup that story, anyway 
I had this feeling that McDonnell was never that happy with the idea of voting for the Government on this.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 12, 2015)

The fiscal charter is a bonkers idea. It essentially makes the triggering of recessions a legal requirement for government.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 12, 2015)

Capitalism is a bonkers idea. It has cycles of boom and bust built into it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 13, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Capitalism is a bonkers idea. It has cycles of boom and bust built into it.



More of a huge stack of shit ideas piled haphazardly on top of each other tbh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> More of a huge stack of shit ideas piled haphazardly on top of each other tbh.


Like economic Jenga.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The fiscal charter is a bonkers idea. It essentially makes the triggering of recessions a legal requirement for government.


Aye, it has fuck all basis in economics and I think even those with only a cursory understanding of economics can see it. What it shows us is how little Osborne understands of economics. It's all posturing and game-playing with him. Cunt.


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2015)

Corbyn signals Labour could back military action in Syria without UN support

Apparently Corbyn may sanction military action in Syria without UN approval if Russia vetoes security council resolution, suprising ans won't go down well in some circles.


----------



## agricola (Oct 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Corbyn signals Labour could back military action in Syria without UN support
> 
> Apparently Corbyn may sanction military action in Syria without UN approval if Russia vetoes security council resolution, suprising ans won't go down well in some circles.



There is a lot of weaselry in that statement.


----------



## treelover (Oct 13, 2015)

"Tonight's ICM Guardian poll with LAB just 4% behind equals the best position for party in any poll since GE2015. Good for Corbyn."

From Mike Smithson, something must be working.


----------



## agricola (Oct 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> "Tonight's ICM Guardian poll with LAB just 4% behind equals the best position for party in any poll since GE2015. Good for Corbyn."
> 
> From Mike Smithson, something must be working.



4%?  Those Liz Kendall supporters really do hold the balance of power.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2015)

Corbyn did pretty fantastically at PMQs today I think.


----------



## Argonia (Oct 14, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Corbyn did pretty fantastically at PMQs today I think.


 
What was good about it? I haven't had a chance to watch it yet...


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2015)

Argonia said:


> What was good about it? I haven't had a chance to watch it yet...



Good questions, basically got Tories to laugh and sneer at people getting their tax credits cut and middle income people in London not being about to afford a home. Made the Tories look like exactly what they are.


----------



## Argonia (Oct 14, 2015)

Did he go for crowd sourced questions again?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 14, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Did he go for crowd sourced questions again?



Yes but he gave some subsequent rebuttals, the mixed format works well


----------



## teqniq (Oct 14, 2015)

Argonia said:


> Did he go for crowd sourced questions again?


The Tories laughed as Jeremy Corbyn brought up the housing crisis


----------



## passenger (Oct 14, 2015)

yeah the torys where fucking vile bullying at its best


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 15, 2015)

This may get a big showing tomorrow, but I was mildly surprised by how small the rebellion was. Looks like people are taking Mandie's "not until he's failed" bit relatively seriously.


----------



## gosub (Oct 15, 2015)

teqniq said:


> The Tories laughed as Jeremy Corbyn brought up the housing crisis


think it was more the "its your own time your wasting" schoolteacher glower he gave.

It was Cameron#s response "we want to see starter homes in London at 150k"...   the bankers and those the banks have sold 400k+ mortgages to ain't going to like that


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> This may get a big showing tomorrow, but I was mildly surprised by how small the rebellion was. Looks like people are taking Mandie's "not until he's failed" bit relatively seriously.


a handy little list...

I hadn't realied quite how stupid the rules were, they are completely unimplementable - "the rules only propose the budget should be in overall surplus by 2019 after nine years of continuous economic growth" - yeah, right, that'll happen.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 15, 2015)

Rob Ray said:


> This may get a big showing tomorrow, but I was mildly surprised by how small the rebellion was. Looks like people are taking Mandie's "not until he's failed" bit relatively seriously.



i wasn't - infact i was surprised it was so big - the tories would have got more Labour MP's votes/abstentions if they _hadn't_ made any overt play for such votes/abstentions. by making such an overt play they shot themselves in the foot: there's plenty of Labour MP's who think Corbyn/McDonnell are a pair student politics clowns and who believe that not signing up to this utterly see-through nothingness is political idiocy, but who weren't prepared to undertake a rebelion _at the behest of the tories. _

thats the critical bit, Labour MP's in much bigger numbers _will_ rebel against the new (dis?)order, but they'll do so much more willingly if the tories stop trying to goad them into doing so.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i wasn't - infact i was surprised it was so big - the tories would have got more Labour MP's votes/abstentions if they _hadn't_ made any overt play for such votes/abstentions. by making such an overt play they shot themselves in the foot: there's plenty of Labour MP's who think Corbyn/McDonnell are a pair student politics clowns and who believe that *not signing up to this utterly see-through nothingness is political idiocy*, but who weren't prepared to undertake a rebelion _at the behest of the tories. _
> 
> thats the critical bit, Labour MP's in much bigger numbers _will_ rebel against the new (dis?)order, but they'll do so much more willingly if the tories stop trying to goad them into doing so.




Which is more idiotic:

Signing up to 'utterly see through nothingness'?
Not signing up to 'utterly see through nothingness'?
Proposing the 'utterly see through nothingness' in the first place?
Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## kebabking (Oct 15, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which is more idiotic:
> 
> Signing up to 'utterly see through nothingness'?
> Not signing up to 'utterly see through nothingness'?
> ...



well, doing both 1 and 2 in the space of a fortnight seems to be quite a good way of gathering as many idiot points as possible...


----------



## Long Ball Game (Oct 15, 2015)

Corbyn/McDonnell are learning and it is a big curve they are on. In 4 years no one will remember anything they might do wrong now nor any rebellions they incur now, it will all be about how they are perceived at that time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> well, doing both 1 and 2 in the space of a fortnight seems to be quite a good way of gathering as many idiot points as possible...


Not really. 2. was the undoing of 1., which was the idiocy. Unfortunately it does show that McDonnell hasn't thought this stuff through before now. He really should have had his answer right there as soon as the idea was brought up, but it appears some kind of understanding of how economies work isn't a prerequisite for either the job of chancellor or shadow chancellor. 

But McD gets some credit for correcting his mistake.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2015)

JM understands how economies work, he just didn't understand what the stupid charter entailed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> JM understands how economies work, he just didn't understand what the stupid charter entailed


Do you have evidence of this?

It's an even more serious error if so, but I don't believe it without evidence. It takes only basic reading comprehension to understand what the charter entails.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you have evidence of this?
> 
> It's an even more serious error if so, but I don't believe it without evidence. It takes only basic reading comprehension to understand what the charter entails.


most news reports have mentioned it.  He agreed when he thought that it was current account only, and would still allow extra borrowing for investment.  It doesn't


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 15, 2015)

Long Ball Game said:


> Corbyn/McDonnell are learning and it is a big curve they are on. In 4 years no one will remember anything they might do wrong now nor any rebellions they incur now, it will all be about how they are perceived at that time.



Voters may not remember every detail but current mistakes and rebellions are probably shaping how Corbyn and the party will be perceived in 2020.

That's if he makes it to 2020, which I very much doubt.


----------



## gosub (Oct 15, 2015)

Long Ball Game said:


> Corbyn/McDonnell are learning and it is a big curve they are on. In 4 years no one will remember anything they might do wrong now nor any rebellions they incur now, it will all be about how they are perceived at that time.



It does give an outlier as to who the usual suspects will be though.  But I agree, bigger deal will be the Tories non delivery of150k starter homes in London


----------



## kebabking (Oct 15, 2015)

gosub said:


> It does give an outlier as to who the usual suspects will be though.  But I agree, bigger deal will be the Tories non delivery of150k starter homes in London



no, not really - Labour need to win seats in the shires and the midlands to get elected, no one in the shires gives a fuck about starter homes in London. London already votes Labour, so even if the Tories completely screw it up Labour might gain, at most, a handful of seats. 

in the places where Labour needs to win - rather than where the Corbyn supporters are - the issues that decide the 2020 election are going to be _percieved_ economic competance, general political/governmental competance, defence/overseas policy and immigration.


----------



## gosub (Oct 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> no, not really - Labour need to win seats in the shires and the midlands to get elected, no one in the shires gives a fuck about starter homes in London. London already votes Labour, so even if the Tories completely screw it up Labour might gain, at most, a handful of seats.
> 
> in the places where Labour needs to win - rather than where the Corbyn supporters are - the issues that decide the 2020 election are going to be _percieved_ economic competance*, *general political/governmental competance, defence/overseas policy and immigration.


Not saying it'll be the main issue, but barring Mr Osbourne not reaching his self imposed economic target (possible), of all the things that happened yesterday, in four years time "where is this affordable, affordable-housing?" will be the most pertinent.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 15, 2015)

gosub said:


> Not saying it'll be the main issue, but barring Mr Osbourne not reaching his self imposed economic target (possible), of all the things that happened yesterday, in four years time "where is this affordable, affordable-housing?" will be the most pertinent.



oh, don't get me wrong, housing is a big issue in the twilight land that apparently exists outside of the M25, and the problems of availability can placed squarely at the governments doorstep. if however Osbourne can keep what passes for a recovery going then commercial house building might mitigate that to some extent, and one of the potential bananas in the road to yet another tory government in 2020 might be swerved around.

in terms of the pure politics of yesterday, certainly the election is 5 years away, and if a week is a long time in politics then 5 years is an unimaginable span - i think that there will be a bit of leeway given because its all new, but i think it will effect the mood music, people will be less understanding at the next fuck-up, there will be more rolling of the eyes from Labour MP's. that has a corrosive effect.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> if however Osbourne can keep what passes for a recovery going then commercial house building might mitigate that to some extent,


he can't, and it wont. They're already talking about the possibility of another crash in the next couple of years.


----------



## agricola (Oct 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> no, not really - Labour need to win seats in the shires and the midlands to get elected, no one in the shires gives a fuck about starter homes in London. London already votes Labour, so even if the Tories completely screw it up Labour might gain, at most, a handful of seats.
> 
> in the places where Labour needs to win - rather than where the Corbyn supporters are - the issues that decide the 2020 election are going to be _percieved_ economic competance, general political/governmental competance, defence/overseas policy and immigration.



Yes - but one of the consequences of the London housing crisis is that it is those shires, and especially the Midlands, that are going to see most of the impact of there being nowhere near enough social housing in London.  

As for perceived economic competence, Gordon Brown showed how much that was worth in 2010 - and he could at least claim that he didn't see the collapse coming.  When the next crash happens, if it happens on Osbornes's watch he (and they) are going to get slaughtered because they have done the absolutely nothing to fix the problems / scams that the last crash exposed, never mind try to prevent the next one.


----------



## laptop (Oct 15, 2015)




----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2015)

have to say i'm a bit disappointed that Corbyn has claimed that he has transformed Prime Minister's Question Time into People's Question Time. I watched it for the first time in forever today and it's a fucking circus. The arcane parliamentary protocol encourages this by making them talk to someone else when they should be talking to each other and it just ends up sounding like a playground spat


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 15, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> have to say i'm a bit disappointed that Corbyn has claimed that he has transformed Prime Minister's Question Time into People's Question Time. I watched it for the first time in forever today and it's a fucking circus. The arcane parliamentary protocol encourages this by making them talk to someone else when they should be talking to each other and it just ends up sounding like a playground spat



TBH - nobody outside the westminster bubble gives a flying about PMQs/hamcock's half hour.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 15, 2015)

Schama does shit, boring establishment-friendly history.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> TBH - nobody outside the westminster bubble gives a flying about PMQs/hamcock's half hour.


What about BBC QT? The tweets commenting on it seem bad enough


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2015)

No one cares about that either.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> hamcock's half hour


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> a handy little list...
> 
> I hadn't realied quite how stupid the rules were, they are completely unimplementable - "the rules only propose the budget should be in overall surplus by 2019 after nine years of continuous economic growth" - yeah, right, that'll happen.


List of twats, plenty of the usual suspects 

Fiona Mactaggart, Rushanara Ali, Ian Austin, Ben Bradshaw, Adrian Bailey, Shabana Mahmood, Ann Coffey, Angela Smith, Simon Danczuk, Jamie Reed, Chris Evans, Graham Stringer, Frank Field, Gisela Stuart, Mike Gapes, Margaret Hodge, Tristram Hunt, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Liz Kendall, Chris Leslie.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> No one cares about that either.


Lots of people seem to watch it


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2015)

2.7 million, all with entrenched political positions.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 16, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really. 2. was the undoing of 1., which was the idiocy. Unfortunately it does show that McDonnell hasn't thought this stuff through before now. He really should have had his answer right there as soon as the idea was brought up, but it appears some kind of understanding of how economies work isn't a prerequisite for either the job of chancellor or shadow chancellor.
> 
> But McD gets some credit for correcting his mistake.



He does but it would have taken most people 10 minutes to arrive at the statement 'we will make no further comment until we have studied the proposals in detail', or even to propose abstaining. 

Failing that he could have asked the Blairited what to do and then simply proposed the opposite. 

Or he could have taken the piss that the Govt was proposing a measure that no business would dream of. Was the Govt proposing that next time the banks should fail?

Will blow over though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> 2.7 million, all with entrenched political positions.


Yep, another circus sideshow.


----------



## Long Ball Game (Oct 16, 2015)

McDonnell seems still in shock that he's where he is. Time will solve that, he will "improve" the Tories can't (won't?) change.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 16, 2015)




----------



## Dandred (Oct 16, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Yep, another circus sideshow.



Where is the real show? I'd like to watch.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Where is the real show? I'd like to watch.


I don't think we're allowed to see it.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 16, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't think we're allowed to see it.



Not even on TV? Or the freedom of information act?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 16, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Where is the real show? I'd like to watch.



There is no real show; just lots of different places where decisions are made and so many many more where those decisions get put into practice. 

There isn't a conspiracy...but there is a logic.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2015)

Dandred said:


> Not even on TV? Or the freedom of information act?


You could always watch the actual bills being passed on the parliamentary channel if you really want.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 16, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You could always watch the actual bills being passed on the parliamentary channel if you really want.



I've watched enough to know the people who didn't vote aren't represented.

I hope the people who didn't vote next time elect some like Corbyn.

Better than just drawing a cock.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2015)

Dandred said:


> I've watched enough to know the people who didn't vote aren't represented.
> 
> I hope the people who didn't vote next time elect some like Corbyn.
> 
> Better than just drawing a cock.


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I don't think you are either.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 16, 2015)

Good for the working class? - Weekly Worker

Article by Michael Roberts about Corbynomics


----------



## treelover (Oct 17, 2015)

> Fantastic. Please do this broadcast again. You inspire me and all in my family. *My 87 year old mum is joining the Labour Party for the first time in her life because of you.* Honesty, integrity and a true passion for human rights and equality. Thank you.



From FB, something is definitely going on.


----------



## treelover (Oct 17, 2015)

> I must admit I had not been aware of Jeremy until recently, unfortunately I was sucked into the Tory scare tactics, as a result they got my vote this time. However if you truly are as you appear then you will get my vote for PM. You certainly are a breath of fresh air in politics, some one who cares about the working class. I find it appalling that our current PM who is paid by the public has off shore accounts to hide his families loot. Avoiding paying their fear amount in tax, whilst the rest of us can only dream to have a life style as they rich do. One rule for us and another for the rich! Keep this up Jeremy and more supporters will come your way.



and this one, how did people like him, pretty sussed, vote Tory?


----------



## JHE (Oct 17, 2015)

Comments like that make me think of comments on TripAdvisor.  They could be genuine... or not.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> and this one, how did people like him, pretty sussed, vote Tory?



i think the opposite to 'pretty sussed' is the the truth.

never heard of JC before - what, has this person being living under a blanket, in a cave, on the moon?

didn't know that Cameron was rich, and like any other rich person with the ability to use shoelaces, sticking their money where its tax liability was minimised? really?

i don't believe this person - should they exist - voted tory. nothing in what they (apparently...) written suggests them having a single value in line with the tories, so why would they be 'scared' by what the tories were running? of course, its possible someone so ill-informed, so stupid and so failing to understand the basic and public bits of politics does exist - in which i'm sure they'll be a huge benefit to Corbyns labour party...


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2015)

I see we're on the breathlessly excited bit of the cycle.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 17, 2015)

kebabking said:


> of course, its possible someone so ill-informed, so stupid and so failing to understand the basic and public bits of politics does exist


 
I think many people on the left do overlook just how many people out there are that ill-informed

The tories and their friends who own the press are aware and use it to their advantage.  hence the "you can't vote for him, he looks a dork eating a bacon sandwich, vote labour and there will be a plague of locusts over the land" or whatever it was that the 2015 campaign was...


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> have to say i'm a bit disappointed that Corbyn has claimed that he has transformed Prime Minister's Question Time into People's Question Time. I watched it for the first time in forever today and it's a fucking circus. The arcane parliamentary protocol encourages this by making them talk to someone else when they should be talking to each other and it just ends up sounding like a playground spat


I recon it was so that no MP from either side of the house was directly adressing the other and therefor not in danger of issuing a direct insult. Because, honour must be satisfied etc and you'd have duelling MP's all over the shop. I say we bring that archaism of duelling between MPs back. Eric Joyce vs Michael Gove would be a good one


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I recon it was so that niether MP from eithe side of the house was directly adressing the other and therefor not in danger of issuing a direct insult. Because, honour must be satisfied etc and ou'd have duelling MP's all over the shop. I say we bring that archaism of duelling between MPs back. Eric Joyce vs Michael Gove would be a good one



Pickles vs Rees-Mogg would be up there too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Pickles vs Rees-Mogg would be up there too.


think of the potential betting opportunities. Television rights. It'd be bigger than UFC


----------



## J Ed (Oct 18, 2015)

Momentum activist network announces mass voter registration campaign

Seems like an attempt to emulate the Scottish Radical Independence Campaign. Brilliant.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 18, 2015)

Looks like some Tories may rebel on tax credits, it could be a significant victory for Labour


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 19, 2015)

The real reason Britain's permanent political class is freaking out over Jeremy Corbyn - The Canary


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Pickles vs Rees-Mogg would be up there too.


You could bill it as "no-neck versus pencil neck".


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The real reason Britain's permanent political class is freaking out over Jeremy Corbyn - The Canary


I stopped reading at the point where it said a carefully worded attack by Cameron  and the tories was 'hysterical'. Utterly clueless.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 19, 2015)

killer b said:


> I stopped reading at the point where it said a carefully worded attack by Cameron  and the tories was 'hysterical'. Utterly clueless.



It is a matter of hysteria to have concocted (lied) that Corbyn thought OBLs actual death was a tragedy. Are you sure you've not just reacted to a more common, but no less valid, nuance of the word? Tories (and others) pretty commonly carefully create hysteria (the SNP scare that helped them get into power is another one)


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2015)

yes, sure - I misunderstood. A n_ear-hysterical freak out_ she wrote. I'm definitely missing some nuance.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2015)

fucking pompous tool. as if you're in any position to condescend to anyone.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2015)

_the labour party is a threat to our security_ mantra and Cameron's made up stuff about Corbyn isn't hysterical - it's part of a carefully calibrated, clear headed plan to destroy him. It isn't because they're scared of him - it's because they think it'll work, and consign the labour party to another generation of opposition.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2015)

I think they could be wrong, but this kind of rose-tinted bullshit is no way to make them wrong. It's not as if history isn't littered with examples of fearmongering propaganda actually working.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 20, 2015)




----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Jesus fucking Christ.



No, Seamus Milne.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

Straight Left now runs Labour communications. A man who has never, ever, seen any US or UK military action as anything other than unjustified imperialist aggression is the mouthpiece for what only a few years ago was the natural party of government.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Straight Left now runs Labour communications.



And strategy, according to Milne's own tweet. Interestingly (not really) he says that he's only on leave from the Guardian. Perhaps he doesn't expect it to be a long-term engagement.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

isn't he one of those annoying members of the Guardian commentariat?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> isn't he one of those annoying members of the Guardian commentariat?



Directors of communication do tend to be ex-journos, for all sorts of sensible reasons.


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2015)

he's one of the mildly less annoying members, but yeah.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> And strategy, according to Milne's own tweet. Interestingly (not really) he says that he's only on leave from the Guardian. Perhaps he doesn't expect it to be a long-term engagement.



You get a six month sabbatical every few years at the Guardian, for intellectual refreshment. Perhaps he's drinking at the well of Corbyn on full pay. Even for six months, though, it's an abomination.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> isn't he one of those annoying members of the Guardian commentariat?


He's one of the few writers at the Graun who actually speaks a bit of sense on all kinds of subjects, well at least for me anyway.


----------



## rekil (Oct 20, 2015)

Some great reactions from the expected quarters. This from an..


> Arch-Blairite. Politics/Economics/IR commentator. Executive Director @theagorans. Media Manager @HS_Centre. Law Student - Edinburgh



Down with the kulaks!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

Shurely Gulags? You're letting the side down, Travers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2015)

Oddly enough i've just been reading this oxbridge public schoolboy try and pretend assad had nothing to do with the chemcial attacks on ghouta.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2015)

teqniq said:


> He's one of the few writers at the Graun who actually speaks a bit of sense on all kinds of subjects, well at least for me anyway.


He's the same establishment as all the others, just on the opposite side.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> He's the same establishment as all the others, just on the opposite side.


I'm sure he is. You don't really get to be a columnist in that rag unless you are I suspect.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

Doesn't it worry you Corbynites that even Butchersapron recognises the man as a creepy fanboi of dictators?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 20, 2015)

teqniq said:


>



Good, Seamus Milne is a goodun. Just because he has been working for the Guardian doesn't mean he is a bad man. In the old days the Guardian was regarded as being a bit lefty. I remember reading Milnes book about the miners strike, it was very revealing about the involvement of MI5.


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2015)

not sure if the _corbyn-jugend_ have anything to say to you tbf Maurice.


----------



## rekil (Oct 20, 2015)

He was very bad on the pope iirc.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

copliker said:


> He was very bad on the pope iirc.


 what did he do to him?


----------



## rekil (Oct 20, 2015)

Yuck.

Heroes of 2014: Pope Francis | Seumas Milne


----------



## teqniq (Oct 20, 2015)

Feck.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> not sure if the _corbyn-jugend_ have anything to say to you tbf Maurice.



One of them phoned me up a couple of hours ago and asked for £15 (a discounted price!A bargain!) to upgrade me to full membership. If I'd known about Milne I'd have been even grumpier at her.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> isn't he one of those annoying members of the Guardian commentariat?


He was editor of the comment section at one time.

Despite that he deserve points for his book _The Enemy Within_ about the campaign against the NUM, which is definitely worth reading.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> One of them phoned me up a couple of hours ago and asked for £15 (a discounted price!A bargain!) to upgrade me to full membership. If I'd known about Milne I'd have been even grumpier at her.


Come on relax and enjoy being on the left. You must have been part way there to sign up for the £3 membership.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 20, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> He was editor of the comment section at one time.
> 
> Despite that he deserve some points for his book _The Enemy Within_ about the campaign against the NUM, which is definitely worth reading.





redsquirrel said:


> He was editor of the comment section at one time.
> 
> Despite that he deserve some points for his book _The Enemy Within_ about the campaign against the NUM, which is definitely worth reading.


I am glad I am not the only one on this thread who knows who Seamus Milne is.


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Come on relax and enjoy being on the left. You must have been part way there to sign up for the £3 membership.


he signed up to vote Kendall.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2015)

copliker said:


> Yuck.
> 
> Heroes of 2014: Pope Francis | Seumas Milne


oh, i was hoping he had kicked him up the arse for a dare


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 20, 2015)

I thought he was already a member


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 20, 2015)

killer b said:


> he signed up to vote Kendall.



I signed up to vote Cooper; I voted Kendall in the end because I thought that the more first preference votes she got, the less convincing Corbyn's mandate would be.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 20, 2015)

Well the wheels all came off that didn't they?


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2015)

oh well.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 20, 2015)

The Milne appointment is worth it purely to see dickheads like Maurice Picarda squirm


----------



## J Ed (Oct 20, 2015)

Seumas Milne lands top Corbyn job | LabourList



> The appointment of Milne is the surest sign yet that Jeremy Corbyn will fill senior positions with hard left allies in an attempt to assert his dominance. Milne is considered one of the most left wing commentators in the media



Clearly whichever Blairite who is updating Labour List and is in the midst of a red baiting hate spasm is unaware of Proletarian Democracy...


----------



## agricola (Oct 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Clearly whichever Blairite who is updating Labour List and is in the midst of a red baiting hate spasm is unaware of Proletarian Democracy...



They probably didn't have the time to discover PD, having spent all of the afternoon sifting the internet for a picture of Milne that looked like the arrest photo of a swimming baths employee.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Straight Left now runs Labour communications. A man who has never, ever, seen any US or UK military action as anything other than unjustified imperialist aggression is the mouthpiece for what only a few years ago was the natural party of government.



New Labour, the "natural party of government"? You've been drinking your own piss again.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 22, 2015)

Scathing article on Milne's appointment (some of the issues have been covered by posters here)

So Jeremy Corbyn, what made you appoint Seumas Milne, an apologist for dictators?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 22, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Scathing article on Milne's appointment (some of the issues have been covered by posters here)
> 
> So Jeremy Corbyn, what made you appoint Seumas Milne, an apologist for dictators?



Absolutely terrible article, I saw it when it was first just a blog post and I'm actually a bit astonished that a seriousish newspaper picked it up without even editing it but then again it's critical of Corbyn so I suppose it's fair game.


----------



## gawkrodger (Oct 22, 2015)

that really is a dire article. Little suprise then it's being picked up and ran with by so many msm outlets

edit: and 2 competent responses

Is Seumas Milne An 'Apologist For Fascism'? No.

In response to Kate Godfrey on Seumas Milne


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 22, 2015)

> Kate then became one of the first people from her school to win a place at Oxford, where she received financial support.



I'm sick of checking cos EVERY TIME.




> After university Kate worked briefly with the Guardian


----------



## treelover (Oct 22, 2015)

> "if the whole world's a battlefield that holds in Woolwich as well as Waziristan".



Did Milne say this?, from other articles he has wrote, he does seem to be defending some very dubious people.


----------



## treelover (Oct 22, 2015)

Btw, Galloway next, John Rees?, anti-imperialists seem to be the order of the day


----------



## ska invita (Oct 22, 2015)

No


treelover said:


> Btw, Galloway next, John Rees?, anti-imperialists seem to be the order of the day


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> Did Milne say this?, .



Woolwich attack: If the whole world's a battlefield, that holds in Woolwich as well as Waziristan | Seumas Milne

Possibly not, actually. More likely to have been a sub.


----------



## laptop (Oct 22, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Woolwich attack: If the whole world's a battlefield, that holds in Woolwich as well as Waziristan | Seumas Milne
> 
> Possibly not, actually. More likely to have been a sub.



Slightly naughty sub-editor, 'cos there's no mention of Waziristan in the piece as printed. But headlines are almost never the work of the author.

A sub-editor writes: because they're shit at it.

An author writes: but once I managed to offer three choices of headline for the subs to reject, neatly suggesting to them precisely the headline I did want.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> Btw, Galloway next, John Rees?, anti-imperialists seem to be the order of the day


Oh for gods sake. You really can't see the difference between Milne and Rees or Galloway?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 22, 2015)

treelover said:


> Did Milne say this?, from other articles he has wrote, he does seem to be defending some very dubious people.



It's a simple statement - if we see Waziristan as a fitting battlefield to play out our issues with Islamism, why wouldn't Islamists see Woolwich as a fitting battlefield on which to play out their issues with "western democracy"?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2015)

The problem with the appointment is that Corbyn really needs a genius media strategist - its going to be an uphill task to promote his nonpopulist, non-traditional non happy shiny persona, against wave after wave of negative media ... 

Milne doesn't strike me as someone who can manage those pitfalls... Its good that he hasn't appointed some kind of weasely media animal, but I'm not sure if Milne has got the skills and common touch to pull this off. Hard job for sure....


----------



## tom_unism (Oct 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> The problem with the appointment is that Corbyn really needs a genius media strategist - its going to be an uphill task to promote his nonpopulist, non-traditional non happy shiny persona, against wave after wave of negative media ...
> 
> Milne doesn't strike me as someone who can manage those pitfalls... Its good that he hasn't appointed some kind of weasely media animal, but I'm not sure if Milne has got the skills and common touch to pull this off. Hard job for sure....



Corbyn seems pretty populist to me...


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2015)

tom_unism said:


> Corbyn seems pretty populist to me...


I dont think so - he doesn't have the charismatic leader thing going at all - its quite confusing to me in fact to have someone not using their charisma and look to win people over. The fact there are Corbynistas and attempts to make Che-style images of him has a big dose of irony about it I think, at least in the way that it comes across.

Hes a populist in as much as he is a socialist and he wants whats best for the majority of the populace - but in terms of presentation and rhetoric he doesnt fit my idea of a populist leader....

...not sure im being very clear here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2015)

you don't have to be rocking il duce levels of style to be populist- the term is as much about personality and policies as it is image. And after 30 odd years of politobots from the soundbite factory corbyns matter of fact directness is well, popular.


----------



## tom_unism (Oct 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Hes a populist in as much as he is a socialist and he wants whats best for the majority of the populace - but in terms of presentation and rhetoric he doesnt fit my idea of a populist leader....



I do understand what you're saying, but this 'Karen from Bradford' malarky at PMQs is quite clearly evidence of populism. Plus, he has already backed down on getting out of the EU and has admitted that his rail renationalisation plan could only happen by 2030. There seems to be a massive gap between what he says and what he is able to do.


----------



## laptop (Oct 23, 2015)

tom_unism said:


> There seems to be a massive gap between what he says and what he is able to do.



To be fair, that's likely true of most of us most of the time


----------



## tom_unism (Oct 23, 2015)

laptop said:


> To be fair, that's likely true of most of us most of the time



True - so why promise such things? There's a reason Old Labour died, and Corbyn reviving it won't help imo.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> there are Corbynistas


the only place I've seen his supporters reffered to so is in crappy liberal rags like the guardian and that shit one they do on sunday with the eyewateringly bad arts and books review (observer!). Its meant with a sneer.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2015)

tom_unism said:


> True - so why promise such things? There's a reason Old Labour died, and Corbyn reviving it won't help imo.


