# Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

Another Corbyn thread  getting a bit sick of all this tbh but thats modern politics

Thinks its worth having a seperate thread for Corbyn & the Cabinet and how they're dealt with in the media  (and how they deal with it too). I doubt there'll be a day that goes by without some attempt to undermine and misrepresent.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

Corbyn & Cabinet by C S Lewis


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Corbyn & Cabinet by C S Lewis


Brown and Harman | Cabinet Makers |


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

The Sun are going all out Express/Diana on him. Will be able to count the number of days he doesn't feature on their front page in the next five years on Ranolph Fiennes toes.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

quite amusing


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Its been fucking depressing, should have expected it, but its been relentless, and he hasn't even announced any clear policies yet.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Corbyn & Cabinet by C S Lewis



Corbyn and The Cabinet of Jezwecan by J.K. Rowling


----------



## kebabking (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Its been fucking depressing, should have expected it, but its been relentless, and he hasn't even announced any clear policies yet.



the own goals - or at least no-shows - have started already.

yesterday the Argentine Ambassador to the UK put out a statement (reported on BBC website, front page, and its still on linked to a story about Argentine mistreatment of own troops in the falklands war thats on the front page) about how she welcomed Corbyns' election and said that it was a first step towards 'negotiations' because Corbyn was 'one of us' on the issue.

has Labour/Corbyn rebutted it? has Labour/Corbyn said 'in your fucking dreams love'? no, they've not. they've handed every political opponant of Corbyn yet another stick to beat him with, knowing that _not_ responding to Argentine bolshiness over the FI with anything less than a rude gesture and a Type 45 Destroyer is second only to noncing in the publics' list of unforgivable crimes.

i sit here in awe of their political nouse...


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Telegraph complains about lack of women in Labours 'top jobs'

Telegraph Board Members:


----------



## LiamO (Sep 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> the own goals - or at least no-shows - have started already.
> 
> i sit here in awe of their political nouse...



I sit here in awe of your inability to spell nous.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Corbyn and The Cabinet of Jezwedid by J.K. Rowling




cfy


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> the own goals - or at least no-shows - have started already.
> 
> yesterday the Argentine Ambassador to the UK put out a statement (reported on BBC website, front page, and its still on linked to a story about Argentine mistreatment of own troops in the falklands war thats on the front page) about how she welcomed Corbyns' election and said that it was a first step towards 'negotiations' because Corbyn was 'one of us' on the issue.
> 
> ...


nobody other than the residents and the over 50s give a shit about the falklands in 2015


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody other than the residents and the over 50s give a shit about the falklands in 2015


hmmm...i think its something that people could be whipped up about again


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody other than the residents and the over 50s give a shit about the falklands in 2015


fascists, don't forget the fascists


----------



## Farmer Giles (Sep 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Another Corbyn thread  getting a bit sick of all this tbh but thats modern politics
> I doubt there'll be a day that goes by without some attempt to undermine and misrepresent.



I agree, have a look at the way the right wingers on here are feasting on media bollox being spouted.

Gassing Station - PistonHeads


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody other than the residents and the over 50s give a shit about the falklands in 2015



You'd be surprised I think.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody other than the residents and the over 50s give a shit about the falklands in 2015




Sorry, I don't agree, been frequenting places where people are disliking Corbyns possible stance to Falklands, " fucking corbyn wants to give them back to the Argies"


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 15, 2015)

eh, nobody I know cares a jot. Mentioned it to my brother and he just used it as an excuse to wheel out an extremely bad taste simon weston joke


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Its been fucking depressing, should have expected it, but its been relentless, and he hasn't even announced any clear policies yet.





> *On the economy*
> Corbyn is opposed to austerity and plans to bring down the deficit by growing the economy and taxing the wealthy instead.
> 
> He intends to introduce a “people’s quantitative easing”, which would allow the Bank of England to print money to invest in large-scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects, partly through a national investment bank.
> ...


Yep, no policies.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

> *On welfare*
> Corbyn was one of the 48 Labour rebels who defied the party whip and voted against the government’s welfare reform bill. He said:
> 
> We are one of the richest countries in the world and there is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to live in poverty.



That is not a policy


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> That is not a policy


Does one non-policy invalidate the other policies mentioned? I just copied it from an article...I haven't typed all that shit out


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

some front pages today












I like the How To Draw Corbyn Masterclass


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Does one non-policy invalidate the other policies mentioned? I just copied it from an article...I haven't typed all that shit out



bit worrying though, nothing concrete on social security at all really yet, a largely unknown to shadow the DWP, no shadow ministers for disabled people or employment announced so far, given Labour;s track record it's not looking great


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> bit worrying though, nothing concrete on social security at all really yet, a largely unknown to shadow the DWP, no shadow ministers for disabled people or employment announced so far, given Labour;s track record it's not looking great


Yep, gotta agree with that.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> bit worrying though, nothing concrete on social security at all really yet, a largely unknown to shadow the DWP, no shadow ministers for disabled people or employment announced so far, given Labour;s track record it's not looking great


if you expected something concrete on Day One, you're a bit of a knob, to be honest.  They're in opposition, the important thing is to oppose the tories. And develop their own plans _democratically. _Simply announcing his own proposals would rather undermine that democratic promise.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2015)

kebabking said:


> the own goals - or at least no-shows - have started already.
> 
> yesterday the Argentine Ambassador to the UK put out a statement (reported on BBC website, front page, and its still on linked to a story about Argentine mistreatment of own troops in the falklands war thats on the front page) about how she welcomed Corbyns' election and said that it was a first step towards 'negotiations' because Corbyn was 'one of us' on the issue.
> 
> ...



It's a standard neocon technique that you get your lie in first because, they think, the public only takes in the the first headline and does not see the subsequent qualification, rebuttal and microanalysis.

That may have been the case in the age of mass broadcast media (I include newspapers in that) but I am not so sure it applies now.  Now we are all choosing our sources and the technique may not work so well with narrowcasting.

I think the Labour Party is right to keep their powder dry and to bide their time while the frenzy happens.  I think the responsibility lies with us to ensure that the relatively uncontrollable social media is filled with mocking and derision (that's another neocon technique but we can use it...) and good photoshopped memes.

I think we live in interesting times....


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> if you expected something concrete on Day One, you're a bit of a knob, to be honest.  They're in opposition, the important thing is to oppose the tories. And develop their own plans _democratically. _Simply announcing his own proposals would rather undermine that democratic promise.



well he's got lots of policies in other areas.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2015)




----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> well he's got lots of policies in other areas.


In case you didn't notice, his whole campaign was kickstarted by his opposition to the welfare bill.  He is avowedly opposed to tory cuts. Its pretty obvious he is on the side of claimants, even if he hasn't got a full proposal for what benefits will exist under his dictatorship


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> In case you didn't notice, his whole campaign was kickstarted by his opposition to the welfare bill.  He is avowedly opposed to tory cuts. Its pretty obvious he is on the side of claimants, even if he hasn't got a full proposal for what benefits will exist under his dictatorship



On the side of claimants can mean lots of different things, Iain Duncan Smith thinks he's on the side of claimants, that's why policy is important


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

Corbyn has a history of voting for forced work schemes for example, backed by the benefit sanctions he says he opposes: TheyWorkForYou


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> some front pages today



Just read the times cover article in a cafe. Absolutely nothing in it. Some stuff from unnamed 'senior sources' and then a bunch of non-attacks from named union leaders. For example, Paul Kenny of the GMB is quoted as saying 'let's see what the voters say, because, at the end of the day they really are the important ones'. Desperate stuff.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Corbyn has a history of voting for forced work schemes for example, backed by the benefit sanctions he says he opposes: TheyWorkForYou


"a compulsory jobs guarantee that would ensure that anyone under 25 who has been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for a year, and anyone over 25 who has been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for two years, would be offered a paid job"

what a cunt


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just read the times cover article in a cafe. Absolutely nothing in it. Some stuff from unnamed 'senior sources' and then a bunch of non-attacks from named union leaders. For example, Paul Kenny of the GMB is quoted as saying 'let's see what the voters say, because, at the end of the day they really are the important ones'. Desperate stuff.


its a funny headline - clearly made out of doublespeak


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> "a compulsory jobs guarantee that would ensure that anyone under 25 who has been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for a year, and anyone over 25 who has been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for two years, would be offered a paid job"
> 
> what a cunt



A compulsory job, backed by benefit sanctions, which involves 35 hours work a week for 25 hours pay at the minimum wage.  Meaning some claimants after travel costs would have less money, and have to work more hours than under the Tory's workfare scheme.  And this is for private companies not charities like currently.  260 hours unpaid work.  yes, what a cunt.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> A compulsory job, backed by benefit sanctions, which involves 35 hours work a week for 25 hours pay at the minimum wage.  Meaning some claimants after travel costs would have less money, and have to work more hours than under the Tory's workfare scheme.  And this is for private companies not charities like currently.  260 hours unpaid work.  yes, what a cunt.


sorry,  yes, he is just the same as Hitler.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2015)

This is fairly positive and it is also fairly amusing and thought-provoking

Prime minister Jeremy Corbyn: the first 100 days


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> well he's got lots of policies in other areas.


He does seem to complete evade the question of welfare. See this short interview:



I agree that his solutions are a way to reduce the benefits bill, but benefits are already too low and he makes no indication of looking at that. Maybe he's been advised to keep quiet on it by advisors?

Look forward to hearing what he comes up with.


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2015)

Sirena said:


> This is fairly positive and it is also fairly amusing and thought-provoking


I take issue with that.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> sorry,  yes, he is just the same as Hitler.



ok, is this how its going to be from now on?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> He does seem to complete evade the question of welfare. See this short interview:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



he doesn't avoid it there, he answers the questions put to him. He's not asked about what level benefits should be paid at, so he doesn't say anything about them.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> ok, is this how its going to be from now on?


dunno, are you going to continue posting like an over-excited 15 year old?


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> he doesn't avoid it there, he answers the questions put to him. He's not asked about what level benefits should be paid at, so he doesn't say anything about them.


He does avoid it. His policy on welfare so far is: I'll minimise the need for it, and its impact on society. That's not a policy on welfare.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> dunno, are you going to continue posting like an over-excited 15 year old?



So pointing out Corbyn previously voted for workfare and has not any announced any further social security policies makes me an over-excited 15 year old.  I guess this is how things are going to be from now on.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 15, 2015)

If I was in Corbyn's position I'd try and avoid getting mired in a discussion about welfare, it's a toxic area at the moment.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> He does avoid it. His policy on welfare so far is: I'll minimise the need for it, and its impact on society. That's not a policy on welfare.


I didnt say it was a policy, but it isn't avoiding giving one either.  he answers the questions put to him, you cant blame him if he wasn't asked the question you wanted. He talked about reducing the welfare bill by creating decent jobs and stopping private landlords' HB rip off.  It's obviously not full communism now, but it is very clearly opposed to any cuts to current levels of benefit. Which is the key thing _at the moment_


----------



## Santino (Sep 15, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> If I was in Corbyn's position I'd try and avoid getting mired in a discussion about welfare, it's a toxic area at the moment.


Bollocks to that, take it on directly. Make a moral case for it. Point out the actual scale of the welfare claims compared to the state pension and lost tax revenues. _Oppose._


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> If I was in Corbyn's position I'd try and avoid getting mired in a discussion about welfare, it's a toxic area at the moment.


Really? 

As the Tories mount an unprecedented attack on welfare that would have had even Thatcher wincing? 

I don't see how he can, or should, possibly avoid a discussion about welfare. 

And I'm with smokedout on his workfare history. We shouldn't be afraid to call him on his record.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> I didnt say it was a policy, but it isn't avoiding giving one either.  he answers the questions put to him, you cant blame him if he wasn't asked the question you wanted. He talked about reducing the welfare bill by creating decent jobs and stopping private landlords' HB rip off.  It's obviously not full communism now, but it is very clearly opposed to any cuts to current levels of benefit. Which is the key thing _at the moment_


No, the key thing isn't holding on to what we have...it's reversing the cuts! They were already set too low, and they need to go up.

Why doesn't he commit to reversing the bedroom tax?

Interviewing: You would cut in work tax credits, would you?
JC: I would raise wages.

Why no explicit denial?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> No, the key thing isn't holding on to what we have...it's reversing the cuts! They were already set too low, and they need to go up.
> 
> Why doesn't he commit to reversing the bedroom tax?
> 
> ...


There's an argument there that tax credits are a subsidy to underpaying employers, so I'm with him on that - the solution to in-work poverty is indeed higher wages.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

I agree with George


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's an argument there that tax credits are a subsidy to underpaying employers, so I'm with him on that - the solution to in-work poverty is indeed higher wages.


I agree with him. But if he raises wages, he won't need to cut tax credits. So why not come out and say it?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> No, the key thing isn't holding on to what we have...it's reversing the cuts! They were already set too low, and they need to go up.
> 
> Why doesn't he commit to reversing the bedroom tax?
> 
> ...


because the key thing is about raising wages, i imagine.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> because the key thing is about raising wages, i imagine.


And those who face having their tax credits cut...fuck 'em?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> And those who face having their tax credits cut...fuck 'em?


but they wouldn't lose money, because they've now got higher wages


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Sep 15, 2015)

Sorry it's Buzzfeed, but still:



> Labour’s newly appointed shadow health secretary has said she will consider whether to join party leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell in supporting the provision of homeopathic treatment on the NHS.



Labour's New Shadow Health Minister Considers Backing Homeopathy


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

Why not higher wages and tax credits, a move towards a basic income, not a move away


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

or is the policy going to be that everyone stays poor, just poor in a different kind of way


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Why not higher wages and tax credits, a move towards a basic income, not a move away


because it wouldn't be a move towards a basic income (which I would support, much better than our shitty benefits system), it would simply be a continued subsidy to shit employers


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 15, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really?
> 
> As the Tories mount an unprecedented attack on welfare that would have had even Thatcher wincing?
> 
> ...



I said at the moment, discussion is fine but don't get bogged down.  Get all your policies in place and your argument structured then make your case, fight the battles on your own ground at the time of your choosing.  That's what I would do anyway.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> but they wouldn't lose money, because they've now got higher wages


That would already happen as tax credits are income based, aren't they? So there's no need to cut.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

Lifting people out of eligibility for tax credits (by giving them higher wages), I can support. But those that are left behind...they should not be penalised.


----------



## billy_bob (Sep 15, 2015)

Corbyn stands silent during mer-mer-mer-mer sneer wibble

Seriously fucking pathetic, Guardian. What about the lass on the left, anyway? Presumably it's okay she's got her mouth shut because she's clearly wearing a really posh hat.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> Lifting people out of eligibility for tax credits (by giving them higher wages), I can support. But those that are left behind...they should not be penalised.


but if they are in work, they wont be left behind.  And if they're not in work, they wont be getting working tax credit. For those who don't work that many hours, there needs to be a replacement, but getting rid of subsidies for bad bosses if basically sensible.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2015)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Sorry it's Buzzfeed, but still:
> 
> 
> 
> Labour's New Shadow Health Minister Considers Backing Homeopathy


Homeopathy is already available on the NHS.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> because it wouldn't be a move towards a basic income (which I would support, much better than our shitty benefits system), it would simply be a continued subsidy to shit employers



OK, so Corbyn's policy on Tax Credits is the same as Osbornes, and will not make anyone better off.  And he voted for workfare.  I'm just not seeing this radical new dawn thing.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> OK, so Corbyn's policy on Tax Credits is the same as Osbornes, and will not make anyone better off.  And he voted for workfare.  I'm just not seeing this radical new dawn thing.


It isnt,  and that is a rather large distortion of reality. And its hard to see anything when you have your head shoved up your arse.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Homeopathy is already available on the NHS.



only in very small doses


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> It isnt,  and that is a rather large distortion of reality. And its hard to see anything when you have your head shoved up your arse.



how is it different from Osborne's?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

*Politics Live - Corbyn commits Labour to full opposition to welfare bill and benefits cap*

The tory cunt


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2015)

I'll post this here rather than the big thread, because his media approach is linked to the policy direction, both of which seem unclear to me.  He's been giving it the no tie, informal, other people can do pmqs, new style of politics thing.  He's also, presumably, been allowing people to come straight out of meetings where he offers them a job stating how much they still disagree with him.  He hasn't been doing too many set piece interviews.  There's a lot that's good in all that, it's just possible that a reduced spin, speaking in normal language approach could work with voters.  However the whole thing actually seems a bit un-thought through.  I suspect he'll be keeping the basic spin/media apparatus in place - because let's not forget, he is a career politician - but even if it's early days, he doesn't really know what to do with it.

Same on policy, lots of sensible appeals to restoring social democracy, laudable words on equality, but I'm not sure there's much there as a package or strategy.  Does he (or McDonnell) really know what will happen, when they start chasing companies up to pay their taxes?  What about all the Labour councils who have been and continue to impose austerity and sack thousands of workers?  Will he push them into a non-compliance approach?  Will he get them to build resistance in their own communities?  

I'm entirely guilty of asking too much on day 3, certainly.  Still, I haven't seen much that is creative or that really thinks about linking parliamentary forces with wider class forces.  I'm glad he won and that thousands have been enlivened, returned to politics and all that. I'm just not sure what the project is at a policy or operational level.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> how is it different from Osborne's?


well, he is opposing the cuts in parliament, the wanker. And has a plan for replacing them, which Osborne doesn't


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> *Politics Live - Corbyn commits Labour to full opposition to welfare bill and benefits cap*
> 
> The tory cunt



yes we know that, but how does he plan to make things better, Labour opposing a Tory bill to cut benefits is business as usual, despite the recent abberation.  why should I, or any claimant, be excited?


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> well, he is opposing the cuts in parliament, the wanker. And has a plan for replacing them, which Osborne doesn't



Osborne's plan is to raise the minimum wage to replace them.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 15, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Corbyn stands silent during mer-mer-mer-mer sneer wibble
> 
> Seriously fucking pathetic, Guardian. What about the lass on the left, anyway? Presumably it's okay she's got her mouth shut because she's clearly wearing a really posh hat.



This is a good thing yeah?
He wants monachy to die so singing to extend the life of the current monarch would be hypocritical yes?

They should be praising him for being respectful enough to stand there quietly instead of counter singing You can stick your fuckimg queen, stick yer fucking queen, stick yer fucking queen up yer arse, sideways.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

i think lets wait and see on this - a bit early to argue over...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Osborne's plan is to raise the minimum wage to replace them.



No it isn't since they won't apply to the same groups of people or be of the same order of magnitude (see the Institute for Fiscal Studies for more detail)....he might say its his plan but that is not the same thing at all.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Osborne's plan is to raise the minimum wage to replace them.


By how much, though? Minimum wage is a policy that can be used by both right and left wings. I'm guessing he wouldn't raise it to, say, Danish levels and make it around £13 an hour.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 15, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I'm entirely guilty of asking too much on day 3, certainly.  Still, I haven't seen much that is creative or that really thinks about linking parliamentary forces with wider class forces.  I'm glad he won and that thousands have been enlivened, returned to politics and all that. I'm just not sure what the project is at a policy or operational level.



We'll see what happens, this is the start of a road thats either going to collapse or repair some of the damage been done to politics the last 30 years. Only time will tell.

For my part, I'm fully on board with the "Stony silence to journalists, because seriously whatever he says they are going to go mental and its fucking childish" policy he seems to be embracing.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No it isn't since they won't apply to the same groups of people or be of the same order of magnitude (see the Institute for Fiscal Studies for more detail)....he might say its his plan but that is not the same thing at all.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



So might Corbyn.  In the absence of clear proposals than Corbyn's policy of cutting the benefits bill by raising wages leaves a lot of questions, because on paper thats what Osborne has said.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> yes we know that, but how does he plan to make things better, Labour opposing a Tory bill to cut benefits is business as usual, despite the recent abberation.  why should I, or any claimant, be excited?


because you actually have a Labour leader who is opposed to the attacks on benefits that every other labour leader has supported for the past twenty years? I know lots of claimants, and they overwhelmingly said they think he's the only fucker who appears to be on their side.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> i think lets wait and see on this - a bit early to argue over...



it's never to early to argue over

(without being flippant, all this give him a chance, let him settle in stuff is the wrong strategy - he needs to be pushed now, do you think the right of the Labour Party are sitting around waiting for him to settle in, he'll be in the centre ground before he's got his slippers on at this rate)


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> So might Corbyn.  In the absence of clear proposals than Corbyn's policy of cutting the benefits bill by raising wages leaves a lot of questions, because on paper thats what Osborne has said.


Now you're just desperate.  Admit defeat and stfu.  Or at least wait until you have got something concrete up back your assertions up with.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> So might Corbyn.  In the absence of clear proposals than Corbyn's policy of cutting the benefits bill by raising wages leaves a lot of questions, because on paper thats what Osborne has said.



Sorry but your reply doesn't seem to make sense; it may well be me, but perhaps you could edit it to make it a bit clearer. Also I wasn't commenting on Corbyn, merely pointing out that there is good evidence that Osborne has no plan.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)

Push everyone on everything


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> because you actually have a Labour leader who is opposed to the attacks on benefits that every other labour leader has supported for the past twenty years?



we've just had five years of Labour opposing attacks on benefits whilst coming up with their own shit that's just as bad, which Corbyn voted for


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Sorry but your reply doesn't seem to make sense; it may well be me, but perhaps you could edit it to make it a bit clearer. Also I wasn't commenting on Corbyn, merely pointing out that there is good evidence that Osborne has no plan.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Both Corbyn and Osborne agree with raising wages to cut the benefits bill.  Osborne's plan will actually leave people worse off.  We don't know what corbyn's plan will do because he doesn't seem to have one yet, or at least not one he's prepared to admit.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 15, 2015)

billy_bob said:


> Corbyn stands silent during mer-mer-mer-mer sneer wibble
> 
> Seriously fucking pathetic, Guardian. What about the lass on the left, anyway? Presumably it's okay she's got her mouth shut because she's clearly wearing a really posh hat.



Is this the lowest they can go? This comment from Cif sums them up.

"When did The Guardian turn into The Sun? Who the fuck cares if he didn't sing the national anthem. Get over it!"


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Both Corbyn and Osborne agree with raising wages to cut the benefits bill.  Osborne's plan will actually leave people worse off.  We don't know what corbyn's plan will do because he doesn't seem to have one yet, or at least not one he's prepared to admit.


lol


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> We'll see what happens, this is the start of a road thats either going to collapse or repair some of the damage been done to politics the last 30 years. Only time will tell.
> 
> For my part, I'm fully on board with the "Stony silence to journalists, because seriously whatever he says they are going to go mental and its fucking childish" policy he seems to be embracing.



guardian reduced to writing pieces on whether his lips moved during the national anthem (last sentence of this):
Corbyn stands silent for national anthem at Battle of Britain service

It will certainly be interesting. New Labour grew up around a media strategy of cultivated links, Campbell's bullying, spin and all that.  In the context of conventional neo-liberal politics that was actually successful.  I couldn't do that, I detest both the means and the ends of new labour, but I don't know what Corbyn will do, whether he really will abandon all those structures and links.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

I give up.  Glassy eyed hero worship.  Nothing good will come of it.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 15, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I couldn't do that, I detest both the means and the ends of new labour, but I don't know what Corbyn will do, whether he really will abandon all those structures and links.



Thing is those structures and links didn't do shit for Milliband and not much for Brown either. We've come off the back of an election where Ed spent 4 years being crucified.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> it's never to early to argue over
> 
> (without being flippant, all this give him a chance, let him settle in stuff is the wrong strategy - he needs to be pushed now, do you think the right of the Labour Party are sitting around waiting for him to settle in, he'll be in the centre ground before he's got his slippers on at this rate)



A big part of his pitch was democratising the party itself as part of building policy. Pushing him is grand but pointless after three days, prior to the laying out of any major plans or programmes. Especially with so long until an election. In six months time, if nothing has changed and nothing real is said on welfare then go crazy, demanding answers now though is the same pointless game as media doorsteppers play though.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I give up.  Glassy eyed hero worship.  Nothing good will come of it.



Of course failing waiting to see what happens after more than three days you could just dismiss those who are willing to and throw your arms up in despair. Your right but it contributes nothing to anything.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 15, 2015)

it's not just after three days though is it, we know what Labour have thought, we know what Corbyn has voted for, we know what the TUC, McClusky etc and all the other actors in this have said about social security.  this isn't year zero.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Both Corbyn and Osborne agree with raising wages to cut the benefits bill.  Osborne's plan will actually leave people worse off.  We don't know what corbyn's plan will do because he doesn't seem to have one yet, or at least not one he's prepared to admit.



Thanks for restating this more clearly. However, I think you're wrong for two reasons.

Fisrtly, Osborne's concern with raising the minimum wage is not to reduce benefit spending since it won't do that; please go and have a look at the IFS link. Osborne's concern is to spike the living wage debate by co-opting some of its language.

Secondly, it is unreasonable to expect Corbyn and his shadow cabinet to have a workout and costed policy response to both low pay and benefits in the first week of his leadership. This is especially true given the twin constraints of his public commitment to democratising the policy process and the hostility of a significant section of the PLP.

Osborne is a shit. Perhaps Corbyn will turn out to be one. But chucking them both in the same shit bin now is surely a bit premature and unhelpful?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> I give up.


good



> Glassy eyed hero worship.  Nothing good will come of it.


not at all, I am critical of various of his actions to date.  But of his actions, not because he hasn't detailed policy in every area yet.  Push him, yes, but don't come out with as bunch of right wing shit because he hasn't said what you wanted him to (yet?)


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> it's not just after three days though is it, we know what Labour have thought, we know what Corbyn has voted for, we know what the TUC, McClusky etc and all the other actors in this have said about social security.  this isn't year zero.



So the new members, new power balance and new democratic policy programme changes nothing at all? This'll all just be a continuation of New Labour routine? Perhaps, perhaps Corbyn will fail at everything, the shift on power will prove illusory and the shift in membership will drift away. Or perhaps not. At this point neither of us have any way of knowing either way.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 15, 2015)

There are new members that he announced today, it does'nt sound as people are giving up


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Key points from his speech to TUC - steadfast defense of unions, and opposition to welfare cuts


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 15, 2015)

Just in time...


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2015)

YouSir said:


> So the new members, new power balance and new democratic policy programme changes nothing at all? This'll all just be a continuation of New Labour routine? Perhaps, perhaps Corbyn will fail at everything, the shift on power will prove illusory and the shift in membership will drift away. Or perhaps not. At this point neither of us have any way of knowing either way.


For me, the problem isn't that he'll carry on as new labour - he won't - it's that he'll be a 21st Century version of old labour.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Glassy eyed hero worship.  Nothing good will come of it.



I absolutely agree. We should and do know better about creating heroes in this way.

However, all this frothing/spin and doublespeak about nothing needs calling out for what it is.


----------



## gosub (Sep 15, 2015)

I think the establishment is making a Scotland sized mistake.   Granted established thinking is that you have a small window in which people make up their mind about you, very early on in a tenure. Thus his opponents are trying to seize the narrative and paint him in a bad light and loads of sniggers from them that he himself isn't also doing the same thing.   But if you go over the top, and it doesn't quite resonate with what you are seeing you just end up with the public being dismissive of the criticism while all the while giving Corbyn time to improve his skills on the job this making the criticism seem even more hollow.   Mainstream media is still the most powerful influencer of public opinion but it is on the wane and can ill afford to get this wrong.



Also on a quite  interesting Newsnight last night (Margaret Beckett Foreign Secretary by accident - who knew), Angela Eagles PMQ's will be up against Osbourne - shrew move, one Labour MP's bitching about her not getting McDonnell's job should think about.   it looks like Hilary Benn marked his own card too, Chuka Umunna was supposed to have resigned from the shadow cabinet coz Corbyn wouldn't say Labour would campaign for In no matter what, though mr benn as shadow foriegn Secretary seems to think he can say that, thought Eagle was right to say it would be a dull move to say that at this stage.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

Rutita1 said:


> I absolutely agree. We should and do know better about creating heroes in this way.
> 
> However, all this frothing/spin and doublespeak about nothing needs calling out for what it is.



Over excited students aside I've seen a lot more cynical optimism than blind adoration. Hardly building monuments to him.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 15, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Over excited students aside I've seen a lot more cynical optimism than blind adoration. Hardly building monuments to him.



I personally think that we still have 4 years to go and a lot can happen in that time. I am not being cynical and welcome a shift back left within the Labour party...I certainly ain't gonna get all Jezmania anytime soon though. The long game needs to be played IMO.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

Wilf said:


> For me, the problem isn't that he'll carry on as new labour - he won't - it's that he'll be a 21st Century version of old labour.



To be honest I know a lot of people who want that. Faulted though Labour always has and always will be if you've grown up either under Tories or Blair then anything is a welcome shift. A point that the right have missed in their 'return to the '70s' fear mongering. And one that the Left has missed a bit too tbh.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

Rutita1 said:


> I personally think that we still have 4 years to go and a lot can happen in that time. I am not being cynical and welcome a shift back left within the Labour party...I certainly ain't gonna get all Jezmania anytime soon though. The long game needs to be played IMO.



Same. Jezmania is a moot point though really. It means nothing and when social media moves on the idea will be forgotten. As you say, it's the long game that counts.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)

This definitely sounds true and not something entirely fabricated by a Murdoch journalist


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> eh, nobody I know cares a jot. Mentioned it to my brother and he just used it as an excuse to wheel out an extremely bad taste simon weston joke


thought you'd have a wider range of acquaintances


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)




----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 15, 2015)

The absurd and hysterical media attacks on Corbyn can not possibly be sustained for 5 years at this level. They may well backfire too. 

Therefore, I'd anticipate that the pressure and tactics will change at some point, more nonsense puff for the tories, attacks on the social movement beyond just Corbyn. 

There will also be lots of "sober dissection" of the opposition, mostly for the effect of saying "look how sober we are being", thus  making any slams against him seem more credible. 

So, peaks and troughs, sturm und drang, false efforts to appear reasonable, then putting the boot good and proper at key points. 

In other words, the classic patterns of the abuser.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 15, 2015)

YouSir said:


> To be honest I know a lot of people who want that. Faulted though Labour always has and always will be if you've grown up either under Tories or Blair then anything is a welcome shift. A point that the right have missed in their 'return to the '70s' fear mongering. And one that the Left has missed a bit too tbh.


I was in the Labour party from 79 through to about 1988, so there's a kind of nostalgia for all that in me - at least the Labour Party pre IMF loans and the austerity unleashed by Denis Healey.  It's just that that old world of prices and income policy, semi corporatist government, keynesian (male) full employment, clearly defined public sector, nationalisation and the like isn't there to be had any more.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> This definitely sounds true and not something entirely fabricated by a Murdoch journalist



Naah, there will always be some like that.  From BALPA and the like.  It is kinda nice to see its the old union bureaucrats being the right-wig tossers again tho.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> Naah, there will always be some like that.  From BALPA and the like.  It is kinda nice to see its the old union bureaucrats being the right-wig tossers again tho.



True, I was always mystified that the scab union at the bank I worked for was affiliated to the TUC when all the 'union reps' were coincidentally also middle managers who reacted to the word 'strike' as if you said 'I am going to run through this call centre with an axe beheading every third person'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> because you actually have a Labour leader who is opposed to the attacks on benefits that every other labour leader has supported for the past twenty years? I know lots of claimants, and they overwhelmingly said they think he's the only fucker who appears to be on their side.


& appearances always a true indicator of substance


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)

Four reasons Jeremy Corbyn needs a spin doctor



> If his first 48 hours at the helm of the Labour party have demonstrated one thing, it is that Jeremy Corbyn badly needs a spin doctor.
> 
> In decision after decision, he has been making controversial calls that are bound to upset a lot of people. In case after case, however, there is at least an argument for what he is doing – and yet nobody has heard it.



I would argue instead that, 'If his first 48 hours at the helm of the Labour party have demonstrated one thing, it is that The Guardian badly needs a better spin doctor and editorial staff so that it does not alienate its few remaining readers'


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Of course failing waiting to see what happens after more than three days you could just dismiss those who are willing to and throw your arms up in despair. Your right but it contributes nothing to anything.


don't talk such cobblers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

he's had four fucking months to elaborate a welfare policy


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

The guardian along with every other mainstream newspaper have been dead to me for years. Tools of the oppressors all of them.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

Refused to sing about preserving the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. 
Good stuff.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> don't talk such cobblers.



NdgndggnsfvdyjjDumscbthm


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Refused to sing about preserving the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
> Good stuff.



The Guardian has previously called for an end to the monarchy. Are they going to start slagging themselves off or is the paper now just whatever Corbyn isn't?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

YouSir said:


> NdgndggnsfvdyjjDumscbthm


pisspoor. he's had every opportunity over the past fpur months to lay out his views on welfare. he was rightly celebrated for coming out with ideas rather than redponding to personal attacks. so to say he's only had three days to come out with policies is rubbish.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The Guardian has previously called for an end to the monarchy. Are they going to start slagging themselves off or is the paper now just whatever Corbyn isn't?


...and quoting Rosindell. FFS, the dumbest of the dumb-fuck vermin.


----------



## LDC (Sep 15, 2015)

Wears and tie and smartens up = gets a make-over and spin doctor the hypocrite.
Stays informal and loosens his tie = scruffy, careless and unfit for government.

Sings the national anthem = gives up on his life long views now he's got a sniff of power.
Doesn't sing the national anthem = traitor to the dear and loved Royal Family.

I suspect we might see a bit more of this 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' in the coming months/years.

One good thing that's come out of this so far is that I really hope it's shown the media for the scum they are to a whole load of new people. And especially you, _The Guardian_, you fucking scumfucking establishment pricks.


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> pisspoor. he's had every opportunity over the past fpur months to lay out his views on welfare. he was rightly celebrated for coming out with ideas rather than redponding to personal attacks. so to say he's only had three days to come out with policies is rubbish.



The response your one liner merited. Don't act a twat.

Anyway, I'm still willing to wait and see, even if you include the campaign as policy building time despite the lack of a shadow cabinet or access to the democratising mechanisms he's supposed to be using to create policy now. A signal of intent to resist and defend is, I think, a fair enough start. What comes next is what I'll judge.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 15, 2015)

Sirena said:


> Homeopathy is already available on the NHS.


No it's not. 

Homeopathy - NHS Choices


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> pisspoor. he's had every opportunity over the past fpur months to lay out his views on welfare.


how dare he concentrate his policies on specific areas without consulting you or smokedout!


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

Hey, Guardian reporters there are a shit load of us on here that don't sing the Liz song either, you scabbing Tory bastards!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> some front pages today


Playing catch up so apologies if this has already been covered, but just caught this BuzzFeed article (I know...) on Facebook.



> However, when contacted by BuzzFeed News, Gordon distanced himself from the story and said his quote had nothing to do with Short money, the term for the public funding opposition parties receive.
> 
> “My reasoning that refusal of a place [on the Privy Council] _could_ (the word I allowed to be cited) raise constitutional issues was not related to Short money,” he wrote in an email (emphasis his). “It was based on the constitutional relationship between the monarchy and main political party as the official opposition.”
> 
> ...





> In a statement on Tuesday lunchtime, _The Sun_ stood by its story.
> 
> “Our story asserted that there would have been a constitutional crisis in the event that Jeremy Corbyn had refused to be a member of the Privy Council. This was confirmed by a QC, who we quoted accurately,” said a spokesperson.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)

Do Guardian journos read urban? I hope so because I'd like to tell them to go fuck themselves


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> Playing catch up so apologies if this has already been covered, but just caught this BuzzFeed article (I know...) on Facebook.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> how dare he concentrate his policies on specific areas without consulting you or smokedout!


i was simply pointing out people who say he's only had 3 days to share his views are talking bollocks.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Do Guardian journos read urban? I hope so because I'd like to tell them to go fuck themselves



That's what I was hoping!


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Do Guardian journos read urban? I hope so because I'd like to tell them to go fuck themselves


Read it? They fucking pass off chunks as their own copy.


----------



## LDC (Sep 15, 2015)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> No it's not.
> 
> Homeopathy - NHS Choices



That article says it is in some areas. There's a fucking homeopathic hospital in the SW I think. Sooner they get rid of it all the better IMO. Quackery and a rip off.


----------



## gosub (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> he's had four fucking months to elaborate a welfare policy




Think you are missing the point of him.  It ain't down to him to do the policies, it is, at this stage to get the mechanincs right so ALL the stakeholders feel and an investment in whatever policy emerges.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Read it? They fucking pass off chunks as their own copy.



They are enemies to me. As low as the lower than vermin.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

gosub said:


> Think you are missing the point of him.  It ain't down to him to do the policies, it is, at this stage to get the mechanincs right so ALL the stakeholders feel and an investment in whatever policy emerges.


stakeholders?


----------



## YouSir (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> stakeholders?



Yep, what's called for to drive the Blairites from their coffins.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


> They are enemies to me. As low as the lower than vermin.


They're like wounded animals with their party(ies?) destroyed.


----------



## gosub (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> stakeholders?



Currently slanted too far towards PLP and thinktanks other stakeholders include unions and party members


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 15, 2015)

Prolly Toynbee leaves her lavish lifestyle behind for a few weeks, not touching or accessing her fortune while she writes a book on how poor life is for those at the bottom in Hard Work, which I am sure has added to the adornment of Toynbee towers!
The standout example of being poor is according to her having to use the laces out of her Doc Martens to hang towels over for curtains!!
Yea so real world Prolly!


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> stakeholders?


Diamond reply.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

gosub said:


> Currently slanted too far towards PLP and thinktanks other stakeholders include unions and party members


but no mention of the disabled, unemployed or other people who are, or who should be, in receipt of benefits. aren't they the most obvious 'stakeholders'?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 15, 2015)

Down with this sort of thing! 

Incidentally I'm actually rather fond of how Japan does manholes


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but no mention of the disabled, unemployed or other people who are, or who should be, in receipt of benefits. aren't they the most obvious 'stakeholders'?


well, many of them will be members of unions, or even the party itself. It still has a disabled caucus, iirr


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> well, many of them will be members of unions, or even the party itself. It still has a disabled caucus, iirr


you make it sound central to informing party policy.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you make it sound central to informing party policy.


do i?  it isn't.  at the moment


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 15, 2015)

J Ed said:


>




Fucking Jeremy Corbyn, riding around on his Chairman Mao-style bicycle with his Lenin-style hat and his Castro-style beard. And I suppose it's just a coincidence that he shares a gender with BOTH Stalin and Pol Pot is it then hey? Eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> do i?  it isn't.  at the moment


yeh. you don't get sarcasm, do you.


----------



## gosub (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but no mention of the disabled, unemployed or other people who are, or who should be, in receipt of benefits. aren't they the most obvious 'stakeholders'?



I was unware that benefits came with automatic inclusion into the Labour party


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you don't get sarcasm, do you.


hard to tell sometimes


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

gosub said:


> I was unware that benefits came with automatic inclusion into the Labour party


you really are someone with much to be modest about.


----------



## gosub (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you really are someone with much to be modest about.


says someone complaining Corbyn hasn't put the cart in front of the horse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2015)

gosub said:


> says someone complaining Corbyn hasn't put the cart in front of the horse.


but i'm not. i'm simply saying people who say he's had three days to talk about welfare are forgetting the 120 days of the leadership contest.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 15, 2015)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


>


----------



## gosub (Sep 15, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but i'm not. i'm simply saying people who say he's had three days to talk about welfare are forgetting the 120 days of the leadership contest.



but he can't set policy. 

To avoid ruining the metaphor won't say what the cart is and what the horse.  I'm sure we can agree at present the whole thing isn't lashed together particularly tightly at the mo.   if he gone done the I got 60%!, I got 60%! To idealism and beyond! Fuck Angela Eagle and the Labour manifesto policy committee! hi ho silver!	Probably be a loud bang shortly after.  Or the horse leaves the cart behind depending on whats-what in the metiphor. 


Doing it the way he's doing it will add wisdom of crowds to policy and investment of effort in it (whatever it ends up as). And it is what needs to happen , For a long time now party membership (all parties) has been pointless, there to be tapped for cash and help fill out photos, when some bloke comes down from their ivory tower to tell people of their increasing vacuous plans. I'm sure Corbyn wouldn't use ivory for his tower but it would still be a tower if he doesn't sort the engagement mechanisms out first.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 15, 2015)

Give the bloke a fucking chance ffs! 

Is there some weekly time limit on this shit or what?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 15, 2015)

Given the way that the Graunid transmutes baseless right-wing slurs can we expect a CIF article tomorrow titled "Why does the culturally appropriating cycling racist Jeremy Corbyn hate the Chinese"?


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> bit worrying though, nothing concrete on social security at all really yet, a largely unknown to shadow the DWP, no shadow ministers for disabled people or employment announced so far, given Labour;s track record it's not looking great



Very worrying indeed, one got the impression from his rallies, and the audience response this would be a key policy area, it certainly is for the Tories, it is at the heart of their agenda.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Sirena said:


>



Some of these memes are very valuable in the fight indeed.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> In case you didn't notice, his whole campaign was kickstarted by his opposition to the welfare bill.  He is avowedly opposed to tory cuts. Its pretty obvious he is on the side of claimants, even if he hasn't got a full proposal for what benefits will exist under his dictatorship




thinking about it, he said in an interview that changing perceptions on benefit claimants will be a long term and difficult process, not surprised, CH5 for instance now has wall to wall 'scrounger' propaganda.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> "a compulsory jobs guarantee that would ensure that anyone under 25 who has been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for a year, and anyone over 25 who has been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for two years, would be offered a paid job"
> 
> what a cunt




under threat of sanctions though.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> sorry,  yes, he is just the same as Hitler.



How can you defend this?


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> If I was in Corbyn's position I'd try and avoid getting mired in a discussion about welfare, it's a toxic area at the moment.




So what?, JC raised it in all his rallies, people who felt abandoned and demonised felt hopeful for the first time in many years they would be listened to and that the attacks would be repulsed, otherwise what the difference with Blairism on this crucial issue where as Smoked Out(who really knows his stuff on this) and our thread on the deceased, is causing misery and death..


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> How can you defend this?


he backed a piece of Labour policy that he knew would have no chance of getting through. It was making a point about the tories' failure to deal with youth unemployment. Rebelling against it would have undermined that point.  Maybve ont the perfect tactic, but to say that that one example equates to a "history of voting for forced work schemes for example, backed by the benefit sanctions he says he opposes" is just bollocks


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Santino said:


> Bollocks to that, take it on directly. Make a moral case for it. Point out the actual scale of the welfare claims compared to the state pension and lost tax revenues. _Oppose._




This is what I expected of him, I notice Owen Jones also seems to be backtracking on things, but of course it is early days.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

Simon Jenkins lead (full page) comment piece in the Standard, about Sadiq Khan, finished:

"These are early days in the life cycle of new old Labour but the stakes are high for both Khan and Corbyn. Throughout the mayoral campaign Khan will remain a whipped Labour MP, probably against a Tory with a record of glamorous rebellion and dissent. *The best advice must be for him to run against Corbyn, to have clear water between him and the Leftist mafia now in the party ascendant.* He must show himself to his own man with his own personality. To put it mildly, he has nothing to lose."

Leftist mafia  Don Corbyloni
---

on another note I think Corbyn looks on screen a little tired, hungry and irritated. Its one thing to try and not play the usual media games, but I would advise he have a weekend off, a couple of pints, and come back to this a little cooler and cheerier. I think "people" respond to leaders that come across as confident - at the moment Corbyn gives off a few nerves. He should be high after the campaign, and all the affection he has received from the public... but it doesnt really feel that way in terms of media snapshots.

Unlike the likes of Blair Brown Cameron Johnson etc, Corbyn never hungered for the top job - they all dreamt of it, coveted it, and thought they deserve it - I'm worried Corbyn comes across a little reluctant in the role < from a media presentation point of view only.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

I wonder why the media might choose shots of him looking tired and irritable to accompany their stories about him being an out of his depth flaky dinosaur?


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I'll post this here rather than the big thread, because his media approach is linked to the policy direction, both of which seem unclear to me.  He's been giving it the no tie, informal, other people can do pmqs, new style of politics thing.  He's also, presumably, been allowing people to come straight out of meetings where he offers them a job stating how much they still disagree with him.  He hasn't been doing too many set piece interviews.  There's a lot that's good in all that, it's just possible that a reduced spin, speaking in normal language approach could work with voters.  However the whole thing actually seems a bit un-thought through.  I suspect he'll be keeping the basic spin/media apparatus in place - because let's not forget, he is a career politician - but even if it's early days, he doesn't really know what to do with it.
> 
> Same on policy, lots of sensible appeals to restoring social democracy, laudable words on equality, but I'm not sure there's much there as a package or strategy.  Does he (or McDonnell) really know what will happen, when they start chasing companies up to pay their taxes?  *What about all the Labour councils who have been and continue to impose austerity and sack thousands of workers?  Will he push them into a non-compliance approach?  Will he get them to build resistance in their own communities? *
> 
> I'm entirely guilty of asking too much on day 3, certainly.  Still, I haven't seen much that is creative or that really thinks about linking parliamentary forces with wider class forces.  I'm glad he won and that thousands have been enlivened, returned to politics and all that. I'm just not sure what the project is at a policy or operational level.



There was a quote from a Tory, not sure where, that some of the major big cities where working so closely with Osborne with the 'Northern Powerhouse, they had basically declared UDI from Westminister, etc.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> I wonder why the media might choose shots of him looking tired and irritable to accompany their stories about him being an out of his depth flaky dinosaur?


its on video too, in speeches etc - i think theres some truth in it!
ultimately its about presentation though...


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

He doesn't give a fuck about presentation, and has told the media to go fuck themselves. Whether that's a tactic that'll work remains to be seen, but he's not about to scrub up now.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The absurd and hysterical media attacks on Corbyn can not possibly be sustained for 5 years at this level. They may well backfire too.
> 
> Therefore, I'd anticipate that the pressure and tactics will change at some point, more nonsense puff for the tories, attacks on the social movement beyond just Corbyn.
> 
> ...




Yes, they will attack the people and the movements around him, and sadly there are some dodgy individuals and outfits.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2015)

brogdale said:


> ...and quoting Rosindell. FFS, the dumbest of the dumb-fuck vermin.


He's my local MP. I even voted Labour in a vain hope of getting rid of the cunt. I have also called him a cunt to his face.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

YouSir said:


> NdgndggnsfvdyjjDumscbthm



wascist


----------



## red & green (Sep 15, 2015)

While formulating policy need to get an opposition block of against votes on repressive legislation to minimise 
Damage being done by Tories ramming through legislation - but all seems quite unclear at the moment - they need a strategy I don't see one so far


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Simon Jenkins lead (full page) comment piece in the Standard, about Sadiq Khan, finished:
> 
> "These are early days in the life cycle of new old Labour but the stakes are high for both Khan and Corbyn. Throughout the mayoral campaign Khan will remain a whipped Labour MP, probably against a Tory with a record of glamorous rebellion and dissent. *The best advice must be for him to run against Corbyn, to have clear water between him and the Leftist mafia now in the party ascendant.* He must show himself to his own man with his own personality. To put it mildly, he has nothing to lose."
> 
> ...




Yes, he looks a fair bit different than before the campaign, he has done 100 meetings across the whole of the UK, sometimes three in a day, plus overspill ones,, he really should have a break, Cameron has plenty, and deserves it.


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 15, 2015)

So should he have formulated all his policy by now or gone on a cycling holiday? Or formulated policy on his cycling holiday? Maybe a bit silly, long weekend on the Broads perhaps?


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

Recess is over. No breaks available.


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2015)

is this the first announcement of how Labour will vote on a bill?

The Tories' benefit cap should be completely scrapped, Jeremy Corbyn says


----------



## kebabking (Sep 15, 2015)

killer b said:


> Recess is over. No breaks available.



he should be able to grab a long weekend, even without a recess - which he should do and be quite honest about why he's doing so. i'm 26 years younger than him, pretty fit, i've not run myself ragged for 4 months, and i need a weekend with the phone switched off and the kids at Grannies every so often.

while i would not expect a backbench MP to have a masterplan with every policy in every area of government comprehensively written up, i would expect an MP of his experience to have a broad idea of their priorities/concerns in each dept _and_ how they wanted to see them fixed - but yes, in areas that particularly interest that MP, i'd expect them to have a pretty detailed view.

he's also got people working for him, his victory has been on the cards for several months, and a racing certainty for at least two. were none of these people thinking 'and what happens afterwards...?'


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

CH news asked Corbyn whether he was "expected to turn up at the BOB event", they seemed to demean his genuine sentiments about the pilots, etc, expecting him to not care. Why are they acting like this?


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Why are they acting like this?


really?


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

I meant 'liberal' CH4, at least on foreign policy, refugees, etc.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> I meant 'liberal' CH4, at least on foreign policy, refugees, etc.



They all serve the same shite up


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> I meant 'liberal' CH4, at least on foreign policy, refugees, etc.


Corbyn isn't a Liberal?


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

> Since his victory, 30,000 people have joined Labour,



Re-tweeted on his site, must be doing something right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> He does avoid it. His policy on welfare so far is: I'll minimise the need for it, and its impact on society. That's not a policy on welfare.



It's a policy position - a thing that you arrive at, and from which position you construct the details of your policy, like what occasionally used to happen in the Labour Party before Kinnock started the trend of selling the party's ringpiece to big business via the medium of "independent" think-tanks.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a policy position - a thing that you arrive at, and from which position you construct the details of your policy, like what occasionally used to happen in the Labour Party before Kinnock started the trend of selling the party's ringpiece to big business via the medium of "independent" think-tanks.


I don't think I agree. If an NHS policy was we'll make gyms free and healthy food subsidised, would you say that's a NHS policy? It would certainly impact the NHS, but so do a lot of things. It wouldn't be an NHS policy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> If I was in Corbyn's position I'd try and avoid getting mired in a discussion about welfare, it's a toxic area at the moment.



I disagree. I think taking a strong *broad* position on social security won't mire Corbyn, it'll give him a sound basis from which to proceed, including regarding costing out any future plans (an angle on which the Tories will be salivating about attacking him on).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I don't think I agree. If an NHS policy was we'll make gyms free and healthy food subsidised, would you say that's a NHS policy? It would certainly impact the NHS, but so do a lot of things. It wouldn't be an NHS policy.



If the NHS were the funding body, it'd be an NHS policy, as has been the system under which gym memberships have been prescribed over the last 10 or so years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

Santino said:


> Bollocks to that, take it on directly. Make a moral case for it. Point out the actual scale of the welfare claims compared to the state pension and lost tax revenues. _Oppose._



Absolutely! And maybe, if the opposition is sustained, the dominant discourse on "welfare" will shift back toward the idea that having a decent and comprehensive "safety net" is both sensible and rational.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I don't think I agree. If an NHS policy was we'll make gyms free and healthy food subsidised, would you say that's a NHS policy? It would certainly impact the NHS, but so do a lot of things. It wouldn't be an NHS policy.



It is possible to get free access to local authority gyms if you're on certain benefits, but I'm not sure where the money comes from for this or how widely available it is. It's definitely not NHS funded though.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> If the NHS were the funding body, it'd be an NHS policy, as has been the system under which gym memberships have been prescribed over the last 10 or so years.


Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I'm meant if it _wasn't _funded by the NHS. Just as the minimum wage isn't set by the DWP. So by increasing wages through a higher minimum wage, it's not a 'welfare' policy. Welfare policies come through the DWP, usually.

I know this is all semantics, but the thing is he's made no promises to reverse the bedroom tax, to halt cuts to benefits, etc. He's made promises to repeal the trade union bill, and that hasn't even passed yet.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 15, 2015)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> No it's not.
> 
> Homeopathy - NHS Choices


You didn't even read that link, did you?  



> It is available on the NHS?
> Homeopathy is not available on the NHS in all areas of the country, but there are several NHS homeopathic hospitals and some GP practices also offer homeopathic treatment.



Homeopathy - NHS Choices

Although it's a shame that homeopathy's still available in some areas.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

smokedout said:


> Why not higher wages and tax credits, a move towards a basic income, not a move away



In reality, as you and Corbyn both know, it's going to be higher wages *and* tax credits for a while yet. That doesn't mean that eventually eliminating tax credits *because you've eliminated the need for them* isn't a good idea.
I also think that Corbyn needs a little while to get all his financial ducks lined up in a row with McDonnell, so avoiding blithely making spending commitments before that's been done is good sense.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 15, 2015)

fishfinger said:


> You didn't even read that link, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I was reading it this morning before the thread. I remembered it being so damning of homeopathy that I could not imagine the NHS taking it on. Then I read "not available on the NHS" and thought 'phew'. Later I saw this thread and brought it back up. I guess I must have switched off before the ". . . everywhere"


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2015)

fishfinger said:


> You didn't even read that link, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's available because people ask for it.  It's about choice.


----------



## fishfinger (Sep 15, 2015)

Sirena said:


> It's available because people ask for it.  It's about choice.


No. I asked for a pony but didn't get one


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

'choice'


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 15, 2015)

Carole Malone putting the boot in on Sky News about him not singing the National Anthem, and with his top button undone  

No surprise there but fucking hell it's been shocking to see what a kicking he's getting from the media in general


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2015)

Nicely written piece.  The tide is beginning to turn.....

Corbyn victory energises the alienated and alienates the establishment | Gary Younge


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 15, 2015)

Sirena said:


> It's available because people ask for it.  It's about choice.


In the same way they don't give out drugs that have not undergone clinical trails, they should not offer a medicine that has never been proven to have any effect whatsoever. What if everyone asked for waffles suggesting it might cure aids? They wouldn't refer you to an NHS waffle house. The NHS website clearly states the pricibles of  homeopathy go against what we know scientifically, and that it doesn't work any better than a placebo.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 15, 2015)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> In the same way they don't give out drugs that have not undergone clinical trails, they should not offer a medicine that has never been proven to have any effect whatsoever. What if everyone asked for waffles suggesting it might cure aids? They wouldn't refer you to an NHS waffle house. The NHS website clearly states the pricibles of  homeopathy go against what we know scientifically, and that it doesn't work any better than a placebo.


I was simply making the point that it is available.  Your opinion doesn't really matter in this instance.


----------



## killer b (Sep 15, 2015)

You said 'its about choice' - I think its reasonable to challenge such a claim


----------



## ska invita (Sep 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> He doesn't give a fuck about presentation, and has told the media to go fuck themselves. Whether that's a tactic that'll work remains to be seen, but he's not about to scrub up now.


agree... my point is he can do that still - doesnt need to scrub up, just have a nice bit of R&R after what was a grueling election campaign and come back a little more rested, calmer and stronger.

meanwhile......



MrSki said:


>


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

can posters start a new thread on alternative medicine, etc?


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 16, 2015)

I'm angling for a job in the tabloid media so I've been scouring creative works from the 80s looking for embarassing stuff to dredge up from his past. So far, all I've been able to find is this short film from 1982 in which Corbyn briefly appears as a creepy, ghostly cartoon figure.

7:14 for his appearance





Spoiler: For the lazy


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 16, 2015)

Cycling Weekly weighs in with some bicycle related Corbyn satire.

Five bikes we'd recommend to Jeremy Corbyn - Cycling Weekly


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

Relevant to this thread

Corbyn’s threat of democracy
Media Lens - Fantasy Politics - 'Corbyn's Morons' And The 'Sensible Approach'


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> In the same way they don't give out drugs that have not undergone clinical trails, they should not offer a medicine that has never been proven to have any effect whatsoever. What if everyone asked for waffles suggesting it might cure aids? They wouldn't refer you to an NHS waffle house. The NHS website clearly states the pricibles of  homeopathy go against what we know scientifically, and that it doesn't work any better than a placebo.


but placebos work quite well.


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2015)

belboid said:


> but placebos work quite well.



In a very limited way for a very limited range of conditions. Not to mention the ethical issues of giving people a placebo if you're pretending it's not one. But it's a topic for another thread as has been mentioned.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2015)




----------



## Flanflinger (Sep 16, 2015)

JC is obviously enjoying winding up the establishment. He never expected to get the job and is making the most of it before quitting within a year.


----------



## gosub (Sep 16, 2015)

Flanflinger said:


> JC is obviously enjoying winding up the establishment. He never expected to get the job and is making the most of it before quitting within a year.


I think he'll be there longer than that, but isn't intending to be there for the GE. Will push through party reform, and is geared to hand over to Eagle to fight an Osbourne led tory paty ahead of the GE.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 16, 2015)

Thank god real world leaders know how to behave at a solemn memorial...


----------



## Belushi (Sep 16, 2015)




----------



## ska invita (Sep 16, 2015)

todays round up of front pages
































Best till last
KIller Winter on the Way > with pic of Corbyn alongside


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 16, 2015)

On yesterdays events: People may flounce around as if a bloke not joining in on a crawling dirge is massively scandalous.

But no government representitive should really be invited to any kind of war memorial event in the first place while so many former soldiers remain destitute, traumatised, addicted, abandoned on the streets of our country.

They are just a bunch of posturing twats, rather like the guy in Jesus' parable who beat his chest at prayer in the temple so everyone could see him.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 16, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> On yesterdays events: People may flounce around as if a bloke not joining in on a crawling dirge is massively scandalous.
> 
> But no government representitive should really be invited to any kind of war memorial event in the first place while *so many former soldiers remain destitute, traumatised, addicted, abandoned on the streets of our country*.
> 
> They are just a bunch of posturing twats, rather like the guy in Jesus' parable who beat his chest at prayer in the temple so everyone could see him.



Is this really true of Battle of Britain veterans? Try not to get carried away by your own hyperbole.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> On yesterdays events: People may flounce around as if a bloke not joining in on a crawling dirge is massively scandalous.
> 
> But no government representitive should really be invited to any kind of war memorial event in the first place while so many former soldiers remain destitute, traumatised, addicted, abandoned on the streets of our country.
> 
> They are just a bunch of posturing twats, rather like the guy in Jesus' parable who beat his chest at prayer in the temple so everyone could see him.




Don't you realise yours is a massively minority view, whatever we think, yesterdays events will be seminal and define JC unless he can do something, I suggest at the Cenotaph in November, he doesn't make the same mistakes.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Is this really true of Battle of Britain veterans? Try not to get carried away by your own hyperbole.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




I see the Telegraph got a Tory BOB wing commander to share his views on Corbyn though.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 16, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Is this really true of Battle of Britain veterans? Try not to get carried away by your own hyperbole.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice




BoB vets lived far greater portions of their lives under post war consensus social-market models of government and now recieve pensions at least mildy above destitution levels. 

This government doesn't care for those who serve, they disrespect the armed forces and have no place memorialising. 

The amount of former soldiers who I met at Occupy who said that anarchists treated them far better.... I'm pretty much a pacifist and I know I have more respect for them and their needs. There's no hyperbole in this position.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Don't you realise yours is a massively minority view, whatever we think, *yesterdays events will be seminal* and define JC unless he can do something, I suggest at the Cenotaph in November, he doesn't make the same mistakes.


absolute tosh. It's next to irrelevant, and will be forgotten in a matter of days - as the next piece and the next piece and the next piece of shit are poured over him.


----------



## treelover (Sep 16, 2015)

> norman smith
> 
> *✔* @BBCNormanS
> 
> ...




Well, it appears that Corbyn and his team think it is significant, he is saying he will sing the national anthem in future

btw, can't stand the national anthem, just making the case for political nous being used.


----------



## LDC (Sep 16, 2015)

Hilarious/tragic. And also from the scumfucks at _The Guardian_, an opinion piece titled 'It is Corbyn's job to sing the anthem'. You seriously couldn't make this shit up.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Well, it appears that Corbyn and his team think it is significant, he is saying he will sing the national anthem in future



'Labour sources' lol.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Hilarious/tragic. And also from the scumfucks at _The Guardian_, an opinion piece titled 'It is Corbyn's job to sing the anthem'. You seriously couldn't make this shit up.


He should have sung the internationale over the top of the anthem just to be a troll


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> Don't you realise yours is a massively minority view, whatever we think, yesterdays events will be seminal and define JC unless he can do something, I suggest at the Cenotaph in November, he doesn't make the same mistakes.



Events will only define him if he allows them to. the best strategy regarding *all* the media monstering, is to brush it off as irrelevant spite, and *to be seen brushing it off*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> BoB vets lived far greater portions of their lives under post war consensus social-market models of government and now recieve pensions at least mildy above destitution levels.
> 
> This government doesn't care for those who serve, they disrespect the armed forces and have no place memorialising.



I'm not sure that's the actual dynamic, although your explanation *sounds* apt.
IME there isn't disrespect. There's little consideration at all given to the armed forces, except as instruments for executing government policy. It's simply a matter of "don't care". Squaddies don't impinge on their consciousness except when the Sec of State for Defence, or the Prime Minister, visit a base somewhere hot and sandy for a couple of hours.



> The amount of former soldiers who I met at Occupy who said that anarchists treated them far better.... I'm pretty much a pacifist and I know I have more respect for them and their needs. There's no hyperbole in this position.



A significant minority of the anarchists I knew in the '80s and '90s were former soldiers.  Not as a reaction to having been soldiers, but because the "all in the shit together, look after each other" attitude of some anarchists felt like home to them.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 16, 2015)

Just now on R4 WATO.

Robert Peston has claimed that some of the Bliarites are considering joining the Vermin. He said he has had a few conversations and revealed that some of the Bliarites exchange emails with Osborne and mix in similar social circles.

Who and when is the question?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 16, 2015)

Zabo said:


> Just now on R4 WATO.
> 
> Robert Peston has claimed that some of the Bliarites are considering joining the Vermin. He said he has had a few conversations and revealed that some of the Bliarites exchange emails with Osborne and mix in similar social circles.
> 
> Who and when is the question?


 
I hope they move soon, it would be fun to see some elections


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I hope they move soon, it would be fun to see some elections


Why would there be elections?


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I hope they move soon, it would be fun to see some elections


It wouldn't necessarily trigger a by-election. I don't know whether the Recall Act allows for MPs to be recalled for switching party.


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2015)

Santino said:


> It wouldn't necessarily trigger a by-election. I don't know whether the Recall Act allows for MPs to be recalled for switching party.


it doesnt


----------



## Zabo (Sep 16, 2015)

Here you are:

"So will one or a number of Blairites find themselves on the Tory side of the house?

It would not be an easy relocation for them, partly because they may decide that they owe it to their constituents to resign and force a by-election - which they could well lose.

But for what it's worth, and this may be the more important point, more than one of them has told me that they could not possibly remain in Corbyn's Labour Party for long if it looks as though Corbyn will endure."

Will Blairites cross floor to Osborne? - BBC News

News about robert peston on Twitter


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2015)

There won't be more than one or two IMO, if at all - anyone crossing the floor would only be prepared to do it with a promise of a safe tory seat in 2020. Can't see there being that many available to be promised at this point...


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 16, 2015)

I stand corrected

I'm old fashioned, I was thinking of honour.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

Santino said:


> It wouldn't necessarily trigger a by-election. I don't know whether the Recall Act allows for MPs to be recalled for switching party.


whats his name. Carswell went for the by when switching to the kippers, good move, made his defection electorally condoned likes


----------



## Roadkill (Sep 16, 2015)

I've got beyond the point of being irritated by the Torygraph's coverage of Corbyn and just started finding it funny.  I didn't realise that a moderately leftish Labour politician with a beard and a penchant for wearing sandals was actually the worst human being in the history of all mankind!


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 16, 2015)

It's just proper bonkers isn't it!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 16, 2015)

planet sun and torygraph were always going to go radio rental.

snidey liberal tears and sniping from the guardian is more annoying. Those sdp/clegg fellators will be sharpening up the stillettos and practising their backstab game for years


----------



## Roadkill (Sep 16, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> It's just proper bonkers isn't it!



Innit.  Every time I look at their website I half expect to see a story about how JC's secret hobby is tearing kittens limb from limb, and how he was actually right-hand man to Lavrentiy Beria and signed most of the death warrants in the blood of infants!


----------



## Roadkill (Sep 16, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> planet sun and torygraph were always going to go radio rental.



True, but I must confess I didn't expect quite this level of mouth-foaming apoplexy!


----------



## Belushi (Sep 16, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> I've got beyond the point of being irritated by the Torygraph's coverage of Corbyn and just started finding it funny.  I didn't realise that a moderately leftish Labour politician with a beard and a penchant for wearing sandals was actually the worst human being in the history of all mankind!



Up there with Jimmy Carter


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Up there with Jimmy Carter



Thank goodness that there is not enough space in Islington for a peanut farm


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




He won't shut up about this on his twitter. I can see a number of reasons why its a legit story that deserves such attention, but if it was a government driver, rather than a Corbyn 'aide' then Cricks initial angle on the story is well shit.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

Am I the only one who feels strangely protective of Corbyn? I want to go to the New $tatesman and Graunid offices and crack some skulls to make them stop being the posho liberal twats that they always are and lay off Corbyn.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

elbows said:


> He won't shut up about this on his twitter. I can see a number of reasons why its a legit story that deserves such attention, but if it was a government driver, rather than a Corbyn 'aide' then Cricks initial angle on the story is well shit.



Like any bully, these journos are desperate to portray themselves as victims even when they manifestly aren't in order to justify their disgusting conduct.


----------



## rekil (Sep 16, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Am I the only one who feels strangely protective of Corbyn? I want to go to the New $tatesman and Graunid offices and crack some skulls to make them stop being the posho liberal twats that they always are and lay off Corbyn.


Get in there. Make sure you big up your oxbridge scab credentials.


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

I believe the beast of Bolsover having a go at Emily Maitlis is somewhat on topic. Apologies if it was already posted the other day, I didn't see it.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

copliker said:


> Get in there. Make sure you big up your oxbridge scab credentials.




I'll practise elongating my vowels and try to cover up my past as a union member. Sadly I didn't go to Oxbridge or a private school though so I think I'm out of the running either way


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 16, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Am I the only one who feels strangely protective of Corbyn? I want to go to the New $tatesman and Graunid offices and crack some skulls to make them stop being the posho liberal twats that they always are and lay off Corbyn.



He doesn't ever seem bothered by any of it though, beyond an occasional mild exasperation at being forced to respond to the babbling of cretins.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 16, 2015)

elbows said:


> He won't shut up about this on his twitter. I can see a number of reasons why its a legit story that deserves such attention, but if it was a government driver, rather than a Corbyn 'aide' then Cricks initial angle on the story is well shit.



Was the cameraman a former italian footballer?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 16, 2015)

Seriously though I'd rather write for the Daily Mail than the New $tatesman


----------



## hot air baboon (Sep 16, 2015)

Jason Cowley manages to do both


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> He doesn't ever seem bothered by any of it though, beyond an occasional mild exasperation at being forced to respond to the babbling of cretins.



I wouldn't be too bothered either - journalists and politicians tend to do battle for 'least trusted' in Ipsos MORI polls:







Ipsos MORI | Poll | Politicians trusted less than estate agents, bankers and journalists


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 16, 2015)

Articles in the Guardian today which might (?) be worth reading, suggesting some options for Jeremy Corbyn to reduce or weaken hostile-media.

I'm highly sceptical myself ... most mainstream media are out to get him whatever he does.


Also, the word 'spin-doctor' raises my hackles massively, but Tom Clark thinks if he doesn't appoint one JC is doomed!
Not sure whether the examples he selects are _completely_ shit there. But Clark is probably applying for a job 

Owen Jones on (mostly) social media and JC : If Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is going to work, it needs to communicate

And some stuff from Roy Greenslade that apperared in Monday's Media Guardian

Its all very cynical stuff, the above, but can JC afford to ignore, or simply try to bypass, the (mainstream) media altogether?

I only ask .... as teachers say, 'Discuss!'


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

The Tom Clark one was yesterday and has already been mentioned here.

Even if he needs to play a media game there is no reason why it has to be the tired old one these wankers are calling for.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 16, 2015)

Louise Mensch has gone off on one again.

Tomorrow's headline?


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

After receiving some criticism on twitter, Crick might be belatedly trying to add some balance to his feed by retweeting this:


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 16, 2015)

elbows said:


> The Tom Clark one was yesterday and has already been mentioned here.



Didn't see that -- was it on this thread? Apologies anyway. Some of us old-media types first see these articles later, in printed form 




> Even if he needs to play a media game there is no reason why it has to be the tired old one these wankers are calling for.



I happen to agree with you completely elbows , but just because the three of them are wankers doesn't mean *all* of their _actual points_ shouldn't be discussed (or attacked!) in some way.

Hence that question I asked above.


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

I'll get into it more once a bit more time has passed - looks like he's given a bunch of tv interviews today which I am presently mentioning in the labour leadership thread.


----------



## elbows (Sep 16, 2015)

Actually I suppose I can say something about it before waiting for him to settle into the role.

I don't buy Tom Clarks examples because no amount of spin or slick media operations were going to put a firm lid on the absolute frenzy of petty, immature bullshit that the media have been coming out with at this stage. They aren't exposing him, they are exposing themselves, and he shouldn't give up an inch of authenticity in order to play their game using spin and off-the-record briefings.

In any case since the Labour party machine still exists, I don't expect to see an end to party spin. But every leadership has a style and on that front he should ignore Tom Clarks advice.


----------



## MrSki (Sep 16, 2015)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Louise Mensch has gone off on one again.
> 
> Tomorrow's headline?



I don't see why when the driver was a government one. Louise Mensch can do one.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 17, 2015)

<Apols. knackered link>


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2015)

More bilge from the Guardian:
The national anthem may stick in Corbyn’s craw, but it is his job to sing it | Anne Perkins


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> More bilge from the Guardian:
> The national anthem may stick in Corbyn’s craw, but it is his job to sing it | Anne Perkins



Anne Perkins has been the worst of the lot by a distance. Which is really quite an achievement.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> More bilge from the Guardian:
> The national anthem may stick in Corbyn’s craw, but it is his job to sing it | Anne Perkins


Not that _I care_, you understand. It's the 'deeper instincts of the country' (read: those folk not like me or Jeremy...)


----------



## rekil (Sep 17, 2015)

Lorra lorra Oxford in there.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not that _I care_, you understand. It's the 'deeper instincts of the country' (read: those folk not like me or Jeremy...)



I doubt that more than a handful of those complaining actually care. It's just offence culture, the right-wing equivalent of intersectionalistas who spend their time around Halloween scouring pictures of parties at the student union for 'problematic' 'cultural appropriation' in Halloween costumes except instead of tumblrs they have The Sun, The Telegraph and now the Graunid


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> More bilge from the Guardian:
> The national anthem may stick in Corbyn’s craw, but it is his job to sing it | Anne Perkins



Oh I saw this yesterday and was going to post it here. Just utter fucking dirge.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 17, 2015)

Yes it is sad how bad the Guardian can be. There might as well be just one newspaper merging the Torygraph, the Mail, the Guardian and Express along with the Independent (which is not _quite _as bad)

If the Beeb has its way and gets to provide material for local newspapers the whole media circus will be able fit into one small caravan. Channel 4 news is getting to be a disappointment too. Let's scrap the lot and just use the so called social media.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Sep 17, 2015)

Back to basics for Anne Perkins and the grid-on, don't wipe your arse with the paper before you write on it.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 17, 2015)




----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 17, 2015)

“I’m going to be at many events, and I will take part fully in those events,” Corbyn said. “I don’t see a problem about this. The issue, surely, is that we had a memorial for the Battle of Britain. I was there, I showed respect for it, and I will show respect in the proper way at all future events. That’s what I will be doing.”

Pressed on whether the proper way to show respect was to sing the national anthem, he said: “The proper way is to take a full part in them, and I will take a full part in them.”

Within minutes of the interview being broadcast, Labour sources confirmed that Corbyn would in fact sing the national anthem in future."

Jeremy Corbyn will sing national anthem in future, says Labour

Really hard to tell if he's U-turned or if people are just briefing that he has.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 17, 2015)

I think he should sing but sing something else and fox the lip readers by wearing a clown mask


----------



## ska invita (Sep 17, 2015)




----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> “I’m going to be at many events, and I will take part fully in those events,” Corbyn said. “I don’t see a problem about this. The issue, surely, is that we had a memorial for the Battle of Britain. I was there, I showed respect for it, and I will show respect in the proper way at all future events. That’s what I will be doing.”
> 
> Pressed on whether the proper way to show respect was to sing the national anthem, he said: “The proper way is to take a full part in them, and I will take a full part in them.”
> 
> ...


A u-turn would suggest he had said he wouldn't sing it previously. Has he?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2015)

Multimillionaire in contempt for democracy shocker. 

Fuckety bye, then. The subs from new members will probably cover his loss.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 17, 2015)

killer b said:


> A u-turn would suggest he had said he wouldn't sing it previously. Has he?



I dunno, but he hasn't sung it. How would he explain not singing it once and then singing it at every other event?


----------



## marty21 (Sep 17, 2015)

well at least Corbyn didn't take a selfie at a Memorial event


----------



## magneze (Sep 17, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I dunno, but he hasn't sung it. How would he explain not singing it once and then singing it at every other event?


Who the fuck cares?


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

He explains in the ch4 interview, it's clearly less of an issue to him than it is to you.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2015)

The CPGB were disgusted by his comments.  They might leave the Labour Party.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 17, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn is a patriot – he would never have waged the illegal war that killed my son | Reg Keys

Guardian changing their tune a bit.


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> So far, all I've been able





elbows said:


> I believe the beast of Bolsover having a go at Emily Maitlis is somewhat on topic. Apologies if it was already posted the other day, I didn't see it.





l


ska invita said:


>



Sadly Carney warning against John Mcdonnell and Corbyns economic policies does carry some heft and can't be ignored, wished away. They need to build a strong economics unit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> He doesn't ever seem bothered by any of it though, beyond an occasional mild exasperation at being forced to respond to the babbling of cretins.



Corbyn came to Parliament at a time when the whole shebang of media insults around *any* sort of leftism, however mild, were doing the rounds. He's pretty much innoculated to it in the same way Livingstone, Abbott, McDonnell, Paul Flynn etc are, and Bernie Grant was. You grow a thick skin, or you get torn apart.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 17, 2015)

hot air baboon said:


> Jason Cowley manages to do both



Whereas what Cowley should do, is do *one*.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2015)

bloody hell, Emily Thornberry #2 in the DWP


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

I don


ViolentPanda said:


> Corbyn came to Parliament at a time when the whole shebang of media insults around *any* sort of leftism, however mild, were doing the rounds. He's pretty much innoculated to it in the same way Livingstone, Abbott, McDonnell, Paul Flynn etc are, and Bernie Grant was. You grow a thick skin, or you get torn apart.




I don't think Paul Flynn is on the left anymore, for example, he backed the welfare reforms and gone on about 'scroungers'


----------



## treelover (Sep 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> bloody hell, Emily Thornberry #2 in the DWP




Shadow Employment Minister?


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2015)

treelover said:


> Shadow Employment Minister?


yup


----------



## laptop (Sep 17, 2015)

Sirena said:


> This is fairly positive and it is also fairly amusing and thought-provoking
> 
> Prime minister Jeremy Corbyn: the first 100 days



It's a bit of comedic fluff: not bad, as such things go:



> His majesty, unlike many of his courtiers, is said to be not too distressed by the outcome. In fact, say some, he is positively gleeful. Indeed, there are rumours that he has for some months been engaged in private correspondence with the Labour leader on a range of issues.


----------



## tim (Sep 17, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not that _I care_, you understand. It's the 'deeper instincts of the country' (read: those folk not like me or Jeremy...)



Shameful, the Tories would never be so disrespectful. They'd at least have a stab at singing along


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 17, 2015)

Corbyn writing for the FT - I've stolen this from another site and not got a sub myself so if its wrong lmk



> *The orthodoxy has failed: Europe needs a new economic settlement*
> 
> _Jeremy CorbynSome see EU as an exclusive club not a democratic forum for social progress, writes Jeremy Corbyn_
> 
> ...



Get the fuck in.


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2015)

And so, rather inevitably, there is now a press officer and also a head of policy and rebuttal. 

Neale Coleman, the new member of Jeremy Corbyn's inner circle - BBC News

Corbyn's New Press Secretary Blasts 'Old' Media

Kevin seems to have deleted his twitter account so although I will give it time to see what style of spin they employ, I'm not expecting a sea change.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2015)

Kerry Mcarthy sounds alright (if we can judge people by the music they're into).

Kerry McCarthy MP picks her top 10 eighties industrial dance songs - Louder Than War


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 17, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn is right to hate the media — as this video of him being assaulted by reporters shows


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 17, 2015)

magneze said:


> Who the fuck cares?



I care a little bit. It's not a major thing like, it's just I would hope he knew he would get flak for not singing it, and be prepared for that. If (and I'm not sure he has) he's backed down over a days worth of critical headlines, then he may back down on lots of other stuff. Which would be a shame.


----------



## gosub (Sep 17, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Jeremy Corbyn is right to hate the media — as this video of him being assaulted by reporters shows


the shove of the photographer occurs first (physical contact is technically assault) the opening of a door to protest the incident (opening a door isn't assault) is second.   Do think the photographer was way too close and has milked his work related injury subsequently but don't blame them for bringing it to Corbyn's attention.  Both sides still learning how the other works.  they were a lot further back the next day


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2015)

Yes I was about to complain about the misleading use of the word assault in that headline. Also, the fact they opened his car door and complained was reported in the initial stories about the incident.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 17, 2015)

gosub said:


> the shove of the photographer occurs first (physical contact is technically assault) the opening of a door to protest the incident (opening a door isn't assault) is second.   Do think the photographer was way too close and has milked his work related injury subsequently but don't blame them for bringing it to Corbyn's attention.  Both sides still learning how the other works.  they were a lot further back the next day



They always get right up close and in peoples faces so yeah, its not unusual to see it escalate quickly


----------



## elbows (Sep 17, 2015)

Perhaps a uk media organisation will now hire that scum Hungarian camerawoman who tripped migrants, to cover Corbyn.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 18, 2015)

Less bilgey stuff (I totally agree that the above link in the above post from Orang Utan was total shite  ) -- came from Suzanne Moore's article today.

Corbyn's Labour is a party without a point, led by a rebel without a cause

She's pretty harsh, but not exactly from a Tory/Blairite direction ...

Seamus Milne's op-ed, also from today,  is, erm, somewhat less critical of him ...


----------



## agricola (Sep 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> She's pretty harsh, but not exactly from a Tory/Blairite direction ...



That article is nonsensical.  For a start:



> This old left can’t deal with the new questions posed by Europe, still less with the ongoing question of an English parliament.



... would almost make you think that Corbyn was the one who had been going around the leadership hustings with the "We will be part of the EU, irrespective of what it does, or what Cameron manages to achieve, or what happens in the world" statement.



> If you want to mobilise, for instance, Facebook has a bigger reach than Twitter. If you want to get to young women, then it is Instagram. If you want to know the most shared sites on most social media, I am sorry to disappoint but they remain the content generators: Mail Online, Buzzfeed and the Guardian.



... whose Labour leadership campaign was it that was wildly successful online again?



> I note the thoughtful theorist Jeremy Gilbert wants to reclaim the media by forcing “all media providers over a certain size to become self-governing trusts within three years”. Wow. If this is serious, it is pushing in the opposite direction to what most people say they want. Less state interference. Over and over, what “ordinary people” like and choose to do and buy is somehow despicable to parts of the left.



Really?  "Ordinary people" have been demanding* less* state interference in the media?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 18, 2015)

agricola : That last one was utterly illogical, I know. Not so much that 'ordinary people' have demanded anything like that, but that the Trusts idea is somehow State Oppressionist in some way. Utter nonsense.

I don't quote these things as if I agree with every last comma, or even much of them at all.


They're just worth a scan is all .... and bits of them may just raise one or two half-way interesting points. To have a pop at far more often than not.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> Kerry Mcarthy sounds alright (*if we can judge people by the music they're into*).
> 
> Kerry McCarthy MP picks her top 10 eighties industrial dance songs - Louder Than War




We can't, but I want to check those YouTube links ASAP!


----------



## agricola (Sep 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> agricola : That last one was utterly illogical, I know. Not so much that 'ordinary people' have demanded anything like that, but that the Trusts idea is somehow State Oppressionist in some way. Utter nonsense.
> 
> I don't quote these things as if I agree with every last comma, or even much of them at all.
> 
> ...



I know, and apologies if it came across as if I was having a go at you - its just that Moore article is maddening, even when viewed against the rest of the anti-Corbyn pieces that have infested that paper lately.


----------



## gosub (Sep 18, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> *The orthodoxy has failed: Europe needs a new economic settlement*
> 
> _Some see EU as an exclusive club not a democratic forum for social progress, writes Jeremy Corbyn_
> 
> ...



Gimped in under a week.   


 The tories getting the social chapter out of our treaty obligations isn't the same as getting them off the UK statue book. A different battle.  What the tories would getting rid of is a safety catch.  Similar safety catches, that stop chancers getting elected on the back of promising to build houses with money they haven't got, or limiting EUropean enterprise's ability to own railways, energy and water companies will still exist. Mr Corbyn's Labour party will campaign for keeping them.


Depressing that all our political leaders are selling us down a route to be Federal EUrope's Puerto Rico, except Farage.   Non EUro members  have little to offer in sorting out the economic headaches of the EU, in the same way non Schengen do on migration.  Being in the Single Market without being the EU has a limited impact on jobs and the evironmenatal asspects could be done through an existing parallel UN route.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 18, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Corbyn writing for the FT - I've stolen this from another site and not got a sub myself so if its wrong lmk
> 
> Get the fuck in.


also todays FT says Corbyn will campaign to stay in the EU as a way of imposing the Tobin Tax (which most EUs countries have alrady signed up for IIRC, but Cameron has refused)

meanwhile in the mail...






*Reds in the bed: Jeremy, Diane and a naked romp in a Cotswolds field... and Labour leader even took his lover on a romantic road trip to East Germany*

*Political soulmates Jeremy Corbyn & Diane Abbott became lovers in 1979*
*Happened even though Corbyn was married to academic Jane Chapman*
*Story of Corbyn’s tryst also shed new light on a 1985 interview Abbott gave*
*She said ‘finest half-hour’ was romping with naked man in a Cotswold field*


----------



## Sirena (Sep 18, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2015)

I see the muckraking has begun then. I just think its nice to hear about a politician having sex over a decade ago that was consensual and with someone over 18.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I see the muckraking has begun then. I just think its nice to hear about a politician having sex over a decade ago that was consensual and with someone over 18.


you pervert


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I see the muckraking has begun then. I just think its nice to hear about a politician having sex over a decade ago that was consensual and with someone over 18.


but, but, but...behind the Iron Curtain...splutters Earl Grey over the Telegraph....that's commie sex!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2015)

What happens in a crappy DDR hotel room stays in the crappy DDR hotel room. And the stasi document storage facilities.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> but, but, but...behind the Iron Curtain...splutters Earl Grey over the Telegraph....that's commie sex!


"Now for the supreme revolutionary act".


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> What happens in a crappy DDR hotel room stays in the crappy DDR hotel room. And the stasi document storage facilities.



"Let me show you my fifth column"


----------



## brogdale (Sep 18, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> "Let me show you my fifth column"


"Entryism'?


----------



## Sirena (Sep 18, 2015)

Corbyn Slammed for Attending PMQs with Cock Out - News Thing


----------



## rekil (Sep 18, 2015)

"raise the scarlet standard high"


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> What happens in a crappy DDR hotel room stays in the crappy DDR hotel room. And the stasi document storage facilities.


I heard it was in the back of a Trabant. So romatic


----------



## YouSir (Sep 18, 2015)

ska invita said:


> also todays FT says Corbyn will campaign to stay in the EU as a way of imposing the Tobin Tax (which most EUs countries have alrady signed up for IIRC, but Cameron has refused)
> 
> meanwhile in the mail...
> 
> ...



I'd be chuffed if I were Corbyn, 'finest half-hour' - nothing like a morning ego boost.


----------



## laptop (Sep 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Suzanne Moore's article today.
> 
> Corbyn's Labour is a party without a point, led by a rebel without a cause
> 
> She's pretty harsh, but not exactly from a Tory/Blairite direction ...



Managed to avoid reading the article, by discussing it with someone who drinks with Moore (though doesn't drink as much as Moore). We now have a bet on Moore doing a Hitchens by 2018. Nick Cohen, earlier.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 18, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I heard it was in the back of a Trabant. So romatic



Anything to make em move right?


----------



## laptop (Sep 18, 2015)

ska invita said:


> *Reds in the bed: Jeremy, Diane and a naked romp in a Cotswolds field... and Labour leader even took his lover on a romantic road trip to East Germany*
> 
> *Political soulmates Jeremy Corbyn & Diane Abbott became lovers in 1979*
> *Happened even though Corbyn was married to academic Jane Chapman*
> ...



Best bit:



> They became lovers at his London home, apparently after talking socialist doctrine over cups of tea and tins of cold baked beans.



Phwoar! 

You couldn't make it up! 






Er, wait...


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> Best bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What temperature were Major's peas? We demand to know!


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> We now have a bet on Moore doing a Hitchens by 2018. Nick Cohen, earlier.


drinking herself to death?  or becoming an openly right wing shit (in which case Cohen's already done it)


----------



## Plumdaff (Sep 18, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I heard it was in the back of a Trabant. So romatic



I'm quite impressed. There's barely any room. A certain amount of athleticism is required.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Less bilgey stuff (I totally agree that the above link in the above post from Orang Utan was total shite  ) -- came from Suzanne Moore's article today.
> 
> Corbyn's Labour is a party without a point, led by a rebel without a cause
> 
> She's pretty harsh, but not exactly from a Tory/Blairite direction ...



It's shit. Just stop reading the Guardian Will


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2015)

YouSir said:


> I'd be chuffed if I were Corbyn, 'finest half-hour' - nothing like a morning ego boost.



I'd be pissed off, sure you look like a cocksman in the daily mail and I'm sure his wife knows his past and probably laughed it all off as daily heil muckraking as per. But its precisely the sort of thing he was moaning about in the acceptance speech.


----------



## 8den (Sep 18, 2015)

Having an affair with another councillor on a motorbike tour of East Germany is about the most 70s thing that was ever done. Is it possible to like the man even more


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 18, 2015)

Mainstream Media Are A Bigger Problem Than The Tories.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 18, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Mainstream Media Are A Bigger Problem Than The Tories.



What do you think of that article?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2015)

isn't bilgewatch one of taffboy's own creations?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> isn't bilgewatch one of taffboy's own creations?



After posting I did wonder; it's full of the same hectoring certainty.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## likesfish (Sep 18, 2015)

had consenting sex with an adult woman 30 years ago as sex scandals go its pretty tame.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 18, 2015)

Not a big fan of James O'Brien, but he does nail this idiotic caller... 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...not-singing-the-national-anthem-10506098.html


----------



## Roadkill (Sep 18, 2015)

Fez909 said:


> I heard it was in the back of a Trabant. So romatic



I heard it was a Wartburg.

There's an STD joke in there somewhere...


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> Managed to avoid reading the article, by discussing it with someone who drinks with Moore (though doesn't drink as much as Moore). We now have a bet on Moore doing a Hitchens by 2018. Nick Cohen, earlier.



You know Germaine Greer?



belboid said:


> drinking herself to death?  or becoming an openly right wing shit (in which case Cohen's already done it)



My Theory of Hitchens is that someone somewhere ("gimme an "M", gimme an "I"") had the goods on him, and decided he would make a convenient patsie after 9/11.


----------



## laptop (Sep 18, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> You know Germaine Greer?



Not well. Not well enough to know she drinks with Moore. Someone else...



Idris2002 said:


> My Theory of Hitchens is that someone somewhere ("gimme an "M", gimme an "I"") had the goods on him, and decided he would make a convenient patsie after 9/11.



"doing a Hitchens" was referring to Peter _and_ Christoper


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> Not well. Not well enough to know she drinks with Moore. Someone else...


[/QUOTE]

Not Greer anyway:

In _The Guardian_ in 1995, Moore falsely stated that Germaine Greer had undergone a hysterectomy at 25. Greer responded by accusing Moore of possessing "hair bird's-nested all over the place, fuck-me shoes and three fat inches of cleavage."[3]

You must be pretty young if you don't remember that one.


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2015)

dear god was that twenty years ago


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 18, 2015)

likesfish said:


> as sex scandals go its pretty tame.



A mere glimpse of the horrors to come under the Corbynist jackboot.


----------



## laptop (Sep 18, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> You must be pretty young if you don't remember that one.



Er, chunkier things to remember than put-dows?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 18, 2015)

lol
Corbyn Slammed for Attending PMQs with Cock Out - News Thing


----------



## J Ed (Sep 18, 2015)

laptop said:


> "doing a Hitchens" was referring to Peter _and_ Christoper



I would prefer that she did something that Christopher did but Peter hasn't yet


----------



## 8den (Sep 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> isn't bilgewatch one of taffboy's own creations?


It sounds like something taffy would post. "Watch out more Bilge from Taffy".


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 18, 2015)




----------



## rekil (Sep 18, 2015)

Is Aaron still in the Greens? lol.


----------



## happie chappie (Sep 18, 2015)

It’s early days but Corbyn looks absolutely exhausted, even shell-shocked.

I really don’t think he had any idea of what he was letting himself in for.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, after the vile media monstering he’s had over the past week, he’ll be wondering whether it was all worth it.

I thought the way Milliband was treated was bad, but this looks like it’s going to be far, far worse.

I can honestly see it breaking him. He already looks haunted.

I’d be surprised if he makes it to 2020.

Poor sod


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 18, 2015)

happie chappie said:


> It’s early days but Corbyn looks absolutely exhausted, even shell-shocked.
> 
> I really don’t think he had any idea of what he was letting himself in for.
> 
> ...


You are a right "Job's Comforter", Corbyn has one major advantage - he is often underestimated and is tough and not afraid of doing things the hard way. Witness PMQs.


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2015)

I don't think he looks exhausted, he seemed totally relaxed on the latest Snow interview. He's just being shown in the worst light possible by a hostile media out to destroy him by any means.


----------



## susie12 (Sep 18, 2015)

He will be fine.  He's been in politics for many years and I'm sure he was well aware of the reception he would get in some quarters.  He's going to get a rousing welcome here in Manchester anyway when we protest the Tory conference, please come if you can!


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2015)

yeah, think I will. we should have a meet.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 18, 2015)

Are you sure he is a politician! Jezza is like a superhero bringing truth love care and hope to the masses. I have so much respect and admiration for him. Now have a warm bath and a good nights sleep x


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 18, 2015)

Err that was a quote, not me


----------



## killer b (Sep 18, 2015)

a likely story


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 18, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Just stop reading the Guardian Will




Yes Sir Boss ... 

I've actually considered doing that tbh -- I'd get more bookreading time if I did 

ETA later : saying that, the Saturday bit of the drug would be the hardst bit to give up


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

Is _*"Jacorbyn" *_a 'thing' now?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2015)

they clearly want it to be.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they clearly want it to be.


Making a _mountain _out of a mole-hill?


----------



## J Ed (Sep 19, 2015)

Corbyn spends 7 hours with constituents = snubs Rugby World Cup

He snubbed Getafe-Malaga as well


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Making a _mountain _out of a mole-hill?



Nice, but nobody here will get it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 19, 2015)

went right over my head by about a million feet lol


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> Nice, but nobody here will get it.


Bet some will...and you did!


----------



## Greebo (Sep 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> went right over my head by about a million feet lol


"The little gentleman in black velvet" was toasted by jacobites, as the horse carrying an unpopular (at least, north of the border) monarch tripped over (or its hoof went down) a molehill, causing a fatal or nearly fatal fall.

Don't expect me to accurately have all the details at my fingers, I've been talking most of today and am slightly fried.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> went right over my head by about a million feet lol


"The little gentleman in black velvet" was toasted by jacobites, as the horse carrying an unpopular (at least, north of the border) monarch tripped over (or its hoof went down) a molehill, causing a fatal or nearly fatal fall.

Don't expect me to accurately have all the details at my fingers, I've been talking most of today and am slightly fried.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 19, 2015)

OK, the Express wins...


----------



## JimW (Sep 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> OK, the Express wins...


They missed the likelihood he's descended from Genghis Khan if all those cod genetics things I read are true.


----------



## rekil (Sep 19, 2015)

Slap Him, He's FRENCH.  Easy money for any hacks out there. 





> This most interesting surname may have derived from either of two origins. Firstly, it may be of locational origin, from either Corbon in Calvados or Corbon in Orne, in France. Hence the name may have arrived in England after the Norman Conquest of 1066.
> 
> The surname may also have derived as a nickname for a man with strikingly glossy black hair or for one with a raucous voice, from the Middle English or the Old French "Corbin" Corbun", raven.


----------



## agricola (Sep 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Is _*"Jacorbyn" *_a 'thing' now?



Really?  I would have thought Osborne would make a much better Bonnie Prince Charlie, given his past.


----------



## snadge (Sep 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


>




from Pistonheads, I still don't see how Pistonheads is classed as a right wing forum by certain people.



> First it was the general rubbish bin, then the recycling bin...a garden waste bin...a kitchen waste bin...and now we've got a bloody Corbyn - it's ridiculous


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 20, 2015)

Noel Whelan: British media’s hostile treatment of  Corbyn is undemocratic


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> OK, the Express wins...


The Sport trumps The Express:


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The Sport trumps The Express:
> View attachment 76905


 
That article is possibly the best thing I have ever read in a newspaper 



> ...leftie Seventies throwback...first dwarf to paddle around Britain...capsizing his tiny canoe...sexually involved with several married women...a keen dogger...like many dwarfs Ted was an angry man...tiny corpse a big snack for otters...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 20, 2015)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Not a big fan of James O'Brien, but he does nail this idiotic caller...
> 
> James O'Brien stuns caller angry at Corbyn for not singing the national anthem



Oh god thats fantastic


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 20, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn hysteria and lies are the funniest thing I've seen in years


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 20, 2015)

British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general

Fuck you, you cunt


----------



## laptop (Sep 20, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Jeremy Corbyn hysteria and lies are the funniest thing I've seen in years



How could I have missed SandwichGate?

I have let down the College of Political Spods. I have let down the Headmaster. And I have let myself down


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2015)

some desperate, desperate stuff there. And not one of these keen newshounds managed to find out what fillings the Dear Leader had


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

"Prince" Sadiq uses the Mail (*Mail link*) to distance his campaign from the party that he supposedly represents.


> Khan, who is Muslim, suggested that *Corbyn's refusal to sing the National Anthem showed he was unfit to be Prime Minister....*
> And he denounced the Labour leadership duo's links to terror groups. He said McDonnell's claim that IRA killers should be 'honoured' could encourage terrorism in London, and *Corbyn's support for Arab extremist groups could inspire anti-Semitic attacks.*
> 
> Khan's comments were echoed by fellow Labour MP Chuka Umunna, whose Streatham constituency includes Brixton, hit by riots in the 1980s.
> ...