If it died and you're saying he brought it back to life, just who is he then?


----------



## tom_unism (Oct 23, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> If it died and you're saying he brought it back to life, just who is he then?



Jesus?


----------



## rekil (Oct 23, 2015)

Being populist and unelectable is quite a combination.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2015)

tom_unism said:


> I do understand what you're saying, but this 'Karen from Bradford' malarky at PMQs is quite clearly evidence of populism.



 The Karen from Bradford thing is a good example of just how week his populism is (and how much help he's going to need in the communications department) - a real populist manages to win over big parts of the nonconverted using classic common denominator ideology, and personal passion and charisma. My impression of him is that he's too knowledgeable (or something) to play either of those cards in a traditional populist way. I dont have a problem with that - but its hard to pull off. Hes naturally a backbench MP rather than an ego-driven poleclimbing leader. My point (re Milne) is he's going to have a real challenge communicating his policies, however populist they may technically be, to the populace.

The PMQs thing plays like an episode of Points of View screened at 2am Sunday morning on BBC 4.



DotCommunist said:


> the only place I've seen his supporters reffered to so is in crappy liberal rags like the guardian and that shit one they do on sunday with the eyewateringly bad arts and books review (observer!). Its meant with a sneer.


The name may be a sneer but there are people genuinely excited by him who react emotionally at any criticism of him etc...he definitely has some groupies, who perhaps even see a populist leader in him


DotCommunist said:


> And after 30 odd years of politobots from the soundbite factory corbyns matter of fact directness is well, popular.


popular with the converted. My point in the last few posts - relating to Milne and communications - is he has a mountain to climb to get his message out there to swing voters. Polling data (for what its worth) so far shows a big gap opened up since Milliband left UK Polling Report


----------



## kebabking (Oct 23, 2015)

copliker said:


> Being populist and unelectable is quite a combination.



oh i don't know - to be populist _and_ electable requires being populist with enough of the electorate to get you into power, it also requires people believing that you can in fact bring about that which you claim to be able to do.

Nigel Farage might be a good example - he's 'everyman', and apparently he gives a large section of the electorate what they say they want. they just don't vote for him...


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2015)

kebabking said:


> oh i don't know - to be populist _and_ electable requires being populist with enough of the electorate to get you into power, it also requires people believing that you can in fact bring about that which you claim to be able to do.
> 
> Nigel Farage might be a good example - he's 'everyman', and apparently he gives a large section of the electorate what they say they want. they just don't vote for him...


4 mills not a bad showing is it. Although that is wider party rather than farage in thanet


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2015)

kebabking said:


> Nigel Farage might be a good example - he's 'everyman'


and dresses like arthur daley without arthur's ready charm and wit.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> 4 mills not a bad showing is it. Although that is wider party rather than farage in thanet



well, if you think about the objective conditions - a discredited opposition with a laughable leader, a discredited governing party who appear to not share the same planet as the electorate, a discredited coalition partner at war with itself and parodied by everyone, an economy in the toilet, inumerable examples of spectacular incompetance, and around 50% of the electorate sharing several large opinions with UKIP, suddenly only managing to get 4m votes looks like rank incompetance...


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 23, 2015)

tom_unism said:


> Jesus?


He is Herbert West, Re-animator.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 23, 2015)

kebabking said:


> well, if you think about the objective conditions - a discredited opposition with a laughable leader, a discredited governing party who appear to not share the same planet as the electorate, a discredited coalition partner at war with itself and parodied by everyone, an economy in the toilet, inumerable examples of spectacular incompetance, and around 50% of the electorate sharing several large opinions with UKIP, suddenly only managing to get 4m votes looks like rank incompetance...



I really think that if prior to the May election UKIP had emulated the Front National and came out with some social democratic sounding policies on housing, welfare and maybe rail nationalisation, alongside anti-immigrant populism they would have won handsomely in a few areas at least. The massive disconnect in the every day lives of their leadership and most of their voters and a lot of their activist base means that never could have happened though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2015)

tom_unism said:


> Corbyn seems pretty populist to me...





ska invita said:


> I dont think so - he doesn't have the charismatic leader thing going at all - its quite confusing to me in fact to have someone not using their charisma and look to win people over. The fact there are Corbynistas and attempts to make Che-style images of him has a big dose of irony about it I think, at least in the way that it comes across.
> 
> Hes a populist in as much as he is a socialist and he wants whats best for the majority of the populace - but in terms of presentation and rhetoric he doesnt fit my idea of a populist leader....
> 
> ...not sure im being very clear here.



You both seem to be conflating populism and popularity. Populism is about policy, popularity is about personal appeal.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You both seem to be conflating populism and popularity. Populism is about policy, popularity is about personal appeal.


yes because theres a historic link with populist leaders having a particularly strong personal appeal - an almost paternal/maternal populism - im sure theres a way of picking it all apart into neater categories, but there is that historic conflation around populism, and JC doesnt fit the usual mold IMO


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> yes because theres a historic link with populist leaders having a particularly strong personal appeal - an almost paternal/maternal populism - im sure theres a way of picking it all apart into neater categories, but there is that historic conflation around populism, and JC doesnt fit the usual mold IMO



Attlee didn't have very much personal appeal, yet pushed through some of the most populist policies in 20th-century Britain.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 23, 2015)

think 'populist' is one of those words that can mean pretty much what you want it to mean, either as a positive or negative thing, about a politician.

quite a few politicians manage to be 'populist' by talking bollocks with enough of an air of authority that people don't stop and think about it.  or a "don't you agree that your existing prejudices are right?" sort of line.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Attlee didn't have very much personal appeal, yet pushed through some of the most populist policies in 20th-century Britain.


I'm not saying there aren't exceptions.. Atlee did benefit from a number of historical forces that had the people moving in that direction of their own will... he also smoked a pipe  poll gold!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> I'm not saying there aren't exceptions.. Atlee did benefit from a number of historical forces that had the people moving in that direction of their own will... he also smoked a pipe  poll gold!



and was bald, poll lead balloon in the TV age.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

A little local spat just went national....
Tony Benn’s granddaughter delivers blow to Corbyn by calling for policy chief to go


> *Emily Benn, the granddaughter of Tony Benn and a former parliamentary candidate, has asked the Labour party to consider expelling Jeremy Corbyn’s new head of policy, Andrew Fisher, for supporting the anarchist Class War party at the general election.*
> 
> As recriminations grow over Fisher’s appointment, Benn – who stood for Labour in Croydon South in May – has written to Labour’s general secretary, Iain McNicol, saying that Fisher’s previous behaviour “contradicts Labour party rules”, which state that supporting a non-Labour candidate will lead to automatic expulsion.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> A little local spat just went national....
> Tony Benn’s granddaughter delivers blow to Corbyn by calling for policy chief to go
> ​



Takes after her father then


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Takes after her father then


Stephen?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

Listen to the desperation:

Her _dramatic _intervention is a _severe _embarrassment to Corbyn... It reflects _deep dismay_ across much of the party..._notoriously outspoken _

Is this milquetoast catspaw all they have?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Stephen?



Oh, I thought she was Hillary's sprog


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Listen to the desperation:
> 
> Her _dramatic _intervention is a _severe _embarrassment to Corbyn... It reflects _deep dismay_ across much of the party..._notoriously outspoken _
> 
> Is this milquetoast catspaw all they have?


And she can salve her conscience knowing that she didn't run to the tory press!


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Listen to the desperation:
> 
> Her _dramatic _intervention is a _severe _embarrassment to Corbyn... It reflects _deep dismay_ across much of the party..._notoriously outspoken _
> 
> Is this milquetoast catspaw all they have?



Look at the coverage of that Lord resigning the whip today, he hasn't done anything since 2011, crazed hysteria is the new normal for the liberal media


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> and was bald, poll lead balloon in the TV age.


Is there actually any evidence of this?

It should be possible to produce a statistically relevant sample of elections across the world in the TV age to test this idea.


----------



## JimW (Oct 25, 2015)

Someone you've never heard of slates someone you didn't know was appointed.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

Good old thread on her here.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Listen to the desperation:
> 
> Her _dramatic _intervention is a _severe _embarrassment to Corbyn... It reflects _deep dismay_ across much of the party..._notoriously outspoken _
> 
> Is this milquetoast catspaw all they have?


the Sunday Times have no less a man than Martin Amis pitching in today. That's sure to turn the tide.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> the Sunday Times have no less a man than Martin Amis pitching in today. That's sure to turn the tide.


All the big gums.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

It's nice to find the artillery room is actually empty for once.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Good old thread on her here.


Fullyplumped! I'd forgotten about her. She thought Benn was fantastic. Probably nuff said.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> the Sunday Times have no less a man than Martin Amis pitching in today. That's sure to turn the tide.



My favourite headline this weekend comes from the scabby New $tatesman, 'I wanted to believe in Jeremy Corbyn. But I can't believe in Seumas Milne' which is pretty fucking rich considering their months long hate spasm which is still going stronger than ever. Fabians are worse than Tories


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

OF COURSE, hypothetically it could be argued that Liz Kendall is totally right about everything especially Iraq and you are all misogynist brocialists. A Progress greeting to all of you! NATO! EU! The Silent Majority! We the 4.5%!


----------



## rekil (Oct 25, 2015)

killer b said:


> the Sunday Times have no less a man than Martin Amis pitching in today. That's sure to turn the tide.



He's been "a leading figure on the British left for 3 decades". What have _you_ done?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

copliker said:


> He's been "a leading figure on the British left for 3 decades". What have _you_ done?
> 
> View attachment 78507


That is fantastic.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

copliker said:


> He's been "a leading figure on the British left for 3 decades". What have _you_ done?
> 
> View attachment 78507



Three decades? I've underestimated the amount of time that Nick Cohen can continue to re-write the same article, it's been well over a decade but no wonder he is still going strong.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

_Fluky (sic) beneficiary _given his rather lucky birth is even better.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Listen to the desperation:
> 
> Her _dramatic _intervention


Dramatic intervention from someone who couldn't even get elected.


----------



## JimW (Oct 25, 2015)

Undereducated because his public school was more minor than Amis's?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Dramatic intervention from someone who couldn't even get elected.


As even a Councillor even more recently. They seem to have nothing left - once they lost the centre, that's it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2015)

Amis demands Muslims join in 'factory siren' over terror plots

good old martin


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 25, 2015)

copliker said:


> He's been "a leading figure on the British left for 3 decades". What have _you_ done?
> 
> View attachment 78507









I’ve got 5 O Levels. Bloomin’ good grades as well, considering I didn’t do a sod of work cause I’m so hard.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Fabians are worse than Tories


Any opportunity to use that great quote of Engel's 



			
				Engel's said:
			
		

> A clique united only by their fear of the threatening rule of the workers and doing all in their power to avert this danger


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Dramatic intervention from someone who couldn't even get elected.


You don't get it; if only Fisher had put out that one tweet about Jon Bigger...she'd be there now.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

I met Hilary Benn a couple of years ago, I was less politically aware than I am now but I still knew what he was about and confronted him about New Labour privatisations and PFI contracts. He gave me a spiel about how "there is less money now" and told me about how wonderful it was that volunteers were taking over privatised libraries in his constituency. Fucking scum. Clearly Emily takes after him politically.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> As even a Councillor even more recently. They seem to have nothing left - once they lost the centre, that's it.



Many members of the Labour Party are now defined solely by their proud acquiescence not only to the neoliberal project, but specifically George Osborne's neoliberal project, they proudly measure their own worth and that of the rest of their party in those terms.


----------



## rekil (Oct 25, 2015)

I remember Swells claiming that Amis once said that nobody could write a proper novel unless they had an English degree from Oxbridge.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

copliker said:


> I remember Swells claiming that Amis once said that nobody could write a proper novel unless they had an English degree from Oxbridge.


Laurie sitting pretty then.


----------



## JimW (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Laurie sitting pretty then.


Certainly been honing her fiction writing.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Many members of the Labour Party are now defined solely by their proud acquiescence not only to the neoliberal project, but specifically George Osborne's neoliberal project, they proudly measure their own worth and that of the rest of their party in those terms.


Interesting to see what gaps now open and what the longer members didn't challenge under blair and what they won't challenge now. For most people membership is just paying money. The lower levels, the councilors etc they just do do what they do, politics rarely even comes into it. Seeing just how hollow this party is now was interesting.


----------



## rekil (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Laurie sitting pretty then.


She's going for the Suitshaming genre. 


> I was led straight through the lobby into a little room where a little man in a well-tailored suit was waiting for me with a stack of papers and a sprayed-on smile.
> 
> "Miss Lehman,” said the suit, putting about eight extra consonants in my name. It's not enough for posh boys to have all the luck and all the money, they have to hoard up all the consonants too. “Thank you for coming in at such short notice.”
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

copliker said:


> She's going for the Suitshaming genre.


Wow. Just.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 25, 2015)

She does specialise in The Dickensian Aspect


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2015)

_All this content we pump out, it’s designed to take away the angry part of your brain. That’s why I hate it. The Department for Work and Pensions decided to fund us because they were in crisis. Cutting people’s benefits wasn’t helping them get jobs any faster, but it was driving the suicide rates through the ceiling, and no state-sponsored therapy was going to make people feel better about being poor and hungry with no prospects._


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 25, 2015)

copliker said:


> She's going for the Suitshaming genre.


Fuck, I wasn't sure that you weren't taking the piss at first. Not quite up to the level's of Hari's gay incest porn but getting there.


----------



## agricola (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting to see what gaps now open and what the longer members didn't challenge under blair and what they won't challenge now. For most people membership is just paying money. The lower levels, the councilors etc they just do do what they do, politics rarely even comes into it. Seeing just how hollow this party is now was interesting.



_"the longer members"_ is really how they should all be referred to from now on


----------



## teqniq (Oct 25, 2015)

Corbyn could face a leadership challenge from Simon Danczuk


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2015)

Fucking clown. And Dan Jarvis ffs.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2015)

Sorry, 'former army major Dan Jarvis', which appears to be his full name.


----------



## killer b (Oct 25, 2015)

You can see the cogs whirring 'the British electorate will drop their knickers in a second for an ex soldier, the thick cunts'


----------



## magneze (Oct 25, 2015)

He'll nuke the world in a heartbeat. The nation would be safe in his hands.


----------



## billy_bob (Oct 25, 2015)

Lord Warner resigned arguing that Labour “is *no longer* a credible government in waiting”?

This is beyond parody.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 25, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Listen to the desperation:
> 
> Her _dramatic _intervention is a _severe _embarrassment to Corbyn... It reflects _deep dismay_ across much of the party..._notoriously outspoken _
> 
> Is this milquetoast catspaw all they have?



Here's a screen-shot from Emily Benn's twitter timeline during which she was accused of encouraging LP members to support another (selectorate proscribed) party. I'd imagine Fisher would read that last post with a wry smile!


----------



## J Ed (Oct 26, 2015)

Saudi ambassador says Jeremy Corbyn 'lacks respect'

Wow, that's the sort of endorsement that you can't buy


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2015)

c-byn handing out the dis'


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2015)

Unite challenges expulsion of alleged Trotskyists from Labour party

AWL as a electoral entity dissolved, attempting to join L/P, but challenge by Unite to stop expulsion(again) rejected
 fair few from Sheff mentioned.


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Many members of the Labour Party are now defined solely by their proud acquiescence not only to the neoliberal project, but specifically George Osborne's neoliberal project, they proudly measure their own worth and that of the rest of their party in those terms.



The big regional/City leaders, Manchester, Leeds, etc, especially, i wonder how the new new Labour members will respond.


----------



## mk12 (Oct 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Unite challenges expulsion of alleged Trotskyists from Labour party
> 
> AWL as a electoral entity dissolved, attempting to join L/P, but challenge by Unite to stop expulsion(again) rejected
> fair few from Sheff mentioned.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 26, 2015)

Did they get caught out when they tried to join Labour Friends of Israel en masse?


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2015)

all three of them?


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2015)

treelover said:


> Unite challenges expulsion of alleged Trotskyists from Labour party
> 
> AWL as a electoral entity dissolved, attempting to join L/P, but challenge by Unite to stop expulsion(again) rejected
> fair few from Sheff mentioned.


really?  I cant see anyone from Sheffield mentioned, unless they are way down in the 1400 comments.  But who the hell would ever read them?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2015)

mk12 said:


>


What's happened to your :-


----------



## mk12 (Oct 26, 2015)

You what mate?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2015)

Something on Straight Left. Clears up the debate on who Harry Steel actually was as well.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2015)

Tristram Hunt actually tells a bunch of Oxbridge students that, as the 'top 1%', they must retake control of the Labour party 



> Speaking to the university’s Labour club at an event entitled Principles, Politics and Pathway to Power, Hunt said: “My fear is algorithmic politics [where because] everyone shares the same views as you on social media and in your social circles you become a sect rather than a party.”
> 
> According to the Cambridge University student newspaper Varsity, Hunt told students: “You are the top 1%. The Labour party is in the shit. It is your job and your responsibility to take leadership going forward.”



Labour is turning into a sect, says Tristram Hunt


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Tristram Hunt actually tells a bunch of Oxbridge students that, as the 'top 1%', they must retake control of the Labour party
> 
> 
> 
> Labour is turning into a sect, says Tristram Hunt


i am not persuaded he meant taking leadership of the labour party. perhaps he had in mind some sort of _new party_.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i am not persuaded he meant taking leadership of the labour party. perhaps he had in mind some sort of _new party_.



The tory party already exists though, and has done for a while.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> The tory party already exists though, and has done for a while.


some sort of NEW PARTY


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2015)

I see what you did there etc.


----------



## JimW (Nov 2, 2015)

Turning into a sect by regaining something like mass participation. A one percent coterie of course not sect-sy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> I see what you did there etc.


and i'm glad of it


----------



## J Ed (Nov 2, 2015)

Did he find any new picket lines to cross while he was at Cambridge Uni?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2015)

This thing about Corbyn having a poppy photo-shopped on to him...it's a disaster.

Oh wait, it was just that pigfucker bloke. That's ok then. The disinfo nexus wont make such a fuss and they can all go back to saying that corbyn is a disaster.

Did you see how the scottish labour party agreed with him on trident? What a disaster. It's split the party.

They should have disagreed with him, that would have been a humiliation which would have split the party instead.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 2, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Did he find any new picket lines to cross while he was at Cambridge Uni?



Did that fucker not cross a picket line to deliver a lecture on Marx? He probably had a grin to himself and enjoyed the irony (as well as the faux-transgression) as well. Now he's telling labour students they are the 'one percent' and must 'provide leadership'. I don't know what to make of such a figure, he seems like a satirical creation but I fear he is real...


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 2, 2015)

You wonder if these people are made up. Even a satirist would regard using the term one per cent as too obvious. I mean, come on...


----------



## rekil (Nov 6, 2015)

Might be relevant for anyone who got rejected.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 6, 2015)

copliker said:


> Might be relevant for anyone who got rejected.



Surely just being called Rosa would be enough?


----------



## Tankus (Nov 8, 2015)

if a picture paints ........!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 9, 2015)

Corbyn disrespects Tupac


----------



## rekil (Nov 9, 2015)

Crying.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 9, 2015)

pics or gtfo


----------



## rekil (Nov 9, 2015)

BigTom said:


> pics or gtfo


There's a pic in the reply.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 9, 2015)




----------



## BigTom (Nov 9, 2015)

(well done though)


----------



## emanymton (Nov 9, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


>


Looks more like freddy krueger.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 9, 2015)

emanymton said:


> Looks more like freddy krueger.



A nightmare on Melton St.


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


>


a joke than never gets young.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> a joke than never gets young.


what's the joke?


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2015)

quite.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2015)

just realised that's albert steptoe, not freddy krueger. still don't get it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2015)

maurice has been attempting to connect Corbyn and Steptoe in people's minds for some months. I think because he's dead old and wears a vest or something.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> maurice has been attempting to connect Corbyn and Steptoe in people's minds for some months. I think because he's dead old and wears a vest or something.


He's a very clean old man.


----------



## rekil (Nov 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> maurice has been attempting to connect Corbyn and Steptoe in people's minds for some months. I think because he's dead old and wears a vest or something.


Is this Maurice?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2015)

Blairite Maurice can fuck the fuck off until he apologies for comparing Corbyn supporters to the Hitler youth.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 9, 2015)

Hurrah for the whitevests!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 9, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Hurrah for the whitevests!


What the fuck are you on about?
You sound like a right prannet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> What the fuck are you on about?
> You sound like a right prannet.



Unsurprising, given that he *is* a right prannet.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 9, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> What the fuck are you on about?
> You sound like a right prannet.



He's saying Corbyn supporters are whitevests, like Baronet Oswald Ernest's supporters were blackshirts.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Hurrah for the whitevests!



Idiot


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 9, 2015)

Nothing wrong with white vests. Or black shirts. I'll be wearing both when winter kicks in properly. And voting for the geriatric hippie when the time comes.


----------



## rekil (Nov 9, 2015)

I hope the likes of Staines and co don't get onto this and set their scum on Megan there (she was a TUSC election candidate). She already had to lock her account.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 10, 2015)

killer b said:


> maurice has been attempting to connect Corbyn and Steptoe in people's minds for some months. I think because he's dead old and wears a vest or something.



I don't think MP is the sole source on this, I've seen Corbyn/Steptoe stuff elsewhere too.

Milne = Harold
McDonnell = Hercules


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2015)

Do any of your other sources actually manage to do anything funny with it?


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2015)

Good man yourself.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 10, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> I don't think MP is the sole source on this, I've seen Corbyn/Steptoe stuff elsewhere too.
> 
> Milne = Harold
> McDonnell = Hercules


How juvenile.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 21, 2015)

The twitter account of La Résistance:
Labour Maquis (@LabourMaquis) on Twitter


----------



## Sue (Nov 21, 2015)

Knotted said:


> The twitter account of La Résistance:
> Labour Maquis (@LabourMaquis) on Twitter



Labour Maquis FFS.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 21, 2015)

Labour MARQUIS more like. Amirite?


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 21, 2015)

Sue said:


> Labour Maquis FFS.



It's an appalling insult to the actual Maquis, IMHO.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 21, 2015)

Vichy cunts


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2015)

Hilarious.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Hilarious.



A good look that; a war against their own membership.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> A good look that; a war against their own membership.


Isn't it, just? They're so delusional (surely a form of mass psychosis?) that they'd cut their own throats to get back into power.


----------



## Sue (Nov 21, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> It's an appalling insult to the actual Maquis, IMHO.


Absolutely. Can you imagine that fucking lot risking death, imprisonment and torture fighting for freedom?  And are they really comparing the membership of their own party to the occupying German forces? Ffs, they really need to take a look at themselves and read some fucking history.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Isn't it, just? They're so delusional (surely a form of mass psychosis?) that they'd cut their own throats to get back into power.



Thing is I could somewhat understand that a bit if the way they're acting had any chance at all of achieving power. But it seems they haven't thought at all about what either their election defeat ir Corbyn winning the leadership means. All they've got is 'get him out the way then get back on the true path to power - being very slightly less shit than George Osborne.'


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Thing is I could somewhat understand that a bit if the way they're acting had any chance at all of achieving power. But it seems they haven't thought at all about what either their election defeat ir Corbyn winning the leadership means. All they've got is 'get him out the way then get back on the true path to power - being very slightly less shit than George Osborne.'


It's a form of territorialism. But what gets me is their patent lack of ideas. As you say all they have is "get out Corbyn".


----------



## killer b (Nov 21, 2015)

A friend tells me that the name (and in particular the logo) is referencing star trek rather than (although I suppose as well as) the french resistance. It only gets worse.


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> A good look that; a war against their own membership.



Seeing as Charles I tried the same against his own people, may I suggest that these toerags meet the same fate?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> A friend tells me that the name (and in particular the logo) is referencing star trek rather than (although I suppose as well as) the french resistance. It only gets worse.


I just tweeted that. What a bunch of idiot fantasists. It shows just how incompetent and possibly dangerous they are. I bet Dan Hodges had something to do with it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Hilarious.



they've started farting back


----------



## Knotted (Nov 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> I just tweeted that. What a bunch of idiot fantasists. It shows just how incompetent and possibly dangerous they are. I bet Dan Hodges had something to do with it.



Looks like they've taken inspiration from him:
The PLP is weighing a 'Free French' vs a 'Maquis' strategy


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

They seem a bit tetchy on twitter. Don't think they like Jonny Brogdale


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 21, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> They seem a bit tetchy on twitter. Don't think they like Jonny Brogdale


,,,and blocked.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 21, 2015)

Hodges and chums hard at work:


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2015)

killer b said:


> A friend tells me that the name (and in particular the logo) is referencing star trek rather than (although I suppose as well as) the french resistance. It only gets worse.


terrorists in Deep Space Nine/Voyager


----------



## teqniq (Nov 21, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Hilarious.



Unfuckingbelievable


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 21, 2015)

Freedom _and _liberty? Methinks they doth protest too much...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2015)

if they love democracy so much how come they are acting contrary to the democratically expressed will of the wider party.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> if they love democracy so much how come they are acting contrary to the democratically expressed will of the wider party.


I quote...


----------



## teqniq (Nov 21, 2015)

These people are fucking clowns.


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 21, 2015)

teqniq said:


> These people are fucking clowns.



Not even clowns, just complete clownshoes.


----------



## agricola (Nov 21, 2015)

This has to be a PD windup, surely?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

agricola said:


> This has to be a PD windup, surely?


I don't think PD would have blocked me after 1 twitter question!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I don't think PD would have blocked me after 1 twitter question!


what did you ask then


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> what did you ask then



This 'democracy' thing....did you see this?

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-deputy-leadership-election …


----------



## teqniq (Nov 21, 2015)




----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 21, 2015)

Knotted said:


> Looks like they've taken inspiration from him:
> The PLP is weighing a 'Free French' vs a 'Maquis' strategy


Ah, yes, I remember reading that and what a joy it was.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

Looks like things are looking up (not really)

Independent on Sunday / Sunday Mirror November Political Poll « ComRes



> Latest @*TheSundayMirror* / Independent on Sunday poll: Con 42% (NC) Lab 27% (-2) LD 7% (NC) UKIP 15% (+2)



Tories plus the kippers on 57%...

I mean it's not like there's been any obvious targets for Labour to go for: Steel closures, working tax credit fuckery, NHS crisis, but no it's all dumb as fuck infighting, and the party is lead by people who are massively out of their depth.

Just fucking great, eh?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Looks like things are looking up (not really)
> 
> Independent on Sunday / Sunday Mirror November Political Poll « ComRes
> 
> ...


tbh, considering the breadth and depth of the concerted political/media campaign to undermine Corbyn, I'm surprised they've hung on to their core vote.
As for some of the issues you've mentioned, I suspect the hard reality is that few people outside of the towns affected give much of a hoot about Steel, the tax credit story will remain hypothetically complex until folk see their pay slips.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

Also worth bearing in mind that this is just ComRes and their new(ish) methodology had Con>Lab of 12-14% before Corbyn was leader.

e2a : As Anthony Wells (YG) says...


> The reason the Tory lead is bigger than in recent polls giving them a lead of only six or seven points is down to ComRes having a different methodology, not a sudden fracturing of support.
> 
> If you are interested in the specifics of this, the reason for the gap is probably ComRes’s new turnout model. Rather than weighting people based on how likely they _claim_ they are to vote, ComRes estimate people’s likelihood to vote based on demographic factors like age and class. In practice, it means weighting down young people and working class people who are more likely to support Labour.
> 
> At the moment polling companies’ methods are in a state of flux. Some companies like ComRes have made substantial changes to address the errors of the general election; other companies have made only modest interim changes while they await the results of the polling review. Even those who have made changes say they may well make further changes once the review reports. It means we have some quite varied results from different companies at the moment. Once the review is done and dusted and everyone has made all the changes they are going to make it may be that results are once again quite similar to each other… or it may be that we won’t be able to tell who has taken the correct approach until we see the results of the 2020 general election.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> tbh, considering the breadth and depth of the concerted political/media campaign to undermine Corbyn, I'm surprised they've hung on to their core vote.
> As for some of the issues you've mentioned, I suspect the hard reality is that few people outside of the towns affected give much of a hoot about Steel, the tax credit story will remain hypothetically complex until folk see their pay slips.



*sigh* I know, I know.

It's so fucking frustrating that the main opposition party somehow managed to elect a total fucking clodhopper as leader - a man who seems decent enough, to be sure - but seems to have a certain intellectual rigidity and unwillingness to engage. The leader, and the key shadow cab members, should be out there front and centre, all day every day. New Labour, for all that entailed, were really good at that, and Major's government was sane and competent compared to this one.


----------



## agricola (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> *sigh* I know, I know.
> 
> It's so fucking frustrating that the main opposition party somehow managed to elect a total fucking clodhopper as leader - a man who seems decent enough, to be sure - but seems to have a certain intellectual rigidity and unwillingness to engage. The leader, and the key shadow cab members, should be out there front and centre, all day every day. New Labour, for all that entailed, were really good at that, and Major's government was sane and competent compared to this one.



This is what does my head in the most about the criticism of Corbyn, its utter wrongness.  

Corbyn is by far and away the most willing to engage Labour leader of recent times; hence the appointments to the Shadow Cabinet and the decentralizing of policy decisions, which stands in stark contrast with what Blair and Brown used to do.  As for "intellectual rigidity", that is a bizarre statement when he has also been criticized for various reversals of policy (such as the fiscal charter).   The point about him and the Shadow Cabinet being out there all the time would be a good one normally, but almost all of the Press have demonstrated that they have no interest in giving him anything like fair coverage - just take a look at how the Daily Politics covered his first speech as leader to the Labour Party Conference (where the sole talking head invited on was someone who hates him), or the coverage of his speech today.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is what does my head in the most about the criticism of Corbyn, its utter wrongness.
> 
> Corbyn is by far and away the most willing to engage Labour leader of recent times; hence the appointments to the Shadow Cabinet and the decentralizing of policy decisions, which stands in stark contrast with what Blair and Brown used to do.  As for "intellectual rigidity", that is a bizarre statement when he has also been criticized for various reversals of policy (such as the fiscal charter).   The point about him and the Shadow Cabinet being out there all the time would be a good one normally, but almost all of the Press have demonstrated that they have no interest in giving him anything like fair coverage - just take a look at how the Daily Politics covered his first speech as leader to the Labour Party Conference (where the sole talking head invited on was someone who hates him), or the coverage of his speech today.



Blair, Brown, Campbell etc honed a party machine that fought back against the agenda of the very same media that Corbyn faces. It's the same cunts that own it now that owned it then after all. For all New Labour's faults, they knew how to win. Labour today needs that kind of cynicism and savagery. Being the Chair of the STWC or whatever is not really the training that is needed. Consensus? WTAF. No, attack.

Now I know a lot on here don't rate party politics at all for good reasons, and Labour and the Tories are both neo-lib parties yadda yadda yadda come the revolution up against the wall, but I think it takes a Tory government to remind people what a spectacularly terrible mindless cunt government looks like. And they are going to win in 2020. Good fucking job.

Sorry, just venting.


----------



## agricola (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Blair, Brown, Campbell etc honed a party machine that fought back against the agenda of the very same media that Corbyn faces. It's the same cunts that own it now that owned it then after all. For all New Labour's faults, they knew how to win. Labour today needs that kind of cynicism and savagery. Being the Chair of the STWC or whatever is not really the training that is needed. Consensus? WTAF. No, attack.
> 
> Now I know a lot on here don't rate party politics at all for good reasons, and Labour and the Tories are both neo-lib parties yadda yadda yadda come the revolution up against the wall, but I think it takes a Tory government to remind people what a spectacularly terrible mindless cunt government looks like. And they are going to win in 2020. Good fucking job.
> 
> Sorry, just venting.



Fought back?  They actively co-operated with it and covered up what we now know was corruption of public officials and other bad practice on a massive scale.


----------



## gosub (Nov 21, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is what does my head in the most about the criticism of Corbyn, its utter wrongness.
> 
> Corbyn is by far and away the most willing to engage Labour leader of recent times; hence the appointments to the Shadow Cabinet and the decentralizing of policy decisions, which stands in stark contrast with what Blair and Brown used to do.  As for "intellectual rigidity", that is a bizarre statement when he has also been criticized for various reversals of policy (such as the fiscal charter).   The point about him and the Shadow Cabinet being out there all the time would be a good one normally, but almost all of the Press have demonstrated that they have no interest in giving him anything like fair coverage - just take a look at how the Daily Politics covered his first speech as leader to the Labour Party Conference (where the sole talking head invited on was someone who hates him), or the coverage of his speech today.




This week has shown that to be rhetoric unfortunately.  The Ken Livingstone appointment, A Corbyn placeman inserted without telling any of the MP's with an interest in defense....The shot to kill u=turn, coz that was a u-turn not an out of context misrepresentation. McDonnell's Mi5 fiasco.....I agree he isn't getting a fair crack of the whip, though the absurdity of what they were throwing at him in weeks previous probably helped him, now the sniping is getting on target.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

agricola said:


> Fought back?  They actively co-operated with it and covered up what we now know was corruption of public officials and other bad practice on a massive scale.



Oh come on. Labour delivered a lot of their manifesto post 97. Minimum wage etc against the same press that Corbyn faces today. How'd they do that? Play the game better than the papers did. Fuck all point in being idealogically pure if there's no sniff of power, other than smug points down the revolutionary council.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Oh come on. Labour delivered a lot of their manifesto post 97. Minimum wage etc against the same press that Corbyn faces today. How'd they do that? Play the game better than the papers did. Fuck all point in being idealogically pure if there's no sniff of power, other than smug points down the revolutionary council.


Most of the papers supported blair - like you - in 97.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Oh come on. Labour delivered a lot of their manifesto post 97. Minimum wage etc against the same press that Corbyn faces today. How'd they do that? Play the game better than the papers did. Fuck all point in being idealogically pure if there's no sniff of power, other than smug points down the revolutionary council.


They did it by successfully convincing financialised capital that they could transition from debt state to consolidator state status more effectively than the tories...and they did.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Most of the papers supported blair - like you - in 97.



But how do you think that came about? The Sun only supported Labour because they were going to win anyway- Labour made the arguments, took the electorate with them, and to an extent Labour delivered.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> But how do you think that came about? The Sun only supported Labour because they were going to win anyway- Labour made the arguments, took the electorate with them, and to an extent Labour delivered.


I don't care how it came about. You suggest that the shitty neo-liberal manifesto was implemented in the teeth of opposition from the papers. It wasn't. It was done with the support of those papers. Don't invent history.

(And the answer is by aligning your interests with those of the owners of the paper).

Are you really that desperate and angry that rather than attack those papers and the undemocratic manipulation of power that they engage in that you'd rather flail at some non-existent left than outline and challenge their behaviour? If so, grow up. Fucking hell, Blair as a good thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> But how do you think that came about? The Sun only supported Labour because they were going to win anyway- Labour made the arguments, took the electorate with them, and to an extent Labour delivered.


Q.  How do we get the sun and the mail and the express on on our side?

A. By doing what the sun the mail and the express want.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> consolidator state status



Hi brogdale, trying to research what this term means so I can learn something. Google's not much help - those words have other technical meanings that are different to what I suspect you intend. It's probably just my search history being unhelpful, help a brother out?


----------



## gosub (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Hi brogdale, trying to research what this term means so I can learn something. Google's not much help - those words have other technical meanings that are different to what I suspect you intend. It's probably just my search history being unhelpful, help a brother out?



EU borrowing critera cap the amount States can be in debt.  By getting into PFI meant they could spend more without breaking, switching from the debt to pay for a hospital to the debt for meeting the minimum payment terms for somebody else building (and owning a hospital)


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Hi brogdale, trying to research what this term means so I can learn something. Google's not much help - those words have other technical meanings that are different to what I suspect you intend. It's probably just my search history being unhelpful, help a brother out?


http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp15-1.pdf
Once you get your head around the fact that the (consolidator) state acts as a mere 'sub-contractor' for rentier, financiaised capital it all falls into place.

e2a : 


> _ ...in an era of financial deregulation and expansion, pressures for fiscal consolidation presented an opportunity for cutting back the state in favor of the private sector, by referring citizens to private credit as a substitute for previously free public services. Thus, financialization not only required fiscal retrenchment – to ensure the further creditworthiness of sovereign borrowers – it also made it possible, and with it the retrenchment of the state. As households indebted themselves to compensate for cuts in public provision, aided by low interest rates furnished by obliging central banks, they opened the door for the private sector to move into fields that had previously been the domain of government. They also filled the gap in aggregate demand caused by cuts in public spending – an effect referred to as “privatized Keynesianism” (Crouch 2009, 2011).6_


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2015)

gosub said:


> EU borrowing critera cap the amount States can be in debt.  By getting into PFI meant they could spend more without breaking, switching from the debt to pay for a hospital to the debt for meeting the minimum payment terms for somebody else building (and owning a hospital)


Check your chronology.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Q.  How do we get the sun and the mail and the express on on our side?
> 
> A. By doing what the sun the mail and the express want.



There was no doubt a bit of that going on, but take my example of the minimum wage. That's a policy that directly went against the interests of the media owners, and yet at least The Sun came out for Blair (The Mail and the Express didn't, btw). It's not always the pols following the press.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There was no doubt a bit of that going on, but take my example of the minimum wage. That's a policy that directly went against the interests of the media owners, and yet at least The Sun came out for Blair (The Mail and the Express didn't, btw). It's not always the pols following the press.


Something whose impact they either supported or that didn't impact on their larger interests. They were backed to the hilt in their filthy agenda by the people that you say they faced opposition from.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There was no doubt a bit of that going on, but take my example of the minimum wage. That's a policy that directly went against the interests of the media owners, and yet at least The Sun came out for Blair (The Mail and the Express didn't, btw). It's not always the pols following the press.


No it didn't. If corporations were to avoid paying any tax, their employees had to be able to fund the state for them.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2015)

Fucking hell, i can understand anger and desperation  - but pimping blair? Isn't that spitting in the face of of all those people that you're being angry on behalf of? First act, an attack on single mothers - did they need to work to get the mail sun and express on side on that one?


----------



## coley (Nov 21, 2015)

gosub said:


> EU borrowing critera cap the amount States can be in debt.  By getting into PFI meant they could spend more without breaking, switching from the debt to pay for a hospital to the debt for meeting the minimum payment terms for somebody else building (and owning a hospital)


Sort off funding infrastructure by going to wonga rather than making and implementing hard choices, raising taxes on the rich, introducing means testing  for universal benefits?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp15-1.pdf
> Once you get your head around the fact that the (consolidator) state acts as a mere 'sub-contractor' for rentier, financiaised capital it all falls into place.
> 
> e2a :
> ​



Thanks brogdale, appreciated.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Fucking hell, i can understand anger and desperation  - but pimping blair? Isn't that spitting in the face of of all those people that you're being angry on behalf of? First act, an attack on single mothers - did they need to work to get the mail sun and express on side on that one?



Hey don't get all drunk-rage at me. Where I grew up things like a min wage really seemed like a big deal at the time, so shove your smug self-satisfaction up your arse. Not everyone operates at your Olympian heights of _theory_


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Hey don't get all drunk-rage at me. Where I grew up things like a min wage really seemed like a big deal at the time, so shove your smug self-satisfaction up your arse. Not everyone operates at your Olympian heights of _theory_


Where did you grow up that i didn't? I've never, not once, earned a single penny above min wage. The min wage made damn sure of that. I've responded to your nonsense that blair faced opposition to his neoliberal attacks from the papers - just not true - and have suggested that you're firing your canons at the wrong target (based at least on you doing so as regards what actually happened in the past). Haven't been rude or -drunk-raged.


----------



## agricola (Nov 21, 2015)

gosub said:


> This week has shown that to be rhetoric unfortunately.  The Ken Livingstone appointment, A Corbyn placeman inserted without telling any of the MP's with an interest in defense....The shot to kill u=turn, coz that was a u-turn not an out of context misrepresentation. McDonnell's Mi5 fiasco.....I agree he isn't getting a fair crack of the whip, though the absurdity of what they were throwing at him in weeks previous probably helped him, now the sniping is getting on target.



Shoot to kill wasn't a u-turn; what that term means (in counter-terror terms anyway) is well established and the reason why the clarification was required was because people were (and are) going around claiming it meant something else (which is unforgivable, given the events of ten years ago).  The Livingstone appointment was mishandled however, they should have put him to work on housing policy where his record in London would have been of a lot of use and the inevitable backlash would have looked stupid.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Where did you grow up that i didn't? I've never, not once, earned a single penny above min wage. The min wage made damn sure of that. I've responded to your nonsense that blair faced opposition to his neoliberal attacks from the papers - just not true - and have suggested that you're firing your canons at the wrong target (based at least on you doing so as regards what actually happened in the past). Haven't been rude or -drunk-raged.



Ach, sorry. I'm a bit pished myself, and fed up. Like I said earlier, just venting.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Ach, sorry. I'm a bit pished myself, and fed up. Like I said earlier, just venting.


No worries.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Ach, sorry. I'm a bit pished myself, and fed up. Like I said earlier, just venting.


Save the Streeck for another day, then...those graphs will start to rotate before your eyes!


----------



## gosub (Nov 21, 2015)

agricola said:


> Shoot to kill wasn't a u-turn; what that term means (in counter-terror terms anyway) is well established and the reason why the clarification was required was because people were (and are) going around claiming it meant something else (which is unforgivable, given the events of ten years ago).  The Livingstone appointment was mishandled however, they should have put him to work on housing policy where his record in London would have been of a lot of use and the inevitable backlash would have looked stupid.



the media interview asked him whether he accepted shoot to kill repeated coz that was the soundbite they wanted, he decided he talk about the problems it raises.  Then he puts out a facebook saying it was out of context and of course needs must...  It wasn't out of context, and if it was so obvious why didn't he say it at the time.  Coz it was a u turn, after a disastrous PLP meeting.  A better non committal skirt around would have been, "if there were lessons to be learned from Paris (there are, the gig shootings were a game changer) we will look at them"


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2015)

gosub said:


> the media interview asked him whether he accepted shoot to kill repeated coz that was the soundbite they wanted, he decided he talk about the problems it raises.  Then he puts out a facebook saying it was out of context and of course needs must...  It wasn't out of context, and if it was so obvious why didn't he say it at the time.  Coz it was a u turn, after a disastrous PLP meeting.  A better non committal skirt around would have been, "if there were lessons to be learned from Paris (there are, the gig shootings were a game changer) we will look at them"


Really? Do we have to do this again?
Corbyn specifically rejected a "policy" of shoot to kill, which accords with the extant law.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Save the Streeck for another day, then...those graphs will start to rotate before your eyes!



The word "Streeck" in your post is already going in and out of phase...


----------



## agricola (Nov 21, 2015)

gosub said:


> the media interview asked him whether he accepted shoot to kill repeated coz that was the soundbite they wanted, he decided he talk about the problems it raises.  Then he puts out a facebook saying it was out of context and of course needs must...  It wasn't out of context, and if it was so obvious why didn't he say it at the time.  Coz it was a u turn, after a disastrous PLP meeting.  *A better non committal skirt around would have been, "if there were lessons to be learned from Paris (there are, the gig shootings were a game changer) we will look at them"*



That would have been a nonsense statement, though.  Of the Paris attacks, all of the shooters would probably have been engaged by British firearms units in the same circumstances without any kind of change of policy and the suicide bombers would probably have blown themselves up as planned anyway (as at the restaurant) or when they were discovered (as at the first Park de Princes site) or when things had gone wrong (as at the other attack sites).   

If he should have said anything, it is that no change in the law is needed at all.


----------



## gosub (Nov 22, 2015)

agricola said:


> That would have been a nonsense statement, though.  Of the Paris attacks, all of the shooters would probably have been engaged by British firearms units in the same circumstances without any kind of change of policy and the suicide bombers would probably have blown themselves up as planned anyway (as at the restaurant) or when they were discovered (as at the first Park de Princes site) or when things had gone wrong (as at the other attack sites).
> 
> If he should have said anything, it is that no change in the law is needed at all.



No they wouldn't.  What has/will change as it did in Paris  (on the night) was contain and negotiate, as initially  instigated at Bataclan.  That is the prism Paris is being look at through.

Beyond that Labour MP's will have told him when they looked at doing the SO19 officers over de Menzies, for what was a failure several layers removed, the whole lot threatened to walk.	Hence the row back.

But yes, I agree. No change in the law is needed. Or in the offing.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 22, 2015)

Floppy haired toff Borish (that was actually a typing error, but I'm gonna keep it) Johnson most popular politician in the ConRes poll. That has been the case for some time and it makes me want to gouge my own eyeballs out. I have the horrible feeling he's gonna be next primo.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 22, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Floppy haired toff Borish (that was actually a typing error, but I'm gonna keep it) Johnson most popular politician in the ConRes poll. That has been the case for some time and it makes me want to gouge my own eyeballs out. I have the horrible feeling he's gonna be next primo.



Corbyn Vs Johnson

Corbyn's bound to lose.


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2015)

Every boorishly definite pronouncement you make on the topic makes a landslide corbyn victory seem more certain, ringding


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2015)

gosub said:


> No they wouldn't.  What has/will change as it did in Paris  (on the night) was contain and negotiate, as initially  instigated at Bataclan.  That is the prism Paris is being look at through.
> 
> Beyond that Labour MP's will have told him when they looked at doing the SO19 officers over de Menzies, for what was a failure several layers removed, the whole lot threatened to walk.	Hence the row back.
> 
> But yes, I agree. No change in the law is needed. Or in the offing.


yeh. but it wouldn't take a genius to see that if this was in future portrayed as 'police threaten to go on strike to support right to kill anyone they like' it might not play too well even among the hang 'em flog 'em middle englanders.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 22, 2015)

But it wouldn't be portrayed in such absurd terms anywhere. Except here, perhaps.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 22, 2015)

could we really see boris win a leadership battle though? hypothetically? he may have a lot of lol boris the ledge fans amongst the wider public but Darth May would devil his kidneys and eat them if he stood in the way of the throne


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> could we really see boris win a leadership battle though? hypothetically? he may have a lot of lol boris the ledge fans amongst the wider public but Darth May would devil his kidneys and eat them if he stood in the way of the throne


one of the areas in which he might struggle is his great association with london and the south-east and not, say, with the shires.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 22, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Hey don't get all drunk-rage at me. Where I grew up things like a min wage really seemed like a big deal at the time, so shove your smug self-satisfaction up your arse. Not everyone operates at your Olympian heights of _theory_


The effect of a national minimum wage on low wages is complex, though. The countries with the highest effective minimum wages don't have a national minimum wage - the likes of Sweden and Denmark. Instead, they have legal protections for union rights and collectively bargained minimum wages per sector, all of which are way higher than the UK's level. Where there is a constant state of bargaining between employers and employees via an effective collective bargaining structure, you get much better results than a top-down imposed rate that has not directly been negotiated at all. 

There are arguments that a minimum wage set too low has an effect of depressing lower-end wages - it becomes not just a minimum wage but also effectively a _maximum_ wage for certain kinds of jobs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Oh come on. Labour delivered a lot of their manifesto post 97. Minimum wage etc against the same press that Corbyn faces today. How'd they do that? Play the game better than the papers did. Fuck all point in being idealogically pure if there's no sniff of power, other than smug points down the revolutionary council.



That's a pretty sorry revision of history. By the time "new" Labour won the '97 election, they already had _The Sun, The Times, The News of the Screws, The Times,_ both _Express_ titles and both _Telegraph_ titles "on-board". Criticism was deliberately muted in order to give Blair's "third way" (basically the same old neoliberalism, but with a smiley face) a chance. The media loved it, and the City loved it.
If victory is predicated on pissing over any vaguely humane political principles you hold, then I'd say that *isn't* a "price worth paying". Your view probably differs, but I wouldn't trust anyone who sold their principles so cheaply, let alone politicians that did. It's all very well to gob on about pragmatism, but power without principle is a heavy price to pay for being supposedly pragmatic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Q.  How do we get the sun and the mail and the express on on our side?
> 
> A. By doing what the sun the mail and the express want.



Yep. The right-wing press pretty much studiedly stood aside from directly supporting the Tories for the last couple of years of Major's government, and not just because they supposedly knew that Labour would win, but because they knew that doing so would effectively "promote" new Labour without engaging in active support that would disenchant their core readerships. Labour's victory was partially manufactured by those very papers. TheHoodedClaw has put the cart before the horse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Fucking hell, i can understand anger and desperation  - but pimping blair? Isn't that spitting in the face of of all those people that you're being angry on behalf of? First act, an attack on single mothers - did they need to work to get the mail sun and express on side on that one?



People criticise (rightly) Iain Dunked-in Shit for his attacks on sick and disabled people, but tend to forget that the whole process started as soon as Blair won with the creation of the "Benefits Integrity Project", aimed at interrogating people receiving disability benefits. The project was shelved in 2000/2001 after causing a lot of problems for disabled people.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Nov 23, 2015)

Talking of the past is very good and you are all very knowledgeable but what is the future for the leader when Laura Kuenssberg and many others are making him ( Corbyn ) look as though he has so little control of, well anything.
I'm thinking a socialist future is looking soul achingly, a long way off.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 26, 2015)

Here's some advice for free, Johnny-lad. When you're the shadow chancellor, and your chances of becoming actual chancellor are already quite slim because half the country thinks you're a stinkin' commie, don't go waving Mao's little red book around in parliament, even as a way of insulting the opposition.

It's fine, that's for free. No, don't thank me, just try not to be a fucking idiot.

Do Jez and John have no-one advising them at all? I can't imagine the conversation where a roomful of people decided that was a good idea.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 26, 2015)

A roomful of people including Seumas Milne and Andrew Fisher and James Meadway? You can't imagine that?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 26, 2015)

What happens when you pay attention to what the media say about you is you become a Chuka or a Liz. I'm just happy some human beings are sitting on the opposition benches, as opposed to an army of vaguely-humanoid automatons.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 26, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What happens when you pay attention to what the media say about you is you become a Chuka or a Liz. I'm just happy some human beings are sitting on the opposition benches, as opposed to an army of vaguely-humanoid automatons.


There's saying what you think, and then there's shooting yourself in the foot. I'm just suggesting they curtail the self-harming.

I think their foreign policy stances _are_ complex to deal with. A lot of their domestic policies are massively popular, but in a country still permeated with imperial delusions, many of their foreign/military policy stances are deeply unpopular (thought there are mixed feelings on intervention in Syria I think). I have to say I sympathised with the comedian on HIGNFY the other night who said: "Just lie Jeremy! Say you'll push the button! Just lie! It's what the Tories do to get in!"

Well, I sympathised, but didn't really agree. I want people in the public eye to be making a lot of the points they are making.  But it may be their foreign policy stuff that loses them the election (if they get that far). Which would be sad, when so many of their domestic policies are what so many people want.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2015)

I thought Mcdonnell's mao dig was pretty good tbh. I'd be interested to see if it has the negative effect people seem to be getting so aerated about - anyone seeing the clip in context will be clear what he was saying, and most news sources do seem to be reporting it in context.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

I think there's an element of FEAR in some people minds that may stem from their lack of faith in the capabilities of people to contextualise things and an overestimation of the ability of some of the media to lead people by the nose.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> an overestimation of the ability of some of the media to lead people by the nose.


They don't even seem to be trying to, on the whole. It's baffling.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> I thought Mcdonnell's mao dig was pretty good tbh. I'd be interested to see if it has the negative effect people seem to be getting so aerated about - anyone seeing the clip in context will be clear what he was saying, and most news sources do seem to be reporting it in context.


 With a quick google I couldn't even find what Mcdonnel said in any of the top six articles on the issue, nor what he quoted from the book. How can people get context if it isn't even reported?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> They don't even seem to be trying to, on the whole. It's baffling.


Yeah, but they must be and it must be working. That's the sort of model that these types FEAR grows from.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> With a quick google I couldn't even find what Mcdonnel said in any of the top six articles on the issue, nor what he quoted from the book. How can people get context if it isn't even reported?


Well they can understand that he's not a fucking maoist without much effort!


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> They don't even seem to be trying to, on the whole. It's baffling.


 You don't think sections of the media are trying to convince people that J&J are secretly authoritarian communists with suspicious internationalist tendencies that will lead them to betray Britain? You must read a different Daily Mail to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> You don't think sections of the media are trying to convince people that J&J are secretly authoritarian communists with suspicious internationalist tendencies that will lead them to betray Britain? You must read a different Daily Mail to me.


i am surprised to find you an avid daily mail reader


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> You don't think sections of the media are trying to convince people that J&J are secretly authoritarian communists with suspicious internationalist tendencies that will lead them to betray Britain? You must read a different Daily Mail to me.


See, exactly as i said and exactly on cue.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> I think their foreign policy stances _are_ complex to deal with. ... many of their foreign/military policy stances are deeply unpopular


are you saying their foreign policy stances unpopular because people don't understand them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Here's some advice for free, Johnny-lad. When you're the shadow chancellor, and your chances of becoming actual chancellor are already quite slim because half the country thinks you're a stinkin' commie, don't go waving Mao's little red book around in parliament, even as a way of insulting the opposition.
> 
> It's fine, that's for free. No, don't thank me, just try not to be a fucking idiot.
> 
> Do Jez and John have no-one advising them at all? I can't imagine the conversation where a roomful of people decided that was a good idea.


always grand to see you turn on the turbo-patronising.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> See, exactly as i said and exactly on cue.


 We've had this argument before, and my answer is the same as years ago. If advertising is no good at manipulating people, why would corporations spend billions on it? The right wing media attempt similar levels of manipulation, and I've met plenty of people that believe it. That's not the same as saying that everyone is a sheep. Just that across a large population this stuff has an effect - not as must as they might like, for sure, but would you argue it has no effect?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> We've had this argument before, and my answer is the same as years ago. If advertising is no good at manipulating people, why would corporations spend billions on it? The right wing media attempt similar levels of manipulation, and I've met plenty of people that believe it. That's not the same as saying that everyone is a sheep. Just that across a large population this stuff has an effect - not as must as they might like, for sure, but would you argue it has no effect?


The sort of stuff that pretends that the shadow chancellor is a maoist has very little effect. It has most effect on people wringing their hands worrying about the effects it will have on the little people.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> You don't think sections of the media are trying to convince people that J&J are secretly authoritarian communists with suspicious internationalist tendencies that will lead them to betray Britain? You must read a different Daily Mail to me.


the guardian is trying to, certainly. but most of the articles I've read elsewhere in the press report the context and intent of the use of the quote, if not the full exchange.


----------



## hipipol (Nov 26, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> one of the areas in which he might struggle is his great association with london and the south-east and not, say, with the shires.


Liverpool in particular eh?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The sort of stuff that pretends that the shadow chancellor is a maoist has very little effect. It has most effect on people wringing their hands worrying about the effects it will have on the little people.



I thought this on reading stuff online yesterday, huge numbers of people talking about how stupid a thing to have done it was because of how it would be decontextualised in the media (interesting that that point of view never accompanied criticisms of the way the media works generally) but no one saying anything like 'oh god we have a Maoist Shadow Chancellor how awful'.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> With a quick google I couldn't even find what Mcdonnel said in any of the top six articles on the issue, nor what he quoted from the book. How can people get context if it isn't even reported?


You could always have a look at Hansard.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2015)

Umunna is a poisonous little fuck isn't he? This story isn't about the RW press twisting it, it's about the Judas fucks on their own benches, and the apparent left-leaning Graun.



> Chuka Umunna, the former shadow business secretary, said he was not sure why McDonnell had referred to Mao as a joke.
> 
> “The last politicians that I quoted, who have inspired me, are Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Keir Hardie – they’re the ones I tend to quote. But that’s my choice. I haven’t quoted a communist before and I have no intention of doing so in the future,” he said.



(a friend pointed out that Mandela was a member of the South African Communist Party, so he got that bit wrong...)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> Umunna is a poisonous little fuck isn't he? This story isn't about the RW press twisting it, it's about the Judas fucks on their own benches, and the apparent left-leaning Graun.
> 
> 
> 
> (a friend pointed out that Mandela was a member of the South African Communist Party, so he got that bit wrong...)


Mandela was a member of the SACP.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2015)

thats what I said.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2015)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

And he was a terrorist. Why you luv terrorist?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> They don't even seem to be trying to, on the whole. It's baffling.


That's the whole point. They are - subtly and artfully, via the constant 'wall of propaganda noise'. The 'not even trying' is in fact the proof of both its' exiostence, and the effectiveness of their stratagem. 
it's when it's crashingly obvious that they are least effective.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2015)

Streathamite said:


> That's the whole point. They are - subtly and artfully, via the constant 'wall of propaganda noise'. The 'not even trying' is in fact the proof of both its' exiostence, and the effectiveness of their stratagem.
> it's when it's crashingly obvious that they are least effective.


I didn't mean in general, I meant about this specific story - which appears to have been whipped up by Labour cabinet in waiting and the graun, and a few thousand liberal fucks on facebook.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> We've had this argument before, and my answer is the same as years ago. If advertising is no good at manipulating people, why would corporations spend billions on it? The right wing media attempt similar levels of manipulation, and I've met plenty of people that believe it. That's not the same as saying that everyone is a sheep. Just that across a large population this stuff has an effect - not as must as they might like, for sure, but would you argue it has no effect?


Speaking as someone in (kinda) that line of work, the advertising brigade are one helluva lot more subtle, even scientific, than they look. So are the tabloids, when they really get crafty


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> I didn't mean in general, I meant about this specific story - which appears to have been whipped up by Labour cabinet in waiting and the graun, and a few thousand liberal fucks on facebook.


I think in this situation one can regard it as a natural coalescing of interests between the Blairite zombie brigade (still coming to terms with Corbyn's victory), and the 'pallid cosmetic liberal' brigade as embodied by the Guardian! In a way, they are (willing) useful idiots for the tabs


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2015)

The graun is no different from 'the tabs' is it? they all exist to do the same thing for the same people.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 26, 2015)

It's very different. The tabs understand what their readers think and deliberately appeal to their prejudices. The Graun thinks that it has a moral responsibility to be right about things, and so it agonises, and comes up with the wrong answer.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2015)

bless, you're cute.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> bless, you're cute.



He prolly reckons the Graunid is pro-Corbyn


----------



## gosub (Nov 26, 2015)

killer b said:


> The graun is no different from 'the tabs' is it? they all exist to do the same thing for the same people.



I can't remember which US election, but the Guardian identified a key marginal, and then junk mailed everybody in it asking them to vote Democrat.	Went Republican, in no small part due to US voters not likeing being told what to do by Limey Liberals.		  The Sun would never do that. Murdoch doesn't have to, he owns Fox "news"


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

gosub said:


> I can't remember which US election, but the Guardian identified a key marginal, and then junk mailed everybody in it asking them to vote Democrat.	Went Republican, in no small part due to US voters not likeing being told what to do by Limey Liberals.		  The Sun would never do that. Murdoch doesn't have to, he owns Fox "news"


I bet this story isn't true in nay way.


----------



## gosub (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I bet this story isn't true in nay way.


BBC NEWS | UK | Did Guardian turn Ohio to Bush?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

gosub said:


> BBC NEWS | UK | Did Guardian turn Ohio to Bush?


Thank you. That's so amazingly crass and highhanded.

It's not what you suggested happened though.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 26, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



He's way out of step with the public on foreign policy and immigration. I just wish he'd focus on domestic policy.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 26, 2015)

mk12 said:


> I just wish he'd focus on domestic policy.


That's not really how it works, is it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 26, 2015)

mk12 said:


> He's way out of step with the public on foreign policy and immigration. I just wish he'd focus on domestic policy.


Is he? The 'public' is a rather large mass of people. As for domestic affairs, attention has been diverted away from them by the sight of Cameron's hard-on for a war.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2015)

Corbyn is so incredibly shit. This should be his moment, he should make rousing, passionate anti-ISIS statements/speeches, advocate very firmly the need for action, the need to find who is funding these scrotes, supportig them etc and then make a tactical case for ruling bombing out as it is not tactical but just willy waving from a limp, foolish PM wanting to be in with the big boys.