Also posted in L&SE forum thread.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 20, 2015)

And now, the inevitable Downfall parody:


----------



## ska invita (Sep 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> "Prince" Sadiq uses the Mail (*Mail link*) to distance his campaign from the party that he supposedly represents.
> ​Also posted in L&SE forum thread.


when Corbyn did his winners speech he said "Khan, we will campaign with you in your bid to become mayor" (words to that effect) - camera cut to Khan who's face seemed to say, er, Id rather you didnt ;D

14mins in here


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 20, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2015)

agricola said:


> Really?  I would have thought Osborne would make a much better Bonnie Prince Charlie, given his past.


in 20 years time he'll be just another fat bloated pisshead tourist in rome


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2015)

laptop said:


> How could I have missed SandwichGate?
> 
> I have let down the College of Political Spods. I have let down the Headmaster. And I have let myself down


but most of all you've let urban down


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but most of all you've let urban down


By deflating its protective inflatable dome.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2015)

l


Artaxerxes said:


> British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general
> 
> Fuck you, you cunt


seems to me yer man is saying that the army would be quite happy to jeopardise the security of the country


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> but most of all you've let urban down


Surely, the order goes "...form, year, house, school, family but, most of all, yourself..."
"I'm so disappointed..."


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> l
> seems to me yer man is saying that the army would be quite happy to jeopardise the security of the country


Suppose the generals did decide to go Pinochet on Jezza's ass - would the squaddies follow them?

A genuine question for kebabking , Sasaferrato , likesfish , ViolentPanda


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Suppose the generals did decide to go Pinochet on Jezza's ass - would the squaddies follow them?
> 
> A genuine question for kebabking , Sasaferrato , likesfish , ViolentPanda


not sure what that would do if they'd all quit the army


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Suppose the generals did decide to go Pinochet on Jezza's ass - would the squaddies follow them?
> 
> A genuine question for kebabking , Sasaferrato , likesfish , ViolentPanda


Some of those chaps have argued long and hard against my posting that the duty to disobey illegal orders trumps their oath.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Some of those chaps have argued long and hard against my posting that the duty to disobey illegal orders trumps their oath.


It's a bold strategy - let's see if it pays off for them.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Suppose the generals did decide to go Pinochet on Jezza's ass - would the squaddies follow them?
> 
> A genuine question for kebabking , Sasaferrato , likesfish , ViolentPanda



i saw the article - its a load of crap. the idea that any serving, or retired in the last 100 years general, said whats alleged was said, is utter bollocks.

people might well leave - or grab redundancy with both hands - but no, if Corby, (or anyone else) won an election and decided to reduce the defence budget by 99.999999999999%, or scrap whatever programmes they didn't like, it would be accepted with bad grace, but no one is going to start fighting an elected government.

Generals least of all.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 20, 2015)

I don't think that there is anything in this coup stuff, it's just more unattributed nonsense, but as far as violence goes the saturation of propaganda is so constant that I have wondered several times whether there wasn't a chance of some individual on the far-right taking it at face value and deciding to physcally attack Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## elbows (Sep 20, 2015)

kebabking said:


> i saw the article - its a load of crap. the idea that any serving, or retired in the last 100 years general, said whats alleged was said, is utter bollocks.
> 
> people might well leave - or grab redundancy with both hands - but no, if Corby, (or anyone else) won an election and decided to reduce the defence budget by 99.999999999999%, or scrap whatever programmes they didn't like, it would be accepted with bad grace, but no one is going to start fighting an elected government.
> 
> Generals least of all.



The current threat is silly but I don't think you should be giving every single retired general of the last 100 years that much benefit of the doubt.

Take for example the likes of Walter Walker and Alexander Greenwood during the Wilson period. I'm not suggesting they actually had the capability and backing to carry out the coup plans, but they certainly made noise and preparations, however deluded. So I think the question of whether a retired general would ever come out with this shit is a lot easier to answer than anything beyond that, such as actually acting on it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 20, 2015)

The Jeremy Corbyn Shipping Forecast


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The Jeremy Corbyn Shipping Forecast



"*Showers, Mensch.*"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Suppose the generals did decide to go Pinochet on Jezza's ass - would the squaddies follow them?
> 
> A genuine question for kebabking , Sasaferrato , likesfish , ViolentPanda



Unlikely. Any *order* to do so would be illegal, besides which the "political" generals are on the General Staff, and are disliked by *real* soldiers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Some of those chaps have argued long and hard against my posting that the duty to disobey illegal orders trumps their oath.



Not me. I see both Queens' Regs and the duty to disobey legal orders as somewhat more valid than an oath to a set of hereditary parasites.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not me. I see both Queens' Regs and the duty to disobey legal orders as somewhat more valid than an oath to a set of hereditary parasites.


I thought that's what I said? Maybe clumsily expressed?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unlikely. Any *order* to do so would be illegal, besides which the "political" generals are on the General Staff, and are disliked by *real* soldiers.



Well, indeed.

The general officer who'd order such idiocy simply wouldn't get near generals stars - not because generals are moral giants, but because such testicular fortitude is not a quality prized by the selection board, not least because such an officer might say or do nasty things about their fellow generals...


----------



## stavros (Sep 20, 2015)

If the Mail on Sunday is to be believed*, Diane Abbott made advances which broke up Corbyn's first marriage. 






*It's not.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 20, 2015)

This is great Guardian’s terrible dilemma over Corbyn | Jonathan Cook's Blog



> The reality is that Corbyn poses a very serious challenge to supposedly liberal-left media like the Guardian and the Observer, which is why they hoped to ensure his candidacy was still-born and why, now he is leader, they are caught in a terrible dilemma.
> While the Guardian and Observer market themselves as caring about justice and equality, but do nothing to bring them about apart from promoting tinkering with the present, hugely unjust, global neoliberal order, Corbyn’s rhetoric suggests that the apple cart needs upending.
> If it achieves nothing else, Corbyn’s campaign has highlighted a truth about the existing British political system: that, at least since the time of Tony Blair, the country’s two major parliamentary parties have been equally committed to upholding neoliberalism. The Blue Neoliberal Party (the Conservatives) and the Red Neoliberal Party (Labour) mark the short horizon of current British politics. You can have either hardcore neoliberalism or slightly more softcore neoliberalism.
> Corbyn shows that there should be more to politics than this false choice, which is why hundreds of thousands of leftists flocked back to Labour in the hope of getting him elected. In doing so, they overwhelmed the parliamentary Labour party (PLP), which vigorously opposed him becoming leader.
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Sep 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> This is great Guardian’s terrible dilemma over Corbyn | Jonathan Cook's Blog


Has the scum-bag liberals nailed, that one.


----------



## Zabo (Sep 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> This is great Guardian’s terrible dilemma over Corbyn | Jonathan Cook's Blog



Brilliant! Thank You for posting.


----------



## magneze (Sep 20, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> British Army 'could stage mutiny under Corbyn', says senior serving general
> 
> Fuck you, you cunt


Court martial that general. A coup if the people vote Labour? Ridiculous.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 20, 2015)

The BAs priority is defence of the realm . If they judge corbyn to be a threat to the realm the he's an enemy , simple as . That most likely won't translate into tanks on the streets and lefties being rounded up in Wembley stadium . But it does mean a lot of other options . Such as mass disobedience and all sorts of other forms of skull duggery, in common cause with others .


----------



## ska invita (Sep 20, 2015)

Yesterdays Independent ran
*Jeremy Corbyn 'loses fifth of Labour voters' with critics already plotting to oust him
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cs-already-plotting-to-oust-him-10508584.html
*
story taken apart here LENIN'S TOMB: Our feral, lying, good for nothing media


----------



## brogdale (Sep 21, 2015)

magneze said:


> Court martial that general. A coup if the people vote Labour? Ridiculous.



Apparently MoD not capable of finding the 'general'...


> ....a Ministry of Defence source said it was unacceptable for serving officers to make political statements about a potential future government, the MoD *has ruled out a leak inquiry on the basis that it would be almost impossible to identify who gave the quotes as there are around 100 serving generals.*


Impressive 'military intelligence'!


----------



## marty21 (Sep 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Apparently MoD not capable of finding the 'general'...
> ​Impressive 'military intelligence'!


 that seems a fairly small pool of suspects


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 21, 2015)

the source was 'un-named', what are they going to do ask 100 career officers 'did you say this'? Because they'd all say no the journo made it up.' Which he could well have


----------



## magneze (Sep 21, 2015)

> The unnamed commander, thought to have served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s, told the_Sunday Times..._


That narrows it down from 100 I would have thought.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 21, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the source was 'un-named', what are they going to do ask 100 career officers 'did you say this'? Because they'd all say no the journo made it up.' Which he could well have


They know already.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 21, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Apparently MoD not capable of finding the 'general'...
> ​Impressive 'military intelligence'!


He's probably hiding with Iraq's WMD


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 21, 2015)

magneze said:


> > The unnamed commander, thought to have served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s, told the_Sunday Times..._
> 
> 
> That narrows it down from 100 I would have thought.



Would this be of help? I've literally no idea what I'm looking at, btw. It has the word general in the title though. Maybe one of U75s military nerds out there will know.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 22, 2015)

Corbyn getting the job has got me picking up the Evening Standard again looking for slurs...

In todays there was a double page spread on him, written in what appears to be a fun, puff piece style, but its definitely a soft slur piece

It starts with the assertion the JC didnt got to the rugby world cup opening cermeony, like a good patriot, like Boris Johnson, because he was talking with a constituent about Jam.



> "Out: The Rugby World Cup
> In: Jam
> 
> Down with elitism and private school sports such as rugby — Corbyn believes focus and discipline can be instilled by jam making rather than watching hookers. Instead of doing what Boris Johnson called “scrumming down for England” at the opening match of the Rugby World Cup, Corbyn met a constituent to discuss housing and pectin. Daisy Barber says: “He explained to my nieces the exact process required to make jam... That’s scrumming down for England in my opinion!”




The meeting wasnt about Jam, making him sound like an idiot, it was about the housing needs of a local family - Daisy's heavily edited to misconstrue quote was in fact glowing, and posted on her facebook page



> Daisy Barber - Jeremy Corbyn was criticised yesterday for... | Facebook
> Jeremy Corbyn was criticised yesterday for 'snubbing' the opening ceremony of the Rugby World Cup, citing prior commitments. As Boris Jonhson put it “This is turning into a national joke...Come on Jezza: Scrum down for England."
> 
> His prior commitment, it appears, was a running weekly appointment to meet with his constituents. Yesterday he sat down for a private meeting with my sister in law to talk about her housing situation.
> ...



other choice crap from the same piece:


> Out: England
> In: Latin America
> 
> When England play football against Chile, Corbyn cheers for Latin Americans. There are pictures of him sitting with away fans — second wife Claudia is Chilean and his current partner Laura is from Mexico. Olé.



though of course its all shite
Jeremy Corbyn on Tinder, hipster beards and Downton Abbey


----------



## J Ed (Sep 22, 2015)

ska invita said:


> other choice crap from the same piece:
> 
> 
> though of course its all shite
> Jeremy Corbyn on Tinder, hipster beards and Downton Abbey



Xenophobic shit shoe horned in so they can imply he is pro-forrin and anti-British

Wait till they find out he speaks Spanish as well, then we'll have a repeat of the xenophobia around the fact that Clegg speaks foreign languages only x200


----------



## ska invita (Sep 22, 2015)

I dont use twitter but she's Susannah Butter (@susannahbutter) on Twitter if anyone would care to give her some feedback on her fine journalism


----------



## J Ed (Sep 22, 2015)

England doesn't play Latin American teams enough for me to bother forming much of an opinion but I usually cheer on Spanish over English teams unless the Spanish team is Real Madrid


----------



## YouSir (Sep 23, 2015)

ska invita said:


> I dont use twitter but she's Susannah Butter (@susannahbutter) on Twitter if anyone would care to give her some feedback on her fine journalism



I looked, but no one's life is long enough to waste time on replying to something so shit.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2015)

Shocking news. Corbyn's been pictured holding a marrow. It'll all be over by Christmas if not Wednesday.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 26, 2015)

Telegraph have a story that claims Corbyn has voiced 9/11 conspiracy therories. Mail has similar.

Jeremy Corbyn: 9/11 was 'manipulated'

Anyone got a link to whatever it was he actually said?

Sounds like they're referring to some old morning star articles


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 26, 2015)

Knotted said:


> Shocking news. Corbyn's been pictured holding a marrow. It'll all be over by Christmas if not Wednesday.
> 
> View attachment 77216



He's not got his cock stuck in it though. The old bore.


----------



## LDC (Sep 26, 2015)

Might be fair point to say the events/news after 9/11 were manipulated which is what the article seems to say mostly. It's a big stretch to embracing the fucked-up-ness of the 9/11 conspiracy lot from that though.


----------



## elbows (Sep 29, 2015)

His conference speech opening jokes at the expense of the media seemed to work.



> You might have noticed in some of our newspapers they’ve taken a bit of an interest in me lately.
> 
> Some of the things I’ve read are this. According to one headline “Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the prospect of an asteroid ‘wiping out’ humanity.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Libertad (Sep 29, 2015)

> Some of the things I’ve read are this. According to one headline “Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the prospect of an asteroid ‘wiping out’ humanity.”
> 
> Now, asteroids are pretty controversial. It’s not the kind of policy I’d want this party to adopt without a full debate in conference. So can we have the debate later in the week!



Proledem entryism bears fruit.


----------



## killer b (Sep 29, 2015)

The jokes were pretty awful, I thought. The speech improved radically once that was out of the way. Good target, mind.

Interesting to see the apparent gulf between the media commentators reactions and the snap polls (although I guess the snap polls were mainly of labour supporters - who else would be watching the labour leaders speech on a Tuesday afternoon?)


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 30, 2015)

Just watching the Beeb with Maitliss and crew having a go at Corbyn over 'pushing the button'. And their shocked reaction because he's saying, you know, what his view has always been  

And both them with the help of John Woodcock (Blairite Progess wing) turning it into a 'Labour Trident Row' 

Jeremy Corbyn defends 'I'd not fire nuclear weapons' comment - BBC News



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> And Labour MP John Woodcock, who supported Liz Kendall in the Labour leadership contest, told the BBC Mr Corbyn's position would make the "grotesque horror of a nuclear holocaust" more likely.


----------



## Mojofilter (Oct 1, 2015)

Zee


----------



## maomao (Oct 2, 2015)

The pigfuckers at HIGNFY are monstering him now. I'm going to cancel my PE subscription on the basis of hamster face Hislop's shit tonight.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2015)

Rafael Correa Provides lessons about battling hostile media



> Lesson 3: Speak directly to the public without intermediaries
> 
> Applying a tactic pioneered by Chavez, Correa has a weekly TV show which has become extremely popular. Contrary to some outrageous lies that have been spread online, it does not preempt all other programing when it is on. The show is sometimes hosted by Jorge Glas, the vice president. It is a roundup of Correa’s activities during the week. It typically runs about three and a half hours and debunks the lies and distortions of the private media. Correa’s government has also expanded public media in other ways. For example, the state owned newspaper El Telegrafo is another counterweight to the big private newspapers that have always dominated public debate.
> 
> In Cobyn’s case, he is not (yet) in a position to reform the U.K.’s public media. However, he has already produced online messages and given interviews to international outlets like Telesur. Hopefully he will do much more of that. Why not produce an online show similar to Russell Brand’s TREWS, but in Corbyn’s own style?



I think that _this _step in particular is key.


----------



## laptop (Oct 12, 2015)

TeleSurTV said:
			
		

> Russell Brand’s TREWS, but in Corbyn’s own style?



405-line B&W ?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2015)

laptop said:


> 405-line B&W ?



Well, as far as the comparison with TREWS goes it should similar insofar that both should be on the internet...


----------



## laptop (Oct 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Well, as far as the comparison with TREWS goes it should similar insofar that both should be on the internet...



4-bit CGA then


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

I think it was roosevelt who famously had his 'fireside chats' on the wireless.

it'd be straight mocked from tthe right as some weird dictatorial Father of the Nation commie totalitarian stuff, but who knows, it might be worth a punt.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 12, 2015)

laptop said:


> 405-line B&W ?


More like comfortable cardigan, nice hot cup of tea on the desk in front of him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I think it was roosevelt who famously had his 'fireside chats' on the wireless.
> 
> it'd be straight mocked from tthe right as some weird dictatorial Father of the Nation commie totalitarian stuff, but who knows, it might be worth a punt.


I can't think of a worse idea, tbh. Correa is in office and has access to state media. Massive difference. And this isn't Ecuador. Many people here believe the BBC has a _left-wing_ bias. They believe _The Guardian_ is left-wing.


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

I can think of thousands of worse ideas before breakfast.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2015)

LRB · Paul Myerscough · Corbyn in the Media


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 12, 2015)

Remember when Galloway did it and ended up looking like a raving Ayatollah behind his desk?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Remember when Galloway did it and ended up looking like a raving Ayatollah behind his desk?


thats cos he does the dictatorish arm waving. Still, got him his own show on RT so who is laughing now?


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

Gordon Brown was awful too. So what? Corbyn is neither of those people.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Still, got him his own show on RT so who is laughing now?



Maybe that's Corbyn's long game. To get a TV show.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 12, 2015)

Check this out for a whole load of shitty weirdness.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 12, 2015)

Oooh, he even talks about the 'prison of the lamestream media'. Genius.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> LRB · Paul Myerscough · Corbyn in the Media


Good article, and bang on about both The Guardian and the BBC, I think. I agree that he needs to use alternative media spaces. But direct talks? 

I would suggest that he also has to be careful about calling out BBC bias.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Check this out for a whole load of shitty weirdness.



he's got Fidels stogie again!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2015)

Also surely, the thing with JC is that it's not all about him. He isn't a populist a la Correa or Chavez or even Galloway.


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good article, and bang on about both The Guardian and the BBC, I think. I agree that he needs to use alternative media spaces. But direct talks?


why not?


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 12, 2015)

TeleSurTV said:
			
		

> http://www.telesurtv.net/english/op...out-Battling-Hostile-Media-20151011-0009.html
> Why not produce an online show similar to Russell Brand’s TREWS, but in Corbyn’s own style?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> why not?


He'd be ridiculed for it, and he's probably not charismatic enough to pull it off anyway. 

BBC bias - setting acceptable discourse between Tory and New Labour - is going to take time to change. It's already changing, though, with the makeup of Question Time for instance.


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He'd be ridiculed for it,


So what? They'll ridicule him whatever he does.


> and he's probably not charismatic enough to pull it off anyway.


He wasn't charismatic enough to win the Labour leadership election either.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 12, 2015)

Would it be as good as Webcameron?


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

Corbyn won the Labour leadership on the back of a social media campaign. He completely trounced the opposition, despite the entire party & established media lining up against him. 

While it remains to be seen how effectively that can be applied to the wider electorate, what did become clear throughout the leadership campaign was that Corbyn is a very effective communicator when he's able to get heard. He isn't going to get a fair hearing from the establishment media, so he needs to find ways of bypassing it. 

I don't like the idea of fireside chats or some trews type show, but some way of speaking directly to the electorate is necessary rather than desirable, if he wants to get anywhere. Comparing something that doesn't exist yet to hamfisted previous attempts at it seems a bit premature.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

he should do a show on 1xtra with Tim Westwood

'Now drop the Bomb!'

'Tim, we've been over this...'


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 12, 2015)

Much as the kids like granddad they won't take the same 25 pence spends he gives them every week


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

the ardvaark mates silently by moonlight


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

Incidentally, it'd be useful if someone could come up with a way of referring to the establishment media that doesn't make you sound like a swivel-eyed conspiracy nut. MSM/mainstream media is an immediate red flag for jew hating, and everything else I've come across thus far has a similar ring to it...


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the ardvaark mates silently by moonlight


Crazy chord transition in that, moves from F#dim into C7, then modulates up a tone (the bass remains in D throughout) and plonks down in Gaug9. Ruddy must have been smoking something strong that day in the studio.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> Incidentally, it'd be useful if someone could come up with a way of referring to the establishment media that doesn't make you sound like a swivel-eyed conspiracy nut. MSM/mainstream media is an immediate red flag for jew hating, and everything else I've come across thus far has a similar ring to it...


I just go with 'the right wing press'

cos thats more or less all of em


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I just go with 'the right wing press'
> 
> cos thats more or less all of em


But then you end up in a row about the gruan and the BBC...


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2015)

What's wrong with just 'traditional media'?


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

'cause most of them are operating increasingly in the non-trad arena, I suppose.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> But then you end up in a row about the gruan and the BBC...


'mainstream media' is at least accurate.

Isn't it as likely to make people think of Chomsky as Icke?


----------



## LDC (Oct 12, 2015)

Capitalist media?

A friend was involved in a court case many moons ago, and was asked by the judge if he'd seen the press coverage of the relevant event. "I don't read the capitalist press" friend replied. "What about the television?" asked the judge. "The same, but more so" replied friend. He also had a broken TV in his flat with 'LIES LIES LIES' written all over the screen.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> He also had a broken TV in his flat with 'LIES LIES LIES' written all over the screen.



Doesn't sound insane at all.


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> What's wrong with just 'traditional media'?


maybe I overthink things but for me the word 'traditional' carries a heavy implication of validity, continuity and trustworthiness.


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2015)

'Traditional media' sounds like paint and canvas, watercolours, marble, bronze, that kind of stuff.


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'mainstream media' is at least accurate.
> 
> Isn't it as likely to make people think of Chomsky as Icke?


I suspect the ideas of Icke and his ilk are somewhat more prominent in the consciousness of the wider population than the ideas of Chomsky.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 12, 2015)

What's the current ETA for someone suggesting Chunky Mark as the new Number 10 Communications Director?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 12, 2015)

killer b said:


> I suspect the ideas of Icke and his ilk are somewhat more prominent in the consciousness of the wider population than the ideas of Chomsky.



Chomsky is pretty shit in goal


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 12, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Chomsky is pretty shit in goal


He's more of an upfront playmaker


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 12, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Check this out for a whole load of shitty weirdness.



The initial camerawork is pretty sloppy. Can't they zoom out properly?


----------



## LDC (Oct 12, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> The initial camerawork is pretty sloppy. Can't they zoom out properly?



Two fucking awful jokes in the first 2 minutes. I didn't last much beyond that.


----------



## killer b (Oct 12, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Two fucking awful jokes in the first 2 minutes. I didn't last much beyond that.


I quickly switched it off at 'even the most intimate of human relations'

boak.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Two fucking awful jokes in the first 2 minutes. I didn't last much beyond that.


Tbh, I didn't watch it for long. I think I lasted about 2 minutes.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 13, 2015)

Admittedly I don't keep up with things so much these days, but I wasn't aware that 'mainstream media' had potentially negative connotations these days  I've always used it to refer to BBC, Sky, Guardian, Times, Mail, etc. as opposed to say Schnews, Indymedia, even Morning Star as being some sort of 'non mainstream' outlet?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 13, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Admittedly I don't keep up with things so much these days, but I wasn't aware that 'mainstream media' had potentially negative connotations these days  I've always used it to refer to BBC, Sky, Guardian, Times, Mail, etc. as opposed to say Schnews, Indymedia, even Morning Star as being some sort of 'non mainstream' outlet?


yeah its been stolen by conspiraloons and brit far righters


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah its been stolen by conspiraloons and brit far righters


...who invariably use it against any media outlet, great or small, that doesn't buy in to their fuckspuddery.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...who invariably use it against any media outlet, great or small, that doesn't buy in to their fuckspuddery.



Its a term to cover television and popular press surely.


----------



## laptop (Oct 13, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Its a term to cover television and popular press surely.



That's such an MSM line...


----------



## Humberto (Oct 13, 2015)

but is it loonspud to say so?


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Oct 14, 2015)

Re: all things against mainstream media, there's an event/open space on Saturday (17 Oct) near New Cross Gate titled "How to create a media democracy?" hosted by the Media Reform Group. (Details at How Can We Create Media Democracy? Media Democracy Festival 2015 #MDFest15). Anyone going?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 14, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Much as the kids like granddad they won't take the same 25 pence spends he gives them every week


Translation:-
Corbyn & the cabinet were rubbish and busted from the start, without the media anywhere near then.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 14, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Translation:-
> Corbyn & the cabinet were rubbish and busted from the start, without the media anywhere near then.



Watch this space!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Translation:-
> Corbyn & the cabinet were rubbish and busted from the start, without the media anywhere near then.



But you want politicians who don't just lie without turning a hair, but also see it as a badge of statesmanship; so I won't be relying on your judgement.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## teqniq (Oct 14, 2015)

Corbyn resets the 'special relationship'


----------



## teqniq (Oct 14, 2015)

PMQ's today


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2015)

Humberto said:


> Its a term to cover television and popular press surely.



Well, that's what we're debating - how different people use "mainstream media" to mean different things.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, that's what we're debating - how different people use "mainstream media" to mean different things.



well, as a non-conspiraloon, i'll happily say that i view anyone who uses 'mainstream media', and (tbh) 'elites', as a bit of a looper. its a sign. not perhaps as definative as 'sheeple', but its a sign that someone is on that road...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2015)

kebabking said:


> well, as a non-conspiraloon, i'll happily say that i view anyone who uses 'mainstream media', and (tbh) 'elites', as a bit of a looper. its a sign. not perhaps as definative as 'sheeple', but its a sign that someone is on that road...


I can happily say that I don't.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2015)

good for you. Many people do though, and it's worth considering which terms are going to make people roll their eyes and switch off, if only so you can communicate more effectively. You don't really need to persuade anyone who knows and understands Chomsky do you? If the common response to a certain term is 'probably a nutter', it's probably best to drop it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> good for you. Many people do though, and it's worth considering which terms are going to make people roll their eyes and switch off, if only so you can communicate more effectively. You don't really need to persuade anyone who knows and understands Chomsky do you? If the common response to a certain term is 'probably a nutter', it's probably best to drop it.



Is it common? 

Sorry, but if one person's going to post what they feel about something as evidence of something, me posting how I feel about it is just as valid.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but if one person's going to post what they feel about something as evidence of something, me posting how I feel about it is just as valid.


Yeah, and it's valid for me to respond to your post too. Isn't that how discussions work?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> Yeah, and it's valid for me to respond to your post too. Isn't that how discussions work?


Well the evidence of this thread is that there are some who see conspiraloon connotations and others who don't. I would suggest that the majority of people don't pay any attention to Icke and truthers and the like.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it common?


The concensus on this thread seems to suggest it's crossing over into conspiracy territory, and my own observations suggest the same. I haven't done any actual quantitive research on the topic though.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 14, 2015)

I'd consider use of 'mainstream media' or particularly 'MSM' as something of an amber light for conspiracy loonism. It definitely has a bit of that associated with it IMO.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well the evidence of this thread is that there are some who see conspiraloon connotations and others who don't. I would suggest that the majority of people don't pay any attention to Icke and truthers and the like.



Many people who don't pay any attention to "Icke and truthers and the like" also think they are mental.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 14, 2015)

Just 'media' will do.


----------



## LDC (Oct 14, 2015)

kebabking said:


> well, as a non-conspiraloon, i'll happily say that i view anyone who uses 'mainstream media', and (tbh) 'elites', as a bit of a looper. its a sign. not perhaps as definative as 'sheeple', but its a sign that someone is on that road...



Similar to how I use the amount of badges someone is wearing as a sign of their unhinged/shit politics.

One badge = fine. 
Two badges = hmmm, OK fair enough, but be careful.
Three badges = possibly getting into quite odd territory.
Loads of badges = quite obviously potty.

There's something about the size of badges and whether they're located on the clothes or a hat too, but that's getting into too much detail.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Many people who don't pay any attention to "Icke and truthers and the like" also think they are mental.


They ignore them _because_ they think they're mental. And they'll ignore you too, if you score too highly in the conspiraloon tropes stakes.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 14, 2015)

killer b said:


> They ignore them _because_ they think they're mental. And they'll ignore you too, if you score too highly in the conspiraloon tropes stakes.



And they would be right to ignore [the hypothetical me]. Or anyone who doesn't make an effort to engage with people in a way that resonates with them.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2015)

what do you mean, you've never heard of chomsky?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2015)

similarly this is (a) reason why Trews was arse- how often did he go off into a global consciousness shift the paragdim one? instant hippy warning


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 14, 2015)

Why does it have to be "global consciousness"? What was wrong with working-class internationalism?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can happily say that I don't.



Quite.

But, if there seems to be an increasing implication and conflation of 'mainstream media' with conspiraloonery, then that's good enough for me to no longer use it tbh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Why does it have to be "global consciousness"? What was wrong with working-class internationalism?


too old fashioned for these jazz handers you know


----------



## Humberto (Oct 14, 2015)

I'll get me coat then.


----------



## Santino (Oct 14, 2015)

A key thing about conspiralunacy, which it shares with many other misguided forms of thinking, is the reduction of complex phenomena to a single Thing - a nice easy noun to remember. So instead of saying that most outlets of news and current affairs media are controlled by a small number of international conglomerates, most of whose employees (at least those with any degree of editorial control) are either explicitly part of the very elites that they claim to hold to account, or at least share the class interests of their bosses, it's easier just to say (and think) _lame-stream media_ without engaging the brain.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Oct 14, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> But you want politicians who don't just lie without turning a hair, but also see it as a badge of statesmanship; so I won't be relying on your judgement.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I think you will find I didn't mention lying.
You think politics is a question yes and no answers?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 14, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Similar to how I use the amount of badges someone is wearing as a sign of their unhinged/shit politics.
> 
> One badge = fine.
> Two badges = hmmm, OK fair enough, but be careful.
> ...



I have a Unison badge on my work bag. Is that OK?


----------



## LDC (Oct 14, 2015)

One badge = fine.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2015)

what about the age of the badge? Surely a vintage free mandela badge is fine.

Now I'm wondering if there is a trade in lefty campaign badges from pre 2000


----------



## LDC (Oct 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> what about the age of the badge? Surely a vintage free mandela badge is fine.
> 
> Now I'm wondering if there is a trade in lefty campaign badges from pre 2000



Yeah, a complex algorithm involving the age, image/content, and size of badge is in development, for iPhone app first, but Android will follow shortly after. But until then just going by number of badges is a good start.


----------



## LDC (Oct 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> what about the age of the badge? Surely a vintage free mandela badge is fine.
> 
> Now I'm wondering if there is a trade in lefty campaign badges from pre 2000



Well, it's complicated. A very old badge tends to suggest some deep seated connection to an issue or person possibly long passed. And how many times must that person have taken the badge on/off and looked after it so as not to lose it, all possibly significant indicators. See, it's almost worth a PhD I'm sure.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Now I'm wondering if there is a trade in lefty campaign badges from pre 2000



Fill yer boots (Andrew Burgin)


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2015)

those are not that expensive either...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 14, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> I think you will find I didn't mention lying.
> You think politics is a question yes and no answers?



Unless you think Corbyn might actually 'press the button', then in your contribution to the Labour Leadership thread you are asking him to lie (remember it is no secret that he is and has been a unilateralist).

Not all politics is about yes and no answers, but where the answer is obvious to every body (would a unilateralist of many decades standing authorize the launching of nuclear weapons....well let me think?) then coming out with some prevaricating bullshit that everybody knows to be untrue is ultimately counter productive.

What I can't fathom is why you want to be treated with such cynical disrespect, unless of course you believe it's not designed for clever old gimesumtruf, but is intended for consumption by all the other idiots.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 14, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> what about the age of the badge? Surely a vintage free mandela badge is fine.
> 
> Now I'm wondering if there is a trade in lefty campaign badges from pre 2000



Mandela is probably fine, one of those 'Nuclear power? No thanks.' badges or car stickers, especially in a foreign language, is not permissible.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 14, 2015)

My awesome next door neighbours (veterans of Greenham etc) did a new years' poster which was a colour photocopy of all their badges from campaigns from the 1970s up until now. It was amusing and impressive and fascinating at the same time. Ours came with a nice note about how it's great to live next door to us. Even the most cynical git on here can't find fault with that, surely? 

They don't wear badges any more, but do regularly put a placard from a demo they have been on in their front window...


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 14, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> One badge = fine.



Phew!


----------



## FiFi (Oct 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Fill yer boots (Andrew Burgin)


OK I'm not going to get rich that way.
My badge collection is worth almost nothing!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Fill yer boots (Andrew Burgin)


ta! my search for a 'boycott non-union lettuce' has come to an end


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Fill yer boots (Andrew Burgin)


this is a brilliant social history record.

my fave so far:
 
check your privilege, righties!


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> this is a brilliant social history record.
> 
> my fave so far:
> View attachment 78080
> check your privilege, righties!


very sinister


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2015)

gosub said:


> very sinister


How is it sinister?
ETA: oops, yes, very good


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 16, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> How is it sinister?
> ETA: oops, yes, very good



I still don't understand.


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2015)

Look up the etymology of the word 'sinister', and all will be revealed.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 16, 2015)

killer b said:


> Look up the etymology of the word 'sinister', and all will be revealed.



Wow. I never knew that. Etymology always fascinates me. I now want to go out and read a book on it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 16, 2015)

That last post of mine sounds sarcastic. It's not, btw.


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2015)

I agree!


----------



## Santino (Oct 16, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Wow. I never knew that. Etymology always fascinates me. I now want to go out and read a book on it.


Not me, I hate insects.


----------



## belboid (Oct 16, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Wow. I never knew that. Etymology always fascinates me. I now want to go out and read a book on it.


Try and find a copy of Clan Flapdragaon and Other Adventures, that's an entertaining wee read.  And Online Etymology Dictionary can help you waste many hours* of the day.


* Hours - from the Greek, _hora_, which actually meant _any _subdivision if time within a day, a month or even a year. Note the similarity to the Proto-Indo European word, yor-a, from whence comes our 'year'


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 16, 2015)

Media predicts a Labour crisis, then 91% back Corbyn - The Canary


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 16, 2015)

Not a bad summary of media on Corbyn in the LRB, and tailor-made for this thread, including an excellent attack on the guardian's coverage and how out of touch they looked. LRB · Paul Myerscough · Corbyn in the Media
A few other quotes (thought there was a blockquote button on here? seems to have gone):

_The party members who voted for Corbyn hadn’t suddenly thrown their toys out of the pram just because Miliband lost. This is not a story of the last five years, but the last twenty, and their disillusionment with New Labour is about a great deal more than the Iraq War. For them, Miliband was not ‘too left-wing’; on the contrary, he was a final attempt at compromise. And when it failed, they realised they had had enough. It was too difficult to go on knocking on doors, summoning the necessary conviction, working towards the slim possibility of victory in the hope of implementing a platform of ever-weakening amelioration of the worst effects of neoliberalism. They looked at the candidates on offer, and saw that they had nothing left to lose.
_
And

_Such moments of breakdown in the BBC’s editorial principles are a consequence not of the imposition of a producer’s or presenter’s personal views, but of the dislocation that Corbyn’s election has produced between the new state of party politics and the broadcaster’s entrenched conception of what constitutes impartiality. Because its notion of political balance between left and right is defined by the Labour and Conservative Parties, its spectrum of opinion has narrowed and its fulcrum drifted to the right in concert with New Labour. Corbyn has reopened the gap, but the BBC has not adjusted. So far as it is concerned, with his election the Labour leadership has put itself beyond the pale. Its norm remains a ‘balance’ between the Tories and the Labour right._


----------



## J Ed (Oct 16, 2015)

So the latest post on the Jeremy Corbyn facebook page (I don't know if it has been uploaded anywhere else, if it has I can't find it) looks like the start of Corbyn's social media strategy with a video giving his summary of the week's events. He leads with his attack and victory over the pro-Saudi elements of the government on the prison contract, then talks about austerity for the poor and help for the rich.

The setting is interesting, it's just him in a room with a window facing a street. He has definitely gone with what DotCommunist mentioned upthread. Fireside chat aesthetics over Aló Presidente's marathon talkshow format.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 16, 2015)

Makes sense he's doing it. As people on here have commented, he has no choice but to try to communicate with people directly, given the state of the media.

In case anyone is interested in my position btw, I haven't joined the LP and don't plan to, but I'm pretty interested in it becoming a (probably temporary) platform for the expression of clearly left wing politics - almost a forbidden topic in the media for years. I.e. whether or not the LP is using people (the new entrants) or people are using the LP is still in contention...


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2015)

keeping it down to two mins there.probably for the best if its just a quick internet heads up/round up, few digs in there- emphasising his constituency duties, well thats a swipe at his own parties right as much as hamhock. Never fucking out of the subsidised bar it sometimes seems


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> (thought there was a blockquote button on here? seems to have gone)


 
It's bundled together with Spoiler, Code and Strikethru in the Insert button that looks like a newspaper, twixt the Media and Drafts buttons.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'd consider use of 'mainstream media' or particularly 'MSM' as something of an amber light for conspiracy loonism. It definitely has a bit of that associated with it IMO.




I've been guilty of using those terms a while back myself 

I completely avoid them now though, for exactly that reason.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 25, 2015)

sunday times today 
has-been writer mumbles something negative about corbyn - hold the front page!


----------



## cantsin (Oct 25, 2015)

ska invita said:


> sunday times today
> has-been writer mumbles something negative about corbyn - hold the front page!



fucking fuck

just..... annoying


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2015)

Stick Emily Benn on the list
Tony Benn’s granddaughter delivers blow to Corbyn by calling for policy chief to go




"Her dramatic intervention is a *severe embarrassment *to Corbyn, who was a close friend and political ally of the late Tony Benn. It reflects *deep dismay* across *much of the party *at the Labour leader’s choice of a *hard-left *and *notorious*ly outspoken individual to fill such a key role in his inner circle."
Lol


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 26, 2015)

Oh noes! Somebody related to someone says something. That'll teach Corbyn.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

Martin Amis - plastic-toothed self-indulgent _faux_-aesthete dog-wanker, whose best writing is decades-old.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Martin Amis - plastic-toothed self-indulgent _faux_-aesthete dog-wanker, whose best writing is decades-old.


Surely you mean national treasure, voice of the people, political bellweather, and the man whose opinion carries most weight in swinging elections?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Surely you mean national treasure, voice of the people, political bellweather, and the man whose opinion carries most weight in swinging elections?



If I'd meant Ken Dodd, I'd have mentioned him by name.


----------



## youngian (Oct 26, 2015)

ska invita said:


> sunday times today
> has-been writer mumbles something negative about corbyn - hold the front page!





> In general, his intellectual CV gives an impression of slow-minded rigidity; and he seems essentially incurious about anything beyond his immediate sphere.”



Corbyn has a fair amount of hinterlands for a politician so I don't know how Amis reached that conclusion. Amis has always comes across a loathesome individual and out of his depth when discussing politics.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 26, 2015)

He's probably just feeling a bit cantankerous, because toothache.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 26, 2015)

youngian said:


> Corbyn has a fair amount of hinterlands for a politician so I don't know how Amis reached that conclusion. Amis has always comes across a loathesome individual and out of his depth when discussing politics.


Yup 
Game set and match.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Martin Amis - plastic-toothed self-indulgent _faux_-aesthete dog-wanker, whose best writing is decades-old.


and whos dad was right wing to a degree that borders on


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2015)

youngian said:


> Corbyn has a fair amount of hinterlands for a politician so I don't know how Amis reached that conclusion. Amis has always comes across a loathesome individual and out of his depth when discussing politics.



I wouldn't say that Amis is out of his depth. Once upon a time he was quite sharp on politics. His problem is that he's his father's son, including inheriting his dad's loathsome views on immigrants and immigration. Combine that with his Mick Jagger circa 1968 drawl, and his Oxbridgean self-belief and he comes across as a colossal twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> He's probably just feeling a bit cantankerous, because toothache.



He spent a fortune having most of his teeth pulled out and replaced by implants because vanity. Maybe he's got gum syphilis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> and whos dad was right wing to a degree that borders on



The son isn't exactly UAF membership material, either.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 27, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party is being perceived as 'increasingly incompetent'

John McDonnell leads calls for UK to cancel Egyptian president’s visit


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party is being perceived as 'increasingly incompetent'
> 
> John McDonnell leads calls for UK to cancel Egyptian president’s visit


That Independent poll is bullshit.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2015)

'down and outs'


----------



## teqniq (Oct 27, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> That Independent poll is bullshit.



I kinda suspected it might be, soon as I started reading it looked like another hatchet job


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Martin Amis - plastic-toothed self-indulgent _faux_-aesthete dog-wanker, whose best writing is decades-old.


the only thing i've read by amis jr was his book about stalin. i must say i felt rather warmer towards stalin afterwards as he'd clearly riled amis so much. haven't read anything by the father.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the only thing i've read by amis jr was his book about stalin. i must say i felt rather warmer towards stalin afterwards as he'd clearly riled amis so much. haven't read anything by the father.



"Lucky Jim" is dated but funny in that "let's laugh at the lower middle classes desperately trying to be upper middle class" kind of way, and "The Green Man" is a good spin on the "ghost story" genre. Apart from those two, everything else I've read by Amis Sr has been a bit "meh".


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2015)

Yesterday Two full pages in the Evening Standard, including the front page, attacking John MCDonnell, allowing Scotland Yard free reign to talk about their innocence in Blacklisting, making McDonnell the one at fault, and giving him no room for response...

Ex-terror cop: Corbyn ally smears have put me and my family in danger


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2015)

Corbyn adviser 'backed non-Labour candidates at least three times'
However much the press have been predictably cuntish, I think this does point to some of the contradictions of the Corbyn thing *.  At one level, there's the contradictions of the social democratic project itself, whether it's still available as a politics or an economic project (however much it might be better than Newlab).  That's the political issue.  But in terms of this thread, it shows that Corbyn, McDonnell haven't really got a strategy in place.  It was always going to be extremely difficult with the Blairites in open revolt from day 1. He hasn't really got a stable base with which to run the party.  As a result he's just seemed beleaguered and responsive.

I haven't really been watching Labour on the ground, at the constituency level, but I don't get the sense that they are building new alliances, speaking to people directly, nudging labour towards becoming a social movement.  As a sceptic, I didn't think they would be able to do that anyway, but he did have a chance to do something on the back of the leadership campaign.  If it is ever to succeed he needs to put something different in place, some combination of parliamentary politics and active local coalitions.  That might have meant not dancing to the media's tune for a while, getting out there and carrying on with the big public meetings. Trouble is, when it comes down to it, his instincts - as a social democrat - do still seem trapped in the structures of the party and parliament.

* Essentially, he should have told the press to grown up and fuck off over this adviser stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Corbyn adviser 'backed non-Labour candidates at least three times'
> However much the press have been predictably cuntish, I think this does point to some of the contradictions of the Corbyn thing *.  At one level, there's the contradictions of the social democratic project itself, whether it's still available as a politics or an economic project (however much it might be better than Newlab).  That's the political issue.  But in terms of this thread, it shows that Corbyn, McDonnell haven't really got a strategy in place.  It was always going to be extremely difficult with the Blairites in open revolt from day 1. He hasn't really got a stable base with which to run the party.  As a result he's just seemed beleaguered and responsive.
> 
> I haven't really been watching Labour on the ground, at the constituency level, but I don't get the sense that they are building new alliances, speaking to people directly, nudging labour towards becoming a social movement.  As a sceptic, I didn't think they would be able to do that anyway, but he did have a chance to do something on the back of the leadership campaign.  If it is ever to succeed he needs to put something different in place, some combination of parliamentary politics and active local coalitions.  That might have meant not dancing to the media's tune for a while, getting out there and carrying on with the big public meetings. Trouble is, when it comes down to it, his instincts - as a social democrat - do still seem trapped in the structures of the party and parliament.
> ...


tbh i don't think corbyn expected to win and is therefore doing things very much on the hoof. so there is no strategy.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i don't think corbyn expected to win and is therefore doing things very much on the hoof. so there is no strategy.


 Yeah, he certainly didn't expect to win at the outset and by the time it looked pretty certain he would do he was already on the treadmill of the campaign. Trouble is he seems to have stepped back onto the institutional, parliamentary treadmill, without much thought about what comes next, how he was going to be 'different'. 

Even if the centre was pushing a new approach, it's difficult to imagine most local parties being willing to think creatively, start working with other groups.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2015)

I think it is way too early to pass any judgment - there will be a lot of backroom stuff going on, planning and strategising. Theyve only just appointed their Media Guru (in seamus milne)! Things dont look particularly good at the moment, in terms of polls etc, but its a long way till the election and theyve havent even started yet.

It may feel like a low after a high of the candidacy elections, but that process was relatively inward looking (despite the public meetings) - the national campaign hasnt even started yet.

Id rather they took time to plan properly than go on the airwaves now looking flakey


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2015)

ska invita said:


> I think it is way too early to pass any judgment - there will be a lot of backroom stuff going on, planning and strategising. Theyve only just appointed their Media Guru (in seamus milne)! Things dont look particularly good at the moment, in terms of polls etc, but its a long way till the election and theyve havent even started yet.
> 
> It may feel like a low after a high of the candidacy elections, but that process was relatively inward looking (despite the public meetings) - the national campaign hasnt even started yet.
> 
> Id rather they took time to plan properly than go on the airwaves now looking flakey


 For me it's not so much the airwaves stuff, it's whether they are planning anything real, new and exciting on the ground.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2015)

Wilf said:


> For me it's not so much the airwaves stuff, it's whether they are planning anything real, new and exciting on the ground.


again, id expect so, but its a bit too soon..

i think they do also need to have a better approach to the  media


----------



## Diamond (Oct 28, 2015)

How long is it realistic for the shadow cabinet to learn the ropes and grow some claws/teeth?

At some point after the New Year, perhaps?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2015)

Diamond said:


> How long is it realistic for the shadow cabinet to learn the ropes and grow some claws/teeth?
> 
> At some point after the New Year, perhaps?


how long should we wait for you to post something about politics which doesn't make you appear shallow yet out of your depth?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2015)

6 months grace period i think

have to say Corbyn had some genuine 'swagger' at PMQs today...really came across well i think... Corbyn still has a chance to pull this whole things off, whatever the polls say right now


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2015)

are you saying c-byns got swag?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> are you saying c-byns got swag?


check him out on the front page of the guardian right now - he actually shimmys


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 28, 2015)

The question isn't so much "how long have they got to find the ropes?" as it it "how long can the media continue to paint them as cranks and eccentrics with people actually believing the media?". The truth is that Corbyn and McDonnell seem pretty level-headed and normal, so it's not like they can do to them what they did to Milliband. Mainly because he _was _genuinely a bit odd, and so painting him as such was entirely believable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2015)

hahaha the look on osbournes mush


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2015)

If only - slurring works


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> hahaha the look on osbournes mush


+ Cameron looks like he's been hitting the whisky to me


----------



## agricola (Oct 28, 2015)

ska invita said:


> 6 months grace period i think
> 
> have to say Corbyn had some genuine 'swagger' at PMQs today...really came across well i think... Corbyn still has a chance to pull this whole things off, whatever the polls say right now



May 2016 was always going to be the key date - if he does badly, they will probably bleat over the summer, decide which horror to put forward and then have a coronation in the autumn.  If he does well they will probably be panicked into some laughable coup attempt / New SDLP as soon as possible, or face years of having their talents recognized, opinions valued and performance rewarded appropriately.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 28, 2015)

agricola said:


> May 2016 was always going to be the key date - if he does badly, they will probably bleat over the summer, decide which horror to put forward and then have a coronation in the autumn.  If he does well they will probably be panicked into some laughable coup attempt / New SDLP as soon as possible, or face years of having their talents recognized, opinions valued and performance rewarded appropriately.


I think the original Stoop Down Low Party are still going...


----------



## agricola (Oct 28, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I think the original Stoop Down Low Party are still going...



Ah, sorry.  I meant SDP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2015)

ska invita said:


> + Cameron looks like he's been hitting the whisky to me



Unfortunately for Pig-fucker, he's got a complexion that shows up the least bit of emotion as red cheeks, nose and earlobes, so he looks permanently pissed and/or pissed off.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 28, 2015)

Didn't think that Ball's smirk could be any more irritating ...until seeing Watson today ..... ..


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2015)

Diamond said:


> How long is it realistic for the shadow cabinet to learn the ropes and grow some claws/teeth?
> 
> At some point after the New Year, perhaps?


Claws and teeth? What you mean propping up a weak government with a slim majority by refusing to vote against their shit, which is what any other possible shadow cabinet would do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Am I the only one who feels strangely protective of Corbyn? I want to go to the New $tatesman and Graunid offices and crack some skulls to make them stop being the posho liberal twats that they always are and lay off Corbyn.



I can't remember which one but it was probably the Express that triumped a 'BYE BYE LABOUR' headline. And it made me think, for fucks sake. You are seeing the moderate response to austerity. You are seeing that opposed via democratic means. Theres shit tons of people who have far to much to lose in terms of personal liberty, family etc to go the route of riot. People who would never do that anyway cos they believe in P.democracy and the ability to be served via the box.

If they whip away that curtain and oz is sat with his abbacus- then what.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

I posted this one in the poppy thread



But the Grauniad is also running the same story



from the start of the Graun piece



> Labour leader under fire on Twitter for depth of his bow, while others say media are attempting to politicise Remembrance Sunday



Here I think they are being somewhat disingenuous, what appears to be going on to me is an ongoing and concerted campaign of character assassination by any and all means possible. Even when somewhat flattering articles get written they tend to drift off into criticism. I was reading and article in the Independent last week which started off with the journalist conceding that Corbyn was doing rather well at PMQ's and ended with the writer suggesting that he drifted of into nonsense towards the end. I have no idea if this was actually borne out because I haven't watched the vid but It's almost as if _they can't help themselves._


----------



## tommers (Nov 8, 2015)

He's being criticised for being "anti-war". Like that's a bad thing. "how dare he not want our brave boys to throw away their lives on some foreign field?!" 

It's fucking weird seeing it laid bare like that.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 8, 2015)

Have the bbc been giving airtime to this bowing nonsense?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 8, 2015)

Amazingly it would appear not. Not at least yet anyway.


----------



## tony.c (Nov 8, 2015)

on now


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 8, 2015)




----------



## Nine Bob Note (Nov 8, 2015)

Come on Jezza, this is how you show proper respect to the nation's dead:






I notice they're not wearing poppies, though


----------



## brogdale (Nov 8, 2015)

Bell-end.


----------



## agricola (Nov 9, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Bell-end.




He really should be congratulated for managing to condense all of that wide-ranging nonsense into one tweet, tbh.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 9, 2015)

agricola said:


> He really should be congratulated for managing to condense all of that wide-ranging nonsense into one tweet, tbh.


I have congratulated him for publicly confirming that 'the military' are 'suspicious' of the leader of her majesty's loyal opposition (& ilk). I'd imagine when the claret wears off he might regret that tweet.


----------



## agricola (Nov 9, 2015)

Corbyn seen shooting veterans on Armistice Day.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 9, 2015)

Corbyn centrestage and looking true PM material with minor irrelevant figures to the side.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Corbyn centrestage and looking true PM material with minor irrelevant figures to the side.



Phony Tony's body language is a cracker, isn't it?


----------



## existentialist (Nov 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Phony Tony's body language is a cracker, isn't it?


It says "I don't want to be here" quite loudly, doesn't it?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 9, 2015)

Has Cameron photoshopped a poppy on his jacket?


----------



## existentialist (Nov 9, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Has Cameron photoshopped a poppy on his jacket?


I think that might actually be a real one.

I expect Sam pinned it on for him, just before she told him to make sure he'd washed behind his ears, and to look sincere.


----------



## Santino (Nov 9, 2015)

Corbyn and Major have the best tie-knots.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Phony Tony's body language is a cracker, isn't it?



Looking a bit scruffy as well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Looking a bit scruffy as well.



Obviously, being unable to check your reflection in a mirror has its disadvantages...


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2015)

this is a good piece - worth remembering that easily debunked propaganda is easily debunked propaganda regardless of whether you agree with the propagandist.  Jeremy Corbyn and the “slap-up lunch” meme | Little Atoms


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2015)

On public occasions like this, the absolute appearance of sincerity is required.
Once you can fake that, you are made!


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> On public occasions like this, the absolute appearance of sincerity is required.
> Once you can fake that, you are made!


why is it required?


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2015)

Total nonsense - there was no lack of sincerity on display from Corbyn, but they went for him anyway.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2015)

ddraig said:


> why is it required?


It was a joke ddraig, about politicians in general at such events.


killer b said:


> Total nonsense - there was no lack of sincerity on display from Corbyn, but they went for him anyway.


Who mentioned Corbyn, I was actually thinking of Cameron and Blair.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It was a joke ddraig, about politicians in general at such events.
> 
> Who mentioned Corbyn, I was actually thinking of Cameron and Blair.


never tell with you!


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Who mentioned Corbyn, I was actually thinking of Cameron and Blair.


a sympathetic media is the magic ingredient.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> On public occasions like this, the absolute appearance of sincerity is required.
> Once you can fake that, you are made!


Which is all the more reason to challenge this "he didn't bow low enough" nonsense: once we start to prioritise the appearance of sincerity over sincerity itself, we tip the scales against genuinely sincere people and in favour of those who are best at dissembling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 9, 2015)

hard to believe  this insufficient bow stuff, it really is. Talk about jumping the shark. I can only look on amazed.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Nov 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Obviously, being unable to check your reflection in a mirror has its disadvantages...


It's not all virgins and getting to lie in bed all day, being a vampire you know.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 9, 2015)

Tony looks like he should be holding a scythe in that photo.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> Tony looks like he should be holding a scythe in that photo.



actually, given how much younger he is than Major, and not much older than Robertson, he looks like someone whose got_ someoneelse_ standing behind him with a sythe.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Nov 9, 2015)

kebabking said:


> actually, given how much younger he is than Major, and not much older than Robertson, he looks like someone whose got_ someoneelse_ standing behind him with a sythe.


Maybe the devil's reneged on his deal with TB.  He should've stuck with playing guitar.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 9, 2015)

ddraig said:


> why is it required?



Because we live in a world where the Daily Mail is still in business and Rupert Murdoch is going to die a rich old man.


----------



## killer b (Nov 9, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Because we live in a world where the Daily Mail is still in business and Rupert Murdoch is going to die a rich old man.


surely today has demonstrated that 'the absolute appearance of sincerity' isn't enough, and they'll just make up something if there's nothing for them to go at?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> surely today has demonstrated that 'the absolute appearance of sincerity' isn't enough, and they'll just make up something if there's nothing for them to go at?



Fortunately its just made them look fucking stupid, he's faked it or performed well enough that its nothing but empty spittle flying from an empty argument, theres no actual substance to the mud they are flinging.


----------



## MrSki (Nov 9, 2015)




----------



## two sheds (Nov 9, 2015)

And Major looks more and more like his Spitting Image puppet.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2015)

kebabking said:


> actually, given how much younger he is than Major, and not much older than Robertson, he looks like someone whose got_ someoneelse_ standing behind him with a sythe.



I was going to say that might be the stress of guilt but I'm sure that a sociopath like Blair is incapable of feeling it.


----------



## Libertad (Nov 9, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I was going to say that might be the stress of guilt but I'm sure that a sociopath like Blair is incapable of feeling it.



Blair is a Catholic and as such can offload his guilt. I wonder what his penance was?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 10, 2015)

A few Hail Margarets


----------



## Gromit (Nov 10, 2015)

Corbyn disrespects Tupac


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 10, 2015)

Gromit said:


> Corbyn disrespects Tupac


On the upside, after his impending _tragic death _in a _freak accident _caused by _wear and tear _on his car's brake line, Corbyn is assured a Christmas number one with the lead single from his posthumously-issued spoken word album of political oratory and leftist poetry.


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2015)

BBC assistant political editor here. Corbyn's not performing incey wincey spider with enough gusto or something.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 11, 2015)

Has anyone posted up that IT article on the Guardian & it's anti Corbachev stance  Can't  be arsed to search all posts innit


----------



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

not-bono-ever said:


> Has anyone posted up that IT article on the Guardian & it's anti Corbachev stance  Can't  be arsed to search all posts innit


innit?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 11, 2015)

copliker said:


> BBC assistant political editor here. Corbyn's not performing incey wincey spider with enough gusto or something.



He's a dick (Norman Smith, that is).


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 11, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> innit?



innit just?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2015)

copliker said:


> BBC assistant political editor here. Corbyn's not performing incey wincey spider with enough gusto or something.




Corbyn joining in with kids songs: THE FACE OF EVIL.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 12, 2015)

I cant bring myself to watch this.... urgh....


----------



## Dippy59 (Nov 12, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Another Corbyn thread  getting a bit sick of all this tbh but thats modern politics
> 
> Thinks its worth having a seperate thread for Corbyn & the Cabinet and how they're dealt with in the media  (and how they deal with it too). I doubt there'll be a day that goes by without some attempt to undermine and misrepresent.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 12, 2015)

Interesting, first I've heard of this.

The town that moved itself offshore to avoid tax has been criticised by an unlikely source


I would agree with this: 



> “There isn’t a level playing field and multinational companies are able to operate in a way which small individual businesses cannot.”



Even though I also think good on the small traders, its doubtful they'd be able to get away with it the same way as the larger multinationals.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 12, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Interesting, first I've heard of this.
> 
> The town that moved itself offshore to avoid tax has been criticised by an unlikely source
> 
> ...


I got the impression they were doing it to make a point. And being prevented from "moving offshore" might well make that point very nicely.

Whether, of course, it will do any good is another matter altogether...

ETA: TBH, I think the bloke's got the wrong end of the stick. It's obvious that this is a stunt on Crickhowell's part to highlight an issue, not avoid tax, and - assuming that they are being correctly advised, which we must assume they are - having HMRC come down on them for doing something as legal as Facebook, Caffe Nero, and Google are doing will only serve to make the point they're trying to make even more emphatically.

I suspect this is more of the kind of thinking that has Labour trying to out-Tory the Tories because "we've got to do what the voters want", only in this case it's "we've got to do what HMRC demands".


----------



## weltweit (Nov 12, 2015)

According to twitter, Corbyn has been allowed to join the Privy Council without having to kneel before the queen or having to kiss her ring.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 12, 2015)

weltweit said:


> According to twitter, Corbyn has been allowed to join the Privy Council without having to kneel before the queen or having to kiss her ring.


Likewise according to the BBC, Guardian, and almost certainly the rest of the mainstream media. I believe even Huffington Post had a piece on it!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 12, 2015)

I didn't realise there was kissing of the ring usually. Is liz basically Don Corleone now?


----------



## existentialist (Nov 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I didn't realise there was kissing of the ring usually. Is liz basically Don Corleone now?


I think it's just the hand you kiss. Or, if you're Tony Blair, your own thumb. I expect he had his fingers crossed at the time, and got confused.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 12, 2015)

weltweit said:


> having to kiss her ring.



FNAR FNAR


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 12, 2015)




----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 13, 2015)

More on Corbyn and her Maj's ring

Jeremy Corbyn takes a Ford Galaxy to the palace to swear allegiance to the Queen



> His day began not in the splendour of the palace, but in the rather less intimidating setting of the Caterpillars Pre-School in Crawley.
> 
> No kneeling was enforced, but even here Mr Corbyn could not avoid ceremonial gesticulation. As the class began to sing Incy Wincy Spider, he knew what protocol required: his hands, too, became a spider climbing up and up the spout. He even appeared to know the words.



"He even appeared to know the words"

Mother. Fucker.

Lost my vote.


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2015)

Lentil soup..


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 13, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I think it's just the hand you kiss. Or, if you're Tony Blair, your own thumb. I expect he had his fingers crossed at the time, and got confused.


It was Tony Benn who kissed his own thumb. Blair would've happily kissed Brenda's arse.


----------



## agricola (Nov 17, 2015)

"The Resistance" gleefully agreeing with Cameron at the moment.


----------



## hipipol (Nov 18, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> It was Tony Benn who kissed his own thumb. Blair would've happily kissed Brenda's arse.


*ABRAHAM* Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
We all know how well that ended..........


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 19, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn's Facebook chat with the press


----------



## J Ed (Nov 19, 2015)

That's a cute pretend exchange but it could have been a lot funnier if it included some fauxcilist bollocks from the Graunid and the Blu $$$cabsman


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2015)

The blu $$$cabsman? Surely the crown of shit pun altered name has finally been seized from_ zanu-lie-bore_. Christ.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 19, 2015)

I thought it would be cute for it to evolve along with its evolving editorial stance


----------



## belboid (Nov 19, 2015)

ahh, it's taken me nine minutes to work out what the hell it means


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I thought it would be cute for it to evolve along with its evolving editorial stance


Be proud, you've broken a record that's stood for at least 10 years.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 19, 2015)

Well for all the negative press and unattributed remarks Corby seems to be doing better than Cameron in the leadership ratings. Of course this could say just as much about Cameron as anything else.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 19, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Well for all the negative press and unattributed remarks Corby seems to be doing better than Cameron in the leadership ratings. Of course this could say just as much about Cameron as anything else.


Gotta say that polling looks well dodge. UKIP plunge after Paris?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Gotta say that polling looks well dodge. UKIP plunge after Paris?



UKIP have been dead since the election, only occasionally bubbling up to mutter about the EU


----------



## JimW (Nov 20, 2015)

Caught Chukka on the Today programme just talking about Corbyn supporters in local parties. BBC hack characterised them as, inter alia, anti-American, soft on IRA, not a peep about domestic policy.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> UKIP have been dead since the election, only occasionally bubbling up to mutter about the EU


Yes, but that number was significantly lower than other comparable polling.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2015)

JimW said:


> Caught Chukka on the Today programme just talking about Corbyn supporters in local parties. BBC hack characterised them as, inter alia, anti-American, soft on IRA, not a peep about domestic policy.




And no doubt Mr Umunna didn't contradict the interviewer at all? 

No surprise at all if not.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 20, 2015)

JimW said:


> Caught Chukka on the Today programme just talking about Corbyn supporters in local parties. BBC hack characterised them as, inter alia, anti-American, soft on IRA, not a peep about domestic policy.



The Corbyn bias really is making the BBC start to look like our own RT


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 20, 2015)

They had the bully and sex pest, John Reid, in the Today Programme studio this morning and rather predictably, Montagu asked him a Corbyn-related question towards the end of the 'interview'. Who gives a shit what he thinks? He's yesterday's man. He's also done rather well for himself since leaving the Commons and taking a seat in the Lords. He heads up a think-tank at UCL and sits on the boards of a few 'security' firms.


----------



## JimW (Nov 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The Corbyn bias really is making the BBC start to look like our own RT


Just seen this linked on Twitter, even Tory boy Robinson has noticed:
Nick Robinson tackles anti-Corbyn bias at the BBC - Spectator Blogs


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 20, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> UKIP have been dead since the election, only occasionally bubbling up to mutter about the EU


How is 12-15% dead, one (out of line) poll hardly indicates a collapse. They've probably lost a % or two but they are not dead by any means.


----------



## agricola (Nov 20, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> And no doubt Mr Umunna didn't contradict the interviewer at all?
> 
> No surprise at all if not.



The Daily Politics had John Mann on the other day, and asked him what he thought about Corbyn.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Nov 20, 2015)

Unless Corbyn grows a main stream political brain he is going down the pan. Power, even for good use is not gained by naive tactics and dreams .


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2015)

He lack a combative side. IS have finished him off.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 20, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> How is 12-15% dead, one (out of line) poll hardly indicates a collapse. They've probably lost a % or
> or two but they are not dead by any means.



Well they've certainly lost there spot as media darlings even if polls still there, all behaving themselves fairly well, enough to keep Soviet Corbyn.stories in the limelight


----------



## two sheds (Nov 20, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Unless Corbyn grows a main stream political brain he is going down the pan. Power, even for good use is not gained by naive tactics and dreams .



Why, what did he say?


----------



## cantsin (Nov 20, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Unless Corbyn grows a main stream political brain he is going down the pan. Power, even for good use is not gained by naive tactics and dreams .



i think it's this kneejerk reponse to Corbyn / whats going on,  that's naive tbh


----------



## ska invita (Nov 28, 2015)

> A "secret bid" to oust Mr Corbyn is splashed across the Times's front page. It says senior figures within the party have sought legal advice on how to unseat the leader, with lawyers suggesting that in the event of a leadership challenge he could be "removed and denied a place on the ballot paper" by MPs.



pure shit stirring


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 28, 2015)

ska invita said:


> pure shit stirring



So he's going to be ousted by a hedgehog.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 28, 2015)

This (by Jonathan Freedland, Saturday Guardian  ) is *far* worse than the above IMO


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 29, 2015)

Looking at the polls over time it seems that the election of Corbyn has had no impact whatsoever on peoples' voting intentions. No-one gives a shit about what the papers harp on about, and why would they? People vote according to how they feel about their day-to-day experiences; Corbyn can't do anything about that. The real test for Labour will come when the next recession bites, and voters begin to question whether Osborne is really as economically competent as he pretends to be.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 29, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Looking at the polls over time it seems that the election of Corbyn has had no impact whatsoever on peoples' voting intentions. No-one gives a shit about what the papers harp on about, and why would they? People vote according to how they feel about their day-to-day experiences; Corbyn can't do anything about that. The real test for Labour will come when the next recession bites, and voters begin to question whether Osborne is really as economically competent as he pretends to be.
> 
> View attachment 80160


the graph on UK PollingReport doesnt paint that picture at all UK Polling Report
then again im confused by their graph as the poll breakdown below shows it to be neck and neck

*Survey End Date* *CON (%)* *LAB (%)* *LD (%)* *UKIP (%)* *Grn (%)* *Con Lead*
Survation/Mirror 2015-05-05 33 34 9 16 4 -1
YouGov/Sun 2015-05-04 33 33 10 12 5 0
YouGov/Sun 2015-05-03 34 33 9 12 5 1
Ashcroft/ 2015-05-03 32 30 11 12 7 2
Populus/ 2015-05-03 34 34 10 13 5 0
YouGov/Sunday Times 2015-05-02 34 33 8 13 5 1
Survation/Mail on Sunday 2015-05-02 31 34 8 17 4 -3
Survation/Mirror 2015-05-01 33 34 9 16 3 -1
YouGov/Sun 2015-05-01 33 34 8 14 5 -1


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Nov 29, 2015)

ska invita said:


> pure shit stirring



Cant be that secret, the newspapers know.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 29, 2015)

ska invita said:


> the graph on UK PollingReport doesnt paint that picture at all UK Polling Report
> then again im confused by their graph as the poll breakdown below shows it to be neck and neck
> 
> *Survey End Date* *CON (%)* *LAB (%)* *LD (%)* *UKIP (%)* *Grn (%)* *Con Lead*
> ...


Look at the dates on those polls. The the longterm graph hasn't been undated since the election.




> Labour’s bitter internal row over whether to vote for airstrikes against Isis in Syria deepened on Saturday as MPs in favour of military action accused Jeremy Corbynof trying to bypass his shadow cabinet by appealing to grassroots supporters for their views.


Yes how dare ordinary members dictate policy, that should be for the PLP.


----------



## gimesumtruf (Nov 29, 2015)

two sheds said:


> Why, what did he say?


 
If you think he is running the party well and is control, then fine he doesn't have to say anything.
If he is not running the party well and his track record up to now is not stellar; has he got the time or political skill to carry out his programme?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 29, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> If you think he is running the party well and is control, then fine he doesn't have to say anything.
> If he is not running the party well and his track record up to now is not stellar; has he got the time or political skill to carry out his programme?



Or alternatively, the present situation illustrates how unfit the Labour party currently is for representing the political interests of anyone but the privileged twats of the PLP, their mates in the London media and the collection of dodgy millionaires who fund their careers and cocaine habits.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 29, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> <snip>
> 
> Yes how dare ordinary members dictate policy, that should be for the PLP.


 Nicely illustrates my previous comment.


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Nov 29, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> This (by Jonathan Freedland, Saturday Guardian  ) is *far* worse than the above IMO



It is what could be expected from the craven Atlanticist.  What is interesting is where he talks about how Corbynism will be stopped - helpfully exposing the wedge issues that the establishment will try to use to divide the coalition of young and older activists.


----------



## gosub (Nov 29, 2015)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2015)

ska invita said:


> the graph on UK PollingReport doesnt paint that picture at all UK Polling Report
> then again im confused by their graph as the poll breakdown below shows it to be neck and neck
> 
> *Survey End Date* *CON (%)* *LAB (%)* *LD (%)* *UKIP (%)* *Grn (%)* *Con Lead*
> ...


As pointed out, that is pre-election data. Since Corbyn has become leader both parties have stayed roughly the same on average (tory slightly up, labour down by 1%). But there is an 8-9% gap between them. If they were neck and neck this soon after an election that labour had so decisively lost Corbyn would be being called a miracle worker not a disaster.


----------



## gosub (Nov 29, 2015)

ska invita said:


> the graph on UK PollingReport doesnt paint that picture at all UK Polling Report
> then again im confused by their graph as the poll breakdown below shows it to be neck and neck
> 
> *Survey End Date* *CON (%)* *LAB (%)* *LD (%)* *UKIP (%)* *Grn (%)* *Con Lead*
> ...



*Survey End DateCON (%)LAB (%)LD (%)UKIP (%)Grn (%)Con Lead*





 17 Nov 41 34 7 7 Con +7





 17 Nov 37 30 6 16 Con +7





 15 Nov 39 33 7 12 Con +6





 11 Nov 36 30 7 15 Con +6





 27 Oct 37 31 6 15 Con +6





 25 Oct 38 33 8 10 Con +5





 19 Oct 36 32 10 12 Con +4





 16 Oct 37 32 5 15 Con +5





 15 Oct 42 29 7 13 Con +13





 11 Oct 38 34 7 11 Con +4





 30 Sep 37 31 7 17 Con +6





 28 Sep 39 30 9 12 Con +9





 23 Sep 39 34 9 7 Con +5





 18 Sep 39 31 6 16 Con +8





 18 Sep 37 32 6 14 Con +5





 17 Sep 42 30 7 13 Con +12





 13 Sep 38 32 8 13 Con +6


----------



## ska invita (Nov 29, 2015)

ah yeah... it was late last night


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2015)

I presume a lot of the difference between pre and post election figures is down to methodology changes to correct their gaping pre-election fuck up, rather than the tories getting a big post election bump?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> I presume a lot of the difference between pre and post election figures is down to methodology changes to correct their gaping pre-election fuck up, rather than the tories getting a big post election bump?


Winning parties always get an immediate post-election bump.


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2015)

yep, but presumably some of the size of the lead (in comparison to the pre-election polls - the recent polls may well be more accurate) is down to methodology change: so what looks like a 9% bump is actually a 4% bump (if we take the May election results as the difference)


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2015)

i thought one thing we'd all taken away from may was no one could trust the polls


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> yep, but presumably some of the size of the lead (in comparison to the pre-election polls - the recent polls may well be more accurate) is down to methodology change: so what looks like a 9% bump is actually a 4% bump (if we take the May election results as the difference)


I don't think they've finished the polling review that would likely lead to changes in methodology yet have they? Not sure on that. But that said, the main point (Corbyn has made no difference one way or the other) would seem to stand whether they've changed MO or not.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought one thing we'd all taken away from may was no one could trust the polls



Maybe so, but if the pollsters are _consistently _making the same error, then that still allows us to make comparisons of changing voting intentions over time, if you see what I mean.


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2015)

Corbyn was on Marr this morning. from 22 mins in 

Good performance imo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Maybe so, but if the pollsters are _consistently _making the same error, then that still allows us to make comparisons of changing voting intentions over time, if you see what I mean.


quite an assumption


----------



## Zabo (Nov 29, 2015)

John McDonnell was on Penis's Politics this morning and likewise gave a good performance despite Penis doing his usual shit job of interviewing - along with a couple of hacks.

They say that Humphry's can be a terrier but this man has not got a clue about interviewing. He's nothing more than a shit stirrer like his mate Nolan. He even had to drag up stuff from the'80's!

BBC Radio 5 live - Pienaar's Politics, 29/11/2015


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 29, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> quite an assumption



Not really. Presumably they use the same methodology over time, so the error will be consistent in either overestimating or underestimating the relative popularity of each party.


----------



## Sirena (Nov 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> Corbyn was on Marr this morning. from 22 mins in
> 
> Good performance imo.


I agree. Very good performance.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Not really. Presumably they use the same methodology over time, so the error will be consistent in either overestimating or underestimating the relative popularity of each party.


Whilst there is, IMO, value from watching trends, the pollsters do quite regularly tinker with their methodologies. Some have made changes in advance of the formal review of the 2015 GE debacle.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2015)

Sirena said:


> I agree. Very good performance.


I thought so to, he was good on syria anyway.


----------



## JimW (Nov 29, 2015)

killer b said:


> Corbyn was on Marr this morning. from 22 mins in
> 
> Good performance imo.


Not watched yet but my dad who'd strayed to the "what's he up to" camp is now back to liking Corbyn having watched that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2015)

JimW said:


> Not watched yet but my dad who'd strayed to the "what's he up to" camp is now back to liking Corbyn having watched that.


marr gave him space to put his points across coherently. One good bit was marrs 'its been a terrible two weeks for labour' which has been the press narrative and he responded 'no it hasnn't govmnt u-turn on tax credit cuts, on police cuts, on building that saudi jail' (paraphrasing). Came across assured an not this confused image we've been getting portrayed. Good response to marrs questions about la resistance sharpening their blades in public etc


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 30, 2015)

According to tomorrow's Metro front page Corbyn's free vote is going to put the UK "on the brink of war".

Not the people who will vote for it, then...

Wow.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Nov 30, 2015)

You have to feel sorry for Corbyn this evening.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 30, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You have to feel sorry for Corbyn this evening.


Why?


----------



## hash tag (Dec 1, 2015)

Most of the press have got it in for him and he is damned if he does...
As for feeling sorry for him, he would have known what he was taking on.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 1, 2015)

At least with the other papers their "Corbyn concedes free vote" is a vaguely logical line of argument - this one is just embarrassing.

e2a: oh, and I notice 'The War on Islamic State' already has a logo


----------



## free spirit (Dec 1, 2015)

they've missed the 'So Called' bit out of their name in that logo.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2015)

Metro is owned by Daily Mail btw


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> At least with the other papers their "Corbyn concedes free vote" is a vaguely logical line of argument - this one is just embarrassing.
> 
> e2a: oh, and I notice 'The War on Islamic State' already has a logo


Britain isnt a racist imperial bombing bunch of cunts - look how caring the British prince is to those little african boys


----------



## hash tag (Dec 1, 2015)

From the Guardian! hmmm


----------



## Lucy Fur (Dec 1, 2015)

FFS, how can it be a climb down if he hadn't come to a decision. And the Metro's headline was gobsmackingly disingenious.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 1, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Britain isnt a racist imperial bombing bunch of cunts - look how caring the British prince is to those little african boys



Apparently Harry wanted to be in a gang when he was a yoof


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> FFS, how can it be a climb down if he hadn't come to a decision. And the Metro's headline was gobsmackingly disingenious.


guardian bullshit. On marr on sunday he said 'I haven't dcided will be discussing with colleagues in the week'. Now its a 'climbdown'. crappy rag


Lord Camomile said:


> e2a: oh, and I notice 'The War on Islamic State' already has a logo


I( know its a gunsight but it looks a bit like a white power cross lol


----------



## NoXion (Dec 1, 2015)

Is it me or can you see more of Harry's granddad in his face?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I( know its a gunsight but it looks a bit like a white power cross lol



Reminds me of this a bit


----------



## agricola (Dec 1, 2015)

Corbyn laying into Hilary Benn a bit on Radio 2.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 1, 2015)

Lucy Fur said:


> FFS, how can it be a climb down if he hadn't come to a decision.


Because to a lot of people a party leader telling everyone else how to vote is the standard, and anything else is seen as weakness and 'a climb down'.


----------



## shambler (Dec 1, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> e2a: oh, and I notice 'The War on Islamic State' already has a logo



They had one for the "Paris Massacre" too


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 1, 2015)

I don't feel sorry for Corbyn, he is much stronger than he was before and seems to be coping well with the press assault on him that has been encouraged by the Blairite faction linking up to news hungry journalists. Go Jeremy!


----------



## gosub (Dec 1, 2015)

Lord Camomile said:


> According to tomorrow's Metro front page Corbyn's free vote is going to put the UK "on the brink of war".
> 
> Not the people who will vote for it, then...
> 
> Wow.


As we are already bombing ISIS in Iraq, that headline makes no sense whatsoever


----------



## Lucy Fur (Dec 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> As we are already bombing ISIS in Iraq, that headline makes no sense whatsoever


And lets face it, if he had of insisted on forcing the no vote, the headline would of been "Corbyn puts UK at risk of terrorist attack". It's all just too fucking ridiculous at the moment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2015)

or something along the lines of what a stalinist he is for making it a whipped vote.....despite the fact that thats standards


----------



## gosub (Dec 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> or something along the lines of what a stalinist he is for making it a whipped vote.....despite the fact that thats standards


the standard is collective (shadow) cabinet decision, so if he'd of sacked over half the shadow cabinet to get his view in the majority,   would have been a bit Stalinist


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> the standard is collective (shadow) cabinet decision, so if he'd of sacked over half the shadow cabinet to get his view in the majority,   would have been a bit Stalinist


How on earth do you think the shadow cabinet reaches its decisions? It's a meeting not a vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> the standard is collective (shadow) cabinet decision, so if he'd of sacked over half the shadow cabinet to get his view in the majority,   would have been a bit Stalinist


stalinist is when he sends half the shadow cabinet to the gulag


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> the standard is collective (shadow) cabinet decision, so if he'd of sacked over half the shadow cabinet to get his view in the majority,   would have been a bit Stalinist



I'd have thought sacking people was more Sugarist than Stalinist?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> the standard is collective (shadow) cabinet decision, so if he'd of sacked over half the shadow cabinet to get his view in the majority,   would have been a bit Stalinist


When you say decision you mean responsibility.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 1, 2015)

gosub said:


> the standard is collective (shadow) cabinet decision, so if he'd of sacked over half the shadow cabinet to get his view in the majority,   would have been a bit Stalinist



On paper its a standard Shadow Cabinet duty to endorse whipping or not, with politics being what it is I'm pretty sure it was past leaders discretion in reality.


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> stalinist is when he sends half the shadow cabinet to the gulag


The dream.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2015)

killer b said:


> The dream.


the beginning of the dream. We cannot rest until Stella Creasy and Simon Dnzuc are forced to mine salt 10 hours a day, 6 days a week.


----------



## Sprocket. (Dec 1, 2015)

I am surprised the Sun isn't distributing white feathers for readers to forward onto the nays!


----------



## Sirena (Dec 1, 2015)




----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 1, 2015)

It's. Happening.

Cameron accuses Corbyn of being 'terrorist sympathiser'


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 1, 2015)

Desperate words from a dead man walking.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2015)

talking to the 22 comitee as well so very much a preach to the choir in terms of anti corbynism


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 1, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> the beginning of the dream. We cannot rest until Stella Creasy and Simon Dnzuc are forced to mine salt 10 hours a day, 6 days a week.



Oh Dotty, you and your salt mines.


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2015)

Only three pages?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2015)

killer b said:


> Only three pages?


my leniencey, my clemency, is perhaps sometimes misplaced. Am I becoming a soft touch? NEVER


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2015)

and only two pages of lime-pits. very disappointing.


----------



## agricola (Dec 1, 2015)

Sorry if I have totally misread this, but are the Guardian really claiming that there will be between 171 and 200 Labour rebels tomorrow (when the supporting text says it will be at most 115)?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 1, 2015)

agricola said:


> Sorry if I have totally misread this, but are the Guardian really claiming that there will be between 171 and 200 Labour rebels tomorrow (when the supporting text says it will be at most 115)?


Sounds like it will be around 75% of Labour's 231


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2015)

agricola said:


> Sorry if I have totally misread this, but are the Guardian really claiming that there will be between 171 and 200 Labour rebels tomorrow (when the supporting text says it will be at most 115)?


I think they have the labour numbers the wrong way round.


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2015)

> It is extremely difficult to predict how many will end up supporting Cameron, but the final number voting for military action could end up being anywhere from about 30 to half the party. Corbyn told last night’s parliamentary meeting that 43% of Labour MPs - which equates to almost 100 - had indicated to the whips that they may be prepared to vote with the government. However, other Labour sources said they think the final number will be much lower than this as MPs worry about the consequences of voting with Cameron.



That looks more like the 30-80 their graphic suggests will be voting against.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 1, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Why?



Because he's clearly a sitting duck. Dead man walking. Principled, but isolated.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 2, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> It's. Happening.
> 
> Cameron accuses Corbyn of being 'terrorist sympathiser'



_We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do,
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too,
_


----------



## hash tag (Dec 2, 2015)

Theres at least one good reason why Scotland reained part of the UK The SNP's 54 MPs in Westminster are to vote against bombing Isis in Syria

Sadly, I suspect this will happen and see the propaganda shit has started, stuff like showing how the police react to a terrorist attack and how likely a terrorist attack is. Before we do start bombing Syria, will we be told what result we are looking for and whether or not we have achieved it?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 2, 2015)

agricola said:


> Sorry if I have totally misread this, but are the Guardian really claiming that there will be between 171 and 200 Labour rebels tomorrow (when the supporting text says it will be at most 115)?



They got the graphic the wrong way round, and then pulled it at some point last night.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 5, 2015)

This made me smile:
Now Corbyn's friends compare ISIS to heroes who fought Franco: Hard-Left pressure group liken jihadists to freedom fighters who battled to save Spain from fascism 

The Mail calling the International Brigades "freedom fighters". Ha.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 5, 2015)

Knotted said:


> This made me smile:
> Now Corbyn's friends compare ISIS to heroes who fought Franco: Hard-Left pressure group liken jihadists to freedom fighters who battled to save Spain from fascism
> 
> The Mail calling the International Brigades "freedom fighters". Ha.


The comments beneath the article say more or less the same thing. This is my pick of the comments.



> Sapper764, Epsom, United Kingdom, about 2 hours ago
> 
> Franco was battling to save Spain from Communism. Those that went fight him were communist sympathisers. Spain is now a constitutional monarchic democracy just like ours.



It's that last sentence...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 5, 2015)

The Mail had christened _Stop The 'War_ as "hard left". I don't think so, it carried a very broad spectrum of people when it was doing its marches especially the 2003 one about Iraq. Of course their intention is to depict Corbyn as hard left, but he is very middle of the road really.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 5, 2015)

Dastardly thinking that ordinary members have some say in the running go the party! 


> McDonnell says that ordinary Labour members will have more power, however much MPs may resist. He paints the change as part of a deliberate and sweeping reform of the party’s traditionally centralised operation. “The new leader was also elected with an overwhelming mandate on a political programme that seeks to take the party in a direction that reflects the current views of party members,” he writes.


----------



## agricola (Dec 6, 2015)

This is a real article, in a real newspaper, by a real columnist.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 6, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is a real article, in a real newspaper, by a real columnist.



They're really pissed off about people outside their cosy little circle daring to express themselves politically (however naively) aren't they?


----------



## agricola (Dec 6, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> They're really pissed off about people outside their cosy little circle daring to express themselves politically (however naively) aren't they?



Indeed.   This is also in today's Observer.


----------



## JimW (Dec 6, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is a real article, in a real newspaper, by a real columnist.


No, it's another spiel-by-numbers from speak-your-branes bot Nick Cohen. I suppose he at least has the decency to use a profile photo less than ten years old.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 6, 2015)

He's been a complete tosser for years. He really hates the left


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 6, 2015)

My favourite in this whole thing was the Stop the War coalition marching on the Labour Party. So Corbyn marching on Corbyn then.


----------



## rekil (Dec 6, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is a real article, in a real newspaper, by a real columnist.





> Comics and writers tear into Daily Mail and Sun readers but never Guardian and Observer readers. They assume that you are virtuous.


He's trying to have a go at Viz's drunken bakers guys for their male online strip.


----------



## rekil (Dec 6, 2015)

And there's more. Harsh but fair.



> Far leftists do not laugh to mock communism. They laugh to forget communism. They dismiss the mass murders, and the suppression of every right that makes life worth living with a giggle and a snort, and imply that you are a bit of a prude if you cannot do the same.


----------



## maomao (Dec 6, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is a real article, in a real newspaper, by a real columnist.


Meanwhile in the Mail:
Syria vote had one winner. And it wasn't Dave or Hilary Benn

World's gone nuts.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 6, 2015)

Another one from the Fail, this time from the dire Anne McElvoy. 
ANNE McELVOY: 'Sane Labour' plot to oust Corbyn - or form a new party


----------



## J Ed (Dec 6, 2015)

The Graunid and Torygraph are running with 'REVENGE RESHUFFLE' stories based purely on what MPs opposed to Corbyn have said they reckon might happen, but it's being reported as something that is actually going to happen. Journalism it ain't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 6, 2015)

at this rate they should be employing Dan Hodges


----------



## Zabo (Dec 6, 2015)

There's no end to it is there?

Jeremy Corbyn urged to pull out of Stop the War Christmas fundraiser


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Another one from the Fail, this time from the dire Anne McElvoy.
> ANNE McELVOY: 'Sane Labour' plot to oust Corbyn - or form a new party



Although Corbyn isn't part of the comfortable neoliberal consensus - and is therefore "fair game" to the media Establishment, as far as they're concerned - it's not like *anything* that he proposes is in any way "hard left" as the media wazzocks like to claim, it's merely that in proposing social democracy Corbyn reminds older voters of what we've lost, and lets younger voters know that what we've lost was a reasonably-functional version of capitalism. That *cannot* be allowed.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although Corbyn isn't part of the comfortable neoliberal consensus - and is therefore "fair game" to the media Establishment, as far as they're concerned - it's not like *anything* that he proposes is in any way "hard left" as the media wazzocks like to claim, it's merely that in proposing social democracy Corbyn reminds older voters of what we've lost, and lets younger voters know that what we've lost was a reasonably-functional version of capitalism. That *cannot* be allowed.


This is an indication of how far to the right the level of permitted political discourse has travelled since 1997. Even the mild, piecemeal reformism of Miliband was greeted with howls of "Commie"!


----------



## teqniq (Dec 6, 2015)

The only good thing about this endless character assassination is that it seems (at least from the comments in the Graun when I can bring myself to read the thing) that lots of people see right through it and like me are sick and tired of it.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 6, 2015)

teqniq said:


> The only good thing about this endless character assassination is that it seems (at least from the comments in the Graun when I can bring myself to read the thing) that lots of people see right through it and like me are sick and tired of it.



They fixed that by removing the ability to comment on many of these articles.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 6, 2015)

J Ed said:


> They fixed that by removing the ability to comment on many of these articles.


You can still comment on that Cohen piece thirty-five pages so far, but yes I take your point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> This is an indication of how far to the right the level of permitted political discourse has travelled since 1997. Even the mild, piecemeal reformism of Miliband was greeted with howls of "Commie"!



Yep, the good old Overton Window is currently way to the right of political normalcy, and Corbyn & Co trying to shift it even vaguely leftward makes the self-satisfied fuckwads in the establishment who've been taking people for a ride feel that their "hard-earned" gains are going to be snatched from them.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 6, 2015)

Daww


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although Corbyn isn't part of the comfortable neoliberal consensus - and is therefore "fair game" to the media Establishment, as far as they're concerned - it's not like *anything* that he proposes is in any way "hard left" as the media wazzocks like to claim, it's merely that in proposing social democracy Corbyn reminds older voters of what we've lost, and lets younger voters know that what we've lost was a reasonably-functional version of capitalism. That *cannot* be allowed.



This is fucking spot on ...


----------



## agricola (Dec 6, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> Daww




... and with predictable timing, here is Tristram Hunt.


----------



## gosub (Dec 7, 2015)

Telegraph


----------



## agricola (Dec 7, 2015)

It continues:



> Jeremy Corbyn accused of preparing to mount 'sexist purge' of his shadow cabinet
> 
> The Labour leader is said to be considering the future of six female members of his shadow cabinet
> 
> ...



*





*


----------



## J Ed (Dec 7, 2015)

Jesus.


----------



## quiquaquo (Dec 7, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is a real article, in a real newspaper, by a real columnist.



Nick Cohen, him of the Euston Manifesto. An ugly face and an even uglier mind.

Euston Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Libertad (Dec 7, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Nick Cohen, him of the Euston Manifesto. An ugly face and an even uglier mind.
> 
> Euston Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The "ugly mind" is all that is relevant here though.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 7, 2015)

agricola said:


> This is a real article, in a real newspaper, by a real columnist.





> Stereotypes aren’t always pernicious. Leftwingers have benefitted (sic) for years from being typecast as decent people. They may possesses the self-righteousness of “a teenager who had just become a vegetarian”, as Jess Phillips, the marvellous Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, warned. (how's that even a full sentence?)



Those opening sentences alone are one of the cuntiest things I've ever read. Nick Cohen is an oxygen thieving shitcunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2015)

Anyone remember this interview with him in Black Flag from 1999 ? Esp interesting to recall his comments about a clique taking over labour at that point. And describing himself as 'extreme' left of course. Which would, using his own logic (i didn't change, everyone else on the labour-party oriented left moved right etc), would lead to him describing himself as extreme right today.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 7, 2015)

Blimey! Has the Telegraph taken leave of its senses?


> It is on this basis that there is a solid case to argue that we are currently getting Jeremy Corbyn completely wrong. After the Oldham West by-election, at which the traditional and ludicrous assertions about the political coming of Ukip were rehearsed, there must be a chance that we are mistaken, and that many of Labour’s own MPs are on the verge of a terrible mistake: what if Corbyn is on to something, and the worst obstacles to Labour’s electoral success are the “saboteur” moderates within his party?
> Labour's obsessive rebel MPs should give Jeremy Corbyn the chance to lead


----------



## gosub (Dec 7, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Blimey! Has the Telegraph taken leave of its senses?


tbf For 'balance' they also have Mr McTernan  doing his weekly column, which  increasingly reads like a bloke who boarded a coach thinking it would take him to a nice holiday relaxing in the Tuscan sun, but instead finds himself headed to Magaluf with a bunch of 18-30's.  I'm not sure what he is expecting from Telegraph readers, but worthy of popcorn and a deckchair.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 7, 2015)

Corbyn disassociates himself from bullying politics including deselection.
Stop the War calls for Labour MPs who vote for bombing to be deselected.
Corbyn does Stop the War fundraiser. 

Hypocrisy is fine if you agree with someone, it seems.


----------



## Sue (Dec 7, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Corbyn disassociates himself from bullying politics including deselection.
> Stop the War calls for Labour MPs who vote for bombing to be deselected.
> Corbyn does Stop the War fundraiser.
> 
> Hypocrisy is fine if you agree with someone, it seems.


How is deselection (or the threat of it) 'bullying politics' exactly?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 7, 2015)

Sue said:


> How is deselection (or the threat of it) 'bullying politics' exactly?



Ask Corbyn. He said it was.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 7, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Ask Corbyn. He said it was.


only because he was bullied into it


----------



## J Ed (Dec 7, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Ask Corbyn. He said it was.



Where did he say this?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 7, 2015)

Interesting: How Stop the War learned to stop worrying and love Labour


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 7, 2015)

Or not.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 7, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Interesting



Not really


----------



## Sue (Dec 7, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Ask Corbyn. He said it was.


And what do you think?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 7, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Ask Corbyn. He said it was.



He said it was bullying did he? And he used that word rather than actually saying something else?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Dec 8, 2015)

Even the Green's leader has quit STWC. Corbyn carries on digging his hole.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Even the Green's leader has quit STWC. Corbyn carries on digging his hole.


Do you, MarkyMarrk, have something to say?  If so, say it you feckless wretch.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 8, 2015)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Even the Green's leader has quit STWC. Corbyn carries on digging his hole.


Is this satire in the style of Nick Cohen?


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> feckless wretch.


more of this stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2015)

TopCat said:


> Is this satire in the style of Nick Cohen?


In the style of cuntyCunnt.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> In the style of cuntyCunnt.



More of this stuff


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> In the style of cuntyCunnt.



Is he a relation of Marky Mark and Magnus Magnuson? (I'm actually not sure who either of those are and am presently regretting making this post). Oh well.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 11, 2015)

'The assault on Stop the War is really aimed at Jeremy Corbyn'


----------



## killer b (Dec 11, 2015)

no way.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 11, 2015)

teqniq said:


> 'The assault on Stop the War is really aimed at Jeremy Corbyn'


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 11, 2015)

Is there anything worth reading in Ali's article apart from self aggrandising waffle?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 16, 2015)

Labour MPs must speak up for democracy against hard Left trolls

'Bullying like domestic abuse'


----------



## J Ed (Dec 16, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Labour MPs must speak up for democracy against hard Left trolls
> 
> 'Bullying like domestic abuse'



Well that 'moderate' ideology has seen a dramatic reduction in the provision of services to DV survivors so maybe she does reckon that DV is basically the same thing as being lobbied.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2015)

its becoming transparent that claiming bullying from trots is a deliberate tactic thats been discussed and shared as a way of attempting to discredit anyone other than the moderate maquis tm


----------



## teqniq (Dec 16, 2015)

Wtf is 'moderate' about them? I view the fashion the media have shaped the discourse around them being 'moderate' with distaste. Corbyn and co are the moderates here but they get very little in the way of fair coverage of this fact. It seems to be left to people discussing it on social media.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn 'cancels Christmas' and refuses to issue festive message


----------



## Combustible (Dec 27, 2015)

> Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative MP, said: "This is the new politics - Corbyn cancels Christmas.
> 
> "It is just a hint of what the British people would have to look forward to under a Corbyn-led Government."


.
Andrew Bridgen must have a very sad view about what constitutes Christmas


----------



## teqniq (Dec 27, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn 'ruined Christmas' with purge threat, shadow minister says


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 27, 2015)

so this revenge reshuffle is supposed to be vengful because he might get rid of killary or something? because he spoke his branes during a debate with a free vote for lab mps? Kris Kringle has died this day


----------



## teqniq (Dec 28, 2015)

I had to Google Kris Kringle 

I see the term 'moderate' is being used again. What a load of bollox.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 28, 2015)

Anti-Christmas extremist!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 28, 2015)

It would serve. these so called moderates right if Corbyn didn't have a reshuffle. It would also make the Telegraph look as stupid as it is.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 28, 2015)

That would just give a story on how weak-willed he is that even a single Telegraph story makes him afraid to reshuffle.


----------



## laptop (Dec 28, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Jeremy Corbyn 'ruined Christmas' with purge threat, shadow minister says



I think the moral of this story may be: "Never, ever, answer a call from the _Telegraph _while full of Xmas spirits."


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 29, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It would serve. these so called moderates right if Corbyn didn't have a reshuffle. It would also make the Telegraph look as stupid as it is.



Fuck the Telegraph. Reshuffle the cunts a new ass hole!