But what do we get? 

"I don't wanna"


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Corbyn is so incredibly shit. This should be his moment, he should make rousing, passionate anti-ISIS statements/speeches, advocate very firmly the need for action, the need to find who is funding these scrotes, supportig them etc and then make a tactical case for ruling bombing out as it is not tactical but just willy waving from a limp, foolish PM wanting to be in with the big boys.
> 
> But what do we get?
> 
> "I don't wanna"


His moment to achieve what? You're now supporting bombing ten years after supporting beheadings?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> His moment to achieve what? You're now supporting bombing ten years after supporting beheadings?



I haven't taken a position. Re-read the above.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> I haven't taken a position. Re-read the above.


I thought you were against it?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I thought you were against it?



I'm bemoaning Corbyn's lack of leadership. This is make or break situation and there is a tactic I've crudely outlined above.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm bemoaning Corbyn's lack of leadership. This is make or break situation and there is a tactic I've crudely outlined above.


Why?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Why?



Corbyn alluded to publicly exploring the subtext of what's going on during a debate for leadership. He could be leading a bit more of a public dissection. This should be his strength. Instead he's just showing himself up as a wet lettuce.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Corbyn alluded to publicly exploring the subtext of what's going on during a debate for leadership. He could be leading a bit more of a public dissection. This should be his strength. Instead he's just showing himself up as a wet lettuce.


I mean why offer your shit advice?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I mean why offer your shit advice?



Fuck you, what would you do if you were in his sandals?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Fuck you, what would you do if you were in his sandals?


I don't want what you want.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 26, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Corbyn is so incredibly shit. This should be his moment, he should make rousing, passionate anti-ISIS statements/speeches, advocate very firmly the need for action, the need to find who is funding these scrotes, supportig them etc and then make a tactical case for ruling bombing out as it is not tactical but just willy waving from a limp, foolish PM wanting to be in with the big boys.


agree with you on that....though possibly theres a reason for not getting on the soap box, namely,if a significant majority of Lab MPs votes for bombing after a free vote, would that not greatly undermine JC?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I don't want what you want.



What do you assume I want?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> What do you assume I want?


You're spending a great amount of time telling labour leaders to not be so laboury in case it makes them unelectable. I think you're the classic rhetorically wild but right wing of labour type. May hide as an anarchist.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 26, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You're spending a great amount of time telling labour leaders to not be so laboury in case it makes them unelectable. I think you're the classic rhetorically wild but right wing of labour type. May hide as an anarchist.



The cheek of it.

(I'm not going to bite)


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 26, 2015)

He's right. A leader can't be a proper leader until he advocates bombing brown people ffs


----------



## J Ed (Nov 27, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He's right. A leader can't be a proper leader until he advocates bombing brown people ffs



Why do you have a Suriname flag as your avatar?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Why do you have a Suriname flag as your avatar?


Why not?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 27, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Why not?



Just curious! I like flags, some of them are interesting, it's an unusual one!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Just curious! I like flags, some of them are interesting, it's an unusual one!


Been changing it from time to time after lots of people put the tricolore in their avatars/profiles.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 27, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Been changing it from time to time after lots of people put the tricolore in their avatars/profiles.



what flag have you got now?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 27, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> what flag have you got now?


The Freedonian one.


----------



## Libertad (Nov 27, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The Freedonian one.



I can't keep up with them, you free-wheeling , globe-trotting internationalist you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 27, 2015)

Libertad said:


> I can't keep up with them, you free-wheeling , globe-trotting internationalist you.


Freedonia is a fictitious place. It's the country in Duck Soup.


----------



## Libertad (Nov 27, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Freedonia is a fictitious place. It's the country in Duck Soup.



Quite so, I'm aware of the reference, hence the post.


----------



## gosub (Nov 27, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Fuck you, what would you do if you were in his sandals?


Have the stop the war lot spend the weekend ringing their MP's, and then when they vote to heed France's call to arms, use it as an excuse to start de-selection procedures.


But I don't wear sandals, and think Labour is going to be long term fucked unless UKIP win Oldham and Labour starts to sober up.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 27, 2015)

My two penneth on all this, not so much the Syria thing but more generally, is that his leadership is going pretty badly.  It was predictable and probably right that he would loosen some of the leader's traditional controls on the party - and the blairites would have gone on the attack even if he hadn't.  But the problem is he's a Westminster politician, he does party politics, that's the thing he's engaged in.  If that's your game you either do a highly managed, spun, party unity thing - which was never going to be the route he could take - or you come up with some new, inventive way of engaging with the voters.  Beyond 'Mandy in High Wycombe would like to ask the prime minister...' he hasn't really done that.  I detest Westminster politics, but that's his project and it has to be said he isn't doing it very well.

The one thing that might have come out of his leadership campaign and the big meetings, was a solid social democratic revivalism in Westminster, allied with some sort of class politics beyond Westminster. Linking up more with anti-austerity groups, industrial action, NHS campaigns and the rest.  If done well as there was a possibility to do with all the thousands he was attracting, there might have been potential.  Such a project to me would have been full of contradictions and conflicts, just as Tony Benn's version from 30 years would have been.  However it would have built something and might have been an escape route from being a neo-liberal party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm bemoaning Corbyn's lack of leadership. This is make or break situation and there is a tactic I've crudely outlined above.



Presumption on your part.
The thing with "make or break situations" is that invariably you don't know that they were "make or break" until well after the event.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 27, 2015)

Wilf said:


> My two penneth on all this, not so much the Syria thing but more generally, is that his leadership is going pretty badly.  It was predictable and probably right that he would loosen some of the leader's traditional controls on the party - and the blairites would have gone on the attack even if he hadn't.  But the problem is he's a Westminster politician, he does party politics, that's the thing he's engaged in.  If that's your game you either do a highly managed, spun, party unity thing - which was never going to be the route he could take - or you come up with some new, inventive way of engaging with the voters.  Beyond 'Mandy in High Wycombe would like to ask the prime minister...' he hasn't really done that.  I detest Westminster politics, but that's his project and it has to be said he isn't doing it very well.
> 
> The one thing that might have come out of his leadership campaign and the big meetings, was a solid social democratic revivalism in Westminster, allied with some sort of class politics beyond Westminster. Linking up more with anti-austerity groups, industrial action, NHS campaigns and the rest.  If done well as there was a possibility to do with all the thousands he was attracting, there might have been potential.  Such a project to me would have been full of contradictions and conflicts, just as Tony Benn's version from 30 years would have been.  However it would have built something and might have been an escape route from being a neo-liberal party.


I think its a little too early to judge success or failure of his leadership just yet, theres the eureff to come see how well labour does in mays locals etc. [insert time period here] is a long time in politics and all that


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I think its a little too early to judge success or failure of his leadership just yet, theres the eureff to come see how well labour does in mays locals etc. [insert time period here] is a long time in politics and all that


What are you judging it by. Wilf laid out his terms pretty clearly.What are you going to judge him/it by?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I think its a little too early to judge success or failure of his leadership just yet, theres the eureff to come see how well labour does in mays locals etc. [insert time period here] is a long time in politics and all that


 Fair enough in terms of timescales, there's no sign of him having any impact now, but yes in the game of electoral politics you wait till locals, euros to see how the thing is doing. My point is not so much that the initiatives need time to work, it's that I can't see any real initiatives.  You'd have thought they might have had some thoughts about opening up local parties, getting out there, thinking about councils and having a strategy over jobs cuts. The whole thing feels very flat and trapped in the Westminster bubble - a game he was never going to win.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 27, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Fair enough in terms of timescales, there's no sign of him having any impact now, but yes in the game of electoral politics you wait till locals, euros to see how the thing is doing. My point is not so much that the initiatives need time to work, it's that I can't see any real initiatives.  You'd have thought they might have had some thoughts about opening up local parties, getting out there, thinking about councils and having a strategy over jobs cuts. The whole thing feels very flat and trapped in the Westminster bubble - a game he was never going to win.



there is that, I see what you are saying about capitalizing on the membership surge/rallies etc to network and organise outside of westminster and there being not much sign of that happening. I think also theres going to be a lot of those new members thoroughly hacked off when a good chunk of his party vote with cameron over bombing, . Pissed off enough to leave or simply become demoralised...couldn't say.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 27, 2015)

Won't be easy changing local parties and branches, they'll still be run by the same people who ran them pre-Corbyn and (presumably) still be tied into a mindset of focusing on a mixture of top down policy campaigns and local snidery/one-upmanship to win seats.  Take a massive cultural and political shift to start becoming something else, becoming a player in working class politics. All that and, in many areas, you have Labour councils actively involved in redundancies and privatisation.  Really not easy to change all that.  I'm not ultimately a fan of Corbynism/Bennery/Labour Leftism, but if they can't make the party into something else, there's not really much point just trying to play it as a parliamentary game.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

Allegra Stratton talking on Newsnight about the Times report on the emerging Blairite coup. Apparently the rightist rebels taken legal advice about the specific mechanics of whether, as incumbent, Corbyn would have the right to contest any leadership challenge. I presume this relates to an anticipated failure to secure enough support from the PLP to reach the threshold for candidature. 

Apparently they've been told that Corbyn would have no such right to stand 'as of right' in a kind of roll-over. So emboldened the Blairites are getting prepared for a challenge following Oldham.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 27, 2015)

So who do you reckon the candidates will be if a new leadership election is triggered? Whoever's involved it'll be a grey line-up, that's for sure.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> So who do you reckon the candidates will be if a new leadership election is triggered? Whoever's involved it'll be a grey line-up, that's for sure.


Well they won't be Labour, will they?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

Chuka, I suppose.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Chuka, I suppose.



Well he dropped out the race last time for 'personal' reasons, so unlikely I reckon. Kendall was trounced so badly that I'd be surprised if she still isn't hiding behind the sofa in embarrassment. I can see Burnham running again though.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Well he dropped out the race last time for 'personal' reasons, so unlikely I reckon. Kendall was trounced so badly that I'd be surprised if she still isn't hiding behind the sofa in embarrassment. I can see Burnham running again though.


Clue; have you heard Chuka being in any way disloyal to Corbyn?


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2015)

yes, yesterday.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> yes, yesterday.


Really? Missed it. What did he say?


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2015)

getting some digs in on Mcdonnell rather than Corbyn I guess, but it's not much different.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2015)

Not happening without a unified and credible candidate.  They have not one. The shitty back-stabber would be funny.

Also, not sure they even can constitutionally spring a leadership election.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Clue; have you heard Chuka being in any way disloyal to Corbyn?



I'm not very good with clues. What do you mean?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Not happening without a unified and credible candidate.  They have not one. The shitty back-stabber would be funny.
> 
> Also, not sure they even can constitutionally spring a leadership election.


What's the trigger? Is it a certain number/% of PLP?

e2a: do they need a 'credible' candidate?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> What's the trigger? Is it a certain number/% of PLP?


Can't recall  - but it's nowhere near what they can poss get. BBC bubble oxbrdige cunts shaking  the trees to see what falls  out and an objective reporter smirking along.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 27, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Corbyn is so incredibly shit. This should be his moment, he should make rousing, passionate anti-ISIS statements/speeches, advocate very firmly the need for action,


Action by whom, though? Dennis Skinner kept it simple in the commons - 'keep out of it'. Britain saves the world? No, Britain fucks up the world mostly. Britain (as in the British government/armed forces) won't save Syria, whatever 'saving Syria' means. Some humility over that would be a start, to give hope of not repeating the same cycle of mistakes. I may be getting you wrong, but your post appears to be calling for Corbyn to repeat the same old post-colonial shite.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I'm not very good with clues. What do you mean?


Until Killer put me right, I had been under the impression that Chuka had been suspiciously (quite) loyal, or at least well behaved, towards Corbyn...thus being able to present himself as a loyal party man when the party 'needed' him to come in and sort out the chaos.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 27, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Action by whom, though? Dennis Skinner kept it simple in the commons - 'keep out of it'. Britain saves the world? No, Britain fucks up the world mostly. Britain (as in the British government/armed forces) won't save Syria, whatever 'saving Syria' means. Some humility over that would be a start, to give hope of not repeating the same cycle of mistakes. I may be getting you wrong, but your post appears to be calling for Corbyn to repeat the same old post-colonial shite.



You are getting me wrong.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Can't recall  - but it's nowhere near what they can poss get. BBC bubble oxbrdige cunts shaking  the trees to see what falls  out and an objective reporter smirking along.


Also story is from the 'Times'.
That said, the specificity of the story about legal advice adds to the 'drip, drip' nature of the impression of a substantive coup.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Until Killer put me right, I had been under the impression that Chuka had been suspiciously (quite) loyal, or at least well behaved, towards Corbyn...thus being able to present himself as a loyal party man when the party 'needed' him to come in and sort out the chaos.



Ahh. Well he certainly comes across as slimy enough, but whether or not he is that wily is debatable.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> What's the trigger? Is it a certain number/% of PLP?
> 
> e2a: do they need a 'credible' candidate?


That's what they need to stand once an election has been called. The trigger may well be - and i think is -  considerably higher.

The right of the parties mastery of bureaucracy let him in and and they're going to keep him there.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

Blimey; no wonder the Blairite scum needed legal advice...

What the Labour leadership election rules say about removing a leader «  Labour Uncut

Am a bit Bishop's Fingered, but looks like 20% of PLP and the NEC playing ball to call a special conference?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Blimey; no wonder the Blairite scum needed legal advice...
> 
> What the Labour leadership election rules say about removing a leader «  Labour Uncut
> 
> Am a bit Bishop's Fingered, but looks like 20% of PLP and the NEC playing ball to call a special conference?


They sowed the seeds, _nature grows the seeds..._


----------



## J Ed (Nov 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They sowed the seeds _nature grows the seeds..._



There is a lot of that going about


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They sowed the seeds _nature grows the seeds..._


Yep, and Oldham might give them the manure.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yep, and Oldham might give them the manure.



I wonder whether Oldham is as bad as they are making out. It might be, don't get me wrong, but they and the media have every interest in portraying things as they are portraying them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 27, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> You are getting me wrong.


Ok, but it's a reflex that needs to be unlearned somehow. Something's up in the world - what's _BRITAIN_ going to do about it? It's the wrong question.

I've been hearing it and arguing against it at work, and now since tonight, in the pub as well.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I wonder whether Oldham is as bad as they are making out. It might be, don't get me wrong, but they and the media have every interest in portraying things as they are portraying them.


Quite possibly all the usual 'smoke & mirrors' but the bookies have been pulling the 'kipper odds in; (2/1) now.

And have you had a look at the Northern cross-breaks of the recent (YG) Syrian polling? Corbyn's N. numbers were nearly as bad as RoSE.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 27, 2015)

He's meant to be flirting with Marxism. His perspective should not be about nation but class.

(I've been given some 50% Finnish mint booze. So don't expect coherent answers)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> He's meant to be flirting with Marxism. His perspective should not be about nation but class.
> 
> (I've been given some 50% Finnish mint booze. So don't expect coherent answers)


No one cares what you think about anything.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 27, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> No one cares what you think about anything.



Don't be coy, it's not becoming at your age. You've been obsessed with me for over a decade.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

Assuming that the Indy have not actually made this stuff up, quotes like this one do make you wonder about the motivation for making such 'polling' public...


> *According to Labour’s own polling, a 15,000-majority could come down to as little as 1,000.*


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

Nah. It's performative reporting. 



> Beforehand, the Ukip team briefly worked out a strategy of sorts, with the help of a local Muslim council candidate. “I will explain we are not racist,” he said. “Then I will bring them to you.”


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nah. It's performative reporting.


Yes, it reads like it.
But that YG polling (p. 9) with the highest Corbyn "*do not trust at all*" % in the North is pretty damning, and what sort of campaign team puts out the 1000 figure?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, it reads like it.
> But that YG polling with the highest Corbyn "*do not trust at all*" % in the North is pretty damning, and what sort of campaign team puts out the 1000 figure?


One that says it wreck it here and now before 2020, the sooner the better. People like mauruce picarda who think that they are the ones who have to reclaim the party. They will try but the barriers they themselves set up are going to fuck them.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> One that says it wreck it here and now before 2020, the sooner the better. People like mauruce picarda who think that they are the ones who have to reclaim the party. They will try but the barriers they themselves set up are going to fuck them.


Yes, exactly. (Sorry that last Q was kind of meant to be rhetorical)...
But....here's the "Bishop's talking...I think that UKIP are going to take the seat. I reckon a suspect/nobled campaign team will manage not to get the sceptical vote out.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yes, exactly. (Sorry that last Q was kind of meant to be rhetorical)...
> But....here's the "Bishop's talking...I think that UKIP are going to take the seat. I reckon a suspect/nobled campaign team will manage not to get the sceptical vote out.


Don't know. Haven't done any oldham thought.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

The other option apart from doing it constitutionally is to do what these people sound like they  are (doing and this is the danger of an unelecetd group of oxbridge bubble media types moving from issue or election to issue of election) which is go on strike or sabotage to the extent that they force him to resign. So get rid of them. Let the local parties run the campaigns again.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Don't know. Haven't done any oldham thought.


Those N. numbers for JC...("*do not trust at all")..
Lab 27%, UKIP, 61%, 60yrs+ 65%, C2DE 48% & North 53%.*
Fucked.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The other option apart from doing it constitutionally is to do what these people sound like they  are (doing and this is the danger of an unelecetd group of oxbridge bubble media types moving from issue or election to issue of election) which is go on strike or sabotage to the extent that they force him to resign. So get rid of them. Let the local parties run the campaigns again.


Who can strike first? The PLP with their NEC -> leadership conference or the Corb constituencies deselecting?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Those N. numbers for JC...("*do not trust at all")..
> Lab 27%, UKIP, 61%, 60yrs+ 65%, C2DE 48% & North 53%.*
> Fucked.


On a wide ranging poll where they do obama and others. Nah. And the labour identity in the hard labour seats  is still about the party not the candidate.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Who can strike first? The PLP with their NEC -> leadership conference or the Corb constituencies deselecting?


None can.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> On a wide ranging poll where they do obama and others. Nah. And the labour identity in the hard labour seats  is still about the party not the candidate.


You maybe right?
Reminds me; where's the polling been for this by?
I think Oldham constituency is about 30% Asian, so UKIP can only win if a large section of those voters stay at home.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> None can.


Go on..


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> You maybe right?
> Reminds me; where's the polling been for this by?
> I think Oldham constituency is about 30% Asian, so UKIP can only win if a large section of those voters stay at home.


I'm too scared to even talk about polling properly


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Go on..


They haven't got the numbers in any single case never mind the required crossing of them.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I'm too scared to even talk about polling properly


So, without polling if you say Lab hold, and I'll go for UKIP gain...this time one of us will be right.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So, without polling if you say Lab hold, and I'll go for UKIP gain...this time one of us will be right.


I like them odds.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

This legal advice is encouraging. If the PLP acts now, and there's no left candidate on the ballot, we could end up with a proper leader and every chance that the new left joiners will fuck off in disgust before the opportunity for deselections comes round. It's a risk worth taking.


----------



## Libertad (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> This legal advice is encouraging. If the PLP acts now, and there's no left candidate on the ballot, we could end up with a proper leader and every chance that the new left joiners will fuck off in disgust before the opportunity for deselections comes round. It's a risk worth taking.



For whom?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

Libertad said:


> For whom?



For the common good.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2015)

of blairites, middle management and waitrose loving bourgois tossers


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> every chance that the new left joiners will fuck off


continuation of the 'we wuz blindsided by three quidder trots!!11' comforting lie the labour right have been telling themselves. Alls sections of the party voted corbyn, including long term members.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

The long term members, on ther own, don't present as much of a deselection risk if the PLP strikes now. That's the point.


----------



## Libertad (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> For the common good.



I feel better already.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> This legal advice is encouraging. If the PLP acts now, and there's no left candidate on the ballot, we could end up with a proper leader and every chance that the new left joiners will fuck off in disgust before the opportunity for deselections comes round. It's a risk worth taking.


Taking the notion of _pre-figurative politics_ to a new level.


----------



## quiquaquo (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> This legal advice is encouraging. If the PLP acts now, and there's no left candidate on the ballot, we could end up with a proper leader and every chance that the new left joiners will fuck off in disgust before the opportunity for deselections comes round. It's a risk worth taking.



Of course, Chuka will lead you true believers to a glorious new dawn. The return of David Milliband and Mandelson will be the icing on the cake.


----------



## Sue (Nov 28, 2015)

Oh dear, oh dear. 

'Most of this fury comes from the obvious quarters: the MPs, the former advisers, the longtime activists – the people who have devoted their working lives to the Labour party – boiling with anger at the serial unforced errors of their new rulers. The Corbyn camp will dismiss them, of course, as “Blairites” or “red Tories”. They’ll say their critics are whining because their brand of austerity-lite, soft capitalism has been jettisoned, dumped by men of principle determined to fight for economic justice and a more peaceful world.

That response could not be more wrong. It fails to realise that what enrages Corbyn’s critics most is not a doctrinal difference with the leader, but their assessment of the damage he is doing to the party. Their chief concern is over Labour’s prospects of ever again winning the trust of the British people and forming a government. And they want a Labour government very badly. *In other words, they despair of Corbyn not because they are on the right, as the leader’s chorus would have you believe, but because they remain on the left.*'

With each misstep, Jeremy Corbyn is handing Britain to the Tories | Jonathan Freedland


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> This legal advice is encouraging. If the PLP acts now, and there's no left candidate on the ballot, we could end up with a proper leader


What's a "proper leader" when it's at home? One that sucks up to Cameron? One that offers no alternative to the Tories or one that resolutely votes in favour of war? 

Do it and you'll lose thousands of members overnight.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> What's a "proper leader" when it's at home? One that sucks up to Cameron? One that offers no alternative to the Tories or one that resolutely votes in favour of war?
> 
> Do it and you'll lose thousands of members overnight.



That's exactly the plan, yes.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> What's a "proper leader" when it's at home? One that sucks up to Cameron? One that offers no alternative to the Tories or one that resolutely votes in favour of war?
> 
> Do it and you'll lose thousands of members overnight.


The _little people._


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's exactly the plan, yes.


Why would you want to lose members?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's exactly the plan, yes.


It's political suicide. I guess  you or the idiots who want to oust Corbyn didn't think of that. But go ahead, as 'Dirty' Harry Callahan said, "make my day".

But you didn't answer my question: what's a "proper leader"? Kendall? Danczuk? Umunna? Woodcock?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Why would you want to lose members?



To protect the PLP against revenge deselections following a coup against the Jezbollah.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> What's a "proper leader" when it's at home? One that sucks up to Cameron? One that offers no alternative to the Tories or one that resolutely votes in favour of war?
> 
> Do it and you'll lose thousands of members overnight.



i'd suggest as a start that a 'proper leader' is one who stands a reasonable chance of being elected - bumping along at 25%, turning a 45 year solid, 15,000 majority labour seat into a marginal, and being less trusted among_ Labour voters_ than David Cameron would perhaps indicate that Corbyn is being less than successful at being a 'proper leader'...

others, of course, may hold differing views.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> What's a "proper leader" when it's at home? One that sucks up to Cameron? One that offers no alternative to the Tories or one that resolutely votes in favour of war?
> 
> Do it and you'll lose thousands of members overnight.



Quite right, and even if the Blairites were now successful in "taking back the Labour Party" (unlikely) the Greens, the SNP and Plaid are still in the field to usefully absorb the refugees. The non-labour left is not going away and will fight Blair/Brownite neoliberal shits to the death.  Face it Picarda, your "project" is over. The whole left in and out of labour despise your ilk and will do everything we can to bring about your defeat and destruction.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> It's political suicide. I guess  you or the idiots who want to oust Corbyn didn't think of that. But go ahead, as 'Dirty' Harry Callahan said, "make my day".
> 
> But you didn't answer my question: what's a "proper leader"? Kendall? Danczuk? Umunna? Woodcock?



Cooper, Umunna, Jarvis - plenty of talent around. Jim McMahon perhaps. Or David Miliband, why not?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Cooper, Umunna, Jarvis - plenty of talent around. Jim McMahon perhaps. Or David Miliband, why not?


You call that "talent"? Hilarious. Kiss your votes goodbye.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Quite right, and even if the Blairites were now successful in "taking back the Labour Party" (unlikely) the Greens, the SNP and Plaid are still in the field to usefully absorb the refugees. The non-labour left is not going away and will fight Blair/Brownite neoliberal shits to the death.  Face it Picarda, your "project" is over. The whole left in and out of labour despise your ilk and will do everything we can to bring about your defeat and destruction.



I suppose I've been worrying more about deselection than murder, but I suspect that there aren't that many Corbynistas prepared to behead moderate Labour MPs on video. It might just be you.


----------



## quiquaquo (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Cooper, Umunna, Jarvis - plenty of talent around. Jim McMahon perhaps. Or David Miliband, why not?



This is a piss take isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

Excellent to see such visible support for the enabling act.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i'd suggest as a start that a 'proper leader' is one who stands a reasonable chance of being elected - bumping along at 25%, turning a 45 year solid, 15,000 majority labour seat into a marginal, and being less trusted among_ Labour voters_ than David Cameron would perhaps indicate that Corbyn is being less than successful at being a 'proper leader'...
> 
> others, of course, may hold differing views.


None of those mentioned stand a reasonable chance of being elected (other than by Nu Labourites). They're damaged goods.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> To protect the PLP against revenge deselections following a coup against the Jezbollah.


Yes, revenge deselections will happen if your boys take control.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I suppose I've been worrying more about deselection than murder, but I suspect that there aren't that many Corbynistas prepared to behead moderate Labour MPs on video. It might just be you.


Figuratively speaking will do for me.  For now.  Do you realise though, the depth of utter hatred there is on the left for "the Project" - it's not a surprise to you is it?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> None of those mentioned stand a reasonable chance of being elected (other than by Nu Labourites). They're damaged goods.



Well, McMahon is younger than anybody posting on this thread.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Well, McMahon is younger than anybody posting on this thread.


So what? Next you'll be telling me the one with the best hairstyle will be the next leader.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Figuratively speaking will do for me.  For now.  Do you realise though, the depth of utter hatred there is on the left for "the Project" - it's not a surprise to you is it?



No, the hard left's capacity for hatred is well known. Even the electorate has noticed it.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Until Killer put me right, I had been under the impression that Chuka had been suspiciously (quite) loyal, or at least well behaved, towards Corbyn...thus being able to present himself as a loyal party man when the party 'needed' him to come in and sort out the chaos.


He has been a cunt.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> So what? Next you'll be telling me the one with the best hairstyle will be the next leader.



How are McMahon or Jarvis "damaged goods", even if such a thing could be said of David Miliband?


----------



## kebabking (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> You call that "talent"? Hilarious. Kiss your votes goodbye.



with the greatest of respect to your favourite, are their any votes left to lose?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> To protect the PLP against revenge deselections following a coup against the Jezbollah.


You want to purge the socialists from the Labour party? Maybe you need to leave instead and set up your own shitty third way party


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> No, the hard left's capacity for hatred is well known. Even the electorate has noticed it.


Your problem though is that the electorate now also hate the Project, Blairism, Brownism and all their wars and brown nosing the elite.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You want to purge the socialists from the Labour party? Maybe you need to leave instead and set up your own shitty third way party



I think that hanging onto the voter base and the union cash would be more sensible, don't you?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 28, 2015)

I didn't realise quite how much of a Messianic Cult Blairism was until Corbyn got elected but it really is, I suppose it has to be.


----------



## gosub (Nov 28, 2015)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Quite right, and even if the Blairites were now successful in "taking back the Labour Party" (unlikely) the Greens, the SNP and Plaid are still in the field to usefully absorb the refugees. The non-labour left is not going away and will fight Blair/Brownite neoliberal shits to the death.  Face it Picarda, your "project" is over. The whole left in and out of labour despise your ilk and will do everything we can to bring about your defeat and destruction.


Do you remember that Thatcher woman?  Now seems an apposite time to point out that she wouldn't have got away with half the shit she did, had the left not been more interested in fighting among itself


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Your problem though is that the electorate now also hate the Project, Blairism, Brownism and all their wars and brown nosing the elite.



They don't. You do, and your mates do, and Twitter does. You are not the electorate.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

TopCat said:


> He has been a cunt.


Quite so, but that is not restricted to the period of Corbyn's leadership.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 28, 2015)

I full of disgust thus far being a new member. I will hold my stomach though and wait for the opportunity to rid the party of the scum.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

kebabking said:


> with the greatest of respect to your favourite, are their any votes left to lose?


Er, what? So you're quite happy for thousands of members to leave overnight. Have I got that right?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

TopCat said:


> I full of disgust thus far being a new member. I will hold my stomach though and wait for the opportunity to rid the party of the scum.



You will get bored. Your kind has no patience.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> They don't. You do, and your mates do, and Twitter does. You are not the electorate.


The polls suggest otherwise.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> How are McMahon or Jarvis "damaged goods", even if such a thing could be said of David Miliband?


Oh yes, we mustn't forget that Jarvis is a former army major. Face it, you have no unifying candidates on your side. They've spent the last two months undermining the leadership.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Er, what? So you're quite happy for thousands of members to leave overnight. Have I got that right?


they don't give a shit. in fact, they don't want to share the party with them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> they don't give a shit. in fact, they don't want to share the party with them.


Indeed, they're all 'Trots'. The members are only good for putting leaflets through letter boxes and putting an 'x' next to the name of some careerist tosser on the ballot paper.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh yes, we mustn't forget that Jarvis is a former squaddie. Face it, you have no unifying candidates on your side. They've spent the last two months undermining the leadership.


It's quite clear that they don't care if their candidate has the ability to unify.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> they don't give a shit. in fact, they don't want to share the party with them.



Yes, if I were them I would be trying to get the new members to leave or at least not help them at all to participate which I think is what a lot of CLPs are doing.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Er, what? So you're quite happy for thousands of members to leave overnight. Have I got that right?



i would suggest that the electoral ambitions of the Labour Party - rather than its attractiveness to members of SWSS - would be well shot of the members who believe that clowns like Corbyn are the way to get it elected...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> It's quite clear that they don't care if their candidate has the ability to unify.


Exactly. As long as they get someone whose policies and political position resembles that of the _ancien regime_.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i would suggest that the electoral ambitions of the Labour Party - rather than its attractiveness to members of SWSS - would be well shot of the members who believe that clowns like Corbyn are the way to get it elected...


You really are talking a load of shite. The SWSS crack rather sums up the conceited attitude of Labour's right-wing to ordinary members. The party would return to its former hollowed out state in a heartbeat.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Nov 28, 2015)

Doesn't two lost elections by Blairites mean anything, they didn't listen then and they still aren't listening now.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 28, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i would suggest that the electoral ambitions of the Labour Party - rather than its attractiveness to members of SWSS - would be well shot of the members who believe that clowns like Corbyn are the way to get it elected...



You think that the _40,000+_ members who have joined are members of an organisation which numbers less than a thousand?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 28, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Doesn't two lost elections by Blairites mean nothing, they didn't listen then and they still aren't listening now.



Anyone would think that Corbyn lost the last election, right-wingers don't do 'humility' do they?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Doesn't two lost elections by Blairites mean anything, they didn't listen then and they still aren't listening now.



Since when was Miliband minor a Blairite?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Since when was Miliband minor a Blairite?



He isn't a Blairite, and Blairites regarded him as too left-wing which just shows how off the spectrum they are.


----------



## quiquaquo (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> You really are talking a load of shite. The SWSS crack rather sums up the conceited attitude of Labour's right-wing to ordinary members. The party would return to its former hollowed out state.



The allure of Dan Jarvis is irresistible to some.

Like moths to a light...


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

_he's an ex squaddie, the thick cunts will drop their knickers within minutes of him taking the leadership. _


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

So the score seems to be three election victories to the Blairites, one inconclusive result for Brownites, one defeat for the new left. Seems fairly conclusive to me.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> So the score seems to be three election victories to the Blairites, one inconclusive result for Brownites, one defeat for the new left. Seems fairly conclusive to me.


With a declining share of the vote each time. I guess you must have been asleep when the invasion of Iraq took place.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

gosub said:


> Do you remember that Thatcher woman?  Now seems an apposite time to point out that she wouldn't have got away with half the shit she did, had the left not been more interested in fighting among itself


By the left, you of course mean a bunch of right-wing back stabbers rather than the left.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

historically, the tories have won way more elections than labour. probably best just joining them if you want to make a difference, eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Anyone would think that Corbyn lost the last election, right-wingers don't do 'humility' do they?


They do do anti-democratic entitlement though.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

Anyway, the point is that the finest legal minds available have determined that, based on the precedent of a challenge against Kinnock, Corbyn needs PLP votes to stand against a challenge to him. So this thread has a good chance of getting very bitter, quite soon, while the hardcore left and anarchists snicker in glee at being proved right, and the small moderate contingent refrain manfully from too much gloating.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> You really are talking a load of shite. The SWSS crack rather sums up the conceited attitude of Labour's right-wing to ordinary members. The party would return to its former hollowed out state in a heartbeat.



what, you mean its previous state of being in government rather than in opposition? yes, i agree with you entirely.

enjoy your 25%...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

Some poor fuck in a government office with the job of monitoring Butchersapron will have noticed that tagline change and be cross-referencing all kinds of databases now. With a bit of luck, internment is on the cards.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Doesn't two lost elections by Blairites mean anything, they didn't listen then and they still aren't listening now.


They'd probably regard it more like one lost election tbh...the one in Sept 2015.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Some poor fuck in a government office with the job of monitoring Butchersapron will have noticed that tagline change and be cross-referencing all kinds of databases now. With a bit of luck, internment is on the cards.



You actually mean it don't you. You are one sick fuck, probably the nastiest poster on U75.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 28, 2015)

Until reading Maurice's latest splenetic contributions I hadn't realised just how dangerous promoting democratic participation, progressive taxation, infrastructure investment and anti-militarism were; why weren't we told earlier that the best we should hope for is a charismatic leader to stop pressing the marketisation accelerator pedal so firmly and slightly smooth some of the harshest edges of neo-liberalism...if only for a little bit. So thanks Maurice and it's as you were everybody back on your heads.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## quiquaquo (Nov 28, 2015)

http://www.debretts.com/people/debretts-500/education/hon-dr-tristram-hunt-mp

A man of the people and a staunch socialist.


----------



## gosub (Nov 28, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Until reading Maurice's latest splenetic contributions I hadn't realised just how dangerous promoting democratic participation, progressive taxation, infrastructure investment and anti-militarism were; why weren't we told earlier that the best we should hope for is a charismatic leader to stop pressing the marketisation accelerator pedal so firmly and slightly smooth some of the harshest edges of neo-liberalism...if only for a little bit. so it's as you were everybody back on their heads.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Anti-militarism.  Circumstances/Design have reduced UK military to a point that it doesn't really have the capacity to fight a war on its own.   Ignore the UN resolution and the call to arms from our allies,  and the military spend would have to rise significantly, if our allies can't rely on us, folly to think we can depend on them.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Some poor fuck in a government office with the job of monitoring Butchersapron will have noticed that tagline change and be cross-referencing all kinds of databases now. With a bit of luck, internment is on the cards.



Wtf??


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Allegra Stratton talking on Newsnight about the Times report on the emerging Blairite coup. Apparently the rightist rebels taken legal advice about the specific mechanics of whether, as incumbent, Corbyn would have the right to contest any leadership challenge. I presume this relates to an anticipated failure to secure enough support from the PLP to reach the threshold for candidature.
> 
> Apparently they've been told that Corbyn would have no such right to stand 'as of right' in a kind of roll-over. So emboldened the Blairites are getting prepared for a challenge following Oldham.



Blind cunts.
Like people are going to blithely follow back-stabbers. The party will shed members at high speed.
Mind you, that would be all to the good for the right-wing shitcunts - none of that pesky internal democracy interfering with their undemocratic tendencies and the emerging dynasticism.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You actually mean it don't you. You are one sick fuck, probably the nastiest poster on U75.


don't be ridiculous. he's an increasingly unhinged arsehole, but that's a 'joke' after a fashion. Not much different from the lime pits type dismissal we often wish on his ilk.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Chuka, I suppose.



Depends whether he's feeling a lot more secure than he was earlier this year.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Some poor fuck in a government office with the job of monitoring Butchersapron will have noticed that tagline change and be cross-referencing all kinds of databases now. With a bit of luck, internment is on the cards.


I have never really ever read your posts before.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Well he dropped out the race last time for 'personal' reasons, so unlikely I reckon. Kendall was trounced so badly that I'd be surprised if she still isn't hiding behind the sofa in embarrassment. I can see Burnham running again though.



Burnham's ambition is even bigger than his ego, so yes.
Chuka may prefer to play the _eminence gris_ this time round.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

TopCat said:


> I have never really ever read your posts before.



You haven't missed much.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Burnham's ambition is even bigger than his ego, so yes.
> Chuka may prefer to play the _eminence gris_ this time round.


I think Chuka saw the way the wind was blowing tbh. Hence, he's not damaged goods, in electoral terms, like Burnham et al.


----------



## Leftwinger (Nov 28, 2015)

Getting a bit of a joke now. No coherent policy on trident or Syrian invasion and half a Shadow Cabinet who don't agree with the leader. Labour are in a mess.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Until Killer put me right, I had been under the impression that Chuka had been suspiciously (quite) loyal, or at least well behaved, towards Corbyn...thus being able to present himself as a loyal party man when the party 'needed' him to come in and sort out the chaos.



Chuka's loyalty has been of the studiedly arch type, saying stuff, but couching it in such a way that it can be taken one way by his supporters, and another by everyone else.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chuka's loyalty has been of the studiedly arch type, saying stuff, but couching it in such a way that it can be taken one way by his supporters, and another by everyone else.


Exactly.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

'Umunna' please. Standards, gentlemen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Ahh. Well he certainly comes across as slimy enough, but whether or not he is that wily is debatable.



Oh, he's a sharp schemer, right enough. He's not one of Mandelson's favourite noobs for nothing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> _he's an ex squaddie, the thick cunts will drop their knickers within minutes of him taking the leadership. _


its hard to believe they think the electorate are basically thick subhuman scum but again and again they act in a manner that indicates they do think that


brogdale said:


> I think Chuka saw the way the wind was blowing tbh. Hence, he's not damaged goods, in electoral terms, like Burnham et al.


I'd always suspected he has skelletons and got a bit shit up at how keen the press were to root through bins and doorstep distant relations


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 28, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> http://www.debretts.com/people/debretts-500/education/hon-dr-tristram-hunt-mp
> 
> A man of the people and a staunch socialist.



One of the things the Blairites seem to have started really hammering on recently is the democratic mandate the PLP apparently have. The fact that he's representing Stoke on Trent really shows true democracy at its finest doesn't it.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 28, 2015)

dp


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I think Chuka saw the way the wind was blowing tbh. Hence, he's not damaged goods, in electoral terms, like Burnham et al.


Whatever he had hanging over him hasn't gone away -  unless he's found some way to turn it to his advantage.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Whatever he had hanging over him hasn't gone away -  unless he's found some way to turn it to his advantage.


Murdoch might have assured him that the bones (if they exist?) will remain in the cupboard?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Murdoch might have assured him that the bones (if they exist?) will remain in the cupboard?


Would you trust him? And there will be a whole chain of other people with their own interests you'd also have to trust.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The other option apart from doing it constitutionally is to do what these people sound like they  are (doing and this is the danger of an unelecetd group of oxbridge bubble media types moving from issue or election to issue of election) which is go on strike or sabotage to the extent that they force him to resign. So get rid of them. Let the local parties run the campaigns again.



The problem there being that Corbyn is a social democrat, and therefore favours the re-empowerment of the CLPs through the medium of the party hierarchy, which means any change that allows local selection won't come quickly - at least not quickly enough to put the neoliberal front-benchers in fear of losing their mostly-safe seats.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem there being that Corbyn is a social democrat, and therefore favours the re-empowerment of the CLPs through the medium of the party hierarchy, which means any change that allows local selection won't come quickly - at least not quickly enough to put the neoliberal front-benchers in fear of losing their mostly-safe seats.


I'm talking about removing the party structures that pay these people to organise elections and so on rather than MPs. It's that professional little bubble of specialists that need gone, the MPs will largely fall into line.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> This legal advice is encouraging. If the PLP acts now, and there's no left candidate on the ballot, we could end up with a proper leader and every chance that the new left joiners will fuck off in disgust before the opportunity for deselections comes round. It's a risk worth taking.



"We"? Thought you claimed to be a three quidder, not a member.

Or by "we", do you mean yourself and other shonky Blairite ratfuckers?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2015)

The country.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I'm talking about removing the party structures that pay these people to organise elections and so on rather than MPs. It's that professional little bubble of specialists that need gone, the MPs will largely fall into line.



I could live with that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The country.



You don't speak for the country, Maurice. You barely speak for yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> What's a "proper leader" when it's at home? One that sucks up to Cameron? One that offers no alternative to the Tories or one that resolutely votes in favour of war?
> 
> Do it and you'll lose thousands of members overnight.



As long as it's the _Corbyn Jugend_, Maurice doesn't give a shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2015)

its interesting that Maurice calls them 'new left joiners'. From what I've seen the cohort of the three pounds includes just as many ex members who have returned to the fold after leaving over iraq, blair or whichever straw of nulabourism policy it was that broke the camels back for that individual member. Positioning it like the party has been suddenly hijacked by malign forces. lol.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Cooper, Umunna, Jarvis - plenty of talent around. Jim McMahon perhaps. Or David Miliband, why not?



I do love the way you Blairites get a hard-on for Dan Jarvis. Pity that he's got fuck-all "hinterland" to him besides his fairly-sad life-tale and the fact that he was a Paras officer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent to see such visible support for the enabling act.



I'm sure that he doesn't see it that way - that he merely sees what he proposes as "setting democracy back on the right path".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> So what? Next you'll be telling me the one with the best hairstyle will be the next leader.



That's Burnham fucked, then!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 28, 2015)

gosub said:


> Anti-militarism.  Circumstances/Design have reduced UK military to a point that it doesn't really have the capacity to fight a war on its own.   Ignore the UN resolution and *the call to arms from our allies*,  and the military spend would have to rise significantly, if our allies can't rely on us, folly to think we can depend on them.



If that 'call to arms' was realistic enough to accept the truth that without ground forces ISIS won't be militarily beaten, then it would carry a bit more weight; but it doesn't. It contracts out that obligation to an imagined force of 70,000 fighters, who even if they exist in number are largely in the wrong paces and hugely divided.

Of course the 'call to arms' would still be fatally flawed by not having a clue what to do about the contradictory post ISIS objectives of the 'allies'.

So face up to it; there isn't a military solution without a commitment to ground forces and as has been graphical shown in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, a military solution is no real human solution.

That is the context in which Corbyn's anti-militarism is to be welcomed; rather than taking Cameron et als. easy route of falling in step with the 'call to arms' he is making the hard choice of advocating building an enduring, stable, long term solution.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. If you are in the forces and would face deployment to the war in Syria, then please continue to use the phrase 'call to arms'; if not then you might want to dial down the rhetoric a little.


----------



## quiquaquo (Nov 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its hard to believe they think the electorate are basically thick subhuman scum but again and again they act in a manner that indicates they do think that
> 
> I'd always suspected he has skelletons and got a bit shit up at how keen the press were to root through bins and doorstep distant *relations*



Nicely done


----------



## Wilf (Nov 28, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I'm talking about removing the party structures that pay these people to organise elections and so on rather than MPs. It's that professional little bubble of specialists that need gone, the MPs will largely fall into line.


I suspect a lot of this is about Corbyn not having a clue that he might win till the campaign started, by which time it was too late.  He's got a vaguely social democratic reply to austerity and vaguely hits the right notes around that. However there's no real sense of strategy for the game of power.  He's running a party that he doesn't really control and even more so, a shadow cabinet he doesn't control.  If anything the Blairites have been even more traitorous and willing to put themselves before any chance of winning the next election.  Same time, with his mixture of free votes and  devolved policy making, he's not really got a mechanism for destroying the fuckers. 

I'm aware (I kind) of end up analysing this in the same terms of commentariat, in suggesting he isn't running a very effective 'project'.  The bigger problem is that he isn't really building an alternative to westminster projects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You want to purge the socialists from the Labour party? Maybe you need to leave instead and set up your own shitty third way party



Because both the third way and third parties have gone so well!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

gosub said:


> Do you remember that Thatcher woman?  Now seems an apposite time to point out that she wouldn't have got away with half the shit she did, had the left not been more interested in fighting among itself



You say this as if "the left" is (or has ever been) some sort of distinct homogeneous mass, or that this "left" would be able to form a united front at the drop of a hat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> They don't. You do, and your mates do, and Twitter does. You are not the electorate.



The fond delusion of the Blairite: That the electorate in all those safe Northern seats voted for the candidate, rather than for the party that the candidate represents.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 28, 2015)

Yeah there seems to be a surfeit of delusion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> The allure of Dan Jarvis is irresistible to some.
> 
> Like flies to shite...



Corrected that for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> _he's an ex squaddie, the thick cunts will drop their knickers within minutes of him taking the leadership. _



He's not an "ex-squaddie", he's a former mid-ranking member of the officer class. Squaddies are "other ranks", not legendarily-chinless administrator-types.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Anyway, the point is that the finest legal minds available have determined that, based on the precedent of a challenge against Kinnock, Corbyn needs PLP votes to stand against a challenge to him. So this thread has a good chance of getting very bitter, quite soon, while the hardcore left and anarchists snicker in glee at being proved right, and the small moderate contingent refrain manfully from too much gloating.



Interesting. A narrative where you place yourself as both "moderate" and "manful"when you're neither.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's not an "ex-squaddie", he's a former mid-ranking member of the officer class. Squaddies are "other ranks", not legendarily-chinless administrator-types.


details, details. as long as there's pictures in existence of him in fatigues in a godforsaken desert somewhere, we're good to roll.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

J Ed said:


> You actually mean it don't you. You are one sick fuck, probably the nastiest poster on U75.



Nope, he's just a common-or-garden cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> details, details. as long as there's pictures in existence of him in fatigues in a godforsaken desert somewhere, we're good to roll.



Well, I'm not saying that about half the PLP won't be lining up behind him to give him a reach-around, but do you think they'd be doing that if he'd been a mere one-striper?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> http://www.debretts.com/people/debretts-500/education/hon-dr-tristram-hunt-mp
> 
> A man of the people and a staunch socialist.



Tristram merely proves the Parliamentary rule that MPs with the surname "Hunt" are their own rhyming slang.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> don't be ridiculous. he's an increasingly unhinged arsehole, but that's a 'joke' after a fashion. Not much different from the lime pits type dismissal we often wish on his ilk.



"Dismissal"?
Fucking liberal!


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

uh oh. well, I guess there's always room in the pits for one more.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Leftwinger said:


> Getting a bit of a joke now. No coherent policy on trident or Syrian invasion and half a Shadow Cabinet who don't agree with the leader. Labour are in a mess.



You call yourself Leftwinger. Which do you prefer, party democracy or party dictatorship?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I suspect a lot of this is about Corbyn not having a clue that he might win till the campaign started, by which time it was too late.  He's got a vaguely social democratic reply to austerity and vaguely hits the right notes around that. However there's no real sense of strategy for the game of power.  He's running a party that he doesn't really control and even more so, a shadow cabinet he doesn't control.  If anything the Blairites have been even more traitorous and willing to put themselves before any chance of winning the next election.  Same time, with his mixture of free votes and  devolved policy making, he's not really got a mechanism for destroying the fuckers.
> 
> I'm aware (I kind) of end up analysing this in the same terms of commentariat, in suggesting he isn't running a very effective 'project'.  The bigger problem is that he isn't really building an alternative to westminster projects.



I strongly suspect that Corbyn is awaiting re-shuffle time with a smile on his lips, but that most of the _soi disant_ "moderates" are too gormless or too blinded by their own self-regard to realise that they're marking their own cards.
Get some of them out of the way for reasons of disloyalty - not something the rest of the PLP can make a fuss about as it's S.O.P. - and he has a freer hand to put together both a cohesive cabinet *and* cohesive policy.

At least, that's how I would roll if I were a social democrat in his position.


----------



## quiquaquo (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> details, details. as long as there's pictures in existence of him in fatigues in a godforsaken desert somewhere, we're good to roll.



Bringing democracy to you soon:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> uh oh. well, I guess there's always room in the pits for one more.



To put it bluntly, Maurice isn't worth wasting quicklime on. It's the 25ft-deep ball pit for him!


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 28, 2015)

kebabking said:


> what, you mean its previous state of being in government rather than in opposition? yes, i agree with you entirely.
> 
> enjoy your 25%...


In other words, a hollowed out party that no fucker except wavering Tories will vote for.

Enjoy your wilderness years.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 28, 2015)

Tbf Dan jarvis didnt run and appears to have a personality rather than  a smooth shiny suit thats come out of one of madelsons pods.
A lot of people  Trident people still belive we need it nobody else with nukes are making anymoves to disarm.
 Uk gave up its chemical weapon arsernal in the 50's nobody else followed suit in fact the soviets had an extensive chemcial warfare capability. So unilaterialism doesnt work.
 That said detterence only works if your detterimg someone buying it just because is a rather expensive boondoggle.
  Syria 3 military interventions have ended badly round four isnt going to help


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

likesfish said:


> A lot of people  Trident people still belive we need it nobody else with nukes are making anymoves to disarm.
> Uk gave up its chemical weapon arsernal in the 50's nobody else followed suit in fact the soviets had an extensive chemcial warfare capability. So unilaterialism doesnt work.


Absolutely, Britain has been repeatedly decimated by chemical attacks since we gave up our chemical weapons arsenal. So shortsighted.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 28, 2015)

But UK hasn't been involved in a General war either. We kept nuclear weapons though.
 But the soviets and the yanks kept their chemical arsenals.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> Absolutely, Britain has been repeatedly decimated by chemical attacks since we gave up our chemical weapons arsenal. So shortsighted.



Costa Rica, a country with no army, is overrun regularly by brigands since they can't defend themselves


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 28, 2015)

Leftwinger said:


> Getting a bit of a joke now. No coherent policy on trident or Syrian invasion and half a Shadow Cabinet who don't agree with the leader. Labour are in a mess.



You are John Rentoul and I claim my five pounds ...


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2015)

likesfish said:


> But UK hasn't been involved in a General war either. We kept nuclear weapons though.
> But the soviets and the yanks kept their chemical arsenals.


what's a 'general war', and how does it differ from all the other wars the country has been involved in?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2015)

in a nuclear holocaust situ we be a target with or without an independant deterant because of uncle sams airbases and our own hefty amount of army things here, gchq 'assets' bases etc etc

I'd sell the scrapping of trident to someone who fears that having no UK personal nuclear capability would leave us at the mercy of Sauron on that basis. Uncle Sam would be bombing the enemy that had hit us anyway, its all a big military team. Which isn't what I'd like to be going on anyway BUT but in terms of pure cost alone the US have loads and we don't need one


----------



## Knotted (Nov 28, 2015)

Independent headline:

Jeremy Corbyn should resign over 'unacceptable' behaviour towards Syria air strikes vote, say senior Labour MPs

If they are senior MPs who are the junior MPs? Why do we never hear about junior MPs? We aren't talking about shadow cabinet as opposed to backbenchers because they are backbenchers. If you google "junior mp" you get Ian Paisley Jr. Maybe he is the only junior MP. So basically three MPs who aren't Ian Paisley Jr. Thank you for informing us of these MPs non junior status Independent newspaper! What would we do without you?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 28, 2015)

killer b said:


> what's a 'general war', and how does it differ from all the other wars the country has been involved in?


 
Ones where the Uk is at risk "the war" rather than a war


----------



## Leftwinger (Nov 28, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You are John Rentoul and I claim my five pounds ...


 Nope, I'm Owen Jones


----------



## Leftwinger (Nov 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You call yourself Leftwinger. Which do you prefer, party democracy or party dictatorship?


 Party democracy but also coherence in policy.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You call yourself Leftwinger. Which do you prefer, party democracy or party dictatorship?



It seems to me - no fan of the bombers myself - that Corbyn is hamstrung by the fact that he apparently lacks sufficient allies in the parliamentary LP, and the ones he does have like Abbot and McDonnell (sp?) seem a bit weak, to say the least. As a tactician, unless he is going to spring a surprise and I can't see it, he seems a bit poor. Even the lack of reply to all the abuse he has received. Him and his crew don't appear to be savvy operators at all.


----------



## Smangus (Nov 28, 2015)

If those stupid fucks put half as much energy into opposing this cunting gvt as they are trying to knife their leader this country would be in a far better place.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 28, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> It seems to me - no fan of the bombers myself - that Corbyn is hamstrung by the fact that he apparently lacks sufficient allies in the parliamentary LP, and the ones he does have like Abbot and McDonnell (sp?) seem a bit weak, to say the least. As a tactician, unless he is going to spring a surprise and I can't see it, he seems a bit poor. Even the lack of reply to all the abuse he has received. Him and his crew don't appear to be savvy operators at all.


He failed to have positions that were appropriate for maximum tactical political support within the Labour Party before being elected as leader? That's a bit of a tall order for someone who was apparently pretty surprised to be nominated in the first place.

I think Abbott's done pretty well so far btw.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 28, 2015)

I'm not saying I don't prefer him to the Blairites. Just he's not really making me think, `smart fuck, yeah, great thought`, all seems a bit well, Labour-lefty not very neo.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 28, 2015)

brogdale said:


> You maybe right?
> Reminds me; where's the polling been for this by?
> I think Oldham constituency is about 30% Asian, so UKIP can only win if a large section of those voters stay at home.


Well I never...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's Burnham fucked, then!


The man, the hairstyle and the eyebrows.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> The country.


Have you ever read Benedict Anderson's _Imagined Communities_? You can't claim to speak for the entire country.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Well I never...




Why is that? Polling companies scared of calling it?


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2015)

no-one has commissioned, presumably.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Anyway, the point is that the finest legal minds available have determined that, based on the precedent of a challenge against Kinnock, Corbyn needs PLP votes to stand against a challenge to him.


"The finest legal minds available"... just let that phrase sink in for a moment.

Some people think Alan Dershowitz is a "fine legal mind" but in reality, he's a fraud.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 29, 2015)

Corbo was wearing a nicer darker suit on Marr show and a shirt which kind of fitted.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> no-one has commissioned, presumably.


Little interest for Ashcroft...and he may well still be recuperating?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Have you ever read Benedict Anderson's _Imagined Communities_? You can't claim to speak for the entire country.


It 'goes with the territory' for "one-nation conservative" types. The tend to imagine that they do speak for the country.


----------



## treelover (Nov 29, 2015)

> *ROTHERHAM MOMENTUM MEETING 7pm TUESDAY 1st DECEMBER*
> Posted on November 29, 2015 by rothpol
> ROTHERHAM MOMENTUM MEETING
> 7pm TUESDAY 1st DECEMBER
> ...




Oh dear, this is not going to go well

just noticed the local SWP are to attend both here and in Sheff, not good.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2015)

The Swappies! They're everywhere, I tell ya! EVERYWHERE! 

I know someone who's involved in Sheffield Momentum and she's an ex-Labourite who's rejoined _because _of Corbyn.


----------



## treelover (Nov 29, 2015)

I am not sure why you shoot the messenger, i am sure your experiences of them have been positive..


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2015)

Did you really come back just to have a whine about the SWP? No-one cares.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 29, 2015)

treelover said:


> I am not sure why you shoot the messenger, i am sure your experiences of them have been positive..


LOL! Stop yer whining, 'Cassandra'.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 30, 2015)

Barmy quote from a Labour MP on the lunchtime news; in the context of 75% of party members being opposed to bombing, the honourable member said they'd be voting in favour and 'wouldn't be bullied by anyone'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. the MP is Angela Smith who has a record of solid yes voting for the renewal of trident and supported both the imposition of 'no fly' in Libya and air strikes in Iraq.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 30, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Barmy quote from a Labour MP on the lunchtime news; in the context of 75% of party members being opposed to bombing, the honourable member said they'd be voting in favour and 'wouldn't be bullied by anyone'.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. the MP is Angela Smith who has a record of solid yes voting for the renewal of trident and supported both the imposition of 'no fly' in Libya and air strikes in Iraq.



Voting with her peace loving conscience no doubt!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 30, 2015)

MP for Penistone

hehhehehe


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2015)

Leftwinger said:


> Party democracy but also coherence in policy.



But coherence *where*? Coherence in policy at PLP level? that is nigh on impossible when so many "moderates" are still intent on sabotaging any broadening-out of party democracy beyond its' current strictures.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2015)

Coolfonz said:


> It seems to me - no fan of the bombers myself - that Corbyn is hamstrung by the fact that he apparently lacks sufficient allies in the parliamentary LP, and the ones he does have like Abbot and McDonnell (sp?) seem a bit weak, to say the least. As a tactician, unless he is going to spring a surprise and I can't see it, he seems a bit poor. Even the lack of reply to all the abuse he has received. Him and his crew don't appear to be savvy operators at all.



I'd venture the opinion that "him and his crew" are doing something that doesn't even occur to the assorted Blairites, Progressites and _soi-disant_ "moderates" - thinking long-term, and thinking about the party as a vehicle for social change, rather than a vehicle for their own advancement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2015)

Smangus said:


> If those stupid fucks put half as much energy into opposing this cunting gvt as they are trying to knife their leader this country would be in a far better place.



They can't, though. Most of those stupid fucks *agree* with this cunting government. We've already seen Umunna saying he'll vote with the Tories. It's likely a lot of his fellow Tory mini-mes will do the same.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd venture the opinion that "him and his crew" are doing something that doesn't even occur to the assorted Blairites, Progressites and _soi-disant_ "moderates" - thinking long-term, and thinking about the party as a vehicle for social change, rather than a vehicle for their own advancement.


they do think long term, and as the party of a vehicle of social change. just change in the opposite direction we'd like.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 30, 2015)

Looks like there will be a free vote over Syria, probably a good idea tactically as I doubt that the leadership would be able to successfully whip sufficient numbers who would otherwise back airstrikes or abstain.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 30, 2015)

Labour members are 'overwhelmingly opposed' to bombing Syria as Jeremy Corbyn makes his decision


----------



## agricola (Nov 30, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Looks like there will be a free vote over Syria, probably a good idea tactically as I doubt that the leadership would be able to successfully whip sufficient numbers who would otherwise back airstrikes or abstain.



TBH there is a very strong moral case for declarations of war always being a free vote, Corbyn really should have articulated that right from the start.  If there is a good tactical idea behind this its that it puts the maquisards in the position where they will inherit the blame when this goes wrong (or "be shamelessly bullied with threats of deselection" as they are spinning it), far more than Cameron will.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 30, 2015)

Amusing how easily the RW commentariat vacillate from "Corbyn the disastrous leader" to "Corbyn the too-clever-by-half/cunning plotter leader" memes.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 30, 2015)

All unattributed sources saying Corbyn said this or did that need to be digested in knowledge that he will be being targetted by at least CIA and MI5.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> All unattributed sources saying Corbyn said this or did that need to be digested in knowledge that he will be being targetted by at least CIA and MI5.


No they won't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Let your hare run free now though.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 30, 2015)

My bad. The CIA stopped targetting prominent politicians who go against US interests in er..when was it now...I'm sure someone can enlighten me. 

Corbyn opposes Trident and is sketchy about NATO. There's been open talk of a generals coup against him if he should get to No. 10.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

You realise that i would have to shoot you if it ever came to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Fucking generals coup, get a grip.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 30, 2015)

Polonium is his gooseberry jam?