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (Dec 29, 2015)

Here we go.... New year reshuffle by Jeremy Corbyn could spark further Labour conflict


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2015)

teqniq said:


> Jeremy Corbyn 'ruined Christmas' with purge threat, shadow minister says


what fucking soft twats the blairites are. but i had an ebay clearance sale ad at the top of that story.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 30, 2015)

‘Revenge is not very Jedi’: warning over Labour reshuffle talk


killary killary killary, out out out etc


misleading headline and spin on what the bloke said


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 30, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> ‘Revenge is not very Jedi’: warning over Labour reshuffle talk
> 
> 
> killary killary killary, out out out etc
> ...



So the story is that Corbyn's aides have apparently been leaking about a reshuffle? Meanwhile the Torygraph has been running daily stories about exactly that with quotes from our old friend the anonymous moderate.

On which note, today Corbyn is a Stalinist: Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn's hard-Left 'Stalinist' supporters plot Labour takeover


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 30, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> So the story is that Corbyn's aides have apparently been leaking about a reshuffle? Meanwhile the Torygraph has been running daily stories about exactly that with quotes from our old friend the anonymous moderate.
> 
> On which note, today Corbyn is a Stalinist: Revealed: Jeremy Corbyn's hard-Left 'Stalinist' supporters plot Labour takeover





> The 'Taking Control of the Party' blueprint, which has been seen by the Daily Mail,



of course we can trust the probity of a paper that forged the zinoviev letter


----------



## tim (Dec 30, 2015)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Anti-Christmas extremist!



Sadly, this is not the case as can be seen in this cringe-worthy video


----------



## NoXion (Dec 30, 2015)




----------



## likesfish (Dec 31, 2015)

Labour MP Simon Danczuk 'bombarded girl, 17, with vile sex messages'

a bit of new year cheer courtesy of the daily mail sit down with jackals get bit hhahahahha


----------



## likesfish (Dec 31, 2015)

corbyns sith like powers grow ever stronger as simons suspended from the partyhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35204398


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 31, 2015)

a fine start to the new year for la resistance


----------



## marty21 (Dec 31, 2015)

Open goal for Corbyn that  and the Mail/Telegraph have to support him as they can't go around supporting spanking texts


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 31, 2015)

Stalinist crackdown on noncey sex pests.


----------



## marty21 (Dec 31, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Stalinist crackdown on noncey sex pests.


 on top of cancelling Christmas - these are dark days


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 31, 2015)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Stalinist crackdown on noncey sex pests.


the unnamed source in the Groan report came up with how it'll blow over 'unless corbyn has introduced a new moral code'

Surely not even comment is farcical will wheel out a defence of Slime on?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 31, 2015)

likesfish said:


> corbyns sith like powers grow ever stronger as simons suspended from the partyhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35204398



Oh dear.

How sad.

Never mind!


----------



## Zabo (Dec 31, 2015)

And so the man who sees no problem with being "Filthy Rich" opines.

"Mandelson insists the party can be won back “when there are enough people in the country who remain in tune with Labour’s traditional values of equality and internationalism and who staunchly refuse to believe that the Conservatives can or should rule Britain indefinitely. But from now on, with every year that passes, Labour unsaved will be harder to retrieve.”

In full. Warning! Contains grotesque photograph.

'Divisive' Corbyn will wreck Labour's chances, says Mandelson


----------



## Sue (Jan 1, 2016)

marty21 said:


> Open goal for Corbyn that  and the Mail/Telegraph have to support him *as they can't go around supporting spanking texts*



Oh I don't know...


----------



## laptop (Jan 1, 2016)

Sue said:


> Oh I don't know...


It was a photo-led story in the Fail, after all...


----------



## killer b (Jan 4, 2016)

the guardian reshuffle live blog today has been... riveting. 

*Labour reshuffle: no word yet as Corbyn holds series of meetings*


----------



## rekil (Jan 4, 2016)

This is a good one. Real guardians.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 4, 2016)

The fucking Grauniad is outdoing itself here.Big banner "Labour reshuffle" subbed "Still no word as Corbyn holds series of meetings".FFS.


----------



## killer b (Jan 4, 2016)

I've had half an eye on it all day - nothing but tweeted speculation and articles from Blairites, and the occasional report of someone going in/out of the office. Laughable stuff.


----------



## gosub (Jan 4, 2016)

Fair point.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 4, 2016)

killer b said:


> I've had half an eye on it all day - nothing but tweeted speculation and articles from Blairites, and the occasional report of someone going in/out of the office. Laughable stuff.


Well now we've got the "news" that there wasn't a big reshuffle (all that Corbyn blokes fault of course) 



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> So, the dramatic reshuffle predicted by some appears not to be materialising after all.
> 
> Damian McBridge, who had a good view of reshuffles during the Blair-Brown era, isn’t impressed:


----------



## killer b (Jan 4, 2016)

despite none of them seemingly knowing what's actually happened, it seems almost unanimous among the blairite commenters that this is a shambolicly botched shuffle. curious.


----------



## Sue (Jan 4, 2016)

'Predicted by some'...


----------



## killer b (Jan 4, 2016)

my favourite bits were the journalists telling us to spare a thought for the special advisors, who're waiting to hear if they even have jobs anymore. The bubble, laid bare.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 5, 2016)

When they weren't shocked and outraged that Corbyn had told them to stop hanging around the door of his office and clear off.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 5, 2016)

Hilary Benn 'safe' in reshuffle as Corbyn is accused of misogyny

so Benn is safe so what other stick can we beat him with?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2016)

killer b said:


> my favourite bits were the journalists telling us to spare a thought for the special advisors, who're waiting to hear if they even have jobs anymore. The bubble, laid bare.


in the indy from teqnics link:



> While the speculation surrounding reshuffle focuses on who's in and out of the Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet, spare a thought for the advisers and aides whose jobs rely on their boss's future.
> If a shadow cabinet minister is sacked, at least he or she still has a £74,000 salary. But their special advisers will suddenly be without a job - their futures at the mercy of the leader's shuffling.


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2016)

That's pretty much word for word what the liveblogger said on the graun yesterday afternoon. Theyre even cannibalising each other for want of anything actually happening...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2016)

dugher gone from culture then. Shamefully, I've heard the name but never seen the face before now


----------



## existentialist (Jan 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> dugher gone from culture then. Shamefully, I've heard the name but never seen the face before now


Proper little rant he had afterwards, too, by all accounts...


----------



## JimW (Jan 5, 2016)

"Corbyn's Cultural Revolution"


----------



## existentialist (Jan 5, 2016)

JimW said:


> "Corbyn's Cultural Revolution"


They can't stop themselves, can they?


----------



## JimW (Jan 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> They can't stop themselves, can they?


I've not actually seen that, I was playing at Guardian sub. I expect a cheque when it does appear.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Proper little rant he had afterwards, too, by all accounts...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 5, 2016)

Bless...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2016)

existentialist said:


> They can't stop themselves, can they?


the title of the reshuffle is let a hundred flowers bloom


----------



## Fingers (Jan 5, 2016)

Anyone would think that Corbyn had killed a kitten or shagged a pig live on TV the way the establishment media and Blairites are having a meltdown.

The fact is, he booted someone who continually undermined the party. Blair would have sacked them the same day these self serving wankers seem to be forgetting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> dugher gone from culture then. Shamefully, I've heard the name but never seen the face before now



Dugher's a Blairite, Labour-right tossrag. Good riddance to smelly refuse.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 5, 2016)

Never heard of him. I expect he'll be a 'big beast' in about ten minutes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Never heard of him. I expect he'll be a 'big beast' in about ten minutes.


no beasts bigger than Simon Danzcuk atm


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 5, 2016)

from Dughans steaming pile of a diary:
_"I had been invited, along with other MPs, to a bash at the Cinnamon Club, a posh curry house in Westminster. The hosts had put on some free drinks, but for reasons of *ethics and propriety I decided not to accept their hospitality for more than about three hours.*"_

 A mere 3 hours, you fucking saint Mike. and by saint i mean cunt.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 5, 2016)

I can see Kuenssberg's tears from here.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 5, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I can see Kuenssberg's tears from here.



Dogshit. Quite something. See, it works with almost any noun!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Bless...




why does mensch want to see a unified 'electable' ie blairite opposition party? forgot what team she's on?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 5, 2016)

killer b said:


> my favourite bits were the journalists telling us to spare a thought for the special advisors, who're waiting to hear if they even have jobs anymore. The bubble, laid bare.



(( Won't somebody think of the Spads! ))


----------



## irf520 (Jan 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> why does mensch want to see a unified 'electable' ie blairite opposition party? forgot what team she's on?



Could be either:
1. The veneer of 'democracy' becomes transparently thin even to the most obtuse if there is no serious opposition
2. People might actually vote for a real opposition party and that would never do. The plan is to always have two parties which are two cheeks of the same stinky arse, so people think they have a choice but in reality they don't.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> why does mensch want to see a unified 'electable' ie blairite opposition party? forgot what team she's on?



...but I thought he was sooo effective at putting Tories on the backfoot? If so then why are they moaning?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 5, 2016)

This is getting a little absurd. Independent running with "Shadow ministers dismayed as Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle claims first scalp."

I don't remember shadow reshuffles getting this much attention before, and I certainly don't remember the entire press corp getting out the violins for the losers. It's usually just one of those sideshows in the politics game, only of interest to political geeks. Suddenly it seems there's more at stake...


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2016)

There isn't anything more at stake, only a media fully focused on undermining Corbyn's leadership taking whatever opportunities are presented to them. This kind of scrutiny is the new politics.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2016)

its cos they want the 'stalinist purge creates new politburo loyal only to cmrd corbyn' angle


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 5, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> This is getting a little absurd. Independent running with "Shadow ministers dismayed as Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle claims first scalp."
> 
> I don't remember shadow reshuffles getting this much attention before, and I certainly don't remember the entire press corp getting out the violins for the losers. It's usually just one of those sideshows in the politics game, only of interest to political geeks. Suddenly it seems there's more at stake...



Yep. As if normal people are currently running around going 'OMG they've changed the Shadow Culture Secretary!' 

It's all everyone is talking about in my office I can tell you.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 5, 2016)

You can't argue it's not a story. Serial dissenter rumoured to be about to cull dissenters after important vote. 

Sure it won't matter a thing in 4 years if Corbyn (or successor) leads a coherent left leaning party, born from this necessary turmoil, into the election, but right now it's fascinating because Corbo seems genuinely torn between his impulses - on the one hand to respect MPs autonomy and allow for a broad church and on the other to respect the mandate of the members who have more robust inclinations. It can't go on and at some point he will become Corbo of the Iron Fist. He can't not. And he'll also have to surround himself with loyalists, so accommodate the likes of Emily Thornberry whose hysterical sacking he never agreed with. 

The other fascinating thing is he still doesn't really appear to have worked out his relationship to the state. Does he want to be the effective head of the armed forces for example? Does he hate them so much he put Maria Eagle in post for the lols?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 5, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Does he want to be the effective head of the armed forces for example?


He can't be the head of the armed forces. That's Lizzie's role.


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2016)

fwiw the staggers live blog is a more jolly read l than the graun live blog.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 5, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> You can't argue it's not a story. Serial dissenter rumoured to be about to cull dissenters after important vote.


But that's a Westminster Village story, not a front page one. I doubt it would merit more than a few lines even on here, let along in the real world, if the journo crowd, aided and abetted by Blairite insiders, hadn't decided to turn it into some sort of Shakesperean tragedy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2016)

oh no! looks like killary's exit is back on the cards.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 5, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> He can't be the head of the armed forces. That's Lizzie's role.



Hence the word 'effective'. It won't be Liz visiting the troops.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 5, 2016)

Nights of the blunt knives. Nandy offered and turned down defence. Nine ministers offered statements in support of Dugher. It's painful to hear about. He isn't going to able to find enough loyalists for a cabinet and genuine moderate left wingers are up in arms.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 5, 2016)

And the public appear to be buying none of it.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 5, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> ... genuine moderate left wingers are up in arms.



Lol.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> And the public appear to be buying none of it.


What?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 5, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> And the public appear to be buying none of it.



The public don't give a shit.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 5, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The public don't give a shit.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 5, 2016)

About the Labour Party? Np, the public see it as irrelevant I agree.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 5, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> .



The most sensible thing you've ever said.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 5, 2016)

I wish the Labour Party was relevant to the public. It's not going to be any time soon given what's going on at the moment.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2016)

New status...IYCWIM


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 5, 2016)

Yes, the party is falling apart under the leader that said he could unite it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 5, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, the party is falling apart under the leader that said he could unite it.


Like clearing away necrotic tissue to allow healthy tissue to form.


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2016)

Does this dullard just c&p tweets from Dan Hodges for all his posts, or is it actually original content?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> New status...IYCWIM



There certainly seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of time people spend telling others how 'straight talking' they are and how slimy and careerist they actually are.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> There certainly seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of time people spend telling others how 'straight talking' they are and how slimy and careerist they actually are.


Yep, 'spanky' Simon's been all over the media again saying how Rochdale needs his sort of 'ordinary' guy straight-talking.


----------



## gosub (Jan 5, 2016)

The thing about "straight talking" is that its obvious from what you are saying that it is straight talking.  That's one of the traits of straight talking.  If you are wasting time giving a narrative about the type of talking you are doing, it ain't straight talking.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 5, 2016)

killer b said:


> Does this dullard just c&p tweets from Dan Hodges for all his posts, or is it actually original content?



Not just that. He's also a BTL landlord.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yep, 'spanky' Simon's been all over the media again saying how Rochdale needs his sort of 'ordinary' guy straight-talking.



Jess Phillips is another one that does this. Actually, this gives me an idea for a 'Straight Talkers Watch' thread. I reckon it's a trend we will be seeing more of in the next few years.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Not just that. He's also a BTL landlord.


Scum. Might be enough to warrant my first ever ignore?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 5, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Scum. Might be enough to warrant my first ever ignore?



Certainly worth ignoring. Whether you put him on ignore is of course up to you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I wish the Labour Party was relevant to the public. It's not going to be any time soon given what's going on at the moment.


oh do fuck off you tiresome auld bore


----------



## existentialist (Jan 5, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Not just that. He's also a BTL landlord.


Aspiring BTL landlord. Many a slip 'twixt cup and lip....


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2016)

gosub said:


> The thing about "straight talking" is that its obvious from what you are saying that it is straight talking.  That's one of the traits of straight talking.  If you are wasting time giving a narrative about the type of talking you are doing, it ain't straight talking.


From Dugher's Wiki...


> In between serving as Geoff Hoon's special adviser, he worked for a year (2006-2007) as a corporate/government lobbyist for American multinational Electronic Data Systems (EDS), one of the government's largest IT contractors.


Yeah, because lobbyists for privatising (US) corporations are noted for their straight-talking.


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2016)

Tbf on dugher, he's only using the 'straight talking' tag to needle corbyn there. Straight talking politics is a motto of the Corbyn leadership.


----------



## Lurdan (Jan 5, 2016)




----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 5, 2016)

Indie now running with "Jeremy Corbyn sacks culture spokesman 'because hard left cannot tolerate dissent'."

Why bother with the quotation marks, cowards? If you weren't thinking it yourselves you wouldn't phrase it like that. "Sacked culture spokesman claims 'hard left cannot tolerate dissent'" would at least maintain the illusion of objectivity.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 5, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Indie now running with "Jeremy Corbyn sacks culture spokesman 'because hard left cannot tolerate dissent'."
> 
> Why bother with the quotation marks, cowards? If you weren't thinking it yourselves you wouldn't phrase it like that. "Sacked culture spokesman claims 'hard left cannot tolerate dissent'" would at least maintain the illusion of objectivity.



Corbyn can tolerate dissent. He just expects it to play the game and be about as effective as his own was. Centre right want their cake and to munch it.


----------



## Fingers (Jan 5, 2016)

Anything happened or likely to happen this evening?

I personally think this is an epic trolling exercise on the MSM Westminster bubble.  They have been frantically Tweeting utter shite all day whilst not having a clue what has been going on and Corbyn has been treating them with utter contempt and they know it. 

Long may these contemptible wankers be sent on wild goose chases. 

I would have trolled them further though and leaked that the reshuffle was going on at a remote dacha near Irkutsk and have live Tweets about how they were hanging around outside freezing their jolly bollocks of in -21c temps. 

Wankers.


----------



## Fingers (Jan 5, 2016)

Pat McFadden sacked as shadow Europe minister. Apparently for disloyalty.


----------



## Fingers (Jan 5, 2016)

Apart from the fact that no-one has a fucking clue who he is, some Blairites are not taking it very well


----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2016)




----------



## brogdale (Jan 5, 2016)

and for a more balanced, even-handed approach...


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> and for a more balanced, even-handed approach...




This is actually a real tweet...


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> and for a more balanced, even-handed approach...



When you add the people who refused when he started,to the people he wants rid to the ones to the who might be getting a bit pissed of at waiting for the phone to ring (1day,10hours,7mins so far).  He may well end up running out of people who'd take a job in future reshuffles


----------



## ska invita (Jan 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> New status...IYCWIM


From 4 Sep 2015


he had it coming tbf


----------



## Fingers (Jan 6, 2016)

New Shadow Defence Secretary: Emily Thornberry. Maria Eagle also moved to Shadow Culture.

That's it folks, epic trolling by Corbyn


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> New Shadow Defence Secretary: Emily Thornberry. Maria Eagle also moved to Shad Defence.
> 
> That's it folks, epic trolling by Corbyn



The backlash is going to be incredible.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 6, 2016)

Shadow Culture.


----------



## Fingers (Jan 6, 2016)

Has he replaced the europe guy who no-one had heard of but was described as a heavyweight by the Blairites?  What is his name now......


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> New Shadow Defence Secretary: Emily Thornberry. Maria Eagle also moved to Shadow Culture.
> 
> That's it folks, epic trolling by Corbyn



good of him to leave it till so late at night people will have had to stay up to report on it. C-byn don't care, his flask of tea keeps him up all hours.

let the twitter rage of blairites begin


----------



## Fingers (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> good of him to leave it till so late at night people will have had to stay up to report on it. C-byn don't care, his flask of tea keeps him up all hours.
> 
> let the twitter rage of blairites begin



And it is too late to hit the print editorials tomorrow.  Fine tuned trolling of the gutter press.


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> And it is too late to hit the print editorials tomorrow.  Fine tuned trolling of the gutter press.


Fuckwitted thing to do, means column inches for yet another day, a distraction from the PM equally not being in control of events.  On top of further antagonizing the political journos who will have sat around with little to go on for a day and a half with editors irately demanding copy. Not how to win friends and influence people.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

he's made it clear how much of a shit he gives for the political press already


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

oh noes the journos will be angry and say bad things about me like they haven't before now


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he's made it clear how much of a shit he gives for the political press already


It'll be around a lot longer than he will.


----------



## Fingers (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> Fuckwitted thing to do, means column inches for yet another day, a distraction from the PM equally not being in control of events.  On top of further antagonizing the political journos who will have sat around with little to go on for a day and a half with editors irately demanding copy. Not how to win friends and influence people.



When did he start caring about what grubby establishment journos had to say?


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

What acts of disloyalty has mcfadden been accused of?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> It'll be around a lot longer than he will.



He better try and keep them onside then.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> What acts of disloyalty has mcfadden been accused of?



He's claiming that it was because he asked



"May I ask the Prime Minister to reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the west do? Does he agree that such an approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them like children, when the truth is that they are adults who are entirely responsible for what they do? No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut. Unless we are clear about that, we will fail even to understand the threat we face, let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it."



in Parliament


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> He better try and keep them onside then.


Wouldn't go as far as that.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> good of him to leave it till so late at night people will have had to stay up to report on it. C-byn don't care, his flask of tea keeps him up all hours.
> 
> let the twitter rage of blairites begin


The twitter trolling from the tories is at a higher volume tbh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

this allusion made me lol:


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> It'll be around a lot longer than he will.


for so long as their are human beings, a written press and a political system to write about. He's already made it abundantly clear he doesn' give a shit for them and they've given him an almighty and sustained coating. As they would have done regardless.


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I wish the Labour Party was relevant to the public. It's not going to be any time soon given what's going on at the moment.


Hasn't been since the 70s, the Blairite soft tory years don't count as a "relevant Labour Party" had some hopes for Corbyn but he has fucked up.


----------



## coley (Jan 6, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Like clearing away necrotic tissue to allow healthy tissue to form.


Hopefully aye, but you are looking at very long term solution, not a proposition today's politicians adhere too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

coley said:


> Hasn't been since the 70s, the Blairite soft tory years don't count as a "relevant Labour Party" had some hopes for Corbyn but he has fucked up.



where and how? he's been in the job for scant months against a hostile press and a hostile PLP faction used to power, I've seen some 'umms' and that but overall every fuck up has been the manufacture of a hostile press readily supplied with supporting quotes from labour right wingers.


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> where and how? he's been in the job for scant months against a hostile press and a hostile PLP faction used to power, I've seen some 'umms' and that but overall every fuck up has been the manufacture of a hostile press readily supplied with supporting quotes from labour right wingers.


 So everythings fine..  Its just a hostile press but that will get better if he antagonizes a hostile press.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> So everythings fine..  Its just a hostile press but that will get better if he antagonizes a hostile press.


nothing will be fine, its all fucked either way because its parliamentary politics in a modern capitalist age but he isn't going to get any better coverage if he starts fellating michael white and playing the game. Whats the point? they'll crucify you either way.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> nothing will be fine, its all fucked either way because its parliamentary politics in a modern capitalist age but he isn't going to get any better coverage if he starts fellating michael white and playing the game. Whats the point? they'll crucify you either way.



Yes, even Ed Miliband was too left-wing for the British media. The options for Labour leaders these days are 1) be more right-wing than the Tories 2) go against the media


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

Helen Lewis on R4 this morning 'moderates, centrists, whatever you want to call them...'

Oddly enough, I dont want to call them either of those things...


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Helen Lewis on R4 this morning 'moderates, centrists, whatever you want to call them...'
> 
> Oddly enough, I dont want to call them either of those things...



Helen Lewis is a good example imo of someone who has radicalised significantly since the leadership campaign. Previously she could conceivably if not honestly pass for centre-left but now she's basically open and proud of her right-wing position and within that milieu she is far from the only one.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> So everythings fine..  Its just a hostile press but that will get better if he antagonizes a hostile press.



forget the press, there's much bigger issues at play over the next 5 yrs :  global structural economic shifts , impending enviromental + automation related employment crises etc.

There's a good chance a nominally leftwing LP will be able to take electoral advantage of all this by appearing to offer genuine attempts at solutions - the fucking 'press' will fall in line if so, just as they did with Blair, they're nothing.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

cantsin said:


> forget the press, there's much bigger issues at play over the next 5 yrs :  global structural economic shifts , impending enviromental + automation related employment crises etc.
> 
> There's a good chance a nominally leftwing LP will be able to take electoral advantage of all this by appearing to offer genuine solutions - the fucking 'press' will fall in line if so, just as they did with Blair, they're nothing.



The Corbyn team should be strategising over and over exactly what they are going to do minute by minute in the wake of another recession or major crisis, unlike the right the left lets crisis after crisis 'go to waste'.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2016)

cantsin said:


> forget the press, there's much bigger issues at play over the next 5 yrs :  global structural economic shifts , impending enviromental + automation related employment crises etc.
> 
> There's a good chance a nominally leftwing LP will be able to take electoral advantage of all this by appearing to offer genuine attempts at solutions - the fucking 'press' will fall in line if so, just as they did with Blair, they're nothing.


I think it very unlikely that the press/media will 'fall in line' with anything connected to the Corbyn 'project'. Blair garnered support because he persuaded some press 'barons' that he could manage the transition from 'debt state' to 'consolidator state' as effectively as the tories. Added to which he cut personal deals with Murdoch et al regarding their own personal wealth/power remaining immune from a NL government.

Corbyn won't.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The Corbyn team should be strategising over and over exactly what they are going to do minute by minute in the wake of another recession or major crisis, unlike the right the left lets crisis after crisis 'go to waste'.


Not forgetting the fall-out from the EU ref...whichever outcome.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I think it very unlikely that the press/media will 'fall in line' with anything connected to the Corbyn 'project'. Blair garnered support because he persuaded some press 'barons' that he could manage the transition from 'debt state' to 'consolidator state' as effectively as the tories. Added to which he cut personal deals with Murdoch et al regarding their own personal wealth/power remaining immune from a NL government.
> 
> Corbyn won't.



the Press / Media have to follow their readers eventually, they have to, it's a fallacy that they shape the political landscape in any standalone sense.


And as for Corbo not doing 'deals' with Murdoch etc, i doubt it would be anything as cut and dried as that, but he's already proving to be v realistic/shrewd about his / his wing of the PLP's capabilities / reach .


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

The EU ref is going to proper fuck shit up.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2016)

cantsin said:


> forget the press, there's much bigger issues at play over the next 5 yrs :  global structural economic shifts , impending enviromental + automation related employment crises etc.
> 
> There's a good chance a nominally leftwing LP will be able to take electoral advantage of all this by appearing to offer genuine attempts at solutions - the fucking 'press' will fall in line if so, just as they did with Blair, they're nothing.



What 'genuine attempts at solutions' will Jeremy and co offer? Greater state control?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 6, 2016)

cantsin said:


> forget the press, there's much bigger issues at play over the next 5 yrs :  global structural economic shifts , impending enviromental + automation related employment crises etc.
> 
> There's a good chance a nominally leftwing LP will be able to take electoral advantage of all this by appearing to offer genuine attempts at solutions - *the fucking 'press' will fall in line if so, just as they did with Blair*, they're nothing.



Is that really the relationship you think New Labour had with the Murdoch press?



cantsin said:


> *the Press / Media have to follow their readers eventually, they have to, it's a fallacy that they shape the political landscape in any standalone sense*.



The press have to sell advertising and copy. That is what they are there for, not primarily following or pushing their readers; those are means to an end.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The press have to sell advertising and copy. That is what they are there for, not primarily following or pushing their readers; those are means to an end.


Yes, and as a sub-set of financialised capital it suits their owners to relentlessly promote anything advantageous to neo-liberalism, and seek to neutralise all threats....whilst accumulating capital.


----------



## Whagwan (Jan 6, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What 'genuine attempts at solutions' will Jeremy and co offer? Greater state control?



The opposite in fact, why don't you actually read his proposals r.e. re-nationalising the railways.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2016)

Whagwan said:


> The opposite in fact, why don't you actually read his proposals r.e. re-nationalising the railways.



Eh? Are you saying re-nationalisation is an example of less state control or that taking the rail back into public ownership is one of the genuine attempts at solutions to tackle the problems of global capitalism outlined by Cantsin?


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

Have you read his proposals? He's suggesting a workers/passengers co-op rather than a simple return to the old nationalised model.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> New Shadow Defence Secretary: Emily Thornberry. Maria Eagle also moved to Shadow Culture.
> 
> That's it folks, epic trolling by Corbyn



Clearly Corbyn unconvinced by the snobbery outcry that had Ed 'respecting' left, right and centre. Let's hope Thornberry logs out of twitter before inspecting the troops.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

So one member of the cabinet has resigned. The head of Tory propaganda diffusion sorry I mean the BBC political editor thinks 3 more will go.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> So one member of the cabinet has resigned. *The head of Tory propaganda diffusion* sorry I mean the BBC political editor thinks 3 more will go.



lol.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Have you read his proposals? He's suggesting a workers/passengers co-op rather than a simple return to the old nationalised model.



No I haven't. Is the solution to global capitalism's systemic problems set out there?


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

No. But nor is 'greater state control' what he's proposing.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 6, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No I haven't. Is the solution to global capitalism's systemic problems set out there?



You might as well ask what his plan is to make us all nicer people. May need to set your sights lower in this debate.


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Eh? Are you saying re-nationalisation is an example of less state control or that taking the rail back into public ownership is one of the genuine attempts at solutions to tackle the problems of global capitalism outlined by Cantsin?


British Rail was one of the most efficient, cost-effective rail networks in the world. It's not any more. That's why it should be renationalised. No profits should be taken out of the network in the form of dividends.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> You might as well ask what his plan is to make us all nicer people. May need to set your sights lower in this debate.



It's not my sights that need to be set lower. Have you read the thread? 




cantsin said:


> forget the press, there's much bigger issues at play over the next 5 yrs :  global structural economic shifts , impending enviromental + automation related employment crises etc.
> 
> There's a good chance a nominally leftwing LP will be able to take electoral advantage of all this by appearing to offer genuine attempts at solutions - the fucking 'press' will fall in line if so, just as they did with Blair, they're nothing.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> No. But nor is 'greater state control' what he's proposing.



Greater state control is *all* Corbyn is proposing. On everything. He's a social democrat in case you hadn't noticed.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

have you read his proposal on rail nationalisation yet?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> have you read his proposal on rail nationalisation yet?



No.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 6, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> What 'genuine attempts at solutions' will Jeremy and co offer? Greater state control?



the 'by appearing to offer ' bit was a central part that of that sentence.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> No.


jolly good.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 6, 2016)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Greater state control is *all* Corbyn is proposing. On everything. He's a social democrat in case you hadn't noticed.



As he should be. He does (apparently) wish to be the Prime Minister of the state. If he wasn't a democrat he'd be being deceitful, which is what he is generally accused of from the right. 

Anything he can offer is through Parliament and he needs to do so coherently. Anything else you want sits elsewhere.


----------



## agricola (Jan 6, 2016)

editor said:


> British Rail was one of the most efficient, cost-effective rail networks in the world. It's not any more. That's why it should be renationalised. No profits should be taken out of the network in the form of dividends.



The current structure desperately needs to change, but I am not sure old-style renationalisation is the answer - no Government since 1992 could have been trusted with it.  What is needed is some new format, perhaps a three-way split between a government share, the workforce and a British wealth fund of the Norwegian kind (that you could also put the proceeds from what fracking takes place into, rather than HM Treasury who wasted the North Sea Oil money).


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

i assume most people would accept that the problems wrought by international capitalism are not going to be easily tackled by Corbo's next government.

But it's reasonable to assume that Corbo could stop attacking the disabled poor (for example), and could take various industries into common ownership to everyone's benefit.  He could do worse than begin with the newspaper press followed by transportation IMO.

But i can't see full communism making it through the current shadow cabinet.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2016)

Taking newspapers into state ownership????


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

why not?  With a worker control model of course.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Taking newspapers into state ownership????


Steady on! That's not on the cards. Corbyn wants to break the monopolies that control the press, which in case you hadn't noticed, is carved up between Murdoch, Rothermere and to a lesser extent, Desmond.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2016)

Also, the internet exists. So stupid idea anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> why not?  With a worker control model of course.


All for worker-ownership. That's not quite the same as common ownership, though.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> why not?  With a worker control model of course.



Who will get to write unflattering articles about the 'worker control model'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Steady on! That's not on the cards. Corbyn wants to break the monopolies that control the press, which in case you hadn't noticed, is carved up between Murdoch, Rothermere and to a lesser extent, Desmond.


Ok, sure, that wasn't quite what was said, though. That's all very sensible and anti-monopoly legislation already exists. What doesn't exist is the will to enforce it.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

Hands up who wishes to see the rabid UK press continue to cut and slash at human decency forever and a day?  If you do not, please outline your alternative plans that do not involve confronting the individual/private media ownership model that pollutes the body politic so profoundly.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, sure, that wasn't quite what was said, though. That's all very sensible and anti-monopoly legislation already exists. What doesn't exist is the will to enforce it.


But that was what Corbyn was suggesting. I haven't heard him claim the newspapers should be under state control, which is what you were suggesting.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Hands up who wishes to see the rabid UK press continue to cut and slash at human decency forever and a day?  If you do not, please outline your alternative plans that do not involve confronting the individual/private media ownership model that pollutes the body politic so profoundly.



Just legislate for a plurality of ownership and opinion. Break the monopolies. I mean what would a state controlled media be in the age of the internet, other than a laughing stock?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> But that was what Corbyn was suggesting. I haven't heard him claim the newspapers should be under state control, which is what you were suggesting.


I was responding to the post above mine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I mean what would a state controlled media be in the age of the internet, other than a laughing stock?


The BBC?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Nights of the blunt knives. Nandy offered and turned down defence. Nine ministers offered statements in support of Dugher. It's painful to hear about. He isn't going to able to find enough loyalists for a cabinet and genuine moderate left wingers are up in arms.



What's a "genuine moderate left winger", in your view?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's a "genuine moderate left winger", in your view?


Corbyn.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Lol.



You might have LOLed, but I laughed so hard I almost sharted.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The BBC?



I said _other _than a laughing stock.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Just legislate for a plurality of ownership and opinion. Break the monopolies. I mean what would a state controlled media be in the age of the internet, other than a laughing stock?



A bit like the beeb?  which although many are correctly critical of, does at least display some token sensitivity on appropriate issues (ie racism, sexism etc).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, the party is falling apart under the leader that said he could unite it.



The Parliamentary Labour Party may be "falling apart", or at least that's how the media are representing it, but constituency Labour Parties are very far from "falling apart". They've got larger and more involved memberships than at any time in the last 18 years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Jess Phillips is another one that does this. Actually, this gives me an idea for a 'Straight Talkers Watch' thread. I reckon it's a trend we will be seeing more of in the next few years.



It's quite amusing how many politicians - of all parties - confuse "straight talking" with talking absolute rude shite.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> A bit like the beeb?  which although many are correctly critical of, does at least display some token sensitivity on appropriate issues (ie racism, sexism etc).



The BBC are just as biased against Corbyn as the other outlets. They just do it in a more subtle way. Anyway, the important point here is that a 100% state controlled media would be shit. It would be corrupt, it would be propagandising, and it would be irrelevant given _we live in the 21st Century_. It's a fucking stupid idea.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2016)

brogdale said:


> From Dugher's Wiki...
> ​Yeah, because lobbyists for privatising (US) corporations are noted for their straight-talking.



Ah, he worked for EDS, the tech systems people who've fucked up on every major govt IT project they've been awarded a tender for. 
You can bet that Dugh-bag never talked straight with his bosses there!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> A bit like the beeb?  which although many are correctly critical of, does at least display some token sensitivity on appropriate issues (ie racism, sexism etc).


I have no problem with the existence of state-owned media like the BBC, despite its obvious drawbacks. But for only state-owned media to exist?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 6, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The BBC are just as biased against Corbyn as the other outlets. .


Yep, and this. Corbyn is an 'extreme left-winger' according to the BBC. That's not them quoting someone else. It's their official 'neutral' editorial line.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have no problem with the existence of state-owned media like the BBC, despite its obvious drawbacks. But for only state-owned media to exist?



Granted, it's a tough issue.  The point surely is to encourage maximum democratic input within all paper media titles.  i regard this as more important than the straight forward issue of ownership.  But i struggle to see how democratic control within individual newspapers could be achieved without it being conducted on the basis of a common ownership model   - if you see what i mean.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

just read mcfaddens exit interview. I see going with grace is like resigning for the good of the party (simon?). I. E something that is talked about but never happens


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

Corby is well shot of the prick.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

I can't wait for all the Graunid articles about how Corbyn has appointed a woman to one of the four main 'offices of state' after the previous criticism that he hadn't done so...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

Doughty:

_archaic_ or , _humorous_
Brave and persistent:_his doughty spirit kept him going_


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I can't wait for all the Graunid articles about how Corbyn has appointed a woman to one of the four main 'offices of state' after the previous criticism that he hadn't done so...



On the radio about an hour ago (R4 I  think) there was an item about how sexist it was that Maria Eagle has been booted. According to the person being interviewed it was "a shame a strong woman with strong opinions" was being denied a voice. Presumably this means that her replacement Emily Thornberry is a weak woman with weak opinions. They didn't say that though.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

Why would he go with grace? He's being booted for making snide insinuations in the house, he's blatantly going to take the opportunity to plunge the knife in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> On the radio about an hour ago (R4 I  think) there was an item about how sexist it was that Maria Eagle has been booted. According to the person being interviewed it was "a shame a strong woman with strong opinions" was being denied a voice. Presumably this means that her replacement Emily Thornberry is a weak woman with weak opinions. They didn't say that though.


you can be a strong woman (or man) with strong opinions but that doesn't mean your opinions are worth anything.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 6, 2016)

Blairites and the liberal media are just fantastic at gaslighting, really really good.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you can be a strong woman (or man) with strong opinions but that doesn't mean your opinions are worth anything.



Well quite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Well quite.


it's like where i used to do a pub quiz, there was a mensa team which would always lose. on more one occasion, when i beat them, i pointed out to them you can have an iq of 190 or whatnot but if you don't know the answers you won't win.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> Why would he go with grace? He's being booted for making snide insinuations in the house, he's blatantly going to take the opportunity to plunge the knife in.


true enough, foolish of me to expect him to 'be the bigger man'. Not how the game is played I spose


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> i assume most people would accept that the problems wrought by international capitalism are not going to be easily tackled by Corbo's next government.
> 
> But it's reasonable to assume that Corbo could stop attacking the disabled poor (for example), and could take various industries into common ownership to everyone's benefit.  He could do worse than begin with the newspaper press followed by transportation IMO.
> 
> But i can't see full communism making it through the current shadow cabinet.



Lets be blunt here - if Corbyn's project looks like getting a sniff of power, most of the so-called "moderates" in the current shadow cabinet would sign up for full communism!


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

kudos for beating a mensa team Pickers..   you went to a grammar school?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> kudos for beating a mensa team Pickers..   you went to a grammar school?


in this case i went to a pub for the quiz


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

For the record, this contributer failed the 11+,  Quite obvious i suppose.

A droll response BTW


----------



## Fingers (Jan 6, 2016)

Kevan Jones has resigned.  The Blairites are purging themselves


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> For the record, this contributer failed the 11+,  Quite obvious i suppose.
> 
> A droll response BTW


back in the early 90s i met a few people who made a living off the quiz machines - i remember quizvaders was a particular favourite of mine, could take a score out of it without any difficulty. you pick up quite a bit of general knowledge from that sort of thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Kevan Jones has resigned.  The Blairites are purging themselves


the shits have the shits


----------



## Fingers (Jan 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> back in the early 90s i met a few people who made a living off the quiz machines - i remember quizvaders was a particular favourite of mine, could take a score out of it without any difficulty. you pick up quite a bit of general knowledge from that sort of thing.



Back in the 90s my mate used to work as a fruit machine engineer and new all the tips and tricks to make them pay out.  The fruities payed for many a night out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Back in the 90s my mate used to work as a fruit machine engineer and new all the tips and tricks to make them pay out.  The fruities payed for many a night out.


ah - there's an app for that too - watch some muppet stick all his money in the machine and then when he's left brassick put in a few quid and walk away with his money.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 6, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> On the radio about an hour ago (R4 I  think) there was an item about how sexist it was that Maria Eagle has been booted. According to the person being interviewed it was "a shame a strong woman with strong opinions" was being denied a voice. Presumably this means that her replacement Emily Thornberry is a weak woman with weak opinions. They didn't say that though.



The 'sexism' thing is ridiculous. The only thing that should count at this level of power and influence is if they are any good at the job. It's Maria Eagle's appointment in the first place that's eyebrow raising.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> The 'sexism' thing is ridiculous. The only thing that should count at this level of power and influence is if they are any good at the job. It's Maria Eagle's appointment in the first place that's eyebrow raising.


It's the blatantness of the misuse of the whole sexism thing that appals me. These people are casting around for any possible shit they can throw at him, and if that means denigrating the progress made in addressing sexist attitudes (such as it is), that's fine by them - so long as it's some mud they can fling.

It's as if they're desperate: no price to pay is too high for bringing Corbyn down.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Kevan Jones has resigned.  The Blairites are purging themselves



I reckon that they actually wanted a purge to happen so they could then whinge and whine to the press about what an awful dictator Corbyn is.  Watching them now purge themselves,  having not got what they wanted,  is hilarious.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

It is being said that Seamas Milne's advisory role is upsetting the Blairite shits.

Well done Seamas, 'may the road rise with you'.


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> It is being said that Seamas Milne's advisory role is upsetting the Blairite shits.
> 
> Well done Seamas, 'may the road rise with you'.



But it isn't.  A reshuffle that generates the political headlines for 4 days, swamping the Labour mayoral launch, some stuff on transport and Tory wobbles on EUrope. Whilst at the same time further worsening the relationship between Labour and the media


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

Jezz understands that there is no alternative to playing the long game with over four years before an election (unless an explosion of class struggle ousts these fuckers earlier!).  Getting the right wingers on their way now is an excellent strategy.  Buys a bit of thinking organising and breathing space for the run up to 2020.

Its quite encouraging really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 6, 2016)

redcogs said:


> It is being said that Seamas Milne's advisory role is upsetting the Blairite shits.
> 
> Well done Seamas, 'may the road rise with you'.


any relation of seumas milne?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

i'm not his mum. Or his aunt.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> back in the early 90s i met a few people who made a living off the quiz machines - i remember quizvaders was a particular favourite of mine, could take a score out of it without any difficulty. you pick up quite a bit of general knowledge from that sort of thing.



My mate's brother and his sixth-form mates used to be masters of the Crystal Maze machine, an evening out for them would commence with wandering over the fields to Gordano services, emptying out the machine, scoring some weed with the winnings and smoking it on the roof of the rec ground changing rooms. Heroes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> But it isn't.  A reshuffle that generates the political headlines for 4 days, swamping the Labour mayoral launch, some stuff on transport and Tory wobbles on EUrope. Whilst at the same time further worsening the relationship between Labour and the media


do you seriously think if he plays ball and smiles and does interviews and oh so perfectly timed leaks etc etc the press attitude will change?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> any relation of seumas milne?



If i was you could've expected a better stab at spelling his first name accurately..


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> do you seriously think if he plays ball and smiles and does interviews and oh so perfectly timed leaks etc etc the press attitude will change?



There's playing ball and playing ball.  It wasn't just 'oh dear too late for the print editions! tee hee.'  The journos that had to sit outside in Janurary for a day and half feeding off each other for lack of anything else to say,(that in it self is something you don't want) won't be the 100k+ correspondents.  It'll be NUJ affiliated juniors, that probably can't afford to live in London, that for two days in a row had to dice with getting copy in ASAP (internet news never stops) and getting the last train to wherever they can afford to get a taxi home from.

What makes you think media relations can't get any worse?


The only way this strategy makes sense is if he isn't planning on being there for the next election.  Next leader not behaving like a shit, gets better press shock horror.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> What makes you think media relations can't get any worse?


short of calling him a nonce what else have they got? its been everything including the kitchen sink already


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> short of calling him a nonce what else have they got? its been everything including the kitchen sink already


He calls a press conference on public transport (where thats all will he talk about) .  I look to forward to knowing what his favorite colour steam train is and what he thinks is the worst public transport sandwich. other questions not being forthcoming.


----------



## Fingers (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> There's playing ball and playing ball.  It wasn't just 'oh dear too late for the print editions! tee hee.'  The journos that had to sit outside in Janurary for a day and half feeding off each other for lack of anything else to say,(that in it self is something you don't want) won't be the 100k+ correspondents.  It'll be NUJ affiliated juniors, that probably can't afford to live in London, that for two days in a row had to dice with getting copy in ASAP (internet news never stops) and getting the last train to wherever they can afford to get a taxi home from.



They could have done something else for two days like report on the Jr Doctors crisis or the Housing Bill.


----------



## Fingers (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> He calls a press conference on public transport (where thats all will he talk about) .  I look to forward to knowing what his favorite colour steam train is and what he thinks is the worst public transport sandwich. other questions not being forthcoming.



Man hole covers is his thing, steam trains as so outdated.


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Man hole covers is his thing, steam trains as so outdated.


Which is why you'd ask it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> He calls a press conference on public transport (where thats all will he talk about) .  I look to forward to knowing what his favorite colour steam train is and what he thinks is the worst public transport sandwich. other questions not being forthcoming.


because up and till now he's been treated with seriousness. Right. He was 'shopped in wearing a court jesters hat in a mainstream newspaper days after his ascension to the iron throne ffs.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> There's playing ball and playing ball.  It wasn't just 'oh dear too late for the print editions! tee hee.'  The journos that had to sit outside in Janurary for a day and half feeding off each other for lack of anything else to say,(that in it self is something you don't want) won't be the 100k+ correspondents.  It'll be NUJ affiliated juniors, that probably can't afford to live in London, that for two days in a row had to dice with getting copy in ASAP (internet news never stops) and getting the last train to wherever they can afford to get a taxi home from.
> 
> What makes you think media relations can't get any worse?
> 
> ...


why do you think it took so long?


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> because up and till now he's been treated with seriousness. Right. He was 'shopped in wearing a court jesters hat in a mainstream newspaper days after his ascension to the iron throne ffs.


Contempt is hearing someones ideas and then trashing them. Beyond contempt is not even bothering to hear them.   In the example I just gave, if the stories ended up:
Jeremy Corbyn today gave a press conference, soully on the subject of public transport.  We now know he likes green steam trains and advises against having a prawn sandwich at Crewe.  

It would be worse than things are now. And they wouldn't have resorted to calling him a nonce/ falsehoods or distorion


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> why do you think it took so long?


coz it was announced before any prep was done, and he ended up with a mutiny on his hands


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

so having his serious proposals ignored and have the piss taken plus distortion smears etc etc? 

this is already happening.


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> coz it was announced before any prep was done, and he ended up with a mutiny on his hands


When was it announced?


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> When was it announced?



he confirmed it was going to happen a couple of days prior (after the warring sides of Labour spent Xmas giving copy to journos) and told journos it was happening when they were kicked out into the cold 1day 10hours 10 mins before it was officially (got some most post to fill as a result of today) concluded


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 6, 2016)

nobody outside the bubble gives a fuck about the reshuffle and it will be completely forgotten within a few months. Its just that every whinge by the sour grapes brigade is enthusiastically trumpeted by likes of the gaurdian.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> they were kicked out into the cold


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> he confirmed it was going to happen a couple of days prior (after the warring sides of Labour spent Xmas giving copy to journos) and told journos it was happening when they were kicked out into the cold 1day 10hours 10 mins before it was officially (got some most post to fill as a result of today) concluded


Maybe you should outline the preparation you think he could have carried out ahead of starting meeting with MPs?


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


>


Having learnt the lesson of them eavesdropping at the door when they didn't  Angela Eagle's joint role -fuck we haven't got enough women


----------



## redcogs (Jan 6, 2016)

No savvy politico could afford to ignore the press, and Corby and his advisers ain't ignoring the gutter jackals, they are simply recognising their malign role. In understanding one of their main enemies and dealing with one likely  scenario at an early stage, they are hoping to avoid damaging resignations in the few months prior to an election, when Labour's potential needs to be at the maximum setting.

Naturally there are no guarantees that such a strategy will succeed - but avoiding being seen as a divided organisation at the most crucial moment in the electoral cycle is essential.

Flush out the Blairite poison now is my slogan.

(oh, and i almost forgot, fuck the free market media scum)


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> nobody outside the bubble gives a fuck about the reshuffle and it will be completely forgotten within a few months. Its just that every whinge by the sour grapes brigade is enthusiastically trumpeted by likes of the gaurdian.



It'll be forgotten by next week. I mean fuck, I'm paying attention to this shit and I can't even remember the name of that bloke that got the sack.


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> It'll be forgotten by next week. I mean fuck, I'm paying attention to this shit and I can't even remember the name of that bloke that got the sack.


Names will be , shambles won't


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 6, 2016)

gosub said:


> Names will be , shambles won't



People paying attention will remember an entirely manufactured controversy, and people who are not paying attention won't even recall a reshuffle happening.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2016)

I mean we have a concrete example of someone nowhere near as labour left as corbyn courting the press and getting thoroughly fucked over again and again. Although Ed milliband has only himself to blame for the menhir of pledges. Spinal Tap territory, bound to get the piss ripped.

but in view of that, why would corbyn want to engage with a media that is actively hostile?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Kevan Jones has resigned.  The Blairites are purging themselves


The whole of point of hiring a Stalinist?


----------



## killer b (Jan 6, 2016)

A friend on facebook just drew my attention to this, speaking of shambolically administered purges.

'Show trials' to axe MPs disloyal to Blair


----------



## shygirl (Jan 6, 2016)

Cat Smith just handled an interview with Newman on C4 brilliantly.  Newman was almost hysterical in her swiping at Corbyn, talk about daggers out.  Cat remained calm, coherent and convincing in her responses, well done to her.


----------



## agricola (Jan 6, 2016)

shygirl said:


> Cat Smith just handled an interview with Newman on C4 brilliantly.  Newman was almost hysterical in her swiping at Corbyn, talk about daggers out.  Cat remained calm, coherent and convincing in her responses, well done to her.



She was really good on Newsnight on Monday as well, politely pointing out the (many) flaws in an Ayesha Hazarika piece of the "Corbyn Hates Women" / Harman / pink limo kind.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 6, 2016)

Give it a few months and it'll be why does mad men hating Corbyn favour women. I would take any wager against it.


T+C's apply.


----------



## gosub (Jan 6, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Give it a few months and it'll be why does mad men hating Corbyn favour women. I would take any wager against it.
> 
> 
> T+C's apply.




 Are you deliberately ignoring transgenders?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 6, 2016)

Not only does he hate women, he's also too London-centric now apparently: Jeremy Corbyn accused of opening up north-south divide in the Labour party 

What a bastard.

ETA: Funnily enough the actual quote is a lot milder than the headline...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 6, 2016)

The Viscount's daughter proves she has no idea about the importance of case when typing the 'c' word...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> do you seriously think if he plays ball and smiles and does interviews and oh so perfectly timed leaks etc etc the press attitude will change?



I suspect that Corbyn is taking the view that the media-consuming public will get sick to their back teeth with the bullshit, and that some will vote with their feet. Falling circulation figures and viewer/listener numbers will motivate even the most right-wing media barons.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 6, 2016)

killer b said:


> A friend on facebook just drew my attention to this, speaking of shambolically administered purges.
> 
> 'Show trials' to axe MPs disloyal to Blair


----------



## hipipol (Jan 6, 2016)

Hes doing well - pity he didn't have in anyone in the Tower to top

Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

Ah some Co-op car park beckons......


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 7, 2016)

I'd never heard of Progress before today, so I looked em up on twitter.  Many retweets much like this:



Not right wing, not conservative, but socialist.   Ok, so I go to their web site to have a look round, and found this article from the recently published list.

Radicalism is not the same as anti-capitalism  |  Progress | News and debate from the progressive community


> Capitalism can be a difficult subject for the left. Attitudes tend to range from those who are downright hostile through to the moderately suspicious. Sometimes those who see genuine positives in a capitalist system are challenged as to how they can even describe themselves as left wing. No wonder that we often just focus policy and debate on our traditional areas of strength in the public sector. Yet in Britain today, market-driven private firms accounts for around 60 per cent of GDP and 80 per cent of employment. *They are just as essential to Britain as the public sector. Unless we truly believe that the state should control all the means of production (a view which surely has no place in the Labour party) then ignoring it is as ridiculous as deciding to ignore one of your legs.*



Forgetting for a second the obvious false dichotomy of "Either capitalist OR everything state owned" with no mention of co-ops and unions and forgetting the  the state can own nothing and it could still not be "responsible capitalism", how does the above tweeter bridge the gap between calling himself a socialist, whilst clearly believing in small-c capitalism?

The doublethink is unbelievable really.  Genuinely perplexed.

John McDonnell is spot on. For a group built on socialist values, anyone belonging to this group would be to the right of that group.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Names will be , shambles won't





cynicaleconomy said:


> People paying attention will remember an entirely manufactured controversy, and people who are not paying attention won't even recall a reshuffle happening.



Indeed. There's a manufactured controversy of some sort almost every time there's a reshuffle, Cabinet or Shadow, and it's always forgotten immediately. This one feel exaggerated because of the Get Corbyn onslaught, and the fact that Cameron doesn't move his pawns around as often as the previous few PMs (didn't Blair do it several times a year?), but it's not that different.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 7, 2016)

The reshuffle was presented as a fiasco and also to divert the public's attention away from anything that is a thorn in the side of the Tories this week.  No doubt next week we will witness more diversion tactics, perhaps a cold snap or refugees.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Forgetting for a second the obvious false dichotomy of "Either capitalist OR everything state owned" with no mention of co-ops and unions and forgetting the  the state can own nothing and it could still not be "responsible capitalism", how does the above tweeter bridge the gap between calling himself a socialist, whilst clearly believing in small-c capitalism?
> 
> The doublethink is unbelievable really.  Genuinely perplexed.
> 
> John McDonnell is spot on. For a group built on socialist values, anyone belonging to this group would be to the right of that group.


it isn't doublethink (although no doubt some of them are in denial about their actual politics), it's rhetoric: ensuring it's they who're thought of as the reasonable centre/left part of the party, and those criticising them hysterical, hateful trotskyists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> it isn't doublethink (although no doubt some of them are in denial about their actual politics), it's rhetoric: ensuring it's they who're thought of as the reasonable centre/left part of the party, and those criticising them hysterical, hateful trotskyists.


yeh but they can't be the centre of the party as there aren't that many people to the right of them in the labour party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Forgetting for a second the obvious false dichotomy of "Either capitalist OR everything state owned" with no mention of co-ops and unions and forgetting the  the state can own nothing and it could still not be "responsible capitalism", how does the above tweeter bridge the gap between calling himself a socialist, whilst clearly believing in small-c capitalism?


pretty much the first thing i was ever taught in economics was that there are no pure market economies or command economies but varying degrees of mixed economy: and that was round the time i was 12 or 13. surprised yer man doesn't know that.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 7, 2016)

Wasn't Michael Dugher vice chair of Labour Friends of Israel?

Edit: just dropped phone.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but they can't be the centre of the party as there aren't that many people to the right of them in the labour party.


Of course. But it isn't reality they're trying to put across.


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Indeed. There's a manufactured controversy of some sort almost every time there's a reshuffle, Cabinet or Shadow, and it's always forgotten immediately. This one feel exaggerated because of the Get Corbyn onslaught, and the fact that Cameron doesn't move his pawns around as often as the previous few PMs (didn't Blair do it several times a year?), but it's not that different.


Reading between the lines, what happened what happened was a barrage from both sides over what was going to happen in a reshuffle.  Journos have already admitted getting the Benn will be sacked stories from Livingston, Abbot and Milne.  As its over Xmas and there was  not a lot going on officially, the Blairites had a chance to counter plot....A threat of one out all out if Benn et all went.  Much arguing....but Corbyn tested water with first sacking (already forgotten his name) ,  unprecedented twitter endorsements  of the sacked bloke from rest of shadow cabinet.  So change of tack rather than sack, change jobs where possible , and only sack the also men...still some other also men stuck to the one out all out...


That's not really a 'manufactured' controversy, certainly not by the media at any rate.   If you don't do politics, and most people don't really, its just one of those things, but if you are one of those people who does politics, even if its just colouring in the bottom half of the internet.  It was an event of some significance.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Reading between the lines, what happened what happened was a barrage from both sides over what was going to happen in a reshuffle.  Journos have already admitted getting the Benn will be sacked stories from Livingston, Abbot and Milne.  As its over Xmas and there was  not a lot going on officially, the Blairites had a chance to counter plot....A threat of one out all out if Benn et all went.  Much arguing....but Corbyn tested water with first sacking (already forgotten his name) ,  unprecedented twitter endorsements  of the sacked bloke from rest of shadow cabinet.  So change of tack rather than sack, change jobs where possible , and only sack the also men...still some other also men stuck to the one out all out...
> 
> 
> That's not really a 'manufactured' controversy, certainly not by the media at any rate.   If you don't do politics, and most people don't really, its just one of those things, but if you are one of those people who does politics, even if its just colouring in the bottom half of the internet.  It was an event of some significance.


The media coverage was, to some extent, manufactured though. A huge smoke-screen was raised around Cameron's massive 'u-turn' and concession to rescind cabinet collectively responsibility for his ministers in the EU referendum campaign. No. 10 clearly used the Lab reshuffle media maelstrom as cover/distraction.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Wasn't Michael Dugher vice chair of Labour Friends of Israel?
> 
> Edit: just dropped phone.


Yes, he was. He was also rather too close to News UK to be an effective Media, Culture and Sport spokesman.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The media coverage was, to some extent, manufactured though. A huge smoke-screen was raised around Cameron's massive 'u-turn' and concession to rescind cabinet collectively responsibility for his ministers in the EU referendum campaign. No. 10 clearly used the Lab reshuffle media maelstrom as cover/distraction.



Need to get over it. Labour want to run the country and therefore deserve scrutiny.

What's not acceptable is presenting the story with bias and agenda. But making it a big story isn't that because it's still so unclear as to what the Labour Party will look like when it emerges from this turmoil. That's surely a big event in the small world of UK Politics.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> pretty much the first thing i was ever taught in economics was that there are no pure market economies or command economies but varying degrees of mixed economy: and that was round the time i was 12 or 13. surprised yer man doesn't know that.



i imagine that the purest socialised economy,  the type that i would welcome, would necessarily feature vibrant locality based services (various shops cafes etc) .   State ownership should probably be limited to (until such a time when the need for a state had gone) banks energy transportation health and welfare care and perhaps a few other major industrial processes.

Others may prefer a different balance, but the essential thing has to be economic democratic procedures to enable everyone to have their say in that balance.

i'm now beginning to wonder if my natural home is within Progress? or maybe i ought to remain in the asylum..


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> The media coverage was, to some extent, manufactured though. A huge smoke-screen was raised around Cameron's massive 'u-turn' and concession to rescind cabinet collectively responsibility for his ministers in the EU referendum campaign. No. 10 clearly used the Lab reshuffle media maelstrom as cover/distraction.



Labour would have known that Cameron's statement on EU was pencilled in before Xmas,  as would have been the mayoral launch.  Putting a reshuffle in the mix  is their error not Cameron's.  I do suspect however, the delay on the Tuesday of announcing after the print editions came out, was a well its late now but if we make it even later the print edition will have to run harder with the Tory EU thing. Which they did.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 7, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Need to get over it. Labour want to run the country and therefore deserve scrutiny.
> 
> What's not acceptable is presenting the story with bias and agenda. But making it a big story isn't that because it's still so unclear as to what the Labour Party will look like when it emerges from this turmoil. That's surely a big event in the small world of UK Politics.



Nah, rail fare hikes, the sell off of social housing, NHS morale being at an all time low and the UK being embroiled in yet another pointless, unwinnable war are big issues. They have important ramifications in the lives of ordinary people. Corbyn removing a disloyal non-entity from a role that is pretty much the political equivalent of milk monitor at school is only of interest within the Westminster bubble and to PPE bores with blogs.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> That's not really a 'manufactured' controversy, certainly not by the media at any rate.   If you don't do politics, and most people don't really, its just one of those things, but if you are one of those people who does politics, even if its just colouring in the bottom half of the internet.  It was an event of some significance.



Maybe it's a bit of both. I 'do' politics, and have had jobs in the past where I had to attend to every in and out of this kind of thing, although I spend plenty of time colouring in too. A lot of things which might feel significant when you immerse yourself like that turn out not to be in the longer run. Time will tell...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2016)

with killary muzzled, danczuk in the Beasts Corner and a half-hearted round of resignations it hasn't been that bad a re shuffle surely? Certainl the resistance has proven rather limp so far


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> danczuk in the Beasts Corner


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

Moving forward though, Corbyn isn't going to be able to remove the more entrenched Blairite big beasts without sacrificing one of his wannbe weathermonger allies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Moving forward though, Corbyn isn't going to be able to remove the more entrenched Blairite big beasts without sacrificing one of his wannbe weathermonger allies.


w(h)ither weathermongers?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> weathermonger allies


Come again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Come again?


like ironmongers only weather


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

Thems that try to shape the (political) weather.  Eg Livingstone today saying the Labour defense review will look at UK NATO membership.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Themselves that try to shape the (political) weather.  Eg Livingstone today saying the Labour defense review will look at UK NATO membership


political weather? do you mean the terms of the debate, the political environment, or something else?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2016)




----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

Weather mongers, book we did at school set in a modern UK that had abandoned tech for magic, under an opium addicted King Arthur


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Weathmongers, book we did at school set in a modern UK that had abandoned tech for magic, under an opium addicted King Arthur


wreathmongers?


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> political weather? do you mean the terms of the debate, the political environment, or something else?


Either or both


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Either or both


there were three things there: 1) 'the terms of the debate'; 2) 'the political environment'; 3) 'something else': not an either/or/both question


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Moving forward though, Corbyn isn't going to be able to remove the more entrenched Blairite big beasts without sacrificing one of his wannbe weathermonger allies.



Blairites are going to have to evolve and develop useful adaptations like a conscience if they want to stick with it. Or face natural (de)selection.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Thems that try to shape the (political) weather.  Eg Livingstone today saying the Labour defense review will look at UK NATO membership.



What with NATO membership being such a big issue for your average voter struggling with austerity n'all.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> face natural (de)selection.


I don't believe this is going to happen, except maybe in some very rare cases. It's a totally empty threat, and the people making it are looking increasingly clueless.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2016)

Worse than that, the people making it are playing into the hands of the Blairites, who can then complain of bullying and stalinist tactics. CF. 'tory-lite' as an insult. Give over.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Weather mongers, book we did at school set in a modern UK that had abandoned tech for magic, under an opium addicted King Arthur



That hippy book by Peter Dickinson I think you mean

Or do you mean Bellwether, a leader of political thought and ideology?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> weathermonger



There's definitively a Michael Fish joke in here somewhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> There's definitively a Michael Fish joke in here somewhere.


every joke has its plaice.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> every joke has its plaice.



Thanks Pickman's. That's just brill.

eta: yeah, yeah, I know that was a shit attempt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Thanks Pickman's. That's just brill.
> 
> eta: yeah, yeah, I know that was a shit attempt.


i've haddock up to here with your puns


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Thanks Pickman's. That's just brill.
> 
> eta: yeah, yeah, I know that was a shit attempt.



Don't encourage him' it's just the sort of opportunity he's been whiting for.

Oh cod you've got me at it now.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Don't encourage him' it's just the sort of opportunity he's been whiting for.
> 
> Oh cod you've got me at it now.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


you'll be singing a different tuna later


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> That hippy book by Peter Dickinson I think you mean
> 
> Or do you mean Bellwether, a leader of political thought and ideology?


The Peter Dickinson one.	Bellwether is more a trend indicator


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll be singing a different tuna later



And I'll carp on about it.

Cheers - Louis Mac (Fisheries) Neice


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll be singing a different tuna later



LM is too circumspect so i trout it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And I'll carp on about it.
> 
> Cheers - Louis Mac (Fisheries) Neice



I don't think you guys realise the scale of what you're attempting here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

redcogs said:


> LM is too circumspect so i trout it.


he's salmon a laugh


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

Some of these puns puns are off...the tench is something awful.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

redcogs said:


> LM is too circumspect so i trout it.



Me circumspect? Any more of that and you'll be herring from my solicitors.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)




----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> he's salmon a laugh



And you're talking pollocks!


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman said eel be back again


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And you're talking pollocks!


eel have you know i'm not


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Pickman said eel be back again



No he's just floundering about now.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

i'm lampreying this will be over soon


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

If we put all these puns nose to tail would it make a conger line?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

redcogs said:


> i'm lampreying this will be over soon



Is it soothing your sole?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2016)

redcogs said:


> i'm lampreying this will be over soon








farmerbarleymow doesn't like fish jokes. unless he's making them.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If we put all these puns nose to tail would it make a conger line?



Ide need to take advice on it


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

I'm perched on the edge of my seat to see how long this continues.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Ide need to take advice on it



Orfe course you would.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> farmerbarleymow doesn't like fish jokes. unless he's making them.



That's a bass accusation.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

I guess that's the end of that then. I for one had a whale of a time.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I guess that's the end of that then. I for one had a whale of a time.



You think this is fin..ished? No chance there's plenty more...

...fish in the sea.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You think this is fin..ished?



With that 'pun' I think you've demonstrated perfectly that it is.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice just got schooled, btw.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That's a bass accusation.


 we should stickleback to the facts


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> With that 'pun' I think you've demonstrated perfectly that it is.



That's Gudgeon enough for me


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Louis MacNeice just got schooled, btw.



Now I think you're just trawling for a response.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Louis MacNeice just got schooled, btw.



Don't worry it was just a fluke.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

Drifting off topic now


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 7, 2016)

I suppose I should get back to work and earn a few squid.

Bye - Louis MacNeice


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

But once i've got the wind in my sails..


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

i suspected you'd cut up ruffe once the puns dried up


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

redcogs said:


> But once i've got the wind in my sails..



Weathermongerer!


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

Crikey, you got in while i was whiting my next response


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 7, 2016)

I won the internet with my last post, btw. No-one else need bother continuing. Linking this stream of puns back to the original topic in the way I did was possibly the wittiest thing I've ever done.


----------



## laptop (Jan 7, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I won the internet with my last post, btw. No-one else need bother continuing. Linking this stream of puns back to the original topic in the way I did was possibly the wittiest thing I've ever done.



But the original topic was how the cod we could stop Corbyn floundering in a load of pollocks?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

i thought i smelt a rat


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2016)

laptop said:


> But the original topic was how the cod we could stop Corbyn floundering in a load of pollocks?



If only i shad your sense of humour.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 7, 2016)

So fucking amateur.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 7, 2016)

Thread has jumped the shark.


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

whats happening on it is as transparent as a fish tank.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2016)

If I can bring us back for a second, this is quite something. This is what _the professionals_ are doing. 

The BBC admits it co-ordinated in advance the on-air resignation of Stephen Doughty


----------



## J Ed (Jan 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> If I can bring us back for a second, this is quite something. This is what _the professionals_ are doing.
> 
> The BBC admits it co-ordinated in advance the on-air resignation of Stephen Doughty



That does seem like a huge story, the fact that they are posting that that is what they did on their little blog shows that they are content to flout the objectivity they are supposed to adhere to with impunity.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2016)

It _should_ be multiple resignations & sackings huge shouldn't it? Doubt it will be though.


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> It _should_ be multiple resignations & sackings huge shouldn't it? Doubt it will be though.


sacked for delivering a scoop.... Wouldn't be on the dole long.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2016)

It isn't delivering a scoop though, it's creating one, and creating one in a transparently partisan manner. Why do you think they removed the blog post so quickly if it's just about bagging a story? 

It's disgraceful. Kuennsberg and Neil at the very least should walk for it.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> It isn't delivering a scoop though, it's creating one, and creating one in a transparently partisan manner. Why do you think they removed the blog post so quickly if it's just about bagging a story?
> 
> It's disgraceful. Kuennsberg and Neil at the very least should walk for it.



It still comes up on google's ''in the news' if you search bbc resignation on google.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 7, 2016)

killer b said:


> It isn't delivering a scoop though, it's creating one, and creating one in a transparently partisan manner.



How was it created? He was going to resign anyway. Journalist gets story, it breaks on live tv. News at 11.


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> How was it created? He was going to resign anyway. Journalist gets story, it breaks on live tv. News at 11.


Might have gone earlier, reducing the drama. But yep.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> Might have gone earlier, reducing the drama. But yep.


Doughty (who he?) comes out of this looking like an even bigger prick that he did already.


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Doughty (who he?) comes out of this looking like an even bigger prick that he did already.


A man who starts his day telling the Beeb's political editor he's considering his position,and 'gets talked into' resigning live on air 10 mins before PMQ's, was never really thinking about damage limitation.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2016)

gosub said:


> A man who starts his day telling the Beeb's political editor he's considering his position,and 'gets talked into' resigning live on air 10 mins before PMQ's, was never really thinking about damage limitation.


Exactly; a prick.


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2016)

He goes a bit frothy at times, but Hitchens lands some excellent punches in this.

Letting Rip Against all This Reshuffle Garbage - Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

This in particular:

_The timing of the Syria debate, in retrospect, looks rather suspicious. There was no special military or diplomatic reason, as is quite obvious now, for holding it that night. The only reason for hurry was the Oldham poll. There was nothing else on the grid that couldn’t be altered. A humiliation for |Mr Corbyn on Wednesday night at Westminster and another one on Thursday night in Oldham Town Hall, and the brave boys of New Labour would have acted
_


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2016)

Just read that and _almost_ all of it was excellent IMO. 

Normally, I'd hate Hitchens and his usual insane obnsessions/rants. But he's spot on with loads of that.

The Mail's still generally shit though


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2016)

I dont think the qualifications are necessary. It's Hitchens, we all know what a headbanger he is.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2016)

Thing is, he wasn't in that piece. Call me surprised


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2016)

He can sometimes be very insightful. Shame he's a mad racist really.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 8, 2016)

So this Why I won’t shut up about misogyny and the left | Jess Phillips could go here, the right-wing political correctness thread or the Graunid going down the pan thread...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2016)

Both?


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It still comes up on google's ''in the news' if you search bbc resignation on google.



There's a cached version here: Resignation! Making the news on the Daily Politics


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> Letting Rip Against all This Reshuffle Garbage - Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog
> 
> This in particular:
> 
> _The timing of the Syria debate, in retrospect, looks rather suspicious. There was no special military or diplomatic reason, as is quite obvious now, for holding it that night. The only reason for hurry was the Oldham poll. There was nothing else on the grid that couldn’t be altered. A humiliation for |Mr Corbyn on Wednesday night at Westminster and another one on Thursday night in Oldham Town Hall, and the brave boys of New Labour would have acted_




Couldn't agree more with this point about the Syria debate; it was bullshit political theatre _par excellence_. The Commons voted to bomb ISIS in Iraq in December 2014 with barely a mention in the news and hardly a debate in the Commons. Suddenly the "bombing of Syria" is equivalent to the invasion of Iraq - day-long debate in the Commons, breathless saturation real-time media coverage, pompous windbaggery by the bucket load in the chamber etc etc. 

Over whether or not the RAF could bomb the other side of what is - quite literally - a line in the sand in the middle of a desert, a line not recognised by ISIS and barely by anyone else these days. And as if the RAF could achieve something that the USAF, which has been merrily bombing both sides of the line for years, could not; I mean it's laughable. And as we now know, the supposed unique assets of the RAF - Brimstone missiles - haven't even been used. The RAF is militarily irrelevant here.

FWIW, I think Corbyn got mugged by it all. He could have acknowledged the irrelevance of the entire "policy" and agreed to nod it through which would have spiked Cameron's guns and wrong footed the media. Then bung in a last-minute amendment that if the "long term political settlement" (that Cameron and the other bullshit-mongers always claim they are seeking) hadn't been achieved within - say 6 months - (eg via a unanimous UNSC resolution) then all UK forces should be permanently pulled out. It's the sort of stunt that Milliband pulled when he won his Syria vote (I can't remember the exact details of his amendment). Corbyn would have had a sporting chance of winning that vote and it would have left Cameron with a ticking time bomb of a commons-mandated withdrawal if no political settlement. Instead Cameron and the wankers have a free hand and Corbyn got shot up by the Blairites.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 8, 2016)

IMO: #Reshuffle – What went down?

Apols if its been posted already


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 8, 2016)

More on the latest BBC disinfo. If theyd done this to tories we'd now be facing weeks of front lages calling for resignations.

The BBC turns News at 10 into a party political broadcast for the Tories | The Canary

In regards to Hitchens remarks on the Syria vote, the timing motivation is obvious - it was a kneejerk reaction to the Paris massacre. Vapid and ill considered, but not conspiratorial.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 8, 2016)

Corbyn unelectable? Don’t believe a word of it – the Tories clearly don’t


----------



## gosub (Jan 8, 2016)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> In regards to Hitchens remarks on the Syria vote, the timing motivation is obvious - it was a kneejerk reaction to the Paris massacre. Vapid and ill considered, but not conspiratorial.



It was because our ally France,asked for help, yes. But the pomposity of the debate, where 8 tornado's were going to be game-changer, .  And the timing of the debate, squeezing it in ahead of the bi election was definitely a factor, ill thought through given the demographics of the constituency.


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2016)

Paris was certainly used to get one over on Corbyn, yes (among other things). And who said conspiracy?


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2016)

'kneejerk' ffs. They don't do kneejerk.


----------



## gosub (Jan 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> 'kneejerk' ffs. They don't do kneejerk.


Think they had been looking for a justification to revisit the issue for a year.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 8, 2016)

The BBC attempts to defend its position on the Doughty (who?) on-air resignation and ends up digging a bigger hole for itself.
BBC defends Stephen Doughty's resignation live on Daily Politics


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2016)

Doughty's truly an idiot -- this is one of his tweets quoted in the above link




			
				Strawmanmeister Doughty said:
			
		

> Epilogue : twitter goes into meltdown + lizards running the BBC (all members of the Bilderberg group) are exposed in the harsh sunlight...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> Paris was certainly used to get one over on Corbyn, yes (among other things). And who said conspiracy?



Yes it was, because everthing is. Little more to it than that. Hitchens imllies the timing of the debate was to do with the by election. I dont think theres enough to stand that up, but if it was then it was not made public and thus organised in a clandestine fashion. Ergo, a conspiracy, conspiracies being an absolute staple of politics throughout time.


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2016)

Who said it was organised? It's not exactly something that needs a conspiracy. It'll have been obvious to the tories what would happen if they Held the debate the night before the Oldham poll - no whispering in corners required.

Not that I'd be surprised if it had been co-ordinated, mind. But it isn't necessary.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 8, 2016)

If 2 or more people discussed it it was organised, an attempted stitch up of some sort, rather a dull one in fact but still something conspired upon.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2016)

What a ridiculous unsustainable conflation of planned/orgnaised/etc with conspiracy - in order to smuggle proper loon theories back in now you think it's safe. The idea that everything planed is a conspiracy is a joke and violence to the word and concept. But, a typical one from conspiracy loons.


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2016)

Are you saying it was a conspiracy now?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> Are you saying it was a conspiracy now?


_Everything _is apparently. So that means all sugestions and claims must be taken seriously.


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2016)

I was wondering what his angle was.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 8, 2016)

The idea that there is a media campaign against Corbyn is being portrayed as 'conspiracy theory' by Blairites.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 8, 2016)

It's just gaslighting.


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> I was wondering what his angle was.



I started wondering how long it'd take him to turn it from "this isn't a conspiracy" to "it's all about me and my conspiracies". But I didn't get to finish...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The idea that there is a media campaign against Corbyn is being portrayed as 'conspiracy theory' by Blairites.


All those Trotskyist, Stalinist Gramsci botherers in the Corbyn-cult getting together, eh?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> All those Trotskyist, Stalinist Gramsci botherers in the Corbyn-cult getting together, eh?



You missed out Maoists, also people who simultaneously support Assad and ISIS


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 9, 2016)

Can you imagine the shit storm  if the BBC had arranged for a tory minister to resign live on air just before PMQs? And then gloated about it on a blog - Laura Kunessburg would have been sacked within a hour and their would be weeks of enquires and resignations.
Fucking outrageous behavior.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> He can sometimes be very insightful. Shame he's a mad racist really.



He's one of the few in the political establishment with actual integrity.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 9, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Can you imagine the shit storm  if the BBC had arranged for a tory minister to resign live on air just before PMQs? And then gloated about it on a blog - Laura Kunessburg would have been sacked within a hour and their would be weeks of enquires and resignations.
> Fucking outrageous behavior.



Yup.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Can you imagine the shit storm  if the BBC had arranged for a tory minister to resign live on air just before PMQs? And then gloated about it on a blog - Laura Kunessburg would have been sacked within a hour and their would be weeks of enquires and resignations.
> Fucking outrageous behavior.


Not really, she'd have been promoted.  It's a great bit of journalism, the problem is with the prick (whose name I've already forgotten) who chose to go along with it. Blame him, Kuenssberg did her job properly.  Annoying tho that is.


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

no she didn't.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> no she didn't.


why not?  No one has actually  come up with anything coherent. She didn't manipulate him, she didn't make him do something he wasn't going to do anyway.  Journalists negotiate exclusives all the time, it's part of the job.


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

if the deleted blog is anything to go by, the exclusive was negotiated explicitly for maximum political impact (hence going out just before PMQs instead of 9am when they first got wind). That's not 'part of the job' of a news editor for the national broadcaster.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> if the deleted blog is anything to go by, the exclusive was negotiated explicitly for maximum political impact (hence going out just before PMQs instead of 9am when they first got wind). That's not 'part of the job' of a news editor for the national broadcaster.


Of course it is. If you have a story, you want to maximise its impact, why on earth would you do anything else?


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

'political' impact. Not just impact.


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

It's not the job of the political editor of the BBC to negotiate advantage for the prime minister.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> 'political' impact. Not just impact.


Oh no!  Not 'political' impact!  It's a politics show, she's a politics reporter, of course it's political impact.



killer b said:


> It's not the job of the political editor of the BBC to negotiate advantage for the prime minister.


So, if something would benefit a PM, they should refuse to do it? _That's _political bias.  You do what you do no matter what the consequences.


----------



## binka (Jan 9, 2016)

belboid said:


> So, if something would benefit a PM, they should refuse to do it? _That's _political bias.  You do what you do no matter what the consequences.


Doing her job would have been to report on it as soon as she knew about it, timing it to cause maximum damage isn't her job.


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

Except this is what they do all the time: the news reporting by the BBC is clearly biased to favour the conservatives. This just happens to be the only time they've gone on to boast about it (then realise they'd fucked up and delete the boast asap).


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2016)

binka said:


> Doing her job would have been to report on it as soon as she knew about it, timing it to cause maximum damage isn't her job.


No, she should have tried to make sure no one saw it 

Of course that's part of the job.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> Except this is what they do all the time: the news reporting by the BBC is clearly biased to favour the conservatives. This just happens to be the only time they've gone on to boast about it (then realise they'd fucked up and delete the boast asap).


No one will deny the corporations bias, and whether she would have done the same thing to a Tory is a fair question.  But a different one.


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

It isn't a different question - you know what the answer is. That's what makes this happening a problem ffs.


----------



## binka (Jan 9, 2016)

belboid said:


> No, she should have tried to make sure no one saw it
> 
> Of course that's part of the job.


What are you talking about? I very clearly said reporting it is her job


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 9, 2016)

"Senior Labour MP" Dan Jarvis chucks his toys out of his pram.



> The former Labour frontbencher Dan Jarvis has indicated he may not stand for the party at the next general election if Jeremy Corbyn succeeds in changing policy to oppose the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme.
> 
> Jarvis said on Friday he would feel “deeply uncomfortable” standing as a Labourcandidate on a manifesto committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament.
> Senior Labour MP wary of standing for election under anti-nuclear policy



"Senior Labour MP"? Fuck off.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> "Senior Labour MP" Dan Jarvis chucks his toys out of his pram.
> 
> 
> 
> "Senior Labour MP"? Fuck off.


A former shadow arts and culture minister,  the department everyone wants into apparently


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

You can imagine the scene at maquis HQ.

_Anything on the grid today?
Nope, sorry - looking pretty quiet.
We need to keep the pressure up, we've got steptoe on the run! Any ideas?
Well... We could get Dan to threaten to resign over trident?
Brilliant. I'll get the guardian on the phone now._


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 9, 2016)

Jarvis and Dugher, the northern powerhouse!


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2016)

killer b said:


> It isn't a different question - you know what the answer is. That's what makes this happening a problem ffs.


Of course it is. I'm sure they'd have loved to do it to the Tories if they'd had the chance when Blair was PM.

Blaming Kuenssberg just lets Doughty off the hook


----------



## magneze (Jan 9, 2016)

Campaign to destroy the planet. Great strategy.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 9, 2016)

The bbc has a statutory duty to be politically impartial - newspapers do not. Kuenssberg and the editorial team were acting like they were working for the latter. In arranging for mr flounce to resign live on air - just before pmqs - is conniving with someone else's political agenda - i.e to cause maximum embarrassment to Corbyn. They then gloated about it afterwards on a blog.
The BBC is not supposed to shape the news - if their politics team dont like that then they should work for a media outlet without those restrictions.
No fucking way would they do that to the tories and they would not have dreamed of doing it to Blair.
Remember we pay for these cunts to behave like this.


----------



## killer b (Jan 9, 2016)

belboid said:


> Of course it is. I'm sure they'd have loved to do it to the Tories if they'd had the chance when Blair was PM.
> 
> Blaming Kuenssberg just lets Doughty off the hook


I don't just blame Kuenssberg. Neil can go too.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 9, 2016)

This is the deleted BBC blog post - spot the impartiality -



> "Just before 9am we learned from Laura Kuenssberg, that she was speaking to one junior shadow minister who was considering resigning. I wonder, mused our presenter Andrew Neil, if they would consider doing it live on the show?
> 
> The question was put to Laura, who thought it was a great idea.
> 
> ...



How is that impartial? Its clearly seeking to shape the news rather than report it - and to the severe detriment of Corbyn.
The relationship between politicians and the media is a fucking oxbridge  chumocracy and they all hate corbyn cos hes outside - and threatens - their privallaged, self perpetuating bubble and their policing of  acceptable political discourse.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2016)

Sack the lot of them, and  have a bloke just reading out clippings from yesterday's papers.  It's the only safe way forward.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 9, 2016)

gosub said:


> Sack the lot of them, and  have a bloke just reading out clippings from yesterday's papers.  It's the only safe way forward.


Pravda


----------



## teqniq (Jan 9, 2016)

They are properly taking the piss. I'm glad I don't pay the license fee.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 9, 2016)

gosub said:


> Sack the lot of them, and  have a bloke just reading out clippings from yesterday's papers.  It's the only safe way forward.



So you're cool with a publicly  funded news broadcaster concocting a media stunt "for a big political impact" - that's intended to undermine the leader of the opposition?


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2016)

Yep. and equally cool with when they do ones that embarrass Leaders of other parties, which they do.


eta and it wasn't concocting ", it was a real story.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2016)

The news cycle is the the news cycle. And no amount of making journos stand around in the rain is going to change that.  We as a nation are not going to switch to hanging around til gone midnight to find out what Jeremy has done now.	Not that far up thread, somebody was trying to say the relationship couldn't be worse.......Long way down to go yet.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 9, 2016)

gosub said:


> Yep. and equally cool with when they do ones that embarrass Leaders of other parties, which they do.



You really think they would have done this to the tories? You're having a laugh - they would have been sacked before you could say "charter renewal". Its not the "news cycle" its the BBC deliberating helping create a politically charged news event. 

I really cant think of a precedent for this.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> You really think they would have done this to the tories? You're having a laugh - they would have been sacked before you could say "charter renewal". Its not the "news cycle" its the BBC deliberating helping create a politically charged news event.
> 
> I really cant think of a precedent for this.


Thats coz no other fucker has ever decided to be doing his hiring & firing 12 hours before PMQ's


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 9, 2016)

belboid said:


> why not?  No one has actually  come up with anything coherent. She didn't manipulate him, she didn't make him do something he wasn't going to do anyway.  Journalists negotiate exclusives all the time, it's part of the job.


Well if it is simply part of the job why did the BBC delete the blog post about it? Surely that shows that (despite their denials) they had some idea that this was more than simply reporting the news.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Well if it is simply part of the job why did the BBC delete the blog post about it? Surely that shows that (despite their denials) they had some idea that this was more than simply reporting the news.



Coz its a training part of the website, the bit where the sticky tape shows.  And they realized it was going to end up being a story. That, making the news, rather than reporting it, is apparently against guidelines.   Due to the way caching works, once published, they would have been better off leaving it up there. 
Putting it (the blog) up so close the event, while things are raw, was a mistake.  But so was the formal complaint Labour issued. Makes them look double daft, one on the issue of how the media operate and two for getting more column inches (not in a good way) about the reshuffle.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 9, 2016)

To blog or not to blog? that’s the (deleted) question

Interesting blog by a former BBC editor. I agree (in part)...engineering the resignation on air in itself isnt an issue. Thats a media scoop. Happens all the time. Its the now defunct blog and it's wording I have an issue with. Its not within the remit of the BBC to time a story for maximum political impact so close to PMQs. Intentionally or not (either way doesnt look good) the resignation impacted PMQs and gifted Cameron an unfair advantage. Corbyn knew he was going prior to PMQs but had no idea he would do so publicly and just before PMQs

What I want to know was how was Cameron aware and not corbyn? Surely in thie day and age with MPs on twitter and other forms of social media how come corbyn wasnt aware?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 10, 2016)

More unadulterated bollox.

Corbyn hopes to alter Trident stance by stripping shadow Cabinet's power


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jan 10, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> The bbc has a statutory duty to be politically impartial - newspapers do not. Kuenssberg and the editorial team were acting like they were working for the latter. In arranging for mr flounce to resign live on air - just before pmqs - is conniving with someone else's political agenda - i.e to cause maximum embarrassment to Corbyn. They then gloated about it afterwards on a blog.
> The BBC is not supposed to shape the news - if their politics team dont like that then they should work for a media outlet without those restrictions.
> No fucking way would they do that to the tories and they would not have dreamed of doing it to Blair.
> Remember we pay for these cunts to behave like this.



Indeed. Time to privatize the fuckers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2016)

Blue on blue, red on red. Welcome to the year of great schisms… | Andrew Rawnsley



> The prime minister would have taken more of a hit to his authority for his concession to the Tory Outers had the opposition been in any position to ridicule David Cameron for being unable to impose himself on his party. Labour is far too consumed by its own divisions to be able to mount a critique of anyone else’s leadership. There are many of them, but the most fissile split on the immediate horizon is over the nuclear deterrent. That is what Jeremy Corbyn’s acrimonious and slow-motion reshuffle was really all about.
> 
> This was slightly obscured by the ice-picking of Michael Dugher and Pat McFadden for alleged acts of disloyalty against the Great Helmsman of Islington. When he sacked Mr McFadden by phone, the Labour leader said he was particularly angry with the Wolverhampton MP for remarks he made condemning Isis for the Paris massacres. It is apparently now a thought crime in the Labour party to suggest that terrorists ought to be held responsible for their actions.


----------



## Flanflinger (Jan 10, 2016)

And whilst the stupid fuckers argue amongst themselves over the coming years, the Tories can do as they please.


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2016)

What do you think should be done?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 10, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> And whilst the stupid fuckers argue amongst themselves over the coming years, the Tories can do as they please.



...Until 2025 at least.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 10, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> ...Until 2025 at least.


How's your career as a fortune teller going?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2016)

its the way the article lazily goes down the Stalin of Islington line that does it for me. In other news, Nick Cohen wrote a piece today that wasn't about corbyn and what a shit he is.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> In other news, Nick Cohen wrote a piece today that wasn't about corbyn and what a shit he is.



Was it an old piece filed in error? A holiday backup?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> How's your career as a fortune teller going?



The great Hertfordini, gazing into his _kristalnacht_ ball...


----------



## existentialist (Jan 10, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> ...Until 2025 at least.


In your soggy-biscuit dreams.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 10, 2016)

existentialist said:


> In your soggy-biscuit dreams.



You genuinely think Corbyn can win in 2020?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 10, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You genuinely think Corbyn can win in 2020?


I don't recall suggesting that I thought that.

I was merely commenting on your right-wing wet dream of a further 10 years of this shower being in charge.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 10, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn's Twitter Account Hacked, Tells Followers To 'F**k Trident'

oops


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 10, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I don't recall suggesting that I thought that.
> 
> I was merely commenting on your right-wing wet dream of a further 10 years of this shower being in charge.



Why would I vote tory? I'm a socialist.

I'll be voting for Corbyn, but I still can't see Labour winning in 2020 with him as leader.

Will you be voting Labour? What's your 'wet dream'?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Jeremy Corbyn's Twitter Account Hacked, Tells Followers To 'F**k Trident'
> 
> oops



Are we sure he was hacked? Might have just given up on the teetotalism.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 10, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why would I vote tory? I'm a socialist.
> 
> I'll be voting for Corbyn, but I still can't see Labour winning in 2020 with him as leader.
> 
> Will you be voting Labour? What's your 'wet dream'?


I don't have a wet dream.

I don't even know who I'll be voting for - the last 15 years of UK politics have been a depressing spiral into the mire, and I'm steadily coming to the conclusion that whatever it is that changes that direction, it won't be anything conventional. It probably won't even be anything political.

But I suspect it will involve a lot of death, damage, and destruction. And no, that's not my "wet dream", either.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 10, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I don't have a wet dream.
> 
> I don't even know who I'll be voting for - the last 15 years of UK politics have been a depressing spiral into the mire, and I'm steadily coming to the conclusion that whatever it is that changes that direction, it won't be anything conventional. It probably won't even be anything political.
> 
> But I suspect it will involve a lot of death, damage, and destruction. And no, that's not my "wet dream", either.



Fair enough. As usual I'll vote for whoever might have a chance of unseating our complacent tory two-homed fat cat and that'll be probably be our Labour candidate. But I really can't see the tory government being kicked out before 2025 and that's deeply depressing. This last week has just been play acting.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 10, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Fair enough. As usual I'll vote for whoever might have a chance of unseating our complacent tory two-homed fat cat and that'll be probably be our Labour candidate. But I really can't see the tory government being kicked out before 2025 and that's deeply depressing. This last week has just been play acting.


I don't think they can last even until 2020. I think that the uprising will come before then, and there will be not a bloody thing they will be able to do about it.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 10, 2016)

What 'uprising'?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Are we sure he was hacked? Might have just given up on the teetotalism.


Rather rude about our antipodean friends?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Rather rude about our antipodean friends?



I took it to mean straya!!! cunts! in a proud show of respect for Australia rather than disrespect but who knows, twitter is a bad medium for communication.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 10, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What 'uprising'?


It's a thing where people go "fuck this for a laugh" and break stuff. Occasionally they set fire to things. Governments traditionally harrumph and puff about moral decline, but are quietly shitting themselves, and make massive changes while pretending not to. Looks a bit like this:


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2016)

breaking wind loudly in a public place reminds Hertford of the Dresden firebombing so you must understand why he finds images such as the above distressing


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I took it to mean straya!!! cunts! in a proud show of respect for Australia rather than disrespect but who knows, twitter is a bad medium for communication.


Nope. Corbyn's a racialist.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 10, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It's a thing where people go "fuck this for a laugh" and break stuff. Occasionally they set fire to things. Governments traditionally harrumph and puff about moral decline, but are quietly shitting themselves, and make massive changes while pretending not to. Looks a bit like this:



So you do have wet dreams!

I know what an uprising is, but if you're hoping for one of to get rid of the tories then you're going to have a long and frustrating wait.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 10, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It's a thing where people go "fuck this for a laugh" and break stuff. Occasionally they set fire to things. Governments traditionally harrumph and puff about moral decline, but are quietly shitting themselves, and make massive changes while pretending not to. Looks a bit like this:


 
hmm

the tories didn't get turfed out that quick after 1981

tbh, the tories would probably get excited about more riots - boris would get his water cannons, the daily fail readers would demand more short sharp shocks or whatever bullshit they come out with and whatever jeremy corbyn says will be used to revive the 'labour - soft on crime' narrative

blargh


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 10, 2016)

Puddy_Tat said:


> hmm
> 
> the tories didn't get turfed out that quick after 1981
> 
> ...



Indeed, despite being possibly the most hated government in living memory, the tories did very well a couple of years after the 81 riots.... with a little help from an aged left wing Labour leader of course.

If an 'uprising' couldn't dent Thatcher then one isn't going to do much damage to Cameron.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 11, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why would I vote tory? I'm a socialist.


Yeah course you are, that's why you argued for a Lib-Lab alliance.


----------



## oryx (Jan 11, 2016)

Good interview by Corbyn on Today - ended on a strong note when the interviewer asked how he would attract wavering voters and he gave a good summary of why we can't go on like we are.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

Of all the mornings for him to finally do Today...


----------



## redcogs (Jan 11, 2016)

oryx said:


> Good interview by Corbyn on Today - ended on a strong note when the interviewer asked how he would attract wavering voters and he gave a good summary of why we can't go on like we are.



Jezz seemed relaxed unfazed and above all competent, a real breath of fresh air.  The one or two intelligent Tory types may begin to tremble.


----------



## gosub (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Of all the mornings for him to finally do Today...


Bradley Wiggins (as guest editor) had him on just before Xmas


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

Yeah, but that was just pre-record about cycling. This is the first time he's actually gone on to be interviewed on the show.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 11, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why would I vote tory? I'm a socialist.


You're a weird kind of socialist. I don't think I've ever seen you post anything that even suggests that you hold socialist views.


----------



## Flanflinger (Jan 11, 2016)

Strong rumours that Corbyn has invited House of Commons cleaning staff to join opposition front bench to make up the numbers.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

Ho, ho.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> Strong rumours that Corbyn has invited House of Commons cleaning staff to join opposition front bench to make up the numbers.


No bad thing: I think Parliament could do with a few more people who've held down an Actual Job, and have at least some idea of what life is like for those they govern...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah course you are, that's why you argued for a Lib-Lab alliance.



Before 2010, yes, to keep the tories out.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 11, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You're a weird kind of socialist. I don't think I've ever seen you post anything that even suggests that you hold socialist views.



Perhaps you don't think JC is a socialist either.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 12, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Perhaps you don't think JC is a socialist either.


Fuck off, you dullard.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 12, 2016)

Oh look, another nobody ups and quits...:

Labour's Catherine McKinnell quits shadow cabinet - BBC News


----------



## youngian (Jan 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its the way the article lazily goes down the Stalin of Islington line that does it for me. In other news, Nick Cohen wrote a piece today that wasn't about corbyn and what a shit he is.


Corbyn is either going to be weak and not in control or acting like Stalin. He'll probably be better off with the latter, voters like to know who's in charge. 

As for Cohen he's dedicated to writing the same Godwin's Law article every other week. Apparently the left are appeasers of 'Islamo-fascists'. Cohen's evidence for this is some MP sharing a platform with a nobody from Hezbollah. As for anyone who doesn't want to bomb Ba'athist leaders, they're Islamofascist appeasers as well according to Cohen. Sadam and Assad are just like Hitler and anyone who says otherwise is Neville Chamberlain. Like Frank Field, Nick  Cohen is known in the Tory press as a "brave and original thinker on the left."


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 12, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Fuck off, you dullard.



That's the extent of your intellectual capacity is it Nino? Are you even a socialist yourself? Because responding to a reasonable point with "Fuck off you dullard" doesn't make you a socialist, it makes you a twat.

If you don't think I'm a socialist then it follows that you don't think Corbyn is either. My own political opinions have largely mirrored Corbyn's since the early 1980s especially on foreign policy, but I'm a realist and I know that the chances of Labour winning the election in 2020 with him as leader are virtually zero and that means a tory government until 2025 at the earliest.... by which time I'll be retired and you'll probably have left school.

So never mind questioning other's political credentials, try and explain how you think we can get rid of the tories before they finish what Thatcher started and fuck up the social fabric of our country completely?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 12, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's the extent of your intellectual capacity is it Nino? Are you even a socialist yourself? Because responding to a reasonable point with "Fuck off you dullard" doesn't make you a socialist, it makes you a twat.
> 
> If you don't think I'm a socialist then it follows that you don't think Corbyn is either. My own political opinions have largely mirrored Corbyn's since the early 1980s especially on foreign policy, but I'm a realist and I know that the chances of Labour winning the election in 2020 with him as leader are virtually zero and that means a tory government until 2025 at the earliest.... by which time I'll be retired and you'll probably have left school.
> 
> So never mind questioning other's political credentials, try and explain how you think we can get rid of the tories *before they finish what Thatcher started* and fuck up the social fabric of our country completely?



Did you vote Labour in 1997? If so, how do you feel about the very 'successful' continuation of 'what Thatcher started' under the Blair administrations. How has voting Labour in the past 20 years advanced the socialist politics that you claim to share with Corbyn? And how would sending him back to the back benches now do that?

It is the complete disconnect between the socialism you say you want ('my own political opinions have largely mirrored Corbyn's since the early 1980s') and the means you propose of achieving them (voting for a Labour party lead by a 'realist'?) that jars so badly.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jan 12, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> Strong rumours that Corbyn has invited House of Commons cleaning staff to join opposition front bench to make up the numbers.



That would be a disaster.

Best leave it to public schoolboys like Corbyn and Milne in my view. They know what's best for us eh?


----------



## youngian (Jan 12, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My own political opinions have largely mirrored Corbyn's since the early 1980s especially on foreign policy, but I'm a realist and I know that the chances of Labour winning the election in 2020 with him as leader are virtually zero and that means a tory government until 2025 at the earliest.... by which time I'll be retired and you'll probably have left school.


 Precisely it doesn't matter a toss what you or I think of Corbyn, if the evidence stacks up that he is a Marmite politician, loved only by 25%, then there is no point in him leading a political party.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 12, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> Strong rumours that Corbyn has invited House of Commons cleaning staff to join opposition front bench to make up the numbers.



the very thought of it eh you sneery div


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 12, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's the extent of your intellectual capacity is it Nino? Are you even a socialist yourself? Because responding to a reasonable point with "Fuck off you dullard" doesn't make you a socialist, it makes you a twat.


Hilarious. You honestly think you're a socialist when there's plentiful evidence to the contrary on these boards? Your reply didn't warrant anything other than "fuck off you dullard". But then claiming that it's "the extent of my intellectual capacity" is a little rich coming from you.



> If you don't think I'm a socialist then it follows that you don't think Corbyn is either.



Weird logic. Keep joining those dots. Corbyn is a social democrat. 



> I know that the chances of Labour winning the election in 2020 with him as leader are virtually zero and that means a tory government until 2025 at the earliest.


You're still claiming to have the ability to see into the future. Don't give up your day job.



> by which time I'll be retired and you'll probably have left school.



When all else fails, accuse the other person of still being in school. Even your insults are shite.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Did you vote Labour in 1997? If so, how do you feel about the very 'successful' continuation of 'what Thatcher started' under the Blair administrations. How has voting Labour in the past 20 years advanced the socialist politics that you claim to share with Corbyn? And how would sending him back to the back benches now do that?
> 
> It is the complete disconnect between the socialism you say you want ('my own political opinions have largely mirrored Corbyn's since the early 1980s') and the means you propose of achieving them (voting for a Labour party lead by a 'realist'?) that jars so badly.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Why assume that Labour has to be either ‘Blairite’ or ‘Corbynite’? It doesn’t. But one thing it does have to do is appeal to voters if we don’t want to endure the tories for another nine years.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 12, 2016)

The above is French for "electable" which has no political meaning.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's the extent of your intellectual capacity is it Nino? Are you even a socialist yourself? Because responding to a reasonable point with "Fuck off you dullard" doesn't make you a socialist, it makes you a twat.
> 
> If you don't think I'm a socialist then it follows that you don't think Corbyn is either. My own political opinions have largely mirrored Corbyn's since the early 1980s especially on foreign policy, but I'm a realist and I know that the chances of Labour winning the election in 2020 with him as leader are virtually zero and that means a tory government until 2025 at the earliest.... by which time I'll be retired and you'll probably have left school.
> 
> So never mind questioning other's political credentials, try and explain how you think we can get rid of the tories before they finish what Thatcher started and fuck up the social fabric of our country completely?


Insurrection. It's the only way to be sure. I realise that the 1981 riots didn't get rid of the Tories, but they did force them to tread more carefully, and there is little doubt that the poll tax riots, nearly 20 years later, fatally undermined Thatcher, which was a significant step towards ridding ourselves at least of _Blue_ Tories. Shame we then went and elected a bunch of red ones.

One can only hope that, if the populace do eventually see no alternative to disorder, they make a better job of poleaxing the government this time around. Given the demonstrable incompetence of the latter, one feels that they wouldn't take that much of a hard shove to make enough bad mistakes to topple themselves without too much trouble.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If you don't think I'm a socialist then it follows that you don't think Corbyn is either.


In what way does that follow? 



Andrew Hertford said:


> Why assume that Labour has to be either ‘Blairite’ or ‘Corbynite’? It doesn’t. But one thing it does have to do is appeal to voters if we don’t want to endure the tories for another nine years.


Where has LM made the assumption you claim? And surely even you can see that the Labour party of the 90/00s (and the type of party you are arguing for in the present) wasn't/isn't socialist.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> In what way does that follow?



My views have always been very close to Corbyn’s, so if Savette’s going to claim that I’m not a socialist for some reason best known to himself then he’d have to say the same about Corbyn.



redsquirrel said:


> Where has LM made the assumption you claim? And surely even you can see that the Labour party of the 90/00s (and the type of party you are arguing for in the present) wasn't/isn't socialist.



I’m not saying it was, but a left of centre Labour party under someone like Andy Burnham would at least stand a chance of appealing to enough voters to get into government. Give me that rather than full on toryism until 2025.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Insurrection. It's the only way to be sure. I realise that the 1981 riots didn't get rid of the Tories, but they did force them to tread more carefully, and there is little doubt that the poll tax riots, nearly 20 years later, fatally undermined Thatcher, which was a significant step towards ridding ourselves at least of _Blue_ Tories. Shame we then went and elected a bunch of red ones.
> 
> One can only hope that, if the populace do eventually see no alternative to disorder, they make a better job of poleaxing the government this time around. Given the demonstrable incompetence of the latter, one feels that they wouldn't take that much of a hard shove to make enough bad mistakes to topple themselves without too much trouble.



Come off it, surely no one really believes that we’re going to get rid of the tories through ‘inserrection’! There’s nowhere near enough support for it. It ain’t gonna happen.

It’s true that the tories will probably fuck things up and accelerate their own demise, most governments do that eventually, but it will still need the Labour party to offer an alternative that will attract enough to voters, and sadly with Corbyn as leader they're a million miles from that.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Come off it, surely no one really believes that we’re going to get rid of the tories through ‘inserrection’! There’s nowhere near enough support for it. It ain’t gonna happen.



There's more support for insurrection in Britain than there is for Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> There's more support for insurrection in Britain than there is for Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper...



But not all of it on the left...


----------



## teqniq (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> There's more support for insurrection in Britain than there is for Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper...



Who is this insurrection that you speak of?

are there tickets on Ebay or something?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But not all of it on the left...



What's that got to do with it?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 13, 2016)

Is Britain's media biased against the left?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> *Why assume that Labour has to be either ‘Blairite’ or ‘Corbynite’?* It doesn’t. But one thing it does have to do is appeal to voters if we don’t want to endure the tories for another nine years.



This was not an assumption I made; perhaps you'd have a go at answering the questions I put.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Precisely it doesn't matter a toss what you or I think of Corbyn, if the evidence stacks up that he is a Marmite politician, loved only by 25%, then there is no point in him leading a political party.



Wasn't the current government put there by only around 25% of the electorate?


----------



## irf520 (Jan 13, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is Britain's media biased against the left?



It's biased against anyone who argues against the wishes of their paymasters, whether that be from the left or the right or anywhere else.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Savette’s


*Savatte.* You can see how my username is spelt and you still manage to misread/misspell it.



> then he’d have to say the same about Corbyn.



Such a weak argument. I only have your word that you're a socialist and sadly, for you, your word isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.



Andrew Hertford said:


> I’m not saying it was, but a left of centre Labour party under someone like Andy Burnham would at least stand a chance of appealing to enough voters to get into government



Hilarious. Yet this sentence is predicated on the notion that Labour has to appeal to Tory voters to get elected into power. That's how Labour managed to lose two elections in a row. But you and many others are still incapable of seeing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Come off it, surely no one really believes that we’re going to get rid of the tories through ‘inserrection’! There’s nowhere near enough support for it. It ain’t gonna happen.
> 
> It’s true that the tories will probably fuck things up and accelerate their own demise, most governments do that eventually, but it will still need the Labour party to offer an alternative that will attract enough to voters, and sadly with Corbyn as leader they're a million miles from that.


why do you put a word spelt correctly in the post you quote in quotation marks & spell it wrong?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That's the extent of your intellectual capacity is it Nino? Are you even a socialist yourself? Because responding to a reasonable point with "Fuck off you dullard" doesn't make you a socialist, it makes you a twat.
> 
> If you don't think I'm a socialist then it follows that you don't think Corbyn is either. My own political opinions have largely mirrored Corbyn's since the early 1980s especially on foreign policy, but I'm a realist and I know that the chances of Labour winning the election in 2020 with him as leader are virtually zero and that means a tory government until 2025 at the earliest.... by which time I'll be retired and you'll probably have left school.
> 
> So never mind questioning other's political credentials, try and explain how you think we can get rid of the tories before they finish what Thatcher started and fuck up the social fabric of our country completely?


you may not say 'fuck off you dullard' but there's no denying you're a twat.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 13, 2016)

irf520 said:


> It's biased against anyone who argues against the wishes of their paymasters, whether that be from the left or the right or anywhere else.



silly


----------



## gosub (Jan 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> *Savatte.* You can see how my username is spelt and you still manage to misread/misspell it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Milliband's strategy was hoover up disaffected Lib Dem's who would have no where else to go ...(apart from the Greens).  And he hadn't factored in disaffected Scots


----------



## agricola (Jan 13, 2016)

This is by some distance Corbyn's best PMQs.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Did you vote Labour in 1997? If so, how do you feel about the very 'successful' continuation of 'what Thatcher started' under the Blair administrations. How has voting Labour in the past 20 years advanced the socialist politics that you claim to share with Corbyn? And how would sending him back to the back benches now do that?



I don't claim it did. I hate Blair as much as anyone, but even Blair and Brown's Labour governments were better for the sick, vulnerable, elderly, pensioners, the education system, the NHS and other public services than a continuation of a tory government in perpetuity would have been. *There was no third alternative. *



Louis MacNeice said:


> It is the complete disconnect between the socialism you say you want ('my own political opinions have largely mirrored Corbyn's since the early 1980s') and the means you propose of achieving them (voting for a Labour party lead by a 'realist'?) that jars so badly.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Sorry if it jars, but how else do you think we can get rid of the tories before 2025? Do have have an answer?

Labour don't want to be led by another Blair, but they will have to secure the votes of at least 12 million voters and that just isn't going to happen with Corbyn as leader.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My views have always been very close to Corbyn’s, so if Savette’s going to claim that I’m not a socialist for some reason best known to himself then he’d have to say the same about Corbyn.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not saying it was, but a left of centre Labour party under someone like Andy Burnham would at least stand a chance of appealing to enough voters to get into government. Give me that rather than full on toryism until 2025.



Andy Burnham wouldn't take the party anywhere left of centre. He's Blairite through and through, which means he prescribes neoliberalism dressed up as paternalism, just like the other two also-rans in the leadership contest. 
And frankly very few of the party membership "on the left" voted for him even though he mouthed some left-wing pieties during the leadership contest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Wasn't the current government put there by only around 25% of the electorate?



A tad over 24%.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't claim it did. I hate Blair as much as anyone, but even Blair and Brown's Labour governments were better for the sick, vulnerable, elderly, pensioners, the education system, the NHS and other public services than a continuation of a tory government in perpetuity would have been. *There was no third alternative.*


so why did you vote for the third position way?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford are you honestly saying you are unaware of the famous blair 'third way'?


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour don't want to be led by another Blair, but they will have to secure the votes of at least 12 million voters and that just isn't going to happen with Corbyn as leader.


that's an awful lot more than the last three PM's have needed.

2005 - 10 million, 2010 - 10 million, 2015 - 11 million


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour don't want to be led by another Blair, but they will have to secure the votes of at least 12 million voters and that just isn't going to happen with Corbyn as leader.



Not gonna happen under any of the Blairites either. Do you understand why Blair won the 1997 election?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't claim it did. I hate Blair as much as anyone, but even Blair and Brown's Labour governments were better for the sick, vulnerable, elderly, pensioners, the education system, the NHS and other public services than a continuation of a tory government in perpetuity would have been. *There was no third alternative. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Blair's and Brown's governments introduced the Benefits Integrity Project in 2000-2001, which sought to cut the number of claimants of Disability Living Allowance through seeking fraud. Hundreds of thousands of claimants thrown into turmoil, and what did the "Benefits Integrity Project" eventually find after several claimant suicides? That fraud barely existed.
The same governments introduced ESA in 2007-2008, another wheeze to cut claimant numbers from what was obviously a claimant population swollen with frauds. Seven years and hundreds of suicides and premature deaths down the line, fuck-all fraud has been found.
The same governments reduced the payroll across government departments and furthered the quasi-privatisation of education and health long before the coalition got in. These were people who had the power to put a brake on such changes, but refused to, because they'd taken power (in their minds) not on the backs of the voters, but with the support of big business.

Get a clue.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> that's an awful lot more than the last three PM's have needed.
> 
> 2005 - 10 million, 2010 - 10 million, 2015 - 11 million



I'm assuming they'd want a working majority and not have to rely on things like the Lib Dems taking nearly 6 million as happened in 2005. Cameron's tories actually got nearer to 11 million in 2010 and still didn't win outright.

Do you think Corbyn can rely the support of even 10 million voters? Who might he go into a coalition with?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not gonna happen under any of the Blairites either. Do you understand why Blair won the 1997 election?



Labour don't need to become 'Blairite' again to win in 2020, but they do need to replace Corbyn.

How do you think we can get rid of the tories?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2016)

by repeatedly using them as a massive bogeyman to get people to vote for a right-liberal labour party of course! get that nice young andy back from the car showroom and in charge.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour don't need to become 'Blairite' again to win in 2020, but they do need to replace Corbyn.
> 
> How do you think we can get rid of the tories?



There are several ways we can potentially get rid of the tories, and none of them are more unlikely than a) the LP uniting around Corbyn (which would do very well) or b) Labour replacing Corbyn with another leader that people like.

My point was you seem to believe that like him or not, Blair was a 'winner'. In fact, anyone could have won in 1997. Michael Foot could have won. Ed Milliband could have won. In 1997 the Tories were fucked.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Do you think Corbyn can rely the support of even 10 million voters? Who might he go into a coalition with?


The SNP's 50 odd MP's would do


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> The SNP's 50 odd MP's would do


Yeah, they seem to be invisible to the _corbyn can't win_ brigade. Intentionally so, in most cases.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2016)

iirc he'd said there'd be no snp coalition but that doesn't rule out an electoral agreemeent.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> There are several ways we can potentially get rid of the tories, and none of them are more unlikely than a) the LP uniting around Corbyn (which would do very well) or b) Labour replacing Corbyn with another leader that people like.



Then what other ways!??


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour don't need to become 'Blairite' again to win in 2020, but they do need to replace Corbyn.
> 
> How do you think we can get rid of the tories?


there's this thing called 'elections' which happen every few years and people 'vote' for the party of their choice. it is at one of these 'elections' that people can choose e.g. labour over the conservative and unionist party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I'm assuming they'd want a working majority and not have to rely on things like the Lib Dems taking nearly 6 million as happened in 2005. Cameron's tories actually got nearer to 11 million in 2010 and still didn't win outright.
> 
> Do you think Corbyn can rely the support of even 10 million voters? Who might he go into a coalition with?


all i know is you wouldn't be guaranteed the support of 10 voters.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't claim it did.* I hate Blair as much as anyone*, but even Blair and Brown's Labour governments were better for the sick, vulnerable, elderly, pensioners, the education system, the NHS and other public services than a continuation of a tory government in perpetuity would have been. *There was no third alternative. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Did you vote for his government twice; if so then no you don't you just like to think you do.

2. There are always alternatives.

3. The problem with jarring isn't whether it upsets me or not; the problem is that it doesn't make sense...voting for one thing while desiring something antithetical.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. No you don't you just like to think you do.
> 
> 2. There are always alternatives.
> 
> ...



3. It makes perfect sense if you understand democracy.

2. What is the alternative in this case?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> 2. What is the alternative in this case?


the alternative i am reluctantly considering is placing your dull whine on ignore.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Then what other ways!??



Natural disasters, mass strikes, coups, other political parties, elite sniper squads, herds of battle elephants...use your imagination.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> 3. It makes perfect sense if you understand democracy.



Ahhhh RIGHT, I'm with you now. Shut up everyone, Andy's here to explain Democracy to the unwashed masses.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2016)

some of us are washed


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> 3. It makes perfect sense if you understand democracy.
> 
> 2. What is the alternative in this case?



If you think that the democracy that we currently 'enjoy' really deserves the name then you are more foolish than I thought.  An alternative that makes sense at this time is to work for democracies that actually work at community, workplace, local and national government level (I'll leave the international to another day).

You need to think bigger...it's still all out there even if Jez isn't the answer.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> some of us are washed



You may think that but has Andy explained the concept of washing to you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> some of us are washed


and at least one of us  - Andrew Hertford - is brainwashed


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> some of us are washed



Not yet .... it's only coming up to half past one.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not yet .... it's only coming up to half past one.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


sun over yardarm, louis


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Natural disasters, mass strikes, coups, other political parties, elite sniper squads, herds of battle elephants...use your imagination.



And you're expecting one or some of these events to come to our rescue before 2020 are you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And you're expecting one or some of these events to come to our rescue before 2020 are you?


you never know, you might fall prey to one of them - gaia defending itself and us.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If you think that the democracy that we currently 'enjoy' really deserves the name then you are more foolish than I thought.  An alternative that makes sense at this time is to work for democracies that actually work at community, workplace, local and national government level (I'll leave the international to another day).
> 
> You need to think bigger...it's still all out there even if Jez isn't the answer.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



If it's still all out there, then why can't you give me an example of 'it'? I'm all for democracy that works at a community level, but how can we get rid of the tory government other than by Labour winning a general election?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And you're expecting one or some of these events to come to our rescue before 2020 are you?



Go back and read what I said - if you think the only way that we can get rid of the Tories in 2020 is the LP, then you don't realise how unlikely that is to happen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If it's still all out there, then why can't you give me an example of 'it'? I'm all for democracy that works at a community level, but how can we get rid of the tory government other than by Labour winning a general election?


ah! you've found out about elections, i see. it's a step in the right direction


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 13, 2016)

With Andrew and some others  I suppose what I'm really having trouble with is why people who seem in favour of some left social democratic politics don't put their shoulder to the wheel and get with Jez... if it's really what you want then go for it. Andy B isn't going to give you what you want.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If it's still all out there, then why can't you give me an example of 'it'? I'm all for democracy that works at a community level, but how can we get rid of the tory government other than by Labour winning a general election?



The only things I've seen in my 53 years  which seem to approach democracy (i.e the expressed will of the majority of the electorate...let alone he people) haven't been achieved through UK electoralism; if that is the extent of your vision then I'll leave you to it.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Go back and read what I said - if you think the only way that we can get rid of the Tories in 2020 is the LP, then you don't realise how unlikely that is to happen.



Why would Labour under popular leadership be so unlikely to win a general election?

I'm still waiting to hear an alternative way of getting rid of the tories.... from anyone on here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why would Labour under a popular leadership be so unlikely a general election?


they are not a general election and you should know this by now.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 13, 2016)

oops!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why would Labour under popular leadership be so unlikely to win a general election?
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear an alternative way of getting rid of the tories.... from anyone on here.



Corbyn is as popular as the Labour leadership is gonna get, you fucking moron.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why would Labour under popular leadership be so unlikely to win a general election?
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear an alternative way of getting rid of the tories.... from anyone on here.


quick edit i see. but i have you number, sonny jim.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 13, 2016)

This amused me - not strictly medias fault on this:

Ex-St Helens MP attacks Corbyn supporters who eat ‘croissants for breakfast’

Liverpool-born Dave Watts, now Baron Watts of Ravenhead, who was replaced by Conor McGinn at the last election, said: “My advice to my own party leadership is that they should take less notice of the London-centric hard left political class who sit around in their £1 million mansions eating their croissants at breakfast and seeking to lay the foundations for a socialist revolution.



Spoiler: punchline


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 13, 2016)

Is this the usual Hertford 'I'm with Corbyn politically but I want Labour in power' so will therefore accept any leader who can take them there even though that in reality that means voting in someone who will do the same as the Tories but a little less harshly/quickly?!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Is this the usual Hertford 'I'm with Corbyn politically but I want Labour in power' so will therefore accept any leader who can take them there even though that in reality that means voting in someone who will do the same as the Tories but a little less harshly/quickly?!


this is the usual Andrew Hertford fuckwittery, yes.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Labour don't need to become 'Blairite' again to win in 2020, but they do need to replace Corbyn.


You're not all there are you?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Corbyn is as popular as the Labour leadership is gonna get, you fucking moron.



Sure he's popular for his honesty and integrity, but can you honestly say that enough people are going to vote for him in 2020 to put Labour in power?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2016)




----------



## gosub (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Corbyn is as popular as the Labour leadership is gonna get, you fucking moron.


Net MORI satisfaction ratings after 3 months
Foot	    -21
Kinnock  +13
Smith	 +12
Blair		+27
Brown	+18
Milliband		+1
Corbyn   -17


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

MORI? Weren't they one of the polling companies that told us we were going to get a hung parliament? Fuck them.


----------



## gosub (Jan 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> MORI? Weren't they one of the polling companies that told us we were going to get a hung parliament? Fuck them.


perfect storm. (now, not May)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> MORI? Weren't they one of the polling companies that told us we were going to get a hung parliament? Fuck them.


yeh not a gallows in sight on election morning


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

I don't think you can argue with such a substantial negative tbh. They don't get it that far out.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You're not all there are you?



Throwing around inane insults and now implying that I have a mental illness just about sums up your contribution so far. Well done.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

I'm wondering how those questions were phrased and how the data was analysed. Given the nature of polling companies and quantitative research generally, the very idea of self-reflexivity is an alien concept that only qualitative researchers bother with.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

gosub said:


> Net MORI satisfaction ratings after 3 months
> Foot	    -21
> Kinnock  +13
> Smith	 +12
> ...



I'm not saying that Corbyn is popular, I'm saying he is as popular a leader as Labour is going to get - context is everything as the fortunes of the above leaders demonstrate.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Throwing around inane insults and now implying that I have a mental illness just about sums up your contribution so far. Well done.


Piss off, O ye of flawed logic.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sure he's popular for his honesty and integrity, but can you honestly say that enough people are going to vote for him in 2020 to put Labour in power?



Who do you think would be more popular?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Throwing around inane insults and now implying that I have a mental illness just about sums up your contribution so far. Well done.


i don't think you have a mental illness but i do think you don't know what the fuck you're on about, and that your critical faculties would shame a lobotomised slow-worm.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

Come now, denial gets you nowhere. The reasons for Corbyn's lack of popularity are mainly nothing to do with his competence or abilities, or even his politics. But you can't argue with the figures.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Come now, denial gets you nowhere. The reasons for Corbyn's lack of popularity are mainly nothing to do with his competence or abilities, or even his politics. But you can't argue with the figures.



Who would get better figures?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Come now, denial gets you nowhere. The reasons for Corbyn's lack of popularity are mainly nothing to do with his competence or abilities, or even his politics. But you can't argue with the figures.


I think we can argue with the polling methodology (data collection and analysis), and who commissioned the poll(s) in the first place.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

I think their figures are probably about right.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2016)

theres may and then dreaded brexit reff to come yet so be not of faint heart Corbyn fans. See how the lanscape looks after we've been hectored into a narrow yes to eu


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think their figures are probably about right.


I still question the methodology.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I think we can argue with the polling methodology (data collection and analysis), and who commissioned the poll(s) in the first place.


I'd imagine the leader popularity polls are carried out with very similar methodology each time, regardless of who commissioned them. How else would they be comparable?


----------



## gosub (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'd imagine the leader popularity polls are carried out with very similar methodology each time, regardless of who commissioned them. How else would they be comparable?


I think there would be different methodology in different polling companies, but a very stong internal logic to sticking with the same methodology within a polling company.  As you say, how else would they be comparable.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'd imagine the leader popularity polls are carried out with very similar methodology each time, regardless of who commissioned them. How else would they be comparable?


That may well be the case. However, it's the way the questions are phrased and the way in which the data is analysed that matters. Quantitative researchers may interpret data how they like and never bother to consider their own ideology in the process. At least we know who Ashcroft is and which party he supports (or supported). When it comes to polling companies, it's less clear cut.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> theres may and then dreaded brexit reff to come yet so be not of faint heart Corbyn fans. See how the lanscape looks after we've been hectored into a narrow yes to eu



I doubt he'll make it that far tbh


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

How heavily would they have to massage the figures? 

NB. I'm not suggesting Corbyn should be booted for someone shinier, but at least look at this without illusions. His ratings are woeful, outside 'the left'.


----------



## gosub (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not saying that Corbyn is popular, I'm saying he is as popular a leader as Labour is going to get - context is everything as the fortunes of the above leaders demonstrate.





SpackleFrog said:


> Who do you think would be more popular?



If you are saying best of a bad bunch, yep.  And a knife in the back, so soon after winning a popular party mandate ain't going to help any 'new' leader the PLP puts forward.
Mind you, neither will sitting on the front bench espousing policies they clearly have n't bought into.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't claim it did. I hate Blair as much as anyone, but even Blair and Brown's Labour governments were better for the sick, vulnerable, elderly, pensioners, the education system, the NHS and other public services than a continuation of a tory government in perpetuity would have been. *There was no third alternative. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yours is a counsel of despair. The answer to your question is that we are not going to be able to be rid of "tories" by any means other than creating a credible alternative to them. What Labour has done pre-Corbyn has been precisely the opposite: what they have endeavoured to do, through 3 leaders, is to out-Tory the Tories - by implication, making the Labour party more electable on the grounds that Blair, Brown and Milliband chose was simply about creating a Labour party whose policies and outlook were substantively indistinguishable from the Tories'.

It may be that you are right, and that Corbyn isn't the one to do it. But Corbyn, alone amongst the candidates as being on the more traditionally-accepted-as-Left side of politics, is the one who was elected as leader of the Labour party: it is not unreasonable to assume that this was at least part of the reason he won so convincingly. Whether he is able to translate that mandate - and at 60-odd% it's a significant mandate in the context of recent political elections of all kinds - into policy is another matter, but I cannot help feeling that your repeated evidence-free assertions that he cannot lead the party into Government are rather disingenuous. What terrifies you so much about the prospect of Corbyn as prime minister, I wonder?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> some of us are washed


Speak for yourself, Communist-boy


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


>



You don't think there's some...sadness in those eyes?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Throwing around inane insults and now implying that I have a mental illness just about sums up your contribution so far. Well done.


It's a bit of reach to suggest that was an insinuation about your mental health. Far more likely that it was an observation on your - very apparent - inability to grasp any end of any stick. You know, the sort of thing Labradors do with ease.

And if you're going to have a fit of the vapours at the mere idea of someone suggesting you're a bit short in the clue department, then quite a few might regard that as an acknowledgement on your part that you're the original unarmed man in a battle of wits, and that all you have left to debate with is outraged innocence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> You don't think there's some...sadness in those eyes?


he's thinking about Andrew Hertford


----------



## gosub (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> You don't think there's some...sadness in those eyes?




why the fuck would anyone use a KayBurleyism?  -Ever?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

gosub said:


> why the fuck would anyone use a KayBurleyism?  -Ever?


For purposes of humour, irony, and regular piss-taking of her appalling standard of journalism.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 13, 2016)

What has happened to this thread? I only click on it to catch up with the latest media exposure of Corbyn and his cabinet. All we get now are the collected criticisms by Corbyn haters. Andrew Hertford in particular who claims to have been a Corbyn supporter but is providing many anti-Corbyn comments. All of that is irrelevant to me.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 13, 2016)

Suitably timed, this piece belongs here.






(the Guardian can still fuck off though)


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> How heavily would they have to massage the figures?


I'm not suggesting numbers_ are _being massaged. I'm questioning methodology but while I'm here, I may as well mention the media's role in shaping opinion and how this is reflected in polls. Many people will take their opinions from the media and will internalise them (they then become Truths). On prompting, they will 'cough up' these opinions, which will run the gamut of narratives from "He's unelectable" to comments about his sartorial style or his refusal to press the nuclear button. The latter is framed within the media and Tory-driven discourses of 'keeping the country safe' and his alleged 'lack of patriotism'. These are the buttons that are being pressed by the polling companies.

Anyway, Greg Philo has done some research on this issue. Here's an extract.


> This media presentation of left–wing people as somehow unacceptable in contemporary politics is again quite routine, thus we have had Red Robbo (Derick Robinson), Red Ken (Livingstone), and even Red Ed (Miliband). The criticism of the last of these was often on issues such as how he ate a bacon sandwich and that he was generally a bit geeky. Arguments about the validity of different positions on for example the economy, are sparse by comparison. Tony Benn was a danger when he stood for deputy leadership of the party in 1981. He was defeated in this and once the danger had passed, he could be redefined as a national treasure — essentially a good–hearted chap but a bit ‘un–realistic’. The same fate perhaps awaits Jeremy Corbyn if the forces of the right are successful in deposing him. But at present he must be defined as a danger, irrespective of the validity of the arguments or the paradox of being a pacifist who likes terrorists.
> Is Britain's media biased against the left?



We should remember that it's not just Corbyn who is coming under attack from the media, it's anyone on the left or who appears to hold left-wing views or, alternatively, anyone who opposes government policies. Even the junior doctors are being depicted as 'enemies within'. 

One more thing: I'm not offering a conspiracy theory nor am I suggesting that people are 'sheeple'. However, people do internalise what our media 'experts' say and they will use these things to form judgements.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

I agree completely. What do you think might be done about all that?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 13, 2016)

That's a good question. Clearly, the range of acceptable political views in the media is incredibly narrow. One solution might be to bypass these channels but many people still take their views from the mainstream media. I know Corbyn is speaking directly to people via YouTube, but how many people watch his 2 minute videos? It's a tricky one, for sure.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

his new year message had about half a million views the day after it was posted, haven't looked to see if that's increased much (I doubt it).


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

His latest fb post (14 mins ago) has had 5.5k views, 109 shares, 608 'likes' and 66 comments.

These are pretty good numbers, I think. But I don't know if they're enough to make any real dent in the dominant narrative.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> His latest fb post (14 mins ago) has had 5.5k views, 109 shares, 608 'likes' and 66 comments.
> 
> These are pretty good numbers, I think. But I don't know if they're enough to make any real dent in the dominant narrative.


I think that the best hope for significant change is going to be a combination of a credible alternative to Tories (and Corbyn's Labour party is the nearest we've seen to that in the last 15-20 years), and the current government mis-stepping badly enough that the electorate go into "anything but that" mode. I'd like to think that's possible...


----------



## teqniq (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> ...
> 
> These are pretty good numbers, I think. But I don't know if they're enough to make any real dent in the dominant narrative.



I think that's a fair point but in the absence of any balanced reportage from traditional sources it is mostly being left to people on social media such as Fb to discuss and spread info (I think I said as much somewhere upthread). Hopefully it is going to be enough to make a difference.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My views have always been very close to Corbyn’s, so if Savette’s going to claim that I’m not a socialist for some reason best known to himself then he’d have to say the same about Corbyn.
> 
> I’m not saying it was, but a left of centre Labour party under someone like Andy Burnham would at least stand a chance of appealing to enough voters to get into government. Give me that rather than full on toryism until 2025.


So like you Corbyn has voted LibDem has he? And is/was in favour of a Lib-Lab alliance. You seem to think because you have some "socialist" ideas (though what they are I've no idea I've never seen you make a case for something based on socialist perspective on this board) then it doesn't matter what your actions are/have been.

It's the same stupidity that allows Polly Toynbee to claim that she's a radical while backing Copper.

You voted LibDem, you've argued for a Lib-Lab coalition, you've declared protesters the equivalent of Nazi's. Christ, in the post above you argue for a neo-liberal Labour party rather than one closer to it's Social Democratic roots - you're not a socialist, you're a silly fucking liberal who's in self-denile.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

can't we talk about something other than hertford's politics now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> by repeatedly using them as a massive bogeyman to get people to vote for a right-liberal labour party of course! get that nice young andy back from the car showroom and in charge.



Thunderbird puppet Burnham isn't even talented enough as a liar and dissembler to be a decent used-car salesman.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why would Labour under popular leadership be so unlikely to win a general election?
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear an alternative way of getting rid of the tories.... from anyone on here.



A leadership popular with whom?
I seem to recall three Blairite candidates for the party leadership being given the bums' rush.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> can't we talk about something other than hertford's politics now?


*cough* ViolentPanda


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> can't we talk about something other than hertford's politics now?


pols, just catching up with the thread. I'll leave the pillock now.



stethoscope said:


> Suitably timed, this piece belongs here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Will be interesting to see what these new members will do if/when the moderates mount their coup. The PLP aren't going  lend votes to Corbyn (or whoever) in order to have someone from the Left appear on the ballot this time. And if (as has been suggested) that Corbyn doesn't get to appear on the ballot just by right of being the current leader the moderates can stitch up any leadership contest completely.

I'm not a Labour supporter but I can't see it as anything other than a tactical mistake by left-wingers within the party not to try and replace a few of the more Blairite MPs with Corbyn supporters.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> pols, just catching up with the thread. I'll leave the pillock now.
> 
> Will be interesting to see what these new members will do if/when the moderates mount their coup. The PLP aren't going  lend votes to Corbyn (or whoever) in order to have someone from the Left appear on the ballot this time. And if (as has been suggested) that Corbyn doesn't get to appear on the ballot just by right of being the current leader the moderates can stitch up any leadership contest completely.
> 
> I'm not a Labour supporter but I can't see it as anything other than a tactical mistake by left-wingers within the party not to try and replace a few of the more Blairite MPs with Corbyn supporters.


I suspect they're trying to avoid accusations of packing the front bench out with loyalists. 

And, notwithstanding the screeching from the right wing, I think it's a sound move: these right wing Labourites are looking increasingly small-minded and petty as they grandstandingly flounce off on ever-thinner pretexts.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not a Labour supporter but I can't see it as anything other than a tactical mistake by left-wingers within the party not to try and replace a few of the more Blairite MPs with Corbyn supporters.


How might they do this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> How might they do this?



The only way this will be possible - and even then, only as a long-term project - is through re-empowering the constituency associations deeply enough that selection/de-selection becomes purely a constituency membership matter again.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> His latest fb post (14 mins ago) has had 5.5k views, 109 shares, 608 'likes' and 66 comments.
> 
> These are pretty good numbers, I think. But I don't know if they're enough to make any real dent in the dominant narrative.



Here's a comparison of Corbyn's 2 facebook pages compared to the other parties (and official labour page).

Both of his pages had engagement of over 140 thousand people, which probably means over a million people viewing each page, though there will be a fair amount of cross over, it's probably at least 1.5 million people reached between them.

eta - actually those figures are only for direct shares and likes on the original posts, and don't include shares and likes on the shared posts, which could easily double those figures, and the post reach could be significantly higher than that as facebooks algorythms really boost the visibility of posts that have a lot of likes, shares etc.

I've been monitoring this for months, and these figures are fairly standard weekly figures.

It may well be the same people being hit on a regular basis, but it's a great way of shoring up his core support, and ensuring there's a large support base that is getting regular direct messaging to bypass the mainstream media, and then pass this on to their social circle etc.

Best political social media campaign I've seen by far, though the tories made really good tactical use of it at the election this was largely with paid for advertising, I don't think corbyn has done any paid for advertising.

btw I have another angry voice in there to show the comparative reach of an independent left wing political blogger, who has a regular social media reach that's about the same as corbyns is now, and is way bigger than any of the other political parties. And he's just one bloke from Leeds.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I suspect they're trying to avoid accusations of packing the front bench out with loyalists.
> 
> And, notwithstanding the screeching from the right wing, I think it's a sound move: these right wing Labourites are looking increasingly small-minded and petty as they grandstandingly flounce off on ever-thinner pretexts.


To successfully pull off a coup the right-wing of the Labour Party has to convince members that Corbyn didn't work. That's not going to work if the members believe that Corbyn's "try" was sabotaged by the PLP.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> I agree completely. What do you think might be done about all that?



I think the key thing that will render media bias irrelevant is what is already happening; namely that over the last few years, fairly decent chunks of society have become engaged in some form of struggle over something that has a basic and direct impact on their lives for the first time and that is shaping peoples outlook and causing them to view society differently. I sometimes think we obsess a bit on the left about putting over an "alternative narrative" as somebody's bound to be about to say/has said. People learning things for themselves is the only thing that really renders the power of the media obsolete.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Lo Siento. said:


> To successfully pull off a coup the right-wing of the Labour Party has to convince members that Corbyn didn't work. That's not going to work if the members believe that Corbyn's "try" was sabotaged by the PLP.



It doesn't, I reckon they can just embarrass and humiliate him into resigning.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> It doesn't, I reckon they can just embarrass and humiliate him into resigning.



Well, I reckon anyone who's been on the left of the Labour Party for 40 years is well versed in taking embarrassment and humiliation on the chin  Besides which that'll get rid of Corbyn but it won't deliver the Labour Party to the right (certainly not the New Labour right)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> How might they do this?



Corbyn could have started by making bombing kids a three line whip/demotion/suspension issue. That's how other Parliamentary executives deal with stuff - discipline disloyal MP's. It's not like there aren't enough careerists in the PLP to put together a passable shadow cabinet that won't publicly attack you through basic patronage.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

Lo Siento. said:


> Well, I reckon anyone who's been on the left of the Labour Party for 40 years is well versed in taking embarrassment and humiliation on the chin  Besides which that'll get rid of Corbyn but it won't deliver the Labour Party to the right (certainly not the New Labour right)



But that won't matter once they've regained control of the PLP with some 'unity' candidate.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think the key thing that will render media bias irrelevant is what is already happening; namely that over the last few years, fairly decent chunks of society have become engaged in some form of struggle over something that has a basic and direct impact on their lives for the first time and that is shaping peoples outlook and causing them to view society differently. I sometimes think we obsess a bit on the left about putting over an "alternative narrative" as somebody's bound to be about to say/has said. People learning things for themselves is the only thing that really renders the power of the media obsolete.


I've been nosing on a junior doctor's strike discussion forum, and seeing how the current clusterfuck has radicalised them is very heartening - they're all making connections about whats going on way beyond the limits of their own dispute.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 13, 2016)

free spirit said:


> Here's a comparison of Corbyn's 2 facebook pages compared to the other parties (and official labour page).
> 
> Both of his pages had engagement of over 140 thousand people, which probably means over a million people viewing each page, though there will be a fair amount of cross over, it's probably at least 1.5 million people reached between them.
> 
> ...


Interesting stats. I've been thinking about Obama and how he came to power, supposedly on the back of a powerful and motivated grass roots campaign - of course there was the multi million dollar electoral machine as well. If Corbyn is to stand any chance that social media network is going to have play a massive role.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> I've been nosing on a junior doctor's strike discussion forum, and seeing how the current clusterfuck has radicalised them is very heartening - they're all making connections about whats going on way beyond the limits of their own dispute.



Exactly, I was kinda thinking this because of the doctors I talked to yesterday, and none of them had ever been on a demo before, but they were all really fired up with their strike and so many people coming to visit them. We talked a bit about organising pickets (they wanted to know if we thought they'd done ok  ) and before I left they promised to visit me when I was next on strike.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Interesting stats. I've been thinking about Obama and how he came to power, supposedly on the back of a powerful and motivated grass roots campaign - of course there was the multi million dollar electoral machine as well. If Corbyn is to stand any chance that social media network is going to have play a massive role.


yep.

Him and his team are using it as a method to issue instant rebuttals to any press nonsense, highlighting his actions, pmq's statements on topical issues etc. And he's got the 2nd account that is basically the momentum for corbyn account that is used to counter any internal attacks from the right wing of the party as well.

he'd never have been elected without the impact of social media IMO, but he also harnessed it in a brilliant way by using it to help pack out the big meetings around the country, then publicise how packed out those meetings were on a daily basis to make clear how much momentum was building behind his campaign.

It's a very intensive level of social media use, I wonder if that can really be sustained and built on through to the next election. I'd expect his enemies in the party to be biding their time and waiting for the social media people to fuck up so they can pounce and demand their sacking, and that social media accounts are brought under party control etc.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 14, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think that the best hope for significant change is going to be a combination of a credible alternative to Tories (and Corbyn's Labour party is the nearest we've seen to that in the last 15-20 years), and the current government mis-stepping badly enough that the electorate go into "anything but that" mode. I'd like to think that's possible...



I just can't imagine what would have to happen for the swing voters in English LAB-CON marginals (by whom the 2020 GE will be decided) to think that this should be their Chancellor of the Exchequer.







L-R: MI6, future CoE apparently, Greg Allman and then Three Lions.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 14, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> I just can't imagine what would have to happen for the swing voters in English LAB-CON marginals (by whom the 2020 GE will be decided) to think that this should be their Chancellor of the Exchequer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A market crash. Look what happened in Greece - the dominant party ended up with 3% of the vote


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 14, 2016)

ska invita said:


> A market crash. Look what happened in Greece - the dominant party ended up with 3% of the vote



The hope of an imminent economic apocalypse was the guttering flame around which we Conservatives huddled from 1997 - 2008. If that's the strategy then that's not a strategy.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 14, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The hope of an imminent economic apocalypse was the guttering flame around which we Conservatives huddled from 1997 - 2008. If that's the strategy then that's not a strategy.


It's not a hope for me, its an all too real fear


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

He's right though, it's no kind of strategy - waiting for the cavalry, and the cavalry being an economic collapse. Bonkers stuff.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 14, 2016)

Maybe we have a different view of the current state of the world... Osbournes own plans are of escalating cuts across two terms, peaking in 2018... The economy does win elections, and I am genuinely scared by what the near future holds. There's a lot of sick canaries down the mines.

Even without a systemic collapse the economy should be a key area to campaign on come the next election.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

I've exceedingly bleak expectations of the medium/long term economic outlook, so we're probably on a similar page as far as that goes - but I don't think just waiting for bad things to happen is a sane political strategy.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> I just can't imagine what would have to happen for the swing voters in English LAB-CON marginals (by whom the 2020 GE will be decided) to think that this should be their Chancellor of the Exchequer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're not thinking on a big enough canvas


----------



## J Ed (Jan 14, 2016)

I think that the idea that an economic crisis at this stage might even help Labour is uncertain.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I think that the idea that an economic crisis at this stage might even help Labour is uncertain.


An economic crisis isn't going to help _anybody_. But it cannot fail to hurt the government in power far more than opposition parties: it will have happened on the Tories' watch, and they'd have to do some monumental propagandising to distance themselves from that.

Particular since the edifice they are currently constructing, as they slowly nibble away at taken-for-granted structures of the State, is one which will become suddenly very flimsy-looking if significant economic collapse happened. Think of the swathes of articulate, middle-class types suddenly looking to a benefits system which turns out to be nothing like the Daily Mail et al have been telling us it is, all flat screen televisions and 2 holidays a year. All of a sudden, it's going to stop being Somebody Else's Problem for an awful lot of people.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 14, 2016)

Funnily enough I met Corbyn last weekend - he turned up at the centre co-ordinating volunteers doing flood clear up work  in leeds. There was no big media brouhaha - just him and a couple of people including one person videoing it. He also had local mp Rachael Reeves with him (she was kept away from the knives in case she stuck one in his back).
He was there for nearly an hour asking about the flooding. There was no media management, no army of spin doctors worrying about what was in shot or where people should stand etc.  He then went on to see other parts of leeds. He had done the same in york and calderdale. I reckoned he probably spent two whole days touring around the flood hit areas.
He then puts out a video based on his discussions with people and what hes seen with arguments about what should be done. In other words - he was acting like a conscientious local mp - but on a national level -  and I think people who he engaged with were very impressed with that.
Cameron flew into York for a quick photo op in wellies and fucked off - he'd have been heaved into the nearest canal if he'd shown his face anywhere near real people.
If he can get that aspect of his work - the conscientious, straightforward, hardworking bloke, listening to people and doing his best to do something about it - into the wider discourse then labour can build more support - and social media is one way of doing that.
The problem is that the narrative is still dominated by the establishment media and the westminster bubble and the people labour need to reach are the people who are poltically disengaged and uninterested who - at the last election - voted on the basis that their overall impression of labour went no further then - "well they fucked up the economy last time and that milliband looks a bit of a nob".


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

existentialist said:


> An economic crisis isn't going to help _anybody_. But it cannot fail to hurt the government in power far more than opposition parties: it will have happened on the Tories' watch, and they'd have to do some monumental propagandising to distance themselves from that.


Absolutely - the Tories reaped the whirlwind of the early 90s recession, losing hard recording the highest number of votes ever polled at the following general election.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 14, 2016)

existentialist said:


> An economic crisis isn't going to help _anybody_. But it cannot fail to hurt the government in power far more than opposition parties: it will have happened on the Tories' watch, and they'd have to do some monumental propagandising to distance themselves from that.
> 
> Particular since the edifice they are currently constructing, as they slowly nibble away at taken-for-granted structures of the State, is one which will become suddenly very flimsy-looking if significant economic collapse happened. Think of the swathes of articulate, middle-class types suddenly looking to a benefits system which turns out to be nothing like the Daily Mail et al have been telling us it is, all flat screen televisions and 2 holidays a year. All of a sudden, it's going to stop being Somebody Else's Problem for an awful lot of people.



That sort of scenario would require us to be plunged into a Greece-like scenario in which the government is unable to insulate the middle-class from the austerity measures imposed on the most vulnerable and I'm not sure anyone is predicting anything like that hitting Britain even in a repeat of a 2008 recession.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That sort of scenario would require us to be plunged into a Greece-like scenario in which the government is unable to insulate the middle-class from the austerity measures imposed on the most vulnerable and I'm not sure anyone is predicting anything like that hitting Britain even in a repeat of a 2008 recession.


Do you think that is impossible? I'm starting to wonder, with some trepidation, just how bad the effects on us of a serious world recession might be.


----------



## miktheword (Jan 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> Absolutely - the Tories reaped the whirlwind of the early 90s recession, losing hard recording the highest number of votes ever polled at the following general election.








and then, a few months later?...

The Tories; economic credibility was shot from September 1992 Black Wednesday to when 2008 happened. It didn't matter that Labour, Lib Dems had been pro ERM before, it happened on the Tories' watch. (to a significant number perhaps in 2010, it didn't matter that before the crash the Tories were arguing for less City regulation , the crash happened on Labour's watch)

The economic outlook seems sluggish at best, maybe dire. Expect similar falls in ruling party support at least.  
An alternative economic plan to neo liberalism (apparently being worked on now and across Europe) would help.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 14, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Yours is a counsel of despair. The answer to your question is that we are not going to be able to be rid of "tories" by any means other than creating a credible alternative to them. What Labour has done pre-Corbyn has been precisely the opposite: what they have endeavoured to do, through 3 leaders, is to out-Tory the Tories - by implication, making the Labour party more electable on the grounds that Blair, Brown and Milliband chose was simply about creating a Labour party whose policies and outlook were substantively indistinguishable from the Tories'.
> 
> It may be that you are right, and that Corbyn isn't the one to do it. But Corbyn, alone amongst the candidates as being on the more traditionally-accepted-as-Left side of politics, is the one who was elected as leader of the Labour party: it is not unreasonable to assume that this was at least part of the reason he won so convincingly. Whether he is able to translate that mandate - and at 60-odd% it's a significant mandate in the context of recent political elections of all kinds - into policy is another matter, but I cannot help feeling that your repeated evidence-free assertions that he cannot lead the party into Government are rather disingenuous. What terrifies you so much about the prospect of Corbyn as prime minister, I wonder?



It depends what you mean by ‘credible alternative’, surely it means a Labour Party which appeals to enough voters to get elected (and yes that will include sometime tory voters). I reject the assumption that Labour can only get into government by either out torying the tories or by embracing Corbynism. I don't think the majority of voters want either.

I’m not ‘terrified about the prospect of Corbyn as prime minister’ at all, why would I be? Crobyn’s politics aren’t very different to mine and I would be delighted if Labour won in 2020 with him as leader. What ‘terrifies’ me more than anything is the tories winning again and being in government until 2025.

You are right about evidence and it is difficult to prove that JC won’t win Labour the next election, although given his poll ratings I suggest it would be even harder to make the case that he will. I’m afraid that 60% among Labour members isn’t going to translate into anything near the 35%-40% of voters in total needed to win even a narrow majority.

Also, along with the electorate’s obvious distrust of him over the economy, probably the biggest obstacle Labour have to winning in 2020 is Corbyn’s opposition to nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the British people are wedded to the idea of an independent deterrent and imo they’ll never vote to scrap it. There’s also the question of his age, he’ll have turned 71 by the next election and 76 by the end of his first term. It shouldn’t matter, but who can honestly say that it won’t to a significant number of voters?

The issue for me is still how to defeat the tories in 2020 and unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I can’t see Labour having a cat-in-hells with JC.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 14, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It's a bit of reach to suggest that was an insinuation about your mental health. Far more likely that it was an observation on your - very apparent - inability to grasp any end of any stick. You know, the sort of thing Labradors do with ease.
> 
> And if you're going to have a fit of the vapours at the mere idea of someone suggesting you're a bit short in the clue department, then quite a few might regard that as an acknowledgement on your part that you're the original unarmed man in a battle of wits, and that all you have left to debate with is outraged innocence.



Then I don’t know what Savette was implying, but being on the receiving end it sounded that way to me. What’s striking is that instead of addressing the issues I’ve raised, he simply hurls inane schildish abuse, presumably to make up for his inability to come up with any rational counter argument…. and then goes and has a major fit of the vapours himself when I spell his name wrong.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> So like you Corbyn has voted LibDem has he? And is/was in favour of a Lib-Lab alliance. You seem to think because you have some "socialist" ideas (though what they are I've no idea I've never seen you make a case for something based on socialist perspective on this board) then it doesn't matter what your actions are/have been.



Has he? I didn’t know that but I’d be surprised if it was true. Unlike the rest of us who have the opportunity to vote tactically to keep the tories out, he has a loyalty to the party who make him their candidate.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> you've declared protesters the equivalent of Nazi's.



Not me, although I did compare anarchists who brought violence to a peaceful demonstration about five years ago to Nazis. How is this relevant?

But while we’re on the subject, I wonder what JC would say?
Jeremy Corbyn: we do not support violent protest

_“I am not in favour of violence on the streets or insurrection, I believe in doing things through persuasive democratic means. That is what we have a democratic political structure for. People have spent their lives fighting for democracy.”_

I guess he’d get called a ‘tory cunt’ if he came on here and said that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2016)

Certain posters make a big deal about polling numbers, and use terms such as "...the electorate's obvious distrust", but don't even acknowledge that those polling numbers are in the face of a concerted and sustained "monstering" campaign, the likes of which hasn't been seen since PillKinnock. That "obvious distrust" is very obviously (to anyone capable of setting aside their own issues regarding the man) an artefact of that campaign.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Not me, although I did compare anarchists who brought violence to a peaceful demonstration about five years ago to Nazis. How is this relevant?
> 
> But while we’re on the subject, I wonder what JC would say?
> Jeremy Corbyn: we do not support violent protest
> ...



Liar.
You compared the smashing of few windows to _Kristallnacht_, you pathetic jism-stain.


----------



## irf520 (Jan 14, 2016)

ska invita said:


> A market crash. Look what happened in Greece - the dominant party ended up with 3% of the vote



But it wasn't transformed into a socialist paradise, was it? The "left winger" who won huffed and puffed for a bit then folded up like a cheap suit and the Greeks ended up taking it up the arse harder than ever.


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think the key thing that will render media bias irrelevant is what is already happening; namely that over the last few years, fairly decent chunks of society have become engaged in some form of struggle over something that has a basic and direct impact on their lives for the first time and that is shaping peoples outlook and causing them to view society differently. I sometimes think we obsess a bit on the left about putting over an "alternative narrative" as somebody's bound to be about to say/has said. *People learning things for themselves is the only thing that really renders the power of the media obsolete*.



Thats what all left wing politics should be about, no need for vanguards, etc.


----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> I've been nosing on a junior doctor's strike discussion forum, and seeing how the current clusterfuck has radicalised them is very heartening - they're all making connections about whats going on way beyond the limits of their own dispute.



Any link? Ta


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

It isn't an open forum sorry.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2016)

miktheword said:


> and then, a few months later?...
> 
> The Tories; economic credibility was shot from September 1992 Black Wednesday to when 2008 happened. It didn't matter that Labour, Lib Dems had been pro ERM before, it happened on the Tories' watch. (to a significant number perhaps in 2010, it didn't matter that before the crash the Tories were arguing for less City regulation , the crash happened on Labour's watch)
> 
> ...


I suppose one possibility is that other European governments reject the neolib experiment and start making things work with a different approach, and, as is the way of these things, we find ourselves being drawn in the same direction.

After all, we have had neoliberalism across enough of Europe and the US, with all its economic consequences, particularly at the lower-income end of the scale, for a long time. And, for all but a small percentage of the population, it isn't working. It wouldn't be surprising for there to be a growing popular (though not yet political) desire to find an alternative way.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> Thats what all left wing politics should be about, no need for vanguards, etc.



But we need the revolutionary party comrade.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2016)

irf520 said:


> But it wasn't transformed into a socialist paradise, was it? The "left winger" who won huffed and puffed for a bit then folded up like a cheap suit and the Greeks ended up taking it up the arse harder than ever.



It's never a straightforward process, and it's still ongoing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 14, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> But we need the revolutionary party comrade.



Could I interest you in our paper or even a subscription to our theoretical journal?

Comradely greetings - Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Savette


Why are you still misspelling my name? Can't you read?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 14, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Then I don’t know what Savette was implying, but being on the receiving end it sounded that way to me. What’s striking is that instead of addressing the issues I’ve raised, he simply hurls inane schildish abuse, presumably to make up for his inability to come up with any rational counter argument…. and then goes and has a major fit of the vapours himself when I spell his name wrong.


You're such a sensitive soul, aren't you? Diddums.

But that last sentence is rather interesting and not for the reason you think.

Thanks for derailing the thread, btw. This isn't about _you_.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2016)

That's right, its _serviette._


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

Reading through Labour blogs, one that caught my attention argued:

"We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:

As a party, learn to debate reasonably, so we have disagreements not fights. Both left and right of the party seem convinced that organising is the way to shape the party, never persuasion.
Recreate  routes for working class people to get into politics. And by “working class” I mean manual workers and unskilled labourers who _haven’t even gone to university._
Give up on identity politics. We are not the arbiters of who is or is not sexist or racist. Positive discrimination makes us look utterly unconcerned with fair treatment of individuals.
Don’t let any issue be a taboo. Immigration is the obvious issue, but we are becoming equally unable to articulate sensible thoughts on benefit spending too.
Stop arguing over the record of the last Labour government. And in particular, don’t make future policy on the basis of continuing, or correcting, the policy of the last Labour government.
Stop attacking the media whenever we are unable to get good coverage.
Ideally, we could have a Labour Party that wasn’t dominated by underachieving middle class people who work in the public sector (like me) arguing over history and developing grudges about things nobody in the real world cares about."

I agree with it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> It depends what you mean by ‘credible alternative’, surely it means a Labour Party which appeals to enough voters to get elected (and yes that will include sometime tory voters). I reject the assumption that Labour can only get into government by either out torying the tories or by embracing Corbynism. I don't think the majority of voters want either.
> 
> I’m not ‘terrified about the prospect of Corbyn as prime minister’ at all, why would I be? Crobyn’s politics aren’t very different to mine and I would be delighted if Labour won in 2020 with him as leader. What ‘terrifies’ me more than anything is the tories winning again and being in government until 2025.
> 
> ...


You're either confused or you're trolling. The question is: which is it? \

But this is a biscuit-taker and a half:


> Unfortunately the British people are wedded to the idea of an independent deterrent and imo they’ll never vote to scrap it.



Where's your evidence?



> There’s also the question of his age, he’ll have turned 71 by the next election and 76 by the end of his first term.



Gladstone was 82 when he was last elected as PM. So what?


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2016)

> Gladstone was 82 when he was last elected as PM. So what?



Another age, before TV, 24 hour news, social media, the infantilisation of modern society, etc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> Another age, before TV, 24 hour news, social media, the infantilisation of modern society, etc.


Which tells us what exactly? That some people are more concerned with appearances? I once had a Twitter exchange with someone who said more or less the same thing: "he's too old" she opined, "he won't appeal to young people". Well, guess what? Corbyn _does_ appeal to young people.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You're such a sensitive soul, aren't you? Diddums.
> 
> But that last sentence is rather interesting and not for the reason you think.
> 
> Thanks for derailing the thread, btw. This isn't about _you_.



I haven't derailed it, all my posts have been about Jeremy Corbyn. 

It's you who keeps talking about me.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I haven't derailed it, all my posts have been about Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> It's you who keeps talking about me.


Nonsense.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Reading through Labour blogs, one that caught my attention argued:
> 
> "We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:
> 
> ...


It looks bloody suss to me . Link?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 15, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It looks bloody suss to me . Link?



Appears to come from here:
Changing The Culture Of The Party | @oldandrewuk


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Appears to come from here:
> Changing The Culture Of The Party | @oldandrewuk


OK, so written by what comes across like an unreconstructed Blairite with a pretty blatant policy of taking digs at Corbyn and his support. Discountable, I think.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 15, 2016)

Isn't he dead yet ?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It looks bloody suss to me . Link?


What do you mean?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 15, 2016)

Mass executions coming up according to the Inde. Possibly by beheading possibly all at once by machine gun, they don't specify: 

*Corbyn critics ‘fear bloodbath’ after constituency boundary changes*


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Mass executions coming up according to the Inde. Possibly by beheading possibly all at once by machine gun, they don't specify:
> 
> *Corbyn critics ‘fear bloodbath’ after constituency boundary changes*


They really don't care about winning elections.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

Indeed, their constant whining, sniping and criticism of the leadership does make the party appear more divided, and less attractive to voters.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 15, 2016)

Well, they had to come out as Tory plants sooner or later....


----------



## two sheds (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> Indeed, their constant whining, sniping and criticism of the leadership does make the party appear more divided, and less attractive to voters.



Yep and they'd be the first to demand that MPs behave honourably and unite behind the leader if a Blairite was in charge.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 15, 2016)

Oh noes, it would mean the following (amongst others) would have to seek nomination in new/redrawn seats: Hilary Benn, Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt, Liam Byrne, and Alison McGovern. A catastrophe for the Labour party I tell you.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> What do you mean?


It reads like a Labour "Progress" group manifesto, just for a start. It certainly doesn't feel like one person's coherent opinion.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Yep and they'd be the first to demand that MPs behave honourably and unite behind the leader if a Blairite was in charge.



I recall the left voting against the leadership very often indeed with no consequences, and certainly no purges.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

existentialist said:


> It reads like a Labour "Progress" group manifesto, just for a start. It certainly doesn't feel like one person's coherent opinion.



Possible I suppose. I don't know.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I recall the left voting against the leadership very often indeed with no consequences, and certainly no purges.



No consequences...really? What do you think the structural marginalisation of the vast majority of the membership in relation to policy making and selection (at local as well as national level) was about? Could it have had something to do with undermining the left within the PLP?

Interestingly the one occasion the PLP loosened its grasp, the mass membership of the Labour Party in all it's constituent parts (except that of the numerically minuscule PLP), voted for a left candidate. Were they all wrong, and if so what is the point of them? Aren't they just holding the party back?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I recall the left voting against the leadership very often indeed with no consequences, and certainly no purges.


Plenty of threats of purges, and no places in cabinet though.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> Plenty of threats of purges, and no places in cabinet though.



So nothing like what is threatened here, and certainly not on this scale.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No consequences...really? What do you think the structural marginalisation of the vast majority of the membership in relation to policy making and selection (at local as well as national level) was about? Could it have had something to do with undermining the left within the PLP?
> 
> Interestingly the one occasion the PLP loosened its grasp, the mass membership of the Labour Party in all it's constituent parts (except that of the numerically minuscule PLP), voted for a left candidate. Were they all wrong, and if so what is the point of them? Aren't they just holding the party back?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Minor league compared to what is happening within a few weeks of Corbyn's election.

The Labour Party has been heading left since 1997. More and more of the members think politics is about them, rather than the electorate. Hence we have the Tories guaranteed power until well into the 2020s.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Minor league compared to what is happening within a few weeks of Corbyn's election.
> 
> The Labour Party has been heading left since 1997. More and more of the members think politics is about them, rather than the electorate. Hence we have the Tories guaranteed power until well into the 2020s.


in the future don't make yourself look stupid by posting rubbish like this


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 15, 2016)

Simon Jenkins, of all people, comes out in support of Corbyn over Trident :

Renew Trident? It would make more sense to put Dads Army on the case



(Jenkins has argued in faviour of abolishing the UK's armed forces in the past mind you. Definitely a maverick, despite his _usual_ wingnuttery n the right)


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

That _is _wingnuttery. It's like everyone is ignoring Putin, and the fact that we have no idea who will be threatening us in 10 years.
Mutually assured destruction is the only thing that stopped mutual destruction during the cold war, so I heard someone convincingly argue the other day. It appears that if CND had their way in Britain and the US, we wouldn't be here.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So nothing like what is threatened here, and certainly not on this scale.


or in fact, worse than what's threatened here. 
'Show trials' to axe MPs disloyal to Blair


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

Things that didn't happen.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

yes, just like the current rumblings about deselection haven't happened.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> yes, just like the current rumblings about deselection haven't happened.


So we can't criticise them because they haven't happened yet? 
It's a bit different to something that was reported to be planned but didn't happen. Can you see the difference? 
Or is it that you actually think that deselection is a good thing if MPs aren't loyal to Corbyn.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That _is _wingnuttery. It's like everyone is ignoring Putin, and the fact that we have no idea who will be threatening us in 10 years.
> Mutually assured destruction is the only thing that stopped mutual destruction during the cold war, so I heard someone convincingly argue the other day. It appears that if CND had their way in Britain and the US, we wouldn't be here.


Do you lie awake at night imagining who's going to attack/threaten us? As the replicant Leon says in Blade Runner "It's painful living in fear". Do you live in fear, MarkyMarrk? 

Trident is a white elephant; a waste of money. It has no use value beyond its employment as virility symbol and magick amulet that allegedly wards off evil spirits.

People who spend their time obsessing over our independent (sic) nuclear deterrent (sic) remind me of the mutants in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, who worship a nuclear bomb.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Do you lie awake at night imagining who's going to attack/threaten us? As the replicant Leon says in Blade Runner "It's painful living in fear". Do you live in fear, MarkyMarrk?
> 
> Trident is a white elephant; a waste of money. It has no use value beyond its employment as virility symbol and magick amulet that allegedly wards off evil spirits.



I'm worried about who might attack us, and the threats from despots, yes. More importantly, I think politicians should be. 
Our nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent. That's a good thing. It has kept us safe in the past. It may continue to, and that's enough to keep it.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So we can't criticise them because they haven't happened yet?
> It's a bit different to something that was reported to be planned but didn't happen. Can you see the difference?
> Or is it that you actually think that deselection is a good thing if MPs aren't loyal to Corbyn.


I think MPs should be answerable to their local party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm worried about who might attack us, and the threats from despots, yes. More importantly, I think politicians should be.
> Our nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent. That's a good thing. It has kept us safe in the past. It may continue to, and that's enough to keep it.


yeh. in the future don't make yourself look stupid by posting rubbish like this.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm worried about who might attack us, and the threats from despots, yes. More importantly, I think politicians should be.
> Our nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent. That's a good thing. It has kept us safe in the past. It may continue to, and that's enough to keep it.


Pathetic. You're exactly the sort of person our pro-nuke politicians love because you're quite happy to live in perpetual fear. Did it ever occur to you to question their motives?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think MPs should be answerable to their local party.


Whereas I think they should be answerable to the electorate. i.e. the 9 million who voted for them, not the few who just joined the Labour Party to ruin it.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Pathetic. You're exactly the sort of person our pro-nuke politicians love because you're quite happy to live in perpetual fear. Did it ever occur to you to question their motives?


I have to say I'm not about to be convinced by someone with your style of argument. And no, I'm not a web liberal. 
Perhaps you want to get rid of all the armed forces as well.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I have to say I'm not about to be convinced by someone with your style of argument.


That's rich coming from someone who is wholly incapable of constructing an argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Whereas I think they should be answerable to the electorate. i.e. the 9 million who voted for them, not the few who just joined the Labour Party to ruin it.


but the 9m people who voted labour don't vote to decide who should be the labour candidate. the selection of the candidate is a labour party internal matter. do you see this? it isn't a tricky concept. not for anyone else, anyway.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> That's rich coming from someone who is wholly incapable of constructing an argument.


Here we go. Exactly the same style as those who seek to make the Labour Party unelectable.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Here we go. Exactly the same style as those who seek to make the Labour Party unelectable.


You're trolling...and I'm not a member of the Labour Party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Here we go. Exactly the same style as those who seek to make the Labour Party unelectable.


this is another example of the rubbish i was talking about.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 15, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Simon Jenkins, of all people, comes out in support of Corbyn over Trident :
> 
> Renew Trident? It would make more sense to put Dads Army on the case
> 
> ...



Jenkins is right about Trident, as is Corbyn, but most of the electorate are still wedded to the idea that we'd all be doomed without our 'independent' nuclear deterrent and they're never going to vote to remove it, at least not for a long time yet. 

Which kind of answers Jenkins' question about why Benn, Falconer, Eagle etc have chosen to use Trident as their main platform to attack Corbyn.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You're trolling...and I'm not a member of the Labour Party.



Thank god for that!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Thank god for that!


I wouldn't join a party that allows the likes of you to become a member.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Jenkins is right about Trident, as is Corbyn, but most of the electorate are still wedded to the idea that we'd all be doomed without our 'independent' nuclear deterrent and they're never going to vote to remove it, at least not for a long time yet.


This isn't an argument: it's confused mush. Furthermore, you can't claim that "most of the electorate" want Trident without providing some numbers to support your claim. Can you do that?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> ...Trident is a white elephant; a waste of money. It has no use value beyond its employment as virility symbol and magick amulet that allegedly wards off evil spirits.



What about all the 'defence' contractors, mostly American who stand to make vast sums out of it should it be renewed? to them I imagine it is very useful indeed, perhaps even considered necessary.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Possible I suppose. I don't know.


No, I suppose you wouldn't. Rather unwise, surely, to go around agreeing with things you don't really know, though...?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> in the future don't make yourself look stupid by posting rubbish like this


Pah, that's just the whipped cream of stupid, layered onto a complex trifle of fuckwit, idiot, and clueless. With little flakes of the Toasted Almonds Of WTF.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Here we go. Exactly the same style as those who seek to make the Labour Party unelectable.


In case you didn't notice the result of the last election, and the one before that, the Labour Party has _already_ made itself unelectable. Whatever Corbyn might do, he certainly can't make the situation any worse - do these apologists for "New" Labour really think that, having been comprehensively shown the door by the electorate twice, more of the same is somehow going to magically work next time?

I'd have recommended original thinking to you, rather than merely parrotting the party line of others, only I fear that you'd find it impossible.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

teqniq said:


> What about all the 'defence' contractors, mostly American who stand to make vast sums out of it should it be renewed? to them I imagine it is very useful indeed, perhaps even considered necessary.


As a weapon of war, it is of little practical use. It is, as you point out, a massive source of income for 'defence' contractors, companies and their rentier chums.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> As a weapon of war, it is of little practical use. It is, as you point out, a massive source of income for 'defence' contractors, companies and their rentier chums.


I wasn't trying to be nit-picky. I just think that people can easily overlook the vast sums of money involved in what is indeed a white elephant and a vanity project.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Minor league compared to *what is happening* within a few weeks of Corbyn's election.
> 
> The Labour Party has been heading left since 1997. More and more of the members think politics is about them, rather than the electorate. Hence we have the Tories guaranteed power until well into the 2020s.



1. What is actually happening as opposed to what is being speculated on - and how is it 'minor league' when compared to the changes to the Labour Party from the mid 1980s onward? Remember history didn't begin in 1997.

2. The members are part of the electorate so politics is about them; you should be seeking to enfranchise more people in the policy making process rather than fewer.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Whereas I think they should be answerable to the electorate. i.e. the 9 million who voted for them, not the few who just joined the Labour Party to ruin it.



As I said all sections of the Labour party barring the PLP voted for Corbyn, so are they all wreckers like the 'few who just joined the Labour Party to ruin it'? Or are you just ignoring inconvenient facts?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

existentialist said:


> In case you didn't notice the result of the last election, and the one before that, the Labour Party has _already_ made itself unelectable. Whatever Corbyn might do, he certainly can't make the situation any worse - do these apologists for "New" Labour really think that, having been comprehensively shown the door by the electorate twice, more of the same is somehow going to magically work next time?
> 
> I'd have recommended original thinking to you, rather than merely parrotting the party line of others, only I fear that you'd find it impossible.


It's you that is parroting the party line.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> This isn't an argument: it's confused mush. Furthermore, you can't claim that "most of the electorate" want Trident without providing some numbers to support your claim. Can you do that?


Poll: 25 of Brits and 48 of Scots think UK should scrap Trident


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> This isn't an argument: it's confused mush. Furthermore, you can't claim that "most of the electorate" want Trident without providing some numbers to support your claim. Can you do that?


FactCheck: Does Britain want to scrap Trident?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> This isn't an argument: it's confused mush. Furthermore, you can't claim that "most of the electorate" want Trident without providing some numbers to support your claim. Can you do that?


HuffPost Labour Conference Poll: Little Support For Scrapping Trident


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's you that is parroting the party line.


Care to explain how? (I shan't hold my breath...)

Because, from here, that response looks like no more than "No, *you* smell"...


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Care to explain how? (I shan't hold my breath...)
> 
> Because, from here, that response looks like no more than "No, *you* smell"...


It is you backing the current Labour leadership in every post on the Labour party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's you that is parroting the party line.


contradiction not argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It is you backing the current Labour leadership in every post on the Labour party.


it should not be news to you that _contradiction not argument_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Jenkins is right about Trident, as is Corbyn, but most of the electorate are still wedded to the idea that we'd all be doomed without our 'independent' nuclear deterrent and they're never going to vote to remove it, at least not for a long time yet..


What do you base this judgement on? Nobody has ever been given a vote on whether or not to remove nuclear weapons.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

I'm guessing that those numbers will be dismissed because they're inconvenient.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> As a weapon of war, it is of little practical use. It is, as you point out, a massive source of income for 'defence' contractors, companies and their rentier chums.


tbh it is of no practical use against many of the foes this country is likely to have in the next 20 years, few of whom will be 'traditional' states like russia or china and more of whom will be 'non-state' actors like isis and al-qaeda.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It is you backing the current Labour leadership in every post on the Labour party.


If that's how you're interpreting my posts, then I don't think there's much hope for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That _is _wingnuttery. It's like everyone is ignoring Putin, and the fact that we have no idea who will be threatening us in 10 years.
> Mutually assured destruction is the only thing that stopped mutual destruction during the cold war, so I heard someone convincingly argue the other day. It appears that if CND had their way in Britain and the US, we wouldn't be here.


despite my previous pleas you appear hellbent on appearing a 'wingnut', to use your term. do you have a shred of evidence that the campaign for nuclear disarmament organised in the united states?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

existentialist said:


> If that's how you're interpreting my posts, then I don't think there's much hope for you.


tbh i am - albeit reluctantly - coming to the conclusion that MarkyMarrk is not doing his damndest to appear stupid despite being a well-read and intelligent young man but that he is stupid and wilfully ignorant.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> HuffPost Labour Conference Poll: Little Support For Scrapping Trident


Groovy but what those numbers don't tell us is why people think that way. Obviously, you would be unwilling to admit that the reason why people believe Trident to be important is because the incredibly weak case for renewing it is constantly spouted by pro-nuke politicians and their ill-informed lackies in the media. Therefore the range of permitted opinion on Trident is narrow and the field of discourse is almost always skewed in favour of pro-nuke types. As I said to you earlier, it doesn't occur to you to question the motives of the pro-nuke politicians and the media.

I seriously doubt anyone wakes up in the morning and says "Thank G*d for Trident and G*d bless our politicians for keeping us safe".


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> HuffPost Labour Conference Poll: Little Support For Scrapping Trident


Great, you can prove stuff with numbers. How about constructing a coherent argument? Is that beyond your ken?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Poll: 25 of Brits and 48 of Scots think UK should scrap Trident


Yeah, but who did they ask? It's funny but whenever these [push] polls are conducted, they always seem to miss out people like me. You do realise that the press routinely cherry picks poll data, don't you?


----------



## irf520 (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What do you base this judgement on? Nobody has ever been given a vote on whether or not to remove nuclear weapons.



It's quite likely that they would vote to keep them since the media never misses an opportunity to say Putin would nuke us all if he got the chance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

irf520 said:


> It's quite likely that they would vote to keep them since the media never misses an opportunity to say Putin would nuke us all if he got the chance.


being as putin has more, bigger and indeed better nuclear weapons than the united kingdom, it's not like our puny 16 or 32 or whatnot are really going to deter him. he could turn all the united kingdom and northern ireland and the bits and bobs of empire into smoking irradiated wastes and still have hundreds of bombs left over: whereas we'd still be within the a's on our target list when our last bomb exploded.


----------



## irf520 (Jan 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> being as putin has more, bigger and indeed better nuclear weapons than the united kingdom, it's not like our puny 16 or 32 or whatnot are really going to deter him. he could turn all the united kingdom and northern ireland and the bits and bobs of empire into smoking irradiated wastes and still have hundreds of bombs left over: whereas we'd still be within the a's on our target list when our last bomb exploded.



Not to mention the question of what he would gain by nuking us.
But all that would be irrelevant. The 'argument' would be Putin can't nuke us now because we can nuke him back; if we got rid of Trident we wouldn't be able to do that. Most of the electorate won't analyse the situation further.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Groovy but what those numbers don't tell us is why people think that way. Obviously, you would be unwilling to admit that the reason why people believe Trident to be important is because the incredibly weak case for renewing it is constantly spouted by pro-nuke politicians and their ill-informed lackies in the media. Therefore the range of permitted opinion on Trident is narrow and the field of discourse is almost always skewed in favour of pro-nuke types. As I said to you earlier, it doesn't occur to you to ask question of the motives of the pro-nuke politicians and the media.
> 
> I seriously doubt anyone wakes up in the morning and says "Thank G*d for Trident and G*d bless our politicians for keeping us safe".


tomorrow morning i will wake up and exclaim 'thank the lord for trident, to which we can tie MarkyMarrk and launch him from a submarine'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm guessing that those numbers will be dismissed because they're inconvenient.


Read them more carefully and you find 56% favouring replacing Trident. So there's a soft majority actively in favour of nukes overall, which becomes a soft minority in Scotland, where people are more exercised in their thoughts about it and it has been on the forefront of the political agenda for a while. Making a case and getting things discussed makes a difference to these things. 

Plus, as ever, you should never just go on one poll (and I'd be saying the same if it were giving a majority against) - you need to bear a few things in mind, including methodology, the phrasing of the question and the timing of the question (what else is in the news at the time - this matters). A better idea is given by metadata from a few polls. And an even better idea is given by metadata from a few polls once the issue has been at the front of the political agenda for a period of time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Read them more carefully and you find 56% favouring replacing Trident. So there's a soft majority actively in favour of nukes overall, which becomes a soft minority in Scotland, where people are more exercised in their thoughts about it and it has been on the forefront of the political agenda for a while. Making a case and getting things discussed makes a difference to these things.
> 
> Plus, as ever, you should never just go on one poll (and I'd be saying the same if it were giving a majority against) - you need to bear a few things in mind, including methodology, the phrasing of the question and the timing of the question (what else is in the news at the time - this matters). A better idea is given by metadata from a few polls. And an even better idea is given by metadata from a few polls once the issue has been at the front of the political agenda for a period of time.


it's nuanced opinions like these that make MarkyMarrk's blood boil.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Great, you can prove stuff with numbers. How about constructing a coherent argument? Is that beyond your ken?


You asked for numbers. I gave them. "Thank you" would suffice.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Not to mention the question of what he would gain by nuking us.
> But all that would be irrelevant. The 'argument' would be Putin can't nuke us now because we can nuke him back; if we got rid of Trident we wouldn't be able to do that. Most of the electorate won't analyse the situation further.



I don't think Putin analyses it much further. The prospect of Mutually agreed destruction kept us alive during the cold war.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The prospect of Mutually agreed destruction kept us alive during the cold war.


This argument is fireproof right up to the day when it isn't.

Also, tell that to the families of the dead in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the other countries the superpowers bombed during the Cold War.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You asked for numbers. I gave them. "Thank you" would suffice.


i think at this point most people would use the efficacious word.


----------



## gosub (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This argument is fireproof right up to the day when it isn't.
> 
> Also, tell that to the families of the dead in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the other countries the superpowers bombed during the Cold War.



 That if Vietnam or Afghanistan had had nukes, they wouldn't have been invaded.   More than likely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

gosub said:


> That if Vietnam or Afghanistan had had nukes, they wouldn't have been invaded.   More than likely.


Every country in the world should have nukes! That way we can all be safe.


----------



## Flanflinger (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What do you base this judgement on? Nobody has ever been given a vote on whether or not to remove nuclear weapons.



The 1983 GE was the closest we have got to that vote.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> The 1983 GE was the closest we have got to that vote.


I'd say two things to that - 

1. it wasn't that close, given that it was also, and probably mainly, about a whole host of other things. 

2. It was over 30 years ago. Things change.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> The 1983 GE was the closest we have got to that vote.


but no cigar


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 15, 2016)

It does seem from the polls that there's a majority favouring keeping Trident. That's not surprising when the argument against is barely heard though is it? A big part of the reason Labour has just kept lurching to the right is the belief that there's a fixed (and very right wing) electorate and the trick is to keep following them instead of deciding what the party stands for and trying to convince people of that.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 15, 2016)

Ken's got the old heave-ho from the review.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Reading through Labour blogs, one that caught my attention argued:
> 
> "We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:
> 
> ...



All very well, but what you've posted misses the importance of the party's relationship to power for some members. Bear in mind that for some Parliamentary Labour Party members, a Labour Party seeking government can only ever be a neoliberal Labour Party sitting firmly behind all facets of neoliberalism, subverting the party's policies and politics to the sustainment of neoliberalism.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> All very well, but what you've posted misses the importance of the party's relationship to power for some members. Bear in mind that for some Parliamentary Labour Party members, a Labour Party seeking government can only ever be a neoliberal Labour Party sitting firmly behind all facets of neoliberalism, subverting the party's policies and politics to the sustainment of neoliberalism.



Who in the PLP says this? Have you got a link?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Mass executions coming up according to the Inde. Possibly by beheading possibly all at once by machine gun, they don't specify:
> 
> *Corbyn critics ‘fear bloodbath’ after constituency boundary changes*



And yet once you've read the article, the fact that some of Corbyn's critics find their seats under threat turns out to have nothing to do with them being "Corbyn critics", and everything to do with bad luck, the whiney bastards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

these 'corbyn critics' are as nice as the people you used to see introduced on the news as 'saudi dissidents'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Who in the PLP says this? Have you got a link?



My own MP - Chuka Umunna - has made quite clear his commitment to the perpetuation of neoliberalism. Progress members also make this quite clear - their _raison d'etre_ is perpetuation of the "new Labour" vision - essentially the submission of Labour Party politics to neoliberalism.
As for links, you only need read through the Progress website, although I'd advise keeping a bottle of your favourite indigestion remedy handy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> Indeed, their constant whining, sniping and criticism of the leadership does make the party appear more divided, and less attractive to voters.



That appears to be the intention.


----------



## irf520 (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Who in the PLP says this? Have you got a link?



Why do you need a link? Look at their policies last time they were in power. It was mostly about sucking up to mega corporations. You could barely put a rizla paper between Labour and Tory policies.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> That appears to be the intention.


It is the intention. Dethrone and take over before the next GE, or dethrone and take over after, they don't really mind, although presumably they'd prefer _before_. What isn't an option (for the  right of the party) is a Corbyn victory in 2020.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Oh noes, it would mean the following (amongst others) would have to seek nomination in new/redrawn seats: Hilary Benn, Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt, Liam Byrne, and Alison McGovern. A catastrophe for the Labour party I tell you.



Chuckles I wouldn't piss on if he were burning, given the atrocious job he's done for those of his constituents that live in social housing or squats. Hunt (according to Stokey mates) is a condescending shambles, and Byrne is a full-blown Blairite with no room for anything remotely socially-driven, only the market.


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2016)

It strikes me that it's the "Corbyn critics" who have abandoned the Labour Party as "unelectable".

If they hadn't, they'd not be shooting their mouths off to any hack from a Tory rag who'll buy them a drink or three... would they?

We don't see as much, or any, mouth-shooting from the friends of Jeremy, do we?


E2A: I seem to have been preceded...


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> My own MP - Chuka Umunna - has made quite clear his commitment to the perpetuation of neoliberalism. Progress members also make this quite clear - their _raison d'etre_ is perpetuation of the "new Labour" vision - essentially the submission of Labour Party politics to neoliberalism.
> As for links, you only need read through the Progress website, although I'd advise keeping a bottle of your favourite indigestion remedy handy.


I'll take that as a no.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Why do you need a link? Look at their policies last time they were in power. It was mostly about sucking up to mega corporations. You could barely put a rizla paper between Labour and Tory policies.


I'll take that as a 'no' as well.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chuckles I wouldn't piss on if he were burning, given the atrocious job he's done for those of his constituents that live in social housing or squats. Hunt (according to Stokey mates) is a condescending shambles, and Byrne is a full-blown Blairite with no room for anything remotely socially-driven, only the market.


They should not be elected next time then if so unpopular in the constituencies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Minor league compared to what is happening within a few weeks of Corbyn's election.
> 
> The Labour Party has been heading left since 1997. More and more of the members think politics is about them, rather than the electorate. Hence we have the Tories guaranteed power until well into the 2020s.



The Labour Party headed right politically and economically from 1994 until they lost power in 2010. What you claim flies in the face of facts to the contrary.
A few examples:
1) The Labour Party elite re-engineered the party's constitution without wider membership approval.
2) The Labour Party hierarchy centralised power away from constituency parties.
3) The Labour Party de-regulated the economy further than the Tories had done, with the inevitable (to any of us who can read history books and or do basic arithmetic) consequences.
4) The Labour Party engaged in crony capitalism on a wide scale, and expanded the "revolving door" between business and government.

All the above are moves to the right, and all had a powerful effect on removing accountability from government.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Labour Party headed right politically and economically from 1994 until they lost power in 2010. What you claim flies in the face of facts to the contrary.
> A few examples:
> 1) The Labour Party elite re-engineered the party's constitution without wider membership approval.
> 2) The Labour Party hierarchy centralised power away from constituency parties.
> ...



Blair to Brown to Miliband to Corbyn.

IE left to left to left.
Arithmetic? Look at the elections.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> They should not be elected next time then if so unpopular in the constituencies.



You don't appear to understand either electoral dynamics, political tribalism or the current political system of "parliamentary democracy".
Local party members don't have the power to choose their prospective parliamentary candidate. The hierarchy of the national party allocated that power to itself 20 years ago, in order to parachute followers of the Blairite project into seats.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Blair to Brown to Miliband to Corbyn.
> 
> IE left to left to left.
> Arithmetic? Look at the elections.



Not really. Corbyn is the first in a long time to try and shift Labour from it's centre-right (Blairite) position. And look at the consternation it's creating!


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't appear to understand either electoral dynamics, political tribalism or the current political system of "parliamentary democracy".
> Local party members don't have the power to choose their prospective parliamentary candidate. The hierarchy of the national party allocated that power to itself 20 years ago, in order to parachute followers of the Blairite project into seats.



Yes, but the above won't be elected by the electorate if you are correct with your ear to the ground.
I suspect you talk bollocks and they'll be elected with significant majorities.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Not really. Corbyn is the first in a long time to try and shift Labour from it's centre-right (Blairite) position. And look at the consternation it's creating!


Miliband didn't try to move Labour left? Ha hahahaha. Now we're in fantasy ultra-left world.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't appear to understand either electoral dynamics, political tribalism or the current political system of "parliamentary democracy".
> Local party members don't have the power to choose their prospective parliamentary candidate. The hierarchy of the national party allocated that power to itself 20 years ago, in order to parachute followers of the Blairite project into seats.


Which is why they are chucking their dolly out of the pram these days due to the suggestion that this choice be handed back to the CLP MarkyMarrk


----------



## Nylock (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Miliband didn't try to move Labour left? Ha hahahaha. Now we're in fantasy ultra-left world.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2016)

milliband was to the left of blair in the manner that pinochet was left of hitler


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

I'm chucking my toys out of the pram at the destruction of the labour party by those who have been members five minutes and supported other parties in previous elections. 

Yes. 

It's clear that when the election goes awry Corbynistas will call it the media's fault.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Miliband didn't try to move Labour left? Ha hahahaha. Now we're in fantasy ultra-left world.



What things did he actually do/say to shift it left then?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 15, 2016)

PS. I couldn't give a shit what happens to Labour.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> milliband was to the left of blair in the manner that pinochet was left of hitler


We are in batshit doolally far left world here. 
No wonder the electorate fuck the Labour Party off.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> PS. I couldn't give a shit what happens to Labour.


This makes discussion pointless with trolls like you that don't care.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm chucking my toys out of the pram at the destruction of the labour party by those who have been members five minutes and supported other parties in previous elections.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It's clear that when the election goes awry Corbynistas will call it the media's fault.


Christ almighty.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This makes discussion pointless with trolls like you that don't care.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm chucking my toys out of the pram at the destruction of the labour party by those who have been members five minutes and supported other parties in previous elections.



One more time: all sections of the Labour Party except the PLP backed Corbyn. Why do you persist in the 'johnny come lately wreckers' bullshit?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm chucking my toys out of the pram at the destruction of the labour party by those who have been members five minutes and supported other parties in previous elections.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It's clear that when the election goes awry Corbynistas will call it the media's fault.



Shit Dan Hodges, 

You're just a shit Dan Hodges, 

Shit Daaaaaaan Hooooooodges


----------



## teqniq (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm chucking my toys out of the pram at the destruction of the labour party by those who have been members five minutes and supported other parties in previous elections.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It's clear that when the election goes awry Corbynistas will call it the media's fault.



If you are right the media will hold a hight degree of responsibility. They are very much part of the problem. Corbyn's political position is not in reality 'hard left', he is a social democrat. Everything has drifted so far to the right his views and policies are deemed complete anathema.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We are in batshit doolally far left world here.
> No wonder the electorate fuck the Labour Party off.


you know what an exagerration for comedy is mark?

I spent the entirety of eds campaigning mocking this idea that he was the new lenin. Asked lots of people what policies he proposed were left? All I got was 'red ed'. Look, he eats a bacon sandwhich akwardly! Then after GE the labour right lined up to solemnly swear that now and forever more you cannot win an election from the left and they are sorry for trying (they didn't). Then your entire party, all sections gives an old labour social democrat the biggest mandate in recent history, more than St Tony of Blair. Seems to be a disconnect in what a vocal labour right PLP want and what the party as a whole want.


----------



## gosub (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's clear that when the election goes awry Corbynistas will call it the media's fault.



To be honest,  I'm already confused by how bad polling can be dismissed coz he's getting bad press.   The poll numbers may well be down to the hate/hate relationship he's having with the press, but they are still the poll numbers.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

This isn't even fun.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Blair to Brown to Miliband to Corbyn.



Ah, several fallacious claims.
First, Blair to Brown was *not* a shift leftward, regardless of the fatuous claims made by the press about Brown being a secret lefty because of the vaguely-redistributive qualities of Tax Credits - a policy which was actually the state shoring up business by means of an indirect subsidy. Brown enacted no "leftist" policies, and Blair only enacted one notable policy that could broadly be called "centre left" - the nation "minimum wage".
Brown to Miliband is only a shift leftward if you count Miliband's flirtations with "Blue Labour" ideas and time-limited state intervention on utilities prices as leftism. They may have been represented as leftism, but any non value-laden analysis points up that such policies tend to be politically-neutral, in order to appeal as widely as possible (check out the support for the leccy freeze - strong support across the board from right-voters polled).
Miliband to Corbyn *is* a shift leftward, but only in regard to rhetoric, and even that is strongly contested within the Parliamentary Party (although not in the national membership).




> IE left to left to left.



  



> Arithmetic? Look at the elections.



I have. In detail. What do you think that the electoral results in the last...lets say 3...elections show?


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This makes discussion pointless with trolls like you that don't care.



Oh, I cared alright. For too many years. And then I accepted only recently they were never going to challenge neo-liberalism, and their version of politics was just a 'not as quick/hard cuts and private ideology as the Tories' one. And yet, Corbyn is about the only thing for years to try and shift that a little (still to only democratic socialist at best), and Labour (and you seemingly) are criticising that too?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm worried about who might attack us, and the threats from despots, yes. More importantly, I think politicians should be.
> Our nuclear deterrent is a nuclear deterrent. That's a good thing. It has kept us safe in the past. It may continue to, and that's enough to keep it.



Woeful analytical thinking. There is *no* proof that the UK nuclear deterrent (as opposed to, say, the US and Russian nuclear deterrents)has prevented attacks/"kept us safe". Since we decommissioned our air-dropped nuclear bombs and the planes that carried them, the "threat" our nuclear submarines pose has been minimal, unless you believe the briefings/PR puffs that the MoD puts out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think MPs should be answerable to their local party.



This. Absolutely this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Here we go. Exactly the same style as those who seek to make the Labour Party unelectable.



Not really. He's making an obvious point - your ability to assemble a coherent argument behind your opinions isn't great, on the evidence of your posts on various threads. Your arguments appear to consist of consensus opinion recycled as original thought.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

existentialist said:


> In case you didn't notice the result of the last election, and the one before that, the Labour Party has _already_ made itself unelectable. Whatever Corbyn might do, he certainly can't make the situation any worse - do these apologists for "New" Labour really think that, having been comprehensively shown the door by the electorate twice, more of the same is somehow going to magically work next time?



Hence the desperate scramble by the Labour right/Progressites to provide and perpetuate the narrative that a turn leftward was and is responsible for electoral disaffection - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm chucking my toys out of the pram at the destruction of the labour party by those who have been members five minutes and supported other parties in previous elections.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It's clear that when the election goes awry Corbynistas will call it the media's fault.


_If_ the election goes awry, they'd have a point. And the right-wing Labour Party and our venal and supine press will have only themselves to blame - nobody could seriously suggest that the monstering of Corbyn by both of those has been in any way creditable or decent, far less honest.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This makes discussion pointless with trolls like you that don't care.


So _anyone_ who disagrees with you is a "troll"?

That's quite some projection.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Poll: 25 of Brits and 48 of Scots think UK should scrap Trident





MarkyMarrk said:


> FactCheck: Does Britain want to scrap Trident?





MarkyMarrk said:


> HuffPost Labour Conference Poll: Little Support For Scrapping Trident



May I suggest you review the datasets of those polls, particularly the sample sizes in comparison to the size of the electorate. projections from such small samples is no better than haruspexy.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> May I suggest you review the datasets of those polls, particularly the sample sizes in comparison to the size of the electorate. projections from such small samples is no better than haruspexy.


*liked for new word that I had to look up.*


----------



## two sheds (Jan 15, 2016)

From that Inde article: 



> the fate of many of his internal critics will be in the hands of party members who will choose the candidates when new seats are created.



If the Blairites get voted out it will be a Stalinist purge by extremists, if they don't it will be a decisive rejection of Corbyn's candidates by the party rank and file.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'll take that as a no.



Take it as me recommending that rather giving you a link to a single article, you inform yourself by reading around a subject that obviously interests you. Personally, I don't form opinions based on single articles, and I find anyone that does somewhat juvenile.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

I wonder what the point of a political party is, if not to represent the will of it's membership? 

What MarkyMark seems to be arguing for is for the membership to fall in line with the will of the political class who until recently were in control of the party, despite the recent, total rejection of that political class by all parts of the party other than the PLP. Have I got that right?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 15, 2016)

I reckon so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> They should not be elected next time then if so unpopular in the constituencies.



Their constituents have *no power* to alter the choice of unpopular MPs under current party rules (when Labour did, MPs were a lot more representative of the concerns of their constituents). If they want a Labour MP, they have to vote for the Party's place-man.
I shouldn't be having to explain this stuff to you, if you're a Labour supporter. You should *know* this already.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes, but the above won't be elected by the electorate if you are correct with your ear to the ground.
> I suspect you talk bollocks and they'll be elected with significant majorities.



You miss the point entirely, which is that given the choice of electing a Labour MP who happens to be a wankshaft, or not voting - letting the opposition get in - or voting for the opposition, people will consistently vote for the wankshaft because they're standing under the Labour banner, hence Tristram Hunt, for example.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

Nylock said:


> Which is why they are chucking their dolly out of the pram these days due to the suggestion that this choice be handed back to the CLP MarkyMarrk



Yep. They're shit-scared of the re-empowerment of local parties, and the effect it would have on their current sinecures.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> This. Absolutely this.


Why don't you think MPs should be accountable to their constituents? that's what you're promoting.

You also write about how horrific local MPs are bit then say they'll get voted for anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2016)

thats generally how a safe seat works


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

existentialist said:


> _If_ the election goes awry, they'd have a point. And the right-wing Labour Party and our venal and supine press will have only themselves to blame - nobody could seriously suggest that the monstering of Corbyn by both of those has been in any way creditable or decent, far less honest.


So there are no circumstances where Corbynistas - ignoring the electorate as they are - can be blamed.

Convenient and exactly why the left are so marginal.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats generally how a safe seat works


Another one with contempt for the electorate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I wonder what the point of a political party is, if not to represent the will of it's membership?
> 
> What MarkyMark seems to be arguing for is for the membership to fall in line with the will of the political class who until recently were in control of the party, despite the recent, total rejection of that political class by all parts of the party other than the PLP. Have I got that right?


Would you like to respond to this, MM?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Another one with contempt for the electorate.


there can be upsets and how safe were seats in scotland once upon a time? But for a variety of factors there is such a thing as a safe seat. For any party. Theres some rock solid blue territories that haven't returned anything other than tories since before the chartists*


*probably


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So there are no circumstances where Corbynistas - ignoring the electorate as they are - can be blamed.
> 
> Convenient and exactly why the left are so marginal.


Which electorate are you talking of here?