----------



## gosub (Nov 30, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Amusing how easily the RW commentariat vacillate from "Corbyn the disastrous leader" to "Corbyn the too-clever-by-half/cunning plotter leader" memes.



he certainly isn't "too clever-by half "


kebabking said:


> it was also about digging himself out of a hole.
> 
> you'll remember all the way back to the weekend where the sainted one was telling all and sundry that it was the leaders decision on whipping? well, some devious soul did the Machiavellian thing and read the LP rules on whipping - which make it very clear that its the Shadow Cabinet that decide on whipping, not the leader... that, possibly, might just have got a bit embarrassing.
> 
> ...




unless MI6 hacked the Labour rulebook over the weekend


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2015)

that doesn't say that the shadow cabinet decides though.


----------



## gosub (Nov 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> that doesn't say that the shadow cabinet decides though.


"A decision of the Shadow Cabinet"  that would be um, very much like something the shadow cabinet decides


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2015)

Do you think they decide by majority vote in there or something? If Corbyn had chosen to enforce the whip, that would have been the decision of cabinet (albeit a cabinet rapidly vacated by a number of members).


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Fucking generals coup, get a grip.



You know full well it was aired. 

Anyway, do let me know if you find something about intel agencies not bothering any more to target prominent politicians who clearly going against "interests" of states/NATO etc. I'd be fascinated to read it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

gosub said:


> "A decision of the Shadow Cabinet"  that would be um, very much like something the shadow cabinet decides


A decision coming from the shadow cabinet just means that the SC decides what the whip is to be. Not that the SC gets to decide for itself. Do you think the police just enforce lawss they make up?


----------



## gosub (Nov 30, 2015)

killer b said:


> Do you think they decide by majority vote in there or something? If Corbyn had chosen to enforce the whip, that would have been the decision of cabinet (albeit a cabinet rapidly vacated by a number of members).


Maybe Mr Corbyn, just fought a valiant action over the weekend to prevent the shadow cabinet bouncing him into whipping the party into voting for military action


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You know full well it was aired.
> 
> Anyway, do let me know if you find something about intel agencies not bothering any more to target prominent politicians who clearly going against "interests" of states/NATO etc. I'd be fascinated to read it.


Aired my arse. I bet the plans are fully advanced.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2015)

gosub said:


> Maybe Mr Corbyn, just fought a valiant action over the weekend to prevent the shadow cabinet bouncing him into whipping the party into voting for military action


What?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

gosub said:


> Maybe Mr Corbyn, just fought a valiant action over the weekend to prevent the shadow cabinet bouncing him into whipping the party into voting for military action


Do you really think the SC works on collegaite and majority voting rules rather than executive decision? Oh you poor little thing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2015)

Laughable. Too much time spent reading smug tories on twitter.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Nov 30, 2015)

Debate in the house of commons right now on UK role in the Middle East and the Labour benches are almost empty, I despair with the leadership effort.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Debate in the house of commons right now on UK role in the Middle East and the Labour benches are almost empty, I despair with the leadership effort.


No one cares what you think or is even watching - but why would a full set of benches make the slightest difference?


----------



## gosub (Nov 30, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Debate in the house of commons right now on UK role in the Middle East and the Labour benches are almost empty, I despair with the leadership effort.


Parliamentlive.tv - Commons 

Looks like a phantom debate to me


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

gosub said:


> Parliamentlive.tv - Commons
> 
> Looks like a phantom debate to me


They all are.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> No one cares what you think or is even watching - but why would a full set of benches make the slightest difference?


 
Straw men and insults don't cut it. The house of commons may be unimportant to you because you know everything and lecture what we should read and believe.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Straw men and insults don't cut it. The house of commons may be unimportant to you because you know everything and lecture what we should read and believe.


Votes aren't won or lost on the quality of debate, nor the attendance at the arena. Put away childish things.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 30, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Debate in the house of commons right now on UK role in the Middle East and the Labour benches are almost empty, I despair with the leadership effort.



The PLP meeting to discuss the Shadow Cabinet's decision is taking place right now.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 30, 2015)

dp


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Votes aren't won or lost on the quality of debate, nor the attendance at the arena. Put away childish things.


No hard-and-fast rule. Depends on the subject, how much or whether it's whipped, the personalities involved, and the quality of the arguments. Unless you're arguing that every single Commons debate was predetermined -- including the Norway debate -- you don't even disagree.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> No hard-and-fast rule. Depends on the subject, how much or whether it's whipped, the personalities involved, and the quality of the arguments. Unless you're arguing that every single Commons debate was predetermined -- including the Norway debate -- you don't even disagree.


No, it's over. No votes are won on the quality of debate today. Live in the modern world.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

And your evidence for this claim is ...?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> And your evidence for this claim is ...?


It not happening.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

A set of tight procedure being put in place to stop it happening.  A change of organisation of MPs into tightly whipped groups from individuals with their own interests.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

It not being the age of parliamentary decency you seem to always imagine.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

Who said anything about "parliamentary decency"? I'll allow unintentional, but regardless, honking great straw man. This is about your claim that debate is has no bearing on the outcome of Commons' votes.

You surely don't think the ultra-cynical Commons of the appeasement years was marked by decency, so once again, we don't even disagree that debate can have a decisive effect on a heavily flawed chamber.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 30, 2015)

One senior Labour source, who is not in Corbyn’s camp, said Labour MPs seemed to have become more wary of backing military action over the weekend for fear of “marking their card”.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Who said anything about "parliamentary decency"? I'll allow unintentional, but regardless, honking great straw man. This is about your claim that debate is has no bearing on the outcome of Commons' votes.
> 
> You surely don't think the ultra-cynical Commons of the appeasement years was marked by decency, so once again, we don't even disagree that debate can have a decisive effect on a heavily flawed chamber.


 No votes are won on the quality of debate today. You can think that you agree with that or not. That was what i said though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2015)

anyway the quality of debate in the commons is pisspoor


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> No votes are won on the quality of debate today. You can think that you agree with that or not. That was what i said though.


Very well, taking "today" to mean, oh, say the last five years, what's your evidence for the claim? "It not happening" is circular as it gets. 

I'll assume you've not run extensive research into MPs' reason for voting in every single division: or, even if we presuppose that every whipped vote is immune to debate, every free vote.

So, what's backing up you extreme confidence in your opinion?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Very well, taking "today" to mean, oh, say the last five years, what's your evidence for the claim? "It not happening" is circular as it gets.
> 
> I'll assume you've not run extensive research into MPs' reason for voting in every single division: or, even if we presuppose that every whipped vote is immune to debate, every free vote.
> 
> So, what's backing up you extreme confidence in your opinion?


It not happening.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Are you really this naive?

I'm not going to bother asking you what's backing up your own extreme confidence given that you can't get straight if you're agreeing with me or not.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> anyway the quality of debate in the commons is pisspoor


Often is, yes, but not always. Some debates, especially into uncontroversial, specialist bills, in which the few MPs attending are interested and well-informed, it can be high.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Very well, taking "today" to mean, oh, say the last five years, what's your evidence for the claim? "It not happening" is circular as it gets.
> 
> I'll assume you've not run extensive research into MPs' reason for voting in every single division: or, even if we presuppose that every whipped vote is immune to debate, every free vote.
> 
> So, what's backing up you extreme confidence in your opinion?


when was the last time you heard of a parliamentary speech swaying a debate?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Often is, yes, but not always. Some debates, especially into uncontroversial, specialist bills, in which the few MPs attending are interested and well-informed, it can be high.


thus failing to sway the mass of absent mps


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

Butchers, my naïveté ain't at issue, your absolute claim is, and you've offered nothing to back it, nothing at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Butchers, my naïveté ain't at issue, your absolute claim is, and you've offered nothing to back it, nothing at all.


It not happening.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

You'd think  there'd be at least one counter-example since 1979 to be pointed to wouldn't you? A single example of a commons vote lost on the quality of debate.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> when was the last time you heard of a parliamentary speech swaying a debate?


Without research into MPs' reasons for voting, we don't know, but more to the point, I'm not claiming they have: its Butchers who made the absolutist claim that debates (not just single speeches) are irrelevant to the final votes.

If you, and he, value debate, you'll both agree that the claimant bears the burden: since Butchers isn't even trying to offer evidence, his own commitment to debate is, at best, questionable; and if you see no need to get him to justify his claim, so too is yours.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Without research into MPs' reasons for voting, we don't know, but more to the point, I'm not claiming they have: its Butchers who made the absolutist claim that debates (not just single speeches) are irrelevant to the final votes.
> 
> If you, and he, value debate, you'll both agree that the claimant bears the burden: since Butchers isn't even trying to offer evidence, his own commitment to debate is, at best, questionable; and if you see no need to get him to justify his claim, so too is yours.


No, it's over. No votes are won on the quality of debate today. Live in the modern world.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Without research into MPs' reasons for voting, we don't know, but more to the point, I'm not claiming they have: its Butchers who made the absolutist claim that debates (not just single speeches) are irrelevant to the final votes.
> 
> If you, and he, value debate, you'll both agree that the claimant bears the burden: since Butchers isn't even trying to offer evidence, his own commitment to debate is, at best, questionable; and if you see no need to get him to justify his claim, so too is yours.


No, you claim that some votes are won on the quality of debate. If there is no hard and fast rule then there is variation.The best you can offer in evidence is irrelevant.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You'd think  there'd be at least one counter-example since 1979 to be pointed to wouldn't you? A single example of a commons vote lost on the quality of debate.


I'll be extremely charitable and assume that you genuinely don't realize the following: you made a claim (debates are irrelevant to final votes); before anyone's under any obligation to rebut it, it's on you to offer some evidence, not just assume your conclusions  (it never happened).

If you see no need to do this, you demonstrably couldn't care less about the principles of debate, and are therefore in no position to criticize MPs on that basis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Often is, yes, but not always. Some debates, especially into uncontroversial, specialist bills, in which the few MPs attending are interested and well-informed, it can be high.


yeh? when?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> I'll be extremely charitable and assume that you genuinely don't realize the following: you made claim (debates are irrelevant to final votes); before anyone's under any obligation to rebut it, it's on you to offer some evidence, not just assume your conclusions  (it never happened).
> 
> If you see no need to do this, you demonstrably couldn't care less about the principles of debate, and are therefore in no position to criticize MPs on that basis.


This is why a) you never win debates and b) think debates win things.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> I'll be extremely charitable and assume that you genuinely don't realize the following: you made a claim (debates are irrelevant to final votes); before anyone's under any obligation to rebut it, it's on you to offer some evidence, not just assume your conclusions  (it never happened).
> 
> If you see no need to do this, you demonstrably couldn't care less about the principles of debate, and are therefore in no position to criticize MPs on that basis.



I don't need to care less about the principles of debate (as outlined in a shocking fashion by you) in order to highlight something happening. No one does.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> No, you claim that some votes are won on the quality of debate. If there is no hard and fast rule then there is variation.The best you can offer in evidence is irrelevant.


Hardly a swaggering assertion, but if it helps you back you claim with something other than you own self-confidence (impressive as that is), I'm happy to withdraw it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Hardly a swaggering assertion, but if it helps you back you claim with something other than you own self-confidence (impressive as that is), I'm happy to withdraw it.


So then you're left with none are won on the quality of debate. Or all are. So which is it?


----------



## agricola (Nov 30, 2015)

John Mann on BBC News saying that what he wants is to see a genuine multinational response, led by the Arab nations and the Russians.  Corbyn emphatically did not have a role in his decision-making.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2015)

agricola said:


> John Mann on BBC News saying that what he wants is to see a genuine multinational response, led by the Arab nations and the Russians.  Corbyn emphatically did not have a role in his decision-making.


he's on everything these days, john mann


----------



## agricola (Nov 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> he's on everything these days, john mann



I think it must be because his name is more tweet-friendly than Danczuk, and less likely to set off swear filters than Woodcock.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 30, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> anyway the quality of debate in the commons is pisspoor



The right honourable gentleman may consider the debate 'pisspoor' but let me remind him that it is British and 'pisspoor' and therefore superior to debates held by the unfortunate inhabitants of less favoured realms or so we believe.


----------



## gosub (Nov 30, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> The right honourable gentleman may consider the debate 'pisspoor' but let me remind him that it is British and 'pisspoor' and therefore superior to debates held by the unfortunate inhabitants of less favoured realms or so we believe.



Mr Galloway goes to Washington for example.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> So then you're left with none are won on the quality of debate. Or all are. So which is it?


For sake of clarity, I've withdrawn all possible claims about the efficacy of Commons debates: we're left only with your extremely confident (and wholly unevidenced) assertion that they have no effect on votes.

If there's to be no evidence, very well: accepting your claim arguendo, how would you improve the situation? Since you assert that free votes are also unaffected, abolishing the whip system wouldn't work. So what would?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> For sake of clarity, I've withdrawn all possible claims about the efficacy of Commons debates: we're left only with your extremely confident (and wholly unevidenced) assertion that they have no effect on votes.
> 
> If there's to be no evidence, very well: accepting your claim arguendo, how would you improve the situation? Since you assert that free votes are also unaffected, abolishing the whip system wouldn't work. So what would?


I couldn't care less.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Well argued though cholmondeley.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

agricola said:


> John Mann on BBC News saying that what he wants is to see a genuine multinational response, led by the Arab nations and the Russians.  Corbyn emphatically did not have a role in his decision-making.


A multinational response will require cutting some kind of a deal with Assad, which is probably inevitable, but just goes to show the realpolitik folly of the 2013 effort to depose him.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> A multinational response will require cutting some kind of a deal with Assad, which is probably inevitable, but just goes to show the realpolitik folly of the 2013 effort to depose him.


So glib. So empty. And actually doing the question begging you ineptly tried to suggest that i was doing.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I couldn't care less.


Your prerogative, but if you don't care, why comment?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> A multinational response will require cutting some kind of a deal with Assad, which is probably inevitable, but just goes to show the realpolitik folly of the 2013 effort to depose him.


What's the real politck deal with assad that you'd like to see? His 15 000 revolutionaries tortured to death just forgotten about? The 100s of thousands civilians deaths just wiped away? All do-able in this world sort of world that you think politics happens in. What's not on the agenda for you though is the syrian revolutionaries even having a voice. Of course not, which is why this is gladstone waffle. Back to the past with you. You're not needed now.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Your prerogative, but if you don't care, why comment?


I didn't.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> So glib. So empty. And actually doing the question begging you ineptly tried to suggest that i was doing.


I suggested nothing, you assumed your conclusion, that's a plain statement of fact, but since you never cared about it, moving onto cutting a deal Assad: his nasty regime is the only form of government in Syria; if there was an organized, cohesive rebel movement, they could take over, but as we all know, they're hopelessly fragmented. Russia's support's contingent on not deposing the Ba'athists. 

I'd like to see Assad rotting away in a Hague lockup, but politics being the art of the possible, ain't about desires. What viable alternative cutting a deal with Assad is there?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> I suggested nothing, you assumed your conclusion, that's a plain statement of fact, but since you never cared about it, moving onto cutting a deal Assad: his nasty regime is the only form of government in Syria; if there was an organized, cohesive rebel movement, they could take over, but as we all know, they're hopelessly fragmented. Russia's support's contingent on not deposing the Ba'athists.
> 
> I'd like to see Assad rotting away in a Hague lockup, but politics being the art of the possible, ain't about desires. What viable alternative cutting a deal with Assad is there?


If you think any rebels - of whatever stripe- will ever stop fighting with assad in power then you need to not be part of this conversation. If you think that you can impose your favoured settlement from above on syria via govts then you need to get out of everywhere.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What's the real politck deal with assad that you'd like to see? His 15 000 revolutionaries tortured to death just forgotten about? The 100s of thousands civilians deaths just wiped away? All do-able in this world sort of world that you think politics happens in. What's not on the agenda for you though is the syrian revolutionaries even having a voice. Of course not, which is why this is gladstone waffle. Back to the past with you. You're not needed now.


As "realpolitik" ought to've made clear, I wasn't making any kind of ethical judgment about Assad. To avoid any doubt, he's a bloodstained tyrant, and I'd be overjoyed to see him deposed, hooked up, and slung in jail. If you've a feasible way to make that happen, let's hear it. 

Failing that, Assad, vile as he is, holds power in Syria, has Russia's support, and has to be worked with, even if it's only allowing him to stay in place through some transitional regime, then clear off into exile with a stash of loot. If he's deposed with no viable alternative, we could easily see ISIS become an actual state.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> If you think any rebels - of whatever stripe- will ever stop fighting with assad in power then you need to not be part of this conversation. If you think that you can impose your favoured settlement from above on syria via govts then you need to get out of everywhere.


It's not my favoured settlement; it's the settlement I can see working. 

You could of course offer an alternative, and explain how you think it can come about. What is it? A coalition government led by the various rebel factions? OK: how d'you suggest they be unified, Daesh and its fellow-travelers be kept clear, Assad and his forces deposed, and above all, Russia be persuaded to ditch the Ba'athists?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> As "realpolitik" ought to've made clear, I wasn't making any kind of ethical judgment about Assad. To avoid any doubt, he's a bloodstained tyrant, and I'd be overjoyed to see him deposed, hooked up, and slung in jail. If you've a feasible way to make that happen, let's hear it.
> 
> Failing that, Assad, vile as he is, holds power in Syria, has Russia's support, and has to be worked with, even if it's only allowing him to stay in place through some transitional regime, then clear off into exile with a stash of loot. If he's deposed with no viable alternative, we could easily see ISIS become an actual state.


What does hold power mean? That he has 1/2 the country in established rebellion against him? What does this power consist of? He is killing more than ISIS at the rate of 100 to 1. And you're worried that the 1 killers might win? he's just killed a quarte of a million people under the slogan of _assad or the country burns_ and you think he'll womble off with some money? Are there any subjects on which you're not dangerously and monstrously naive?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> It's not my favoured settlement; it's the settlement I can see working.
> 
> You could of course offer an alternative, and explain how you think it can come about. What is it? A coalition government led by the various rebel factions? OK: how d'you suggest they be unified, Daesh and its fellow-travelers be kept clear, Assad and his forces deposed, and above all, Russia be persuaded to ditch the Ba'athists?


Oh god. Here we go again

Given your ill-informed fantasy, here's mine (mine has the advantage of actually happening right now). The SDF continue it's attacks on the Islamists in north allepo and force themselves through to jarabulus where they meet the kobani canton and the ypg - pinning isis down to defending either the border area or raqqa. Either way raqqa is then attacked by the SDF moving south from tel abyad and west from hasakah whilst the NSA move north west from Deir ezzor. All this consolidating a widespread anti-assad and anti-isis coalition handing over power to local non-sectarian co-coordinating committees as they go (as they are already doing across north syria, defusing sectarian or tribal tensions as they go). Thus pulling the FSA brigades in central north syria firmly to the SDF and thus continuing the revolution.

But let's be honest, you mean a very different sort of victory  and outcome.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> What does hold power mean? hat he has 1/2 the country in established rebellion against him? What does this power consist of? He is killing more than ISIS at the rate of 100 to 1. And you're worried that the 1 killers might win? he's just killed a quarte of a million people under the slogan of _assad or the country burns_ and you think he'll womble off with some money? Are there any subjects on which you're not dangerously and monstrously naive?


Butchers, I'm not suggesting that Asaad be asked nicely to leave, but that, if Russia can be gotten onside, he may (may) be coerced into some kind of deal. Unlike ISIS, ghastly as he is, he can at least be engaged with, if only to threaten him. 

So Assad has half Syria in rebellion against him: will the numbers rebeling not decrease if they're offered a clear path to getting him gone? Maybe not, but it's at least a viable possibility. 

Speak of which, what's yours? It's easy to condemn polices; a lot harder to defend them, despite acknowledging the evils that must be done. What would you have done?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

If you suggest a settlement where assad remains then you know nothing about syria.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god. Here we go again
> 
> Given your ill-informed fantasy, here's mine (mine has the advantage of actually happening right now). The SDF continue it's attacks on the Islamists in north allepo and force themselves through to jarabulus where they meet the kobani canton and the ypg - pinning isis down to defending either the border area or raqqa. Either way raqqa is then attacked by the SDF moving south from tel abyad and west from hasakah whilst the NSA move north west from Deir ezzor. All this consolidating a widespread anti-assad and anti-isis coalition handing over power to local non-sectarian co-coordinating committees as they go (as they are already doing across north syria, defusing sectarian or tribal tensions as they go). Thus pulling the FSA brigades in central north syria firmly to the SDF and thus continuing the revolution.
> 
> But let's be honest, you mean a very different sort of victory  and outcome.


Thank you, exactly what I asked for. 

Do we have convincing evidence that the various Sunni militant groups are willing to submit to non-sectarian coordinating committees, with the SDF & FSA as their armed wing? 

If so, how d'you propose to deal with those who won't submit, and above all, persuade Russia to support this new system?


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> If you suggest a settlement where assad remains then you know nothing about syria.


I suggested cutting a deal with him that involves the bloodsoaked old monster going sooner rather than later. It's clearly not viable that the Ba'athists stay in power indefinitely.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Thank you, exactly what I asked for.
> 
> Do we have convincing evidence that the various Sunni militant groups are willing to submit to non-sectarian coordinating committees, with the SDF & FSA as their armed wing?
> 
> If so, how d'you propose to deal with those who won't submit, and above all, persuade Russia to support this new system?


The hardest places - the point where kurds meet arabs, meet assyrians meet people who were forcefully arabanized - this has already happened and is happening now.

And who is this overarching 'we' perspective that you're talking from - i'm pretty sure - given your earlier softness on assad and other things-  is not that of the groups on the grounds. I mean you're already looking for an external state to decide that it's ok and then to agree police it. What on earth do you think has been going on on the ground for the last 4 years?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> I suggested cutting a deal with him that involves the bloodsoaked old monster going sooner rather than later. It's clearly not viable that the Ba'athists stay in power indefinitely.


You suggest the regime is the only power and so needs supporting until ISIS is dealt with. They're driving  ISIS.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

Daesh are driving themselves: not only are they a doomsday cult in thrall to Wahabbism at its most brutal, they've taken advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq and Syria to set themselves up as a brigand state, at war with all who don't share their savage interpretation of Islam (including, thanks to their scattergun takfir allegations, most of the world's Muslims).

As for perspective, of course I defer to perspectives from the ground, but its crucial that any solution is one that America, Russia, and France can agree on.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Daesh are driving themselves: not only are they a doomsday cult in thrall to Wahabbism at its most brutal, they've taken advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq and Syria to set themselves up as a brigand state, at war with all who don't share their savage interpretation of Islam (including, thanks to their scattergun takfir allegations, most of the world's Muslims).
> 
> As for perspective, of course I defer to perspectives from the ground, but its crucial that any solution is one that America, Russia, and France can agree on.


Even the most enthusiastic self-starter needs help and support. Ideas don't just whip themselves into reality.

And no, _every shit outcome _must be one  that America, Russia, and France can agree on. The best outcome would be one that none of these wolves are happy about.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Even the most enthusiastic self-starter needs help and support. Ideas don't just whip themselves into reality.
> 
> And no, _every shit outcome _must be one  that America, Russia, and France can agree on. The best outcome would be one that none of these wolves are happy about.


In Daesh's case, they're responding to Salafist ideas whipped up back in the 18th century; the implosion of Syria and Iraq just provided an opportunity to seize territory, an essential prerequisite to declaring a Caliph.

As for the major powers, their governments' happiness is by-the-by: their agreement to any course of action is, however, essential, however reluctant that agreement may be.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> In Daesh's case, they're responding to Salafist ideas whipped up back in the 18th century; the implosion of Syria and Iraq just provided an opportunity to seize territory, an essential prerequisite to declaring a Caliph.
> 
> As for the major powers, their governments' happiness is by-the-by: their agreement to any course of action is, however, essential, however reluctant that agreement may be.


No they're not.Those ideas have been around since the meeting of modernism and the old world. Syria and iraq  didn't just implode ffs. (I love it when states with 60 million people just implode out of nowhere). They were a key part of that implosion - helped on the material side by the people who you think need to be part of the anti-ISIS deal.

I didn't mention the govts happiness. Their agreement is neither here nor there now. You don't have any clue what's going on.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

Butchers, no one claimed that Iraq and Syria spontaneously imploded: as you well know, Iraq imploded 'cause of the idiotic decision to invade and depose Saddam's regime; Syria, 'cause the Arab Spring slammed into the immovable object of Assad. 

Of course Assad and his Ba'athist setup are major causes of this catastrophe, but we are where we are, and not only does he still have serious military potential, he has a powerful ally in Russia. If you can suggest a way to pry Russia away from the Assad dynasty -- an alliance that, as you know, stretches back to the Cold War -- your position strengthens, but so far, you haven't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Butchers, no one claimed that Iraq and Syria spontaneously imploded: as you well know, Iraq imploded 'cause of the idiotic decision to invade and depose Saddam's regime; Syria, 'cause the Arab Spring slammed into the immovable object of Assad.
> 
> Of course Assad and his Ba'athist setup are major causes of this catastrophe, but we are where we are, and not only does he still have serious military potential, he has a powerful ally in Russia. If you can suggest a way to pry Russia away from the Assad dynasty -- an alliance that, as you know, stretches back to the Cold War -- your position strengthens, but so far, you haven't.


I don't get any sense of 'we' in this from you other than the cameron sense. I'm not all interested in outcomes with that 'we' built into it. It's fantasy. Oh how best could a group of self-interested states come to a conclusion that benefits them all all. I wonder what's missing from this discussion?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:
			
		

> but we are where we are,



No we are not.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I don't get any sense of 'we' in this from you other than the cameron sense. I'm not all interested in outcomes with that 'we' built into it. It's fantasy. Oh how best could a group of self-interested states come to a conclusion that benefits them all all. I wonder what's missing from this discussion?


I'm not suggesting that you and I have common aims, although we do both want to see Assad and Daesh gone: "we are where we are" is simply a turn of phrase. Substitute "the situation is what it is" if you prefer. 

Whatever you think should happen in Syria, it needs to confront the situation as-is, and if you think Assad shouldn't be negotiated with, that means explaining how you believe Russia can be persuaded to stop supporting a regime it's backed right out the gates.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2015)

Azrael said:


> I'm not suggesting that you and I have common aims, although we do both want to see Assad and Daesh gone: "we are where we are" is simply a turn of phrase. Substitute "the situation is what it is" if you prefer.
> 
> Whatever you think should happen in Syria, it needs to confront the situation as-is, and if you think Assad shouldn't be negotiated with, that means explaining how you believe Russia can be persuaded to stop supporting a regime it's backed right out the gates.


No it doesn't.

Good this, you beat one cunt and another pops up.

What  is this russia - obsession have you seen how little they have committed?


----------



## Azrael (Nov 30, 2015)

I've been civil, but if you won't be, fuck it and good night.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2015)

I've been civil.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You know full well it was aired.
> 
> Anyway, do let me know if you find something about intel agencies not bothering any more to target prominent politicians who clearly going against "interests" of states/NATO etc. I'd be fascinated to read it.



That was *a* general - a single one, speaking _off piste_, and with no official support whatsoever. Hardly a fucking conspiracy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> That was *a* general - a single one, speaking _off piste_, and with no official support whatsoever. Hardly a fucking conspiracy.


half pissed I'd say 'another jameson and I'll say something I shouldn't'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Straw men and insults don't cut it. The house of commons may be unimportant to you because you know everything and lecture what we should read and believe.



*IF* the House of Commons were a neutral venue in which legislators represented the opinions and interests of all the people they represent, I'd say "yes. The House of Commons *is* important".
As it is, it's not a neutral venue, and the legislators represent the opinions and interests only of themselves and people of similar ilk. Expecting any sort of representation or action from your MP or (if you're a member) your party is at best naive, and at worst ignorant. Parliament and what it does is not democratic, and never has been.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2015)

Azrael said:


> And your evidence for this claim is ...?



The fact that most legislation is carefully calculated to maximise available approval before it is placed in a bill. Do you think we'd have the occasional phenomenon of The Lords sending back legislation, if they were part of the formulation as opposed to the approval process?
Parliamentary debate as a motivator or swayer of MPs is pretty much dead except with regard to PMBs. I can't personally remember the last time an MP's testimony swayed the foreseen (and sought after) outcome of a debate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> anyway the quality of debate in the commons is pisspoor



Last halfway-interesting and engaging debate I can recall was about 2008/09, and was on ID cards/biometrics etc, and that was mostly interesting for the fact that people from all parties put forth some very cogent arguments against the idea.


----------



## treelover (Dec 2, 2015)

<iframe src="https://embed.theguardian.com/embed...-byelection-corbymania-collides-reality-video" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If this video by John harris is correct, then it doesn't look good for Corbyn tomorrow in the Bye Election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2015)

treelover said:


> <iframe src="Oldham byelection: Corbynmania collides with reality – video" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


what's the point you wish to make?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what's the point you wish to make?


Probably something about the SWP.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2015)

*ViolentPanda*, if you believe the Commons to be undemocratic, what would you replace it with? Legislatures elected under proportional systems, where legislators' place on a party list hinges on loyalty, ain't models of independence. 

As for the effectiveness of debates, of course bills are drafted to maximize success, including bills, like the right to die bill, that fail. It says nothing either way about how effective debates are. They might be wholly ineffective, but that's not been shown, just asserted.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 2, 2015)

FFS.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2015)

Pretty much my feelings. 

OK, accepting the ineffectiveness of Commons' debates arguendo, how should the British legislature be reformed to improve matters?


----------



## youngian (Dec 3, 2015)

So Hilary Benn fancies the crown, like his father he knows how to combine pulpit moralising with Machiavellian manoeuvring. As the Syrian debate was mainly a pragmatic one about ways and means his rhetoric was irrelevant. Any Labour MP who was swung by it has somewhat questionable judgement.


----------



## killer b (Dec 3, 2015)

No-one was swung by anything that was said in the house yesterday - the list of Labour MPs who voted for war is a list of the Blairite rump of the party. It's a challenge to Corbyn's leadership as much as anything else.


----------



## youngian (Dec 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> It's a challenge to Corbyn's leadership as much as anything else.


And a dire issue to define yourself by. Corbyn was on the right side of the argument regardless of what MPs may think about the quality of his leadership. As even Ed Miliband could have applied the whip on that vote, Corbyn's lack of authority is to blame


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 3, 2015)

The Tories thought Benn's speech was so good, that it now resides on Conservative Home. Seriously, you can't make this shit up.
WATCH: Hilary Benn’s electrifying speech for air strikes – and against his leader | Conservative Home

Oh, and it's Hilary with one 'L'.