Corbyn is extremely good at winning elections, btw. Has turned a majority of 5,000 when first elected to Islington North into a majority of over 20,000 at the last election. And then of course, there was the leadership election, in which he swept the board against his opponents.

So, big mandate from his constituency, and big mandate from his party. Clear > 50% from all the votes in each case - ie more than for all his opponents put together selected him as their first choice, a proper mandate. Few politicians have such a clear mandate from their respective electorates.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Would you like to respond to this, MM?


he doesn't, in any meaningful way. I've tried before.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why don't you think MPs should be accountable to their constituents? that's what you're promoting.
> 
> You also write about how horrific local MPs are bit then say they'll get voted for anyway.



How do you think MPs should be selected?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> he doesn't, in any meaningful way. I've tried before.


He's one of those idiots who come on here and boast that they went to Oxbridge, as well. 

_Well done. *pats head* You're still an idiot. _


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

we live in Brechtian times.

_After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another? _


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Could I interest you in our paper or even a subscription to our theoretical journal?
> 
> Comradely greetings - Louis MacNeice



No, yours is shit you sectarian bastard


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why don't you think MPs should be accountable to their constituents? that's what you're promoting.



Are you incapable of reading?
I'm in favour of MPs being absolutely accountable to their constituents.



> You also write about how horrific local MPs are bit then say they'll get voted for anyway.



I'm saying that *as party policy stands* there are no deselection mechanisms, so voters have a simple choice - vote for a Labour wanker or a Tory. If your constituency is one the vast majority that is *not* a swing constituency, then currently you're fucked if your constituency tribally votes Labour, and you end up with a knob-end as an MP.

There, have I explained that simply enough for you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So there are no circumstances where Corbynistas - ignoring the electorate as they are - can be blamed.
> 
> Convenient and exactly why the left are so marginal.



Please elucidate *HOW* Corbyn's supporters are "ignoring the electorate".


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

You equate party members with constituents. It's exactly the problem all Corbynistas have. Ignore the population.

Do you know anyone who voted Tory last time who will now vote Labour because of Corbyn? There must be loads, the way you're going on. Because not one Corbynista has ever told me they have found one. They seem to be suggesting that a mass of non-voters will start voting. Even though they are non-voters ao it's a stupid strategy, and non-voters are apparently no more left wing than voters. 

Oh, and some nonsense about how they will win all the SNP votes back (we still would have lost with every single SNP vote)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please elucidate *HOW* Corbyn's supporters are "ignoring the electorate".


By not joining the Tory party? 

It's logic, innit: Tories won the last election, therefore tories are the will of the electorate, therefore not becoming a tory is to be fundamentally anti-democratic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's one of those idiots who come on here and boast that they went to Oxbridge, as well.
> 
> _Well done. *pats head* You're still an idiot. _



As I said elsewhere, I'm not impressed that Cambridge's colleges appear to be producing graduates ever less able to engage in analytical and critical thought. At least on the evidence MarkyMarrk provides.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Would you like to respond to this, MM?


I'm not a fan of mob aggression.

This thread is evidence of why the far left is fucked. And why the Labour Party is.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

Yes, personal insults. More illustrations of the far lefts favoured tactics.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not a fan of mob aggression.
> 
> This thread is evidence of why the far left is fucked. And why the Labour Party is.


That's not mob aggression. 

This might be, though, if others join in.

You don't want to respond to questions? Well why don't you fuck off, then?


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

it's pointless.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not a fan of mob aggression.
> 
> This thread is evidence of why the far left is fucked. And why the Labour Party is.



Mob aggression? 

You're more hopelessly derivative than the real Marky Mark.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You equate party members with constituents. It's exactly the problem all Corbynistas have. Ignore the population.



I haven't done anything of the sort, and if you think I'm a "Corbynista", you're even more blind and foolish than I thought.



> Do you know anyone who voted Tory last time who will now vote Labour because of Corbyn? There must be loads, the way you're going on. Because not one Corbynista has ever told me they have found one. They seem to be suggesting that a mass of non-voters will start voting. Even though they are non-voters ao it's a stupid strategy, and non-voters are apparently no more left wing than voters.



It's great you're still showing absolutely no grasp of electoral dynamics. 



> Oh, and some nonsense about how they will win all the SNP votes back (we still would have lost with every single SNP vote)



"We"? Have you drunk the Kool-Aid? Are you a councillor-in-waiting?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which electorate are you talking of here?
> 
> Corbyn is extremely good at winning elections, btw. Has turned a majority of 5,000 when first elected to Islington North into a majority of over 20,000 at the last election. And then of course, there was the leadership election, in which he swept the board against his opponents.
> 
> So, big mandate from his constituency, and big mandate from his party. Clear > 50% from all the votes in each case - ie more than for all his opponents put together selected him as their first choice, a proper mandate. Few politicians have such a clear mandate from their respective electorates.


Islington. Yes. Noticeable he packed his shadow cabinet (in an amateur manner) with north londonites as well.

Corbynista swing last election was terrible compared to most labour MPs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> By not joining the Tory party?
> 
> It's logic, innit: Tories won the last election, therefore tories are the will of the electorate, therefore not becoming a tory is to be fundamentally anti-democratic.



Only if you ignore the fact that only 24% of the electorate actually elected the blue bastards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Islington. .


Ah, killer b was right. It's the_ wrong sort_ of electorate. Sack the voters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only if you ignore the fact that only 24% of the electorate actually elected the blue bastards.


It's closer to 20 per cent when you include those not on the electoral register. A whole 1 in 5 adults voted Tory at the last election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Islington. Yes. Noticeable he packed his shadow cabinet (in an amateur manner) with north londonites as well.
> 
> Corbynista swing last election was terrible compared to most labour MPs.



You're not comparing like with like. Well done.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Islington. Yes. Noticeable he packed his shadow cabinet (in an amateur manner) with north londonites as well.
> 
> Corbynista swing last election was terrible compared to most labour MPs.



London was the only place Labour did well?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's closer to 20 per cent when you include those not on the electoral register. A whole 1 in 5 adults voted Tory at the last election.



So, not *too* much of a problem to round them up and send them to the PD "Peoples' Education and Work Experience" camps come the glorious day, then?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So there are no circumstances where Corbynistas - ignoring the electorate as they are - can be blamed.


That's not what I said. You can't have a debate where you make up what you'd like your interlocutor to have said, and then answer _that.
_
Well, at least not without looking like a bit of a dick.

Sad thing is that you're not even doing it deliberately - you're just assuming that anything which disagrees with your world view must be parroted from someone else's.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2016)

when you become a member of your local party you cease to be a constituent and have any roots or concerns around your local area and its politics.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, killer b was right. It's the_ wrong sort_ of electorate. Sack the voters.


That's exactly what the Corbynistas think we need to do.

"It's the electorate that are wrong" that is their most common refrain.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What do you base this judgement on? Nobody has ever been given a vote on whether or not to remove nuclear weapons.



Someone else has posted figures already, but here are some more...
YouGov |  Trident: to keep, scrap or downgrade

In favour of renewing Trident OR finding a cheaper nuclear weapons system.... 66%
Giving up nuclear weapons altogether.... 20%

If there was no cheaper alternative to Trident then those figures become 56% and 29% respectively.

There _was_ effectively a vote on whether or not to remove nukes in the 1983 election when it became the major factor in Labour's massive defeat. I don't think public attitudes to an 'independent' deterrent have changed that much since then, unless you can show otherwise.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> when you become a member of your local party you cease to be a constituent and have any roots or concerns around your local area and its politics.


No, but you are a tiny fraction of them. MPs should be accountable to their constituents as a whole


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Someone else has posted figures already, but here are some more...
> YouGov |  Trident: to keep, scrap or downgrade
> 
> In favour of renewing Trident OR finding a cheaper nuclear weapons system.... 66%
> ...


These don't count because they show he is wrong.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, but you are a tiny fraction of them. MPs should be accountable to their constituents as a whole


they are, we like to call that 'elections'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, but you are a tiny fraction of them. MPs should be accountable to their constituents as a whole


Right. So back to Corbyn and his disdain for his electorates. 60 per cent of all votes cast in his constituency, where he's been MP for decades so everyone knows who he is and what he stands for. A clear trouncing of his opponents in the leadership election, in which he stood on a clear platform of returning to some kind of socialism. 

What exactly is he getting wrong here?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> No, yours is shit you sectarian bastard



Apologies I thought I was talking to an advanced element of the class...my mistake.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right. So back to Corbyn and his disdain for his electorates. 60 per cent of all votes cast in his constituency, where he's been MP for decades so everyone knows who he is and what he stands for. A clear trouncing of his opponents in the leadership election, in which he stood on a clear platform of returning to some kind of socialism.
> 
> What exactly is he getting wrong here?



Convenient you change the point when found to be wrong.

Oh I forgot, the left can't be wrong, it's someone's fault, like those in labour, or the media, or the electorate.

Nothing there. He is an excellent constituency MP.

He is a terrible leader and will lead labour to oblivion. Hopefully he won't get the chance.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Apologies I thought I was talking to an advanced element of the class...my mistake.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Nah, lumpen and proud


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, but you are a tiny fraction of them. MPs should be accountable to their constituents as a whole


They are - but most people in safe seats vote for a party rather than an individual. In which case, members of the local party should be able to choose - if they wish - a candidate who represents the view of the local party, rather than a candidate imposed on them while the national party was under a different management.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> They are - but most people in safe seats vote for a party rather than an individual. In which case, members of the local party should be able to choose - if they wish - a candidate who represents the view of the local party, rather than a candidate imposed on them while the national party was under a different management.


I don't disagree as a principle for first deciding.

I do disagree with these witch hunts. You're making excuses to try to stop labour being a broad church.

These are people with thousands of votes and you want a couple of dozen to overturn that. 

Like I said, contempt for the electorate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Someone else has posted figures already, but here are some more...
> YouGov |  Trident: to keep, scrap or downgrade
> 
> In favour of renewing Trident OR finding a cheaper nuclear weapons system.... 66%
> ...



That's a good example of a flawed survey. 'should find a cheaper system' - like what, exactly? 

As in the other survey quoted, there are more clearly in favour of Trident than clearly against it, but both are minorities. The majority in favour of nukes in principle is a soft one, and the survey was disingenuous in offering a 'cheaper nukes' option.

And I don't agree with you about the 83 election. There was way more to it than that, and in any case it was more than a generation ago.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a good example of a flawed survey. 'should find a cheaper system' - like what, exactly?
> 
> As in the other survey quoted, there are more clearly in favour of Trident than clearly against it, but both are minorities. The majority in favour of nukes in principle is a soft one, and the survey was disingenuous in offering a 'cheaper nukes' option.
> 
> And I don't agree with you about the 83 election. There was way more to it than that, and in any case it was more than a generation ago.


Told you it wouldn't be ok because it shows what is obvious - they're wrong. But the far left cannot be wrong.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You asked for numbers. I gave them. "Thank you" would suffice.


I see, so I should be grateful because you posted some polls up? Hilarious. What you don't do is explore the reasons behind those numbers. I guess asking you to think critically on this issue would be too much to ask. No?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I don't disagree as a principle for first deciding.
> 
> I do disagree with these witch hunts. You're making excuses to try to stop labour being a broad church.
> 
> ...




So Labour parliamentary candidates should be selected by their local party members. 

What evidence of actual witch hunts  - as opposed to speculation  - do you have?

How should MPs be held accountable to the party which plays a huge role in their election?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We are in batshit doolally far left world here.
> No wonder the electorate fuck the Labour Party off.


You are Dan Hodges and I claim my five quid.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Told you it wouldn't be ok because it shows what is obvious - they're wrong. But the far left cannot be wrong.


No, I dealt directly with the numbers. Given that one of the options was in some (unspecified) way 'downgrading' the nuclear weaponry, you could also spin those same numbers as saying that only 32 per cent are in favour of renewing Trident, while 54 per cent are against renewing Trident.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I wonder what the point of a political party is, if not to represent the will of it's membership?


What I tend to get by way of reply when I point this out to the anti-Corbyn mob is "members aren't the electorate".


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> try to stop labour being a broad church.


before all this re animation of labour left the last event I recall taking an interest in was dennis skinner being ousted from the NEC. Thats the last of them then, thought I.

There was no room at chapel for old labour views.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I don't disagree as a principle for first deciding.
> 
> I do disagree with these witch hunts. You're making excuses to try to stop labour being a broad church.
> 
> ...


There aren't any witch hunts - the Graun survey (which bears out my own observations) is that there's little appetite for deselection in the CLPs. There's a few shouty cocks on twitter going _we'll deselect you, bitch_, but y'know - twitter's full of shouty cocks being shouty cocks. They serve little purpose but to allow people like you to whine about being bullied. 

If boundary changes mean newly created seats though - Why should the CLPs should have to choose from the current incumbents of the old seats?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> before all this re animation of labour left the last event I recall taking an interest in was dennis skinner being ousted from the NEC. Thats the last of them then, thought I.
> 
> There was no room at chapel for old labour views.


And of course, the last labour leader to conduct what really could be called a witch hunt was a certain A Blair.


----------



## treelover (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You are Dan Hodges and I claim my five quid.



Hodges wouldn't post on a site where he didn't get paid, though it does sound like him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You are Dan Hodges and I claim my five quid.


not even dan hodges could be so stupid


----------



## YouSir (Jan 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> Hodges wouldn't post on a site where he didn't get paid, though it does sound like him.



You can bet he'd be Googling his own name and finding the thread here though.

Hello Dan, y'big useless prick.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 15, 2016)

Ex-St Helens MP attacks Corbyn supporters who eat ‘croissants for breakfast’

Newly entitled baron uses maiden speech to snarl at people in his own party who he says "live in mansions" and "eat croissants".

Not a single person of the many I know in the party lives in a mansion.For 18 years he was on over £80k a year plus expenses.

Now he can get over £300 a day for turning up to the Lords.

The irony meter just doesnt start to deal with this utter fucktard, who despises his own party and leeches off us for the privilige.

I was just in Aldi, 6 croissants for a quid. I don't suppose Baron Fuckface shops there very often.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2016)

I prefer brioche


----------



## J Ed (Jan 15, 2016)

The brioche loaves from Aldi are great


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a good example of a flawed survey. 'should find a cheaper system' - like what, exactly?



There are alternative suggestions but I don't think they're being taken seriously:
Is there a cheaper but credible alternative to Trident?



> As in the other survey quoted, there are more clearly in favour of Trident than clearly against it, but both are minorities. The majority in favour of nukes in principle is a soft one, and the survey was disingenuous in offering a 'cheaper nukes' option.



66% in favour of a nuclear deterrent of some description is a lot. To win in 2020 Labour will have to find significant support from that group.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> There are alternative suggestions but I don't think they're being taken seriously:
> Is there a cheaper but credible alternative to Trident?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## two sheds (Jan 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> 66% in favour of a nuclear deterrent of some description is a lot. To win in 2020 Labour will have to find significant support from that group.



60% in favour of renationalizing the railways is a lot. To win in 2020 Labour will have to find significant support from that group.  

oh wait ... 

and that actually means something to people's everyday lives.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> 60% in favour of renationalizing the railways is a lot. To win in 2020 Labour will have to find significant support from that group.
> 
> oh wait ...
> 
> and that actually means something to people's everyday lives.


Labour already has their support.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Labour already has their support.



60% for Labour then it's a landslide


----------



## youngian (Jan 16, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Wasn't the current government put there by only around 25% of the electorate?


Yes they won against Labour which managed to secure under 20%. And there's not a lot of polling evidence so far that Corbyn has achieved Ed Miliband's dizzying heights of popularity. People make up their minds about leaders pretty quickly and don't change their mind much.



Andrew Hertford said:


> There are alternative suggestions but I don't think they're being taken seriously:
> Is there a cheaper but credible alternative to Trident?
> 66% in favour of a nuclear deterrent of some description is a lot. To win in 2020 Labour will have to find significant support from that group.



That's a useful contribution. The growing anti-Trident voices aren't even unilateralists or in CND but oppose it as a US controlled Cold War relic that doesn't meet any 21st security threats. The Tories will do all they can to quell a grown-up debate on the issue as its a dick-waving totem for domestic political expediency; 'We're tough on defence whereas beardy Corbyn wears sandals.'


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 16, 2016)

I'm liking the proposal to demand that companies pay a living wage before they can pay dividends.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## J Ed (Jan 16, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm liking the proposal to demand that companies pay a living wage before they can pay dividends.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



It would be worth it purely to see how much worse off it would make Mike Ashley.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 16, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm liking the proposal to demand that companies pay a living wage before they can pay dividends.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



i think you'll find Corbyn getting a great deal of support on his domestic economic stuff from those who would describe themselves as new labour, libdems and even tories - i've never met anyone who believes that the privatisation of rail or utilities (exept the telephone network..) has been a success, housebuilding policy (ha!) has been a disaster for anyone under the age of 50, and the low wage economy has been a disater both for the wider economy, and for those trapped within it.

Labours problem is Corbyns' foreign and defence policy - i take the view that the public is unlikely to be swayed by his whole defence posture while IS has carved out a territory not far off the size of England, Vlad the Invader is annexing territory left, right and centre in Eastern Europe, and North Korea testing nukes and yelling the odds. i also think that using Ken Livingstone as a persauder is as good a way of ensuring that no one is persuaded as you're likely to find...


----------



## J Ed (Jan 16, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i think you'll find Corbyn getting a great deal of support on his domestic economic stuff from those who would describe themselves as new labour, libdems and even tories - i've never met anyone who believes that the privatisation of rail or utilities (exept the telephone network..) has been a success, housebuilding policy (ha!) has been a disaster for anyone under the age of 50, and the low wage economy has been a disater both for the wider economy, and for those trapped within it.
> 
> Labours problem is Corbyns' foreign and defence policy - i take the view that the public is unlikely to be swayed by his whole defence posture while IS has carved out a territory not far off the size of England, Vlad the Invader is annexing territory left, right and centre in Eastern Europe, and North Korea testing nukes and yelling the odds. i also think that using Ken Livingstone as a persauder is as good a way of ensuring that no one is persuaded as you're likely to find...



Honestly I am increasing coming round to this view. Even though I am anti-NATO and anti-Trident I think that the Labour Left should probably shut up about foreign policy and pick other battles where they can win. I don't think that Syriza are a great model to emulate once in power (though the situation is of course completely different) but they did get elected and it was not on an anti-imperialist ticket. Likewise Bernie Sanders, while mostly anti-war, does not spend a huge amount of time talking about foreign policy nor does Podemos' leader Pablo Iglesias.

I think there are exceptions, but the Labour Left need to pick foreign policy battles they can win and where they are swimming with the tide of the public but against the current of the political class. The Saudi arms and prison deals for example.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Honestly I am increasing coming round to this view. Even though I am anti-NATO and anti-Trident I think that the Labour Left should probably shut up about foreign policy and pick other battles where they can win. I don't think that Syriza are a great model to emulate once in power (though the situation is of course completely different) but they did get elected and it was not on an anti-imperialist ticket. Likewise Bernie Sanders, while mostly anti-war, does not spend a huge amount of time talking about foreign policy nor does Podemos' leader Pablo Iglesias.
> 
> I think there are exceptions, but the Labour Left need to pick foreign policy battles they can win and where they are swimming with the tide of the public but against the current of the political class. The Saudi arms and prison deals for example.



i think the problem is far deeper than that - even if they just stop talking about overeas/defence policy, the tories will happily fill in the blanks for the electorate. which will crucify him - he'll make Miliband look good: tea with PIRA, dinner with HAMAS, appointing an anti-Trident shadow defence secretary on the same day North Korea tests another nuke, a policy chief who supports Putins' land grap in Ukraine, and decrying the killing of people who set fire to people in cages or who chop off heads - these make great election posters and PEB's, and anyone who'se ever seen an election knows it.

Labours problem is that the leadership, and the now membership, have a veiw of the world that the people who voted Labour in 2015 - which is a very much larger number than the membership - fundamentally disagree with, and that that gulf is even wider and more profound when contrasted to the wider electorate.

Labour, in the current and forseeable security/geo-political climate, cannot _not_ have a defence and overseas policy. Corbyn either comes up with something that covers that gulf and does so convincingly, or he risks being the Unicorns and Fairy Dust candidate - full of stuff pretty much everyone wants (housing, infrastructure etc..), but not what you need in the face of IS and Russia.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2016)

I recon you could sell a 'no replacement to trident deal' on a cost/effect message and see if the yanks would sell us something cheap  or just make assurances of vengeance for britain should the evil happen (which it won't) or something but atm it does feel like yesterdays battle. Not that I'm sure defense is as high on everyones agenda as kebabking does. To a hammer everything looks like? but I might be wrong, maybe people really are worried about daesh as much as they worry about where the rents coming from and the nhs etc.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It would be worth it purely to see how much worse off it would make Mike Ashley.



Sports Direct doesn't pay a dividend so it wouldn't cost him anything.

It's clearly a policy conceived by and for the consumption of the financially ignorant,


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> 60% in favour of renationalizing the railways is a lot. To win in 2020 Labour will have to find significant support from that group.
> 
> oh wait ...
> 
> and that actually means something to people's everyday lives.



To win in 2020 Labour will have to persuade millions of voters to support them who didn't last time, many of whom will have voted tory or ukip. Out of the two issues I’m fairly certain that defence and the nuclear deterrent will be more important to them than who runs the railways.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 16, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i think the problem is far deeper than that - even if they just stop talking about overeas/defence policy, the tories will happily fill in the blanks for the electorate. which will crucify him - he'll make Miliband look good: tea with PIRA, dinner with HAMAS, appointing an anti-Trident shadow defence secretary on the same day North Korea tests another nuke, a policy chief who supports Putins' land grap in Ukraine, and decrying the killing of people who set fire to people in cages or who chop off heads - these make great election posters and PEB's, and anyone who'se ever seen an election knows it.
> 
> Labours problem is that the leadership, and the now membership, have a veiw of the world that the people who voted Labour in 2015 - which is a very much larger number than the membership - fundamentally disagree with, and that that gulf is even wider and more profound when contrasted to the wider electorate.
> 
> Labour, in the current and forseeable security/geo-political climate, cannot _not_ have a defence and overseas policy. Corbyn either comes up with something that covers that gulf and does so convincingly, or he risks being the Unicorns and Fairy Dust candidate - full of stuff pretty much everyone wants (housing, infrastructure etc..), but not what you need in the face of IS and Russia.



I agree with most of that. Labour have a choice of standing by their core principles or of compromising them to an degree and so create the possibility at least of putting a stop to the relentless erosion of the fabric of society by the tories by winning in 2020. I can’t seen any other alternative to getting rid of the tories.

I can't see Corbyn coming up with anything to cover the gulf as you put it, he's the vice President of CND and a life long unilateralist. If he tries to distance himself from that then he won't be believed or trusted by anyone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> To win in 2020 Labour will have to persuade millions of voters to support them who didn't last time, many of whom will have voted tory or ukip. Out of the two issues I’m fairly certain that defence and the nuclear deterrent will be more important to them than who runs the railways.



The above is bollocks. It's not necessary to convince *any* Tory or UKIP voters. Given the turnout over constituencies that were lost, it's plainly obvious that what they need to do is get the stay-at-homes back out and voting for them.
And do you *really* think that "defence and the nuclear deterrent" are more important to Joseph and Josephine Public than something like the railways? You're cracked.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Hodges wouldn't post on a site where he didn't get paid, though it does sound like him.





Pickman's model said:


> not even dan hodges could be so stupid


I was being ironic. 

Hodges is a meeja whore.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The above is bollocks. It's not necessary to convince *any* Tory or UKIP voters. Given the turnout over constituencies that were lost, it's plainly obvious that what they need to do is get the stay-at-homes back out and voting for them.
> And do you *really* think that "defence and the nuclear deterrent" are more important to Joseph and Josephine Public than something like the railways? You're cracked.



Yes I do. You've been living in fantasyland too long.


----------



## treelover (Jan 16, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i think you'll find Corbyn getting a great deal of support on his domestic economic stuff from those who would describe themselves as new labour, libdems and even tories - i've never met anyone who believes that the privatisation of rail or utilities (exept the telephone network..) has been a success, housebuilding policy (ha!) has been a disaster for anyone under the age of 50, and the low wage economy has been a disater both for the wider economy, and for those trapped within it.
> 
> Labours problem is Corbyns' foreign and defence policy - i take the view that the public is unlikely to be swayed by his whole defence posture while IS has carved out a territory not far off the size of England, Vlad the Invader is annexing territory left, right and centre in Eastern Europe, and North Korea testing nukes and yelling the odds. i also think that using Ken Livingstone as a persauder is as good a way of ensuring that no one is persuaded as you're likely to find...




Interesting news , long Sindie interview with J/C where it looks like he is moving towards a free vote on Trident, even hints at maintaining some king of deterrent(hard to see)though of course, Livingstone, Milne may try and push him back, and of course it could still go wrong if he hasn't learnt the lessons of the Syria vote, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Interesting news , long Sindie interview with J/C where it looks like he is moving towards a free vote on Trident, even hints at maintaining some king of deterrent(hard to see)though of course, Livingstone, Milne may try and push him back, and of course it could still go wrong if he hasn't learnt the lessons of the Syria vote, etc.


good to see you hoping unelected people will keep corbyn in line


----------



## treelover (Jan 16, 2016)

Eh, I want Corbyn to be his own man, not pushed around by stalinists, etc.


----------



## tim (Jan 16, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I prefer brioche



I'm sure Jeremy will let you eat that.


----------



## tim (Jan 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> To win in 2020 Labour will have to persuade millions of voters to support them who didn't last time, many of whom will have voted tory or ukip. Out of the two issues I’m fairly certain that defence and the nuclear deterrent will be more important to them than who runs the railways.



At least one Tory,albeit one with an interest in the running of the railways, is at one with Corbyn onTrident


----------



## kebabking (Jan 16, 2016)

treelover said:


> Interesting news , long Sindie interview with J/C where it looks like he is moving towards a free vote on Trident, even hints at maintaining some king of deterrent(hard to see)though of course, Livingstone, Milne may try and push him back, and of course it could still go wrong if he hasn't learnt the lessons of the Syria vote, etc.



i'm afraid i don't believe it for a second - you don't sack a pro-trident shadow defence secretary, replace them with an anti-trident shadow defence secretary, tell the world you would never use such a system even if 'forced' to keep it by the party policy, and give Ken Livingstone free reign to - in public at least - set defence/nuclear policy if you are persuadable on the issue.

theres a big, main gate type vote in the commons in the next 8 weeks or so over the Successor programme - Corbyn is purely trying to dangle a carrot at those in the SC/PLP in the hope that they won't rebel against _his_ policy, but vote in line with Party policy, as voted on at the last conference. he's saying 'please don't vote with the government, and i'll genuinely consider retaining the nuclear deterant in some form'. anyone who believes that is, to be frank, an idiot.

he's a lifelong anti-nuclear campaigner, and moreover the period 2020-2025 will be _critical_ in the replacement - or not - of Trident. the chances of Corbyn swallowing his principles and not dealing a death blow to successor, in quite possibly the only chance he'll get to do it, is zero. i know that, you know that, the dogs in the street know that - any pretence by Labour otherwise is just going to be utterly see-through.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 17, 2016)

treelover said:


> Eh, I want Corbyn to be his own man, not pushed around by stalinists, etc.


Who are these Stalinists pushing him around then?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This argument is fireproof right up to the day when it isn't.
> 
> Also, tell that to the families of the dead in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the other countries the superpowers bombed during the Cold War.


How does mutually agreed destruction affect them? You're exemplifying my point.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 17, 2016)

_If only we can get the non-voters to vote for us.
Except for the majority of them, whom polls suggest don't agree with us.
So, our new leader will get the non-voters who agree with us to vote for us, but make sure that other non-voters will not become voters.
Then we'll win the election, without persuading anyone who doesn't already agree with us._


----------



## existentialist (Jan 17, 2016)

Bless


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _If only we can get the non-voters to vote for us.
> Except for the majority of them, whom polls suggest don't agree with us.
> So, our new leader will get the non-voters who agree with us to vote for us, but make sure that other non-voters will not become voters.
> Then we'll win the election, without persuading anyone who doesn't already agree with us._


tbh the only way you'll get folk to vote for you is if they're voting for a permaban


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _If only we can get the non-voters to vote for us.
> Except for the majority of them, whom polls suggest don't agree with us.
> So, our new leader will get the non-voters who agree with us to vote for us, but make sure that other non-voters will not become voters.
> Then we'll win the election, without persuading anyone who doesn't already agree with us._


Without resorting to italics, perhaps it would save some grief if you just stated your preferred 2020 GE outcome.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 17, 2016)

I'm betting he goes for 'Labour win with a Blairite at the helm'... 
Or: 'if we don't bin corbyn, then we'll get another term of Tories'... 
ofc, if he stopped lying to himself he could just come out with 'conservative win would be nice'....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

Nylock said:


> I'm betting he goes for 'Labour win with a Blairite at the helm'...
> Or: 'if we don't bin corbyn, then we'll get another term of Tories'...
> ofc, if he stopped lying to himself he could just come out with 'conservative win would be nice'....


some sort of labour w(h)in(e) anyway


----------



## redcogs (Jan 17, 2016)

Corby on Marr prog this morning (17/01/2016, The Andrew Marr Show - BBC One).

He scores very highly on the statesmanlike plausibility scale for this particular cynic, easily a match for anything the Tory or the Blairite tory scumbags could offer. How anyone could believe that a Corbyn led Labour Party would be unelectable in 2020 is entirely beyond me.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 17, 2016)

PETER HITCHENS: The pacifists are right...Trident IS a waste of money


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 17, 2016)

Nylock said:


> I'm betting he goes for 'Labour win with a Blairite at the helm'...
> Or: 'if we don't bin corbyn, then we'll get another term of Tories'...
> ofc, if he stopped lying to himself he could just come out with 'conservative win would be nice'....



_Why don't you just join the Tories?_


----------



## J Ed (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _Why don't you just join the Tories?_



Why don't you


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Without resorting to italics, perhaps it would save some grief if you just stated your preferred 2020 GE outcome.



Labour majority.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 17, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Corby on Marr prog this morning (17/01/2016, The Andrew Marr Show - BBC One).
> 
> He scores very highly on the statesmanlike plausibility scale for this particular cynic, easily a match for anything the Tory or the Blairite tory scumbags could offer. How anyone could believe that a Corbyn led Labour Party would be unelectable in 2020 is entirely beyond me.



_Why don't the electorate just join the Tories?_


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 17, 2016)

_Why don't the media just join the Tories?_


----------



## teqniq (Jan 17, 2016)

This is pretty lame trolling, to be fair.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _Why don't the media just join the Tories?_



Because they are already party members.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Without resorting to italics, perhaps it would save some grief if you just stated your preferred 2020 GE outcome.


He's waiting to be told.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yes I do. You've been living in fantasyland too long.



Back when I was sitting on the German plains, waiting for Armageddon, most of the people I worked with, other ranks and officers, put absolutely no faith in the nuclear deterrent - that mystical, mythical force that supposedly would prevent first strikes from either side - even though back then we had the RAF's considerable stock of air-drop material to hand. The reason we didn't believe in the deterrent effect was the volume of British and US tanks and infantry in Germany, and the fact that both blocs knew that the only way to go through each other was to use limited "strategic" strikes at massing points and/or on garrison towns. What limited both sides from taking the option wasn't a nuclear threat from their enemies, it was that if they did use nuclear warfare, they'd have to a) hopscotch their troops over and around the sites of their strategic strikes - difficult when garrisoning effectively created a screen, and air cover could selectively remove deployed assets with conventional weapons - and b), literal "blowback". Check out the prevailing weather patterns between central and northern Germany, and the Warsaw Pact states. Fallout was as likely to go east well into Soviet Russia as it was to go west, over Europe. 

I don't live in fantasyland. On the contrary, I learned about this stuff first-hand. All the UK's "independent" nuclear deterrent is, is a political mechanism. What it buys us is not freedom or safety. What it bought, and still buys the UK, is crumbs from the US's table.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _Why don't the media just join the Tories?_



You're shit, and you know you are.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2016)

How long have you been in the labour party Markymarrk?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _Why don't the electorate just join the Tories?_


most of these wreckers you mention so frequently were returners from rage quitting over the iraq war or other nulab deal breakers for that individual. They aren't stealing your party they are attemting to steer it back in a social democratic direction. Best of luck to them I say. When burnham stands victorious over the corpse of corbyn with a red red hand you can say 'finally! electable' and then you'll get rejected at the ballot again for only offering a paler shade of tory and without their ruthless efficiency


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 17, 2016)

Defence may not be the biggest issue (although it's another stick), but governance will be. The suggestion that we might keep a denuked Trident with no greater strategic reason than to protect jobs is a total vote loser. The voters who will make the difference will want clear decision making and may not like colossal amounts of cash thrown after not so many jobs, rather than at a lot of jobs, particularly in Scotland. Massive English resentment would follow.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 17, 2016)

If Corbyn is wise, and it increasingly appears that he is, he will make job creation the central strategy in the run up to 2020.  After the economy collapses again (within the next medium period?) unemployment could easily become the number one deal for millions of people, particularly for young people and graduates who may value a decent career with long term prospects above shelf filling for peanuts.  We need homes building, hospitals invested in, libraries expanded, welfare provision improved, ie the fairness and equality agenda that Jezz is already promoting can create millions of jobs in a Keynesian economy that decisively steps away from austerity.

It is far too pessimistic to believe that the significant numbers of the English electorate could not be won to a position of supporting a non nuclear defence position - many on the right already appear to be there (see Portillo and Hitchens above).


----------



## treelover (Jan 17, 2016)

We still need the 'Green Jobs that politicians have been promising,

Oh, Dave now calls that "the green crap"


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 17, 2016)

It does sound like nonsense, you're more likely to get the electorate on your side by arguing that Trident is massively expensive than by pointing out it's bad because it could vapourise babies.

The tories will be playing this card for as long as they can, to keep other topics from being debated. Same way the immigration debate dominated the last parliament.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _Why don't you just join the Tories?_


Well, why don't you? If you're a member of the right wing of labour then there's provably little to distinguish you from them. If you're from the centre/left of the party then suggest an alternative that presents the electorate with a clear choice between lab and con and quit fucking about with all this 'corbynista' bullshit. 

Money where your mouth is pal.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 17, 2016)

Important news here from one of the UK's most serious newspapers: Jeremy Corbyn won't name his cat and instead simply calls it 'the cat'


----------



## existentialist (Jan 17, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Important news here from one of the UK's most serious newspapers: Jeremy Corbyn won't name his cat and instead simply calls it 'the cat'


I did not realise that he and I have that in common. To me, all cats are called "cat".


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 17, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I did not realise that he and I have that in common. To me, all cats are called "cat".


Then you are deviant and a WEIRDO. Seems to be the thrust of the story anyway. Look! Corbyn doesn't even name his cat like normal people! And he uses foreign lingo! Probably because he hates Britain!

Desperate stuff.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 17, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Important news here from one of the UK's most serious newspapers: Jeremy Corbyn won't name his cat and instead simply calls it 'the cat'


Actually, that article tells us many interesting things.

For a start, the facility with Spanish. We can look forward to the media spinning that into some kind of connection with Spanish Civil War communists, I expect.

Also, he's done a nice job on the bike crowdfunding story - he's going to donate the whole lot to charity, and buy himself the bike for his birthday. I think that's quite neat positioning 

They'll have to find a crowdfunder who's resentful that his pledge will not be manifesting in its rightful place as front left-hand brake block, and get some kind of "the duplicity of leftie bike beneficiary" story out of it.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 17, 2016)

It is completely understandable that the trade unions which organise within the UK's defence supply industry are raising concerns about the impact on jobs should a Corbyn government become a reality.  However it is surely the case that an imaginative 'swords to ploughshares' agenda could easily create far more jobs than currently engaged in wastefully building weapons delivery systems etc.  The next four years could/should see many such ideas coming forward from Labours newly energised membership.  The Blairite thickheads in parliament who will be the reactionary cheerleaders in this matter (and many others) need to get out of the way, or, more satisfyingly, be pushed.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 17, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back when I was sitting on the German plains, waiting for Armageddon, most of the people I worked with, other ranks and officers, put absolutely no faith in the nuclear deterrent - that mystical, mythical force that supposedly would prevent first strikes from either side - even though back then we had the RAF's considerable stock of air-drop material to hand. The reason we didn't believe in the deterrent effect was the volume of British and US tanks and infantry in Germany, and the fact that both blocs knew that the only way to go through each other was to use limited "strategic" strikes at massing points and/or on garrison towns. What limited both sides from taking the option wasn't a nuclear threat from their enemies, it was that if they did use nuclear warfare, they'd have to a) hopscotch their troops over and around the sites of their strategic strikes - difficult when garrisoning effectively created a screen, and air cover could selectively remove deployed assets with conventional weapons - and b), literal "blowback". Check out the prevailing weather patterns between central and northern Germany, and the Warsaw Pact states. Fallout was as likely to go east well into Soviet Russia as it was to go west, over Europe.
> 
> I don't live in fantasyland. On the contrary, I learned about this stuff first-hand. All the UK's "independent" nuclear deterrent is, is a political mechanism. What it buys us is not freedom or safety. What it bought, and still buys the UK, is crumbs from the US's table.



That's a great reply mate, thanks. 

I'm a unilateralist myself and have been since before JC was an MP, but my argument is that the most of the millions of undecided voters that Labour will need if they are to win in 2020 are not going to vote to get rid of the bomb. I think you and other's on here are underestimating just how important remaining a nuclear power is to the vast majority of voters.

I admire the Labour membership on rediscovering their core values and sticking by them with Corbyn, but with it comes an admission that they'll almost certainly remain in opposition until at least 2025. Labour getting into government (and I don't accept that it has to be a Blairite government) is still the only way of stopping the relentless tory attack on the fabric of society. There is no alternative.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> How does mutually agreed destruction affect them? You're exemplifying my point.


No I'm not. You just didn't get my point. The Cold War was not a period of peace in the world - it was a period of a long series of proxy wars between the US, Soviet Union and China that cost millions of lives. But those lives were of poor non-Europeans, so they didn't count in your summing up of the 'nuclear peace'.

As for the idea that peace in Europe post-WW2 was due in large, some, or any part to the holding of nukes by the opposing sides, that needs to be a far wider discussion. Counterfactual history is always a precarious thing to engage in, but the building of the EEC in the 40s and 50s was done in great part in order to secure peace. After such a devastating war, there was no prospect of another one any time soon between the parties of WW2, nukes or no nukes. The Soviet Union had no ambitions to invade Western Europe, so I'm not sure what threat from the USSR British nukes were helping to counter. And 'conventional' warfare was already known to be terrible enough - 25 million Soviets lay dead in testimony to that, not one of them killed by a nuke.

So accounting for all that, what might a non-nuclear Cold War have looked like? I would argue that it would have looked very much like the nuclear Cold War. Neither side using nukes, neither attacking each other directly, as the non-nuclear consequences of that would have been quite terrible enough, both retrenching their bits of the world and fighting dirty proxy wars over those peripheral bits that were still up for grabs.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No I'm not. You just didn't get my point. The Cold War was not a period of peace in the world - it was a period of a long series of proxy wars between the US, Soviet Union and China that cost millions of lives. But those lives were of poor non-Europeans, so they didn't count in your summing up of the 'nuclear peace'.
> 
> As for the idea that peace in Europe post-WW2 was due in large, some, or any part to the holding of nukes by the opposing sides, that needs to be a far wider discussion. Counterfactual history is always a precarious thing to engage in, but the building of the EEC in the 40s and 50s was done in great part in order to secure peace. After such a devastating war, there was no prospect of another one any time soon between the parties of WW2, nukes or no nukes. The Soviet Union had no ambitions to invade Western Europe, so I'm not sure what threat from the USSR British nukes were helping to counter. And 'conventional' warfare was already known to be terrible enough - 25 million Soviets lay dead in testimony to that, not one of them killed by a nuke.
> 
> So accounting for all that, what might a non-nuclear Cold War have looked like? I would argue that it would have looked very much like the nuclear Cold War. Neither side using nukes, neither attacking each other directly, as the non-nuclear consequences of that would have been quite terrible enough, both retrenching their bits of the world and fighting dirty proxy wars over those peripheral bits that were still up for grabs.


this does elide the fact that both sides to some degree, at the top table, saw themselves as existential enemies. There's that 'very nearly' where a soviet commander in a sub didn't press the button but was near enough (although that was over a confusion in sig int iirc) but still. It was dicey. Thing is none of that weaponry has gone away, just now there is no grand narrative of bloc v bloc theres loads of nations with a nuclear option. If anything that should give one MORE fear of the Bomb. But it doesn't for me. Grew up with nukes as yesterdays argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this does elide the fact that both sides to some degree, at the top table, saw themselves as existential enemies


The argument that nuclear weapons helped keep some kind of knife-edge peace relies on the idea that nuclear weapons changed behaviour. I would argue that they largely did not change behaviour. The only thing they might conceivably have prevented is a direct war between the US and the USSR. Do you or anybody else have any evidence that such a thing was ever seriously on the cards? Maybe the US might have been mad enough to contemplate it, but the USSR? When, and what's the evidence?

Counterfactual history is difficult, but what kind of form might such a suicidal plan have taken _without_ nuclear weapons? And why would we think that such plans would have existed without nukes?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> There's that 'very nearly' where a soviet commander in a sub didn't press the button but was near enough (although that was over a confusion in sig int iirc) but still. It was dicey. .


Yes, this was my point about saying that the argument for nuclear peace is fireproof right up to the day when it's proven wrong. By which time there's no more argument - we're all dead.

There is peace, therefore nukes are the cause of the peace. The proof is the existence of the peace itself. The notion that nukes are causing the peace is simply an act of faith, more or less.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The argument that nuclear weapons helped keep some kind of knife-edge peace relies on the idea that nuclear weapons changed behaviour. I would argue that they largely did not change behaviour. The only thing they might conceivably have prevented is a direct war between the US and the USSR. Do you or anybody else have any evidence that such a thing was ever seriously on the cards? Maybe the US might have been mad enough to contemplate it, but the USSR? When, and what's the evidence?
> 
> Counterfactual history is difficult, but what kind of form might such a suicidal plan have taken _without_ nuclear weapons? And why would we think that such plans would have existed without nukes?



I don't think nukes kept the uneasy peace cos it blatantly didn't but at this time and place I really do think its yesterdays row. We lost. Could revisit in power maybe? And of course I'm never going to knock CND campaigners. It is a righteous cause. But the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. You could scrap every one of them in the whole world tommorow and a developed wealthy nation could have a shiny new one off the production line within a year. I don't like it, but it is what it is


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't think nukes kept the uneasy peace cos it blatantly didn't but at this time and place I really do think its yesterdays row. We lost. Could revisit in power maybe? And of course I'm never going to knock CND campaigners. It is a righteous cause. But the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. You could scrap every one of them in the whole world tommorow and a developed wealthy nation could have a shiny new one off the production line within a year. I don't like it, but it is what it is


Yes, but the fact that other countries have nukes is, in and of itself, no reason whatever to want your country to have them. That's where I would position the argument now. 'They have nukes therefore we're safer if we have them too' is not necessarily the case at all.

If they're going to attack, they won't be attacking with nukes, and 'we'd' be mad to respond with nukes even if 'we' had them. That's the crux of the thing in this line of argument - they are an unusable weapon, they are _the_ unusable weapon.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but the fact that other countries have nukes is, in and of itself, no reason whatever to want your country to have them. That's where I would position the argument now. 'They have nukes therefore we're safer if we have them too' is not necessarily the case at all.


to my mind you aint never selling that to an electorate. Thats why I prefer the 'We'll get uncle sam to cover us!' line. Thats saleable. Bit grubby I admit but what else you got?

e2a

just thinking about scotlands fierce anti trident people and thinking maybe I underestimate peoples ability to assess the value of the Doomsday weapon. Cos doomsday happens to everyone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> to my mind you aint never selling that to an electorate. Thats why I prefer the 'We'll get uncle sam to cover us!' line. Thats saleable. Bit grubby I admit but what else you got?


Yet, in Scotland there is now a soft majority against nuclear weapons. It's a long way, perhaps, but it has to be part of an argument for repositioning Britain, for finally shaking off the martial assumptions of empire.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yet, in Scotland there is now a soft majority against nuclear weapons. It's a long way, perhaps, but it has to be part of an argument for repositioning Britain, for finally shaking off the martial assumptions of empire.


see edit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

Arguments for nuclear peace are pretty much magical thinking.

First, they ignore the fact that there were wars all around the world in that period, many involving nuclear powers, so you have to narrow it down - by 'nuclear peace' what you're really talking about is 'peace between the nations of Europe', nothing more. And then you have to ignore all the other events and forces acting to keep and build peace in post-WW2 Europe.

Nuclear weapons prevented war between whom?
How would those other mechanisms for peace in Europe have failed in the absence of nukes?

I don't see any credible answers to these questions, so the argument just comes down to a matter of faith: in a nuclear age, with nuclear weapons pointing all over the continent, there were no further wars after WW2. Correlation is deemed causation with no proof whatever, with no evidence offered.

The evidence of bits of the world that have worked their way towards peace without nuclear weapons is also ignored: South America, for instance, where there is not a single nuclear weapon, but where the possibility of war between nations is becoming increasingly remote, the odd small-scale border tension notwithstanding. With no nuclear threat to stop them, how come South American countries are not constantly battling one another? It's a dismal, and I think provably wrong, idea to think that assured mutual destruction is the only way to stop countries from going to war with one another.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2016)

Remember when, 33 years ago, we were told that our national security was dependent upon the deployment of GLCM? Then, just 5 years later, they were withdrawn from service and from the UK.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Remember when, 33 years ago, we were told that our national security was dependent upon the deployment of GLCM? Then, just 5 years later, they were withdrawn from service and from the UK.



GLCM?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> GLCM?


Ground-launched cruise.


----------



## laptop (Jan 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Remember when, 33 years ago, we were told that our national security was dependent upon the deployment of GLCM? Then, just 5 years later, they were withdrawn from service and from the UK.



And all along it was a turf war among the three branches of the US military, battling to stay in the nuclear game.

As maintaining Trident is for Her Majesty's Navy.


----------



## Flanflinger (Jan 17, 2016)

laptop said:


> And all along it was a turf war among the three branches of the US military, battling to stay in the nuclear game.
> 
> As maintaining Trident is for Her Majesty's Navy.



And it wont play any part in deciding who wins in 2020.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 17, 2016)

The Sun puts the boot in with that front page. 
Corbynistas up in arms about it.
They ignore that an embarrassing, ill thought through, stupid partial U-turn has allowed this.
The party is fucked. It's not credible. It's probably beyond repair. The replies to this are "but it was too like the Tories" ignoring the real differences between the last Labour government and this current vicious one.
It's the far left making sure the Tories can do what they like, safe in the knowledge they're winning the next general election, and probably the one after that.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The Sun puts the boot in with that front page.
> Corbynistas up in arms about it.
> They ignore that an embarrassing, ill thought through, stupid partial U-turn has allowed this.
> The party is fucked. It's not credible. It's probably beyond repair. The replies to this are "but it was too like the Tories" ignoring the real differences between the last Labour government and this current vicious one.
> It's the far left making sure the Tories can do what they like, safe in the knowledge they're winning the next general election, and probably the one after that.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 17, 2016)

existentialist said:


>


That is an accurate response of Corbynistas when pointing out uncomfortable facts about them belittling the electorate.

They don't care. This isn't about stopping the Tories. It's a vainglorious illustration that they can say what they like


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That is an accurate response of Corbynistas when pointing out uncomfortable facts about them belittling the electorate.


You keep saying this, with zero evidence. You do know that various things proposed by Corbyn, such as scrapping tuition fees and renationalising the railways, have widespread support? 

Not that any party should simply be producing a manifesto based on opinion poll results. They might wish to, you know, stand for something and make a case for it.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 17, 2016)

Dunno....sort of makes sense....if you follow the procurement lunacy to its next step

Unarmed ballistic nuclear sub's ....could make up a battle group with our aircraft carriers.  ..that have no aircraft.....

They could turn up at areas of conflict ...and stand on the decks....waving placards....while quoting Mao...

That'll work ..!...its consensus warfare for the C21st... innit ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 17, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> ignoring the real differences between the last Labour government and this current vicious one.


this is a line only credible to anyone who did alright under st tony. A lot of us didn't. We got not forgotten, oh no. Special attention payed to us and our fecklessness


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 17, 2016)

treelover said:


> We still need the 'Green Jobs that politicians have been promising,
> 
> Oh, Dave now calls that "the green crap"


Are you going to answer my question? Which Stalinists are pushing Corbyn around?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this is a line only credible to anyone who did alright under st tony. A lot of us didn't. We got not forgottrn, oh no. Special attention payed to us and our fecklessness


And also, the previous govt laid the ground for the current one. The dismantling of the idea of a common good, to which we all contribute, and which was profoundly attacked by New Labour. They endorsed the Tory view that you should work, pay your taxes, and then after that it's everyone for themselves. They maintained the health service but attacked pretty much everything else that might be thought of as a birthright of some kind - a citizen's right: to housing, to education, as a common good, as a responsibility of ourselves towards others. Nope - you do what you can for yourself, to get ahead.

Hard-Working Families - that's where it is at, that's all that exists, them and criminals. It's easy to forget that this is Thatcherism. There was a time when only the Tories said it.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You keep saying this, with zero evidence. You do know that various things proposed by Corbyn, such as scrapping tuition fees and renationalising the railways, have widespread support?
> 
> Not that any party should simply be producing a manifesto based on opinion poll results. They might wish to, you know, stand for something and make a case for it.


 I think a fundamental flaw in our mutual friend's logic is in his assumption that "if you're not for us, you're agin us". It seems to me that the only thing I have done on this thread that could give anyone the idea that I'm a "Corbynista" (how readily those labels come...) is not to simply accept his unqualified (in both senses of the word) assertions.

Of course, it could be that he is a careful Corbynista plant, operating on the well-known principle that, if you make enough of an idiot of yourself in supporting a particular view, all the while laying out clearly and repetitively what you claim to oppose, people will be instinctively drawn towards what you oppose. A cunning double bluff - perhaps we should have more respect for Mr Mark's devastatingly clever approach.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 18, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Important news here from one of the UK's most serious newspapers: Jeremy Corbyn won't name his cat and instead simply calls it 'the cat'



His cat is actually called 'Chairman Miouw', but he at least has the political nous not to admit that to newspaper hacks.


----------



## irf520 (Jan 18, 2016)

Maybe this is his cat:


----------



## newbie (Jan 18, 2016)

redcogs said:


> It is completely understandable that the trade unions which organise within the UK's defence supply industry are raising concerns about the impact on jobs should a Corbyn government become a reality.


it's good that at least one person on this thread is interested in the issue at the heart of the Labour Party policy issue.  There are a lot of jobs at stake, and 'the unions', ie an awful lot of potential labour voters, see that as being central to the debate, perhaps more so than a lot of the stuff about Putin and that.



> However it is surely the case that an imaginative 'swords to ploughshares' agenda could easily create far more jobs than currently engaged in wastefully building weapons delivery systems etc. .



Easily?  Once upon a time the Lucas Aerospace workers showed the way, but that foundered.  Whatever else is wrong with it, the market economy is quite responsive, spotting opportunities to make stuff, tooling up, getting the people and then trying to flog .  So what gaps are there that a heavy engineering workforce like that in Barrow can turn to that a) isn't already being done by somebody else who doesn't want to lose their job; b) won't immediately be undercut by a cheaper workforce elsewhere in the world and c) will enthuse enough people to vote labour?

I'm unilateralist through and through but even I can see Labour has to develop credible policies if they're going to persuade the British public that not only is trident a very bad idea but also that there are realistic ploughshares for the people of Barrow (etc) to make.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 18, 2016)

newbie said:


> Easily?  Once upon a time the Lucas Aerospace workers showed the way, but that foundered.  Whatever else is wrong with it, the market economy is quite responsive, spotting opportunities to make stuff, tooling up, getting the people and then trying to flog .  So what gaps are there that a heavy engineering workforce like that in Barrow can turn to that a) isn't already being done by somebody else who doesn't want to lose their job; b) won't immediately be undercut by a cheaper workforce elsewhere in the world and c) will enthuse enough people to vote labour?
> 
> I'm unilateralist through and through but even I can see Labour has to develop credible policies if they're going to persuade the British public that not only is trident a very bad idea but also that there are realistic ploughshares for the people of Barrow (etc) to make.



i trust the new influx of radicals into Labour will have many novel ideas about alternatives to producing WOMD and associated delivery systems and hardware.  The obvious choice (for me) in this regard is the green option, large scale production of technology linked to renewables etc.  i've absolutely no expertise in this area, but it is plain that continuing to rely upon fossil fuel for energy is stoking ever more ecological problems. i agree that Corbyn does have to present the electorate (including those at the 'sharper end' with trade union considerations to take into account) with a cogently persuasive set of options if Labour want to win. Ultimately, Labour's real problems will begin after they have achieved office.

In this area i'm 'realistically pessimistic'.  Labour UK incorporated are unlikely to be able to buck the international free markets - flights of capital, investment strikes, the big beasts who really own and control the world will not sit idly back and allow Jeremy to reform too much without a damaging economic and political response.  But that's another question i suppose.  in the meantime, i'm not in favour of dampening the new wave of enthusiasm for socialist politics within Labour.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this is a line only credible to anyone who did alright under st tony. A lot of us didn't. We got not forgotten, oh no. Special attention payed to us and our fecklessness



Yeah, fuck those who have benefitted from the minimum wage, or the huge increases in education and health spending, or the EMA. Or tax credits. 

There's no difference between the above and the tories, according to some.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yeah, fuck those who have benefitted from the minimum wage, or the huge increases in education and health spending, or the EMA. Or tax credits.
> 
> There's no difference between the above and the tories, according to some.


How long have you been a member of the labour party?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You keep saying this, with zero evidence. You do know that various things proposed by Corbyn, such as scrapping tuition fees and renationalising the railways, have widespread support?
> 
> Not that any party should simply be producing a manifesto based on opinion poll results. They might wish to, you know, stand for something and make a case for it.



So you list something the tories are barely opposed to, and something that is effectively a huge regressive tax that subsidises the middle class.


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> How long have you been a member of the labour party?


hows about this MarkyMarrk?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So you list something the tories are barely opposed to, and something that is effectively a huge regressive tax that subsidises the middle class.


Put people in debt right at the start of their adult lives and you keep them compliant - thinking about themselves and themselves only. That's a part of it. As for it being a subsidy for the middle class, if you think the middle class isn't contributing enough, you increase the rate of income tax accordingly. If you look at the stats for the demographic of those attending university you will see that, no surprises, fewer people from poorer backgrounds are now attending since the privatisation of the system.

The commodification of services, of life. What was once a right, you now have to pay for. If it can't be monetised, it shouldn't exist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yeah, fuck those who have benefitted from the minimum wage, or the huge increases in education and health spending, or the EMA. Or tax credits.
> 
> There's no difference between the above and the tories, according to some.




you do know the per capita spend in higher education has been declining for a quarter of a century or more? don't matter if the government's been labour or tory, a lower spend per student means less staff per student and fewer library books per student.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yeah, fuck those who have benefitted from the minimum wage, or the huge increases in education and health spending, or the EMA. Or tax credits.
> 
> There's no difference between the above and the tories, according to some.


Given that this thread is about Corbyn, it can be no surprise that the relative behaviours of Tories and New Labour are being compared alongside the Corbyn position. You may regard the latter as being excessively left-wing, and be that as it may, but the fact remains that, in comparison to what Corbyn & Co are saying (and which appears to have the support of a _lot_ of the grass-roots membership), there is not a huge gulf in practical terms between Blairite policy and that of the Tories. We have seen, time and again, Labour refuse to present any significant opposition to even the most vicious policy initiatives from either the present government or the Coalition, and many of the leadership candidates (remember, the ones who, put together, still polled less than Corbyn managed by himself) have also made it clear that they support much of the present government's strategies on austerity, welfare, etc.

You may not like that - and that is your right - but you really aren't going to get anywhere with a nitpicking approach to Corbyn's policies while you're still apparently so ready to whitewash the ills of his competitors in "blue" Labour.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Put people in debt right at the start of their adult lives and you keep them compliant - thinking about themselves and themselves only. That's a part of it. As for it being a subsidy for the middle class, if you think the middle class isn't contributing enough, you increase the rate of income tax accordingly. If you look at the stats for the demographic of those attending university you will see that, no surprises, fewer people from poorer backgrounds are now attending since the privatisation of the system.
> 
> The commodification of services, of life. What was once a right, you now have to pay for. If it can't be monetised, it shouldn't exist.


This is untrue. The proportion of working class students attending university has increased.

You're in favour of working class people subsidising a largely middle or upper class activity. It was middle and upper class when everyone got a grant and it is now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is untrue. The proportion of working class students attending university has increased.


so you're a tory


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Given that this thread is about Corbyn, it can be no surprise that the relative behaviours of Tories and New Labour are being compared alongside the Corbyn position. You may regard the latter as being excessively left-wing, and be that as it may, but the fact remains that, in comparison to what Corbyn & Co are saying (and which appears to have the support of a _lot_ of the grass-roots membership, there is not a huge gulf in practical terms between Blairite policy and that of the Tories. We have seen, time and again, Labour refuse to present any significant opposition to even the most vicious policy initiatives from either the present government or the Coalition, and many of the leadership candidates (remember, the ones who, put together, still polled less than Corbyn managed by himself) have also made it clear that they support much of the present government's strategies on austerity, welfare, etc.
> 
> You may not like that - and that is your right - but you really aren't going to get anywhere with a nitpicking approach to Corbyn's policies while you're still apparently so ready to whitewash the ills of his competitors in "blue" Labour.



Popular with the new membership but not the electorate.

What do you know about blue labour? Have you read the book?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> hows about this MarkyMarrk?


about what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> about what?




you stupid boy


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> about what?


How long have you been a member of the Labour party?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> How long have you been a member of the Labour party?


Why do you want to know?


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2016)

How long have you been a member of the Labour party?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Popular with the new membership but not the electorate.
> 
> What do you know about blue labour? Have you read the book?


No. I don't read politics books: I have no pretensions to being a political theorist, and would quite happily admit to being "politically naive" (by which I mean that I knew few of the terms of art, and even less of the general miasma of ideological dogmatism and posturing that infests politics).

But, if your contributions are indicative of the level of discourse that someone who does read political books possesses (although I doubt that), then I don't feel that my particular brand of political naivety puts me at all that much of a disadvantage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why do you want to know?


oh dear oh dear


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why do you want to know?


You know, when I saw killer b restate his question, my gut reaction was "I wonder how MarkyMarrk will try and prevaricate on this one".

Nice to know you haven't disappointed.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 18, 2016)

I can't decide whether this guy is being deliberately obtuse and evasive or is just plain stupid.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is untrue. The proportion of working class students attending university has increased.
> 
> You're in favour of working class people subsidising a largely middle or upper class activity. It was middle and upper class when everyone got a grant and it is now.


the proportion of all classes attending university has increased.  The rise in w-c attendance is significantly lower than the rise in middle-class atendance


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

teqniq said:


> I can't decide whether this guy is being deliberately obtuse and evasive or is just plain stupid.


I think he's the classic example of someone who thinks he's the first one to have new ideas, and thinks he's a metric shedload more savvy than he actually is.

Coupled with a fairly major tendency towards assuming that everyone he's arguing with even more stupid than he actually is.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

existentialist said:


> You know, when I saw killer b restate his question, my gut reaction was "I wonder how MarkyMarrk will try and prevaricate on this one".
> 
> Nice to know you haven't disappointed.


He only asked the question once that j saw


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

existentialist said:


> No. I don't read politics books: I have no pretensions to being a political theorist, and would quite happily admit to being "politically naive" (by which I mean that I knew few of the terms of art, and even less of the general miasma of ideological dogmatism and posturing that infests politics).
> 
> But, if your contributions are indicative of the level of discourse that someone who does read political books possesses (although I doubt that), then I don't feel that my particular brand of political naivety puts me at all that much of a disadvantage.


I was going to open up a discussion about blue labour


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why do you want to know?


Curious how deep your apparent expertise in the views and workings of the CLPs is.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> He only asked the question once that j saw


That shouldn't be difficult to clarify, one way or the other.

FYI, here is where he's asked the question:
Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media
(to which you responded, asking him why he wanted to know, so your plea of ignorance rings a little hollow)

So yes, he has now asked it twice. And yet you're still prevaricating.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I was going to open up a discussion about blue labour


Not on this thread, I trust...


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> He only asked the question once that j saw


so why dont you answer it?  I'm intrigued now.  My guess would be you've been a member about one minute longer than those you're criticising


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2016)

Are you a member of the labour party MarkyMarrk?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> Curious how deep your apparent expertise in the views and workings of the CLPs is.


Take what I say and argue against it. I'm not arguing from authority - that's a position taken by those not confident or open to change.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> so why dont you answer it?  I'm intrigued now.  My guess would be you've been a member about one minute longer than those you're criticising



Guess away


----------



## likesfish (Jan 18, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Remember when, 33 years ago, we were told that our national security was dependent upon the deployment of GLCM? Then, just 5 years later, they were withdrawn from service and from the UK.



Because the soviets got rid of the ss20 medium range tactical nuke a multilateral agreement.
 IF no cruise misslies zero reason for the soviets to negociate.
 Natos plan was to die trying to stop the soviet juggernaught.
 Warsaw pacts plan was to launch a spoiling attack to stop a Nato attack.
   Fact niether plans were terribly realistic Nato never really had a realistic stockpile of weapons for even the 6 weeks of war before nukes flew
   Warsaw pact had the tanks and weapons they didnt have the trucks and tankers to support the attack in anywhere near the numbers needed.


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Take what I say and argue against it. I'm not arguing from authority - that's a position taken by those not confident or open to change.


You aren't even a member are you?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Guess away


I just did.  Why are you refusing to tell us?

Are you actually a member at all?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> I just did.  Why are you refusing to tell us?
> 
> Are you actually a member at all?


You can't argue with what someone says so you argue with who they are.

I've no interest in sharing personal details that would identify me locally.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Take what I say and argue against it. I'm not arguing from authority - that's a position taken by those not confident or open to change.


That'd be a "No", then.

Glad we've cleared that up, anyway.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You can't argue with what someone says so you argue with who they are.
> 
> I've no interest in sharing personal details that would identify me locally.


There is plenty to argue with in what you have said. So far as any of it is anything beyond complete platitudinous drivel that isn't _worth_ arguing with, anyway...


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

existentialist said:


> There is plenty to argue with in what you have said. So far as any of it is anything beyond complete platitudinous drivel that isn't _worth_ arguing with, anyway...


Proving my point


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Take what I say and argue against it.


I've tried that, you weren't interested.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

Anyone else get the feeling that friend MarkyMarrk is as happy as Larry just to be keeping this discussion away from anything meaningful or useful in relation to the thread title?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 18, 2016)

Pretty much.


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2016)

yeah, i don't know why you're still bothering. It's been obvious for weeks.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 18, 2016)

When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.


Exactly. But No one on this thread wants to talk about the very large number of things he does that make us unelectable.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Exactly. But No one on this thread wants to talk about the very large number of things he does that make us unelectable.



Us? Are you a member of the Labour Party?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You can't argue with what someone says so you argue with who they are.
> 
> I've no interest in sharing personal details that would identify me locally.


Stating how long you've been a member would hardly help identify you locally. And you are the one slagging people off for having an opinion despite their recent membership, so it is incumbent upon you show us why your (supposedly longstanding) opinion is relevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Us? Are you a member of the Labour Party?


no, several people share his login


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.


I think he's only saying what happens anyway: when the IRA was bombing its way around the place, channels of communication were open, and, if not negotiations, then at least discussions aimed at keeping the way open to negotiations were going on. Of course, it was considered politically unwise to acknowledge that, so Thatcher was happy to keep on banging on about "no negotiations with terrorists", but it's ultimately what brought us to the various agreements that have led to a considerable reduction in Irish nationalist terrorist activity.

Whether he's wise or foolhardy in saying what he's saying is another question...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not arguing from authority


that's because you're pig-ignorant


----------



## J Ed (Jan 18, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think he's only saying what happens anyway: when the IRA was bombing its way around the place, channels of communication were open, and, if not negotiations, then at least discussions aimed at keeping the way open to negotiations were going on. Of course, it was considered politically unwise to acknowledge that, so Thatcher was happy to keep on banging on about "no negotiations with terrorists", but it's ultimately what brought us to the various agreements that have led to a considerable reduction in Irish nationalist terrorist activity.
> 
> Whether he's wise or foolhardy in saying what he's saying is another question...



I'm not even saying they shouldn't exist, in some capacity they are inevitable unless ISIS collapses but it is a stupid thing to say. Who the fuck is it supposed to appeal to? StWC conveners?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.


Yeah I thought that was ill-considered, to me it seems that these are not people you can negotiate with. Here though for a bit of a change is an upbeat article about him.

Jeremy Corbyn has finally brought left wing ideas in from the cold


----------



## irf520 (Jan 18, 2016)

redcogs said:


> In this area i'm 'realistically pessimistic'.  Labour UK incorporated are unlikely to be able to buck the international free markets - flights of capital, investment strikes, the big beasts who really own and control the world will not sit idly back and allow Jeremy to reform too much without a damaging economic and political response.



I think that's the real issue. Any attempt to break from the neoliberal agenda would be punished savagely by the international financiers. The pound would drop like a stone and, given how reliant we are on imports, the average person's cost of living would shoot through the roof. To do anything really ambitious you need to be a lot more self sufficient than we are.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I'm not even saying they shouldn't exist, in some capacity they are inevitable unless ISIS collapses but it is a stupid thing to say. Who the fuck is it supposed to appeal to? StWC conveners?



Exactly. No thought that those that don't already agree need to vote for us.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why do you want to know?



Because you have been criticising people on the grounds of the length of their membership of the Labour Party.

For the record I am not a member and haven't been since the early 1990s.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## redcogs (Jan 18, 2016)

irf520 said:


> I think that's the real issue. Any attempt to break from the neoliberal agenda would be punished savagely by the international financiers. The pound would drop like a stone and, given how reliant we are on imports, the average person's cost of living would shoot through the roof. To do anything really ambitious you need to be a lot more self sufficient than we are.



There are perhaps some grounds for optimism in the sense that a Europe wide challenge to the awful government addiction to austerity formula doesn't seem to be out of the question?  A further recession may yet produce a left shift across several nation states.  god knows we need some class struggle to stem the rising tide of anti Muslim racism and far right stirrings.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.



Except that it's something the government will already be doing - through intermediaries. Of course, Rupert's rag will be chary about noising off about *that* particular piece of _realpolitik_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Because you have been criticising people on the grounds of the length of their membership of the Labour Party.
> 
> For the record I am not a member and haven't been since the early 1990s.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I was a member for 13 years, right up until Blair's "clause 4 moment", when the final sliver of mask over his neoliberal project slipped off.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Exactly. No thought that those that don't already agree need to vote for us.



Do you think the British state is talking to or will talk to ISIS?

Are you smart enough to see why this is or will be happening (through intermediaries)?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## newbie (Jan 18, 2016)

redcogs said:


> i trust the new influx of radicals into Labour will have many novel ideas about alternatives to producing WOMD and associated delivery systems and hardware.  The obvious choice (for me) in this regard is the green option, large scale production of technology linked to renewables etc.  i've absolutely no expertise in this area, but it is plain that continuing to rely upon fossil fuel for energy is stoking ever more ecological problems. i agree that Corbyn does have to present the electorate (including those at the 'sharper end' with trade union considerations to take into account) with a cogently persuasive set of options if Labour want to win. Ultimately, Labour's real problems will begin after they have achieved office.
> 
> In this area i'm 'realistically pessimistic'.  Labour UK incorporated are unlikely to be able to buck the international free markets - flights of capital, investment strikes, the big beasts who really own and control the world will not sit idly back and allow Jeremy to reform too much without a damaging economic and political response.  But that's another question i suppose.  in the meantime, i'm not in favour of dampening the new wave of enthusiasm for socialist politics within Labour.


that's fair enough, nor am I.

That said I don't see that skipping over very real problems is helpful.  On a day when there's a very depressed sounding bloke on the radio saying he sees no future for his steelmaking community in South Wales it feels necessary to be hardheaded about jobs and communities.

The need is clearly there, but to some extent it's being satisfied. There are plenty of wind turbines and solar panel manufacturers about, lots of medieval tide mills that could be harnessed and so on.  The issue there isn't that the technology doesn't exist, it's that the government won't fund the installation. There are already people elsewhere in the world building the kit, almost certainly cheaper than it could be built in Barrow, so it's going to take a lot of political nous to find a basis the LP can campaign on that isn't just an easy target for the tories.

That said, the tory _adapt or die_ mantra can be applied to the destruction of jobs in the case of change of political will just as much as gamechanging cheap Chinese imports. So clever (if unpleasant) politicians could argue it, but in terms of practical politics, the LP picking a fight with its main financial and ideological backers isn't that smart.

I don't pretend to have any answers.  If it comes to it I'll go for unilateralism over jobs, but as the Blairites keep saying, they won't win an election on that basis.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You can't argue with what someone says so you argue with who they are.
> 
> I've no interest in sharing personal details that would identify me locally.



How would stating how long you've been with the Labour Party (if you even are) identify you in anyway?


Oh, it wouldn't.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 18, 2016)

newbie said:


> that's fair enough, nor am I.
> 
> That said I don't see that skipping over very real problems is helpful.  On a day when there's a very depressed sounding bloke on the radio saying he sees no future for his steelmaking community in South Wales it feels necessary to be hardheaded about jobs and communities.
> 
> ...



It would be excellent if some type of intelligent re-industrialisation come begin to fuel our collective imagination don't you think newbie?  Maybe based on clean coal carbon capture? maybe steel production/fabrication to service this area would be a job creation scheme worth consideration.  i read somewhere that CCCC remains in undeveloped infancy, but could become seriously important given appropriate investment.  Course, the rich will continue to push gas and nuclear energy provision (provided they get enough public subsidy!)..  But leaving all that indigenous coal underground and untapped seems bonkers.  

i'm sure virtually everyone here would
 agree with your point about the need being there - in every area we could consider.  If Corbyn releases the imagination that has enabled Labour to develop so much in such a short period we could see an explosion of potential projects offering careers and jobs in communities that have been kicked almost to death over decades.


----------



## newbie (Jan 18, 2016)

redcogs said:


> It would be excellent if some type of intelligent re-industrialisation come begin to fuel our collective imagination don't you think newbie?


well yes, and I've no desire to come over all Daily Telegraph _where's the money coming from_?  I guess my imagination has been ground down from far too much uninspired, rotten government.  

In any case I can't see anyone else with any desire to bridge the gap between imaginative proposals and putting food on tables, so I guess our hopes have to rest on Corbyn, and those who inspire him and those he inspires.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 19, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> How would stating how long you've been with the Labour Party (if you even are) identify you in anyway?
> 
> 
> Oh, it wouldn't.



Given what people have already established about me by going through my posts, and keep posting up, including my age, university, parents and area, it definitely would.

Plus the disgraceful bullying makes me nervous about who on here might find me.

But you probably know best.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 19, 2016)

redcogs said:


> ...  But leaving all that indigenous coal underground and untapped seems bonkers.



Future use of coal as an energy source is more likely to comprise burning it in situ underground (or pumping in gas to old seams to release methane and burn that).  That's where the technology is heading, with greater control on emissions.  The days of digging it out are over.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Given what people have already established about me by going through my posts, and keep posting up, including my age, university, parents and area, it definitely would.
> 
> Plus the disgraceful bullying makes me nervous about who on here might find me.
> 
> But you probably know best.


thank you for confirming its accuracy.


----------



## NoXion (Jan 19, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Future use of coal as an energy source is more likely to comprise burning it in situ underground (or pumping in gas to old seams to release methane and burn that).  That's where the technology is heading, with greater control on emissions.  The days of digging it out are over.



Coal seams aren't designed to be air-tight, so this idea that emissions can be controlled if we burn them underground instead is absolutely ludicrous on the face of it. That kind of nonsense, along with the "clean" coal scam, strike me as nothing more than overly-complicated attempts to have our cake and eat it when it comes to reducing emissions.

All that effort towards trying to de-carbonise fundamentally carbon-based energy generation methods would be better off spent on improving renewable and nuclear energy generation capability with as much local expertise as can be mustered. Assuming that a major goal is to reduce carbon emissions, that is.


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Plus the disgraceful bullying makes me nervous about who on here might find me.


What disgraceful bullying?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 19, 2016)

Sue said:


> What disgraceful bullying?


I think he means people disagreeing with him.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 19, 2016)

Sue said:


> What disgraceful bullying?


I hope he's reported it.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 19, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Coal seams aren't designed to be air-tight, so this idea that emissions can be controlled if we burn them underground instead is absolutely ludicrous on the face of it. That kind of nonsense, along with the "clean" coal scam, strike me as nothing more than overly-complicated attempts to have our cake and eat it when it comes to reducing emissions.



Coal seams aren't designed, they're just there.  The projects I'm aware of (investigative only at the moment I think) involve sub-sea deposits. Burning is controlled by the input of oxygen, without this nothing burns.  Control the pumping, control the generation.  This is looking at very deep seams, below the water table and at a depth where geological impacts are unlikely. It's pretty safe, but yes, still involves burning carbon which we ought to be moving away from.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 19, 2016)

Coal remains a fundamental source of energy supply in the UK (about 30% of total requirement).  Instead of digging it out from under our feet, where 300 years worth is 'stored', and thereby reviving deliberately screwed communities, capitalism UK inc' prefers to import huge amounts, lots of it produced in Colombia.. what an eco friendly option that is, carting it across the globe in ships!  "The days of digging it out are over".  Probably correct, but remains to be seen, and will depend upon too many variables to argue about with any real certainty.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 19, 2016)

Incidentally, Colombian coal is nice and cheap to produce,  facilitated, as it is, by the involvement of kids in the process - sometimes as forced labour:  

"According to a 2013 U.S. Department of Labor report on the worst forms of child labor and labor conditions around the world, the Colombian mining industry has been known[_by whom?_] to employ underage children. The report indicated that Colombia's industrial sector employed 20% of the working children who were aged 5 to 14 years old.[18] However, and despite the government's participation in a "4-year, $9 million project to combat child labor and improve workplace health and safety in mining", children continue to engage in child labor. In fact, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs issued a List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor in December 2014 where Colombia was mentioned for its use of underage children in brick, coal, gold and emerald mining.[19]"  (wiki)


----------



## NoXion (Jan 19, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> Coal seams aren't designed, they're just there.  The projects I'm aware of (investigative only at the moment I think) involve sub-sea deposits. Burning is controlled by the input of oxygen, without this nothing burns.  Control the pumping, control the generation.  This is looking at very deep seams, below the water table and at a depth where geological impacts are unlikely. It's pretty safe, but yes, still involves burning carbon which we ought to be moving away from.



Coal seams aren't designed, that was my point. How can they ensure that the carbon produced by any amount of oxygen introduced doesn't escape into the sea (geological disturbances like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions aside, some rocks and minerals are more porous than others) and thus contribute towards ocean acidification? 



redcogs said:


> Coal remains a fundamental source of energy supply in the UK (about 30% of total requirement).  Instead of digging it out from under our feet, where 300 years worth is 'stored', and thereby reviving deliberately screwed communities, capitalism UK inc' prefers to import huge amounts, lots of it produced in Colombia.. what an eco friendly option that is, carting it across the globe in ships!  "The days of digging it out are over".  Probably correct, but remains to be seen, and will depend upon too many variables to argue about with any real certainty.



Coal may currently produce 30% of the UK's energy, but that doesn't mean it should stay that way.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 19, 2016)

Why would the UK use coal that is produced by slave and child labour, then expensively shipped across the world ( by vested interest corporations ) who will move anything for money?  Could the answer be related to the 1980s neutralising of the trade union movement in the UK?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 19, 2016)

OK.  More safe nuclear stations is it?  Or maybe that carbon free gas that we are all so attached to? Or the carbon free oil that the world is awash with?


----------



## NoXion (Jan 19, 2016)

redcogs said:


> OK.  More safe nuclear stations is it?  Or maybe that carbon free gas that we are all so attached to? Or the carbon free oil that the world is awash with?



Who's suggesting gas or oil? Certainly not me. And nuclear is certainly safe compared to fossil fuels in terms of deaths per TWH.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Given what people have already established about me by going through my posts, and keep posting up, including my age, university, parents and area, it definitely would.
> 
> Plus the disgraceful bullying makes me nervous about who on here might find me.
> 
> But you probably know best.



People on here know my age, location, what degrees I hold, political leanings, and the fact that I was a member of Streatham CLP when I left in '94.  They're welcome to look up anything they want about me, but it'll be difficult - going on impossible - without them knowing my name.

You're making excuses, and engaging in fantasy if you think anyone will track you down. The only poster who ever did anything like that comes from your neck of the woods, but he's been banned for years now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> People on here know my age, location, what degrees I hold, political leanings, and the fact that I was a member of Streatham CLP when I left in '94.  They're welcome to look up anything they want about me, but it'll be difficult - going on impossible - without them knowing my name.
> 
> You're making excuses, and engaging in fantasy if you think anyone will track you down. The only poster who ever did anything like that comes from your neck of the woods, but he's been banned for years now.


why would anyone want to track him down and have to deal with his whining in person?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 19, 2016)

It's Corbyn he's afraid of - the Stalinist purge after the Glorious Election Revolution.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

two sheds said:


> It's Corbyn he's afraid of - the Stalinist purge after the Glorious Election Revolution.


corbyn has his address tho.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> why would anyone want to track him down and have to deal with his whining in person?



Well quite.
It's like that eejit Lib-Dem candidate who posted here (moon23?), then got the fears about posters finding out where he was standing and queering his pitch. Why the fuck would anyone bother?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well quite.
> It's like that eejit Lib-Dem candidate who posted here (moon23?), then got the fears about posters finding out where he was standing and queering his pitch. Why the fuck would anyone bother?


i thought moon23 queered his own pitch more than any of us could


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2016)

two sheds said:


> It's Corbyn he's afraid of - the Stalinist purge after the Glorious Election Revolution.



If there's going to be a purge by Stalinists, then Corbyn (a mere social democrat, although not to hear MarkyMarrk's ilk whine about him) would be in the firing line too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> If there's going to be a purge by Stalinists, then Corbyn (a mere social democrat, although not to hear MarkyMarrk's ilk whine about him) would be in the firing line too.


corbyn in his wrath will send for all the whiny little shits who joined the labour party and ship them to the new gulag established on west falkland, south georgia and in the southernmost reaches of the british antarctick territory


----------



## cantsin (Jan 19, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Given what people have already established about me by going through my posts, and keep posting up, including my age, university, parents and area, it definitely would.
> 
> Plus the disgraceful bullying makes me nervous about who on here might find me.
> 
> But you probably know best.



 mouthy, attention seeking, delusional, paranoid, + cowardly - impressive


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> corbyn in his wrath will send for all the whiny little shits who joined the labour party and ship them to the new gulag established on west falkland, south georgia and in the southernmost reaches of the british antarctick territory



Jolly bad luck for the exiles, being shipped off to a landmass known to house chthonic entities.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> corbyn in his wrath will send for all the whiny little shits who joined the labour party and ship them to the new gulag established on west falkland, south georgia and in the southernmost reaches of the british antarctick territory


Won't someone think of the penguins? (((penguins)))


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

cantsin said:


> mouthy, attention seeking, delusional, paranoid, + cowardly - impressive


all the hallmarks of a blairite mp


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jolly bad luck for the exiles, being shipped off to a landmass known to house chthonic entities.


none of them will return


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> none of them will return



Oh dear.
How sad.
Never mind!


----------



## tim (Jan 19, 2016)

fishfinger said:


> Won't someone think of the penguins? (((penguins)))



They will be allowed to take a chef from the Granita who will be able to think up some kind of penguin based amuse-bouche.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2016)

tim said:


> They will be allowed to take a chef from the Granita who will be able to think up some kind of penguin based amuse-bouche.


the chef from granita is in fact the head guard.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 19, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Given what people have already established about me by going through my posts, and keep posting up, including my age, university, parents and area, it definitely would.


Quoting back at you what you've posted on here? 

Devious bastards.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 19, 2016)

tim said:


> They will be allowed to take a chef from the Granita who will be able to think up some kind of penguin based amuse-bouche.



Dr. Frederick A. Cook said:


> If it's possible to imagine a piece of beef, odiferous cod fish and a canvas-backed duck roasted together in a pot, with blood and cod-liver oil for sauce, the illustration would be complete


Antarctic Explorers: Adrien de Gerlache


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 19, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Quoting back at you what you've posted on here?
> 
> Devious bastards.



I wasn't claiming anything else. Just several people have obviously been through my posts _systematically._ There would definitely be enough for a CLP member to identify me.

Unlike what half a dozen experts on this thread have claimed.


----------



## belboid (Jan 19, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I wasn't claiming anything else. Just several people have obviously been through my posts _systematically._ There would definitely be enough for a CLP member to identify me.
> 
> Unlike what half a dozen experts on this thread have claimed.


so it doesn't matter if you tell us (roughly) how long you've been a Labour Party member for then


----------



## redcogs (Jan 19, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I wasn't claiming anything else. Just several people have obviously been through my posts _systematically._ There would definitely be enough for a CLP member to identify me.
> 
> Unlike what half a dozen experts on this thread have claimed.



Judging from what i've read here (naturally i've systematically done the entirety of your content) you are either Mandelson, Cameron  Kinnock, or Georgie Osborn. am i warm??


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2016)

Can we go back to talking about corbyn and cabinet in the media sometime soon?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 19, 2016)

Not coal?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 19, 2016)

This is interesting, covers lots of stuff. Don't necessarily agree with all of it particularly his praise of Cameron, but he's got some nice things to say about Corbyn.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 19, 2016)

Yougov poll carried out on 14th and 15th Jan:

Jeremy Corbyn has changed the Labour Party for the... Better: 21% Worse: 45% [No change]: 19%

Some say Corbyn has moved Labour to the left. This is... True and a good thing: 26% True and a bad thing: 42% Untrue: 5%

If Corbyn remains Labour leader, it is (X) that they will win the next election: Likely: 14% Unlikely: 69%

On how well Jeremy Corbyn is doing as Labour Party leader: Well: 24% (-2) Badly: 63% (+3) (via YouGov / 14 - 15 Jan) Changes. from 05 - 06 Jan.


To compare:

To compare: Ed Miliband has changed the Labour Party for the... Better: 16% Worse: 11% [No change]: 56% (via YouGov / 27 - 28 Sep 2011)


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 19, 2016)

This poll makes me angry. We're making no headway despite it:

On how well David Cameron is doing as Prime Minister: Well: 43% (-) Badly: 49% (-2) (via YouGov / 14 - 15 Jan) Chgs. from 05 - 06 Jan.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2016)

I don't think the polling figures can be argued with: they are what they are. Why are they what they are though? I'd argue that it isn't because people are overwhelmingly opposed to his politics, but because of a combination of the civil war being fought openly within the (parliamentary) party, and the overwhelmingly negative press he gets from all parts of the media.

Is the correct response to this for him to give in? He isn't acceptable to people with money, so the Labour party should come back with someone they can do business with?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't think the polling figures can be argued with: they are what they are. Why are they what they are though? I'd argue that it isn't because people are overwhelmingly opposed to his politics, but because of a combination of the civil war being fought openly within the (parliamentary) party, and the overwhelmingly negative press he gets from all parts of the media.
> 
> Is the correct response to this for him to give in? He isn't acceptable to people with money, so the Labour party should come back with someone they can do business with?



I object to the constant blaming of the press and the electorate, and not the focus on how inadequate his "leadership" has been thus far, his hypocrisy - he only has principles when it suits him - and his role in the civil war.
The Labour Party is currently a mess. The Corbynistas and Corbyn himself are not blameless, much as they will persuade themselves. They are leading it, and they said they'd unify it. They haven't and it doesn't look like they can.
Someone earlier on wrote a post about how Corbyn will get some things right and it will surprise people who backs him. I agree with that. So get more things right and get more surprised.
It doesn't matter how 'pure' or 'left' policies are when the Tories will win the next election and won't need to even pretend they have to modify anything because we are too mental to attract any of their majority.

And stop defending his disastrous polling with the electorate with "he wins a majority in the Labour Party". That's not getting us power.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2016)

I'm not blaming the electorate. I'm not defending his disastrous polling. You've imagined both of those things.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm not blaming the electorate. I'm not defending his disastrous polling. You've imagined both of those things.



I haven't imagined them. It's everywhere, including hugely on this thread.
I just wasn't aiming them at you. I realise it looked like I did because I quoted your post and I should have clarified that it was just the press part that I was replying to you. I then extended my point.
So: apologies.


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2016)

There does seem to be some denial regarding his polling here, which is a bit frustrating. But I think it's _you_ that has the negative view of the electorate - you imagine them in some kind of fixed position (a position shared - conveniently - with the right wing of the party), and it's for Corbyn to change his policies to better fit them, than for him to attempt to make the case and talk people round. 

Of course the leadership isn't faultless - how could it be? Until 6 months ago they never dreamed for a second that something like this could happen. They're having to learn a huge amount, on the fly, under microscopic scrutiny and with a large section of the PLP actively working against them.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 19, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I wasn't claiming anything else. Just several people have obviously been through my posts _systematically._ There would definitely be enough for a CLP member to identify me.
> 
> Unlike what half a dozen experts on this thread have claimed.


_Systematically _


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 19, 2016)

killer b said:


> There does seem to be some denial regarding his polling here, which is a bit frustrating. But I think it's _you_ that has the negative view of the electorate - you imagine them in some kind of fixed position (a position shared - conveniently - with the right wing of the party), and it's for Corbyn to change his policies to better fit them, than for him to attempt to make the case and talk people round.



It's talk a very large majority round from a position they've never held. I could handle a 'make the case on trident', but it's everything. 
Do you know anyone who voted Tory who will vote Labour because of Corbyn? Do you think such a person exists?

The denial in real life is because there's a myth that non-voters are overwhelmingly left wing. This aligns with a second myth that somehow being left wing gets the voters out. There's a study to show that, if anything, non-voters are less likely to vote Labour. I will see if I can dig it up.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Do you know anyone who voted Tory who will vote Labour because of Corbyn? Do you think such a person exists?



It'll be just fine. The High Sparrow only needs to win about 100 seats from the Conservatives to be PM. Corbyn is fucking thick but I don't think even he believes he will ever be PM. He is just treating his stint as LotO as a footballer's testimonial. The valedictory capstone to a lengthy career spent doing nothing but talking shite to arseholes.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Do you know anyone who voted Tory who will vote Labour because of Corbyn? Do you think such a person exists?


Yes, very few of them, but some. The ones who think that Miliband's halfway house was crap that it would amount to a half-hearted version of the same policy, but can be convinced by an genuine alternative.

Their numbers will be tiny, dwarfed by the 63% of the adult population who voted neither Labour nor tory. Trying to win them is more important., imo.  And that is eminently possible. We cranked some figures on another thread, I think it was a quarter of greens, and 15% of the registered non-voters, and there would be a Labour government (albeit propped up by the SNP)


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

How do you get fifteen percent of nonvoters who agree with you to vote but not the greater proportion who don't? 

Complete misunderstanding of psephology there and a dead end strategy.

And you're the first person I've ever met you claims to know Tories who will now vote labour because of Corbyn. At least we've found one that claims it, even if it's not true.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Also to mention that in actual fact Corbyn has managed to go the other way.

Turn Labour voters into Tories and turn Labour voters into Lib dems and non voters - and I do know people in each of those categories.

So it currently stands a great deal higher than fifteen percent of mythical non-voters.

I see that fifteen percent includes people who voted lib dem at the last election - IE voted for the existing government.

I give up. Have your pure, put of power Labour Party. Let the Tories do what they want unchallenged. You lot make me sick.

While you play politics, those people a labour government would have helped.  Those people that need a labour government and can't play politics, can carry on dying under the Tories. Disgrace.


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2016)

I don't know if Corbyn could persuade a load of people who voted tory last time to vote Labour in 2020. I do know that many of the people who voted Tory last time are not ideologically committed tories though - one of the big shifts in the past 30 years or so has been away from tribal voting. 

I don't know if that'll happen here - but nor do you. I do know that the electorate rejected a manifesto and potential government drawn from the centre-right of the party in May last year, and I know that the membership of the party - all parts - voted overwhelmingly to try a different approach. Maybe if you lot sucked it up and presented some kind of coherent, unified face to the electorate then it'd be possible to see whether they agree with it.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Also to mention that in actual fact Corbyn has managed to go the other way.
> 
> Turn Labour voters into Tories and turn Labour voters into Lib dems and non voters - and I do know people in each of those categories.
> 
> ...








You're starting to sound like a sixth former who's just discovered politics.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> While you play politics, those people a labour government would have helped.  Those people that need a labour government and can't play politics, can carry on dying under the Tories. Disgrace.



Yeah. What Labour really need to do is promise to be even worse to those people than the Tories. Then they can get into power and help them.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't know if Corbyn could persuade a load of people who voted tory last time to vote Labour in 2020. I do know that many of the people who voted Tory last time are not ideologically committed tories though - one of the big shifts in the past 30 years or so has been away from tribal voting.
> 
> I don't know if that'll happen here - but nor do you. I do know that the electorate rejected a manifesto and potential government drawn from the centre-right of the party in May last year, and I know that the membership of the party - all parts - voted overwhelmingly to try a different approach. Maybe if you lot sucked it up and presented some kind of coherent, unified face to the electorate then it'd be possible to see whether they agree with it.



I do know that this is what moving left has done to us, and the polls appear to continue to be doing.

Being told to calm down in a patronising manner over the Tories being able to act unchecked shows that some just play politics.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yeah. What Labour really need to do is promise to be even worse to those people than the Tories. Then they can get into power and help them.


Why write this bollocks? What point do you think you make by pretending I said this?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I do know that this is what moving left has done to us, and the polls appear to continue to be doing.
> 
> Being told to calm down in a patronising manner over the Tories being able to act unchecked shows that some just play politics.


I expect you'll find some way to blame that on the "Corbynistas", too.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> *How do you get fifteen percent of nonvoters who agree with you to vote but not the greater proportion who don't?*
> 
> Complete misunderstanding of psephology there and a dead end strategy.
> 
> And you're the first person I've ever met you claims to know Tories who will now vote labour because of Corbyn. At least we've found one that claims it, even if it's not true.



By offering them an electoral choice which they positively like, which they are genuinely enthused by. Doing this wouldn't automatically result in an equal or greater number of people, similarly committed to opposing that electoral choice; that is an ill thought out assumption.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I* object to the constant blaming of the press and the electorate*, and not the focus on how inadequate his "leadership" has been thus far, his hypocrisy - he only has principles when it suits him - and his role in the civil war.
> 
> And stop defending his disastrous polling with the electorate with "*he wins a majority in the Labour Party*". That's not getting us power.



1. Who has blamed the electorate; some evidence please? And if you don't think the press has interests and a role to play in shaping the dominant public political discourse then you are more at sea than I thought.

2. What method would you prefer for electing a leader, selecting candidates, formulating and agreeing policy? You tell people to stop blaming the electorate but apparently you are quite happy to blame the Labour Party electorate; so it would seem apart from the relative handful of members of the PLP, the Labour Party has the wrong sort of members...longstanding stalwarts like yourself excepted of course.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> How do you get fifteen percent of nonvoters who agree with you to vote but not the greater proportion who don't?


wow, you really are fucking thick.  That or just a shit troll. Offer people something positive, and they respond, funnily enough. The kippers manage it, the greens do, so Labour could.



> Complete misunderstanding of psephology there and a dead end strategy.


oh yes, much better idea to be a torylite, that's a really well worked out strategy.  I note you have nothing , no evidence, historical or otherwise, to back up your assertion. Not surprisingly



> And you're the first person I've ever met you claims to know Tories who will now vote labour because of Corbyn. At least we've found one that claims it, even if it's not true.


actually the pollsters have found a very small number of tory switchers, so if you're calling me a liar, you're calling them one too.  tho we know who the actual liar is, dont we?

You're not a member of the Labour Party at all.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I expect you'll find some way to blame that on the "Corbynistas", too.


Well yes, making Labour unelectable has left the Tories unchecked. They can do what they like, comfortable in the knowledge that they'll increase their majority from an incredible election result. 

The attached is why. But it's inconvenient to Corbynistas so they ignore it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Also to mention that in actual fact Corbyn has managed to go the other way.
> 
> Turn Labour voters into Tories and *turn Labour voters into Lib dems* and non voters - and I do know people in each of those categories.
> 
> ...



How many actual Lib Dem voters have been created; once again evidence please?

There are people on these boards who have decades of providing support for people left behind and actively excluded by Conservative, Labour and coalition governments; having a hissy fit because you cannot win an argument on a message board doesn't fill me with confidence about your ability to build up such a track record.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2016)

I'm afraid 'tory lite' has been added to the banned words list.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. Who has blamed the electorate; some evidence please? And if you don't think the press has interests and a role to play in shaping the dominant public political discourse then you are more at sea than I thought.
> 
> 2. What method would you prefer for electing a leader, selecting candidates, formulating and agreeing policy? You tell people to stop blaming the electorate but apparently you are quite happy to blame the Labour Party electorate; so it would seem apart from the relative handful of members of the PLP, the Labour Party has the wrong sort of members...longstanding stalwarts like yourself excepted of course.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



The Labour Party is constantly saying it's the electorate that needs to change. See this thread for an example.

Yes, I partly blame the £3 "members" and the Trots, Communists and greens who entered our party for their own purposes, not really caring whether we get a Labour Government. I also blame moderate Labour Party members. We messed up. I blame us for shutting up in the name of unity when the outcome of Miliband's leadership was incredibly clear and predictable and _we'd been predicting it _in semi-private for at least two years, and it's our fault for saying almost nothing during the election when he did stupid things like the Stone or Russell Brand.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Well yes, making Labour unelectable has left the Tories unchecked. They can do what they like, comfortable in the knowledge that they'll increase their majority from an incredible election result.
> 
> The attached is why. But it's inconvenient to Corbynistas so they ignore it.


"Corbynistas" have only been in evidence for about 4 months. How are they supposed to have fucked up Labour's chances in 2010 or 2015?

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason Labour lost in those elections was because of the machinations of a sekrit fifth column of ultra-hard-lefties, and not because the party was essentially a pile of shit, with non-credible leadership and policies that read like a list of stuff Lynton Crosby had chucked in the bin for not being quite evil enough?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm afraid 'tory lite' has been added to the banned words list.


Ju


Louis MacNeice said:


> By offering them an electoral choice which they positively like, which they are genuinely enthused by. Doing this wouldn't automatically result in an equal or greater number of people, similarly committed to opposing that electoral choice; that is an ill thought out assumption.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



That fifteen percent that don't exist then.
Non-voters are generally more rightwing than voters. Another inconvenient fact ignored by Corbynistas. When that report came out just after the election, it literally got ignored by them.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The Labour Party is constantly saying it's the electorate that needs to change. See this thread for an example.


Can't you think of an example that is actually true?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> "Corbynistas" have only been in evidence for about 4 months. How are they supposed to have fucked up Labour's chances in 2010 or 2015?
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the reason Labour lost in those elections was because of the machinations of a sekrit fifth column of ultra-hard-lefties, and not because the party was essentially a pile of shit, with non-credible leadership and policies that read like a list of stuff Lynton Crosby had chucked in the bin for not being quite evil enough?



No, I'm talking about the state of the Labour Party now.

I blame moderates for shutting up in the name of unity as Miliband and acolytes continued the 'to the left' project. I was worried we'd have a third Brownite leader in three, but it's far far worse than that.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

It's not true that 'we need to persuade them to change' is the common narrative?
Now you're just lying.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> wow, you really are fucking thick.  That or just a shit troll. Offer people something positive, and they respond, funnily enough. The kippers manage it, the greens do, so Labour could.
> 
> 
> oh yes, much better idea to be a torylite, that's a really well worked out strategy.  I note you have nothing , no evidence, historical or otherwise, to back up your assertion. Not surprisingly
> ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> *The Labour Party is constantly saying it's the electorate that needs to change. See this thread for an example.*
> 
> Yes, I partly blame the £3 "members" and the Trots, Communists and greens who entered our party for their own purposes, not really caring whether we get a Labour Government. I also blame moderate Labour Party members. We messed up. I blame us for shutting up in the name of unity when the outcome of Miliband's leadership was incredibly clear and predictable and _we'd been predicting it _in semi-private for at least two years, and it's our fault for saying almost nothing during the election when he did stupid things like the Stone or Russell Brand.



Evidence please; you know quotes and stuff...not just assertion.

Labour members in all parts of the party except the PLP voted for Corbyn. So you are blaming a majority of Labour Party members for exercising their democratic choice wrongly; and yet you see no irony in chucking about 'don't blame the electorate' rhetoric. You say that Corbyn is a hypocrite but I fancy I see more than a splinter in your own eye.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2016)

'corbynite' is also banned. no exceptions.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Keep closing your ears to facts in the name of 'Corbyn is getting it right and will win'.
You're wrong, and the Tories know it, hence them saying they'll implement their manifesto in full. A manifesto that was designed as the _starting point _for negotiations. They're openly laughing and they are implementing something far to the right of what they expected to be able to get away with. Because there is no opposition. The polls are the evidence.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Ju
> 
> 
> That fifteen percent that don't exist then.
> *Non-voters are generally more rightwing than voters.* Another inconvenient fact ignored by Corbynistas. When that report came out just after the election, it literally got ignored by them.



If you are at University then you will have been made aware of the notion of supplying supporting evidence; it's not tricky, so why not treat the rest of posters with some respect and a least try to back up your claims?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarr: 'I object to the constant blaming of the press...'

Meanwhile in other news:

'The right wing press are really stepping up that anti-migrant stuff now. I know they always have, but it's across the board. I think it will become the underlying centrepiece of the out campaign.'  MarkyMarrk




​So MarkyMarrk, that objection to 'blaming the press' thing; how's that working out for you?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That fifteen percent that don't exist then.
> Non-voters are generally more rightwing than voters. Another inconvenient fact ignored by Corbynistas. When that report came out just after the election, it literally got ignored by them.


you're a _really _big fan of the unjustified and unsubstantiated assertion, aren't you?  I suppose trolls usually are.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

that attachment doesn't relate to the quote you qiuoted, does it?


I hope you argued rather more coherently on the doorstep, because the way you're going I think you might have got me to vote tory


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Evidence please; you know quotes and stuff...not just assertion.
> 
> Labour members in all parts of the party except the PLP voted for Corbyn. So you are blaming a majority of Labour Party members for exercising their democratic choice wrongly; and yet you see no irony in chucking about 'don't blame the electorate' rhetoric. You say that Corbyn is a hypocrite but I fancy I see more than a splinter in your own eye.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I think the 9million voters who voted for Labour MPs should be considered ahead of those who paid £3.


Louis MacNeice said:


> MarkyMarr: 'I object to the constant blaming of the press...'
> 
> Meanwhile in other news:
> 
> ...



I mean by the Labour Party for not getting elected.

Someone asked for evidence of non-voters... I've been looking for the stuff I read. Here's one: The non-voter myth


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

_When asked what prevented non-voters from supporting Labour, the top 4 responses were: 35% ‘don’t know’, 30% ‘they can’t be trusted with the economy’, 23% ‘they would make it too easy for people to live on benefits’, 22% ‘they would raise taxes’._

How inconvenient.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

_Compare the results to people who did vote, but didn’t vote Labour. Again, the top 4 responses: 40% ‘they can’t be trusted with the economy’, 25% they would make it too easy for people to live on benefits’, 24% ‘they would be bossed around by Nicola Sturgeon’, 19% ‘don’t know’._


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> you're a _really _big fan of the unjustified and unsubstantiated assertion, aren't you?  I suppose trolls usually are.



Will you fuck off with calling people who disagree with you 'trolls'. 

It's ok to disagree.

The non-voter myth


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

_Fabian research showed 4 out of 5 extra votes Labour needs must come from Tory voters. Jon Cruddas’ review of the election shows the deficit is the top priority.
_


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

_But show this to a Corbyn supporter and they will bury their head in the sand. The Cruddas polling is full of leading questions. The Fabians are secret Tories_

Has he been reading this thread?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

_Rather than sell out to these false prophets, they say, we just need to inspire non-voters. British socialism has failed to take root because there is a hidden part of the electorate who just have yet to be adequately inspired._


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

I wonder how the polling by the TUC will be dismissed.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Will you fuck off with calling people who disagree with you 'trolls'.
> 
> It's ok to disagree.
> 
> The non-voter myth


It's fine to disagree, as long as you do it honestly, which you dont.

The figures you just quoted (very badly, you could try and put it all in one post) don't support your assertion that non-voters are more right-wing than voters.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

TrollingTitt said:


> I wonder how the polling by the TUC will be dismissed.


and you wonder why you get called a troll?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This poll makes me angry. We're making no headway despite it:
> 
> On how well David Cameron is doing as Prime Minister: Well: 43% (-) Badly: 49% (-2) (via YouGov / 14 - 15 Jan) Chgs. from 05 - 06 Jan.


It's another push poll, you fucking numpty. Do you know what the phrase 'confirmation bias' means?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The Labour Party is constantly saying it's the electorate that needs to change. See this thread for an example.


The fact that the majority of those posting are even members of the LP seems to have escaped you.



MarkyMarrk said:


> I think the 9million voters who voted for Labour MPs should be considered ahead of those who paid £3.


So those people who actually pay up and attend meetings should have less say over how the party is run than people who don't pay anything and who don't want to engage with the party beyond putting a check next to a box every X years. Even supposing this is desirable _how _is it can it possibly work practically.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> _Fabian research showed 4 out of 5 extra votes Labour needs must come from Tory voters. Jon Cruddas’ review of the election shows the deficit is the top priority._


Rubbish. Cruddas _wants _to believe that votes need to come from Tory voters. Nowhere in that report is there an indication as to how this 'research' was conducted.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> *I think the 9million voters who voted for Labour MPs should be considered ahead of those who paid £3.*
> 
> 
> I mean by the Labour Party for not getting elected.
> ...



Once again you repeat the lie that it was the £3 members that got Corbyn elected. It was all members apart from the PLP. So by your logic all members (apart from the MPs?) should have less of a say than the general electorate in the election of the party leader (and selection of candidates and policy making?).

It would seem you have two choices:


either place leadership election solely in the hands of the PLP;
or open up the process to the general electorate.
Which means excluding the vast bulk of the party membership (as party members) from the leadership elections (and other internal party democratic processes?). You might want to ask yourself what taking either of these of these options would mean for the continued existence of a Labour Party committed to being a 'democratic socialist' party.

Of course there is a third way; you could stop lying.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Re. 'blaming the press' - I mean by the Labour Party for not getting elected.



So let's get this straight the press does influence people when it comes to migration  and the EU but not when it's about General Election voting; could you explain how that works?

If not, could you stop posting flatly contradictory nonsense.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I object to the constant blaming of the press and the electorate


You don't get it. Moreover, why do you "object to the constant blaming of the press"? Do you think we have a 'free press' that reports events objectively and without bias? How is the electorate being blamed? You're talking out of your arse.


----------



## Smangus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Keep closing your ears to facts in the name of 'Corbyn is getting it right and will win'.
> You're wrong, and the Tories know it, hence them saying they'll implement their manifesto in full. A manifesto that was designed as the _starting point _for negotiations. They're openly laughing and they are implementing something far to the right of what they expected to be able to get away with. Because there is no opposition. The polls are the evidence.



I share your concern that there is not enough of an opposition to this Gvt's terrible manifesto which hits the poorest in society the most and will do for years to come. However if the labour "moderates", "Blairites", etc just accepted the fact that Corbyn is leader and spent as much energy OPPOSING the fucking tories as they do agitating against their party leader the country would be in a better place, and they might just demonstrate to the country they are worthy of  the vote in the process. They are not without blame.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Rubbish. Cruddas _wants _to believe that votes need to come from Tory voters. Nowhere in that report is there an indication as to how this 'research' was conducted.


As predicted.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Smangus said:


> I share your concern that there is not enough of an opposition to this Gvt's terrible manifesto which hits the poorest in society the most and will do for years to come. However if the labour "moderates", "Blairites", etc just accepted the fact that Corbyn is leader and spent as much energy OPPOSING the fucking tories as they do agitating against their party leader the country would be in a better place, and they might just demonstrate to the country they are worthy of  the vote in the process. They are not without blame.



This is what Miliband's supporters demanded. The moderates did.
They were wrong to do so - to shut up and just mutter their complaints privately - and there were many many of them, and as a result of them falling into line people's lives are being affected as a result. This isn't just a big game.
Meanwhile, _if only we were even more left wing_ is the game in town. 

I see the poll is flatly dismissed or ignored. That's confirmation bias. It's not the only piece of evidence I've read, but the only one I could find today.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> As predicted.


Unlike your _predictable_ tosh, eh? Do you understand anything about research or polling? I don't think you do. You post links to polls as though they are, in themselves, unassailable Truths. You accept them without question. Why? Because they confirm your deeply-held biases.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Unlike your _predictable_ tosh, eh? Do you understand anything about research or polling? I don't think you do. You post links to polls as though they are, in themselves, unassailable Truths. You accept them without question. Why? Because they confirm your deeply-held biases.


I do none of the above.
You, meanwhile, dismiss them because they challenge you.
As I said, it's not the only piece of evidence. Earlier in the thread posters were going on about how there is none. There is plenty. The polls about the perceptions of how left wing leaders are v the outcome of elections are interesting too.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

And you've succeeded in changing the subject from Corbynistas misguided world view. Classic distraction technique.


----------



## Smangus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This isn't just a big game.



O'Rly? Yes you may be right, the seriousness of the situation in this country had completely escaped my notice.   Why don't you go and make that point to those arseholes throwing their toys out of the pram. Jonathan Reynolds, Stephen Doughty,Catherine McKinnell et al?


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2016)

Miliband _was_ a 'moderate'. Brown was a moderate. The moderates managed a sweet 4.5% in the leadership election. The moderate's flush is busted.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I see the poll is flatly dismissed or ignored. That's confirmation bias. It's not the only piece of evidence I've read, but the only one I could find today.


lol, what about the poll that you said supported your assertion that non-voters are to the right of voters, but actually showed the opposite? Funny how you're now ignoring that.  There's a distinct whiff of the hypocrite about you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I do none of the above.
> You, meanwhile, dismiss them because they challenge you.
> As I said, it's not the only piece of evidence. Earlier in the thread posters were going on about how there is none. There is plenty. The polls about the perceptions of how left wing leaders are v the outcome of elections are interesting too.


You're all over the shop. None of these polls remotely resemble "evidence" and at the risk of repeating myself, all these polls do is confirm your bias. They challenge the sum total of fuck all.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> And you've succeeded in changing the subject from Corbynistas misguided world view. Classic distraction technique.



What about addressing your continued lying re. the £3 members and your 'confusion' over the role of the press; or am I witnessing you very own 'classic distraction technique'?

Come on MarkyMarrk either do this properly or don't bother.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> Miliband _was_ a 'moderate'. Brown was a moderate. The moderates managed a sweet 4.5% in the leadership election. The moderate's flush is busted.


new toilets all round


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> And you've succeeded in changing the subject from Corbynistas misguided world view. Classic distraction technique.


And this sums you up. This thread isn't about "Corbynistas" and their "misguided world view", it's about the media and the way it reports Corbyn and his shadow cabinet. But I've noticed the way you keep avoiding the points made about media bias. Why is that, I wonder?


----------



## gosub (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I do know that this is what moving left has done to us, and the polls appear to continue to be doing.
> 
> Being told to calm down in a patronising manner over the Tories being able to act unchecked shows that some just play politics.



when you say unchecked: George Osborne and the slow death of political debate   even the torygraph sketch writer thinks the current situation is unhealthy


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You're all over the shop. None of these polls remotely resemble "evidence" and at the risk of repeating myself, all these polls do is confirm your bias.


If they confirm my bias, they're evidence. 
Can you show that non-voters are more likely to vote Labour than other parties? Because I've only seen evidence to the contrary. Go on, support your position.
The polls are evidence. One was carried out by the TUC. 
It can't be dismissed because you don't agree with it, which is what you're trying. i.e. "you agree with it, so it confirms your position, so it's not evidence".


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

On the other hand, though I don't agree with him on fees, focusing on fees and the NHS in PMQs is about as good tactically as he could have done today.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> If they confirm my bias, they're evidence.


No, that's not how it works and even in saying this, you make yourself look an even bigger fool.


MarkyMarrk said:


> The polls are evidence. One was carried out by the TUC.


Therefore, in your mind, it is the Holy Truth. Fuck off.


MarkyMarrk said:


> It can't be dismissed because you don't agree with it, which is what you're trying. i.e. "you agree with it, so it confirms your position, so it's not evidence".


Catch yourself on. You're really not that clever.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> And this sums you up. This thread isn't about "Corbynistas" and their "misguided world view", it's about the media and the way it reports Corbyn and his shadow cabinet. But I've noticed the way you keep avoiding the points made about media bias. Why is that, I wonder?



I agree there is a media bias. I have confidence in the electorate to know that as well. I also think we have to talk to the electorate where they are, not in this fantasy world where if they don't vote Tory they are left of us. They're patently not.

Do you think they're all sheep?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> On the other hand, though I don't agree with him on fees, focusing on fees and the NHS in PMQs is about as good tactically as he could have done today.


You use the same kinds of words as Dan Hodges. Are you sure you're not him?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> No, that's not how it works and even in saying this, you make yourself look an even bigger fool.
> 
> Therefore, in your mind, it is the Holy Truth. Fuck off.
> 
> Catch yourself on. You're really not that clever.



So nothing at all offered again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So nothing at all offered again.


yeh that's what we're all saying about your posts


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You use the same kinds of words as Dan Hodges. Are you sure you're not him?



No. Where has he said this? I follow him on twitter but have only been on a month.
edit: ok, twitter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Keep closing your ears to facts in the name of 'Corbyn is getting it right and will win'.
> .


Corbyn has possibly made Labour winning worth something. That's the point you miss with a lot of us here, certainly me. There is a chance a Labour govt won't just be another version of the Tories. There is a chance voting Labour could mean something again.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I agree there is a media bias. I have confidence in the electorate to know that as well. I also think we have to talk to the electorate where they are, not in this fantasy world where if they don't vote Tory they are left of us. They're patently not.
> 
> Do you think they're all sheep?


The way in which you use the word 'electorate' is rather odd: you seem to think the 'electorate' agrees with you and your cherry-picked polls.

Answer me this: for all your whining about 'the left', do you favour a one party state in which there are token opposition parties, none of which have anything that could be remotely described as individual identities? I ask that question because you're clearly someone who subscribes to right-wing politics. Franco would have loved you.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

The other thing the moderates are doing badly, in my view, is the minority of moderates _whispering_ about hoping we don't win MoL. This is just nonsense. As I said earlier in the thread, it's frustrating that we're doing the campaigning and the new members don't. They refuse to travel to walk the streets. But we should be campaigning without the whispering and we should want a victory - it makes a difference to Londoners if we win.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Corbyn has possibly made Labour winning worth something. That's the point you miss with a lot of us here, certainly me. There is a chance a Labour govt won't just be another version of the Tories. There is a chance voting Labour could mean something again.


There is no chance of Labour Government with Corbyn.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No. Where has he said this? I follow him on twitter but have only been on a month.
> edit: ok, twitter.


You follow him on Twitter?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The other thing the moderates are doing badly, in my view, is the minority of moderates _whispering_ about hoping we don't win MoL. This is just nonsense. As I said earlier in the thread, it's frustrating that we're doing the campaigning and the new members don't. They refuse to travel to walk the streets. But we should be campaigning without the whispering and we should want a victory - it makes a difference to Londoners if we win.


"Moderates"... how quaint.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You follow him on Twitter?


he is a twit


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The way in which you use the word 'electorate' is rather odd: you seem to think the 'electorate' agrees with you and your cherry-picked polls.
> 
> Answer me this: for all your whining about 'the left', do you favour a one party state in which there are token opposition parties, none of which have anything that could be remotely described as individual identities? I ask that question because you're clearly someone who subscribes to right-wing politics. Franco would have loved you.



No, I want Labour to win an election. Hence a healthy and viable opposition. You seem comfortable with the Tories guaranteed to get in. And you offer nothing else.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> There is no chance of Labour Government with Corbyn.


Yeah well, people gave him no chance of winning the labour leadership.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Corbyn has possibly made Labour winning worth something. That's the point you miss with a lot of us here, certainly me. There is a chance a Labour govt won't just be another version of the Tories. There is a chance voting Labour could mean something again.



Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive. But to be articul8 was very heaven.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I want Labour to win an election.


no you don't


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> You follow him on Twitter?


What's funny about that?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah well, people gave him no chance of winning the labour leadership.


That's a terrible argument.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I want Labour to win an election. Hence a healthy and viable opposition. You seem comfortable with the Tories guaranteed to get in. And you offer nothing else.


No, you want a Labour Party that agrees with Tory cuts. You want a Labour Party that appeals to right-wing voters. In both cases, a Labour Party that does those things is little better than a token opposition party under Franco's regime. There is nothing "healthy" or "viable" in an opposition party that neither opposes nor offers voters a clear alternative. Indeed, during the leadership contest, none of the self-styled moderates offered hope. Instead, we got the same spiel "we're dealing with the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be". Those words were revealing because they summed up the candidates' lack of an alternative vision. It also told me and those attentive enough to notice, that the 'moderates' (sic) were more than happy to plough the same neoliberal furrow as the Tories and the Blairities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> What's funny about that?


because it is a desperately stupid thing to do


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That's a terrible argument.


You were making an argument?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> What's funny about that?


Gotcha!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The other thing the moderates are doing badly, in my view, is the minority of moderates _whispering_ about hoping we don't win MoL. This is just nonsense. As I said earlier in the thread, it's frustrating that we're doing the campaigning and *the new members don't*. They refuse to travel to walk the streets. But we should be campaigning without the whispering and we should want a victory - it makes a difference to Londoners if we win.



I have no idea if you're a new member or not. I also know from personal experience of new members who are out campaigning. So why should I accept your anecdata?



MarkyMarrk said:


> There is no chance of Labour Government with Corbyn.



Again with the evidence free assertions; it's almost as if you just want to provoke a reaction so as not to engage in a discussion.

Louis Macneice


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> There is no chance of Labour Government with Corbyn.



The bookies have him on 8-1 to be PM after the 2020 GE which seems ludicrously short odds.


----------



## gosub (Jan 20, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The bookies have him on 8-1 to be PM after the 2020 GE which seems ludicrously short odds.


Punters seem to think Trump being President is twice as likely


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> *If they confirm my bias, they're evidence.*



Well done, that is one of the most wrong things posted here, and the competition has been fierce.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I agree there is a media bias. I have confidence in the electorate to know that as well. I also think we have to talk to the electorate where they are, not in this fantasy world where if they don't vote Tory they are left of us. They're patently not.
> 
> Do you think they're all sheep?



So the media are pushing an agenda but the electorate will see through it. Does the same hold true for migration and the EU? or in other words get you story straight.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The bookies have him on 8-1 to be PM after the 2020 GE which seems ludicrously short odds.


At one point early in the leadership campaign, you could get 100-1 on Corbyn winning it. I'm not sure what any of this is supposed to show. Given the tories won just last year and the next election is four years away, _any_ labour leader would be long odds against at this moment on being next PM.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> If they confirm my bias, they're evidence.
> Can you show that non-voters are more likely to vote Labour than other parties? Because I've only seen evidence to the contrary. Go on, support your position.


non-voters aren't more likely to vote Labour, they are more likely, by a very long mark, to not vote.  That's what 'non-voter' means.  Tricky, I know.



> The polls are evidence. One was carried out by the TUC.
> It can't be dismissed because you don't agree with it, which is what you're trying. i.e. "you agree with it, so it confirms your position, so it's not evidence".


But the one you quoted showed *exactly the opposite* of what you claimed it did.  Why are you ignoring this fact?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Will you fuck off with calling people who disagree with you 'trolls'.
> 
> It's ok to disagree.
> 
> The non-voter myth


He's not calling you a troll because he disagrees with you.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> If they confirm my bias, they're evidence.


 Do yourself a favour and do a bit of reading around "confirmation bias".


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Do yourself a favour and do a bit of reading around "confirmation bias".


or he could just do a bit of reading, which wouldn't hurt anyway


----------



## mk12 (Jan 20, 2016)

I am surprised no one has mentioned Margaret Beckett's report about why Labour lost in 2015. From the BBC summary:

■  Ed Miliband wasn't judged to be as strong a leader as David Cameron
■  A failure to shake off "the myth" that Labour was responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust on the economy
■   An inability to deal with the issues of "connection" and, in particular, failing to convince on benefits and immigration
■   The fear of the SNP "propping up" a minority Labour government

So how does Corbyn deal with these? And would a 'moderate' leader be able to do anything different?

I do think Corbyn's views on immigration will harm him, but the 'strength in leadership' issue is surely being undermined by the right wing of the LP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Will you fuck off with calling people who disagree with you 'trolls'.
> 
> It's ok to disagree.
> 
> The non-voter myth



Am i missing something here? The poll setters decided on a list of things to present as possible reasons for being put off voting Labour, among them no 'They were too r/w, just like the Tories' or similar. And yet this author says:



> Unsurprisingly, there is no ‘Labour weren’t left-wing enough so I just went to the pub instead and let the Tories get elected’.



No, there isn't - because _the polling company decided there wouldn't be_.

Are you reading the links you post up? Because this particular author appears not to understand the data he is presenting in his argument.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

This is why we can't afford to stay silent:
Labour leadership election: Ed Miliband's era of magical fabulism is 
Some ignore these lessons.

Yes I read the links. It appears you don't. On a whole host of measures, there is no call for more left wing measures than Miliband. I know you're desperate for there to be, but there's not. 

Align that with the current polls.... Oh, they're to be dismissed as well.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

mk12 said:


> I am surprised no one has mentioned Margaret Beckett's report about why Labour lost in 2015. From the BBC summary:
> 
> ■  Ed Miliband wasn't judged to be as strong a leader as David Cameron
> ■  A failure to shake off "the myth" that Labour was responsible for the financial crash and failure to build trust on the economy
> ...



These are important points. However, the moderates did shut up for the sake of Miliband, allowed him to believe he was leading a united party and the country to believe the same. They were wrong to do so. They should not be quiet about Corbyn being wrong.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> No, you want a Labour Party that agrees with Tory cuts. You want a Labour Party that appeals to right-wing voters. In both cases, a Labour Party that does those things is little better than a token opposition party under Franco's regime. There is nothing "healthy" or "viable" in an opposition party that neither opposes nor offers voters a clear alternative. Indeed, during the leadership contest, none of the self-styled moderates offered hope. Instead, we got the same spiel "we're dealing with the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be". Those words were revealing because they summed up the candidates' lack of an alternative vision. It also told me and those attentive enough to notice, that the 'moderates' (sic) were more than happy to plough the same neoliberal furrow as the Tories and the Blairities.



Why do you make up words and attribute them to me?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This poll makes me angry. We're making no headway despite it:
> 
> On how well David Cameron is doing as Prime Minister: Well: 43% (-) Badly: 49% (-2) (via YouGov / 14 - 15 Jan) Chgs. from 05 - 06 Jan.



And the sample size for those polls?
You never mention those sorts of details. Quite likely because you know that the samples are small, and in Yougov's case, those that are polled are self-confessedly interested in party politics.
So, no confounding factors at work.


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> These are important points. However, the moderates did shut up for the sake of Miliband, allowed him to believe he was leading a united party and the country to believe the same. They were wrong to do so. They should not be quiet about Corbyn being wrong.


4.5%


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> It'll be just fine. The High Sparrow only needs to win about 100 seats from the Conservatives to be PM. Corbyn is fucking thick but I don't think even he believes he will ever be PM. He is just treating his stint as LotO as a footballer's testimonial. The valedictory capstone to a lengthy career spent doing nothing but talking shite to arseholes.



You mean that Corbyn has engaged in conversation with you?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes I read the links. It appears you don't. On a whole host of measures, there is no call for more left wing measures than Miliband. I know you're desperate for there to be, but there's not.



Apart from stuff like renationalising the railways, retaining the NHS etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yes I read the links. It appears you don't. On a whole host of measures, there is no call for more left wing measures than Miliband. I know you're desperate for there to be, but there's not.


Now you're just making yourself look silly. 

The options given all assume a position to the right of Labour. The only option that doesn't do that is 'Other'. There is no call for more left-wing measures _because the polling company decided there wouldn't be_.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> And the sample size for those polls?
> You never mention those sorts of details. Quite likely because you know that the samples are small, and in Yougov's case, those that are polled are self-confessedly interested in party politics.
> So, no confounding factors at work.


They must back Corbyn and the left then.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is why we can't afford to stay silent:
> Labour leadership election: Ed Miliband's era of magical fabulism is
> Some ignore these lessons.
> 
> ...


why are you being a habitual liar?

You may have read some of these polls, but you haven;t understood them. You claim they state almost exactly the opposite of what they actually do.

So, why should anyone take a word you say seriously?


----------



## magneze (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk do you have anything much to say other than 'Corbyn is bad'? What, in your opinion, would be the right move for the Labour party in order to get in in 2020? Please don't just say 'ditch Corbyn' as I think we all get that that is your opinion. Is there anything more substantive?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Now you're just making yourself look silly.
> 
> The options given all assume a position to the right of Labour. The only option that doesn't do that is 'Other'. There is no call for more left-wing measures _because the polling company decided there wouldn't be_.



Oh, you're on about one poll of the ones posted. And almost no-one chose other. 
Cutting the deficit is top priority. Option to disagree. 
But no-one did.

And your evidence that non-voters are more likely to vote because Corbyn is in, and hence more likely to vote Labour is...?

I put it to you 4/5ths of the votes required need to come from the Tories. You'll deny it, because it's proof that Corbyn can't win. But in reality you know he can't. You're just playing games.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 20, 2016)

he wants burnham. Bright eyes, burning like fire


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

magneze said:


> MarkyMarrk do you have anything much to say other than 'Corbyn is bad'? What, in your opinion, would be the right move for the Labour party in order to get in in 2020? Please don't just say 'ditch Corbyn' as I think we all get that that is your opinion. Is there anything more substantive?



More substantive than ditch Corbyn? Is this a joke?

I posted earlier in the thread a proposal I agreed with. Posters said they doubted it was a real opinion and then said 'it's Blairite so can be discounted'. Blairism is a different generation to me, but apparently it can be used to justify ignoring arguments.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Oh, you're on about one poll of the ones posted. And almost no-one chose other.
> Cutting the deficit is top priority. Option to disagree.
> .


No, no option to disagree. Only the option to opt-in and agree or not to choose it at all. 

You really, really need to re-read it. And I'm 'on about' the poll you linked to in the post I quoted. I'd say 'keep up', but you appear unable even to keep up with yourself.


----------



## magneze (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> More substantive than ditch Corbyn? Is this a joke?
> 
> I posted earlier in the thread a proposal I agreed with. Posters said they doubted it was a real opinion and then said 'it's Blairite so can be discounted'. Blairism is a different generation to me, but apparently it can be used to justify ignoring arguments.


Where earlier in the thread? (It's long)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> Yes, very few of them, but some. The ones who think that Miliband's halfway house was crap that it would amount to a half-hearted version of the same policy, but can be convinced by an genuine alternative.
> 
> Their numbers will be tiny, dwarfed by the 63% of the adult population who voted neither Labour nor tory. Trying to win them is more important., imo.  And that is eminently possible. We cranked some figures on another thread, I think it was a quarter of greens, and 15% of the registered non-voters, and there would be a Labour government (albeit propped up by the SNP)



Yep. Made this point a couple of days ago, but it doesn't seem to occur to the "moderates" and their supporters that such a strategy is worthwhile. They're still stuck in the Blair years of targeting swing constituencies, little realising that the voter demographic is shifting.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> More substantive than ditch Corbyn? Is this a joke?


Put it this way, fule. Sorting out the Labour leadership is not like the underpants gnomes:

Ditch Corbyn
?
Electoral VICTORY!!!!1!
It would make sense for you to have some idea in which you saw your brave new Corbyn-free Labour party might head thereafter.

It's not hard; anyone would think you can't give a straight answer to a straight question.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> You're starting to sound like a sixth former who's just discovered politics.



More like a PPE, politics or economics grad. Most of them are clueless as to real-world politics and economics too.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, no option to disagree. Only the option to opt-in and agree or not to choose it at all.
> 
> You really, really need to re-read it. And I'm 'on about' the poll you linked to in the post I quoted. I'd say 'keep up', but you appear unable even to keep up with yourself.


You're on about a different poll. There is an option to disagree but you haven't read it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> More like a PPE, politics or economics grad. Most of them are clueless as to real-world politics and economics too.


but they can generally quote polls and analyses accurately, which seems to be beyond wee marky


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

magneze said:


> Where earlier in the thread? (It's long)



We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:


As a party, learn to debate reasonably, so we have disagreements not fights. Both left and right of the party seem convinced that organising is the way to shape the party, never persuasion.
Recreate  routes for working class people to get into politics. And by “working class” I mean manual workers and unskilled labourers who _haven’t even gone to university._
Give up on identity politics. We are not the arbiters of who is or is not sexist or racist. Positive discrimination makes us look utterly unconcerned with fair treatment of individuals.
Don’t let any issue be a taboo. Immigration is the obvious issue, but we are becoming equally unable to articulate sensible thoughts on benefit spending too.
Stop arguing over the record of the last Labour government. And in particular, don’t make future policy on the basis of continuing, or correcting, the policy of the last Labour government.
Stop attacking the media whenever we are unable to get good coverage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The Labour Party is constantly saying it's the electorate that needs to change. See this thread for an example.
> 
> Yes, I partly blame the £3 "members" and the Trots, Communists and greens who entered our party for their own purposes, not really caring whether we get a Labour Government. I also blame moderate Labour Party members. We messed up. I blame us for shutting up in the name of unity when the outcome of Miliband's leadership was incredibly clear and predictable and _we'd been predicting it _in semi-private for at least two years, and it's our fault for saying almost nothing during the election when he did stupid things like the Stone or Russell Brand.



Trots and coomunists? You mean the couple of hundred entryists that got in recently, and the sleepers from back in the '80s and '90s? Yep, they're REALLY in a position to do damage to the party.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You're on about a different poll. There is an option to disagree but you haven't read it.


This poll. You know, one you linked to, the one the author goes on to analyse without understanding at all what it was asking. 

It's a pretty egregious example of directing your respondents' replies with leading questions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> but they can generally quote polls and analyses accurately, which seems to be beyond wee marky



Well, he's *sort of* quoting them accurately. He's doing that thing that that most of us were warned against way back in secondary school - selectively citing stuff that fits his thesis, while ignoring anything "inconvenient". Old-school misrepresentation. Very tacky.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I think the 9million voters who voted for Labour MPs should be considered ahead of those who paid £3.



All of those 9 million voters had the choice to join the party and/or have their say. Around 8.8 million appear to have not exercised that choice,*THAT* is democracy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> he wants burnham. Bright eyes, burning like fire



The man is a Thunderbird puppet, just less animated than Scott, Virgil _et al_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Trots and coomunists? You mean the couple of hundred entryists that got in recently, and the sleepers from back in the '80s and '90s? Yep, they're REALLY in a position to do damage to the party.


but look at where the party is and the damage these few wreckers can do is clear


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, no option to disagree. Only the option to opt-in and agree or not to choose it at all.
> 
> You really, really need to re-read it. And I'm 'on about' the poll you linked to in the post I quoted. I'd say 'keep up', but you appear unable even to keep up with yourself.



As someone who's designed quite a few polls and surveys for community use over the decades, I'm well-aware how easy it is to "load" polls so that the choice of answers will *inevitably* lead to data that favours the formulator or commissioner's position. It's quite simple - simple enough that local government does it all the time.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why do you make up words and attribute them to me?


I've made up nothing but you're getting increasingly desperate. Mr. Strawman. You made it pretty clear what you mean by the word "viable alternative", thus there is a massive gulf between what I see as viable and your version of it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:
> 
> 
> As a party, learn to debate reasonably, so we have disagreements not fights. Both left and right of the party seem convinced that organising is the way to shape the party, never persuasion.




The right certainly have a lot to learn on that front, they're the main ones refusing to debate, as they are so used to having their way. 


> Recreate  routes for working class people to get into politics. And by “working class” I mean manual workers and unskilled labourers who _haven’t even gone to university._



oh, the irony.  Who was it who pushed the w-c out of the party?  Blair. once again, you're better off backing Corbyn to achieve this goal


> Give up on identity politics. We are not the arbiters of who is or is not sexist or racist. Positive discrimination makes us look utterly unconcerned with fair treatment of individuals.


Labour is in hock to identity politics?  Not that I've noticed. PD worked rather will in getting more women into parliament, and I'm not sure of anywhere else the party supports its implementation. 



> Don’t let any issue be a taboo. Immigration is the obvious issue, but we are becoming equally unable to articulate sensible thoughts on benefit spending too.


I agree, tho, again, it was the Blairites who were most keen on not letting those conversations happen.


> Stop arguing over the record of the last Labour government. And in particular, don’t make future policy on the basis of continuing, or correcting, the policy of the last Labour government.


Depends whether the tories et al let Labour do that. The party is still blamed for the last recession, sticking your head in the ground wont help. By the next election, that will matter less (especially if there is another recession in the meanwhile), but that isn't down to Corbyn. 


> Stop attacking the media whenever we are unable to get good coverage.


Pointing out media bias does no harm, lots of people will sympathise, as long as it is done well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> but look at where the party is and the damage these few wreckers can do is clear



You have a point. A few wrecked coffee mornings *will* sink the Labour Party.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is why we can't afford to stay silent:
> Labour leadership election: Ed Miliband's era of magical fabulism is
> Some ignore these lessons.
> 
> ...


This is just a load of drool.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Ed Miliband wasn't judged to be as strong a leader as David Cameron


That assumes that Cameron is "strong"; he isn't and even his backbenchers know it.


----------



## agricola (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:
> 
> 
> As a party, learn to debate reasonably, so we have disagreements not fights. Both left and right of the party seem convinced that organising is the way to shape the party, never persuasion.
> ...



I suppose the problem with what you have just bullet-pointed is that the only people who have been (for example) treating issues as taboo and beyond debate (whether its the membership of the EU or NATO, or Trident, or the dire record of the last Labour Government or even the current Government's foreign policy) are the anti-Corbyn maquis.  They were also the people who went around suggesting that he was basically sexist because "he didn't give any of the top jobs to women", even though at least two of the four identified posts weren't in his position to give and all of the top level of Labour women MPs refused to serve under him.  Finally they are also the same people who have been in the media on a daily basis slating him.


----------



## agricola (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> That assumes that Cameron is "strong"; he isn't and even his backbenchers know it.



Indeed - which is of course why he is accompanied by so much noise at PMQs nowadays, as he tries to suggest that allowing people to get fifty grand in debt to get a job that pays on average £22 grand a year is in fact good for them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Put it this way, fule. Sorting out the Labour leadership is not like the underpants gnomes:
> 
> Ditch Corbyn
> ?
> ...



All we need ask ourselves is:
"If Corbyn is defenestrated, what is the single most likely outcome of a new leadership election - one in which Corbyn will obviously not be allowed to stand - and in which political direction will it take us?"

The (more than) obvious answer is that given the PLP's way, we'd be looking at the sort of anodyne "neoliberalism with a garnish of social concern" that served Blair so well, but Brown and Miliband increasingly poorly. 

You can't go forward by going backward. That "the _maquis_" either don't realise this, or choose to ignore it, merely points up their concern for personal power overriding the needs and wishes of  their constituents.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> All we need ask ourselves is:
> "If Corbyn is defenestrated, what is the single most likely outcome of a new leadership election - one in which Corbyn will obviously not be allowed to stand - and in which political direction will it take us?"
> 
> The (more than) obvious answer is that given the PLP's way, we'd be looking at the sort of anodyne "neoliberalism with a garnish of social concern" that served Blair so well, but Brown and Miliband increasingly poorly.
> ...


The Bitterites, as they shall henceforth be known, haven't quite fathomed any of this. The thousands of new members who have joined the party since Corbyn became leader are treated with the utmost contempt by these increasingly detached and delusional fools, who continue to believe that they are more 'electable' than Corbyn is... and this after they've lost two elections in a row on a platform of broadly Blairite-Brownite policies.


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2016)

I think just calling them the right wing of the party suffices - calling them blairites just allows them to muddy the water. Or maybe _the 4.5%_?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:
> 
> 
> As a party, learn to debate reasonably, so we have disagreements not fights. Both left and right of the party seem convinced that organising is the way to shape the party, never persuasion.
> ...



Your first point is a Labour right "talking point". It relies on a stereotype of conflict that rarely takes place at CLP, regional, national executive or PLP level. Most policy is a result of layer upon layer of compromise.

Your second point: You don't need routes, you need a way to ensure equality of outcome, so that - for example - a PPC is chosen on merit. That is all that has ever been needed.

Your third point: I'm not a fan of identity politics. I watched the shift to identity politics back in the '80s rock the broad left back on its' heels, and make it fracture into an infinity of single-interest groups. That said, a politics of identity can't be (and shouldn't be) ignored. We need to acknowledge that some people will always take more of a battering than others on the basis of their ethnicity, gender, sexuality or cultural affiliations. What we shouldn't do is give into the temptation to make politics solely about identity.

Your fourth point: No issue *is* taboo. This is another Labour right "talking point" masquerading as fair commentary - a device through which to neutralise any Labour left opinion about immigration. I've never, in more than 35 years of doing adult politics, met these mythical people who close down debate about subjects like immigration or welfare. The only people on the left that I'm aware of that do this are the Swappies.

Your fifth point: Unavoidable. Generals *always* fight the current war on the verities of the last war.

Your final point: Arrant arsery. The media should always be taken to task and held to account, *especially* when they are disseminating openly-false stories, and party-political propaganda.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> These are important points. However, the moderates did shut up for the sake of Miliband, allowed him to believe he was leading a united party and the country to believe the same. They were wrong to do so. They should not be quiet about Corbyn being wrong.



'Not being quiet about Corbyn' will only serve to antagonise the overwhelming majority of Labour members (both new and old) who voted for Corbyn. It will also fail to win over voters who (judging by that report) seek a government led by a strong and united party. So, rather than saving the Labour party in the name of the electorate, you are actually contributing to the continuation of a Tory government.

By the way, I am sympathetic to some of your concerns. I just think your desire for internal civil war is potentially damaging for both the Labour party and the population at large.


----------



## gosub (Jan 20, 2016)

mk12 said:


> 'Not being quiet about Corbyn' will only serve to antagonise the overwhelming majority of Labour members (both new and old) who voted for Corbyn, and will also fail to win over voters who (judging by that report) seek a government led by a strong and united party. So, rather than saving the Labour party in the name of the electorate, you are actually contributing to the continuation of a Tory government.
> 
> By the way, I am sympathetic to some of your concerns. I just think your desire for internal civil war is potentially damaging for both the Labour party and the population at large.


Slowly but surely, Corbyn has taken control of Labour. So, what next? | Rafael Behr
Slowly the perspective of Labour MPs is shifting. They grasp that Corbyn has won and that much of his victory is irreversible. Even if he were ousted, the result of last summer’s culture war between a bloodless remnant of New Labour and clamour for something vastly different cannot be overturned. “We can’t keep throwing buckets of icy water over our members and telling them to snap out of it,” says one backbencher.


----------



## laptop (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> . There is no call for more left-wing measures _because the polling company decided there wouldn't be_.



Because those who commissioned the poll decided...

Some polls are designed to find out what people think. 

Some are designed (E2A: and paid for) to make a point. The Fabian poll looks like the latter, yes?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 20, 2016)

Decent article, but this is particularly depressing (and true):



> Instead, all sides are consumed by a slow-motion, introspective war of attrition for control of the agenda. It is the kind of combat that Corbyn and his allies know well, while their fidgety opponents are still adjusting to the pace. Those impatient for effective opposition need to reset their watches. Labour isn’t just out of synch with the country. It has landed in a different political time zone.


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2016)

What would 'effective opposition' look like?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> What would 'effective opposition' look like?


Clear, coherent and realistic alternatives to the current government's policies. Presented by a party that is relatively united around that programme.


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2016)

How do you think such a unity might be achieved?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> How do you think such a unity might be achieved?


unite the party in opposition to MarkyMarrk


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Clear, coherent and realistic alternatives to the current government's policies. Presented by a party that is relatively united around that programme.


the party is largely united around economics and 'home' policy, but split on international questions - which is why the tories et al are so keen to promote those international questions, Corbyn didn't decide when the UK should start bombing Syria, nor when Trident comes up for renewal, those issues are out of his control.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

I agree that the moderates need more than 'beyond Corbyn', partly because ditching him will either result in a terrible electoral result _because_ it would need to be done bureaucratically, or result in him or his ilk being re-elected. 

So the moderates need to hold the party together while Corbyn leads us to electoral oblivion, which even some of his supporters concede will happen, but claim it's not the most important thing. 

There are conversations happening about this. It's the reason some very good people have accepted places in his shadow cabinet.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The Bitterites



Poor.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I agree that the moderates need more than 'beyond Corbyn', partly because ditching him will either result in a terrible electoral result _because_ it would need to be done bureaucratically, or result in him or his ilk being re-elected.
> 
> So the moderates need to hold the party together while Corbyn leads us to electoral oblivion, which even some of his supporters concede will happen, but claim it's not the most important thing.
> 
> There are conversations happening about this. It's the reason some very good people have accepted places in his shadow cabinet.


very good people like...?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> or result in him or his ilk being re-elected.


you think the PLP would be mad enough to put a token labour left candidate up for the leadership race? They did that and the bastard only won. By a landslide unseen for decades of labour leadership. He was only supposed  to be a token sop to the labour left, to 'widen the debate'. They didn't expect him to win.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Poor.


not as poor as your refusal to admit you can't read basic data, thus leading you into false claims such as polling evidence suggesting non-voters are to the right of voters, when the polls showed precisely the opposite.


----------



## gosub (Jan 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you think the PLP would be mad enough to put a token labour left candidate up for the leadership race? They did that and the bastard only won. By a landslide unseen for decades of labour leadership. He was only supposed  to be a token sop to the labour left, to 'widen the debate'. They didn't expect him to win.


I think some of them suspected as much, hence the ridicule and chastisement his nominees were getting from the beginning of the Leadership election.  

They put a concerted effort in to stopping him getting enough nominations, and he still scrapped enough (just in time), I agree PLP wouldn't let that happen again. - Corbyn is there at least as long as it takes to redress the mechanisms that have marginalized his wing of the Labour party


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I agree that the moderates need more than 'beyond Corbyn', partly because ditching him will either result in a terrible electoral result _because_ it would need to be done bureaucratically, or result in him or his ilk being re-elected..


Aren't you the one showing contempt for the electorate here? In this case, the electorate that elected Corbyn by a huge margin just a few months ago?

Or were they the wrong sort of electorate? Labour clearly has the wrong sort of members.


----------



## gosub (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Aren't you the one showing contempt for the electorate here? In this case, the electorate that elected Corbyn by a huge margin just a few months ago?
> 
> Or were they the wrong sort of electorate? Labour clearly has the wrong sort of members.


different electorates.   The Labour party is not the UK electoral roll


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

gosub said:


> different electorates.   The Labour party is not the UK electoral roll


Yes, but the election was for the labour party leader, not for the national government. That's kind of the point. MM seems to be basing a lot of what he says on the premise that those he calls 'Corbynistas' have contempt for the electorate.


----------



## gosub (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but the election was for the labour party leader, not for the national government. That's kind of the point. MM seems to be basing a lot of what he says on the premise that those he calls 'Corbynistas' have contempt for the electorate.



The language may be OTT, but I think the Corbynistas priority IS a battle for the soul of the Labour party, (at the very least ensuring their wing doesn't get marginalized for another 20 years again) rather than winning over the wider electorate.   The Blairites don't have souls, and as they demonstrated from the leadership election, think that is less important than winning power, beyond respecting that the electorate have to put an X in a box (unless they can be persuaded to postal vote) I'm not sure they aren't equally contemptuous.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think just calling them the right wing of the party suffices - calling them blairites just allows them to muddy the water. Or maybe _the 4.5%_?



As with the Labour right throughout the party's history, they refuse to acknowledge that position on the political spectrum. Instead they invent all sorts of positions that elide that fact. They're "pragmatists", they follow "the third way", they're "moderates" and they're "reasonable". They're even "sensible" and "common-sense".
It's amazing how many labels can be deployed by right-wingers intent on avoiding admitting that they're right-wing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

laptop said:


> Because those who commissioned the poll decided...
> 
> Some polls are designed to find out what people think.
> 
> Some are designed (E2A: and paid for) to make a point. The Fabian poll looks like the latter, yes?



The Fabians have always had a penchant for "managing" democracy, the top-down prescriptorial wankbags.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I agree that the moderates need more than 'beyond Corbyn', partly because ditching him will either result in a terrible electoral result _because_ it would need to be done bureaucratically, or result in him or his ilk being re-elected.
> 
> So the moderates need to hold the party together while Corbyn leads us to electoral oblivion, which even some of his supporters concede will happen, but claim it's not the most important thing.



Please give substance to the above claims.



> There are conversations happening about this. It's the reason some very good people have accepted places in his shadow cabinet.



So there's a clique bedding down so that they're in place when things go to shit? Nice, and rather revealing of an unhealthy contempt for the electorate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Poor.



..but accurate given any textual analysis of the outpourings of the likes of "the resistance". They're bitter children, angry at having been deprived of power, and blind to the fact of their own behaviour causing that deprivation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

gosub said:


> I think some of them suspected as much, hence the ridicule and chastisement his nominees were getting from the beginning of the Leadership election.
> 
> They put a concerted effort in to stopping him getting enough nominations, and he still scrapped enough (just in time), I agree PLP wouldn't let that happen again. - Corbyn is there at least as long as it takes to redress the mechanisms that have marginalized his wing of the Labour party



Which is why I'm interested in the project to re-empower the constituency parties. Do that and it really does become a matter for the wider membership, and not the PLP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 20, 2016)

gosub said:


> I think some of them suspected as much, hence the ridicule and chastisement his nominees were getting from the beginning of the Leadership election.
> 
> They put a concerted effort in to stopping him getting enough nominations, and he still scrapped enough (just in time), I agree PLP wouldn't let that happen again. - Corbyn is there at least as long as it takes to redress the mechanisms that have marginalized his wing of the Labour party






			
				guardian said:
			
		

> 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.”



LOL


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

Wow. That's a triumph of prejudices.


----------



## agricola (Jan 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> So there's a clique bedding down so that they're in place when things go to shit? Nice, and rather revealing of an unhealthy contempt for the electorate.



Clique?  I think they prefer to be called "cells" now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

agricola said:


> Clique?  I think they prefer to be called "cells" now.



They can prefer what they like. They're a clique, and that's that!


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Poor.


Not half as poor as your dreck...er, replies on this thread. Would you care to tell us how your 'ilk' is more electable than Corbyn? I'm all ears.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> not as poor as your refusal to admit you can't read basic data, thus leading you into false claims such as polling evidence suggesting non-voters are to the right of voters, when the polls showed precisely the opposite.



Show me the "polls" that show non-voters are to the left of the electorate. And then show me how the exact fifteen percent you need are suddenly going to show up. And then tell me how you get back those we've  lost since the election - according to the polls. 

Oh, I forgot, we lost those because they're unthinking and the media told them they don't support Labour under Corbyn. They would be revolutionaries if it wasn't for the media. 

It's lunacy.


----------



## laptop (Jan 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> As with the Labour right throughout the party's history, they refuse to acknowledge that position on the political spectrum. Instead they invent all sorts of positions that elide that fact. They're "pragmatists", they follow "the third way", they're "moderates" and they're "reasonable". They're even "sensible" and "common-sense".
> It's amazing how many labels can be deployed by right-wingers intent on avoiding admitting that they're right-wing.


And each time they take up a new euphemism, a word-fairy dies


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's lunacy


Yes, your posts are lunacy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 20, 2016)

One more thing, MarkyMarrk, if you're so fired up about Labour needing to appeal to Tory voters, perhaps you could show me how the Tories appeal to Labour voters?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Yes, your posts are lunacy.


That one was, because it's the orthodoxy on this thread. You all know the truth, but those that have moved away from labour because of the leader you support are controlled by the media.

Fortunately not in the country. 

Sadly the state of labour means the Tories in power, and those desperate for a labour government won't get one because you are playing lunacy and think electable labour is as bad as the Tories.

I've noticed now that people are blaming those that disagree with Corbyn for his lck of popularity, rather than his imbecilic leadership and batshit positions. 

Still, let's make a big deal out of the Falklands. That is going to make the difference


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Show me the "polls" that show non-voters are to the left of the electorate. And then show me how the exact fifteen percent you need are suddenly going to show up. And then tell me how you get back those we've  lost since the election - according to the polls.
> 
> Oh, I forgot, we lost those because they're unthinking and the media told them they don't support Labour under Corbyn. They would be revolutionaries if it wasn't for the media.
> 
> It's lunacy.


I am referring to the poll YOU quoted, but obviously didn't read or understand. 

The rest of your post is almost entirely incoherent gibberish, especially as the notion of needing an 'exact fifteen percent' is nonsensical, or maybe you think 'at least' means 'exact'. 

As to those labour have 'lost' - in the one parliamentary election since the general, you may have missed this, labours share of the vote went up. Bit of an awkward fact for you.


----------



## agricola (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> *That one was, because it's the orthodoxy on this thread. You all know the truth, but those that have moved away from labour because of the leader you support are controlled by the media.*
> 
> Fortunately not in the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> That one was, because it's the orthodoxy on this thread. You all know the truth, but those that have moved away from labour because of the leader you support are controlled by the media.
> 
> Fortunately not in the country.
> 
> ...


can you explain how a party which got 1/4 of the registered electors to vote for them has a majority in the commons?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

You poor, stupid fool. You cannot comprehend something that doesn't fit your worldview. And you think this thread is representative of the wider population.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 20, 2016)

Can you name me the person that is best suited as leader of the Labour party, MarkyMarrk?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Can you name me the person that is best suited as leader of the Labour party, MarkyMarrk?


Best suited?


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You poor, stupid fool. You cannot comprehend something that doesn't fit your worldview. And you think this thread is representative of the wider population.


so, you're not going to respond to the many factual points that have been raised contradicting your argument?  But it's everyone else who is being dishonest.  Funny that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Show me the "polls" that show non-voters are to the left of the electorate. And then show me how the exact fifteen percent you need are suddenly going to show up. And then tell me how you get back those we've  lost since the election - according to the polls.
> 
> Oh, I forgot, we lost those because they're unthinking and the media told them they don't support Labour under Corbyn. They would be revolutionaries if it wasn't for the media.
> 
> It's lunacy.


You're obsessed with polls, yet you don't know how to read them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You poor, stupid fool. You cannot comprehend something that doesn't fit your worldview. And you think this thread is representative of the wider population.



Rather than chucking round insults, how about actually answering any of the questions asked of you?

Too radical for you?


----------



## magneze (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> We need a culture change. I suggest looking at:
> 
> 
> As a party, learn to debate reasonably, so we have disagreements not fights. Both left and right of the party seem convinced that organising is the way to shape the party, never persuasion.
> ...


Okay, but instead of doing any of this, you want to get rid of 'your' leader. Eh?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Twitter says Neale Coleman has resigned.
If he's fallen out with Corbyn, that's a huge rupture.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

Who?

Now we know you're just a pisstaking troll.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

It's true: Corbyn aide quits as Labour feud turns nasty | The Times 

The backroom power struggles gripping Labour | The Times
This really is big. There must be carnage going on in those meetings.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

I had to Google.  A media adviser apparently.  Oh deary dear. 

It's all about the media for you eh mm. You are truly a child of Blair.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It's true: Corbyn aide quits as Labour feud turns nasty | The Times
> 
> The backroom power struggles gripping Labour | The Times
> This really is big. There must be carnage going on in those meetings.


Ironic that you quote the times uncritically on this thread


----------



## treelover (Jan 20, 2016)

> "*In 2016, the Tories are planning even more savage cuts across the country. We'll defend those communities and the services they depend on*."



J/C's clarion call in his L/P political broadcast, go to it now!


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> Who?


Jeremy Corbyn bolsters his team with former Livingstone and Johnson aide Neale Colman


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ironic that you quote the times uncritically on this thread


You're that desperate to throw mud, you make things up.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Hattersley on Newsnight saying that he thinks this is worse than the 1980s.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You're that desperate to throw mud, you make things up.


Nope 
 I've not read your links. I don't give a toss what the times is saying. 

You really don't see the irony do you?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope
> I've not read your links. I don't give a toss what the times is saying.
> 
> You really don't see the irony do you?



I haven't quoted the Times. I've linked to the first news story of something significant. There's nothing critical to say, especially since I haven't quoted.

But you just making things up, like me "quoting the Times uncritically". 

I suppose I'm a Murdoch lackey because I find something of relevance to the thread and post it, linking to the Times. Earlier in the thread, I was criticised for not linking. It's the only link available.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Maybe every link to the Times should have a health warning in case it influences people on this thread to fall under the spell of Murdoch.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Shirley Williams predicting "the inevitable". I don't think it will get that far, but it could.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

Milne has flexed his muscles, then, and Corbyn moves further left.


----------



## gosub (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Milne has flexed his muscles, then, and Corbyn moves further left.



No, Corbyn entrenches.  Changing a media adviser is not moving the party


----------



## J Ed (Jan 20, 2016)

There is something that is very immature seeming about the current behaviour of right-wing Labourites. They hysterically lurch from molehill to molehill hysterically screaming about it like Kevin the Teenager.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

gosub said:


> No, Corbyn entrenches.  Changing a media adviser is not moving the party



He wasn't just a media adviser. Though you are probably right - entrenches - Milne included.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> He wasn't just a media adviser. Though you are probably right - entrenches - Milne included.



Absolutely irrational hysteria about every single thing anyone remotely connected to Corbyn does.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Absolutely irrational hysteria about every single thing anyone remotely connected to Corbyn does.


Is this irrational hysteria?

I see many of you have no real interest in the Labour Party apart from cheerleading from your armchairs.

Like most Corbynistas.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

Fuck this thread's gone to shit now. Gonna ignore the nob. There was interesting discussion once.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck this thread's gone to shit now. Gonna ignore the nob. There was interesting discussion once.



Sad face. 
Head in sand time.
Not taking back your made up rubbish?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Is this irrational hysteria?View attachment 82439
> 
> I see many of you have no real interest in the Labour Party apart from cheerleading from your armchairs.
> 
> Like most Corbynistas.


Well now the check shirted voice of the left has spoken I suppose there is nothing more to say


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

(((Ska's thread)))


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Shirley Williams predicting "the inevitable". I don't think it will get that far, but it could.


Good old Shirley, twice helped the tories into office and sold the NHS. Not surprised you find her judgements sound.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck this thread's gone to shit now. Gonna ignore the nob. There was interesting discussion once.


Yup, it's just a shit troll. I mean, nobody could be that stupid and dishonest, it just has to be a troll.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> Good old Shirley, twice helped the tories into office and sold the NHS. Not surprised you find her judgements sound.



yeah but really what he is actually upset about it the most vulnerable in society being subjected to a Tory government, which is why he thinks that the Miliband shadow cabinet which included Rachel 'we will be tougher on welfare than the Tories' Reeves was too left-wing.


----------



## gosub (Jan 20, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Is this irrational hysteria?View attachment 82439
> 
> I see many of you have no real interest in the Labour Party apart from cheerleading from your armchairs.
> 
> Like most Corbynistas.



I'm not an armchair cheerleader, I'm a deckchair popcorn eater.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jan 20, 2016)

Carry on Corbyn. Doing a grand job, just grand. More power to you Jeremy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> Yup, it's just a shit troll. I mean, nobody could be that stupid and dishonest, it just has to be a troll.


Dunno. I think this might be what debate looks like when your idea of informing yourself is to follow people on twitter.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 20, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Dunno. I think this might be what debate looks like when your idea of informing yourself is to follow people on twitter.



I've been on twitter a month, suggested by this site.
Nice try though.
You taking back your made up bollocks yet?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Well now the check shirted voice of the left has spoken I suppose there is nothing more to say



Chuffed or Gutted? Owen'll know.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Can you name me the person that is best suited as leader of the Labour party, MarkyMarrk?



Oi, MarkyMarrk!


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2016)

This is a weird piece
Labour's new members mostly wealthy city dwellers – leaked report
Looks a lot like a case of creatively using stats to tell the story they want - namely that Corbyns Labour is now a party of the rich urban elite, and therefore out of touch
Even though, as the piece briefly mentions, only 11% of members fit this category


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

ska invita said:


> This is a weird piece
> Labour's new members mostly wealthy city dwellers – leaked report
> Looks a lot like a case of creatively using stats to tell the story they want - namely that Corbyns Labour is now a party of the rich urban elite, and therefore out of touch
> Even though, as the piece briefly mentions, only 11% of members fit this category


The headline is flat wrong. Most of the new members are not from that category at all.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The headline is flat wrong. Most of the new members are not from that category at all.



They started with a conclusion, worked backwards from it and found it to be wrong, then decided to run with it anyway


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The headline is flat wrong. Most of the new members are not from that category at all.


quite. and then the piece finsihes off with a couple of jab quotes from what is now Labours Looney Fringe
Id be annoyed if i was in the picture they used to! Looks like some students to me  Rich bastards with their 40k of debts


----------



## peterkro (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The headline is flat wrong. Most of the new members are not from that category at all.


Oh,bollocks I live in central London and forked out three quid, I'd hoped that would make me a member of the urban elite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk are you a subeditor for the guardian?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2016)

peterkro said:


> Oh,bollocks I live in central London and forked out three quid, I'd hoped that would make me a member of the urban elite.


do you eat croissants at breakfast seeking to lay the foundations for a socialist revolution? Lord Watts wants to know...



littlebabyjesus said:


> MarkyMarrk are you a subeditor for the guardian?


leave him be


----------



## treelover (Jan 21, 2016)

Momentum's leadership does seem a bit posh, which might explain their priorities, but most young members if they are graduates will have massive debts, etc.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2016)

treelover said:


> Momentum's leadership does seem a bit posh, which might explain their priorities, but most young members if they are graduates will have massive debts, etc.


from what i hear (from someone who has been to some local meetings) theres Momentum leadership, who are desperately trying to keep a semblance of control over it, and then theres everyone in involved who are doing what they want independently of the leadership.


----------



## agricola (Jan 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They started with a conclusion, worked backwards from it and found it to be wrong, then decided to run with it anyway



"I am voting Labour, and so are my serfs"


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

Flushed out a couple of people who clearly have no interest in helping Lavour get elected. "Who?... Must be a troll... He doesn't matter..." Etc 

Absolutely no interest in what actually happens. Just posturing. I'd hazard a guess they haven't been near a campaign in the last year including the general election. I have, but get told to join the Tories in favour of these armchair warriors.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk Mate, you've made your point and no one agrees with you.

Might I suggest you actually move on and engage in the other conversations in good faith that are to come up on this thread than stomping your feet and having a tantrum?

It's just that at the moment you're turning this thread to shit, and I was rather enjoying reading it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Flushed out a couple of people who clearly have no interest in helping Lavour get elected. "Who?... Must be a troll... He doesn't matter..." Etc
> 
> Absolutely no interest in what actually happens. Just posturing. I'd hazard a guess they haven't been near a campaign in the last year including the general election. I have, but get told to join the Tories in favour of these armchair warriors.





MarkyMarrk said:


> You taking back your made up bollocks yet?



Thought about taking your own advice?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## existentialist (Jan 21, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Thought about taking your own advice?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


Seems to me that the Fuckwit General has just moved into a new phase of just tweaking noses to get a reaction out of people. I can't help but feel that a widespread strategic ignore, on this thread at least, of the moron's ramblings, might be a step in the right direction - his posting habits have all the hallmarks of attention-seeking, after all.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 21, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Seems to me that the Fuckwit General has just moved into a new phase of just tweaking noses to get a reaction out of people. I can't help but feel that a widespread strategic ignore, on this thread at least, of the moron's ramblings, might be a step in the right direction - his posting habits have all the hallmarks of attention-seeking, after all.



I agree - after my last post he became only the fourth poster I've put on ignore in my twelve plus years on these boards.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

Christ, come on. While I've little doubt MM isn't arguing entirely in good faith, isn't screaming 'troll!' and 'liar!' at him for page after page giving him exactly what he wants? 

FWIW I think there's a discussion to be had about the current polling, what it means for Corbyn & Labour, and how reflective it actually is of the views of the electorate. but it certainly isn't this one.


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2016)

I love the BBC but I don't think I've ever seen such an obviously biased campaign against a politician. It's quite disgraceful. That is all.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 21, 2016)

editor said:


> I love the BBC but I don't think I've ever seen such an obviously biased campaign against a politician. It's quite disgraceful. That is all.



Some Scots might disagree with you. I wouldn't necessarily.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> Christ, come on. While I've little doubt MM isn't arguing entirely in good faith, isn't screaming 'troll!' and 'liar!' at him for page after page giving him exactly what he wants?
> 
> FWIW I think there's a discussion to be had about the current polling, what it means for Corbyn & Labour, and how reflective it actually is of the views of the electorate. but it certainly isn't this one.



I haven't screamed troll. 

I have said that he has lied, because he has, numerous times. 

I've put him on ignore because I don't believe he has any serious intention of engaging with the actual substance of the thread; which includes a discussion of political polling and responses to it.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

editor said:


> I love the BBC but I don't think I've ever seen such an obviously biased campaign against a politician. It's quite disgraceful. That is all.


Quite a similarity between the BBC's coverage of Corbyn and that of The Guardian. Stretching and distorting facts, cherry-picking commentators and presenting their opinions uncritically, churning out a partial editorial line as if it were objective fact.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Quite a similarity between the BBC's coverage of Corbyn and that of The Guardian. Stretching and distorting facts, cherry-picking commentators and presenting their opinions uncritically, churning out a partial editorial line as if it were objective fact.


the poor quality of british journalism


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

editor said:


> I love the BBC but I don't think I've ever seen such an obviously biased campaign against a politician. It's quite disgraceful. That is all.


They take any opportunity to get a dig in - on Today this morning, Justin Webb was interviewing a russian dude about the Litvinenko report, and asked him about Putin _Some people - some senior Labour politicians - say Putin is a reasonable man, only responding to external threats - what do you say to that?_ (I paraphrase, but the exact wording wasn't far off...)


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I haven't screamed troll.
> 
> I have said that he has lied, because he has, numerous times.
> 
> ...


Sorry, more of a comment on the general tenor of the thread than your posts Louis.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> I just can't imagine what would have to happen for the swing voters in English LAB-CON marginals (





ska invita said:


> A market crash. Look what happened in Greece - the dominant party ended up with 3% of the vote
> ...Osbournes own plans are of escalating cuts across two terms, peaking in 2018... The economy does win elections, and I am genuinely scared by what the near future holds. There's a lot of sick canaries down the mines.
> 
> Even without a systemic collapse the economy should be a key area to campaign on come the next election.





killer b said:


> I've exceedingly bleak expectations of the medium/long term economic outlook, so we're probably on a similar page as far as that goes - but I don't think just waiting for bad things to happen is a sane political strategy.


btw, last week we talked about a market crash and its effect on Corbyn - its looking a lot more likely that is happening
What will be very interesting now is if
1. Corbyn can create a positive counternarrative that puts him and the party as somehow able to provide an alternative
2. How it will be reported / whether the austerity cheerleading in the press will falter
3. How much voices for Keynsian stimulation from mainstream economists will come to dominate in the media...

ETA; if this "downturn" continues and Osborne is committed to more years of deep cuts (he is committed and they are still to be implemented) he will be turned on by many economists of all hues


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

ska invita said:


> btw, last week we talked about a market crash and its effect on Corbyn - its looking a lot more likely that is happening
> What will be very interesting now is if
> 1. Corbyn can create a positive counternarrative that puts him and the party as somehow able to provide an alternative
> 2. How it will be reported / whether the austerity cheerleading in the press will falter
> 3. How much voices for Keynsian stimulation from mainstream economists will come to dominate in the media...


There is also the simple, crude fact that governments in charge during a crash get punished for it at the polls, regardless of whether their policies were responsible for it, whether the opposition might have done better, or what side of the political spectrum the governing party happens to be on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

ska invita said:


> ETA; if this "downturn" continues and Osborne is committed to more years of deep cuts (he is committed and they are still to be implemented) he will be turned on by many economists of all hues


And to your edit, I have little doubt he would reverse that commitment if the economy nosedives. Thatcher abandoned monetarist dogma in the 80s because she had to. He wants to make cuts, but he wants to be in power more.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also the simple, crude fact that governments in charge during a crash get punished for it at the polls, regardless of whether their policies were responsible for it, whether the opposition might have done better, or what side of the political spectrum the governing party happens to be on.


Yes, though Tories wear sharp suits and look like they understand banking - Corbyn would still have to win over public trust to some degree - and that means doing so through the media


littlebabyjesus said:


> And to your edit, I have little doubt he would reverse that commitment if the economy nosedives. Thatcher abandoned monetarist dogma in the 80s because she had to. He wants to make cuts, but he wants to be in power more.


hmmm...maybe...anyhow, not worth speculating too far in the future - all unknowable


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

I don't know if it's true anyway - there was various financial crises and recessions in the 80s & 90s that didn't seem to do the tories any harm.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't know if it's true anyway - there was various financial crises and recessions in the 80s & 90s that didn't seem to do the tories any harm.


Depends how big the crashes are. Following 2007-8, a number of European governing parties lost power, regardless of their left/right nature.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't know if it's true anyway - there was various financial crises and recessions in the 80s & 90s that didn't seem to do the tories any harm.


Even on the scale of whats happening today Corbyn needs to develop that coutnernarrative asap


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

Depends on whether it supports your thesis or not, more like.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> Depends on whether it supports your thesis or not, more like.


Do you dispute the idea that the governing parties, both right and left, across a large number of countries suffered at the polls post-2008?


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Even on the scale of whats happening today Corbyn needs to develop that coutnernarrative asap


Of course. But expecting a tanking economy to do most of the legwork is bonkers.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you dispute the idea that the governing parties, both right and left, across a large number of countries suffered at the polls post-2008?


Why would I do that?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> Of course. But expecting a tanking economy to do most of the legwork is bonkers.


I know where you are coming from, i really do - nonetheless if I were him, considering how fragile his eggs are and how much everyone wants to break them, i would put them all in the economics basket. Safest place for them. The baskets lining compliments them and makes them look good to swing voters too.

Hows that for a metaphor!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ironic that you quote the times uncritically on this thread



It's hardly ironic. It's of a piece with his tactic of posting just about any old dog-spunk that supports his thesis, even when the dog-spunk - on closer reading - *doesn't* support his thesis.

Oh, and in case MarkyMarrk assumes that this post is "passive aggressive bullying", it isn't. It's criticism of his posts on this thread, and the fact of their paucity of substance.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 21, 2016)

With a precarious economy the current media narrative (that employment in the Uk is in a robust position) isn't likely to fit with a different reality if investment dries up and closures accelerate.

Corbyn needs to keep the focus on a peoples response to capitalisms failure - no more money to bail out banks, but money to boost public spending and spending by the public..

Osborne's rug can yet be pulled.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Hattersley on Newsnight saying that he thinks this is worse than the 1980s.



As someone who remembers Hattersley as a senior (self-confessed) right-wing-of-Labour politician who gloried in the demolition of the non-soft Labour left in the '80s, I have to say that "he would say that, wouldn't he?". After all, it serves his political successors well that he puts about such a narrative.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

O god please vp - can we move on?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 21, 2016)

The media might not relish the shift away from austerity politics towards sanity, but they do have to reflect the reality of acute economic instability, particularly if it gathers some pace.  Keep your eye on a peoples quantitative easing Jezz, would be my advice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Shirley Williams predicting "the inevitable". I don't think it will get that far, but it could.



Anyone with even a slight amount of socialism to their politics, would know that Baroness Williams (let's give these people the titles they so willingly took up, rather than implying that they're some sort of proletarians, hmm?) - like her friend Baron Hattersley - has the political insight of a baboon that has suffered death by electrocution. This is a woman so disgusted by any hint of socialism that she jumped ship from Labour with 3 labour-right colleagues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

killer b said:


> O god please vp - can we move on?



Seeing as you asked nicely...


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

Phew!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> There is something that is very immature seeming about the current behaviour of right-wing Labourites. They hysterically lurch from molehill to molehill hysterically screaming about it like Kevin the Teenager.



Learned behaviour. This is what the Labour right have always done, and because it's something they're historically-aware "works" (for them) insofar as it generates media interest that is invariably - and structurally - "on their side", they'll keep on doing it. If the media were more reflective and less blatantly politically-motivated, that wouldn't happen. As it is, though...


----------



## laptop (Jan 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone with even a slight amount of socialism to their politics, would know that Baroness Williams (let's give these people the titles they so willingly took up, rather than implying that they're some sort of proletarians, hmm?) - like her friend Baron Hattersley - has the political insight of a baboon that has suffered death by electrocution. This is a woman so disgusted by any hint of socialism that she jumped ship from Labour with 3 labour-right colleagues.



Indeed. So Mr MM is taking the view of a Labour rightwinger who not only supported but _founded_ a rival party?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> Good old Shirley, twice helped the tories into office and sold the NHS. Not surprised you find her judgements sound.



Some people unfortunately buy into the idea that if you're an old and/or ennobled politician, that you're somehow an elder statesman and a voice of reason. Williams is, and always was, a reactionary and a rent-a-quote for Labour-right/right social-democratic opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> yeah but really what he is actually upset about it the most vulnerable in society being subjected to a Tory government, which is why he thinks that the Miliband shadow cabinet which included Rachel 'we will be tougher on welfare than the Tories' Reeves was too left-wing.



As we know from the Corbyn/mass media interactions, how something *IS*, and how it is *represented*, are two different things.
So, the world has turned upside-down, and Reeves was part of a supposedly-left shadow cabinet, while Corbyn (a mildly left-wing social democrat) and McDonnell (left-wing but forever wedded to Parliamentary democracy) and their cohorts are "far left". It'd be funny if the "analysis" wasn't so blatantly skewed. It's obvious to anyone who bothers to look beyond the front page that people wedded to the current system, and who have been part of and supported that system for 30-40 years plus, are NOT "far left", and are not entryists seeking to dismantle the system from within. They're traditional quasi-Fabian ameliorationists who believe utterly in the current system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> MarkyMarrk are you a subeditor for the guardian?



They employ scarcely any subs, hence the plethora of cock-ups in every edition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

editor said:


> I love the BBC but I don't think I've ever seen such an obviously biased campaign against a politician. It's quite disgraceful. That is all.



Not against a *senior* politician.
Can remember some pretty awful kickings given to people like Liz Davies, Dave Nellist etc for daring to be left-democrats, and the scare campaign against Militant was a disgrace, all of which went well beyond the Beeb's slavish line-toeing - much like the "anti-Corbyn" movement.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 21, 2016)

Don't overlook the mauling one T Benn took.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 21, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Don't overlook the mauling one T Benn took.



He's dead now so he's OK with the Labour right, they don't mind socialists as long as they are dead and unable to threaten them, in fact if they are dead they can even be laudable because their legacy can be coopted for neoliberal politics at that point.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not against a *senior* politician.
> Can remember some pretty awful kickings given to people like Liz Davies, Dave Nellist etc for daring to be left-democrats, and the scare campaign against Militant was a disgrace, all of which went well beyond the Beeb's slavish line-toeing - much like the "anti-Corbyn" movement.



Militant were portrayed as trying to bring Britain down. I was a child but the BBC coverage gave me the very strong impression that "these people were baddies".


----------



## Favelado (Jan 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> in fact if they are dead they can even be laudable because their legacy can be coopted for neoliberal politics at that point.



By their children for example.


----------



## youngian (Jan 21, 2016)

Not much in point in blaming the media for your failings, if you want the top job you have to box clever. Leadership is about what people think you are, Cameron and his colleagues successfully portray themselves to floating voters as reasonable liberal right-of-centre politicians. They're nothing of the sort. Essentially winning general elections are about convincing the public you're more trustworthy in charge than the other schmuck. Policies are the easy bit you can just dress up the unpopular ones as something else if you have enough the savvy. If you haven't then you're probably not going to win an election anyway.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 21, 2016)

Favelado said:


> Militant were portrayed as trying to bring Britain down. I was a child but the BBC coverage gave me the very strong impression that "these people were baddies".





Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## youngian (Jan 21, 2016)

There's a well-told story in the Labour Party about Mandelson being dragged into a chippy during party conference and he points to the mushy peas and asks for the guacamole. I first heard that story from the Militant Tendency three decades before but it was about Roy Jenkins then. Except the punchline was; "I'll have some that green avocado stuff." Thanks to New Labour we're now posh enough to know what guacamole is.


----------



## laptop (Jan 21, 2016)

youngian said:


> There's a well-told story in the Labour Party about Mandelson being dragged into a chippy during party conference and he points to the mushy peas and asks for the guacamole. I first heard that story from the Militant Tendency three decades before but it was about Roy Jenkins then. Except the punchline was; "I'll have some that green avocado stuff." Thanks to New Labour we're now posh enough to know what guacamole is.



The other one's about his selection meeting in Hartlepool in (I calculate) 1991.

He had of course been foisted on the Constituency Party by Head Office. He approaches the panel confidently.

"Art thou in t'Union, lad?"

(Puzzled expression) "Union?"

"Bloody hell. T&G it'll have to be. Sign here, lad."


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

youngian said:


> Not much in point in blaming the media for your failings, if you want the top job you have to box clever. Leadership is about what people think you are, Cameron and his colleagues successfully portray themselves to floating voters as reasonable liberal right-of-centre politicians. They're nothing of the sort. Essentially winning general elections are about convincing the public you're more trustworthy in charge than the other schmuck. Policies are the easy bit you can just dress up the unpopular ones as something else if you have enough the savvy. If you haven't then you're probably not going to win an election anyway.


I sort of agree with this, though I'm a little less cynical.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

youngian said:


> There's a well-told story in the Labour Party about Mandelson being dragged into a chippy during party conference and he points to the mushy peas and asks for the guacamole. I first heard that story from the Militant Tendency three decades before but it was about Roy Jenkins then. Except the punchline was; "I'll have some that green avocado stuff." Thanks to New Labour we're now posh enough to know what guacamole is.


I've heard this a few times. Is it actually true?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 21, 2016)

The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Can you name me the person that is best suited as leader of the Labour party, MarkyMarrk?



Ahem.. MarkyMarrk?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Ahem.. MarkyMarrk?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> View attachment 82458



So you've spend 50 pages moaning how bad Corbyn is the Labour party, and yet you can't name a single person who would do better?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> So you've spend 50 pages moaning how bad Corbyn is the Labour party, and yet you can't name a single person who would do better?


I haven't spent 50 pages doing any such thing.
I can't name a single person who can do better. 






















I can name over 100.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I can name over 100.



Just one will do. You have the floor.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Just one will do. You have the floor.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2016)

clem the gem would have had more in common politically with c-byn rather than the current labour right


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

Of the realistic hopes for next leader, I'm hoping for this person:


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

(eta sorry, that was in response to pictures of Blair and Milliband snr)


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> clem the gem would have had more in common politically with c-byn rather than the current labour right


Not if he knew the situation. He knew that being in power was important to make a difference. But you carry on in your ignorance.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> View attachment 82459 View attachment 82460



Milliband The Elder is in the USA. Come on mate, name someone that is ready to take the helm. Be serious for a second.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Milliband The Elder is in the USA. Come on mate, name someone that is ready to take the helm. Be serious for a second.


I just did.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Not if he knew the situation. He knew that being in power was important to make a difference. But you carry on in your ignorance.


how can I now you've spoken the error of my thinking? 
David Milliband lol


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I just did.



Yes, I posted at the same time as you. You'll have to explain who that is, sorry. Is he the ex-soldier?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> how can I now you've spoken the error of my thinking?
> David Milliband lol


You're welcome


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Yes, I posted at the same time as you. You'll have to explain who that is, sorry. Is he the ex-soldier?


Yes, Jarvis is acceptable though too prone to changing his mind... picture is of Keir Starmer, who might not be ready if JC goes prior to the election.


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Yes, I posted at the same time as you. You'll have to explain who that is, sorry. Is he the ex-soldier?


Keir Starmer	  (I like google picture search)


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

I'd have Hilary Benn right up there.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> Keir Starmer	  (I like google picture search)



So not the ex-solder then. A solicitor. Great!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'd have Hilary Benn right up there.



Kier Starmer's wikipedia page is very thin on the ground when it comes to political beliefs. What is he about? What does he stand for?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> He's dead now so he's OK with the Labour right, they don't mind socialists as long as they are dead and unable to threaten them, in fact if they are dead they can even be laudable because their legacy can be coopted for neoliberal politics at that point.






MarkyMarrk said:


> View attachment 82458


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> So not the ex-solder then. A solicitor. Great!


  BIG difference between a silk and a solicitor.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2016)

Great.


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Kier Starmer's wikipedia page is very thin on the ground when it comes to political beliefs. What is he about? What does he stand for?


not a big fan of freedom of expression :'Twitter joke' case only went ahead at insistence of DPP


----------



## agricola (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Of the realistic hopes for next leader, I'm hoping for this person:
> 
> View attachment 82461



Well, at least it will be hilarious to see the maquis furiously deny that they ever went around criticizing the takeover of the party by a bunch of affluent and out of touch North London folk.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Kier Starmer's wikipedia page is very thin on the ground when it comes to political beliefs. What is he about? What does he stand for?


Politically he's pretty untested - only became an MP last year. Decent record as human rights lawyer before becoming the public prosecutor. Parachuted into a safe seat when Frank Dobson retired. 

Here's his voting record so far. Not that bad. Voted against bombing Syria at least. Pro-fracking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Politically he's pretty untested - only became an MP last year. Decent record as human rights lawyer before becoming the public prosecutor. Parachuted into a safe seat when Frank Dobson retired.
> 
> Here's his voting record so far. Not that bad. Voted against bombing Syria at least. Pro-fracking.


i would like to think that people outside parliament are politically tested too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> So you've spend 50 pages moaning how bad Corbyn is the Labour party, and yet you can't name a single person who would do better?



Except for Clem, who's long-dead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Milliband The Elder is in the USA. Come on mate, name someone that is ready to take the helm. Be serious for a second.



Miliband. D still sees himself as "the king over the water", although his petulance after Miliband. E won the leadership contest soured some of his devotees to his "charms". 
One of the possible effects of the Corbyn turn is that given re-democratisation of constituency parties, Miliband. D may find it much harder to find a safe berth - or any sort of berth - within a system where candidates aren't centrally-imposed/"parachuted in" to CLPs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'd have Hilary Benn right up there.


yeh i thought you would, fits with the image you cultivate of being a political featherweight


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Miliband. D still sees himself as "the king over the water", although his petulance after Miliband. E won the leadership contest soured some of his devotees to his "charms".
> One of the possible effects of the Corbyn turn is that given re-democratisation of constituency parties, Miliband. D may find it much harder to find a safe berth - or any sort of berth - within a system where candidates aren't centrally-imposed/"parachuted in" to CLPs.


can't see dm ending as an alkie in rome tho stranger things have happened


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Yes, I posted at the same time as you. You'll have to explain who that is, sorry. Is he the ex-soldier?



No, he's the former DPP/head of the CPS. He's about as political as a dry hump - one of those people who is attracted to and by power.
Dan Jarvis - the ex-soldier - may have "leadership skills" (although I'd argue whether modern military leadership skills - i.e. managerialist bollocks superimposed onto a pragmatic military command structure - aren't really what you need to lead a party), but he's about as politically-experienced as Miliband, and hasn't yet got over his need to be liked. Possible future party leader 10-15 years down the line, but now?That'd be a poor wager.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Kier Starmer's wikipedia page is very thin on the ground when it comes to political beliefs. What is he about? What does he stand for?



He doesn't really have any beyond a wishy-washy alignment to a little light Blairism. He's just another neoliberal pretending not to be a neoliberal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> BIG difference between a silk and a solicitor.


About £100,000.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 21, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Kier Starmer's wikipedia page is very thin on the ground when it comes to political beliefs. What is he about? What does he stand for?


Pragmatic, anti-Tory.
There's lots I don't agree with him on, but that's OK. He's broad-church Labour, and I'm in favour of that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'd have Hilary Benn right up there.



Who wouldn't?

Oh, you meant up there as party leader. I thought you meant "...have Hilary Benn right up there" as in with a bayonet up his arse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> can't see dm ending as an alkie in rome tho stranger things have happened



No, I can't see it either.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who wouldn't?
> 
> Oh, you meant up there as party leader. I thought you meant "...have Hilary Benn right up there" as in with a bayonet up his arse.


yeh he'd rather a vacuous red tory was leader of the lp, a man with less political nous than any of his intake at westminster. says a lot about mm and none of it good.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 21, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Pragmatic, anti-Tory.
> There's lots I don't agree with him on, but that's OK. He's broad-church Labour, and I'm in favour of that.



Being anti-something is not something you stand *for.
*
And being anti-Tory? Shouldnt that be kinda a pre-requisite for being Labour leader? This impresses you?

Plus pragmatism is a euphemism for "I'll bend as far as you want me to, here, take my arse" So I can see how that impresses you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh he'd rather a vacuous red tory was leader of the lp, a man with less political nous than any of his intake at westminster. says a lot about mm and none of it good.



The only thing Killary has over the others is back-bench experience. 
Just glad that limp dick Will Straw got knocked back at the GE. Ten quid Draw would have been a shoo-in as leader among some of the star-fuckers in the Labour Party - the sort who think Starmer is a contender, or who fawn over "the British Obama".


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The only thing Killary has over the others is back-bench experience.
> Just glad that limp dick Will Straw got knocked back at the GE. Ten quid Draw would have been a shoo-in as leader among some of the star-fuckers in the Labour Party - the sort who think Starmer is a contender, or who fawn over "the British Obama".



See what happens after Chilcot. (for Brand Straw)   and the referendum for Will personally


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> See what happens after Chilcot.





It'll be interesting, that's for certain!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jan 21, 2016)

If Chilcot ever happens...


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> BIG difference between a silk and a solicitor.


That depends on the silk. Someone who makes QC within a decade of becoming a barrister, like Starmer, is a very talented lawyer. Anyone who takes silk after 20 years of practice or more is most likely just competent and possibly pretentious.


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> That depends on the silk. Someone who makes QC within a decade of becoming a barrister, like Starmer, is a very talented lawyer. Anyone who takes silk after 20 years of practice or more is most likely just competent and possibly pretentious.


Yes, but barrister / solicitor are very different jobs, if I want all my paperwork to be legally compliant I'll see a solicitor, if I want to win a legal argument I'll use a barrister, halfway inbetween I'll call a lawyer


----------



## laptop (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> a lawyer



Erm... who that? Barristers and solicitors are lawyers.


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

laptop said:


> Erm... who that? Barristers and solicitors are lawyers.


if i went into Linklaters or DLA Piper and started calling them solicitors they'd not be happy.   (thought I'd get called up on public notary's, but never mind).
   Rumpole QC's interest in Penge bungalows was nothing to do with buying/selling or inheriting them, (though he was hired through a solicitor)


----------



## laptop (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> if i went into Linklaters or DLA Piper and started calling them solicitors they'd not be happy.


Ah. "Lawyer" = _expensive _ solicitor


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> if i went into Linklaters or DLA Piper and started calling them solicitors they'd not be happy.   (thought I'd get called up on public notary's, but never mind).
> Rumpole QC's interest in Penge bungalows was nothing to do with buying/selling or inheriting them, (though he was hired through a solicitor)


The person who comes down to the cell to see you when you get nicked is called the 'duty solicitor', though. So 'solicitor' can mean a bit more than someone who does conveyancing.


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

laptop said:


> Ah. "Lawyer" = _expensive _ solicitor



to be used in competitive lawing rather than the mundane process stuff


----------



## gosub (Jan 21, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The person who comes down to the cell to see you when you get nicked is called the 'duty solicitor', though. So 'solicitor' can mean a bit more than someone who does conveyancing.


true but its still process stuff, don't rate you're chances if you're still using him/her weeks later to help build your defense


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> true but its still process stuff, don't rate you're chances if you're still using him/her weeks later to help build your defense


I had a duty solicitor once who was really keen to represent me and my mate as he was outraged by what had happened to us (beaten up by coppers). He was young, and clearly keen to do more than just fill in forms. Hated the police. Good fella.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 21, 2016)

Blairites should 'keep their mouths shut' and get behind Jeremy Corbyn, veteran Labour MP advises


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jan 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> Yes, but barrister / solicitor are very different jobs, if I want all my paperwork to be legally compliant I'll see a solicitor, if I want to win a legal argument I'll use a barrister, halfway inbetween I'll call a lawyer


This is no longer true in criminal law, mostly for cost reasons. Defence solicitors build the defence and usually do the advocacy in magistrates' court cases themselves. 

You need a barrister for long or complex trials because advocacy is their specialty, but they don't have much extra to offer in legally straight forward cases, which almost all criminal cases are.


----------



## gosub (Jan 22, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> This is no longer true in criminal law, mostly for cost reasons. Defence solicitors build the defence and usually do the advocacy in magistrates' court cases themselves.
> 
> You need a barrister for long or complex trials because advocacy is their specialty, but they don't have much extra to offer in legally straight forward cases, which almost all criminal cases are.


Live and learn but we are still saying being a barrister is a different kettle of fish and its a derail anyway that I'm not trying for


----------



## gosub (Jan 22, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Flushed out a couple of people who clearly have no interest in helping Lavour get elected. "Who?... Must be a troll... He doesn't matter..." Etc
> 
> Absolutely no interest in what actually happens. Just posturing. I'd hazard a guess they haven't been near a campaign in the last year including the general election. I have, but get told to join the Tories in favour of these armchair warriors.



Oh I do have an interest in what happens, an unchecked government is bad news. But just a spectator, not running in this race.


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2016)

> Labour gain from UKIP in Newington (Thanet)*:
> 
> Newington (Thanet) result:
> LAB: 37.7% (+1.3)
> ...



low turnout though, and Tories up a little.


----------



## youngian (Jan 22, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I've heard this a few times. Is it actually true?


I think it's what's known as an apocryphal story. Like the Clintons stopping at a garage and Hilary's flirting with a mechanic: "I used to go out with him," Hillary tells Bill, "Just think if you married him you'd be the wife of a grease monkey," "No Bill, if I married him I'd be wife of the POTUS"


----------



## youngian (Jan 22, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Kier Starmer's wikipedia page is very thin on the ground when it comes to political beliefs. What is he about? What does he stand for?





MarkyMarrk said:


> Of the realistic hopes for next leader, I'm hoping for this person:



It's common in the US for district attorneys to move straight to state governor but as former head of the DPP Starmer doesn't have to establish his gravitas up against an oily PR man like Cameron. And he has proven judgement that Major Jarvis probably lacks Keir Starmer: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force And Murdoch and his minions loathe Starmer with a vengeance for his vigorous pursuit to prosecute them over phone hacking.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2016)

youngian said:


> It's common in the US for district attorneys to move straight to state governor but as former head of the DPP Starmer doesn't have to establish his gravitas up against an oily PR man like Cameron. And he has proven judgement that Major Jarvis probably lacks Keir Starmer: Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force


That, there, kind of sums up what's wrong with him, though. Who gives a fuck what the legal basis for the war was? It was wrong. It was the wrong thing to do. You don't _need_ the law to tell you that. This was the libdem position on Iraq - that it wasn't legal, not that it wasn't right. From what I can tell of Starmer, he looks like a Charles Kennedy-style libdem.


----------



## youngian (Jan 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That, there, kind of sums up what's wrong with him, though. Who gives a fuck what the legal basis for the war was?


A lawyer? which is what he was when wrote it not a vicar. And one that believed the war was wrong and was looking for an evidence-based approach to give his opinions greater credence.

And how would wrong-doing in international relations be defined if no codified international law existed? Will leaders have to give you a ring?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 22, 2016)

youngian said:


> A lawyer? which is what he was when wrote it not a vicar. And one that believed the war was wrong and was looking for an evidence-based approach to give his opinions greater credence.
> 
> And how would wrong-doing in international relations be defined if no codified international law existed? Will leaders have to give you a ring?


Yes, that's right. I was the only person who thought the war was wrong.

I wish Blair had called me, mind. I'd have told him not to do it.


----------



## youngian (Jan 22, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, that's right. I was the only person who thought the war was wrong.


Well you, me, Mr Starmer and millions of other people. If Blair is finally indicted at the Hague and convicted at least give the law a cheer then.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 22, 2016)

From the Facebook Iain Banks page (nb, I did not write this):

Interesting quote from Mark Mardell, the BBC politics editor, referencing the Culture whilst talking about the new Labour Leader (spoiler alert)

"The climax of one of my favourite science-fiction novels by the late, great Iain M Banks, The Player of Games has the representative of a pan-species libertarian communist idyll of which Mr Corbyn might approve taking on a brutal, fascistic, authoritarian and warlike regime at a sort of violent hi-tech version of multi-dimensional chess.
He, unwittingly, plays their destructive game of conquest and revenge in a way that turns it into an artistic performance, a harmonious, complex ballet.
His opponents react with vast, speechless fury because he has done something much worse than beat them.
He has undermined their rules and their values"


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Why do you make up words and attribute them to me?


I've made up nothing, whereas you have yet to construct anything that remotely resembles a coherent argument.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Poor.


That's rich coming from you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> One more thing, MarkyMarrk, if you're so fired up about Labour needing to appeal to Tory voters, perhaps you could show me how the Tories appeal to Labour voters?


Is there any chance you could answer this question, MarkyMarrk ?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Hattersley on Newsnight saying that he thinks this is worse than the 1980s.


You're just a cheap propagandist.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> View attachment 82458


He's dead. Didn't you get the memo?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Of the realistic hopes for next leader, I'm hoping for this person:
> 
> View attachment 82461


He's only just become an MP. You're not very good at this, are you?

When do we get to see a picture of Ramsay MacDonald?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> View attachment 82459 View attachment 82460


Busted flushes and one of them is a war criminal. Your choices say a lot about you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'd have Hilary Benn right up there.


Typical. I think you'd really prefer this man.


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2016)

Do you have to?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

treelover said:


> low turnout though, and Tories up a little.


A microscopic increase compared to the other parties, while the UKIP vote collapsed.

You're a glass half empty type, aren't you?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> Do you have to?


Are you addressing that question to me?


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2016)

yes.


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2016)

every time it seems like there might be a chance of something other than tedious back and forth with this bellend, someone pokes him again. it's fucking dull.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> every time it seems like there might be a chance of something other than tedious back and forth with this bellend, someone pokes him again. it's fucking dull.


there is no chance of anything decent with MarkyMarrk.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> A microscopic increase compared to the other parties, while the UKIP vote collapsed.
> 
> You're a glass half empty type, aren't you?


you're very generous


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there is no chance of anything decent with MarkyMarrk.


quite, so stop poking him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> quite, so stop poking him.


who, MarkyMarrk?


----------



## killer b (Jan 23, 2016)

ah fuck it. you're all arseholes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> ah fuck it. we're all arseholes.


c4u


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 23, 2016)

Am I not allowed to type my opinion, because some can't argue with it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Am I not allowed to type my opinion, because some can't argue with it?


show us an opinion, perhaps one which won't make you an object of derision.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2016)

but answer came there none


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Typical. I think you'd really prefer this man.



I'd rather have Sir Stifford Crapps, over Killary Benn.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd rather have *Sir Stifford Crapps*, over Killary Benn.


Speaking as one, it is very evident that you really are the child of war children.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 24, 2016)

This is typical of the attitude of Corbynistas:


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 24, 2016)

It isn't typical of anything you tit, its just some random fucking twitter conversation 

Now, how about offering up some actual political opinions and then robustly defending them?


----------



## Nylock (Jan 24, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is typical of the attitude of Corbynistas:
> View attachment 82583


find tweets by 80% of those who voted corbyn expressing the same regret and you will be correct in saying this is 'typical' of 'corbynistas'. Until then it's just more of the same disingenuous bullshitting by a bitter blairite.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 24, 2016)

Nylock said:


> find tweets by 80% of those who voted corbyn expressing the same regret and you will be correct in saying this is 'typical' of 'corbynistas'. Until then it's just more of the same disingenuous bullshitting by a bitter blairite.


tbh, the moment someone starts flinging around terms like "Corbynista" without irony, I start getting suspicious that there's an agenda (and that's as true of someone talking about "Cameronites" or "Blairites").

There's nothing wrong with having an agenda, so long as you're upfront about it, though. What's made this thread interesting for me, as a somewhat disinterested observer, is watching people debate in a civilised way without fucking the thing up with covert agendas. Or has, until now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> It isn't typical of anything you tit, its just some random fucking twitter conversation
> 
> Now, how about offering up some actual political opinions and then robustly defending them?



Another case of MarkyMarrk shaping the evidence to fit his thesis.