----------



## killer b (Dec 3, 2015)

youngian said:


> And a dire issue to define yourself by. Corbyn was on the right side of the argument regardless of what MPs may think about the quality of his leadership. As even Ed Miliband could have applied the whip on that vote, Corbyn's lack of authority is to blame


You think Corbyn should have whipped? What would that have achieved? The same vote, but 11 resignations from his cabinet and probably the loss of his chief whip, I reckon.

They knew how many were voting against the party yesterday morning. They've known for days, since before he decided not to whip. That's why he decided not to whip - look at those names. There's no way they were going to play ball whatever.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 3, 2015)

That cunt Benn said something different last month. Then, he was against bombing. So what happened?


> Labour’s opposition to any British involvement in military action against Islamic State (Isis) in Syria has intensified, despite the massacre in Paris.
> 
> Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said the co-ordinated attacks on the French capital, which left at least 127 dead, were an “act of war” – but all but ruled out backing UK air strikes in response.
> Hilary Benn has said Labour won't back air strikes on Syria


----------



## teqniq (Dec 3, 2015)

I hope that comes back to bite him on the arse


----------



## youngian (Dec 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> You think Corbyn should have whipped? What would that have achieved? The same vote, but 11 resignations from his cabinet and probably the loss of his chief whip, I reckon.


 He should have whipped but Corbyn doesn't have the authority to carry it through. And will have even less if Labour gets a drubbing in Oldham. 

And for all of Benn's melodramatic rhetoric, Cameron and the Labour bombers don't feel strongly enough about removing ISIS to upset the Saudis and cut a deal with Assad and the Russians.


----------



## billy_bob (Dec 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> You think Corbyn should have whipped? What would that have achieved? The same vote, but 11 resignations from his cabinet and probably the loss of his chief whip, I reckon.
> 
> They knew how many were voting against the party yesterday morning. They've known for days, since before he decided not to whip. That's why he decided not to whip - look at those names. There's no way they were going to play ball whatever.



I'm surprised by how many people I've had to point this out to in the last day or two. Whipping would have done nothing but given the Tories even more to crow about. Might even have been enough to prompt some floor-crossing.


----------



## rekil (Dec 3, 2015)

Only 3 "Killary Benn" mentions on the twitter. For shame.


----------



## youngian (Dec 3, 2015)

"The Brutus costume and knife you ordered has just come in Sir "


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

Azrael said:


> *ViolentPanda*, if you believe the Commons to be undemocratic, what would you replace it with? Legislatures elected under proportional systems, where legislators' place on a party list hinges on loyalty, ain't models of independence.



Legislatures elected under *any* party-based system cannot be (or even approach being) independent.
I'd replace both Houses of Parliament with fixed-term appointees. The appointees would be chosen by lot in each "constituency" area, and would only function as representatives for the majority solicited opinion of the people in that constituency, and only on national issues. I'd have local and regional governance through a similar system.
Before you whine about how appointees wouldn't know what they're doing, I'd use the tried and trusted system of having a "clerk" or clerks to guide representatives on points of law and protocol - something that's been successfully done in Magistrate's Courts for several hundred years.



> As for the effectiveness of debates, of course bills are drafted to maximize success, including bills, like the right to die bill, that fail. It says nothing either way about how effective debates are. They might be wholly ineffective, but that's not been shown, just asserted.


The fact of a parlous volume of proof that debate does influence the majority of bills may not be evidence _per se_, but one *can* reasonably conclude, in the absence of any effective argument against the ineffectiveness, that it is so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

Azrael said:


> Pretty much my feelings.
> 
> OK, accepting the ineffectiveness of Commons' debates arguendo, how should the British legislature be reformed to improve matters?



First thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> That cunt Benn said something different last month. Then, he was against bombing. So what happened?



A sniff of power.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> A sniff of power.


Innit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Innit.



I acknowledge that it's a cuntish thing for me to say, but I'm glad his dad didn't live long enough to see his son grovelling in such wholehearted self-abasement to power.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I acknowledge that it's a cuntish thing for me to say, but I'm glad his dad didn't live long enough to see his son grovelling in such wholehearted self-abasement to power.


At least Oliver Baldwin had the courage of his convictions and joined the Labour Party instead of following his old man into the Tories. Benn is a disgrace.


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> First thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.


no 'is' [/pedant]


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd replace both Houses of Parliament with fixed-term appointees. The appointees would be chosen by lot in each "constituency" area, and would only function as representatives for the majority solicited opinion of the people in that constituency, and only on national issues. I'd have local and regional governance through a similar system.
> Before you whine about how appointees wouldn't know what they're doing, I'd use the tried and trusted system of having a "clerk" or clerks to guide representatives on points of law and protocol - something that's been successfully done in Magistrate's Courts for several hundred years.



Wouldn't these 'clerks' become a de-facto ruling class, manipulating the decision-making process in their favour? The court system in this country is the most class-ridden part of society.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Wouldn't these 'clerks' become a de-facto ruling class, manipulating the decision-making process in their favour? The court system in this country is the most class-ridden part of society.



If their pronouncements were open to public scrutiny and censure, would they be eager to manipulate the process?


----------



## flypanam (Dec 3, 2015)

copliker said:


> Only 3 "Killary Benn" mentions on the twitter. For shame.



What about Stella Greasey?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> If their pronouncements were open to public scrutiny and censure, would they be eager to manipulate the process?



What mechanism would be put in place to provide this public scrutiny?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> What mechanism would be put in place to provide this public scrutiny?



Next you'll be asking me whether chairs in both chambers will be padded or not! 

What mechanism? Publication (in all media forms) of debate and guidance, and the ability of individuals to require explanation *if* guidance deviates from established norms/acceptable practice. Why that mechanism? Because public scrutiny of the minutiae of rule and governance is anathema to the ruling classes and their puppets. It constrains the guide as well as the decision-makers/legislators to directing their attention to the public interest, not their own. If you knew that maybe 100,000 individuals or more would scrutinise every bit of guidance, and/or every legislative decision, how prepared would you be to sell your liberty and/or your reputation?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Next you'll be asking me whether chairs in both chambers will be padded or not!



Don't be so silly. It'd clearly have to be unpadded with spikes!



> What mechanism? Publication (in all media forms) of debate and guidance, and the ability of individuals to require explanation *if* guidance deviates from established norms/acceptable practice. Why that mechanism? Because public scrutiny of the minutiae of rule and governance is anathema to the ruling classes and their puppets. It constrains the guide as well as the decision-makers/legislators to directing their attention to the public interest, not their own. If you knew that maybe 100,000 individuals or more would scrutinise every bit of guidance, and/or every legislative decision, how prepared would you be to sell your liberty and/or your reputation?



If guidance does end up deviating from these norms, what will the response be? Would the public get to vote out the clerks?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2015)

Also, how would these norms be established?


----------



## redcogs (Dec 3, 2015)

Corby knew that the blairite nobs wouldn't tolerate Party policy and they voted accordingly.  he should have whipped em, then sacked the fuckers for being contemptuous of basic democracy and the party membership.

Best to go down fighting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Also, how would these norms be established?



Precedent and positive reinforcement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I acknowledge that it's a cuntish thing for me to say, but I'm glad his dad didn't live long enough to see his son grovelling in such wholehearted self-abasement to power.


as is his dad no doubt.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> First thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.


 
You do realise that under your system, as absolutely ridiculous as your proposals are, you are, nonetheless, a lawyer?

You know, as in you are determining the law...?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Don't be so silly. It'd clearly have to be unpadded with spikes!
> 
> 
> 
> If guidance does end up deviating from these norms, what will the response be?



I'd advocate the bastinado, but the liberals would get upset. 



> Would the public get to vote out the clerks?



That's what democracy is (and should be) about - the ability of the public to exercise a check on their legislature. Not necessarily a vote, but perhaps something like a recall system where they get to attempt to justify their decision/raise the merits of it. If they're found wanting, then they should be put before a tribunal and justice should take its' course.
Or we could subject them to trial by ordeal.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Precedent and positive reinforcement.



'Positive reinforcement' seems a bit ambiguous. What does it mean in practice? Voting them out? Doesn't that just take us back to square one with the same system as now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You do realise that under your system, as absolutely ridiculous as your proposals are, you are, nonetheless, a lawyer?
> 
> You know, as in you are determining the law...?



Lawyers don't determine the law, legislators do. Lawyers merely administrate and interpret.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Precedent and positive reinforcement.


 
Stare decisis?

Oh but wait, a second! - that's what we already have!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> 'Positive reinforcement' seems a bit ambiguous. What does it mean in practice? Voting them out? Doesn't that just take us back to square one with the same system as now?



It means "carrot and stick". The plain and evident fact that if they misbehave, they'll be punished. if they apply their guidance even-handedly, they won't be punished.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It means "carrot and stick". The plain and evident fact that if they misbehave, they'll be punished. if they apply their guidance even-handedly, they won't be punished.


 
That's not really what you are proposing, to be frank.

It's simply a solution to how to dilute the opinions of people who disagree with you.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It means "carrot and stick". The plain and evident fact that if they misbehave, they'll be punished. if they apply their guidance even-handedly, they won't be punished.



So you'd replace elected representatives with administrators chosen by lot, who would operate according to the advice of clerks, who would act as elected representatives?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Corby knew that the blairite nobs wouldn't tolerate Party policy and they voted accordingly.  he should have whipped em, then sacked the fuckers for being contemptuous of basic democracy and the party membership.
> 
> Best to go down fighting.



Why "go down" at all?
The "Blairite nobs" (a kind name for the treacherous, self-serving vermin) have shown themselves for what they are in the same way Blair did when he ignored 2 million marchers against the Iraq war. The likes of Benn and Cooper etc have provided those who desire the power to de-select with some killer ammunition for doing so, and I suspect that Corbyn will remain leader long enough to see the re-democratisation of constituency parties come to fruition.


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Corby knew that the blairite nobs wouldn't tolerate Party policy and they voted accordingly.  he should have whipped em, then sacked the fuckers for being contemptuous of basic democracy and the party membership.
> 
> Best to go down fighting.



I think he should do the exact opposite; have no whipped votes at all and remove those tools by which the centre dictates to the local parties.  

The Chief Whip has shown her unreliability, he doesn't have the strength in the PLP to kick off with and if this vote proves anything, it is that there is no issue that that the faction will not seek to embarrass him over.  If he lets them vote with what they claim is their conscience, they will not be able to resist voting with the government (indeed they don't have anyone else to vote with) which will make getting rid of them locally that much easier; plus he can keep chirping on about the new politics, localization and the importance of honestly representing constituents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> That's not really what you are proposing, to be frank.



Because, of course, you know better than me,what *I'm* proposing.





> It's simply a solution to how to dilute the opinions of people who disagree with you.



No, that's what you *assume* it is, because your arrogance permits no other explanation.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

Anyway, whichever view you take on the political spectrum, that was a fantastic speech from Benn - one of the greatest that I have ever seen and I've already watched it several times already today.

I'm not necessarily persuaded.  It is fundamentally a speech for some kind of total war and that is, obviously, a very big deal and the idea that air strikes in addition to the US, France, Jordan, the UAE etc might make a material difference is not convincing at all.

But what it does do is frame the situation in a manner that has not been commonly understood.  My opinion is that the threat of ISIS has mainly been understood through the lazy and gratuitous viewing of their videos showing all the things that they want us to see but Benn has got to the heart of the matter now.

They hold us in contempt - that was his argument.

They are fascists - that was his argument.

We stand up to fascists who hold us in contempt - that was his argument.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because, of course, you know better than me,what *I'm* proposing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> They hold us in contempt - that was his argument.
> 
> They are fascists - that was his argument.
> 
> We stand up to fascists who hold us in contempt - that was his argument.



Repeating a phrase over and over as a rhetorical device to woo those who are easily-swayed - that was his argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyway, whichever view you take on the political spectrum, that was a fantastic speech from Benn - one of the greatest that I have ever seen and I've already watched it several times already today.


there is no need to parade your ignorance.



> I'm not necessarily persuaded.


from the remainder of the post it seems you are very easily persuaded





> It is fundamentally a speech for some kind of total war


is it?





> and that is, obviously, a very big deal and the idea that air strikes in addition to the US, France, Jordan, the UAE etc might make a material difference is not convincing at all.
> 
> But what it does do is frame the situation in a manner that has not been commonly understood.  My opinion is that the threat of ISIS has mainly been understood through the lazy and gratuitous viewing of their videos showing all the things that they want us to see but Benn has got to the heart of the matter now.
> 
> ...


your opinion is as ever facile and ill-formed.


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyway, whichever view you take on the political spectrum, that was a fantastic speech from Benn - one of the greatest that I have ever seen and I've already watched it several times already today.
> 
> I'm not necessarily persuaded.  It is fundamentally a speech for some kind of total war and that is, obviously, a very big deal and the idea that air strikes in addition to the US, France, Jordan, the UAE etc might make a material difference is not convincing at all.
> 
> ...



It was a great speech, the sad thing is that (as you recognize) it was nothing to do with whether or not what was being voted on was sensible.  It was probably similar to the Athenians hearing Demosthenes argue brilliantly, successfully and idiotically for war with Alexander.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because, of course, you know better than me,what *I'm* proposing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Anyway, shall we circle back to the stare decisis point - I assume you know what it means when proposing basic changes to English and Welsh public law...?


----------



## killer b (Dec 3, 2015)

Great. Someone tell me when its all over please.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

killer b said:


> Great. Someone tell me when its all over please.


it will be over when there is a 'banned' next to diamond's name. until that point occasional contretemps are inevitable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But what it does do is frame the situation in a manner that has not been commonly understood. My opinion is that the threat of ISIS has mainly been understood through the lazy and gratuitous viewing of their videos showing all the things that they want us to see but Benn has got to the heart of the matter now.
> 
> They hold us in contempt - that was his argument.
> 
> They are fascists - that was his argument.


yes everyone was just whacking off to beheading videos and hadn't spotted the paralels with fascism. Thank god killary benn stepped up to inform us all of the blindingly obvious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> They hold us in contempt - that was his argument.
> 
> They are fascists - that was his argument.
> 
> We stand up to fascists who hold us in contempt - that was his argument.


'they are fascists' has for many years generally meant 'we don't like them'.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

Can't believe that "Killary Benn" has become a meme already - if nothing else, it demonstrates how people rush to judgment with infantile slogans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Can't believe that "Killary Benn" has become a meme already - if nothing else, it demonstrates how people rush to judgment with infantile slogans.


like die-a-monde.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 3, 2015)

If Corby has the fortitude to stick with it (and many wouldn't) then good luck to him.  

my guess is that the combination of attacks from contemptible right wing Labour shites and the equally grotesque free market media creatures will ultimately overwhelm both him and the project to establish Labour as a serious anti  capitalist organisation. 

i recognise that this is both distressing and pessimistic, if not defeatist.  But given Labour's history, it is surely realistic.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

He only made the speech just over 12 hours ago and has a long record of accomplishment in the context of progressive social justice!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> He only made the speech just over 12 hours ago and has a long record of accomplishment in the context of progressive social justice!


what has he accomplished then?


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

But no, he is now "Killary Benn"

Absolutely absurd


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> But no, he is now "Killary Benn"
> 
> Absolutely absurd


yes, for one thing there's only one 'l' in hilary


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> what has he accomplished then?


 
He has been a significant trade union official and a Labour MP of some standing.

A damn sight more than I guess anyone on these boards have accomplished.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Can't believe that "Killary Benn" has become a meme already - if nothing else, it demonstrates how people rush to judgment with infantile slogans.


you had a wood on during his speech and so did he


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> He has been a significant trade union official and a Labour MP of some standing.
> 
> A damn sight more than I guess anyone on these boards have accomplished.


no, what has he accomplished, not what posts has he held.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you had a wood on during his speech and so did he


he's been shaking hands with the unemployed watching that speech again today i expect.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, for one thing there's only one 'l' in hilary


 
According to Dotcommunist and others who try and manufacture this slur, there is not.

I like to get it on target when it matters, do pay attention.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I like to get it on target when it matters, do pay attention.


you can't think this matters then.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you had a wood on during his speech and so did he


 
Really?

You really think that?

NO, YOU IDIOT - I shed tears during his speech.

When he mentioned the Yazidi women who had been discovered in a mass grave because they were viewed as being too old to be sold as sex slaves by ISIS - how did you react?

With resignation?

This isn't a fucking computer game!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Really?
> 
> You really think that?
> 
> ...


yeh. but this isn't about the yazidis who hardly anyone here had heard of before last year.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but this isn't about the yazidis who hardly anyone here had heard of before last year.


 
What the fuck is this argument?

How do you run it - the Yazidis are worth no consideration because we were not aware of them before no matter how they are being abused?

Or maybe it is that the Yazidis are worth no consideration whatsoever in any event?

Or, maybe, following that through, any group of people who we haven't heard about by last December are perfectly OK to be raped, enslaved and killed and that's all ticketty-boo...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> What the fuck is this argument?
> 
> How do you run it - the Yazidis are worth no consideration because we were not aware of them before no matter how they are being abused?
> 
> ...


the uk bombing of syria was not prompted by the plight of the yazidis. that is a simple statement of fact. but carry on with your hysterical nonsense, if you wish.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

Oh, and just to expand - maybe, just maybe, people might not have heard about the Yazidis because they were not being persecuted before in this manner?

How's that for an idea?

The idea that when one people get genocidally threatened, it might come to your attention, and you might be prepared to respond?

Or maybe you prefer to ignore it and say - "they weren't on my radar before, why should they be on my radar now?"

I'm pretty sure that played a big part in Rwanda in 1994 but I'm sure others would disagree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Oh, and just to expand - maybe, just maybe, people might not have heard about the Yazidis because they were not being persecuted before in this manner?


they have been viciously persecuted in the past but then you wouldn't know that because you have no genuine interest in the yazidis.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> When he mentioned the Yazidi women who had been discovered in a mass grave because they were viewed as being too old to be sold as sex slaves by ISIS - how did you react?


with the same bitter hatred I did when reading about it some months before killary deigned to inform you of the matter

btw anyone who followed the events of the siege of kobani knows what happened to the yazedi and how many are still slaves in raqqa


----------



## Zabo (Dec 3, 2015)

"Labour veteran Ken Livingstone has suggested that Labour MPs who voted in favour of airstrikes should be pushed out of their seats.

Mr Livingstone, who was controversially put in charge of the party's defence review, said if his MP had voted for airstrikes he would back a de-selection challenge.

Speaking on LBC, after 66 Labour MPs defied their leader Jeremy Corbyn to support military action in Syria, he said: "If I had an MP who had voted to bomb Syria then I would be prepared to support someone to challenge him."

Shadow foreign affairs minister Stephen Doughty said Mr Livingstone's comments were "utterly inappropriate" and told Sky News: "I really think Ken needs to consider what he is saying and think very carefully about his position."

Shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith said the comments were "disgraceful".

In full

Livingstone: Push Out Labour Airstrikes MPs


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2015)

tears of a clown


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> they have been viciously persecuted in the past but then you wouldn't know that because you have no genuine interest in the yazidis.


 
This is such a shit argument of distraction that it barely merits a response.

But I will respond to demonstrate again your prolific bullshit.

Just because one group has been persecuted in the past and someone may be understandably ignorant of that and then that same group is persecuted again in the present does not have _any bearing whatsoever_ on what should be done in the present.  Understood?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> What the fuck is this argument?
> 
> How do you run it - the Yazidis are worth no consideration because we were not aware of them before no matter how they are being abused?
> 
> ...


anyway i thought you were going to tell me of st hilary benn's accomplishments.


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You do realise that under your system, as absolutely ridiculous as your proposals are, you are, nonetheless, a lawyer?
> 
> You know, as in you are determining the law...?



I'm sure someone else has pointed this out already, but lawyers don't determine the law - legislators create the law and judges interpret/clarify it where necessary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> This is such a shit argument of distraction that it barely merits a response.
> 
> But I will respond to demonstrate again your prolific bullshit.
> 
> Just because one group has been persecuted in the past and someone may be understandably ignorant of that and then that same group is persecuted again in the present does not have _any bearing whatsoever_ on what should be done in the present.  Understood?


if the uk was going to intervene to help the yazidis it would have happened quite some time ago. there were no calls for uk involvement then and so it is disingenuous now to say 'we're doing this for the plucky yazidis': when that argument was adduced for the first time last night. yes, what has happened to the yazidis is appalling. but don't lie to me, don't lie to yourself, and say that uk involvement in bombing syria is because of a tardy interest in yazidi welfare.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm sure someone else has pointed this out already, but lawyers don't determine the law - legislators create the law and judges interpret/clarify it where necessary.


 
I would consider someone who is constituting a new constitution to be a lawyer, to be frank.  As in they are laying down the laws.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> You do realise that under your system, as absolutely ridiculous as your proposals are, you are, nonetheless, a lawyer?
> 
> You know, as in you are determining the law...?




you don't know much about the law, do you: not a question, a statement of fact.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I would consider someone who is constituting a new constitution to be a lawyer, to be frank.  As in they are laying down the laws.




why do you insist on parading your abject ignorance?


----------



## Diamond (Dec 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> if the uk was going to intervene to help the yazidis it would have happened quite some time ago. there were no calls for uk involvement then and so it is disingenuous now to say 'we're doing this for the plucky yazidis': when that argument was adduced for the first time last night. yes, what has happened to the yazidis is appalling. but don't lie to me, don't lie to yourself, and say that uk involvement in bombing syria is because of a tardy interest in yazidi welfare.


 
First point, there were calls for involvement when the Yazidis took the hit first time around - we dropped supplies and our allies defended them.

Second, correspondingly that argument in favour of supporting the Yazidis was definitely _not_ adduced for the first time last night.

Third, I do not actually support the bombing campaign but those who do argue a multifarious number of reasons - I was simply explaining why I thought Benn's speech was so moving... It's not difficult stuff to understand


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> First point, there were calls for involvement when the Yazidis took the hit first time around - we dropped supplies and our allies defended them.


fair point. i am sure that the yazidis were suitably grateful for the water and lanterns.



> Second, correspondingly that argument in favour of supporting the Yazidis was definitely _not_ adduced for the first time last night.


so who else has been saying it in the past couple of weeks?



> Third, I do not actually support the bombing campaign but those who do argue a multifarious number of reasons - I was simply explaining why I thought Benn's speech was so moving... It's not difficult stuff to understand


no it's not difficult stuff to understand, you're easily impressed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?



Who indeed? The answer to that question has always been "it's the duty of everybody to do so. If you don't, then you deserve to reap what you've sown".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Repeating a phrase over and over as a rhetorical device to woo those who are easily-swayed - that was his argument.



Argument by soundbite.
Wonder who wrote his speech for him?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyway, shall we circle back to the stare decisis point - I assume you know what it means when proposing basic changes to English and Welsh public law...?



You can assume what you like. I'm not interested in derailing this thread, and I haven't "proposed basic changes to English and Welsh public law". What I've proposed - which will be evident to anyone who doesn't make assumptions about my politics - is something that dissolves the current system in favour of something more equitable, and less prone to manipulation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you had a wood on during his speech and so did he








A chance meeting between Benn and Diamond yesterday.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

Zabo said:


> "Labour veteran Ken Livingstone has suggested that Labour MPs who voted in favour of airstrikes should be pushed out of their seats.
> 
> Mr Livingstone, who was controversially put in charge of the party's defence review, said if his MP had voted for airstrikes he would back a de-selection challenge.
> 
> ...



So basically Livingstone has called for MPs to be accountable to constituency party democracy, and Doughty and Smith find such a notion objectionable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm sure someone else has pointed this out already, but lawyers don't determine the law - legislators create the law and judges interpret/clarify it where necessary.



I have indeed already pointed this out to our indefatigable _pro-bon_erist.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> They are fascists - that was his argument.


Except, they're not fascists and using that word in order to persuade people of the merits of your argument is dishonest. Moreover, when Benn used the International Brigades to bolster his case, he was being equally dishonest, and it is also an insult to the memories of those who fought Franco.

I look forward to your reply.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have indeed already pointed this out to our indefatigable _pro-bon_erist.


i imagine that there are few of his clients who have anything _bon_ to say about him


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I would consider someone who is constituting a new constitution to be a lawyer, to be frank.  As in they are laying down the laws.



And what is the generally-acknowledged description of a lawyer? In the three dictionaries (Concise Oxford English, Chambers English and Collins English) I own, all reference the fact of "legal professional",and don't mention legislators at all.
So unless you're arguing for a technical academic or professional use of the term - i.e. one that *isn't* generally understood as the acknowledged description of the word, then you are talking out of your arse.
Again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Except, they're not fascists and using that word in order to persuade people of the merits of your argument is dishonest. Moreover, using the International Brigades was equally as dishonest, but is also an insult to the memories of those who fought Franco.
> 
> I look forward to your reply.


you won't make that mistake again


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And what is the generally-acknowledged description of a lawyer? In the three dictionaries (Concise Oxford English, Chambers English and Collins English) I own, all reference the fact of "legal professional",and don't mention legislators at all.
> So unless you're arguing for a technical academic or professional use of the term - i.e. one that *isn't* generally understood as the acknowledged description of the word, then you are talking out of your arse.
> Again.


i fear he isn't talking out of his arse but saying what he believes to be the case


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Except, they're not fascists and using that word in order to persuade people of the merits of your argument is dishonest. Moreover, when Benn used the International Brigades to bolster his case, he was being equally dishonest, and it is also an insult to the memories of those who fought Franco.
> 
> I look forward to your reply.



Liar!


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I would consider someone who is constituting a new constitution to be a lawyer, to be frank.  As in they are laying down the laws.


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I have indeed already pointed this out to our indefatigable _pro-bon_erist.



For all the good that either or both of us pointing it out will do...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

andysays said:


>


i look forward to the denoument so familiar to anyone conversant with nursery rhymes


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i look forward to the denoument so familiar to anyone conversant with nursery rhymes



The contemporary equivalent of all the king's horses and all the king's men are currently on their way to Syria, so there really will be no one to put Humpty together again


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

andysays said:


> The contemporary equivalent of all the king's horses and all the king's men are currently on their way to Syria, so there really will be no one to put Humpty together again


and with nhs services overburdened as they are ...


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> First thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.


That's _so_ 16th century. Problem now is the spads, who should be humanely reassigned to a think tank to debate blue sky solutions until the crack of doom.


ViolentPanda said:


> Legislatures elected under *any* party-based system cannot be (or even approach being) independent.
> I'd replace both Houses of Parliament with fixed-term appointees. The appointees would be chosen by lot in each "constituency" area, and would only function as representatives for the majority solicited opinion of the people in that constituency, and only on national issues. I'd have local and regional governance through a similar system.
> Before you whine about how appointees wouldn't know what they're doing, I'd use the tried and trusted system of having a "clerk" or clerks to guide representatives on points of law and protocol - something that's been successfully done in Magistrate's Courts for several hundred years.


I've no interest in "whining" about government-by-jury, it's a perfectly sensible system, that worked well enough in ancient Athens.

Problem is that political parties inevitably arise, since people have vested and competing interests. Government-by-jury would either have to screen its members for political bias, which would be near-impossible, and lead to some extremely unrepresentative representatives, or leave it up to chance, which could skew party power as badly as FPTP.

Better surely to include parties under a proportional system, with the power to trigger binding referenda, as Switzerland's done effectively for a century.


> The fact of a parlous volume of proof that debate does influence the majority of bills may not be evidence _per se_, but one *can* reasonably conclude, in the absence of any effective argument against the ineffectiveness, that it is so.


I agree that we can reasonably infer that Commons' debates are, in the majority of cases, ineffective; I just disagree with the accepting the claim that they're wholly ineffective at face value.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

Azrael said:


> I've no interest in "whining" about government-by-jury, it's a perfectly sensible system, that worked well enough in ancient Athens.


as did slavery.


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> First point, there were calls for involvement when the Yazidis took the hit first time around - we dropped supplies and our allies defended them.
> 
> Second, correspondingly that argument in favour of supporting the Yazidis was definitely _not_ adduced for the first time last night.
> 
> Third, I do not actually support the bombing campaign but those who do argue a multifarious number of reasons - I was simply explaining why I thought Benn's speech was so moving... It's not difficult stuff to understand



You do know the bulk of the Yazidi community (and where those massacres took place) is in Iraq, right?


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> as did slavery.


Take it up with VP, I'm not suggesting we have it today.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

agricola said:


> You do know the bulk of the Yazidi community (and where those massacres took place) is in Iraq, right?


he is our resident jon snow


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2015)

Azrael said:


> I've no interest in "whining" about government-by-jury, it's a perfectly sensible system, that worked well enough in ancient Athens.



It was a terrible system and it - combined with what their definition of democracy was - led to disasters on a massive scale, that ultimately relegated Athens from being one of the two most important states in classical Greece to approaching something like a second-rate university town.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2015)

agricola said:


> It was a terrible system and it - combined with what their definition of democracy was - led to disasters on a massive scale, that ultimately relegated Athens from being one of the two most important states in classical Greece to approaching something like a second-rate university town.


Well, that's three votes against already, VP!  

(I'll concede the Athens point arguendo, since this one's been debated for over 2,000 years, and could be easily debated for another 2,000.)


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2015)

agricola said:


> It was a terrible system and it - combined with what their definition of democracy was - led to disasters on a massive scale, that ultimately relegated Athens from being one of the two most important states in classical Greece to approaching something like a second-rate university town.


yes but the athenian franchise wasn't universal was it? no slaves, no women, no men under a certain age?


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> yes but the athenian franchise wasn't universal was it? no slaves, no women, no men under a certain age?



... and no foreigners, and only men who could prove they were descended on both sides from citizens.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2015)

agricola said:


> You do know the bulk of the Yazidi community (and where those massacres took place) is in Iraq, right?


He didn't. This is beyond daftness.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond is remarkably always like 6 months+ behind in everything, then brings up a subject and remonstrates with everyone about why they aren't fervently discussing something that was extensively discussed ages ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Diamond is remarkably always like 6 months+ behind in everything, then brings up a subject and remonstrates with everyone about why they aren't fervently discussing something that was extensively discussed ages ago.


he's a bit like dr who only he's dr wtf


----------



## J Ed (Dec 3, 2015)

I bet in a year he will be upset with us because "no one is talking about how Turkey has helped ISIS against the Kurds"


----------



## coley (Dec 3, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Anyway, whichever view you take on the political spectrum, that was a fantastic speech from Benn - one of the greatest that I have ever seen and I've already watched it several times already today.
> 
> I'm not necessarily persuaded.  It is fundamentally a speech for some kind of total war and that is, obviously, a very big deal and the idea that air strikes in addition to the US, France, Jordan, the UAE etc might make a material difference is not convincing at all.
> 
> ...


Christ, your easily pleased,It was gut churning hypocrisy from someone who has sniffed the wind of populist opinion and has trimmed his sails accordingly.


----------



## Zabo (Dec 3, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Corby knew that the blairite nobs wouldn't tolerate Party policy and they voted accordingly.  he should have whipped em, then sacked the fuckers for being contemptuous of basic democracy and the party membership.
> 
> Best to go down fighting.



Not that I am a fan of his but that is what Blunkett said the other week. Call them out.


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Not that I am a fan of his but that is what Blunkett said the other week. Call them out.



Blunkett was probably calling for that because he knows it would fail.


----------



## Zabo (Dec 3, 2015)

agricola said:


> Blunkett was probably calling for that because he knows it would fail.



You may well be right but it certainly would have made for an interesting spectacle.

For how long can he keep accommodating them?


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2015)

Apparently (according to the Papers bit on BBC News 24) there is a story in tomorrow's Telegraph, where a Shadow Minister is claiming that Corbyn is increasing the risk of terror attacks on rebel MPs.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 4, 2015)

agricola said:


> Apparently (according to the Papers bit on BBC News 24) there is a story in tomorrow's Telegraph, where a Shadow Minister is claiming that Corbyn is increasing the risk of terror attacks on rebel MPs.



If only.


----------



## tim (Dec 4, 2015)

andysays said:


> The contemporary equivalent of all the king's horses and all the king's men are currently on their way to Syria, so there really will be no one to put Humpty together again



There may be no king's men around, but that's a result of efficiency savings. As to Syria a couple of the king's biplanes and an Argos drone are being sent out as a token gesture of solidarity.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 4, 2015)

agricola said:


> Apparently (according to the Papers bit on BBC News 24) there is a story in tomorrow's Telegraph, where a Shadow Minister is claiming that Corbyn is increasing the risk of terror attacks on rebel MPs.



Yep: Jeremy Corbyn has made us targets for jihadists, shadow cabinet member warns

Just when you thought this shit couldn't get any more ridiculous.


----------



## tommers (Dec 4, 2015)

agricola said:


> Corbyn is increasing the risk of terror attacks on rebel MPs.


A terror attack on the rebel MC? 

 What's he done now?


----------



## tommers (Dec 4, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yep: Jeremy Corbyn has made us targets for jihadists, shadow cabinet member warns
> 
> Just when you thought this shit couldn't get any more ridiculous.


I liked them putting a profile of Benn under the article moaning about naming the people who voted yes.


----------



## Combustible (Dec 4, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yep: Jeremy Corbyn has made us targets for jihadists, shadow cabinet member warns
> 
> Just when you thought this shit couldn't get any more ridiculous.



Is 'Labour Unity' a thing? Or do they mean Left Unity. In which case it's a handy mistake, making it seem like the group is closer to Corbyn.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 4, 2015)

weird thing over the last few days, that really does look like a thing, is the ammount of youth on twitter, particularly London, getting v vocal about the Syria vote .

From big ( biggest at the moment ) grimester Stormzy going off on anti MSM /  Conspiraloon tangent re: paris ("Tune in everyday at 6pm to rely on us to tell you the absolute truth about the world" Lowe me please lol ) and pro Corbo tweets ("It's actually mad that the media are putting Jeremy Corbyn on blast because he allowed his party to have a free vote") , to the twitter threat vs Neil Coyle MP  "U voted for Syria, if i see you round ends (knife emojis ) ", and just a lot more Syria stuff involving 'roads / ends' talk etc ....not something Ive seen before tbh, maybe cos I dont look.

Doubt there's any substance to the threats, and of course it gives the anti Corbo brigade ammo which they can run neatly into their ridiculous "any mention of deselection = bullying / abuse " narrative, but as i say, feels a bit 'different' this ( even factoring in soc. media amplification aspect.)


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 4, 2015)

tommers said:


> A terror attack on the rebel MC?
> 
> What's he done now?


 
Turned up the bass and the treble, of course.

Both of which are haram.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Argument by soundbite.
> Wonder who wrote his speech for him?



He wrote on the hoof apparently, in the house during the debate and perfected it back at his office when he took a break.

10 hours is a long time to allow for writing a speech.


----------



## Libertad (Dec 4, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Turned up the bass and the treble, of course.
> 
> Both of which are haram.



Bass is haram? Emma Goldman would have something to say about that.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who indeed? The answer to that question has always been "it's the duty of everybody to do so. If you don't, then you deserve to reap what you've sown".



Right - so how does this work in your genius system, then?

It's probably the point that you should expand upon because central to your idea is expanding authority.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Dec 4, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> First thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.





Diamond said:


> You do realise that under your system, as absolutely ridiculous as your proposals are, you are, nonetheless, a lawyer?
> 
> You know, as in you are determining the law...?



 You do know, noones suggesting killing lawyers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> You do know, noones suggesting killing lawyers.


the idea becoming increasingly tempting tho


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 4, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> You do know, noones suggesting killing lawyers.


I am


----------



## Diamond (Dec 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I am



Great - so you would kill thousands?

I assume because you do not like the views of one?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Great - so you would kill thousands?
> 
> I assume because you do not like the views of one?


I have no time for your pifflings today little man.


----------



## Diamond (Dec 4, 2015)

*Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.*


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Great - so you would kill thousands?
> 
> I assume because you do not like the views of one?



Surely he meant world wide, that's got to be more than a few thousand; and yes it's all down to you...happy now?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Lucy Fur (Dec 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> *Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.*


I rather suspect the lord of either realm would hastily disown you.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 4, 2015)

can you not see this is a joke and actually quite a famous quote from a film


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> can you not see this is a joke and actually quite a famous quote from a film


it's wicked to mock the afflicted.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Dec 4, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> can you not see this is a joke and actually quite a famous quote from a film


Shaekespeare actually


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 4, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> Shaekespeare actually


Why are you helping him - he was going to fall right into that!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> I rather suspect the lord of either realm would hastily disown you.


he would be cast into the outer darkness as satan flushed him down the loo.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 4, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yep: Jeremy Corbyn has made us targets for jihadists, shadow cabinet member warns
> 
> Just when you thought this shit couldn't get any more ridiculous.


The desperation on Fleet Street has reached unprecedented levels. Can they top this?


----------



## Lucy Fur (Dec 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you helping him - he was going to fall right into that!


Balls, I am an idiot


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> Right - so how does this work in your genius system, then?
> 
> It's probably the point that you should expand upon because central to your idea is expanding authority.



As I said earlier, you don't have a scooby what my "idea" is. All you have are your assumptions, and the reason for you only having assumptions is that you have no talent for separating what's on the screen in front of you from your own self-regarding imaginings that you know better.


----------



## The Boy (Dec 4, 2015)

Diamond said:


> I assume



Please don't.  It never ends well for you.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 4, 2015)

Good a thread as any. Hilary Benn back when he was Emo Philips:


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 4, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn now abandoned by everyone apart from 'voters'


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 9, 2015)

Mr Moose said:


> Thank god Angela Eagle is out. More animation in your average corpse.





Vintage Paw said:


> Plus Angela Eagle is his deputy for taking PMQs when Cameron isn't there.



Must admit I shared Moose's concerns about Angela Eagle (seen her on Question Time as dull and uninspiring as anything), though she nailed (an albeit slapstick) PMQ's today


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 9, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Good a thread as any. Hilary Benn back when he was Emo Philips:
> 
> View attachment 80419


 
I went down to the playground and watched all the little children jumping up and down. Because they didn't know I was only firing blanks.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 10, 2015)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Good a thread as any. Hilary Benn back when he was Emo Philips:
> 
> View attachment 80419


Looks like a Scion of the Rees-Mogg family who went slightly off the rails for almost a full afternoon.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 11, 2015)

Christ, these "moderate" cunts need a good kicking


> A shadow cabinet member, Michael Dugher, has claimed Jeremy Corbyn’s grassroots support group Momentum resembles a mob and its aggression is only matched by its stupidity.
> 
> The latest attack on the organisation by the shadow culture secretary shows there is little sign that the party moderates intend to let up in their campaign against Momentum or some of Corbyn’s closest supporters, such as Ken Livingstone.


----------



## laptop (Dec 11, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ, these "moderate" cunts need a good kicking
> 
> 
> 
> > Momentum resembles a mob



Are there working-class people in it or something?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 11, 2015)

laptop said:


> Are there working-class people in it or something?


 
Founder read Economics at Cambridge. Say no more.


----------



## laptop (Dec 11, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Founder read Economics at Cambridge. Say no more.



But was she a scholarship person?


----------



## spartacus mills (Dec 12, 2015)

tommers said:


> I liked them putting a profile of Benn under the article moaning about naming the people who voted yes.



AND they published a helpful list of the Shad Cab who voted yes!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2015)

I see Milliband has made a call for unity and had a dig at the blairites.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 13, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn critics target 100,000 new moderate members in long-term strategy to oust leader

The latest whispers from 'unnamed sources' say they've got a plan. They're going to recruit 100,000 new 'moderate' members. 

I can see why they're not putting their name to that one tbh.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2015)

I love the fantasy timeline they've put together.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 13, 2015)

> “For the time being we are not winning the competition with the membership. He played us royally over Syria. We are feeling sore over how we were treated,” said one MP.


hahahahaha my heart bleeds.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2015)

How did he 'play them royally' over Syria?


----------



## teqniq (Dec 13, 2015)

Yes indeed. Still if you are completely Machiavellian I suppose that's all you can see in others.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2015)

oh, were they expecting to take more of the party with them? I guess it does leave them a bit exposed.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 13, 2015)

I also like the way they talk about attracting 'moderates' and characterising Corbyn, yet again as 'hard left' when he is nothing of the sort, thereby missing the point that 'moderate' people might find him appealing.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 13, 2015)

I reckon the self-styled 'moderates' are suffering from a form of mass psychosis. Their party has never seen so many members, yet these numpties working hard to alienate them because, in their mind, they're all 'Trots'. None of them are prepared to admit that under Blair, Brown and Miliband, membership numbers fell.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 13, 2015)

This is an interesting and possibly more accurate non-delusional article.

Memo to the media bubble: real people like Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2015)

teqniq said:


> This is an interesting an possibly more accurate non-delusional article.
> 
> Memo to the media bubble: real people like Jeremy Corbyn


they have a category error here: 



> I’m not talking about unreconstructed lefties, the kind of folk who walk around with T-shirts that proclaim: “Labour: I prefer their earlier work”.



That t-shirt is sold by the Guardian - no proper 'unreconstructed leftie' would give them the time of day.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2015)

that whole article is full of howlers tbh. what a bellend. 



> A waiter in his fifties on the train to London was unenthusiastic about Corbyn’s plan to renationalise the railways – as are most of us who travel on the highly efficient Virgin West Coast service


----------



## teqniq (Dec 13, 2015)

Ok not-so-accurate then. But you have local knowledge. I've only traveled on the service once.

I still feel it stands as a counterpoint to the wibblings in the Torygraph.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 13, 2015)

teqniq said:


> This is an interesting and possibly more accurate non-delusional article.
> 
> Memo to the media bubble: real people like Jeremy Corbyn



People lliked Miliband. They didn't vote for him, though. Anyway, visiting professor of public ethics at the University of Chester? I'll trust the real psephologists, thanks.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2015)

yes, their recent track record is totally unsullied. 

(agree the article is all air and fuck all, mind)


----------



## teqniq (Dec 13, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> People lliked Miliband. They didn't vote for him, though. Anyway, visiting professor of public ethics at the University of Chester? I'll trust the real psephologists, thanks.



Need I remind you who won the leadership and why? Does the nature of his post diminish his observation? (He's not at Oxbridge so I think we can safely rubbish anything he has to say). As for opinion polls/psephologists I'm no expert but haven't their methodologies been called into question of late?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> that whole article is full of howlers tbh. what a bellend.


"Highly efficient Virgin West Coast service". Hilarious.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 13, 2015)

No. Do you think the Labour selectorate is the same thing as the electorate?

Yes.

Yes. They failed on a hugely complex question, so let's trust a random global aid and Catholicism writer's anecdotal musings on a simpler one.


----------



## killer b (Dec 13, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> "Highly efficient Virgin West Coast service". Hilarious.


I'd imagine it might seem that way if your only interaction with the service was travelling it in first class on expenses. But if it were, you'd not really be in any position to hold forth on 'bubbles'


----------



## ska invita (Dec 13, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Jeremy Corbyn critics target 100,000 new moderate members in long-term strategy to oust leader
> 
> The latest whispers from 'unnamed sources' say they've got a plan. They're going to recruit 100,000 new 'moderate' members.
> 
> I can see why they're not putting their name to that one tbh.


the whole thing sounds made up. 
For one, this is the exact opposite IIRC - Corbyn spent the least of all 4 candidates
""Liz Kendall [the Labour MP who ran for the leadership] spent a few hundred thousand pounds, Corbyn spent millions. That cannot happen again.”"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2015)

ska invita said:


> the whole thing sounds made up.
> For one, this is the exact opposite IIRC - Corbyn spent the least of all 4 candidates
> ""Liz Kendall [the Labour MP who ran for the leadership] spent a few hundred thousand pounds, Corbyn spent millions. That cannot happen again.”"



The only way they can prevent that "happening again" (i.e. Corbyn getting financial support from the unions) is by convincing the affiliated unions to not support Corbyn, but rather to support them. That might happen with regard to some of the centrist unions, but most of them would tell the so-called moderates to step the fuck off.
As for them finding 100,000 new "moderate" members, on what basis are they going to attract those sorts of numbers? Blair only managed to add 300,000 (in the short term) because people were sick to the back teeth of a Tory government. "The Maquis" have nothing to offer except neoliberal Conservatism-lite and central control of the party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Jeremy Corbyn critics target 100,000 new moderate members in long-term strategy to oust leader
> 
> The latest whispers from 'unnamed sources' say they've got a plan. They're going to recruit 100,000 new 'moderate' members.
> 
> I can see why they're not putting their name to that one tbh.


members of the fsa


----------



## free spirit (Dec 13, 2015)

What the fuck is moderate about being a war mongering neoliberal elite serving cunt?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 13, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Do you think the Labour selectorate is the same thing as the electorate?



They are both electors but in different contests; so the selectorate name calling looks a little like sour grapes.

And if you don't want people voting the wrong way in party elections, then why have party members? Are they only to be trusted to pay their fees and deliver leaflets?

That's not a very inclusive message you're putting out there, but perhaps you don't want it to be...what is it about other people you don't seem to either like or trust?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2015)

maurice has pretty much bought the sour vinyard since corbyn got in. Corbyn jugend etc


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 13, 2015)

Captain Picarda of the USS NoSurprise.


I'll get my coat.


----------



## andysays (Dec 13, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> They are both electors but in different contests; so the selectorate name calling looks a little like sour grapes.
> 
> And if you don't want people voting the wrong way in party election then why have party members? Are they only to be trusted to pay their fees and deliver leaflets?
> 
> ...





> And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids Labour party members"


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 13, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Jeremy Corbyn critics target 100,000 new moderate members in long-term strategy to oust leader
> 
> The latest whispers from 'unnamed sources' say they've got a plan. They're going to recruit 100,000 new 'moderate' members.
> 
> I can see why they're not putting their name to that one tbh.



ENTRYISM! ENTRYISM!


----------



## gosub (Dec 13, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> ENTRYISM! ENTRYISM!


what database do you reckon they have got hold of? 100,000 thats more than Mr Bliar's xmas card list


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2015)

free spirit said:


> What the fuck is moderate about being a war mongering neoliberal elite serving cunt?



It's the Orwellian name the cunts have given themselves. My own MP - a leading "moderate"  who ducked out of the leadership contest - is in fact about as moderate as an incendiary shell. He announced his intention to vote for action in Syria a full week *before* the parliamentary debate, and regards any ideas about addressing neoliberalism as beyond the pale, the fucking Blairite robot.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2015)

probably one of the maquis and all


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2015)

gosub said:


> what database do you reckon they have got hold of? 100,000 thats more than Mr Bliar's xmas card list



It's fantasy, unless they - due to some seriously delusory thinking - believe they can somehow "capture" the Lib-Dem vote in the lost Lib-Dem seats. As I said above, Blair was able to draw 250,000-300,000 to Labour (over 3 years,after which the numbers started going down) almost entirely because people were dog-sick of the Tories, and would have joined the MRL Party if Sutch had offered a cohesive vision for them to rally behind. The Maquis/moderates are kidding themselves (and the membership figures support my view) if they think that "neoliberalism with a smiley face"/ameliorationism won anyone except the likes of Picarda over.


----------



## Libertad (Dec 14, 2015)

The Maquis soon...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> probably one of the maquis and all



Yup, Chooks is a leading Brutus _manque_, and likes to imagine himself as a plucky resistance fighter.
Of course, "plucky resistance fighters" don't usually have to volume of corporate and Establishment support that Ummuna does.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2015)

> *Labour donor backs Jeremy Corbyn's anti-austerity agenda *
> 
> One of Labour's biggest donors today warned the party's moderate wing  to "wake up" to the fact that continuing to promise austerity-lite was the "road to unelectability."
> 
> ...



Rather strange this, I'm sure Mills said he would no longer fund the LP, maybe JC is appealing to powerful peoples better natures, one in the eye for the 'moderates' though.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 18, 2015)

Corbyn urges Labour councils not to set illegal budgets | LabourList


----------



## agricola (Dec 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Rather strange this, I'm sure Mills said he would no longer fund the LP, maybe JC is appealing to powerful peoples better natures, one in the eye for the 'moderates' though.



He did make one superb point, which McDonnell really should steal off him:



> Mills also expressed limited support for Corbyn's plans to implement so-called "people's quantative easing". *He said it was sensible to borrow for investment in capital projects, but warned against any wider application, saying that it was not a "magic trick" that could be relied upon to re-inflate the economy.*




Because they were hopelessly compromised pre-2015 Labour were never able to make anything out of the nonsense that was (and is) PFI costing vastly more than normal government borrowing; but now that Balls has been booted out and the Maquis are furtively running from dinner party to dinner party, McDonnell should waste no time in attacking PFI each and every time he is at the despatch box / in front of a microphone.  It is the easiest way to batter Osborne, and the only people it will affect in Labour are people who already want to knife him in the back.  

What is more, it is a point that is unarguable - even when Brown was doing it the Treasury had to seriously massage the figures to even get to the point where it looked like it might cost a similar amount to "normal" government borrowing, but since 2010 the amount of money that we have been signed up to waste is in the tens of billions.  It is also an issue that infects almost everything - transport, the NHS, the military etc.


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

*Labour may propose new Trident policy by Easter, Livingstone says - Politics live*
Labour may propose new Trident policy by Easter, Livingstone says - Politics live

Well looks like Corbyn and his obsessions will mean the Labour Party is now going to have an unproductive and divisive argument about Trident, something most of the public don't concern themselves with. This at a time when milllions are using foodbanks, people committing suicide, zero hours, end of social housing coming into view, I am losing patience with Team Corbyn. They also seem to have gone quiet on Social Security issues, despite yet another draconian Welfare Bill going though Parliament


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2016)

I thought I had you down as a Corbyn fan, treelover ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> *Labour may propose new Trident policy by Easter, Livingstone says - Politics live*
> Labour may propose new Trident policy by Easter, Livingstone says - Politics live
> 
> Well looks like Corbyn and his obsessions will mean the Labour Party is now going to have an unproductive and divisive argument about Trident, something most of the public don't concern themselves with. This at a time when milllions are using foodbanks, people committing suicide, zero hours, end of social housing coming into view, I am losing patience with Team Corbyn. They also seem to have gone quiet on Social Security issues, despite yet another draconian Welfare Bill going though Parliament



have you seen how much it'd cost to replace trident? thats not peanuts, that insane amounts. IF that cash was free for other puropses, all hundreds of billions of it?


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I thought I had you down as a Corbyn fan, treelover ?




I was enthused by the rallies, the dynamism, etc, but I have alwaays had concerns about J/C, his foreign policy, etc, same with Seaumas Milne, his Communications Director.


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> have you seen how much it'd cost to replace trident? thats not peanuts, that insane amounts. IF that cash was free for other puropses, all hundreds of billions of it?



But, its not going to be abolished, is it?, even if it was, the politician would still in their view, want an expensive independent deterrent(though of course it is anything but.) I just want Team Corbyn to concentrate on the basics.


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

> But* Emma Burnell *at LabourList says that, despite being an unilateralist, she thinks it is a mistake for the party to focus on this issue.
> 
> Renewal of Trident is likely to come before Parliament in a vote this summer – before our next conference. The recent reshuffle has been designed to make it easier for Labour to take an anti-renewal stance. However, our policy – as set by members at conference and supported by our major unions – is to support renewal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> But, its not going to be abolished, is it?, even if it was, the politician would still in their view, want an expensive independent deterrent(though of course it is anything but.) I just want Team Corbyn to concentrate on the basics.


I was never a Corbynista, though the sight of all that energy from his campaign shrinking down to Westminster plots and tedious reshuffles is still depressing.  I agree that it's all a lost opportunity. However I really don't follow your logic. Getting a clear line on getting rid of trident seems to me like a very sensible thing, even if it's unlikely to be achieved. Or to put it another way, how can you concentrate on the 'basics' if you are still committed to spending billions on nukes?


----------



## agricola (Jan 14, 2016)

What John Mann did next.


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

Its just stirring, isn't it?  not going to happen.


----------



## agricola (Jan 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> But, its not going to be abolished, is it?, even if it was, the politician would still in their view, want an expensive independent deterrent(though of course it is anything but.) I just want Team Corbyn to concentrate on the basics.



The thing is though that replacing Trident _is_ one of the basics.  For what replacing Trident will probably end up costing you could have another carrier, its air wing, the supporting vessels, an armoured division (edit: or double the size of the RTR), another couple of squadrons of Typhoons and hire the matelots, squaddies and RAF for all of them.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> I was enthused by the rallies, the dynamism, etc, but I have alwaays had concerns about J/C, his foreign policy, etc, same with Seaumas Milne, his Communications Director.


I'm with you. I voted for him but I dont agree with all of his foreign policy views. I am also a little uncomfortable with the internal focus of many of his supporters - they seem more concerned with fighting the blairites than the tories. (Of course the 'moderates' aren't blameless).


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

As if the blairites have given them any choice on whether to fight.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2016)

It's not just defensive though, is it? Some people seem to enjoy the internal strife that makes Labour look weak and disunited (this goes for both extreme wings).


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2016)

The struggle against Toryism begins with the struggle against Blairism


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2016)

Yeah, that's the mentality I'm criticising. ^^^


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2016)

Have you not noticed how the Blairites are refusing to play ball?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 14, 2016)

mk12 said:


> I'm with you. I voted for him but I dont agree with all of his foreign policy views. I am also a little uncomfortable with the internal focus of many of his supporters - they seem more concerned with fighting the blairites than the tories. (Of course the 'moderates' aren't blameless).


This is the kind of attitude that is positive. If Corbynistas were like this, they wouldn't be called Corbynistas, and the Labour Party could get on with attacking the Tories.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2016)

Yes, a small minority are resisting Corbyn's leadership. Which pisses me off. But some would be intent on kicking out Blairites even if they weren't resisting. Rather than acknowledging that the LP is a broad church and always had been.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is the kind of attitude that is positive. If Corbynistas were like this, they wouldn't be called Corbynistas, and the Labour Party could get on with attacking the Tories.


My CLP has seen a fourfold membership increase since his election, so most of us joined because we felt invigorated by his campaign. But there isn't any talk of kicking out 'moderates', taking over the CLP or any of that nonsense. We are all just focused on working out ways to oppose the Tory-Lib Dem domination in this area. Obviously it may be different elsewhere!


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is the kind of attitude that is positive. If Corbynistas were like this, they wouldn't be called Corbynistas, and the Labour Party could get on with attacking the Tories.


who calls them Corbynistas?  Pricks like you


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 14, 2016)

belboid said:


> who calls them Corbynistas?  Pricks like you


This is the nature of the discussion when you challenge those who are either not members, or have been members 5 minutes.
It's like an area that has returned Labour MPs since before the war being told it no longer represents Labour values.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 14, 2016)

mk12 said:


> My CLP has seen a fourfold membership increase since his election, so most of us joined because we felt invigorated by his campaign. But there isn't any talk of kicking out 'moderates', taking over the CLP or any of that nonsense. We are all just focused on working out ways to oppose the Tory-Lib Dem domination in this area. Obviously it may be different elsewhere!


It definitely varies.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

The whole red tory / tory-lite thing people come out with is fucking tedious (and a tactical mistake), but it's blown out of all proportion by the people it's aimed at. Are you imagining the right wing of the party will stop at anything other than the end of Corbyn? That if the vocal left of the party were a bit more polite, they'd quieten down and knuckle under? If so, you're very much mistaken.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> The whole red tory / tory-lite thing people come out with is fucking tedious (and a tactical mistake), but it's blown out of all proportion by the people it's aimed at. Are you imagining the right wing of the party will stop at anything other than the end of Corbyn? That if the vocal left of the party were a bit more polite, they'd quieten down and knuckle under? If so, you're very much mistaken.



I'm not sure what you're saying here but:

1. Some people who have just joined the party do want to deselect people they call 'Tories'. "Why don't you just join the Tories" is a common refrain.
2. Some people who have just joined the party have made some branch meetings unbearable.
3. There is an entitlement by some people (who either are or recently were in the far-left) that means they think the party is theirs.
4. Many of the above are not the people who are travelling to campaign or canvass. The existing members seem to be the only ones willing to do so.

Where the above isn't happening, some of the moderates are responding in an over-the-top manner, I agree. And I agree it's not happening everywhere.
I also welcome those who have joined and swelled the numbers and really want to debate.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

You aren't agreeing with me. I think the conflict is being driven by the right wing of the party (and their friends in the media) in order to destabilise and dethrone Corbyn.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is the nature of the discussion when you challenge those who are either not members, or have been members 5 minutes.
> It's like an area that has returned Labour MPs since before the war being told it no longer represents Labour values.


you are a master of the non-sequitur


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> You aren't agreeing with me. I think the conflict is being driven by the right wing of the party (and their friends in the media) in order to destabilise and dethrone Corbyn.


Corbynistas are managing that on their own.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

There's some narky dickheads, but so what? You show me a group of more than three people, I'll show you at least one narky dickhead. They're everywhere.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 14, 2016)

I do agree that those who remain won't stop arguing until Corbyn has gone. However, many of them are leaving. This is why I suspect Labour may be out of power for a long, long time. 

If he goes, it'll just be another of the far left that gets elected - though it might be a more intelligent one with fewer dodgy associations.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2016)

possibly best to wait till may before consulting the crystal balls though eh.


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is the kind of attitude that is positive. If Corbynistas were like this, they wouldn't be called Corbynistas, and the Labour Party could get on with attacking the Tories.





> In a statement to his local paper, Anderson said Labour had to stop “fighting each other” and focus on attacking the Tories.
> 
> It’s vital that we move on from the internal navel gazing and personality clashes and started taking the fight to this most vicious of governments.
> 
> They are hammering the poor, decimating our councils and the vital services they provide, attacking our democracy through the Trade Union Bill and pushing on with plans to redraw constituency boundaries with the aim of giving themselves a big advantage in future elections."





This really great guy, fought on lots of issues, including asbestos, former miner/carer has just been made a whip, I agree with him, Take on the Tories, felt sick seeing them bray during the Housing Bill debate/PMQ's..


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying here but:
> 
> 1. Some people who have just joined the party do want to deselect people they call 'Tories'. "Why don't you just join the Tories" is a common refrain.
> 2. Some people who have just joined the party have made some branch meetings unbearable.
> ...



The Guardian surveys seem to bear this out, for many its online only


----------



## kebabking (Jan 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> possibly best to wait till may before consulting the crystal balls though eh.



i doubt May will give good indications....

personally, i think it will be like the last electoral cycle - i think that people will vote Labour in council and EU elections, as well as by-elections, i think people will say that they like Corbyn and his economic policies (i do..), and i think that it will all look a bit tight going into election day. on the day however it will be different, with Labour getting hammered in the potential swing seats in the Midlands and South that it needs to win to get anywhere near forming a government, even a coalition with the SNP. Corbyn excites some, but _broadly_ they are those within seats that are already Labour/SNP seats, the people he really turns off are in seats he needs to take from the tories.

that does not mean he needs to (can?) take votes from the tories, but it does mean that where he picks up votes in those potential swing seats from those who either don't vote Labour, or just don't vote, he's also mobilising those who are deeply hostile to him to vote when otherwise they might not, or to vote tory when they might otherwise have voted UKIP.

much will depend on so many variables like the EU referendum, the tory leadership, the economy, and yes - to what degree the Labour party tears itself apart. ask Micheal Foot or Neil Kinnock about elections that should otherwise have been theirs for the taking..


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> The Guardian surveys seem to bear this out, for many its online only


No it doesn't, the piece about the survey actually says that (1) is a very small number of people, doesn't comment on (2) and (3) at all and says there's a mixed picture on (4).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I thought I had you down as a Corbyn fan, treelover ?


I have treelover down as a member of the miserablist tendency.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll tell you a little secret. christ's second coming will happen before labour turn socialist.


a sentiment to which i still subscribe


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2018)

nino_savatte said:


> I have treelover down as a member of the miserablist tendency.


auld treelover a tory, or would be if they'd only stop being nasty to people on benefits.


----------