Anyway, he's a Blairite/moderate/"sensible" Labour. He doesn't *have* any political opinions except the old my way or the highway _schtick_. Perhaps he was Peter Mandelson's wank sock in a past life?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2016)

Nylock said:


> find tweets by 80% of those who voted corbyn expressing the same regret and you will be correct in saying this is 'typical' of 'corbynistas'. Until then it's just more of the same disingenuous bullshitting by a bitter blairite.



MarkyMarrk's problem is that hardly anything he's retailing on here is (his own) original thinking, it's just simplistic nose-thumbing and chest-thumping rendered into "talking points".
Find a forum, facebook page or twitter stream that's done by a "moderate", and you see the same sort of quasi-incestuous mutual congratulation and hatred and contempt for "the other" that you'll also see on websites such as FreeRepublic. It's not exactly edifying to see, but it amusing to anyone who isn't wearing political blinkers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2016)

existentialist said:


> tbh, the moment someone starts flinging around terms like "Corbynista" without irony, I start getting suspicious that there's an agenda (and that's as true of someone talking about "Cameronites" or "Blairites").
> 
> There's nothing wrong with having an agenda, so long as you're upfront about it, though. What's made this thread interesting for me, as a somewhat disinterested observer, is watching people debate in a civilised way without fucking the thing up with covert agendas. Or has, until now.



The Labour right *can't* be upfront about their agenda. Going back to the public saying "we want to carry on where the Tories leave off, but we'll do it with a smile on our faces" won't play, and they know it.
So instead they're utilising the very meme coined by the Establishment to corral Ed Miliband - they're projecting a pall of "far-leftism" onto someone whose leftism is both Parliamentarian and moderate. If Corbyn were as far left as some of "the resistance" and the media are happy to claim, he'd eschew Parliament for revolutionary activity, and if (as others claim) he's an entryist, then he's a sleeper who's played a convincing role for 40 years. They realise that if they can turn Corbyn into a folk devil, they can subvert his leadership. The problem is that they don't appear to realise that the folk devil of the powerful is often the folk angel of the ordinary people.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Another case of MarkyMarrk shaping the evidence to fit his thesis.
> 
> Anyway, he's a Blairite/moderate/"sensible" Labour. He doesn't *have* any political opinions except the old my way or the highway _schtick_. Perhaps he was Peter Mandelson's wank sock in a past life?



Can you try this without the homophobia please? It is objectionable and beneath you (I hope. I suggest so on the limited evidence I have).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> . They realise that if they can turn Corbyn into a folk devil


for does it not say in the good book 'the devil rides a clapped out bike and comes bearing a flask of tea'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Can you try this without the homophobia please? It is objectionable and beneath you (I hope. I suggest so on the limited evidence I have).



There is no homophobia, except in your head. I could have said you were Margaret Thatcher's knicker gusset to achieve the same meaning - that your opinions are neoliberal dribblings.

Nice try, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> for does it not say in the good book 'the devil rides a clapped out bike and comes bearing a flask of tea'?



And that "verily he shall pretend to expose the corruption in the temple by not expelling the priests who join the _maquis_".
What a bastard, and how prescient was the good book!!!


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> There is no homophobia, except in your head. I could have said you were Margaret Thatcher's knicker gusset to achieve the same meaning - that your opinions are neoliberal dribblings.



But you didn't, and wouldn't. And the reason you didn't and wouldn't is because of not-very-well-hidden homophobia.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2016)

I am heartily sick of this MarrMarrk character. He doesn't seem to be saying anything just posting attachment links to Twitter for example.  He has obviously not read the rules of this forum. That might be a good thing because it means that he can be barred if anyone can be bothered. The thread title is about Corbyn and his cabinet in the media, that is of interest but not just giving space to people who want to rubbish Corbyn.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> But you didn't, and wouldn't. And the reason you didn't and wouldn't is because of not-very-well-hidden homophobia.



Yes, you're right. It must be that I'm a homophobe, mustn't it? There couldn't possibly be any other reason for using Mandelson as an exemplar of neoliberalism. Certainly not, for example, his actions in having clause 4 of the Labour constitution changed, his hobnobbing with bankers and oligarchs - and even banker-oligarchs such as Nathan Rothschild (oh look,I mentioned Nat Rothschild. I must be an anti-Semite, as well as a homophobe!) - or his own beyond-the-call-of-duty acquisitiveness, which almost eclipsed that of Blair himself.
As I said, nice try, but this isn't the student union. Shouting "homophobe" only works on actual proof, not on supposition, or on your personal interpretation of what someone says or writes.
Must try harder.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I am heartily sick of this MarrMarrk character. He doesn't seem to be saying anything just posting attachment links to Twitter for example.  He has obviously not read the rules of this forum. That might be a good thing because it means that he can be barred if anyone can be bothered. The thread title is about Corbyn and his cabinet in the media, that is of interest but not just giving space to people who want to rubbish Corbyn.



The Labour right feel they have an existential duty to rubbish Corbyn, though. You might say that Corbyn exemplifies all the attributes that they have stripped from themselves - ideas about social justice, equality of outcome (as opposed to the chimera of "equality of opportunity"), an economy that isn't in thrall to the City of London and is - shock, horror - *productive* of value and of jobs.
I can see all this stuff, and I'm neither "left-wing" or a Labour supporter.


----------



## gosub (Jan 24, 2016)

Corbyn didn't consult Shadow Business Secretary over controversial business policy idea - Spectator Blogs

If thats true, that's doubly bad, as well as treading on her shadow cabinet toes, shes supposed to be in charge of setting policy


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 24, 2016)

I wish MarkyMarrk would just sod off & leave the rest of us to get on with the discussion as he has nothing to add to the debate & I for one am totally pissed off with his incessant whining.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> Corbyn didn't consult Shadow Business Secretary over controversial business policy idea - Spectator Blogs
> 
> If thats true, that's doubly bad, as well as treading on her shadow cabinet toes, shes supposed to be in charge of setting policy


I notice that you did not mention this paragraph in the same article.





> it is normal for the Shadow Cabinet member responsible for a policy area to at least be notified before an announcement, but Corbyn’s aides argued that he was not announcing any set policy. His spokesman said: ‘These weren’t policy announcements, just floating ideas for discussion.’



You cannot assume that the Spectator is a neutral observer.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 24, 2016)

How did Corbyns trip to Dunkirk/Calais come across on the media? Anyone have an opinion? I havent seen any of it, just read a basic write up, but it seems to have a got a lot coverage


----------



## gosub (Jan 24, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I notice that you did not mention this paragraph in the same article.
> 
> You cannot assume that the Spectator is a neutral observer.


cos it wouldn't make any difference, you'd still be pissed of it it was floated to fabians before you had any idea.   
I said if its true.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 24, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The thread title is about Corbyn and his cabinet in the media, that is of interest but not just giving space to people who want to rubbish Corbyn.


I'm writing about Corbyn and his cabinet in the media. Twitter is part of the media. Just because you don't agree with what I write, doesn't mean it's not allowed.
Calling for those who disagree to be purged is pretty typical of C---------s as well.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 24, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Calling for those who disagree to be purged is pretty typical of C---------s as well.



Chuggers?


----------



## laptop (Jan 24, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Chuggers?


Christadelphians?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 25, 2016)

Cromwellians?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 25, 2016)

Crumpets? Hmmmmm crumpets.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 25, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Crumpets? Hmmmmm crumpets.



I notice you can now get crumpets in Costa Coffee. They make for a change from teacakes.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 25, 2016)

I use local coffee houses on occasion so have not observed this phenomenon.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 25, 2016)

gosub said:


> Corbyn didn't consult Shadow Business Secretary over controversial business policy idea - Spectator Blogs
> 
> If thats true, that's doubly bad, as well as treading on her shadow cabinet toes, shes supposed to be in charge of setting policy



The Eagles just seem to be "window dressing" and well out of the loop


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2016)

they can check out any time they like but they will never leave. Stabbing corbyn with their steelen knives etc etc


----------



## agricola (Jan 25, 2016)

gosub said:


> Corbyn didn't consult Shadow Business Secretary over controversial business policy idea - Spectator Blogs
> 
> If thats true, that's doubly bad, as well as treading on her shadow cabinet toes, shes supposed to be in charge of setting policy



The worst thing about that was its a daft proposal; he should have highlighted how dividends have utterly failed to keep pace with executive pay in the same companies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> But you didn't, and wouldn't. And the reason you didn't and wouldn't is because of not-very-well-hidden homophobia.


Oh no, believe me he would. 

The idea that vp would hold back from insulting you by comparing you to some piece of clothing used by Thatcher if that's what he thought was the right thing is laughable.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 25, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Can you try this without the homophobia please? It is objectionable and beneath you (I hope. I suggest so on the limited evidence I have).



VP the well known homophobe, it's about time someone called him on this. Good work, you fraggle.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> How did Corbyns trip to Dunkirk/Calais come across on the media? Anyone have an opinion? I havent seen any of it, just read a basic write up, but it seems to have a got a lot coverage



Looking at some headlines this morning it looks like the right wing press are trying to spin it as Corbyn says Let Them All In...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is typical of the attitude of Corbynistas:


i did ask for an opinion which wouldn't make you an object of derision. this ^^ does make you an object of derision.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm writing about Corbyn and his cabinet in the media. Twitter is part of the media. Just because you don't agree with what I write, doesn't mean it's not allowed.
> Calling for those who disagree to be purged is pretty typical of C---------s as well.


That's a rather selective view imo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm writing about Corbyn and his cabinet in the media. Twitter is part of the media. Just because you don't agree with what I write, doesn't mean it's not allowed.
> Calling for those who disagree to be purged is pretty typical of C---------s as well.


it's a word you can't spell, isn't it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Am I not allowed to type my opinion, because some can't argue with it?


Stop playing the injured party, it's undignified.


----------



## YouSir (Jan 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Stop playing the injured party, it's undignified.



But how would people know about the malicious Corbyn supporters brutally oppressing his opinion if he didn't give his opinion about them doing it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> But how would people know about the malicious Corbyn supporters brutally oppressing his opinion if he didn't give his opinion about them doing it?


everyone brutally oppresses his opinion because no one likes to read contemptible drivel.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Corbyn supporters


_Corbynistas_, surely?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

agricola said:


> The worst thing about that was its a daft proposal; he should have highlighted how dividends have utterly failed to keep pace with executive pay in the same companies.


Shit-stirring Isabel Hardman.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 25, 2016)

Interesting. I presume this is the same report in the linked articles:

Labour seen as 'indistinguishable from the Tories' to Scottish voters, leaked internal report warns



> The Scottish Labour party is seen as “indistinguishable from the Conservatives” to voters north of the border, a leaked report commissioned by the party has found.
> 
> The previously unreleased Mattinson Report, commissioned by Labour and leaked to ITV News, says voters in England do not know what the party stands for....



Revealed: Secret report criticises Jeremy Corbyn's 'appalling' Labour for failing to 'atone for its past'



> A secret Labour report into why the party lost the general election suggests that the party is heading in the wrong direction under Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> The unpublished ‘Emerging from the Darkness’ report warns that "Labour negatives are deep and powerful".
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Interesting. I presume this is the same report in the linked articles:
> 
> Labour seen as 'indistinguishable from the Tories' to Scottish voters, leaked internal report warns
> 
> ...


Funny to see Labour right-wingers piling-in to demand that Labour "atone for its past... especially on the economy". I wonder what part(s) of the Blair/Brown economic record they have in mind?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 25, 2016)

Well yes but the report is a bit all over the shop when on the one hand it's quoted as saying that Labour are indistinguishable from the Tories north of the border and on the other they are not to be trusted on the economy. Also seen to be soft on benefit claimants and the 'hard-working families' meme pops up again. It's like the report is almost in places telling sections of the party what they want to hear.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Well yes but the report is a bit all over the shop when on the one hand it's quoted as saying that Labour are indistinguishable from the Tories north of the border and on the other they are not to be trusted on the economy. Also seen to be soft on benefit claimants and the 'hard-working families' meme pops up again. It's like the report is almost in places telling sections of the party what they want to hear.


The "soft on benefits claimants" line comes straight from the media. The "not to be trusted on the economy" line is Tory-driven but also assumes that the Tories are better at managing the nation's economy. We know this isn't true and sadly, your average news consumer is absolutely clueless about economics, and doesn't realise that it isn't the neutral academic discipline that it's often portrayed as.

I often wonder how these reports are written. Do they actually conduct proper research (the Tories don't and we know this) or do they just pull whatever prejudiced crap happens to be lying around in their heads, gather it up and present it as hard evidence (the Tories always do this)? We do so love our confirmation biases, don't we?


----------



## treelover (Jan 25, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Well yes but the report is a bit all over the shop when on the one hand it's quoted as saying that Labour are indistinguishable from the Tories north of the border and on the other they are not to be trusted on the economy. Also seen to be soft on benefit claimants and the 'hard-working families' meme pops up again. It's like the report is almost in places telling sections of the party what they want to hear.




The 'scrounger' notion is an article of faith for all Blairites and many on the right of the party, I recall discussing this with John Battle (ex LP MP) and he said that the "PLP was obsessed with welfare". They have no self awareness that they themselves have created/shaped the public mood(which i don't think is as punitive as they make out) through a systematic campaign to demonise the unemployed, disabled people. I do think that the non labour left, the sort that we see on mass Syria/Anti-Austerity demos, etc could have done much much more to counter this narrative though.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 25, 2016)

Fairly well written article

Corbyn's critics should drop the middle class myth


----------



## teqniq (Jan 25, 2016)

Hmmm 'Labour moderates'. Like fuck they are.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2016)

I think this is something that needs nailing home

_On social media, his supporters curse rebellious Labour MPs and a hostile media for turning the public against him, but even if these complaints aren’t entirely unfounded it’s besides the point. Wringing your hands over what could have been won’t make the actual situation any less bleak._


----------



## likesfish (Jan 25, 2016)

I think corbyn needs to rethink his falklands policy.
 Islanders don't want links with argentina.
 Argentina has done zero in anyway to apologize for the invasion or even attempt to build any bridges at all they walked away in a huff from the only joint declaration on oil and fishery and did everything in their way to cause problems.
  Argentina is already rich in resources and lands the islanders arnt of spanish or latin american extraction a colonial country whining that a colony wasnt handed to them is a bit silly.
 it may be two bald men fighting over a comb but the comb isn't argentinas


----------



## treelover (Jan 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> How did Corbyns trip to Dunkirk/Calais come across on the media? Anyone have an opinion? I havent seen any of it, just read a basic write up, but it seems to have a got a lot coverage





> *Corbyn: Britain should do more for migrants in France who have UK connection *
> 
> Corbyn: Britain should do more for migrants in France who have UK connection



He is speaking out again, leaving aside its merits, I think he lets his interests dominate his agenda.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> He is speaking out again, leaving aside its merits, I think he lets his interests dominate his agenda.


yeah, knowing how ropey his position is he's doing a good job of sticking to his guns. Have to respect that


----------



## gosub (Jan 25, 2016)

likesfish said:


> I think corbyn needs to rethink his falklands policy.
> Islanders don't want links with argentina.
> Argentina has done zero in anyway to apologize for the invasion or even attempt to build any bridges at all they walked away in a huff from the only joint declaration on oil and fishery and did everything in their way to cause problems.
> Argentina is already rich in resources and lands the islanders arnt of spanish or latin american extraction a colonial country whining that a colony wasnt handed to them is a bit silly.
> it may be two bald men fighting over a comb but the comb isn't argentinas


Defending the islands is a lot cheaper and easier if you don't give Argentina (whose claims to the place are nonsense anyway) a beachead


----------



## treelover (Jan 25, 2016)

> Corbyn, who visited camps at Dunkirk and Calais on Saturday, said the UK must offer refugees proper homes and education, not just the bare minimum of refuge.



This must just be fine words as he must know hundreds of thousands here don't live in decent housing, can't afford tuition fees, access courses, that FE is being savaged and adult education largely disappeared. Refugees/migrants do get free education, etc so does he mean degree level?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> This must just be fine words as he must know hundreds of thousands here don't live in decent housing, can't afford tuition fees, access courses, that FE is being savaged and adult education largely disappeared. Refugees/migrants do get free education, etc so does he mean degree level?




it'd be a photofinish between you and MarkyMarrk for worst poster of the year: and we're not even in february


----------



## treelover (Jan 25, 2016)

Public schoolboys like you who shift left don't understand how ordinary people think, i really don't care about winning awards on here or otherwise, people have different opinions, live with it.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Public schoolboys like you who shift left don't understand how ordinary people think, i really don't care about winning awards on here or otherwise, people have different opinions, live with it.


Ah, let joy be unconfined - the "prolier than thou" gambit.

As if "leftness" is the only thing that matters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Public schoolboys like you who shift left don't understand how ordinary people think, i really don't care about winning awards on here or otherwise, people have different opinions, live with it.


i know ordinary people think. you spout guff devoid of any prior thought. either stop doing that or get used to it being pointed out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Ah, let joy be unconfined - the "prolier than thou" gambit.
> 
> As if "leftness" is the only thing that matters.


he doesn't know what he means by left.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> He is speaking out again, leaving aside its merits, I think he lets his interests dominate his agenda.


"His interests"?  You say that as though he's the only one to hold such views. Heaven forbid that we should ever show compassion towards our fellow human beings, eh?

Zelo Street has a much needed corrective to all the hysterical outpourings from the press, who have not only selectively quoted Corbyn but made up much of the story themselves.
Zelo Street: Corbyn Calais Smears Busted


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> This must just be fine words as he must know hundreds of thousands here don't live in decent housing, can't afford tuition fees, access courses, that FE is being savaged and adult education largely disappeared. Refugees/migrants do get free education, etc so does he mean degree level?


I detect a straw man here.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

likesfish said:


> I think corbyn needs to rethink his falklands policy.
> Islanders don't want links with argentina.


Fuck the Falkland Islanders. This is one of those rare occasions on which I agree with Galloway: it would cost much less to resettle the islanders in Hampshire, where many of them have familial ties, that to keep them on the Falklands.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> yeah, knowing how ropey his position is he's doing a good job of sticking to his guns. Have to respect that



i don't, i don't think it shows integrity, i think it shows a deeply smug attitude and a complete failure to understand that his job is to win an election, rather than feel virtuous.

he doesn't need to talk about this stuff to win an election, he needs to talk about the stuff he believes that also resonates with the electorate - the domestic economy stuff: infrastructure, housing, railways - everytime he opens his mouth about his other favourite subjects he loses votes.

talking about refugees, or the Falklands, or nuclear weapons in a way that excites a load of lefties who would probably vote for him anyway is rather foolish when it also ensures that in three hundred constituancies across the Midlands and South he's just ensured that the Labour PPC will forever remain _prospective._

in a 600 seat parliament, as will be elected in 2020, the voting in the 2015GE under the less than spectacular Miliband would give the Tories a 22 seat majority with Labour barely scraping 200 seats. at this stage, Corbyn is doing _less_ well than Miliband at winning the seats he needed in order to form a government. anyone who thinks that will be admirable for Corbyn to ensure that Labour gets an even smaller proportion of the seats south of Manchester is, of course, entitled to their opinion...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2016)

kebabking said:


> he doesn't need to talk about this stuff to win an election, he needs to talk about the stuff he believes that also resonates with the electorate - the domestic economy stuff: infrastructure, housing, railways - everytime he opens his mouth about his other favourite subjects he loses votes..


If you're talking about the next general election, this isn't really true. It's four years away, so this isn't an election campaign yet. What it does do is start to shift the terms of debate. That may not be being done in order to move up in opinion polls today, but that doesn't mean it is losing votes four years down the line.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you're talking about the next general election, this isn't really true. It's four years away, so this isn't an election campaign yet. What it does do is start to shift the terms of debate. That may not be being done in order to move up in opinion polls today, but that doesn't mean it is losing votes four years down the line.


yeh let's see how things pan out in the elections four months down the line


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2016)

Also, he was elected leader, surely, on the understanding that he would bring new issues into the debate. Obsessing over opinion polls just months after that election seems to me to miss the point.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2016)

kebabking said:


> talking about refugees, or the Falklands, or nuclear weapons in a way that excites a load of lefties who would probably vote for him anyway is rather foolish when it also ensures that in three hundred constituancies across the Midlands and South he's just ensured that the Labour PPC will forever remain _prospective._



I just don't understand why he is talking about it at all. On balance I think that holding on to the islands isn't worth the amount we spend on them and the bad will it creates across Latin America however it's not like the prospect of giving the islands to Argentina gets *me* excited - that constituency must number less than 100, by contrast there are a good number of people who do feel very angry at the idea even of negotiations over the islands. Why talk about it at all?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 25, 2016)

kebabking said:


> he doesn't need to talk about this stuff to win an election, he needs to talk about the stuff he believes that also resonates with the electorate - the domestic economy stuff: infrastructure, housing, railways - everytime he opens his mouth about his other favourite subjects he loses votes.



Agree with that but I wonder how much he talks about housing and the like but doesn't get reported. 

He's also likely fucked if he does fucked if he doesn't. Reporter asks him what he thinks of Calais, "I'd rather talk about infrastructure, housing, railways ..." headline's "Corbyn refuses to condemn millions of immigrants flooding Britain".


----------



## likesfish (Jan 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Fuck the Falkland Islanders. This is one of those rare occasions on which I agree with Galloway: it would cost much less to resettle the islanders in Hampshire, where many of them have familial ties, that to keep them on the Falklands.



it only costs money because of a threat from argentina and frankly all the resources would be doing something else anyway the islanders may end up paying the cost of the defence  if the oil comes through so that's that argument gone.
 Argentina wants south georgia as well although they have zero claim to that and British antarctic even though they can't supply their own base there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2016)

likesfish said:


> it only costs money because of a threat from argentina and frankly all the resources would be doing something else anyway the islanders may end up paying the cost of the defence  if the oil comes through so that's that argument gone.
> Argentina wants south georgia as well although they have zero claim to that and British antarctic even though they can't supply their own base there.


It also costs money because it's right over the other side of the world. Why does Britain own bits of land right over the other side of the world? Is it sensible, equitable or desirable for any country to control bits of land thousands of miles away from any of its other bits of land? Or is this a legacy of empire that needs resolving?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 25, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It also costs money because it's right over the other side of the world. Why does Britain own bits of land right over the other side of the world? Is it sensible, equitable or desirable for any country to control bits of land thousands of miles away from any of its other bits of land? Or is this a legacy of empire that needs resolving?


I just hope that you are only pretending to be ignorant of Britain's past.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2016)

Just buy him a duffelcoat and be done with it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I just hope that you are only pretending to be ignorant of Britain's past.


Britain controls bits of the world far far away as a legacy of empire. In the case of the Falklands, Britain was keen to have a presence around the trade routes around Cape Horn as it sought to extend its influence. Understanding why so many Latin Americans consider that presence to be that of an aggressive imperial power certainly requires understanding of the past, yes.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Heaven forbid that we should ever show compassion towards our fellow human beings, eh?





nino_savatte said:


> Fuck the Falkland Islanders.



lol


----------



## likesfish (Jan 25, 2016)

ah but the falkland islanders  are white and worship maggie so obviously worse than hitler. brown aslyum seekers are only a little bit rapey so deserve everything they could possibly want

but france owning guyana on latin america is peachy
or the dutch

it is a legacy of empire it has zero effect on argentina apart from the made up claim they started when it looked like hitler would win.


----------



## laptop (Jan 25, 2016)

Just. Fuck. Off likesfish


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 25, 2016)

I've got to admit, as someone who is keen to vote Labour for the first time in a GE if Corbyn is still around in 2020, I probably would change my mind if handing over the Falklands was a policy of theirs.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 25, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I've got to admit, as someone who is keen to vote Labour for the first time in a GE if Corbyn is still around in 2020, I probably would change my mind if handing over the Falklands was a policy of theirs.



I think this sort of thing is going to be a real problem for Corbyn.  So whilst there will be some goodwill to him by people who've not voted for labour ever, or at least for a long time, the support is going to be so tentative that there will always be one thing that puts them off.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 25, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Britain controls bits of the world far far away as a legacy of empire. In the case of the Falklands, Britain was keen to have a presence around the trade routes around Cape Horn as it sought to extend its influence. Understanding why so many Latin Americans consider that presence to be that of an aggressive imperial power certainly requires understanding of the past, yes.


Given that both the British 'ownership' of the Falklands and the Argentinian state itself are both a consequence of colonialism I don't see it so simply. If Latin American states want to display their anti-colonialist credentials some of them could stop being so shitty to their indigenous populations as a starting point, rather than worrying about tiny islands that are symbolic as much as anything. I sometimes find anti-imperialist posturing even from the out-of-power left in LA a bit empty, considering the ambition of most of them is to take over the state and act like a colonial power doing the 'right thing' instead of the wrong thing. But this is getting off topic.

Anyway, I rather agree that it is silly for Corbyn to be talking about the Falklands right now when he has so many policies that could really improve people's lives.


----------



## agricola (Jan 25, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Anyway, I rather agree that it is silly for Corbyn to be talking about the Falklands right now when he has so many policies that could really improve people's lives.



True, though its only ever his opinions (or claimed opinions) on certain issues that ever get highlighted - just look at "shoot to kill", for instance.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2016)

likesfish said:


> ah but the falkland islanders  are white and worship maggie so obviously worse than hitler. brown aslyum seekers are only a little bit rapey so deserve everything they could possibly want
> 
> but france owning guyana on latin america is peachy
> or the dutch
> ...


This sort of post is why people like you are dangerous. You can keep it under wraps for a while but when it appears the wind is in your favour, out it comes again.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 25, 2016)

agricola said:


> True, though its only ever his opinions (or claimed opinions) on certain issues that ever get highlighted - just look at "shoot to kill", for instance.


Yeah, I know. This is interesting: Corbyn to back proposal giving workers 5% of company profits


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Fuck the Falkland Islanders. This is one of those rare occasions on which I agree with Galloway: it would cost much less to resettle the islanders in Hampshire, where many of them have familial ties, that to keep them on the Falklands.



Not that the situation is anything to do with securing the islanders in their property, it's about maintaining a UK presence, so as to benefit from the fisheries, and from the estimated tens of billions of barrels of oil and gas that can be tapped in F.I. waters.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 25, 2016)

i would have thought the Falkland Islands were largely an irrelevance in the scheme of things when there are far more pressing issues to deal with such as the creeping privatisation of the NHS. Lemme see, perchance some establishment news outlet has pressed him on this in the hopes of getting some non-patriotic response which they can use as a stick to beat him with.


----------



## agricola (Jan 25, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Yeah, I know. This is interesting: Corbyn to back proposal giving workers 5% of company profits



It is interesting, but I think it does miss the point a bit - most big firms already look to shrink / disguise actual profit levels as it is, whilst continuing to pay the upper levels an ever larger amount of someone else's money.   It would perhaps be better (both in terms of morally and for the long term health of the companies concerned) to look to make a clear legal link between terms and conditions for all staff in a company* with those at the top; even at some absurd level like ten times income it would rein a lot of the worst offenders in (edit) and get rid of scandalous treatment of the low-paid at the bottom.

* including subcontractors and agency staff


----------



## kebabking (Jan 25, 2016)

teqniq said:


> i would have thought the Falkland Islands were largely an irrelevance in the scheme of things when there are far more pressing issues to deal with such as the creeping privatisation of the NHS. Lemme see, perchance some establishment news outlet has pressed him on this in the hopes of getting some non-patriotic response which they can use as a stick to beat him with.



actually, he walked into the Argentine Embassy for a chat - like you do. they then issued a press release saying 'Jeremy agrees with us - Jeremy is one of us'. he then denies that he agrees with everything they say, or that he's one of them, but while doing so agrees with everything they say about the issue - he manages to do this everytime he's questioned on the FI.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not that the situation is anything to do with securing the islanders in their property, it's about maintaining a UK presence, so as to benefit from the fisheries, and from the estimated tens of billions of barrels of oil and gas that can be tapped in F.I. waters.


Exactly and before the Falklands War, the islanders themselves were little more than servants for the Falkland Islands Company, which is based right here in London.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

likesfish said:


> it only costs money because of a threat from argentina and frankly all the resources would be doing something else anyway the islanders may end up paying the cost of the defence  if the oil comes through so that's that argument gone.
> Argentina wants south georgia as well although they have zero claim to that and British antarctic even though they can't supply their own base there.


What threat? Argentina is hardly in a position to mount an invasion. Furthermore, the islands are closer to Argentina than they are to the UK.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 25, 2016)

The Tory government, ever obsessed with the 1980s, is making the Falklands an issue because it wants to stir up memories of the conflict and use it as another stick to beat Corbyn with. As sticks go, it's about as effective as a piece of balsa wood.


----------



## laptop (Jan 25, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> the estimated tens of billions of barrels of oil and gas that can be tapped in F.I. waters.



Indeed, on that day in 1982 when these islands sussurated to the sound of flipping atlas leaves as the entire population asked "where the fuck are those islands?" ... on that day I jabbed my finger at a point between the Falklands and the real world and said "drill here!"

Trouble is, at least one company has drilled there and found nothing to write home about.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> rather than worrying about tiny islands that are symbolic as much as anything.


I was always under the impression that the key significance of the Islands for Britain was not symbolic, nor for oil, but as a very practical army outpost at a useful point on the military map....just like Diego Garcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
little footholds and staging posts which allow an extension of the reach of military power...or relics of those plans at the very least


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Public schoolboys like you who shift left don't understand how ordinary people think, i really don't care about winning awards on here or otherwise, people have different opinions, live with it.


I'd be very surprised if Pickman's were actually a schoolboy, let alone one from a public school, and what's with the assumption of 'shift' and ignorance?
A strangely (inverted) snobbish post for Urban.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 25, 2016)

ska invita said:


> I was always under the impression that the key significance of the Islands for Britain was not symbolic, nor for oil, but as a very practical army outpost at a useful point on the military map....just like Diego Garcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> little footholds and staging posts which allow an extension of the reach of military power...or relics of those plans at the very least



not really, their 'use' extends to defending them - they've not been used since before the first world war as a base from which to _project_ military power. they aren't even used as a logistics base for supporting the research stations within the British Antarctic Territory, the only projection associated with the FI is the Ice Patrol Ship HMS Protector - she's a barely armed research ship that tootles around the FI, South Georia, the South Sandwich Islands and the kind of places you might exile someone. while painted bright red...


----------



## cantsin (Jan 25, 2016)

likesfish said:


> ah but the falkland islanders  are white and worship maggie so obviously worse than hitler. brown aslyum seekers are only a little bit rapey so deserve everything they could possibly want
> 
> but france owning guyana on latin america is peachy
> or the dutch
> ...



good to see you come of your shell you weasley little reactionary plum


----------



## likesfish (Jan 25, 2016)

Fuck off the lot of you.
 The islanders have been there for 150 years most argentinians cant even trace their routes in argentina that far.
 The principle of self determination appears to be important unless your a bennie then you can be handed over to the argies regardless of your wishes.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 25, 2016)

likesfish said:


> ah but the falkland islanders  are white and worship maggie so obviously worse than hitler. brown aslyum seekers are only a little bit rapey so deserve everything they could possibly want



No one has said the first part.

But you did say the second part; the disgusting racist part.

That's why you're getting flak...because you richly deserve it.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## gosub (Jan 25, 2016)

Unfriendly fire: would a Corbyn government lead to a military revolt?


----------



## gosub (Jan 25, 2016)

kebabking said:


> not really, their 'use' extends to defending them - they've not been used since before the first world war as a base from which to _project_ military power. they aren't even used as a logistics base for supporting the research stations within the British Antarctic Territory, the only projection associated with the FI is the Ice Patrol Ship HMS Protector - she's a barely armed research ship that tootles around the FI, South Georia, the South Sandwich Islands and the kind of places you might exile someone. while painted bright red...


They were used in the second world war, and that rediculous plan in late 60's to get rid of aircraft carriers move Australia 1000miles to  the left and buy F111 relied on island bases like the Falklands


----------



## likesfish (Jan 25, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No one has said the first part.
> 
> But you did say the second part; the disgusting racist part.
> 
> ...


 Nino savette fuck the falkand islanders

B so nye in germany didnt happen then?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2016)

You know what the Tories do about even things they passionately believe in which are unpopular? They shut the fuck up about them. The NHS is being privatised, something they profit from and approve of ideologically but know is deeply unpopular with all but a sliver of the electorate so they don't talk about it, they say they aren't going to do it and work on getting power so that they can get on with it quietly.

Now I understand of course that this is easier with a subservient media, but honestly what is stopping Corbyn here from simply saying 'the matter as far as I'm concerned is closed, I will not enter into negotiations'? Even if he plans to hand them over the day after he gets into power, why doesn't he just say that? Is there one person in Britain who is eligible to vote in this country who wants to vote for Corbyn that would not vote for him or vote for someone else over this issue?


----------



## Ol Nick (Jan 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You know what the Tories do about even things they passionately believe in which are unpopular? They shut the fuck up about them. The NHS is being privatised, something they profit from and approve of ideologically but know is deeply unpopular with all but a sliver of the electorate so they don't talk about it, they say they aren't going to do it and work on getting power so that they can get on with it quietly.
> 
> Now I understand of course that this is easier with a subservient media, but honestly what is stopping Corbyn here from simply saying 'the matter as far as I'm concerned is closed, I will not enter into negotiations'? Even if he plans to hand them over the day after he gets into power, why doesn't he just say that? Is there one person in Britain who is eligible to vote in this country who wants to vote for Corbyn that would not vote for him or vote for someone else over this issue?



He denies man made climate change. He is not evidence-based.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> He denies man made climate change. He is not evidence-based.



Piers Corbyn, his brother, is the climate change denier.

As an aside, I am sick of 'evidence-based' as a phrase. It is utterly meaningless. Even climate change deniers' views are 'evidence-based', the evidence might not be good but their views are based on evidence.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You know what the Tories do about even things they passionately believe in which are unpopular? They shut the fuck up about them. The NHS is being privatised, something they profit from and approve of ideologically but know is deeply unpopular with all but a sliver of the electorate so they don't talk about it, they say they aren't going to do it and work on getting power so that they can get on with it quietly.
> 
> Now I understand of course that this is easier with a subservient media, but honestly what is stopping Corbyn here from simply saying 'the matter as far as I'm concerned is closed, I will not enter into negotiations'? Even if he plans to hand them over the day after he gets into power, why doesn't he just say that? Is there one person in Britain who is eligible to vote in this country who wants to vote for Corbyn that would not vote for him or vote for someone else over this issue?


He's so used to banging on about these types of issues at meeting after meeting. So is John McDonnell. It plays well to lefties and the activist minority but they need to appeal to people outside that bubble. The Falklands for fuck's sake.


----------



## Ol Nick (Jan 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Piers Corbyn, his brother, is the climate change denier.
> 
> As an aside, I am sick of 'evidence-based' as a phrase. It is utterly meaningless. Even climate change deniers' views are 'evidence-based', the evidence might not be good but their views are based on evidence.


Pieres will not permit anyone to see his "evidence". That's why evidence based is so important so that others can review his work. So Piers makes his money on casino climate change gambling.

And I thought Jeremy was very supportive of his brother, though I am happy to be corrected. I haven't heard of his plans to ban unscientific weather forecasts or climate-change gambling anyway.


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> Pieres will not permit anyone to see his "evidence". That's why evidence based is so important so that others can review his work. So Piers makes his money on casino climate change gambling.
> 
> And I thought Jeremy was very supportive of his brother, though I am happy to be corrected. I haven't heard of his plans to ban unscientific weather forecasts or climate-change gambling anyway.


He's never said anything in support of Piers' views, he just doesn't like to slag his brother off publicly. 

His policies are fairly clearly not those of a skeptic - https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...otectingOurPlanet_JeremyCorbyn.pdf?1438938988


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> Pieres will not permit anyone to see his "evidence". That's why evidence based is so important so that others can review his work. So Piers makes his money on casino climate change gambling.
> 
> And I thought Jeremy was very supportive of his brother, though I am happy to be corrected. I haven't heard of his plans to ban unscientific weather forecasts or climate-change gambling anyway.



Are you for real?


----------



## Ol Nick (Jan 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Are you for real?


Yep: which bit you not like?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 25, 2016)

belboid said:


> He's never said anything in support of Piers' views, he just doesn't like to slag his brother off publicly.
> 
> His policies are fairly clearly not those of a skeptic - https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...otectingOurPlanet_JeremyCorbyn.pdf?1438938988



Sod you and your evidence based approach


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> Yep: which bit you not like?


 
It's not really about not liking anything it's just that what you have suggested is so bizzare that it is not the sort of thing that anyone would suggest if they were being serious.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> Yep: which bit you not like?


No problem. You were corrected, so now presumably you're happy.


----------



## Ol Nick (Jan 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's not really about not liking anything it's just that what you have suggested is so bizzare that it is not the sort of thing that anyone would suggest if they were being serious.


Well: Jeremy doesn't make sense, he doesn't use evidence; Piers doesn't use evidence and denies climate change. Interesting familial similarity. Is it unfair? Did his family not influence him?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 25, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> Well: Jeremy doesn't make sense, he doesn't use evidence;



Do you have any evidence for that?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> Well: Jeremy doesn't make sense, he doesn't use evidence; Piers doesn't use evidence and denies climate change. Interesting familial similarity. Is it unfair? Did his family not influence him?



Except they both do use evidence, and have different views and that is an 'evidence-based' (lol) fact regardless of your dishonest conflation to the contrary.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> Well: Jeremy doesn't make sense, he doesn't use evidence;


Have you read belboid's link? That is JC's statement of his policy wishes for energy. It's essentially 'we need to be more like Germany', which makes a fair bit of sense and is evidence-based. It's also not populist in a straightforward way as being more like Germany doesn't mean cheaper energy, at least in the short term, but it does mean much better and cleaner energy, and a fairer distribution of cost.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2016)

There is a subset of right-wingers who seem to believe that _only _their views can be evidence based, as opposed to other views which are 'ideology-based'. The fact that the only way to believe this is by adhering to ideology and rejecting evidence is an irony that I suspect escapes them.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Now I understand of course that this is easier with a subservient media, but honestly what is stopping Corbyn here from simply saying 'the matter as far as I'm concerned is closed, I will not enter into negotiations'? Even if he plans to hand them over the day after he gets into power, why doesn't he just say that?



Because he knows he's never going to PM. He's just using his time as Lot0 as an opportunity to give his crackpot obssessions an airing to a wider audience than usual.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> You know what the Tories do about even things they passionately believe in which are unpopular? They shut the fuck up about them. The NHS is being privatised, something they profit from and approve of ideologically but know is deeply unpopular with all but a sliver of the electorate so they don't talk about it, they say they aren't going to do it and work on getting power so that they can get on with it quietly.
> 
> Now I understand of course that this is easier with a subservient media, but honestly what is stopping Corbyn here from simply saying 'the matter as far as I'm concerned is closed, I will not enter into negotiations'? Even if he plans to hand them over the day after he gets into power, why doesn't he just say that? Is there one person in Britain who is eligible to vote in this country who wants to vote for Corbyn that would not vote for him or vote for someone else over this issue?


Yeah, a little bit of statecraft wouldn't go amiss... He seems to be a  principled man though, and seemingly not even used to telling white lies. Miracles might happen and that might pay dividends in the course of a few years but the odds are against him.

I wonder how hungry he is to win the election? Most people who get to be party leaders are power hungry and have been f fighting and maneuvering to that end their whole lives. His political life had been spent being righteous from the back benches. It's not impossible to continue leading from the front with pure conviction, but you have to really work hard, twice as hard,  to win people over if that's going to be your plan. 

My point being he should be aware if he is saying something that runs against public opinion and try and preempt those criticisms. Hard thing to pull off.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 25, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Because he knows he's never going to PM. He's just using his time as Lot0 as an opportunity to give his crackpot obssessions an airing to a wider audience than usual.


It's far more likely that he just keeps getting asked about it by journos who then only report what he said about this, and not whatever else he said about other things. J Ed has a point that such artlessness and lack of cynicism is probably foolish on many levels. Problem is that there are hostages to fortune in his past. McDonnell had to make a big apology for past statements about the IRA. If Corbyn says 'no negotiating', the next question will be 'why have you changed your mind?'


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Piers Corbyn, his brother, is the climate change denier.
> 
> As an aside, I am sick of 'evidence-based' as a phrase. It is utterly meaningless. Even climate change deniers' views are 'evidence-based', the evidence might not be good but their views are based on evidence.


Only lib-dems  say it.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Only lib-dems  say it.



That must be why I think only cunts use the phrase


----------



## ska invita (Jan 25, 2016)

kebabking said:


> not really, their 'use' extends to defending them - they've not been used since before the first world war as a base from which to _project_ military power. they aren't even used as a logistics base for supporting the research stations within the British Antarctic Territory, the only projection associated with the FI is the Ice Patrol Ship HMS Protector - she's a barely armed research ship that tootles around the FI, South Georia, the South Sandwich Islands and the kind of places you might exile someone. while painted bright red...


Maybe not used since ww1 but I think the militarists within the state would quite like to keep the option open, even if it means letting the US use them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

ska invita said:


> His political life had been spent being righteous from the back benches. It's not impossible to continue leading from the front with pure conviction, but you have to really work hard, twice as hard,  to win people over if that's going to be your plan.
> .


Yep. It's a show of possibly mad ambition. His tack, his biggest thing early on anyway, has been not to be a dictatorial leader a la Blair "I'll save you". Rather, it's 'We don't have to agree about everything, democracy as a process means that certain things I don't agree with will happen.' But alongside that is an explicit encouragement not to lie about what you do agree with. Which surely would be far more democratic than the sham we have now. I think he has to sell his kind of leadership to do that. It's got him this far...


----------



## Ol Nick (Jan 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Only lib-dems  say it.


And scientists. People who try to understand the world. The alternative is faith-based. Which is obviously valid.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> And scientists. People who try to understand the world. The alternative is faith-based. Which is obviously valid.



The alternative clearly isn't just 'faith-based', it's also 'different evidence' based. You are just a dishonest ideologue.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2016)

Ol Nick said:


> And scientists. People who try to understand the world. The alternative is faith-based. Which is obviously valid.


No it's not. Nick. You mad scientist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 26, 2016)

_My views are science. Yours are religion. _

Go away you child.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 26, 2016)

X





littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. It's a show of possibly mad ambition. His tack, his biggest thing early on anyway, has been not to be a dictatorial leader a la Blair "I'll save you". Rather, it's 'We don't have to agree about everything, democracy as a process means that certain things I don't agree with will happen.' But alongside that is an explicit encouragement not to lie about what you do agree with. Which surely would be far more democratic than the sham we have now. I think he has to sell his kind of leadership to do that. It's got him this far...


Agree... Also the press are sitting on a Hansard goldmine of  things he's said over the years, ready and waiting to catch him on the "ah, but you said...". Best to just stay solid and true, rather than always on the defensive flip flop


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

ska invita said:


> X
> Agree... Also the press are sitting on a Hansard goldmine of  things he's said over the years, ready and waiting to catch him on the "ah, but you said...". Best to just stay solid and true, rather than always on the defensive flip flop


And maybe it's not as artless as I suggested. McDonnell must have sat down with Corbyn to discuss what to do about the IRA comments. And they must have decided that a pretty much unreserved apology was needed. But they have to pick and choose - you can't do that too often, in fact I would have thought that you would only want to do it once.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2016)

I have no reason in particular to believe this, and I don't think I have seen it suggested elsewhere, but is there any possibility that Corbyn is democratising the Labour Party with the expectation of resigning and ensuring that successor with less baggage succeeds him? If he can force through digital democracy, cabinet elections etc and then someone new without baggage like Clive Lewis or Louise Haigh gets a decent run at the leadership say next year then that would make a lot of sense tactically.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 26, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Even if he plans to hand them over the day after he gets into power, why doesn't he just say that? Is there one person in Britain who is eligible to vote in this country who wants to vote for Corbyn that would not vote for him or vote for someone else over this issue?



Yes, me. And I would not be the only one.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 26, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Maybe not used since ww1 but I think the militarists within the state would quite like to keep the option open, even if it means letting the US use them



again, not really.

the _only_ 'what can we use the FI for?' conversation i've ever heard, or ever heard of, involved training - and basic training at that: the proposal is that moving some of the basic training element to the FI would free up a massive slice of the training areas in the UK which the line units are desperate to use, and that moving an element of basic training to the FI would reduce the number of recruits who leave due to homesickness - in the UK recruits know that mum and dad/girlfriend/boyfriend might only be an hour away, they text them the whole time, and they get homesick because they can almost 'see' home, and they get to go home for a couple of weekends during their training which makes that homesickness worse.

in the FI, those don't apply.

the Americans have no interest in the FI while the political dispute remains - no American warship has _ever_ paid a courtesy visit, American officers on attachment to the RAF/Army/Royal Navy are forbidden to travel to the Falklands (they can fly over Syria in RAF aircraft, drop bombs, or serve in UK land units fighting in Iraq, or Afghanistan, but _not_ travel to the FI...), and no American aircraft has ever handed in the FI - contrast that to Cyprus, where the USAF bases its U-2's...

the only US involvement is secondhand - we have a signals intelligence facilty on the Islands, the 'take' of which goes to GCHQ, who -one imagines - passes that take onto the NSA as part of the general swap of SIGINT that the two organisations do. thats it...


----------



## newbie (Jan 26, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Yes, me. And I would not be the only one.


you say that now, when the controversy is fresh, but come the election everyone will have forgotten this little Irrelevance.   Corbyns baggage includes hundreds of little hostages to fortune, like this one, dissident policies he's adoted over the years which don't sit well with his unexpected leadership role. Looks like his media strategy is to get them out in the open now, years from the election, to take the sting out, hoping that when the tories raise the FI (or IRA or Hamas or....) in the actual campaign the electorate will shrug _that's just jeremy but he's right on the economy and NHS_.


----------



## magneze (Jan 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> Unfriendly fire: would a Corbyn government lead to a military revolt?


"His stance has put him on a collision course with military chiefs, who have always been wary of political meddling"
The Military Chiefs don't quite understand who's in charge is would seem. Or the article is bollocks of course.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 26, 2016)

kebabking said:


> American officers on attachment to the RAF/Army/Royal Navy are forbidden to travel to the Falklands (they can fly over Syria in RAF aircraft, drop bombs, or serve in UK land units fighting in Iraq, or Afghanistan, but _not_ travel to the FI...), and no American aircraft has ever handed in the FI - contrast that to Cyprus, where the USAF bases its U-2's...



There's at least one set of USAF wings on the 1435 crew room wall at MPA. I suppose it's possible he didn't know he wasn't supposed to go!


----------



## kebabking (Jan 26, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> There's at least one set of USAF wings on the 1435 crew room wall at MPA. I suppose it's possible he didn't know he wasn't supposed to go!



We had a septic battery OC hauled off the plane at Ascension.. Total sense of humour failure on both sides.

All the other ones have just involved the non-travelling party going off to do something different for the period.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

We had a US Navy Lt foisted off on us for a month more enthusastic than an enuthastic thing think the alacrity just wanted a break from him .
  was  even cheerful on patrol struggaling across country with over 100lb on his back  with the rest of the patrol staring daggers at him 

  Mpa was also apprantly along with ascension island on the list of emergancy landing sites for the shuttle  but then again if things had gone that wrong Both are the only air fields in tens of thousands of sq miles of fuck all


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Nino savette


Maybe I should start typing your name as 'likesfash', eh?


----------



## gosub (Jan 26, 2016)

magneze said:


> "His stance has put him on a collision course with military chiefs, who have always been wary of political meddling"
> The Military Chiefs don't quite understand who's in charge is would seem. Or the article is bollocks of course.


But is relevant to a thread on Corbyn and the media.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

Your the one who likes the argies


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Fuck the Falkland Islanders. This is one of those rare occasions on which I agree with Galloway: it would cost much less to resettle the islanders in Hampshire, where many of them have familial ties, that to keep them on the Falklands.


(((hampshire)))


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Your the one who likes the argies



Are we supposed to dislike people from Argentina? The ironic thing about the whole Falklands dispute is how fucking similar jingoists on both sides sound, just pig-ignorant, they and their media say the exact same shit only in reverse and they are egged on by the same sorts of forces in their country.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Your the one who likes the argies



Can't speak for nino, but I'm pretty sure like me, he doesn't treat Argentinians as a homogenous mass. Nor anyone else for that matter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Your the one who likes the argies


It will forever be the spring of 1982 for you, won't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It will forever be the spring of 1982 for you, won't it?


not a bad spring for music, as it goes:


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It will forever be the spring of 1982 for you, won't it?




Argentina has done nothing to apologize or mend fences with either the UK or the islanders.
 Instead it walked away from a treaty in a hissy fit made several impotent threats carried out or attempted to carry out idiotic stunts last of which was a yacht they abandoned thatcwasxtowed into port stanley. Publicly complained about a radar atvgoose green which is a scientific radar that Argentine scientists work on. Tried to steal the Falklands internet domain. Etc etc etc.

They are a children's cartoon villian the Falklands island councillor summed it up perfectly " its a very operatic experience having Argentina as a neighbour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Argentina has done nothing to apologize or mend fences with either the UK or the islanders.


That's not really true. They want to negotiate and have made various offers. The UK refuses to enter any negotiations without first ruling out any discussion of sovereignty. Who is it that is being obstructive here?

The UN passed a resolution as far back as November 82 calling for them to negotiate, and recognising the colonial nature of the existence of places like the FI:



> Realizing that the maintenance of colonial situations is
> incompatible with the United Nations ideal of universal peace



The resolution goes on to explicitly also mention the wellbeing of the islanders. You know, a basis for negotiation based on two parties recognising that they at least understand the other's position.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

Self determination is a UN  principle the people who live their dont want to be argie  until that  changes argentina can go whistile. That  resolution was a general assembly its non binding,resolution 502 of the security council was and is and told argentina  to gtfo the falklands.

Argentina has demanded the islands be handed over referred to the islanders as squatters pirates and non people attempted to impose a blockade refused to recognise the islanders as having any say in anything.
 The un decolonisation committee has refused several times to visit the islands and so can be ignored.
	 Argentina is attempting to colonise the islands 

Malvinas: when Argentina is strong and united, world public opinion will back us

This bloke nails it at the moment argentina is poor corrupt weak  and noted for being untrustworthy in international relationships.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Self determination is a UN  principle the people who live their dont want to be argie  until that  changes argentina can go whistile.


out of curiosity, would you apply that same principle to the illegal jewish settlements in the west bank?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Self determination is a UN  principle the people who live their dont want to be argie  until that  changes argentina can go whistile. That  resolution was a general assembly its non binding,resolution 502 of the security council was and is and told argentina  to gtfo the falklands.
> 
> Argentina has demanded the islands be handed over referred to the islanders as squatters pirates and non people attempted to impose a blockade refused to recognise the islanders as having any say in anything.
> The un decolonisation committee has refused several times to visit the islands and so can be ignored.
> ...


unlike britain of course who scrupulously abides by all her international commitments.


----------



## binka (Jan 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Fuck the Falkland Islanders. This is one of those rare occasions on which I agree with Galloway: it would cost much less to resettle the islanders in Hampshire, where many of them have familial ties, that to keep them on the Falklands.


What a shit attitude you have. Turf people out of there homes for what? To save money? To please the Argentine state?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity, would you apply that same principle to the illegal jewish settlements in the west bank?




Those have been judged to be illegal under international law.
Unlike the falklands islanders  that have been there for over a 150 years and much longer than argentina has been in say patagonia and settlement of the falklands didnt involve genocide of the locals .

This is purely an attempted resource grab by an already rich in land and resource rich country


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Self determination is a UN  principle the people who live their dont want to be argie  until that  changes argentina can go whistile. .


Clearly such an idea is highly contingent. The people of a small village in mid-Wales cannot declare independence, put a rope around their fields, and appeal to the UN for support. People living on some small islands also are not in a position to demand that the UK spend £50k _per person _per year to defend them in perpetuity. They don't have an absolute right to self-determination - if the UK told them to come to the UK or face Argentine rule, they'd have little choice in the matter. And neither should they, necessarily. The wishes of the islanders are not the only consideration here. It's simplistic nonsense to talk as if they were - and the fate of Diego Garcia is an illustration of how their wishes are not the reason the UK defends the islands. Naive in the extreme to think that they are. 

Long-term, this is an absurd situation, and the FIs need to foster economic and other links with the South American mainland. Going the full Ian Paisley on any of that just perpetuates the crap.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> This is purely an attempted resource grab by an already rich in land and resource rich country


i think we can all agree on that: though we might name the country differently


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> This is purely an attempted resource grab by an already rich in land and resource rich country



You don't have to agree with it, but you should attempt to understand what the presence of a colonial European power in the South Atlantic means to many Latin Americans. They see that they themselves kicked out European masters in their wars of independence, much as their northern neighbours did, and they see issues such as the FIs as unfinished business. Understand as well why the British are called 'pirates' in LA. Because many islands around South America were used by British pirates for centuries, often with British government approval.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Nino savette fuck the falkand islanders
> 
> B so nye in germany didnt happen then?



Nino didn't talk about them being 'white', loving 'Maggie' or anything to do with Hitler; you made all that up. You make stuff up you should expect to have it pointed out.

How many 'brown' asylum seekers are there in Germany and how many were allegedly involved in sexual assaults? Yet you choose to write 'brown asylum seekers are only a little bit rapey'. You post up racist generalisations you should expect to have it pointed out.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## binka (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The wishes of the islanders are not the only consideration here. It's simplistic nonsense to talk as if they were - and the fate of Diego Garcia is an illustration of how their wishes are not the reason the UK defends the islands. Naive in the extreme to think that they are.


You are being deliberately disingenuous. We all know the british state doesn't give a fuck about the falkland islanders just like they don't give a fuck about the inhabitants of diego garcia so please stop with your condescending bullshit lecture. I support the rights of both peoples to live in their own homes on their own terms.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Clearly such an idea is highly contingent. The people of a small village in mid-Wales cannot declare independence, put a rope around their fields, and appeal to the UN for support. People living on some small islands also are not in a position to demand that the UK spend £50k _per person _per year to defend them in perpetuity. They don't have an absolute right to self-determination - if the UK told them to come to the UK or face Argentine rule, they'd have little choice in the matter. And neither should they, necessarily. The wishes of the islanders are not the only consideration here. It's simplistic nonsense to talk as if they were - and the fate of Diego Garcia is an illustration of how their wishes are not the reason the UK defends the islands. Naive in the extreme to think that they are.
> 
> Long-term, this is an absurd situation, and the FIs need to foster economic and other links with the South American mainland. Going the full Ian Paisley on any of that just perpetuates the crap.



Yes, it is expensive and why the UN should tell Argentina to cease and desist from it's agitating and let us scale down the military prescence there.

Argentina's claim is idiotic when you merely consider the name 'Argentina' has a Spanish origin, named after the silver early colonialists found there. If anyone wants to roll back imperialism and colonialism then fine, do a thorough job Argentina and start at home.

But once a century or so has passed it's all a bit late. The Falkland Islanders have a right of tenure simply through lasting 150 odd years in such a testing place. Doesn't matter how odd they are or what the exploitation rights are worth.

Maybe there is a more cooperative future possible but not with Argentina's stance. Their claim is not strong enough. It's hundreds of miles from them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Y
> Argentina's claim is idiotic when you merely consider the name 'Argentina' has a Spanish origin, named after the silver early colonialists found there. If anyone wants to roll back imperialism and colonialism then fine, do a thorough job Argentina and start at home..


You mean the people who were born there and fought a war of independence against the imperial power? 

People keep saying this, but it's bullshit. Coming from ex-imperial powers like the UK, it sounds fucking arrogant, too.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't have to agree with it, but you should attempt to understand what the presence of a colonial European power in the South Atlantic means to many Latin Americans. They see that they themselves kicked out European masters in their wars of independence, much as their northern neighbours did, and they see issues such as the FIs as unfinished business. Understand as well why the British are called 'pirates' in LA. Because many islands around South America were used by British pirates for centuries, often with British government approval.




But pirates are cool


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You mean the people who were born there and fought a war of independence against the imperial power?
> 
> People keep saying this, but it's bullshit. Coming from ex-imperial powers like the UK, it sounds fucking arrogant, too.



Like I say, it's no longer a basis for rolling back history.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You mean the people who were born there and fought a war of independence against the imperial power?
> 
> People keep saying this, but it's bullshit. Coming from ex-imperial powers like the UK, it sounds fucking arrogant, too.



Most argentinans have zero links to any anti imperial struggle they are italian immigrants from europe the brave anti imperialists made sure to kill off any freed slaves and then murdered the fuck out of the patagonian indians. So thats total bullshit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Maybe there is a more cooperative future possible but not with Argentina's stance. Their claim is not strong enough. It's hundreds of miles from them.



As opposed to the tens of miles from the UK? 

You're doing the full Paisley too. That's exactly what the other side says, so that's that. As we were for decades and decades to come.


----------



## The Pale King (Jan 26, 2016)

Britain is regarded as a barbarian colonial country in Latin America. It would be very good to change this, because it is a very important global region with whom our cultural/industrial/governmental ties are practically non-existent. Submitting the case for arbitration to the U.N or other would be the right thing to do. Britain could begin to develop a reputation as a law-abiding country. Any natural resources there should be shared - thieving oil off Argentina's coast will confirm every view the Latin American public holds of the U.K. Scratch under the surface of arguments to keep the islands at all costs and it is blood and soil, nothing more.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As opposed to the tens of miles from the UK?
> 
> You're doing the full Paisley too. That's exactly what the other side says, so that's that. As we were for decades and decades to come.



It doesn't matter where it is now - we'd all be agreed we can't pull off this colonial shit in the future - but it's not a debate of ethnicity. They are simply there, somewhat out of place - like the Hispanic Argentinians.

Argentina will no doubt be able to commercially benefit from the Falkland Islands when they stop threatening for right wing political gain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Most argentinans have zero links to any anti imperial struggle they are italian immigrants from europe the brave anti imperialists made sure to kill off any freed slaves and then murdered the fuck out of the patagonian indians. So thats total bullshit


I'm trying to get you to look at how they see themselves, and how calling them imperialists too will be treated with contempt.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

UK tried that a treaty argentina signed to *SHARE* the resources  oil and fish Argentina tore it up and walked in a hissy fit.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm trying to get you to look at how they see themselves, and how calling them imperialists too will be treated with contempt.




I know how they seem themselves the fact they are spanish speaking italians who seek to impose themselves on a small island that doesnt want them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

The Pale King said:


> Submitting the case for arbitration to the U.N or other would be the right thing to do. .


This.

Such a process would also represent the best chance of a secure future for the islanders themselves. Yes, they might lose their absolute 'britishness' (which they were only given after the war anyway - before it they weren't British citizens), but they would gain the chance to build a peaceful cooperative future with their neighbours.


----------



## binka (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm trying to get you to look at how they see themselves, and how calling them imperialists too will be treated with contempt.


Why do all your posts have to read like some low rent college lecturer trying to _patiently explain_ how the world really works


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> I know how they seem themselves the fact they are spanish speaking italians who seek to impose themselves on a small island that doesnt want them.


You're just repeating how you see them.

If this were an Argentinian board, I'd be posing questions to people on the other side of this too. You know. Seeking solutions rather than shouting No Surrender.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

binka said:


> Why do all your posts have to read like some low rent college lecturer trying to _patiently explain_ how the world really works


Given the ignorant racist crap likefish has been coming out with, I think I'm being pretty restrained. I could just call him a cunt instead if you prefer.

Ignorant racists do need to have stuff explained, yes.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

Thing is its all one way the Argentinans threw away the last attempt at building bridges the islanders have zero confidence in them and the Uk goverment needs nothing from argentina.

Uk has right and might on its side argentina can whine impotently to the UN its not on the security council so it doesnt count.
 Uk offered to take the case to the international court several times argentina refused that as it knows its case is bullshit


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This.
> 
> Such a process would also represent the best chance of a secure future for the islanders themselves. Yes, they might lose their absolute 'britishness' (which they were only given after the war anyway - before it they weren't British citizens), but they would gain the chance to build a peaceful cooperative future with their neighbours.



Do you never look at recent political history in Argentina and think - I'd rather not thanks. Why on earth would you even query why they where desperate to be recognised as British rather than live under a right wing death squad rule? 

It's Argentina that needs to learn cooperation. A much more peaceful and democratic society than it was but no gain for the Islanders yet.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Argentina has done nothing to apologize or mend fences with either the UK or the islanders.
> Instead it walked away from a treaty in a hissy fit made several impotent threats carried out or attempted to carry out idiotic stunts last of which was a yacht they abandoned thatcwasxtowed into port stanley. Publicly complained about a radar atvgoose green which is a scientific radar that Argentine scientists work on. Tried to steal the Falklands internet domain. Etc etc etc.
> 
> They are a children's cartoon villian the Falklands island councillor summed it up perfectly " its a very operatic experience having Argentina as a neighbour.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Most argentinans have zero links to any anti imperial struggle they are italian immigrants from europe the brave anti imperialists made sure to kill off any freed slaves and then murdered the fuck out of the patagonian indians. So thats total bullshit


"Most" Argentinians? You'll need to support that assertion with some evidence.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 26, 2016)

binka said:


> What a shit attitude you have. Turf people out of there homes for what? To save money? To please the Argentine state?


Oh! The outrage! FFS, get a fucking grip. Oh and it's 'their', not 'there'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Do you never look at recent political history in Argentina and think - I'd rather not thanks. Why on earth would you even query why they where desperate to be recognised as British rather than l*ive under a right wing death squad rule*?
> 
> It's Argentina that needs to learn cooperation. A much more peaceful and democratic society than it was but no gain for the Islanders yet.



Right wing death squads trained up by the UK's bosom chums at the CIA, that would be?

Don't give anything to the Germans. Remember Hitler. Spain? Franco ffs.

Do you not see how arrogant that sounds? _They're not civilised like us. Maybe in a few decades' time.  _


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right wing death squads trained up by the UK's bosom chums at the CIA, that would be?
> 
> Don't give anything to the Germans. Remember Hitler. Spain? Franco ffs.



What are you going on about? I'm saying why the Falkland Islanders would be cautious about the Argentinian state. The fact that the CIA could train them to electrocute your genitals isn't mitigation.

Argentina maybe moving on from those dark days but it sounds least like it when their Government pulls out an onion and start weeping over the Falklands.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh! The outrage! FFS, get a fucking grip. Oh and it's 'their', not 'there'.



When you've finished righting that wrong what proportion of Argentinian land and wealth do you propose is given up in reparations to native Argentinians?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

Argentina terminates Falklands oil agreement with UK



We tried confidence building measures only to get them thrown back and a decade of histonics followed.
 Argentina has zero credability at the moment.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right wing death squads trained up by the UK's bosom chums at the CIA, that would be?
> 
> Don't give anything to the Germans. Remember Hitler. Spain? Franco ffs.
> 
> Do you not see how arrogant that sounds? _They're not civilised like us. Maybe in a few decades' time.  _



The edit you have added is just fucking silly.


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Argentina terminates Falklands oil agreement with UK
> 
> We tried confidence building measures only to get them thrown back and a decade of histonics followed.
> Argentina has zero credability at the moment.


christ, even that article points out that the Argies got fucked off after the UK broke the agreement.  But its all the Argies fault


----------



## likesfish (Jan 26, 2016)

Immigration to Argentina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argentina wasnt even "close" to the falklands until the 1880s


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

Hopefully oil will stay cheap enough until we can live off the sun for it never to be exploited around the Islands.


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2016)

If nothing else, this delightful diversion amply demonstrates why this is a topic to be swerved where possible.


----------



## gosub (Jan 26, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Hopefully oil will stay cheap enough until we can live off the sun for it never to be exploited around the Islands.


the world needs an investment blitz of $10 trillion to replace depleting oil fields and to meet extra demand of 17m barrels per day (b/d) by 2040   so probably not,


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> If nothing else, this delightful diversion amply demonstrates why this is a topic to be swerved where possible.



Lesson for Corbo then this early in the game.


----------



## bimble (Jan 26, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> _My views are science. Yours are religion._


I just popped in here in order to steal this and use it in all earnestness with no irony at all. Cheers.


----------



## agricola (Jan 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> the world needs an investment blitz of $10 trillion to replace depleting oil fields and to meet extra demand of 17m barrels per day (b/d) by 2040   so probably not,



That is what OPEC have been going around claiming, though given that they have spent the last eighteen months kneecapping themselves (in an attempt to get rid of inconvienient investment in the oil industry) it is a claim that is perhaps best taken with industrial quantities of salt.


----------



## magneze (Jan 26, 2016)

gosub said:


> But is relevant to a thread on Corbyn and the media.


Did I say otherwise?


----------



## binka (Jan 26, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh! The outrage! FFS, get a fucking grip. Oh and it's 'their', not 'there'.


Great argument you have their


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> If nothing else, this delightful diversion amply demonstrates why this is a topic to be swerved where possible.


amen. At least it hasn't descended in to the tedious claims diversion which when you loook at it is just who said bagsy first


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2016)

binka said:


> Why do all your posts have to read like some low rent college lecturer trying to _patiently explain_ how the world really works



Because you *read* them like some low rent petulant student?


----------



## gosub (Jan 26, 2016)

agricola said:


> That is what OPEC have been going around claiming, though given that they have spent the last eighteen months kneecapping themselves (in an attempt to get rid of inconvienient investment in the oil industry) it is a claim that is perhaps best taken with industrial quantities of salt.



Well its only so cheap now coz they managed to cream off loads in the run up to 2008 and plough it into development....   electric transport may have some impact on demand, but we'll still need oil for fertilizers/plastics....but the oil companies will look at what's happened and will prioritise fracking : cheaper/quicker to get up and running and easier to mothball.


----------



## binka (Jan 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because you *read* them like some low rent petulant student?


I post without pretensions


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 26, 2016)

Very good piece on the failure of labour moderates here: Labour's right are investigating the wrong defeat


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2016)

does anyone believe _five more years of cuts, of growing wealth inequality, and a possible global recession will hand Labour victory in 2020, regardless of how far from the “political centre” the party is or is perceived to be_? I doubt it.


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2016)

(Actually, I know some people here seem to think that. But I doubt Corbyn or any of his team do. Maybe Abbott)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> does anyone believe _five more years of cuts, of growing wealth inequality, and a possible global recession will hand Labour victory in 2020, regardless of how far from the “political centre” the party is or is perceived to be_? I doubt it.


You have just lifted that word for word from an article in the New Statesman. Put some thoughts of your own down if you want to ask a question.


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2016)

I know I lifted it from the article. That's why I italicised it. 

I wasn't asking a question, I was highlighting some arrant nonsense in MM's _Very Good Piece_.


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2016)

A global recession could do it, if it's anywhere near as big as last time, which is possible.  Awful lot of if's tho


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2016)

Right. But he's saying that's their strategy, not that it _could_ happen.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 26, 2016)

Why do people always assume that it is the left that inevitably benefits from economic downturns?


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Why do people always assume that it is the left that inevitably benefits from economic downturns?


who said 'inevitably'?  Some of us do remember the eighties (and many other times).

In this case, they came in on the basis that Labour had crashed the economy, so if a similar thing happens to them, it _could _fuck them, like it did Major.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Why do people always assume that it is the left that inevitably benefits from economic downturns?


the right vy good at it too


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 26, 2016)

newbie said:


> Looks like his media strategy is to get them out in the open now, years from the election, to take the sting out, hoping that when the tories raise the FI (or IRA or Hamas or....) in the actual campaign the electorate will shrug _that's just jeremy but he's right on the economy and NHS_.



A fond hope. What he's experiencing now is nothing compared to what we'll do to him in a GE campaign.


----------



## killer b (Jan 26, 2016)

Difficult to imagine how it could be much worse tbh.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 26, 2016)

Tbf, it could get much, much worse....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2016)

killer b said:


> Difficult to imagine how it could be much worse tbh.


that's ok, you won't need to imagine it


----------



## agricola (Jan 26, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Very good piece on the failure of labour moderates here: Labour's right are investigating the wrong defeat



Was it?  It seemed to be suggesting that the moderates had made mistakes but that all the moderates that mattered didn't.


----------



## newbie (Jan 26, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> A fond hope. What he's experiencing now is nothing compared to what we'll do to him in a GE campaign.


what his opponents throw around during the election will be minor compared with what his enemies will hurl between now and then.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 27, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Why do people always assume that it is the left that inevitably benefits from economic downturns?


What belboid said, no inevitably about it, just an analysis of what an economic downturn might mean in the present.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> A fond hope. What he's experiencing now is nothing compared to what we'll do to him in a GE campaign.


you'll do nothing you ex pat cunt, the team you support with half a heart might try but theres no we there. You'll have a vicarious wank.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 27, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> A fond hope. What he's experiencing now is nothing compared to what we'll do to him in a GE campaign.



They'll do that whoever is at the helm, doesn't matter if it's Corbyn or some Blairite, Murdoch and the Mail will always push for whichever is the most right-wing party. I couldn't see Burnham getting an easier ride.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 27, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you'll do nothing you ex pat cunt, the team you support with half a heart might try but theres no we there. You'll have a vicarious wank.



I'll be (partially) paying for Sir Lynton's campaign in 2020 so, in some minor way, it will be my triumph too when Corbochev is led away holding up his piss soaked cords with one hand.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 27, 2016)

agricola said:


> Was it?  It seemed to be suggesting that the moderates had made mistakes but that all the moderates that mattered didn't.


I think our friend's critical faculties are somewhat...subjective.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 27, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


> ...I couldn't see Burnham getting an easier ride.



poor choice - Burnham will be forever the Butcher of Stafford, he's got so many _actual_ skeletons in his closet from when he was Health Secretary that the RW papers could give out 50 page supplements containing nothing but the names of those who'se deaths he contributed to. there are others who the media could monster for their views (alleged views..), but no one comes near Burnham for rank incompetance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Very good piece on the failure of labour moderates here: Labour's right are investigating the wrong defeat



Bush is a good journalist, but that is *not* a "good piece". The strong implication is that Corbyn _et al_ aren't interested in broad appeal. Any *unbiased* perusal of the proposals made by Corbyn and his Parliamentary followers pretty much nails such claims into their coffin. What Corbyn wants is a party whose policy proceeds from internal democracy. That's about as far from Leninism as one can get.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 27, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> I'll be (partially) paying for Sir Lynton's campaign in 2020 so, in some minor way, it will be my triumph too when Corbochev is led away holding up his piss soaked cords with one hand.



In future please keep the door to your 'piss soaked' subconscious closed.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## gosub (Jan 27, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bush is a good journalist, but that is *not* a "good piece". The strong implication is that Corbyn _et al_ aren't interested in broad appeal. Any *unbiased* perusal of the proposals made by Corbyn and his Parliamentary followers pretty much nails such claims into their coffin.* What Corbyn wants is a party whose policy proceeds from internal democracy*. That's about as far from Leninism as one can get.



Wants and *says* he wants -two very different things.  Playing the shell game over Trident policy (where do the pro trident lot get an input now?) and that apparent on the hoof announcement of no dividends for companies not paying the living wage...if it suits him he'll ride roughshod over democracy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2016)

binka said:


> Great argument you have their


And you have an argument? Go on, let's see it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> When you've finished righting that wrong what proportion of Argentinian land and wealth do you propose is given up in reparations to native Argentinians?


I just wonder how you felt about the Chagossians. Hmmm? Did you get as wound up about their plight? I bet you didn't utter a sound.

The Falklands Islands are little more than an object of right-wing political correctness. Whenever anyone expresses a point of view that isn't aligned with the dominant narrative, it is seen as a heretical or worse: 'the mark of a loony lefty'.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Thing is its all one way the Argentinans threw away the last attempt at building bridges the islanders have zero confidence in them and the Uk goverment needs nothing from argentina.
> 
> Uk has right and might on its side argentina can whine impotently to the UN its not on the security council so it doesnt count.
> Uk offered to take the case to the international court several times argentina refused that as it knows its case is bullshit


Thanks for that one-sided narrative.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 27, 2016)

Isn't it odd how we can afford to keep our occupation of the Falklands going, the residents there must be the biggest welfare recipients in Britain, but can't afford not to harass the disabled and unemployed


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 27, 2016)

In an exchange with Corbyn, David fucking Cameron derisively dismisses homeless refugees in Calais as 'a bunch of migrants' and his merry band of over-privileged psychopaths jeer in delight. Still I suppose it's an improvement on calling them a 'swarm' like he did last year. Just when you think you can't hate them anymore: 

Corbyn v Cameron at PMQs: was 'bunch of migrants' jibe intentional?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Isn't it odd how we can afford to keep our occupation of the Falklands going, the residents there must be the biggest welfare recipients in Britain, but can't afford not to harass the disabled and unemployed



Well its less  than 2% of the defence budget and its not like there'd be a peace dividend from a company of soldiers and 4 jets being redeployed


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Thanks for that one-sided narrative.




Well the other version was we are brave anti imperialist who threw off the evil spanish throne and were denined  are rights to las malvinas that the pope gave to the spanish so its totally ours.
 Regardless at the time argentina consisted of brunos aires and its suburbs as we hadnt  finished  murdering are way down to patagonia and importing a lot more white people to make argentina white.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2016)

gosub said:


> Wants and *says* he wants -two very different things.  Playing the shell game over Trident policy (where do the pro trident lot get an input now?) and that apparent on the hoof announcement of no dividends for companies not paying the living wage...if it suits him he'll ride roughshod over democracy.



Except that he hasn't yet, and there's no evidence - besides the febrile imaginings of the media and the _maquis_ - that he will impose a three line whip on the Parliamentary Labour Party on any such issues. Even his Trident comments were personal appeals, not whipping. Show me evidence, and I'll give your opinions credence. Otherwise, you're just playing with words, the same as Stephen Bush.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 27, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Well its less  than 2% of the defence budget and its not like there'd be a peace dividend from a company of soldiers and 4 jets being redeployed



its nothing like 2% of the defence budget, the costs are infitesimal in real terms. hiring some sealift every six months, a charter for a once a week flight - that takes paying passengers at £2k a pop - thats it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Well the other version was we are brave anti imperialist who threw off the evil spanish throne and were denined  are rights to las malvinas that the pope gave to the spanish so its totally ours.
> Regardless at the time argentina consisted of brunos aires and its suburbs as we hadnt  finished  murdering are way down to patagonia and importing a lot more white people to make argentina white.


I can't take this stuff seriously. Do you actually know anything about the history of Las Malvinas or are you in possession of an FCO approved version?


----------



## gosub (Jan 27, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that he hasn't yet, and there's no evidence - besides the febrile imaginings of the media and the _maquis_ - that he will impose a three line whip on the Parliamentary Labour Party on any such issues. Even his Trident comments were personal appeals, not whipping. Show me evidence, and I'll give your opinions credence. Otherwise, you're just playing with words, the same as Stephen Bush.


Trident shell game wasn't words it was a shell game. X says yes, so we'll have x and -x look at it, then get rid of x, and have -x and -y look at it.
He has no say on the timing of the debate so they won't report in time, Tories will have it in March to stir up max difficulty for Holyrood elections,  as there is no current policy, can't be a 3 line whip, so another free vote with Corbyn encouraging members to pester individual MP's, which sounds like democracy, but I'm not sure it is.  Idealist's can get worked up, quite hard to be passionate about "necessary evil".
The other example, which ignored Eagle, admittedly from the Spectator, but the counter was "not policy just a suggestion" tends to agree she wasn't consulted,  so more attempted bouncing, this time against the woman tasked with coming up with policy.

Granted NU Labour more than likely have had the table rigged so the left will have to come up with work around's some of which will make things democratic, a good thing (on balance).


----------



## J Ed (Jan 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I can't take this stuff seriously. Do you actually know anything about the history of Las Malvinas or are you in possession of an FCO approved version?



Brunos Aires


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Brunos Aires


I bet he wrote the foreword.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I can't take this stuff seriously. Do you actually know anything about the history of Las Malvinas or are you in possession of an FCO approved version?



Its the falklands proto argentines had two attempts at colonisation both pretty unsuccseful
First one wiped out by the US 2nd velmets had permission form the British and when challenged by the british after he tried claiming the islands gave up without a fight the majority of settlers choosing to stay.

So since 1833 its been in british hands 

Unless you have some alternative version where argentines were massacred and are kpet as slaves in the treacle mines argentina  gave up its claim a lomg time ago.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Its the falklands proto argentines had two attempts at colonisation both pretty unsuccseful
> First one wiped out by the US 2nd velmets had permission form the British and when challenged by the british after he tried claiming the islands gave up without a fight the majority of settlers choosing to stay.
> 
> So since 1833 its been in british hands
> ...


it never gave up its claim, but don't let mere facts get in your way


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 27, 2016)

What and where were the "


likesfish said:


> Its the falklands proto argentines had two attempts at colonisation both pretty unsuccseful
> First one wiped out by the US 2nd velmets had permission form the British and when challenged by the british after he tried claiming the islands gave up without a fight the majority of settlers choosing to stay.
> 
> So since 1833 its been in british hands
> ...



Who are or were "The US Second Velmets"?


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What and where were the "
> 
> 
> Who are or were "The US Second Velmets"?


I assumed he meant pelmets - the yanks notoriously erected a narrow border of cloth around the Falklands, to hide their fixtures and fittings


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 27, 2016)

belboid said:


> I assumed he meant pelmets - the yanks notoriously erected a narrow border of cloth around the Falklands, to hide their fixtures and fittings


Frankly I have real problems understanding what Likesfish means a lot of the time. He persists in spelling "our" as "are" which is confusing and annoying at the same time.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 27, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Its the falklands proto argentines had two attempts at colonisation both pretty unsuccseful
> First one wiped out by the US 2nd velmets had permission form the British and when challenged by the british after he tried claiming the islands gave up without a fight the majority of settlers choosing to stay.
> 
> So since 1833 its been in british hands
> ...


I've really offended your sense of political correctness, haven't I?

Your last sentence is rather hilarious as it presumes you're the only one in possession of the facts. Get a grip.

Tell me, how do you feel about the Chagossians? Did you get this uptight when they were forcibly removed from their homes to make way for a US airbase? How about Rockall?

What are US 2nd Velmets? 

My country right or wrong, eh?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 27, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Isn't it odd how we can afford to keep our occupation of the Falklands going, the residents there must be the biggest welfare recipients in Britain, but can't afford not to harass the disabled and unemployed


They are not in Britain of course, but if they had been brought here instead of spending millions re-building the airstrip on the Falklands, we could have made them millionaires by spending the same money on the few thousand Islanders.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Tell me, how do you feel about the Chagossians? Did you get this uptight when they were forcibly removed from their homes to make way for a US airbase? How about Rockall?


What we can know, I think, with a pretty high amount of certainty, is this: If the Falkland Islanders had been black, the racist Margaret Thatcher would not have started a war in their name. 

Her words: they were 'of British tradition and stock'

translation: _They were white. _


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What we can know, I think, with a pretty high amount of certainty, is this: If the Falkland Islanders had been black, the racist Margaret Thatcher would not have started a war in their name.
> 
> Her words: they were 'of British tradition and stock'
> 
> translation: _They were white. _


That's a mental reading. She would have done the same no matter what.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 27, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's a mental reading. She would have done the same no matter what.


I don't believe that for one second. 2,000 poor black people on a remote Indian Ocean island, say, that nobody had heard of, and who weren't even British citizens? Nah.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 27, 2016)

Hold on, what are we talking about? This is another diversion from Corbyn and cabinet in the media. Let's get back to the main topic.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 27, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't believe that for one second. 2,000 poor black people on a remote Indian Ocean island, say, that nobody had heard of, and who weren't even British citizens? Nah.



You're just believing what you want to believe at this point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I've really offended your sense of political correctness, haven't I?
> 
> Your last sentence is rather hilarious as it presumes you're the only one in possession of the facts. Get a grip.
> 
> ...


write or wrong


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Hold on, what are we talking about? This is another diversion from Corbyn and cabinet in the media. Let's get back to the main topic.


we all agreed markymarrk's a know-nothing twat with the political nous of a rotten banana some pages ago tho


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> In an exchange with Corbyn, David fucking Cameron derisively dismisses homeless refugees in Calais as 'a bunch of migrants' and his merry band of over-privileged psychopaths jeer in delight. Still I suppose it's an improvement on calling them a 'swarm' like he did last year. Just when you think you can't hate them anymore:
> 
> Corbyn v Cameron at PMQs: was 'bunch of migrants' jibe intentional?


all us londoners are just lab rats to cameron, black or white


----------



## Teenage Cthulhu (Jan 27, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What we can know, I think, with a pretty high amount of certainty, is this: If the Falkland Islanders had been black, the racist Margaret Thatcher would not have started a war in their name.
> 
> Her words: they were 'of British tradition and stock'
> 
> translation: _They were white. _



Rubbish. It (war) had nothing to do with the inhabitants of the islands.


----------



## binka (Jan 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> And you have an argument? Go on, let's see it.


My argument has been written. I don't think it's right to forcibly remove people from the land they've called home for generations. What's your argument again? Oh yeah 'fuck em'


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 27, 2016)

Teenage Cthulhu said:


> Rubbish. It (war) had nothing to do with the inhabitants of the islands.


It certainly has nothing to do with Corbyn and Cabinet in the Media, the title of this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2016)

binka said:


> My argument has been written. I don't think it's right to forcibly remove people from the land they've called home for generations. What's your argument again? Oh yeah 'fuck em'


so if you had your way what's now poland would be full of germans.


----------



## binka (Jan 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so if you had your way what's now poland would be full of germans.


Please explain what you mean


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2016)

binka said:


> Please explain what you mean


did you not notice the pre-war poland to the e of the post-war poland and what's now poland pre-45 was largely german?


----------



## binka (Jan 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> did you not notice the pre-war poland to the e of the post-war poland and what's now poland pre-45 was largely german?


Yes i am aware poland moved a couple of hundred miles to the west. No i don't think the misery that followed was a good thing


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2016)

binka said:


> Yes i am aware poland moved a couple of hundred miles to the west. No i don't think the misery that followed was a good thing


so, as i say, if you had your way...


----------



## binka (Jan 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so, as i say, if you had your way...


What's your point?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2016)

binka said:


> What's your point?


i am surprised you have taken the attitude you have, is all


----------



## binka (Jan 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i am surprised you have taken the attitude you have, is all


What part of it do you have a problem with?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2016)

binka said:


> What part of it do you have a problem with?


just surprised by your attitude to the expulsion of the germans while silent about the causes of that expulsion.


----------



## binka (Jan 27, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> just surprised by your attitude to the expulsion of the germans while silent about the causes of that expulsion.


Oh


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2016)

Tbf if the islanders had been black and the uk goverement could have got something of value tought shit islanders although if somebody had attacked said islanders though diffrent matter.

Argentina whining about uk using force to seize the island is a bit laughable considering argentina went on to commit genocide in its "conquest of the desert" patagonia


----------



## treelover (Jan 27, 2016)

The Falklands are clearly personal to you, blood and treasure?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2016)

Just visted the place people area bit odd but definitly british so leave them alone the islands  are no threat or problem to argentina they are 300 miles off the coast so not that near argentina either.


----------



## treelover (Jan 27, 2016)

Sorry, i thought you were at Port Stanley, etc.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 27, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What we can know, I think, with a pretty high amount of certainty, is this: If the Falkland Islanders had been black, the racist Margaret Thatcher would not have started a war in their name.
> 
> Her words: they were 'of British tradition and stock'
> 
> translation: _They were white. _



It's precisely because they are mostly white anglo saxon and not hispanic that you think they should leave and that you and Nino won't see them as a similar colonial leftover to hispanic South America.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 27, 2016)

likesfish said:


> they are 300 miles off the coast so not that near argentina either.



Tad closer than the UK though.

Point about the Falklands is that the events were a gift to a struggling Thatcher. A gift that won her the next election from being in a position, pre-Falklands, of almost certainly losing to Michael Foot. And yeah, the gift came gift wrapped in a red, WHITE and blue union jack.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 27, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I just wonder how you felt about the Chagossians. Hmmm? Did you get as wound up about their plight? I bet you didn't utter a sound.
> 
> The Falklands Islands are little more than an object of right-wing political correctness. Whenever anyone expresses a point of view that isn't aligned with the dominant narrative, it is seen as a heretical or worse: 'the mark of a loony lefty'.



You seem to just throw unconnected crap around when lost for a reasonable point.

Tell us why their position is different to all the other colonial descendants in the region and what would you propose is done?

Me, I'd like to see their right to stay put acknowledged, the area dimilitarised and protected from dangerous resource exploitation. The Falkland Islanders should develop their commercial and cultural links and allow others to settle there like any other country. No reason why Argentina can't be involved and benefit.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 27, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Tad closer than the UK though.
> 
> Point about the Falklands is that the events were a gift to a struggling Thatcher. A gift that won her the next election from being in a position, pre-Falklands, of almost certainly losing to Michael Foot. And yeah, the gift came gift wrapped in a red, WHITE and blue union jack.



Yeah, but that's UK mainland business - nothing to do with the rights and the wrongs of the Falkland Islanders position. Did Thatcher exploit the issue? - of course she did. Did she pursue all courses of peaceful resolution? - no. But it's moot concerning the issue now and what Jezza is thinking out loud about it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 27, 2016)

It is quite an telling issue from the POV of Corbyn's leadership though and not a distraction to talk about it. 

The Falklands has nothing to offer Corbyn apart from grief. He has no reason to act quickly on it or against the sensitivities of most of the electorate. No one is going to die if things stay as they are. No disabled or needy person is losing their benefits over it - they are losing them because of a colossal wealth grab by the ruling classes. 

Negotiating on the Falklands shouldn't get near derailing opposing that effectively, getting elected and righting the wrong.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 27, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> It is quite an telling issue from the POV of Corbyn's leadership though and not a distraction to talk about it.
> 
> The Falklands has nothing to offer Corbyn apart from grief. He has no reason to act quickly on it or against the sensitivities of most of the electorate. No one is going to die if things stay as they are. No disabled or needy person is losing their benefits over it - they are losing them because of a colossal wealth grab by the ruling classes.
> 
> Negotiating on the Falklands shouldn't get near derailing opposing that effectively, getting elected and righting the wrong.


Could you translate that last sentence?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 27, 2016)

treelover said:


> Sorry, i thought you were at Port Stanley, etc.


Which might have gone some way to explaining why he's a bit grumpy about the whole thing


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2016)

Their was no possible peaceful neogciation with the junta other than captitulation to the junta whose next move was going to be  to attack chile 

somthe falklands war probably saved more lives as chile vs argentina would have been a full on blood bath with generals throwing conscripts into the frontlines


----------



## teqniq (Jan 27, 2016)

Haven't we had enough already about the Falkland Islands, _please_? There's entire threads devoted to it lying around here someplace.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 27, 2016)

Its been a good day in parliament for Jeremy - Cameron rattled and defensive.

Google tax: David Cameron defends £130m UK tax deal - BBC News

"one rule for big multinational companies, and another for ordinary small businesses and self-employed workers".

Signs here that Labour are taking seriously the middle class, and Corbyn's reference to self employed workers will no doubt delight many within that category who are in the process of submitting their tax to the revenue.  

The vermin are starting to look quite vulnerable to me, with the judiciary undermining them on bedroom tax, nuclear power looking dubious, loads of multinationals evading tax will be a sore that will fester on and on..

Its all reasonable.  Or am i too optimistic?  Time will tell.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 27, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Haven't we had enough already about the Falkland Islands, _please_? There's entire threads devoted to it lying around here someplace.



there are - whats interesting is how incilindary the topic is in domestic political terms, and how unconnected the views held are from the left-right party political split. 

none of which i think is remotely good news for Labour, primarily because it says - to me - that not only does Corbyn have something of an understanding gap regarding the electorate, but that he simply can't help himself with regards to what appear to be obscure areas of policy but which are politically explosive. 

the evidence, to me, looks pretty solid that Corbyns domestic economic policies are very popular amongst a wide swathe of the electorate far outside the left of the Labour party, but that his foreign, security and defence policies/views are toxic outside the Stop the War Coalition. if he can keep his gob shut about things that offend the electorate then he can make progress, but it appears that that is a political skill he doesn't have, and doesn't appear willing to learn - he did, after, walk into the Argentine Embassy for a chat, and thats what started this. he didn't need to do that, he gained nothing by doing it, and theres no one with even the most limited grasp of politics who couldn't have told him he was on a hiding to nothing - but he did it anyway because its one of his personal bugbears. 

politics and winning elections requires discipline and sometimes biting your lip on more minor issues in order to win on bigger ones - Corbyn appears not to have that talent.


----------



## treelover (Jan 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> there are - whats interesting is how incilindary the topic is in domestic political terms, and how unconnected the views held are from the left-right party political split.
> 
> none of which i think is remotely good news for Labour, primarily because it says - to me - that not only does Corbyn have something of an understanding gap regarding the electorate, but that he simply can't help himself with regards to what appear to be obscure areas of policy but which are politically explosive.
> 
> ...



You do know the STWC is helmed by those very successful party builders(SWP) and politicians(German stood for London Mayor, with derisory results, etc) John Rees, Lyndsey German, and Chris Nineham


----------



## killer b (Jan 28, 2016)

Nobody knew that. Thank god you're here to keep telling us.


----------



## treelover (Jan 28, 2016)

I bet Kebab King didn't

have you seen the length of the SWP thread?, lots of lots of contributions, not that many from me.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 28, 2016)

I really don't think the SWP are a very successful party.


----------



## treelover (Jan 28, 2016)

Erm, thats my point, Corbyn really should ditch that shower.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> Erm, thats my point, Corbyn really should ditch that shower.


Oh ok, I thought you meant it seriously, I've been in stitches


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 28, 2016)

Here we have a wonderful insight from a man who really connected with the public throwing his two penneth in!

Corbyn must connect with public to survive says Kinnock - BBC News


----------



## kebabking (Jan 28, 2016)

treelover said:


> I bet Kebab King didn't...



I did actually, I'm fully aware that STW is - or is meant to be - a front for the swappies, but my point wasn't related to the organisation or personalities behind STW, so I didn't mention them...


----------



## likesfish (Jan 28, 2016)

Unilatarism was never a popular plan with the general public even with no threat its going to be a hard sell.
   The left are rubbish on defence matters


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Unilatarism was never a popular plan with the general public even with no threat its going to be a hard sell.
> The left are rubbish on defence matters



And the right have done so well, both with their rhetoric and their practice.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## redcogs (Jan 28, 2016)

Why would anyone heed vile Kinnock? the arch labour movement betrayer and Blairite toad, dripping with peerage excess and EU sinecures?

Corbyn knows fine to avoid him and his advice.  Just as one avoids sexual intercourse with a putrefying corpse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Why would anyone heed vile Kinnock? the arch labour movement betrayer and Blairite toad, dripping with peerage excess and EU sinecures?
> 
> Corbyn knows fine to avoid him and his advice.  Just as one avoids sexual intercourse with a putrefying corpse.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2016)

binka said:


> My argument has been written.


Hilarious. WTF do you sound like?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> You seem to just throw unconnected crap around when lost for a reasonable point.



Yet your argument is predicated on the simplistic "The Falklands are British". Like I said, the Falklands exist solely as an object of right-wing political correctness and expressing a point of view that contradicts the dominant (Thatcherite) narrative is regarded as heresy. Can you wrap your head around that?

My point was neither "unconnected" nor "unreasonable".


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> the evidence, to me, looks pretty solid that Corbyns domestic economic policies are very popular amongst a wide swathe of the electorate far outside the left of the Labour party, but that his foreign, security and defence policies/views are toxic outside the Stop the War Coalition. if he can keep his gob shut about things that offend the electorate then he can make progress, but it appears that that is a political skill he doesn't have, and doesn't appear willing to learn - he did, after, walk into the Argentine Embassy for a chat, and thats what started this. he didn't need to do that, he gained nothing by doing it, and theres no one with even the most limited grasp of politics who couldn't have told him he was on a hiding to nothing - but he did it anyway because its one of his personal bugbears.
> 
> politics and winning elections requires discipline and sometimes biting your lip on more minor issues in order to win on bigger ones - Corbyn appears not to have that talent.



Bingo. A sizeable portion of the lefties _on here even_ tend to view Argentina's FI claims and rants as preposterous. To walk into their embassy and open that can of worms when he really doesn't need to shows an astonishing lack of political nouse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Bingo. A sizeable portion of the lefties _on here even_ tend to view Argentina's FI claims and rants as preposterous. To walk into their embassy and open that can of worms when he really doesn't need to shows an astonishing lack of political nouse.


one of the problems in taking part in elections is the danger you might win


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What we can know, I think, with a pretty high amount of certainty, is this: If the Falkland Islanders had been black, the racist Margaret Thatcher would not have started a war in their name.
> 
> Her words: they were 'of British tradition and stock'
> 
> translation: _They were white. _


Exactly. Yet if I were to dare mention that to our Falklands-supporting posters, they would become puce with rage and shout "I'm not a racist".


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Exactly. Yet if I were to dare mention that to our Falklands-supporting posters, they would become puce with rage and shout "I'm not a racist".


tbh who do you back in a war between a vile tory and a fascist dictatorship?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Exactly. Yet if I were to dare mention that to our Falklands-supporting posters, they would become puce with rage and shout "I'm not a racist".


Probably. Because it's bollocks.

Thatcher's government would have taken the military option in 82 if the inhabitants had been green with purple spots.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh who do you back in a war between a vile tory and a fascist dictatorship?


Neither of them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh who do you back in a war between a vile tory and a fascist dictatorship?


That's a tough one. I remember a pub in a village near where I lived had a sign over the door that read "No Argies". How could they possibly know what an Argentinian looked like? They don't all dress like gauchos. I suspected the pub's landlord would ban anyone with a Spanish accent. I got refused entry for being the 'wrong colour'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Neither of them.


so neither churchill nor hitler.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 28, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Here we have a wonderful insight from a man who really connected with the public throwing his two penneth in!
> 
> Corbyn must connect with public to survive says Kinnock - BBC News


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so neither churchill nor hitler.


Neither thatcher nor galtieri. I'd be more interested in making sure a few hundred conscripts don't get their heads blown off in the name of virtually nothing.


----------



## 8den (Jan 28, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Peter Mandelson's wank sock



Splendid turn of phrase


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Neither thatcher nor galtieri. I'd be more interested in making sure a few hundred conscripts don't get their heads blown off in the name of virtually nothing.


british soldiers on the other hand i suppose


----------



## likesfish (Jan 28, 2016)

Labour did succesful gunboat diplomacy both with galterais junta and guatamalia.

Having a couple of warships and a  nuclear sub turn up on a " goodwill vist" sent the juntas plans to the back of the filing cabinet


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> british soldiers on the other hand i suppose


Yep, look after them too. By, for instance, not sending them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, look after them too. By, for instance, not sending them.


yeh just send them to the six counties instead


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh just send them to the six counties instead


Now what are you wittering about? Where have I given support to the British army in NI?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Now what are you wittering about? Where have I given support to the British army in NI?


i do not recall seeing you oppose their deployment.


----------



## binka (Jan 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hilarious. WTF do you sound like?


Yes almost as hillarious as your hatred for an entire community of people just because they happen to be supported by right wingers.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Yet your argument is predicated on the simplistic "The Falklands are British". Like I said, the Falklands exist solely as an object of right-wing political correctness and expressing a point of view that contradicts the dominant (Thatcherite) narrative is regarded as heresy. Can you wrap your head around that?
> 
> My point was neither "unconnected" nor "unreasonable".



My argument is not that the Islands are  British but the Islanders are. It's up to them.

Are you actually going to answer any questions? About why it is different, let's say to the Canary Islands, 60 miles  from Morocco yet Spanish?

Or will you just say 'Thatcher' every so often as if it's some kind of Top Trump?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> My argument is not that the Islands are  British but the Islanders are. It's up to them.
> 
> Are you actually going to answer any questions? About why it is different, let's say to the Canary Islands, 60 miles  from Morocco yet Spanish?


or the channel islands, nearer france than england yet a british dependency


----------



## kebabking (Jan 28, 2016)

or indeed the French Islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, just 20 miles from Canada, yet somehow the Canadian electorate manages to retain its pants while 6,000 Frenchies flagrantly eat snails, listen to dreadful europop and ban soap within sight of Canada?

how can Canada truly be a nation while there are people in the world who aren't Canadian?


----------



## gosub (Jan 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> or indeed the French Islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, just 20 miles from Canada, yet somehow the Canadian electorate manages to retain its pants while 6,000 Frenchies flagrantly eat snails, listen to dreadful europop and ban soap within sight of Canada?
> 
> how can Canada truly be a nation while there are people in the world who aren't Canadian?


There are no Patagonian members of the Welsh Assembly either


----------



## kebabking (Jan 28, 2016)

actually, those Canadians are at it again, going round being entirely relaxed about Greenland, which is next door to Canada, not belonging to Canada, and infact belonging to Denmark - which is, like, a million miles away.

and astonishingly, even the UK can be accused of this appalling indifference to their Nationhood, what with the ever burning insult that is the Faeroe Islands not flying the Union Flag, but instead being part of Denmark. and Denmark is, like, a million miles further away from the Faeroes than the UK is.


*OMG, how can this be right?*


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 28, 2016)

Has anyone mentioned the Chagossians yet?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so neither churchill nor hitler.



I don't believe any of us will be able to back Mr Churchill until we know more about his position on a number of issues including the coming of a leader called Thatcher.

Much better to open dialogue with this Mr Hitler.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Has anyone mentioned the Chagossians yet?



Tbf if Corbo wants to take that up he should. No one is going to disagree on the injustice.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> No one is going to disagree on the injustice.



Well quite. That rarely prevents some genius bringing it up as comparable in Falklands debates though.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 28, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well quite. That rarely prevents some genius bringing it up as comparable in Falklands debates though.



whats most amusing that those who bring it up seem to get themselves into a position where they support the right of self-determination for the Chagossians but at the same time deny it to the Falkland Islanders. spectacular...


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> whats most amusing that those who bring it up seem to get themselves into a position where they support the right of self-determination for the Chagossians but at the same time deny it to the Falkland Islanders. spectacular...


I know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2016)

kebabking said:


> actually, those Canadians are at it again, going round being entirely relaxed about Greenland, which is next door to Canada, not belonging to Canada, and infact belonging to Denmark - which is, like, a million miles away.
> 
> and astonishingly, even the UK can be accused of this appalling indifference to their Nationhood, what with the ever burning insult that is the Faeroe Islands not flying the Union Flag, but instead being part of Denmark. and Denmark is, like, a million miles further away from the Faeroes than the UK is.
> 
> ...


not only that but the uk - astonishingly - tolerates the existence of another polity in the british isles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Here we have a wonderful insight from a man who really connected with the public throwing his two penneth in!
> 
> Corbyn must connect with public to survive says Kinnock - BBC News



Laugh? I nearly did. Kinnock is the foundation stone on which Labour's slide to the right was based. He was about as connected with the public as a piss-stain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2016)

8den said:


> Splendid turn of phrase



Thank you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2016)

these falklands debates get like fucking set piece historical reanactments. Sooner or later some twat will start on about terra nullis and international law etc. No one gives a toss about the falklands.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> these falklands debates get like fucking set piece historical reanactments. Sooner or later some twat will start on about terra nullis and international law etc. No one gives a toss about the falklands.


I could not give less of a fuck about the Falklands but I always thought I was alone. I actually felt guilty writing that.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 28, 2016)

They belong to Uruguay now, everyone can relax and smoke weed there legally


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2016)

8115 said:


> I could not give less of a fuck about the Falklands but I always thought I was alone. I actually felt guilty writing that.


its a 30 year old row. This is today. They're happy enough in port stanley, its a cheap sabre to rattle for both governments but its so not relevant anymore except to blowhards and propagandists.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its a 30 year old row. This is today. They're happy enough in port stanley, its a cheap sabre to rattle for both governments but its so not relevant anymore except to blowhards and propagandists.


Which is why Jeremy Corbyn should stay the fuck away from it rather than poncing into the Argentinian embassy for tea and biscuits.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Which is why Jeremy Corbyn should stay the fuck away from it rather than poncing into the Argentinian embassy for tea and biscuits.


yeah not one I'd have chosen to bother with at this stage. A ten week war fought when I wasn't even a gleam in the milkmans eye. No-one gives a shit anymore, maybe we could negotiate to share mineral rights in the event of oil or something concillatory like that. Let them borrow the island on weekends and for events.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah not one I'd have chosen to bother with at this stage. A ten week war fought when I wasn't even a gleam in the milkmans eye. No-one gives a shit anymore, maybe we could negotiate to share mineral rights in the event of oil or something concillatory like that. Let them borrow the island on weekends and for events.


Quite a lot of people give a shit in fairness, particularly those of a certain age who remember it; probably because along with WW2 it's one of the few conflicts that British forces have been involved in that has no shame attached. Because it doesn't fit into the "murdering British imperialism narrative" that uber-lefties and Nino Savatte try to shovel it's also a historical minefield, which again, is precisely why Corbyn should fuck off out of it.

This has only been raised here because of _his_ recent actions.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Quite a lot of people give a shit, in fairness, particularly those of a certain age, probably because along with WW2 it's one of the few conflicts that British forces have been involved in that has no shame attached. Because it doesn't fit into the "murdering British imperialism narrative" that uber-lefties and Nino Savatte try to shovel, it's also a historical minefield, which again, is precisely why Corbyn should fuck off out of it.
> 
> This has only been raised here because of his recent actions.


and discussed at length. Tedious, nightmarish flashbacks to previous threads on the matter length. On the give-a-shitometer I place it a a lot less, theres not as much jingoism in society as jingoists believe. Silent majority claims etc. Some minor dust up 30 years ago? whose going to still be greasing their poles over that one? certainly not anyone who would be voting cbyn anyway


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They belong to Uruguay now, everyone can relax and smoke weed there legally



Uruguay is well known for it's action on smoking and health. Everyone can relax and bake something instead.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> these falklands debates get like fucking set piece historical reanactments. Sooner or later some twat will start on about terra nullis and international law etc. No one gives a toss about the falklands.



Except Corbo. And he's so vain he probably thinks this thread is about him.


----------



## binka (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> and discussed at length. Tedious, nightmarish flashbacks to previous threads on the matter length. On the give-a-shitometer I place it a a lot less, theres not as much jingoism in society as jingoists believe. Silent majority claims etc. Some minor dust up 30 years ago? whose going to still be greasing their poles over that one? certainly not anyone who would be voting cbyn anyway


The only reason i get involved is because I'm genuinely baffled by the opinions of a lot of people i would otherwise agree with politically on almost everything else


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Except Corbo. And *he's so vain* he probably thinks this thread is about him.



Where do you get that from?

Of the many more accurate criticisms you could make, that one's pretty implausible surely ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Where do you get that from?
> 
> Of the many more accurate criticisms you could make, that one's pretty implausible surely ...


Oh william.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2016)

Why a pop at me?

Genuinely didn't know where he was coming from on that.

</heads for Countryfile>

(ETA : I meant Winterwatch ...  )


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> and discussed at length. Tedious, nightmarish flashbacks to previous threads on the matter length. On the give-a-shitometer I place it a a lot less, theres not as much jingoism in society as jingoists believe. Silent majority claims etc. Some minor dust up 30 years ago? whose going to still be greasing their poles over that one? certainly not anyone who would be voting cbyn anyway


It's an 'in' to wider defence issues. That's why. It's a proven bad thing  - for now - for corbyn. The issue is irrelevant. Just dismissing things because they happened before you were born, or not giving a shit about stuff that happened before you were born because you weren't born is a mugs game. And a short  cut to political irrelevancy.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Where do you get that from?
> 
> Of the many more accurate criticisms you could make, that one's pretty implausible surely ...



Bad joke soz.

Hadn't even considered if he is vain. He probably is a bit - after all he does actually want to run the state and a bit of rampant self regard is on the person spec. But it's unimportant if he makes a good job of it and shifts some wealth in the right direction.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2016)

OK missed yet jest. Sorry


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> It's an 'in' to wider defence issues. That's why. It's a proven bad thing  - for now - for corbyn. The issue is irrelevant. Just dismissing things because they happened before you were born, or not giving a shit about stuff that happened before you were born because you weren't born is a mugs game. And a short  cut to political irrelevancy.


i'd have thought trident was by far the better in for that line of attack. It has proven the bigger issue so far (from what media and convos I've had)


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> OK missed yet jest. Sorry



Enjoy countryfile tho. Norf Devon this week!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> i'd have thought trident was by far the better in for that line of attack. It has proven the bigger issue so far (from what media and convos I've had)


That's been used as well. They're not limited to one thing. And trident is an actual real life ongoing issue. That's one issue here - the other one is your dismissal  of it because you weren't born at the time and so this means neither you nor anyone else cares.  In that case, what has it become an issue?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 28, 2016)

I am still mystified by what he thought he was doing walking into their embassy to ask about it (thanks to Kebabking for putting me straight on that one). It's like handing the right wing press a ready loaded gun. All in all vey ill-considered imo. They are still an irrelevance, at least to me anyway.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> i'd have thought trident was by far the better in for that line of attack. It has proven the bigger issue so far (from what media and convos I've had)



He's making a balls-up of that too taking the flack for blatantly playing to Union self-interest ahead of the review. Needs to develop a poker face and stop speculating out loud.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> That's been used as well. They're not limited to one thing. And trident is an actual real life ongoing issue. That's one issue here - the other one is your dismissal  of it because you weren't born at the time and so this means neither you nor anyone else cares.  In that case, *what has it become an issue?*


why? thats a point. Perhaps more people than I recon actually do have strong views still as spy was saying....thread alone suggests its still something of a dispute.  An unsettled argument over soveriegnty and etc


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

teqniq said:


> i am still mystified by what he thought he was doing walking into their embassy to ask about it (thanks to Kebabking for putting me straight on that one). It's like handing the right wing press a ready loaded gun. All in all vey ill-considered imo. They are still an irrelevance, at least to me anyway.



Is the notion that he just walked in a bit misleading? Presumably a meeting was arranged.

But even so diversionary and unnecessary. Just looks like a hobby horse.

If there is such a thing as a Labour 'Grandee' who is his boss he should pull him in for a trouser shriveling bollocking and remind him that he is there for one thing only and that is to provide effective leadership to the Labour Party and opposition to the Tories as they ruin things for loads of ordinary people and if he doesn't want to show leadership he can buggah off to the benches.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> He's making a balls-up of that too taking the flack for blatantly playing to Union self-interest ahead of the review. Needs to develop a poker face and stop speculating out loud.


I had noticed the kerfuffle. Would foriegn policy/defence alone lose him an election? in a vacuum say, everything else policies etc are loved and its all rosy. I'd assume it would.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 28, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I had noticed the kerfuffle. Would foriegn policy/defence alone lose him an election? in a vacuum say, everything else policies etc are loved and its all rosy. I'd assume it would.



Analysis of the last election seems to suggest that Labour didn't do better because a significant number of people didn't 'trust' them - on a wide variety of issues in quite a nebulous way.

Considering they lost to a staggeringly untrustworthy bunch of rapacious Tories barstewards who would sell the hearing aids out of your ear, that's quite a big problem on 'Trust'. So any component of it is important even if the issue is not so much.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Analysis of the last election seems to suggest that Labour didn't do better because a significant number of people didn't 'trust' them - on a wide variety of issues in quite a nebulous way.
> 
> Considering they lost to a staggeringly untrustworthy bunch of rapacious Tories barstewards who would sell the hearing aids out of your ear, that's quite a big problem on 'Trust'. So any component of it is important even if the issue is not so much.



It's a funny thing about trust - we'd rather have someone we can trust will do many awful things than someone we can't trust will do any good, apparently.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Enjoy countryfile tho. Norf Devon this week!



We'll be around on Sunday, we love these nature programmes. I bet Corbyn does too


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

What does this remind me of?

Bernie Sanders supporters get a bad reputation online - BBC News


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What does this remind me of?
> 
> Bernie Sanders supporters get a bad reputation online - BBC News


i don't know, what does this remind you of?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know, what does this remind you of?



What does it remind you of?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What does it remind you of?



It certainly reminds me of something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What does it remind you of?


i know what it reminds me of but i do not know what it reminds you of.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 29, 2016)

binka said:


> Yes almost as hillarious as your hatred for an entire community of people just because they happen to be supported by right wingers.


I've definitely offended your sense of political correctness. Aw, diddums.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> My argument is not that the Islands are British but the Islanders are. It's up to them.


How odd then that you didn't make that clear in your previous reply. Nice bit of footwork there.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What does this remind me of?
> 
> Bernie Sanders supporters get a bad reputation online - BBC News



fake death threats, imaginary "intimidatory" marches to Congressmens houses etc to follow


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> or indeed the French Islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, just 20 miles from Canada, yet somehow the Canadian electorate manages to retain its pants while 6,000 Frenchies flagrantly eat snails, listen to dreadful europop and ban soap within sight of Canada?



I reckon there must be something well dodgy about those islands. Britain seized them a few times, particularly during the Napoleonic wars, and always ceded them back to France.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> How odd then that you didn't make that clear in your previous reply. Nice bit of footwork there.



Ooooh the smoking gun. 

How are your replies coming on? Ready yet to answer any questions you've been asked?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I reckon there must be something well dodgy about those islands. Britain seized them a few times, particularly during the Napoleonic wars, and always ceded them back to France.



French had been there before - doesn't matter how hard you scrub, you'll never get the Frenchness out of the place. no decent person could live there, so it made sense to ceed them back to France as if they'd won something. we got Canada, they got some cold wet islands that smell of fish - and Frenchmen.

(the above is, for the terminally humourless, a joke..)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2016)

kebabking said:


> French had been there before - doesn't matter how hard you scrub, you'll never get the Frenchness out of the place. no decent person could live there, so it made sense to ceed them back to France as if they'd won something. we got Canada, they got some cold wet islands that smell of fish - and Frenchmen.
> 
> (the above is, for the terminally humourless, a joke..)


i didn't know you had it in you


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't know you had it in you



what can i say, i like to keep it dry.


----------



## binka (Jan 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I've definitely offended your sense of political correctness. Aw, diddums.


Why are all your posts so devoid of content? Why don't you try saying something of substance for once because you're coming cross as a twat at the moment


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 29, 2016)

binka said:


> Why are all your posts so devoid of content? Why don't you try saying something of substance for once because you're coming cross as a twat at the moment


What a weird accusation but it's also indicative of your own lack of self-awareness and your inability to grasp something as simple as the symbolic nature of the Falklands in British politics, and how those symbols are used as a means to attack the perceived lack of patriotism of a politician or group of people.

The only one who is being a twat is you. Stop projecting and trying to cover up your inability to analyse and think critically.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 29, 2016)

binka said:


> Why are all your posts so devoid of content?


Same as his head.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> How are your replies coming on? Ready yet to answer any questions you've been asked?


Oh, how smug and self-satisfied we are today. Bye.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh, how smug and self-satisfied we are today. Bye.



I think that's a 'no'.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> What a weird accusation but it's also indicative of your own lack of self-awareness and your inability to grasp something as simple as the symbolic nature of the Falklands in British politics, and how those symbols are used as a means to attack the perceived lack of patriotism of a politician or group of people.
> 
> The only one who is being a twat is you. Stop projecting and trying to cover up your inability to analyse and think critically.



You're not thinking critically. Your approach to the Falklands is about symbolism not people. Thatcher helped them, they must be your enemies. They are WASPs and not Latin people, boo! Somebody else has had something worse, boo!

It's a simple enough question, what would you propose, but sadly the world seems likely to miss out on the promise of such wisdom.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> You're not thinking critically. Your approach to the Falklands is about symbolism not people. Thatcher helped them, they must be your enemies. They are WASPs and not Latin people, boo! Somebody else has had something worse, boo!
> 
> It's a simple enough question, what would you propose, but sadly the world seems likely to miss out on the promise of such wisdom.


your username seems to be missing an 'r'.


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2016)

Mr Moose said:


> Is the notion that he just walked in a bit misleading? Presumably a meeting was arranged.
> 
> But even so diversionary and unnecessary. Just looks like a hobby horse.
> 
> If there is such a thing as a Labour 'Grandee' who is his boss he should pull him in for a trouser shriveling bollocking and remind him that he is there for one thing only and that is to provide effective leadership to the Labour Party and opposition to the Tories as they ruin things for loads of ordinary people and if he doesn't want to show leadership he can buggah off to the benches.



Prescott? seems a bit of a reformed character, I agree its needed.


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2016)

J Ed said:


> What does it remind you of?



If you go on social media, a fair few of the Corbyn supporters do see him as their only hope and act accordingly, brook no opposition, etc.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2016)

treelover said:


> If you go on social media, a fair few of the Corbyn supporters do see him as their only hope and act accordingly, brook no opposition, etc.



The thing is that it's exactly the same for every single political position and candidate, you can find awful people supporting any single position or politician you can think of but if your particular political orientation controls the mainstream media then you can ensure that only the bad people supporting candidates that you don't like get exposure. This tactic was used so much in the run up to the Scottish referendum that the media even developed the term 'cybernats' despite the fact that there were plenty of pro-union people online (and for that matter in the papers and on the BBC) who they could also have gone after but instead were ignored.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2016)

oh yeah, and like with momentum the indy supporters had dark and violent motivations attributed to them. Then the only actual violence we saw was a bunch of sectarian pricks doing the worlds shittest victory pogrom after the vote. Embarrasing. Like that MP who has had to invent death threats


----------



## binka (Jan 29, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh! The outrage! FFS, get a fucking grip. Oh and it's 'their', not 'there'.





nino_savatte said:


> And you have an argument? Go on, let's see it.





nino_savatte said:


> Hilarious. WTF do you sound like?





nino_savatte said:


> I've definitely offended your sense of political correctness. Aw, diddums.


Zero content.

Why do you hate the falkland islanders so much? Because they were supported by thatcher's government? Because they offend the argentine establishment? Any other reasons I'm missing?


----------



## Manter (Jan 30, 2016)

Help! I need an idiot's guide to what has been happening with the Corbyn group on Facebook that has been closed down. 

It's to do with a Calais group I admin.

Ta


----------



## Manter (Jan 30, 2016)

Is is this true Coup engulfs Facebook's largest Corbyn group


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2016)

Yup, that seems to be what happened.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 30, 2016)

Manter said:


> Help! I need an idiot's guide to what has been happening with the Corbyn group on Facebook that has been closed down.
> 
> It's to do with a Calais group I admin.
> 
> Ta


someone conned their way in to being admin then kicked all the other admins off and went around banning all the membership, think they did it to another group not long back too.

beware of any new potential admins.


----------



## Manter (Jan 31, 2016)

Ta.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 31, 2016)

binka said:


> Zero content.


Zero brain cells.

Nino can give you the headlines that he heard down the pub, and the order of the day from the Dotski Times. 

But then he's fucked.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 31, 2016)

Manter said:


> Is is this true Coup engulfs Facebook's largest Corbyn group


This is outrageous. Not helpful for some who use it as a campaigning tool, especially around Calais.


----------



## gosub (Jan 31, 2016)

Manter said:


> Is is this true Coup engulfs Facebook's largest Corbyn group


surprised this hasn't had mainstream media coverage


----------



## Manter (Jan 31, 2016)

gosub said:


> surprised this hasn't had mainstream media coverage


True.... Hadn't even heard about it till we were warned about it!


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 31, 2016)

gosub said:


> surprised this hasn't had mainstream media coverage



An FB group with 15000 or so members has some drama? Stop.The. Presses


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> An FB group with 15000 or so members has some drama? Stop.The. Presses


yet Labour spends £577 on chicken suits makes the papers....


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 1, 2016)

gosub said:


> yet Labour spends £577 on chicken suits makes the papers....


So what is the going rate for chicken suits? It doesn't seem a lot to me.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 1, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> So what is the going rate for chicken suits? It doesn't seem a lot to me.



£26.99, so I guess they must have bought at least 20 or so.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 1, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> £26.99, so I guess they must have bought at least 20 or so.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 1, 2016)

Although you must admit getting a middle age leftie to disguise themsleves as a teenage dominatrix to make simion look even more of an idiot was a master stroke worthy of mossad
 The  marquis lost a valuable fighter that day


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 1, 2016)

This brilliant article appeared in my email this morning:

*Talking to Jeff about Google*

Another week passes and we are now less than 100 days from the first real test for a Corbyn-led Labour Party. Already the the briefings have started. From Corbyn’s team it has been suggested that losing 300 council seats in England, slipping back in Wales and losses in Scotland wouldn’t be a bad result, but they expect the race for London Mayor to be close. They are clearly managing expectations. But if they are right we will face a long, hot summer of Labour discontent and the much talked about leadership challenge would not be a case of 'if' but when.

But leaving aside elections and predictions it can be argued that Corbyn is on the side of the public on many issues. Building on successful opposition to cuts to police funding and cuts to tax credits he has added a tax avoidance issue to his belt. The row over the tax settlement with Google saw Corbyn champion the cause of us all, especially Jeff, who provided the question for PMQs. Corbyn played his hand well. Cameron blustered and spluttered. It was hard to find anyone on the Prime Minister's side, apart from his probable successor George Osborne. Corbyn and the public (thank you Jeff) were on the same side.

There was another row at PMQs and Cameron once again showed that he is willing to use provocative language when it comes to refugees. I haven't met anyone who isn't concerned by the plight of the people living in harsh conditions in Calais. People have varied opinions on what should be done or how, or if we should help at all. Corbyn had visited the Calais ‘jungle’ and was obviously shocked at what he saw. Cameron saw not squalid conditions or suffering - he saw a political opportunity. That isn't to say Cameron doesn't care, it simply shows that he gets politics. So he spat out the word ‘bunch’. Labour benches erupted with fury and Jeff, along with the majority of the electorate, stared at their tax returns and sighed. Another Corbyn victory, downgraded to a non-event.

That isn't to say that offensive language shouldn't be challenged but as I was reminded shortly afterwards, for many people, and I guess the Jeffs of this world who were cheering Corbyn’s assault on the Google tax deal, referring to people as a ‘bunch’ even if they are suffering isn't offensive. It is simple, everyday language. Cameron knew what he was doing; he was playing politics and attempting to win back Jeff. Whether it worked remains to be seen but he played the Labour benches like a seasoned pro.

So as we moved towards the weekend I looked forward to the political agenda being set by Labour, on behalf of Jeff and millions of others. The (People's) Shadow Chancellor only needed to keep up the pressure. I waited. I made some coffee and waited. He talked. I couldn't believe it! He talked about open bloody borders! It wasn't long before the news was over another Labour row (Sorry Jeff).

This brings me to a question I have struggled with since September. What happens if Corbyn has tapped into something? What if the electorate, away from opinion polls, like him and what he stands for? What then? What if in May Labour gains seats in Scotland, do well in England, hold on in Wales and win the London Mayoralty?

The Corbyn grip on the Party would tighten. Issues like Trident would come and go. Any thoughts about a challenge to his leadership would be laughed at, and attention would turn to the general election in 2020 and the possibility of Corbyn in Number 10.

What if that happens?

But I fear that no matter how many times Corbyn champions the issues that matter and shows the Tories up for what they are; no matter how often he speaks up for people like Jeff, for me, for you - he will revert to type and push us away by shouting about the Falklands, secondary picketing or some other issue that he knows will divide opinion. Perhaps he does it to prove he doesn't want or need our vote.

Maybe he believes that he can win without us, without Jeff. Maybe he is right.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 1, 2016)

Its usually good faith to point to where you've quoted from.

It's from here.




			
				MiddleVision said:
			
		

> Middle Vision is a new centrist pressure group which has arisen to represent, reflect on and debate the middle ground in British politics vacated by the far-left position of Jeremy Corbyn and the apparently ubiquitously positioned Conservatives of David Cameron. While sympathetic to the centre left, Middle Vision is committed to non-partisan engagement across the political centre ground.
> 
> The group consists primarily, though not exclusively of Labour members who are not convinced that Corbyn’s extremist-driven Labour Party is capable of winning a general election and thus becoming once more the natural party of Government. We also have cross-party support from across the British political spectrum from people who are equally concerned with the often polarised divisions, debates and stances currently afflicting British Politics.
> 
> ...


'Centrist pressure group'. Corbyn 'far-left position'. Oh my sides.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 1, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This brilliant article appeared in my email this morning:
> 
> *Talking to Jeff about Google*
> 
> ...


Secondary picketing eh? Maybe Corbyn should adopt that as a cause. Perhaps I will text him about it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 1, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This brilliant article appeared in my email this morning:
> 
> *Talking to Jeff about Google*
> 
> ...



Secondary Picketing eh? Maybe that needs to be on Corbyn's agenda. Perhaps I will text him with the idea.


----------



## laptop (Feb 1, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Secondary Picketing eh? Maybe that needs to be on Corbyn's agenda. Perhaps I will text him with the idea.



He's been there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This brilliant article appeared in my email this morning:
> 
> *Talking to Jeff about Google*
> 
> ...


i get better spam than that


----------



## two sheds (Feb 1, 2016)

Look at this brilliant piece on Corbyn and the NHS.

The National Health Service Is Our Best Asset - Jeremy Corbyn MP

Isn't it brilliant? There's a brilliant piece on TTIP, too. Read it all, it's brilliant. Whoever wrote that was brilliant. Not a twat at all.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 1, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Look at this brilliant piece on Corbyn and the NHS.
> 
> The National Health Service Is Our Best Asset - Jeremy Corbyn MP
> 
> Isn't it brilliant? There's a brilliant piece on TTIP, too. Read it all, it's brilliant. Whoever wrote that was brilliant. Not a twat at all.


It may be brilliant or not but it is 12 months old. In fact some of the items are two years old.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 1, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It may be brilliant or not but it is 12months old.



Brilliant!


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2016)

this is absurd The Jeremy Corbyn story that nobody wanted to publish

Here's the lineup for the show (and the reason why no-one gave a fuck):

*Jeremy Hardy*, former Perrier Award Winner, actor and writer; *Ken Livingstone*, former Leader of the GLC, former Mayor of London; *Francesca Martinez*, ‘Live at the Apollo’, ‘Extras’, campaigner against welfare reform (‘WOW petition’); *Brian Eno*, musician, composer, record producer; *Ken Loach*, director of ‘Kes’, ‘Riff Raff’ and many other award-winning films; *Lindsey German*, convenor of Stop the War;*Ava Vidal*, ‘Michael McIntyre’s Comedy Roadshow’, ‘Mock the Week’, ‘This Week'; *Michael Rosen*, former Children’s Poet Laureate; *Grace Petrie*, singer/songwriter (described by the Guardian as “a powerful new songwriting voice”).


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 2, 2016)

Ken Livingstone is hardly a fucking celebrity is he?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 2, 2016)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Ken Livingstone is hardly a fucking celebrity is he?


I think some people who live in London will have heard of him.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 3, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This brilliant article appeared in my email this morning:
> 
> *Talking to Jeff about Google*
> 
> ...


"Brilliant article"? PMSL. It just confirms your bias, you numpty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> "Brilliant article"? PMSL. It just confirms your bias, you numpty.


as they say an empty vessel makes the loudest noise: and they don't come much emptier than MarkyMarrk


----------



## Nylock (Feb 4, 2016)

...or noisier....


----------



## ska invita (Feb 4, 2016)

Comrade Corbyn: A Very Unlikely Coup by Rosa Prince review – a prissy and spiteful analysis with no understanding of the left

Someone has had a go at writing a hatchet job book here, replete with soviet allusions - comrade corbyn in Russian style red font - and binsearching


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 4, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Comrade Corbyn: A Very Unlikely Coup by Rosa Prince review – a prissy and spiteful analysis with no understanding of the left
> 
> Someone has had a go at writing a hatchet job book here, replete with soviet allusions - comrade corbyn in Russian style red font - and binsearching


She was on the Daily Brilllo the other day plugging her book.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 6, 2016)

I'm not sure whether to start a new thread, but this anti-Labour person has now been elected as a steering committee member of Momentum, with no noticeable change to her politics. 
And these people claim they are the real Labour Party, and those they've opposed in Labour are not. 

Socialist candidate Jill Mountford to stand against Harriet Harman in Camberwell and Peckham


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not sure whether to start a new thread, but this anti-Labour person has now been elected as a steering committee member of Momentum, with no noticeable change to her politics.
> And these people claim they are the real Labour Party, and those they've opposed in Labour are not.
> 
> Socialist candidate Jill Mountford to stand against Harriet Harman in Camberwell and Peckham


Had she successfully been elected in 2010, she could have entered Parliament and then resigned from her party and, as a sitting MP, then defected to Labour.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 7, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not sure whether to start a new thread, but this anti-Labour person has now been elected as a steering committee member of Momentum, with no noticeable change to her politics.
> And these people claim they are the real Labour Party, and those they've opposed in Labour are not.
> 
> Socialist candidate Jill Mountford to stand against Harriet Harman in Camberwell and Peckham


Yes and? *shrugs*


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not sure whether to start a new thread, but this anti-Labour person has now been elected as a steering committee member of Momentum, with no noticeable change to her politics.
> And these people claim they are the real Labour Party, and those they've opposed in Labour are not.
> 
> Socialist candidate Jill Mountford to stand against Harriet Harman in Camberwell and Peckham


does this indecisiveness go back to your childhood?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

As I alluded to above; Woodward, Jackson & Davies? No doubt MM thought them all acceptable?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2016)

brogdale said:


> As I alluded to above; Woodward, Jackson & Davies? No doubt MM thought them all acceptable?


no doubt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I'm not sure whether to start a new thread, but this anti-Labour person has now been elected as a steering committee member of Momentum, with no noticeable change to her politics.
> And these people claim they are the real Labour Party, and those they've opposed in Labour are not.
> 
> Socialist candidate Jill Mountford to stand against Harriet Harman in Camberwell and Peckham



Have you read Momentum's charter? 
Do you understand that to stand against Harman doesn't make you "anti-Labour"?
Are you aware that the personal politics of a person can change over (6 years') time? 

If the answers to the above are "no", then your post is ignorant.
If the answers to the above are "yes", then your post is disingenuous crap written to bash people who aren't members of the Labour right/the _maquis_ tendency.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 7, 2016)

Didn't know where to put this, but here'll do as good as any I'd imagine?

YouGov |  British press ‘most right-wing’ in Europe


> *British people are the most likely to say their press is right wing out of seven European countries - and the most likely to say the press is too negative about immigration*
> New YouGov research across seven European countries reveals British people are the most likely to say their media is biased in its reporting when asked about five key areas.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 8, 2016)

This Torygraph article straddles this thread and 'Telegraph going downhill thread'.


> Momentum wants to attract 20,000 members, win affiliation from local Labour groups and fight Blairites for key internal positions, a document leaked to The Telegraph has revealed amid fears it is planning a “Militant-style” takeover.
> 
> In proposals that will alarm centrist Labour MPs, the hard-Left group backed by Jeremy Corbyn has put battling moderates over internal party positions as one of its top prioritises in the next three months.
> 
> ...



Comparing Momentum to Militant is really weak.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2016)

who gets to be kinnock in this charicature? ?


----------



## youngian (Feb 8, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Comrade Corbyn: A Very Unlikely Coup by Rosa Prince review – a prissy and spiteful analysis with no understanding of the left
> 
> Someone has had a go at writing a hatchet job book here, replete with soviet allusions - comrade corbyn in Russian style red font - and binsearching



I heard this hack on the radio who said as ten years as a parliamentary lobby correspondent and had never spoke to or even heard of Corbyn. I think that tells you all you need to know about how journalists view parliamentary politics as spiffing theatre rather than battle for MPs to highlight daily struggles of their constituents.



> Corbyn’s father’s attempt to learn Russian was “an unlikely interest, given that this was the height of the cold war”.


 Learning Russian was very popular with scientists in the post-war years for reasons that even a thick twat from the Torygraph like Prince should be able to work out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> This Torygraph article straddles this thread and 'Telegraph going downhill thread'.
> 
> 
> Comparing Momentum to Militant is really weak.



Momentum *can't* plan a "Militant-style takeover". Kinnock's rule changes, followed by Blair's, made sure of that. This is panic journalism, pure and simple - stir up the faithful against a (non-existent) threat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> who gets to be kinnock in this charicature? ?



I suspect that Burnham and Umunna are already stroking themselves off, fantasising about having the Kinnock role.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 8, 2016)

I am enjoying the fact that the Telegraph is getting exercised about Momentum and its activities. Perhaps the leak was created by some middle of the road (Blairite) member or maybe by the Momentum camp to create free publicity for itself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 8, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect that Burnham and Umunna are already stroking themselves off, fantasising about having the Kinnock role.


bright-eyes burnham had occured to me, prbably still stinging from the leadership failure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2016)

youngian said:


> I heard this hack on the radio who said as ten years as a parliamentary lobby correspondent and had never spoke to or even heard of Corbyn. I think that tells you all you need to know about how journalists view parliamentary politics as spiffing theatre rather than battle for MPs to highlight daily struggles of their constituents.
> 
> Learning Russian was very popular with scientists in the post-war years for reasons that even a thick twat from the Torygraph like Prince should be able to work out.



Apart from anything else, it was better than trusting Pergamon Press (prop: Cptn Bob Maxwell) to publish decent translations of Russian academic journals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> bright-eyes burnham had occured to me, prbably still stinging from the leadership failure.



Still burn(ham)ing with shame.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> bright-eyes burnham had occured to me, prbably still stinging from the leadership failure.


he likes being urticated


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I am enjoying the fact that the Telegraph is getting exercised about Momentum and its activities. Perhaps the leak was created by some middle of the road (Blairite) member or maybe by the Momentum camp to create free publicity for itself.



More likely from Momentum themselves, through a suitable cut-out.
Mind you, given that the _ Telegraph_ papers have long and ignoble ties to our intelligence community, it's not beyond the wit of man that the "report" mentioned was either stolen or fabricated, given the "Zinoviev Letter" levels of panic that the media are attempting to generate around Momentum and anything vaguely Corbyn-flavoured.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2016)

I'll swear I remember a joke on tv or radio at the time remarking that the BBC had started broadcasting Russian lessons and did they know something that the rest of us didn't. 

My girlfriend of the time took a Russian degree. Perhaps that was highly unlikely, too.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 8, 2016)

The army was keen on russian speakers and students as well it has a fair few pashtun speakers now.
Knew one person wrangled a gaelic degree the rather suprious arguement was pira might try employing gaelic speakers as an unbreakable code


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Knew one person wrangled a gaelic degree the rather suprious arguement was pira might try employing gaelic speakers as an unbreakable code



_Now there's _someone who deserves to be in intelligence.


----------



## agricola (Feb 8, 2016)

likesfish said:


> The army was keen on russian speakers and students as well it has a fair few pashtun speakers now.
> Knew one person wrangled a gaelic degree the rather suprious arguement was pira might try employing gaelic speakers as an unbreakable code



The French did that at Dien Bien Phu with Breton-speakers, which the Yanks (who were listening in to the radio traffic of both sides) apparently thought was "an unknown Asian language".


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect that Burnham and Umunna are already stroking themselves off, fantasising about having the Kinnock role.


best they find out about the embarrassing pratfall they'll have to take then


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 8, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Momentum *can't* plan a "Militant-style takeover". Kinnock's rule changes, followed by Blair's, made sure of that. This is panic journalism, pure and simple - stir up the faithful against a (non-existent) threat.


Precisely. This 'Militant-style takeover' nonsense is wholly concocted in the sewer-like minds of the Torygraph et al (aka 'the free press').


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Precisely. This 'Militant-style takeover' nonsense is wholly concocted in the sewer-like minds of the Torygraph et al (aka 'the free press').



Given the _Telegraph's_ crap content, it really should be free.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 8, 2016)

agricola said:


> The French did that at Dien Bien Phu with Breton-speakers, which the Yanks (who were listening in to the radio traffic of both sides) apparently thought was "an unknown Asian language".




We tried that with are Scottish replacements the only problem being a southern regiment most people could just about understand them as long as they didnt get excited


----------



## J Ed (Feb 8, 2016)

Oh what does this sound like?

WOW. Before the "Bernie Bro," Clinton supporters created the "Obama boy." No, seriously.


----------



## youngian (Feb 9, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Precisely. This 'Militant-style takeover' nonsense is wholly concocted in the sewer-like minds of the Torygraph et al (aka 'the free press').


And tiresomely cliched already. Even Progress MPs can no longer be arsed to complain about Momentum being the new Militant because they aren't.


----------



## gosub (Feb 9, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Oh what does this sound like?
> 
> WOW. Before the "Bernie Bro," Clinton supporters created the "Obama boy." No, seriously.


A post in the wrong thread?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 9, 2016)

he's pointing out the comparisons with the attempts to call corbyn a massive sexist and the embarrasing 'vote for me just because I am a woman' tactic yvette coopers team played


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 9, 2016)

youngian said:


> And tiresomely cliched already. Even Progress MPs can no longer be arsed to complain about Momentum being the new Militant because they aren't.


Oh no, it has been so long since I was in the Labour Party that I had forgotten about Progress. I used to hate that propaganda group with a deep loathing and now am confronted with its continued existence. This on the same day that Andy Burnham is wittering about keeping Trident makes me wonder if even with Corbyn there is any hope for the  Labour Party.


----------



## youngian (Feb 9, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Oh no, it has been so long since I was in the Labour Party that I had forgotten about Progress. I used to hate that propaganda group with a deep loathing and now am confronted with its continued existence. This on the same day that Andy Burnham is wittering about keeping Trident makes me wonder if even with Corbyn there is any hope for the  Labour Party.


I don't see Corbyn (or any opposition leader) being able to frame a serious debate about Trident above the waffle of domestic political expediency ('we're tough, Corbyn wears sandals'). I doubt if Andy Burnham and many Labour MPs have any strong views about Trident renewal but have decided the issue isn't worth a bucket of spit. If the public want to spunk god knows how many billions on shiny toys to make them feel better than yield to it is the Labour pro-Trident line in private.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 9, 2016)

It isn't working, but they keep repeating it. This time it's Tom Blenkinsop, another non-entity. "Proscribe Momentum", he squeals. Jeez, they really want to turn Labour into a zombie party, don't they? Most parties would give their eye teeth - so to speak - for a membership surge but not this lot. Yet they'd happily welcome a Tory defector into their ranks than take anyone who's vaguely socialist.


> Backbench MP Tom Blenkinsop has urged party general secretary Iain McNicol to “proscribe” the organisation because some of its leading figures are former members of groups banned in the 1980s and 1990s.
> 
> Mr Blenkinsop, a former Opposition whip until Mr Corbyn took the helm, made his plea as he lambasted Momentum at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) on Monday night.
> 
> ...


----------



## coley (Feb 9, 2016)

youngian said:


> I don't see Corbyn (or any opposition leader) being able to frame a serious debate about Trident above the waffle of domestic political expediency ('we're tough, Corbyn wears sandals'). I doubt if Andy Burnham and many Labour MPs have any strong views about Trident renewal but have decided the issue isn't worth a bucket of spit. If the public want to spunk god knows how many billions on shiny toys to make them feel better than yield to it is the Labour pro-Trident line in private.



Fair point, but on another thread, is "Trident a viable military commitment" worth the left exploring that avenue?


----------



## NoXion (Feb 10, 2016)

Jack Straw to be 'denied knighthood and peerage' under Jeremy Corbyn

Boo fucking hoo. My heart bleeds.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 10, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Jack Straw to be 'denied knighthood and peerage' under Jeremy Corbyn
> 
> Boo fucking hoo. My heart bleeds.


It would have been a disgrace if he had been given a knighthood and peerage. But he is just the sort of unscrupulous Blue Labour lackey that usually gets such rewards.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 10, 2016)

Happy happy happy, joy joy joy.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 10, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It would have been a disgrace if he had been given a knighthood and peerage. But he is just the sort of unscrupulous Blue Labour lackey that usually gets such rewards.



it would be good to see Corbyn stick to this / not get bullied by the f*ckwits....the way a HoC committee "cleared " Straw + Rifkind of their blatant cash 4 questions farce was embrassing, Corbyn doing himself no harm quietly standing up to it / him .


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 10, 2016)

Sanders, Corbyn and "The Real World" 

Sanders, Corbyn And "The Real World"

(own piece)


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 13, 2016)

This latest absolutely horrific poll which has us more than ten points behind where bloody Miliband was at this stage.

New poll for IndyOnSunday/Sunday Mirror

Con 41% (+1)
Lab 27% (-2)
LD 9% (+2)	
UKIP 15% (-1)
Green 3% (NC)
SNP 5% (+1)
Other 1% (NC)

The independent on Sunday also has Corbyn's favourability equal with fucking Gove on -29.

Whose fault will the Corbynistas make it?

A) the media
B) the public
C) those that disagree with Corbyn
D) the pollster
E) all the above

It will not be Corbyn or the Corbynistas. There will be personal abuse rather than honest reflection.

Meanwhile the day when those in the Labour Party are the only ones that vote Labour gets closer. We are fast becoming a party that isn't even a credible party of opposition, let alone a party of government.


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This latest absolutely horrific poll which has *us* more than ten points behind where bloody Miliband was...
> 
> New poll for IndyOnSunday/Sunday Mirror
> 
> ...


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Meanwhile the day when those in the Labour Party are the only ones that vote Labour gets closer. We are fast becoming a party that isn't even a credible party of opposition, let alone a party of government.



I wouldn't worry - your concept of a credible party of opposition that stands for what the Government stands for (pro-war, pro-privatization, pro-PFI, pro-TTIP, pro appearing anti-immigrant, pro-Trident, pro-EU etc) is an absurd notion anyway.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 13, 2016)

agricola said:


> I wouldn't worry - your concept of a credible party of opposition that stands for what the Government stands for (pro-war, pro-privatization, pro-PFI, pro-TTIP, pro appearing anti-immigrant, pro-Trident, pro-EU etc) is an absurd notion anyway.



Meanwhile there is, as I've been saying, no check on the Tories. They know we can't win with Corbyn and those that really need a labour government - and I've listed our achievements before - suffer under the Tories. 

Hunt can destroy the nhs, because apparently there is no difference.

And the metropolitan elite sleep soundly because they're pure.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Hunt can destroy the nhs, because apparently there is no difference.



And how's that Corbyn's fault? It was your mates who lost the election, meaning that the tories can do what they fucking want.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 13, 2016)

"Don't worry" they say. And they mean it. They mean that they don't see a difference between the labour government and the coalition.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> And how's that Corbyn's fault? It was your mates who lost the election, meaning that the tories can do what they fucking want.


No, I shut up because of the demands for unity from the left backing miliband. And I shouldn't have. 

Now the Tories have no credible opposition they're not worried about being unpopular. Heavens, they're falling apart, on the verge of a split, and Corbyn has them stretching their lead. 

And you don't think it has anything to do with Corbyn? 

Exactly as I said "it won't be Corbyn's fault".


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This latest absolutely horrific poll which has us more than ten points behind where bloody Miliband was at this stage.
> 
> New poll for IndyOnSunday/Sunday Mirror
> 
> ...


no party with you as a member can claim to be credible


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> And how's that Corbyn's fault? It was your mates who lost the election, meaning that the tories can do what they fucking want.


So there is a difference now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I shut up because of the demands for unity from the left backing miliband. And I shouldn't have.
> 
> Now the Tories have no credible opposition they're not worried about being unpopular. Heavens, they're falling apart, on the verge of a split, and Corbyn has them stretching their lead.
> 
> ...


perhaps you should shut up on the basis that you'te a right wing shit with the political nous of sir jimmy savile's gravestone


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Now the Tories have no credible opposition they're not worried about being unpopular. Heavens, they're falling apart, on the verge of a split, and Corbyn has them stretching their lead.
> 
> And you don't think it has anything to do with Corbyn?



Labour weren't a credible opposition before Corbyn - even worse they were going along with a lot of the tory policies. 

Tories had decided they were going to privatize the nhs before even they won the election against *your* labour.

At least with Corbyn there's someone objecting to creeping privatization - your lot have joined in enthusiastically. Very little difference in *your* labour or conservatives as far as privatizing goes.

[/quote]Exactly as I said "it won't be Corbyn's fault".[/QUOTE]

Well no, tories destroying the nhs isn't Corbyn's fault. You're a liar if you say it is.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So there is a difference now?



Haha no because, as I said, it was *your* labour that lost the fucking election.


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 13, 2016)

You're a joke MarkyMarrk 

And an obvious troll. 

Nobody's this stupid, surely.


----------



## agricola (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Meanwhile there is, as I've been saying, no check on the Tories. They know we can't win with Corbyn and those that really need a labour government - and I've listed our achievements before - suffer under the Tories.
> 
> Hunt can destroy the nhs, because apparently there is no difference.
> 
> And the metropolitan elite sleep soundly because they're pure.



What "check on the Tories" are you proposing, though?  Mandleson getting that EU Commissioner job instead of Patten?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Now the Tories have no credible opposition they're not worried about being unpopular. *Heavens, they're falling apart, on the verge of a split*, and Corbyn has them stretching their lead.


(I don't really no why I'm bothering but) what the fuck. Are you living in a parallel universe? Over the last few weeks we've had a number of supposedly Eurosceptic ministers fall back and either support in IN campaign or say that they basically intend to  stand aside of the campaign.

The idea that they are on the verge of a split is mad, who are these possible splitters?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Exactly as I said "it won't be Corbyn's fault".



Well at least you're now not just uncritically posting up  crap links that you don't realize say the opposite of what you're claiming. You're being dishonest again, though. Your "it won't be Corbyn's fault" was talking about the poll results. My point was specific and about the nhs. 

And you pretend you're the one being honest. A true Blairite.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Whose fault will the Corbynistas make it?
> 
> ...
> 
> It will not be Corbyn or the Corbynistas. There will be personal abuse rather than honest reflection...



FUCK OFF CUNT!

Five minutes trapped in a lift with you would convert Liz Kendall into a Corbynista


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 14, 2016)

Hunt wouldn't dare to act the way he is if Andy Burnham was leader of the opposition.


----------



## gosub (Feb 14, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> (I don't really no why I'm bothering but) what the fuck. Are you living in a parallel universe? Over the last few weeks we've had a number of supposedly Eurosceptic ministers fall back and either support in IN campaign or say that they basically intend to  stand aside of the campaign.
> 
> The idea that they are on the verge of a split is mad, who are these possible splitters?


On the tory side quite a few, on the Labour side..... Hopefuly Corbyn.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

Everything I predicted in response including a lack of concern about being incredibly unpopular with the public.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 14, 2016)

If you _actually cared_ like you make out you do, I think you'd at least argue other posters points - you'd have some passion possibly. You mentioned in a past post that you supposedly care about the NHS, housing, benefits, etc. yet you've barely posted on any of the many threads on these issues and instead concentrated on just regurgitating the same old on this one thread about it being 'Corbyns fault' when the reality is that Labour centre and Labour right have been doing shit for years now whilst they follow the Tories policy for policy almost.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> If you _actually cared_ like you make out you do, I think you'd at least argue other posters points - you'd have some passion possibly. You mentioned in a past post that you supposedly care about the NHS, housing, benefits, etc. yet you've barely posted on any of the many threads on these issues and instead concentrated on just regurgitating the same old on this one thread about it being 'Corbyns fault' when the reality is that Labour centre and Labour right have been doing shit for years now whilst they follow the Tories policy for policy almost.


This being the same as the Tories line only washes of you think that we'd be doing what Hunt is doing, if you think the Tories would have doubled real terms spending on education, introduced the minimum wage, and so on (see unthread). It's a tiresome excuse for adopting a pure but unelectable position.

I have no doubt Corbynistas care passionately about these things. It's just that they are more interested in adopting positions that show they care passionately than they are about appealing to the electorate, getting elected and actually doing anything. Because they don't care about appealing to the electorate, and hence don't care particularly about being elected, they allow the Tories to take ever more extreme right wing positions. It's the Tories and the Corbynistas that don't care about actually making a difference to ordinary people.

Do you agree with the Corbynistas that they should ignore the electorate and carry on regardless of popularity?


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 14, 2016)

You're doing it again   Just fucking argue _for something_, for _things you care about_, for _things you believe in_ socially and politically. Not this empty nonsense.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2016)

thats a good point actually. Marky argues a lot about winning yet the labour he'd see elected would be doing the same things. So in essence its just a game to him. Football, nothing more


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> You're doing it again   Just fucking argue _for something_, for _things you care about_, for _things you believe in_ socially and politically. Not this empty nonsense.


So you avoid the question. 
I will happily do that, but not while ignoring the electorate and trying to get us elected. Incidentally, I've noticed our newer Corbynistas don't bother actually doing anything except coming to meetings and voting - not arguing - for what they believe in. It seems to be the new line.

"We believe this and argue it more passionately than you. Because we're so passionate we won't compromise and sod the electorate"

Which is breaking the party.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats a good point actually. Marky argues a lot about winning yet the labour he'd see elected would be doing the same things. So in essence its just a game to him. Football, nothing more



This is nonsense. But it's a good way to change the subject from how Corbyn is driving the electorate away from us.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This is nonsense. But it's a good way to change the subject from how Corbyn is driving the electorate away from us.


its the truth and you know it. Your political convictions are driven by a desire for victory _not _the limited gains we as a class could make through electoral politics. Why else would you want to elect a labour led from its right wing? Thats why you're posting labour-right whining articles so often. Thats a poor showing in that poll, but if recent years have shown us anything its that polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. And history overall shows us how a year is a long time in politics etc.
I still think the labour right will oust corbyn before the GE regardless, possibly after the eu reff.


----------



## tommers (Feb 14, 2016)

.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> its the truth and you know it. Your political convictions are driven by a desire for victory _not _the limited gains we as a class could make through electoral politics. Why else would you want to elect a labour led from its right wing? Thats why you're posting labour-right whining articles so often. Thats a poor showing in that poll, but if recent years have shown us anything its that polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. And history overall shows us how a year is a long time in politics etc.
> I still think the labour right will oust corbyn before the GE regardless, possibly after the eu reff.



I don't think the moderates will remove him prior to the GE. And even if they do, the far left are now a majority - though I hear the moderates are doing well with delegates to conference.

There are suggestions that he will quit realising that the Tories have a free run with him in, which is more self-aware than his supporters are. Jeremy Corbyn will quit as Labour leader by 2020,  warns GMB leader

At least on here there is not the suggestion that by uniting behind these unpopular policies we might make them more popular. Yet. There was earlier in the thread.

But if you're a Corbyn supporter, what is your explanation of this fact (I presume it will exonerate yourself): February 2016, 9 months after a General Election: CON 42 LAB 27 February 2011, 9 months after a General Election: CON 36 LAB 42. A record low since 2010.

It gets worse - only 12% of OUR VOTERS view McDonnell positively, there has been NO MOVEMENT in Scotland despite that being the big hope of the Corbynistas.

I haven't seen any 'well this poll must be wrong because we are popular' nonsense positions on here with this one. Yet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Everything I predicted in response including a lack of concern about being incredibly unpopular with the public.


it's not just the publick you're incredibly unpopular with


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I don't think the moderates will remove him prior to the GE. And even if they do, the far left are now a majority - though I hear the moderates are doing well with delegates to conference.
> 
> There are suggestions that he will quit realising that the Tories have a free run with him in, which is more self-aware than his supporters are. Jeremy Corbyn will quit as Labour leader by 2020,  warns GMB leader
> 
> ...


dky you describe right wing shits as moderates


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> But if you're a Corbyn supporter


I'm not. Social democracy isn't enough. He's good for the labour left though and social democracy gives crumbs from the table rather than a big bowl of shit, so I wish him well although labour don't have my vote.


MarkyMarrk said:


> there has been NO MOVEMENT in Scotland despite that being the big hope of the Corbynistas.


was it? I could have told them they were on a hiding to nothing with that. Labours long since pissed its chips up there.

As for the polls, well, like I say, years a long time, polls can be skewed, methodologies can be faulty. I'm no statitician but we've seen how things can go wrong. remains to be seen wether poll this or labour right whiner article that translates into losses for labour in may. We shall see.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not. Social democracy isn't enough. He's good for the labour left though and social democracy gives crumbs from the table rather than a big bowl of shit, so I wish him well although labour don't have my vote.
> 
> was it? I could have told them they were on a hiding to nothing with that. Labours long since pissed its chips up there.
> 
> As for the polls, well, like I say, years a long time, polls can be skewed, methodologies can be faulty. I'm no statitician but we've seen how things can go wrong. remains to be seen wether poll this or labour right whiner article that translates into losses for labour in may. We shall see.



So he's appealing to you even though he can't win your vote. And you represent an exceptionally tiny percentage of the population (most non-voters are right of where Labour were last election). Therefore Labour is more irrelevant as it moves further left.

I genuinely think my party is at risk of becoming less effective than even a 'permanent party of opposition'. The narrative from the far left now is "well that doesn't matter because they were Tories anyway". Ignoring those that really need a Labour government from their Islington ivory towers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So he's appealing to you even though he can't win your vote. And you represent an exceptionally tiny percentage of the population (most non-voters are right of where Labour were last election). Therefore Labour is more irrelevant as it moves further left.
> 
> I genuinely think my party is at risk of becoming less effective than even a 'permanent party of opposition'. The narrative from the far left now is "well that doesn't matter because they were Tories anyway". Ignoring those that really need a Labour government from their Islington ivory towers.


the more irrelevant labour become the more suited you are as a member


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So he's appealing to you even though he can't win your vote. And you represent an exceptionally tiny percentage of the population (*most non-voters are right of where Labour were last election)*. Therefore Labour is irrelevant.
> 
> I genuinely think my party is at risk of becoming less effective than even a 'permanent party of opposition'. The narrative from the far left now is "well that doesn't matter because they were Tories anyway". Implicitly, they're saying the electorate are implacable Tories, which I don't believe.


a bold assertion?


MarkyMarrk said:


> Implicitly, they're saying the electorate are implacable Tories, which I don't believe.


an implication you have drawn which has no basis in fact mark. The 'far left' you speak of aren't btw. If you think old school labour leftism is far left then god knows where in the spectrum you'd have the CPB or CW.



> he's appealing to you even though he can't win your vote


as a decent bloke, yes. I've said all along he's a good man in a bad car but he's utterly labour loyal so either he returns the party to its- electorally sucsesful- social democratic roots or he gets chucked under the bus by his enemies in the PLP. I know which seems more likely from where I am sat


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> a bold assertion?



Every study of worth (i.e. with decent methodology) has shown that non-voters are very close to the positions of voters, to a surprising extent, and this includes at the last election. I read about this both before and after the last election and I can't find it now, but I think I've linked to it upthread somewhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Every study of worth (i.e. with decent methodology) has shown that non-voters are very close to the positions of voters, to a surprising extent, and this includes at the last election. I read about this both before and after the last election and I can't find it now, but I think I've linked to it upthread somewhere.


name some of these studies and describe this 'decent' methodology


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I don't think the moderates will remove him prior to the GE. And even if they do, the far left are now a majority - though I hear the moderates are doing well with delegates to conference.


They're not 'moderates' and Corbyn isn't 'far left'. This is how far the so-called centre has shifted. The problem with you and those who spout this shite is that you're unable or unwilling to see how far to the right the range _permitted_ political discourse has shifted over the course of 20+ years. Anything that looks or sounds vaguely left-wing is denied a space, shouted down, belittled or denigrated. Bourdieu calls this 'symbolic violence' and you're quite happy to engage in your own form of symbolic violence on this comments thread. You're like one of the guards at the death camps.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> They're not 'moderates' and Corbyn isn't 'far left'. This is how far the so-called centre has shifted. The problem with you and those who spout this shite is that you're unable or unwilling to see how far to the right the range _permitted_ political discourse has shifted over the course of 20+ years. Anything that looks or sounds vaguely left-wing is denied a space, shouted down, belittled or denigrated. Bourdieu calls this 'symbolic violence' and you're quite happy to engage in your own form of symbolic violence on this comments thread. You're like one of the guards at the death camps.


yeh but without their wit and charm


----------



## 8den (Feb 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Look at this brilliant piece on Corbyn and the NHS.
> 
> The National Health Service Is Our Best Asset - Jeremy Corbyn MP
> 
> Isn't it brilliant? There's a brilliant piece on TTIP, too. Read it all, it's brilliant. Whoever wrote that was brilliant. Not a twat at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Every study of worth (i.e. with decent methodology) has shown that non-voters are very close to the positions of voters, to a surprising extent, and this includes at the last election. I read about this both before and after the last election and I can't find it now, but I think I've linked to it upthread somewhere.


I would be interested to see such research. I'd hope that rather than simply showing non-voter/voter positions matching closely it would also break down the motivations for abstainers. Because there are many many differing reasons for not voting and I think that context would be useful.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

The death camps?
Discourse moves so far that the public are right wing shits and the tiny extra- parliamentary left are the normals.
This is crazy. Sad thing is if you're writing it, you're lunatic enough to believe it.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 14, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I would be interested to see such research. I'd hope that rather than simply showing non-voter/voter positions matching closely it would also break down the motivations for abstainers. Because there are many many differing reasons for not voting and I think that context would be useful.


Interesting to see you try to dismiss the conclusions in advance. No-one bothered to comment on it whenever it was I posted it.


----------



## 8den (Feb 14, 2016)

One would wonder if this study is so well recognised and established why politicians and parties waste time energy and effort convincing undecided voters if it's as wildly regarded as a waste


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Interesting to see you try to dismiss the conclusions in advance. No-one bothered to comment on it whenever it was I posted it.


show which part of my post counts as a dismissal of this research? Its very important to identify why non voter don't vote, national, local, tactical. When Louise Mensch bailed on Corby causing a by election in the marginal seat a good portion the con vote stayed home out of disgust. The tories got that seat back later of course, the gerrymandered corby is weighted in favour of con voters.

So you can see why its important to establish motivations for abstention. They can vary from person to person and from election to election.


----------



## 8den (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Interesting to see you try to dismiss the conclusions in advance. No-one bothered to comment on it whenever it was I posted it.



I know I'm on ignore but no one is dismissing the research in advance they're asking to see it you simple minded ding bat


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Feb 14, 2016)

Markymark's bollocks notwithstanding things don't look great so far.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The death camps?
> Discourse moves so far that the public are right wing shits and the tiny extra- parliamentary left are the normals.
> This is crazy. Sad thing is if you're writing it, you're lunatic enough to believe it.


You could have replied to me directly but you're a coward and a prima donna. You're in denial about the how far political discourse has travelled rightwards. You're also more than happy to deny a space for the articulation of counter-hegemonic discourses. That makes you little better than a death camp guard. Franco would have loved you.

But your reply, somewhat characteristically, deliberately misrepresents and distorts. Tell me: do you know what a straw man argument is?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Interesting to see you try to dismiss the conclusions in advance. No-one bothered to comment on it whenever it was I posted it.


Interesting to see that you're still posting flawed polling to confirm your biases.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Meanwhile there is, as I've been saying, no check on the Tories. They know we can't win with Corbyn and those that really need a labour government - and I've listed our achievements before - suffer under the Tories.
> 
> Hunt can destroy the nhs, because apparently there is no difference.
> 
> And the metropolitan elite sleep soundly because they're pure.



Always fun to see a private-schooled Oxbridge grad giving it some about "elites".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I shut up because of the demands for unity from the left backing miliband. And I shouldn't have.
> 
> Now the Tories have no credible opposition they're not worried about being unpopular. Heavens, they're falling apart, on the verge of a split, and Corbyn has them stretching their lead.
> 
> ...



"The left" of what? The unions elected Miliband, and they're about as "left" as your right testicle.
If you're going to make claims, at least base them on facts rather than cant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Labour weren't a credible opposition before Corbyn - even worse they were going along with a lot of the tory policies.
> 
> Tories had decided they were going to privatize the nhs before even they won the election against *your* labour.
> 
> ...



Tories like James Purnell, Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Jack Straw and a host of other neoliberal "new" Labour pus-suckers, who picked up the NHS privatisation ball, and ran with it - some making some extra-curricular wonga from the very companies they smarmed.
Blair, Brown and their coteries had plenty of chances to nullify the moves Thatcher and Major had made to create the internal market in the NHS, and reverse the privatisation of ancillary functions, but they didn't, because their faith in "the market" was and is just as strong as the faith of the Conservative governments. Anyone supporting "the _maquis"_/"sensible Labour" is a crypto-Conservative, and is aware of the fact.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2016)

its one you have to keep reminding yourself of given the orthodoxy on the economic front has been so normalised. These people are not far off doing a rand and deifying the 'free' market. Dingbats.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 14, 2016)

"Credible opposition" in MM's view is acquiescence and pusillanimity. In other words, token opposition with the continuation of symbolic violence in the public sphere of debate; the rigged political game that limits discourse and imprisons the minds of much of the public.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This being the same as the Tories line only washes of you think that we'd be doing what Hunt is doing, if you think the Tories would have doubled real terms spending on education, introduced the minimum wage, and so on (see unthread). It's a tiresome excuse for adopting a pure but unelectable position.



How long do you think that you can shore up your political position through referencing policies that took place a generation ago?
How long before someone says "that 'real terms' spending on education, a lot of that was on infrastructure, not on the students"?
Your spew out cant like you're dropping pearls of wisdom. There's nothing wise about them.



> I have no doubt Corbynistas care passionately about these things. It's just that they are more interested in adopting positions that show they care passionately than they are about appealing to the electorate, getting elected and actually doing anything. Because they don't care about appealing to the electorate, and hence don't care particularly about being elected, they allow the Tories to take ever more extreme right wing positions. It's the Tories and the Corbynistas that don't care about actually making a difference to ordinary people.
> 
> Do you agree with the Corbynistas that they should ignore the electorate and carry on regardless of popularity?



The problem for anyone actually interested in the Labour Party being the party of Labour, is that your - i.e. the right of the party - entire approach is to mimic the Tory position, but to put a presentational spin - a garnish - on the shit sandwich you're trying to persuade us to eat.
Corbyn at least proposes some moderately social-democratic ideas. Your side, all they've done so far is piss and moan about how unfair Party democracy is, and cuss off their party leader because they wanted to be the one on the footplate, not some superannuated lefty who doesn't love big business.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> "We believe this and argue it more passionately than you. Because we're so passionate we won't compromise and sod the electorate"



If you were characterising a party that practiced democratic centralism, you might have a point above.
As you're characterising a party that practices direct democracy - currently - your characterisation is rubbish, and even if it were accurate, the issue is easily solvable. Have your "sensible Labour" MPs undertake a membership drive, punting their ideas to the general public - the electorate. What better way to show the power of their vision?
Except that we both know that such a drive would serve only to point out that your people *have nothing* to sell, and that your incessant whining about how Corbyn's people ignore the electorate is a cover for the intellectual and ideological vacancy that is "the moderates"/"sensible Labour".


----------



## two sheds (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> No, I shut up because of the demands for unity from the left backing miliband. And I shouldn't have.





MarkyMarrk said:


> I've noticed our newer Corbynistas don't bother actually doing anything except coming to meetings and voting - not arguing - for what they believe in. It seems to be the new line.



Ahh clues as to the bitterness - the new members won't listen to you and you're no longer getting the respect you feel you richly deserve as a long-term Blairite  .  

Are you really surprised they won't talk to you if your way of discussing  is the one you've taken here - sneering instead of addressing points people make? 

What are the motions these new members are voting for, by the way?


----------



## Knotted (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Interesting to see you try to dismiss the conclusions in advance. No-one bothered to comment on it whenever it was I posted it.



I've found where you've posted a link to an article (not the poll itself btw) which discusses a TUC funded poll which asks former former Labour supporters and others who have switched their support and non-voters about the pros and cons of voting Labour (among other things). And the replies are basically text book pros and cons of voting for a center left party. Pros - Labour are on the side of ordinary working people and will improve the NHS, cons - they would spend too much and can't be trusted on the economy, they would make it too easy for people living on benefits.

Non of this suprises me. The author of your article only quotes the cons and concludes from this single result that voters and non voters both question Labour competence in government (ie. Blair and Brown's governments). If you read him carefully he refrains from saying that non-voters have the same overall views as voters. And indeed the statistics hint at rather complex picture where roughly speaking the public are well "to the right" of Labour on welfare and immigration and well "to the left" of Labour in terms of taxing the rich, not bailing out bankers, education, health and investing in the economy. But note - a lot of people were plumbing for "don't know" options.

You should always note that it is especially hard to tell where non-voters stand as there are plenty of people who genuinely don't know and don't care when it comes to politics in general and westminister politics in particular. They aren't likely to be wasting their time with polls like this and are always going to be under represented.

I would just like to add that as somebody who used to be in a left wing party that had locally limited but successfully won over many non-voters, that these are our people, the people that we should be listening to. Sure, they aren't an army of potential Corbyn voters but dismissing them as a particular part of the political spectrum is both ridiculous and patronising. If polls tell us anything it is that people in general do not fit comfortably on a political spectrum. This blather about Corbyn being too left wing is getting tedious. To be sure, not many people share his politics but then not many people share the politics of Tony Blair or any centrist politician you care to name.


----------



## Knotted (Feb 14, 2016)

Another little thing on this "only the labour right know how to be elected" theme. I was watching Prime Ministers question time. I don't often do this, but anyway Corbyn was asking about the housing crisis and Cameron batted him back not by making out that he was some loony left but by going through Labour's own abysmal record. As far as I am aware this is standard. Opposition question the government, government point out that opposition are just as shit, conclusion - the country has to live with a shit government. At the level of westminister rhetoric, nothing has changed since Corbyn won the leadership. Corbyn is scared of his own shadow at times, especially when it comes to workers rights. He's made barely a squeak about the BMA strike. And Corbyn is tied to the reputation of previous Labour governments - a fact Cameron hammers him on. A more right wing leader will have exactly the same problems holding the government to account and will have even more difficulty overcoming such problems.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> Markymark's bollocks notwithstanding things don't look great so far.


yeh well nine months into a five year stretch of cameron that's understandable. and they'll get worse.


----------



## 8den (Feb 14, 2016)

Knotted said:


> I've found where you've posted a link to an article (not the poll itself btw) which discusses a TUC funded poll which asks former former Labour supporters and others who have switched their support and non-voters about the pros and cons of voting Labour (among other things). And the replies are basically text book pros and cons of voting for a center left party. Pros - Labour are on the side of ordinary working people and will improve the NHS, cons - they would spend too much and can't be trusted on the economy, they would make it too easy for people living on benefits.
> 
> Non of this suprises me. The author of your article only quotes the cons and concludes from this single result that voters and non voters both question Labour competence in government (ie. Blair and Brown's governments). If you read him carefully he refrains from saying that non-voters have the same overall views as voters. And indeed the statistics hint at rather complex picture where roughly speaking the public are well "to the right" of Labour on welfare and immigration and well "to the left" of Labour in terms of taxing the rich, not bailing out bankers, education, health and investing in the economy. But note - a lot of people were plumbing for "don't know" options.
> 
> ...



That is way more thoughtful a response than Walberg deserves. 


Seeing as MM is staunchly blairist perhaps we can start referring to the centre right wing of the party as "the funky bunch?"


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 14, 2016)

Knotted said:


> To be sure, not many people share his politics but then not many people share the politics of Tony Blair or any centrist politician you care to name.



Yes. The initial New Labour strategy, essentially trying to be about an inch left of the Tories, relied on most people to the left of that point voting for them on a 'least worst' option. And to be fair it worked for quite a while, as an electoral strategy at least. That's now totally gone in Scotland, and looking increasingly untenable in England and Wales too. Rather than address it though, even as a very cynical electoral strategy approach, they seem to be trying to convince themselves there's a huge number of people just dying to vote for a Burnham or a Cooper (or Ummunna or Hunt) despite not being able to articulate what they're actually for.


----------



## killer b (Feb 14, 2016)

Stop letting these two wankers shit up poltics ffs.


----------



## YouSir (Feb 14, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes. The initial New Labour strategy, essentially trying to be about an inch left of the Tories, relied on most people to the left of that point voting for them on a 'least worst' option. And to be fair it worked for quite a while, as an electoral strategy at least. That's now totally gone in Scotland, and looking increasingly untenable in England and Wales too. Rather than address it though, even as a very cynical electoral strategy approach, they seem to be trying to convince themselves there's a huge number of people just dying to vote for a Burnham or a Cooper (or Ummunna or Hunt) despite not being able to articulate what they're actually for.



They're for moderate change and sensible progress. And winning votes, that too. I don't see what's not crystal clear about that as a political position...


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2016)

Greasy Boiler said:


> Markymark's bollocks notwithstanding things don't look great so far.


They don't, though first of all we need to be sure we are comparing like with like, were the two polls MM quoted performed using the same methodology? I couldn't find anything on UKPR.

That said I think Labour probably are "behind" where they were in the last electoral cycle. There are a number of reasons for that, killer b has gone through some of them on this thread, loss of the Scottish vote (which I don't believe anyone thought would be brought back in nine months - it's going to take years for Labour to rebuild in Scotland), massive propaganda war against Corbyn, the coalition having a very bad period in 2011, etc.

I don't think Labour are doing great but I don't see any evidence that if Cooper, Burnham or Kendell were leader they would be doing any better.


----------



## Greasy Boiler (Feb 14, 2016)

Yeah, apparently it didn't include first-time voters or people who didn't vote last time since the pollsters are now all worried about potentially over-representing labour support.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This being the same as the Tories line only washes of you think that we'd be doing what Hunt is doing, if you think the Tories would have doubled real terms spending on education, introduced the minimum wage, and so on (see unthread). It's a tiresome excuse for adopting a pure but unelectable position.
> 
> I have no doubt Corbynistas care passionately about these things. It's just that they are more interested in adopting positions that show they care passionately than they are about appealing to the electorate, getting elected and actually doing anything. Because they don't care about appealing to the electorate, and hence don't care particularly about being elected, they allow the Tories to take ever more extreme right wing positions. It's the Tories and the Corbynistas that don't care about actually making a difference to ordinary people.
> 
> Do you agree with the Corbynistas that they should ignore the electorate and carry on regardless of popularity?



They should marshal their arguments and explain them to the electorate. Politics should not be about appeasing prejudices, particularly those of the media, but about presenting a coherent set of policies and winning support for them.

If you have a coherent agenda that can be differentiated from that of the Tories and the current Labour leadership, you should do the same here,  rather than just whinge.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> Stop letting these two wankers shit up poltics ffs.



How? Just ignoring them means we'll get a thread that is 75% full of childish 'look at this article it's brilliant you're all stupid Corbynistas he's never going to get elected did I mention that you're all stupid Corbynistas why don't you agree with me?'


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 15, 2016)

So the Labour Party leadership have decided that CLPs should not debate Europe. We should campaign to stay in. Decided for us.

I'm actually really torn as to whether this is a good thing or not. However, it's not going to play well in the media, and the way its been revealed is shambolic. Again.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So the Labour Party leadership have decided that CLPs should not debate Europe. We should campaign to stay in. Decided for us.


They haven't. And you were going to anyway. And as if you exist.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 15, 2016)

two sheds said:


> What are the motions these new members are voting for, by the way?



MarkyMarrk


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Feb 15, 2016)

A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times 
I give up.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times
> I give up.


You never started. The idea that you are or ever were a labour party member is laughable.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 16, 2016)

There was never 'join us' and 'I give up'. This is all a charade.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times
> I give up.


There are 1000s of paedos in your party btw - most of them when blair was in charge.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times
> I give up.


First Robert Webb, now Markymark. What will Labour do without these Oxbridge graduates?

Incidentally, I'm not sure why my CLP is campaigning to stay in the EU. As far as I'm aware this hasn't been decided by members, and nor has it been imposed on the CLP from above.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> So the Labour Party leadership have decided that CLPs should not debate Europe. We should campaign to stay in. Decided for us.
> 
> I'm actually really torn as to whether this is a good thing or not. However, it's not going to play well in the media, and the way its been revealed is shambolic. Again.


My heart bleeds for you.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times
> I give up.


You'll believe any old shite that's been printed in the Murdoch press, won't you? Did it ever occur to you to try and corroborate the story from other sources? No, of course not.

The story only appears in The Times and The Daily Heil. Funny that.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times I give up.



Showing exactly why the thread was started. The piece says he's "understood" to have joined since Corbyn. They don't even know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I give up.


if only that wasn't just another of your litany of lies.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Showing exactly why the thread was started. The piece says he's "understood" to have joined since Corbyn. They don't even know.


been waiting for the peed smear. They've hoyed everything but the kitchen sink at him so far so it was on;ly a matter of time before a tenuos peed link was attempted


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2016)

mk12 said:


> First Robert Webb, now Markymark. What will Labour do without these Oxbridge graduates?
> 
> Incidentally, I'm not sure why my CLP is campaigning to stay in the EU. As far as I'm aware this hasn't been decided by members, and nor has it been imposed on the CLP from above.


Because teacher(s) knows best.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2016)

mk12 said:


> First Robert Webb, now Markymark. What will Labour do without these Oxbridge graduates?
> 
> Incidentally, I'm not sure why my CLP is campaigning to stay in the EU. As far as I'm aware this hasn't been decided by members, and nor has it been imposed on the CLP from above.



Oxbridge my distended rectum. Markymarkk comes across more like the product of a minor northern university, resenting having gone there (like it makes much difference to the quality of the *education* you get), and that people haven't recognised his brilliance, and he should have got into Oxbridge, damn it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Because teacher(s) knows best.



That's flimsy. You'll have to do better than that to ern my respect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's flimsy. You'll have to do better than that to ern my respect.


that's _flimsier_ surely.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> that's _flimsier_ surely.



Of course, but I was using the diminutive of his former username on the grounds that he really hated it. Subtlety and venom, all in one package.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oxbridge my distended rectum. Markymarkk comes across more like the product of a minor northern university, resenting having gone there (like it makes much difference to the quality of the *education* you get), and that people haven't recognised his brilliance, and he should have got into Oxbridge, damn it!



Surely he's just a poorly drawn character; I wouldn't want to speculate on the actual author's autobiography...save to say that if they have a degree from anywhere that required research and writing skills, they've shown little evidence of it here.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oxbridge my distended rectum. Markymarkk comes across more like the product of a minor northern university, resenting having gone there (like it makes much difference to the quality of the *education* you get), and that people haven't recognised his brilliance, and he should have got into Oxbridge, damn it!


armed police met him at the outskirts of both oxford and cambridge and turned him back.


----------



## Knotted (Feb 16, 2016)

This is some proper toss. In years to come toss collectors (tossilatelists) will rever this as a little known but nevertheless legendary small nugget of toss. A must have for any serious collector. Toss of an early Corbyn era vintage, with a full body of lazy pretence. Nice. It will have its own small but special place in toss hell. And to think - most people now will think that it's just pure worthless filller.

Here's how game theory shows why Jeremy Corbyn will be Labour leader for a long time


----------



## teqniq (Feb 16, 2016)

I lost the will to live under halfway through that.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 23, 2016)

With the right-wing press now starting to turn all their attention to the EU referendum, and especially the battle of in vs out in the Tory party (the Mail already playing off Dave against Boris this morning) this looks like it could be a quiet spell for Corbyn & Co.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times
> I give up.


sadly another lie.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 23, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> With the right-wing press now starting to turn all their attention to the EU referendum, and especially the battle of in vs out in the Tory party (the Mail already playing off Dave against Boris this morning) this looks like it could be a quiet spell for Corbyn & Co.



The blue team are still finding the time to do top bantz on Corbo...


----------



## kebabking (Feb 23, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The blue team are still finding the time to do top bantz on Corbo...




much smirking and chewing of lips from his front bench team i see...


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 23, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> With the right-wing press now starting to turn all their attention to the EU referendum, and especially the battle of in vs out in the Tory party (the Mail already playing off Dave against Boris this morning) this looks like it could be a quiet spell for Corbyn & Co.


[footballing metaphor] He's being presented with a few open goals. He needs to starting putting the ball in the back of the net. [/footballing metaphor]


----------



## J Ed (Feb 23, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The blue team are still finding the time to do top bantz on Corbo...




Perhaps there is something missing from my brain that is present in the brains of others but I found that particular spectacle absolutely pathetic rather than funny or witty in any way, if these were people who I sided with in any way it would make me feel ashamed, yet Tories are posting it up on social media as evidence of some sort of victory. I just don't get it, they look pathetic, even primary school children know how to behave better than that.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Perhaps there is something missing from my brain that is present in the brains of others but I found that particular spectacle absolutely pathetic rather than funny or witty in any way, if these were people who I sided with in any way it would make me feel ashamed, yet Tories are posting it up on social media as evidence of some sort of victory. I just don't get it, they look pathetic, even primary school children know how to behave better than that.



the joke was funny - whether it was funny enough to warrant hyperventilation and turning puce is another issue, but it was funny, and the fact that Corbyn was all po-faced about it while his _colleagues_ were trying hard not to laugh made it much funnier.


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 24, 2016)

Asked question by Labour MP regarding his own mother signing petition against government cuts, Cameron responds by saying she'd tell Corbyn to put a proper suit on and sing the national anthem.

And the media seem to be viewing this as a win for Cameron?

What?


----------



## J Ed (Feb 24, 2016)

The Octagon said:


> Asked question by Labour MP regarding his own mother signing petition against government cuts, Cameron responds by saying she'd tell Corbyn to put a proper suit on and sing the national anthem.
> 
> And the media seem to be viewing this as a win for Cameron?
> 
> What?



...and the elites think that _we _are the stupid ones.


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2016)

The Octagon said:


> Asked question by Labour MP regarding his own mother signing petition against government cuts, Cameron responds by saying she'd tell Corbyn to put a proper suit on and sing the national anthem.
> 
> And the media seem to be viewing this as a win for Cameron?
> 
> What?


A loss for parliamentary democracy surely , PMQ's now at your momma... level


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2016)

loads of new Jeremy Corbyn branded products available from the labour party shop! Check this shit out - it's almost as bad as the graun's t-shirt shop. Depressing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> loads of new Jeremy Corbyn branded products available from the labour party shop! Check this shit out - it's almost as bad as the graun's t-shirt shop. Depressing.


yeh if anyone can hold down more than a pint drunk from one of those i will be astonished.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2016)

sixteen quid for a plain red t-shirt with a slogan on it seems a little bit milking it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

those should just say 'mug' on them because that's what anyone who sees them will think.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 24, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Perhaps there is something missing from my brain that is present in the brains of others but I found that particular spectacle absolutely pathetic rather than funny or witty in any way, if these were people who I sided with in any way it would make me feel ashamed, yet Tories are posting it up on social media as evidence of some sort of victory. I just don't get it, they look pathetic, even primary school children know how to behave better than that.



Watching it confirms what I already thought about the tory vermin: they are a disease, a cancer, a virus, a malignant tumor. I feel dirty just sharing the same biosphere as these scum.


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> loads of new Jeremy Corbyn branded products available from the labour party shop! Check this shit out - it's almost as bad as the graun's t-shirt shop. Depressing.



odd product given Corbyn doesn't drink alcohol


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2016)

I'd imagine an appreciation of real ale is a strong current running through the type of people who might buy JC merchandise though. It'll probably sell very well. That's what's depressing.


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'd imagine an appreciation of real ale is a strong current running through the type of people who might buy JC merchandise though. It'll probably sell very well. That's what's depressing.


Who buys pint glasses?  They magically appear in your home when you have a hangover.  (my best guess anyway)


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> odd product given Corbyn doesn't drink alcohol


you don't have to put alcohol in a pint glass. You can have tea, or coke (no ice you gougers I know the tricks)


----------



## gosub (Feb 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you don't have to put alcohol in a pint glass. You can have tea, or coke (no ice you gougers I know the tricks)



tea in a dimpled pint pot.   Not those ones, you'd burn your hand.  Pint of coke -yuk


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 24, 2016)

gosub said:


> tea in a dimpled pint pot.   Not those ones, you'd burn your hand.  Pint of coke -yuk



Soda water and lime more likely.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 24, 2016)

kebabking said:


> the joke was funny - whether it was funny enough to warrant hyperventilation and turning puce is another issue, but it was funny, and the fact that Corbyn was all po-faced about it while his _colleagues_ were trying hard not to laugh made it much funnier.



If the Labour benches had pissed themselves over a crap joke like school kids when Hamhead was speaking, Bercow would have cracked heads & it'd have been all over the BBC & in the right wing rags as disrespectful. Same auld Tory shite.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 24, 2016)

Christ jezza - enough with the "not sinking to his level" saintliness - he should have come back with "was the prime minister wearing a posh suit and singing the national anthem when he fucked that pig?"


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 25, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Christ jezza - enough with the "not sinking to his level" saintliness - he should have come back with "was the prime minister wearing a posh suit and singing the national anthem when he fucked that pig?"



I'm glad David Cameron is giving out fashion tips. He is such a style icon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2016)

Kaka Tim said:


> Christ jezza - enough with the "not sinking to his level" saintliness - he should have come back with "was the prime minister wearing a posh suit and singing the national anthem when he fucked that pig?"


i think 'fucked' is 'unparliamentary language': so, was he wearing a posh suit and singing the national anthem when he had coitus with that pig's head. to which the answer is probably 'yes'.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 25, 2016)

"relations not befitting a member of the house"


----------



## teqniq (Feb 29, 2016)

Yanis Varoufakis will advise Labour, Jeremy Corbyn confirms


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 29, 2016)

Not too sure whether to go  or  at the above (  )


----------



## teqniq (Mar 2, 2016)

Rentoul puts the boot in, again.

Corbyn is now being advised by a Greek biker and a Marxist hack


----------



## J Ed (Mar 4, 2016)

Harriet Harman hits out at Corbyn's support for decriminalised sex work

Pretty predictable behaviour from neoliberal Labour PLP members here.


----------



## agricola (Mar 4, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Harriet Harman hits out at Corbyn's support for decriminalised sex work
> 
> Pretty predictable behaviour from neoliberal Labour PLP members here.



To be fair, he should really clarify what he meant by that comment.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2016)

I love protecting women.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 7, 2016)

A freshly coiled piece from the New Statesman's George Eaton. Our Georgie tells us that Rachel 'We're Not The Party Of Benefits Claimants' Reeves is 'emerging' as 'Shadow Chancellor in exile'. Oh, the fucking hyperbole!



> No party in recent history has had more its of most talented figures on the backbenches than Labour today. Among them is Rachel Reeves. Like 12 other former shadow cabinet members, the Leeds West MP chose not to join Jeremy Corbyn’s frontbench. Freed from the burden of collective responsibility, she is intent on establishing herself as Labour’s pre-eminent economic voice.
> 
> Since returning from maternity leave last month, the 37-year-old Reeves (a Treasury select committee member and former Bank of England economist), has impressed MPs with her interventions on savings, welfare and finance. Today, she delivered a major speech at the Social Market Foundation and published an alternative Budget.
> 
> Rachel Reeves is emerging as Labour's shadow chancellor in exile



The final paragraph is what this article is really about.


> As an ally of Dan Jarvis, Reeves is well-placed should he win the leadership. By using her time on the backbenches to establish her economic primacy, she can help ensure that is the case under any non-Corbynite figurehead.



Georgie's batting for The Major.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 7, 2016)

Tougher than the Tories on welfare


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 7, 2016)

'shadow chancellor in exile' amounts to 'I'm still talking to right wing think tanks even if the leader my party voted for and his team are not'

Watching the labour right has been an education of watching the faux 'labour' right in action I have to say. They are proper snakes. Really just thick and low and well equipped by privilege to pull certain levers. This whole narrative of a labour party led by mad marxists and the maquis-in-waiting ready to make them electable again is mad. You couldn't get elected when you done a slightly milder than the tories message ffs. Where now? Gonna out tory the tories? they'll eat you alive, already trying to change the rules to fuck you.

Nothing said it clearer than blair when he said he would prefer labour lose rather than win from the left. Naked ideology, extremism. 'I would rather die and go to jannah' cunts


----------



## agricola (Mar 8, 2016)

Chris Leslie vs Rachel Reeves?  Does anyone know if they are selling tickets?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2016)

just a random thought: do the labour right really understand how the tories would crush the entire party and hobble its union base? You'd think they would, its not like the tory ever made a secret of that desire. Can they really think this is some gentlemans agreement debate club stuff. If labour collapses ina way that..oh I dunno whats a recent example from caledonia?- based on a labour right coup and business as usual as they see it. That would gut the party, it would make the vote share plummet. But they'd do it rather than see corbyn or a labour left winger in power.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> A freshly coiled piece from the New Statesman's George Eaton. Our Georgie tells us that Rachel 'We're Not The Party Of Benefits Claimants' Reeves is 'emerging' as 'Shadow Chancellor in exile'. Oh, the fucking hyperbole!


Loads of stuff with this Reeves = shadow chancellor in waiting in recent Guardian articles too. Almost as if journalist were been fed a line.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 8, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Loads of stuff with this Reeves = shadow chancellor in waiting in recent Guardian articles too. Almost as if journalist were been fed a line.


Yup. They've been cranking up the anti-Corbyn stories in the last few days. Even Doughty (who's he?) was gobbing off over the weekend.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2016)

My brother linked me up to this (very) long analysis - I haven't read it all yet so can't vouch for it totally, but there's some good stuff at the beginning so I presume it carries on that way...

Near Futures - Europe at a Crossroads


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2016)

> Throughout its history, the Labour Party has been an organisation composed of multiple elements and informed by competing ideas as to what kind of organisation it should be.



thats one way of putting it! Food for thought though, working my way through it but that just leapt out


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 8, 2016)

killer b said:


> My brother linked me up to this (very) long analysis - I haven't read it all yet so can't vouch for it totally, but there's some good stuff at the beginning so I presume it carries on that way...
> 
> Near Futures - Europe at a Crossroads




Got as far as the para headlined 'Neo Liberalism' (under the pic of Corbyn with an ASLEF flag and a 'Cut fares not staff' flag  ). It's excellent as analysis IMO, but a tad erm long! to read.

Relevent to the 'Blair's Legacy' thread also, I reckon.


----------



## agricola (Mar 9, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Yup. They've been cranking up the anti-Corbyn stories in the last few days. Even Doughty (who's he?) was gobbing off over the weekend.



They have been praising Dan Jarvis - _who used to be a paratrooper_ - today, claiming a speech tomorrow (in which he absolves New Labour of any blame whatsoever but says lessons must be learned) signals the start of his bid for the leadership.


----------



## oryx (Mar 9, 2016)

agricola said:


> They have been praising Dan Jarvis - _who used to be a paratrooper_ - today, claiming a speech tomorrow (in which he absolves New Labour of any blame whatsoever but says lessons must be learned) signals the start of his bid for the leadership.



Just been reading that - I thought Jarvis ruled himself out of taking part in any possible leadership challenge recently (can't remember where I read it though). I too am sick of hearing about his ex-Forces background.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 10, 2016)

All the talk of plots seemed to have gone quiet for a few months - and now out of nowhere we're back with the latest contender for blairite messiah and discussions of a hypothetical shadow cabinet. 
What planet are these people on? How do they think they are going to win an leadership election under the present rules? The only person who could beat corbyn is another leftie.
The tories are tearing themselves apart over the EU and these cunts deicde its the right time to get their machinations going again.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 10, 2016)

Is this idea of a coup entirely an invention of The Guardian? That's my immediate conclusion these days, news ink before actual events.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 10, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Is this idea of a coup entirely an invention of The Guardian? That's my immediate conclusion these days, news ink before actual events.



Yes. The right-wing media and the neoliberal right's symbiotic relationship is on full display here, the dying media get constant non-stories and the Labour right get to (at least try) to create the impression that the Labour leadership is in a constant state of precarious crisis. They don't let facts get in the way of this, facts like there is no realistic mechanism to bring about this election whereby Corbyn would lose a vote.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 10, 2016)

It's also remarkably transparent how they do a very similar thing to Sanders. There's not even a curtain to operate behind any more.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 10, 2016)

oryx said:


> Just been reading that - I thought Jarvis ruled himself out of taking part in any possible leadership challenge recently (can't remember where I read it though). I too am sick of hearing about his ex-Forces background.



Us thick proles love the army we do, boom boom shoot shoot vote vote


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 10, 2016)

agricola said:


> They have been praising Dan Jarvis - _who used to be a paratrooper_ - today, claiming a speech tomorrow (in which he absolves New Labour of any blame whatsoever but says lessons must be learned) signals the start of his bid for the leadership.


The press is always keen to stress Jarvis's time as a para, as though that in itself is qualification enough to become leader.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The press is always keen to stress Jarvis's time as a para, as though that in itself is qualification enough to become leader.



The reasoning behind it is to portray him as someone who wouldn't be as bloodthirsty as Blair, because he's experienced war. We're supposed to infer from that, that he'll be wise about cultivating peace.
Only one problem with that: He's a fucking Para!


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The reasoning behind it is to portray him as someone who wouldn't be as bloodthirsty as Blair, because he's experienced war. We're supposed to infer from that, that he'll be wise about cultivating peace.
> Only one problem with that: He's a fucking Para!


Exactly. Jean-Marie Le Pen was a para.


----------



## Zabo (Mar 10, 2016)

Never mind their full puff story, they've started the drip feed. This being part of the Brexit-Queen row.

"MP Dan Jarvis, the Labour backbencher widely touted as a potential challenger to Jeremy Corbyn, commented on the row on Thursday morning. Asked about Gove, he said: “Most people would take a very dim view if such a senior cabinet minister was seen to be behaving in that way”.

Fuckers!

Queen voiced 'scathing views' on EU more than once, says Sun editor


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The reasoning behind it is to portray him as someone who wouldn't be as bloodthirsty as Blair, because he's experienced war. We're supposed to infer from that, that he'll be wise about cultivating peace...



i don't think its that_ at all -_ from where i sit its the desperate realisation of the Labour 'elites' that the party of the working man has become completely divorced from, err... the working man, and _vice versa_, and the concentration on Jarvis' background is an attempt to wrestle (or look like its wrestling..) the party back into the realms of 'normal people' and away from the ranks of lawyers, policy wonks, former researchers and polytechnic lecturers who have infested Labours ranks since the 70's and even earlier.

the same thing was constantly made of Alan Johnson having been a postman - its got nothing to do with deeply held attitudes regarding postal services, its about saying (or trying desperately to pretend..) that a political figure is normal, that they relate to the electorate because they are the electorate. and that they can probably handle a bacon sandwich...

Jarvis comes to the fore because he is the perfect weapon against Corbyn - poll after poll shows Corbyn viewed, even by Labour voters, as fatally weak on defence and foreign policy and fits neatly into the yoghurt-weaving, sandal-wearing pidgeon hole so respected by the electorate. Jarvis is not seen in that way, unsurprisingly. he's also the perfect weapon against the tories, as the tory vote loves a man who has killed the Queens enemies, and is likely to draw unflattering comparisons with whichever no-mark is leading the tories in the 2020 election.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Us thick proles love the army we do, boom boom shoot shoot vote vote


ta ra ra boom de ay


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The reasoning behind it is to portray him as someone who wouldn't be as bloodthirsty as Blair, because he's experienced war. We're supposed to infer from that, that he'll be wise about cultivating peace.
> Only one problem with that: He's a fucking Para!


i would have thought that would make him more of a follower than a leader: _fuhrer, befehl! wir folgen!_


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2016)

everytime I hear the mans name this pops into my head


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i don't think its that_ at all -_ from where i sit its the desperate realisation of the Labour 'elites' that the party of the working man has become completely divorced from, err... the working man, and _vice versa_, and the concentration on Jarvis' background is an attempt to wrestle (or look like its wrestling..) the party back into the realms of 'normal people' and away from the ranks of lawyers, policy wonks, former researchers and polytechnic lecturers who have infested Labours ranks since the 70's and even earlier.
> 
> the same thing was constantly made of Alan Johnson having been a postman - its got nothing to do with deeply held attitudes regarding postal services, its about saying (or trying desperately to pretend..) that a political figure is normal, that they relate to the electorate because they are the electorate. and that they can probably handle a bacon sandwich...
> 
> Jarvis comes to the fore because he is the perfect weapon against Corbyn - poll after poll shows Corbyn viewed, even by Labour voters, as fatally weak on defence and foreign policy and fits neatly into the yoghurt-weaving, sandal-wearing pidgeon hole so respected by the electorate. Jarvis is not seen in that way, unsurprisingly. he's also the perfect weapon against the tories, as the tory vote loves a man who has killed the Queens enemies, and is likely to draw unflattering comparisons with whichever no-mark is leading the tories in the 2020 election.



The degree to which Jarvis's "candidacy" is about "representing" to certain groups, rather than being anything political, is certainly nauseating, yet unsurprising given that the wonks are still in control. As for your swerve at putting Jarvis (former Army officer) in the same proletarian bracket as Johnson, shame on you comrade! It's the re-education holiday village for you!


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...It's the re-education holiday village for you!



surely, holiday cottage in the Cotswolds?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> surely, holiday cottage in the Cotswolds?



No, comrade.
For you it is Clacton-On-Sea.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2016)

no, that one out of the Prisoner thats in wales. And no umbrella or raincoats allowed


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, comrade.
> For you it is Clacton-On-Sea.



is that like Moreton-in-Marsh, but with art galleries instead of shops selling Barbours?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> is that like Moreton-in-Marsh, but with art galleries instead of shops selling Barbours?



It's more like the fifth Circle of Hell, with added wasps and whining.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's more like the fifth Circle of Hell, with added wasps and whining.



You're not really selling this you know...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> You're not really selling this you know...



I don't need to. Attendance at the re-education holiday village is compulsory, not voluntary.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't need to. Attendance at the re-education holiday village is compulsory, not voluntary.



Can I do a correspondence course?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Can I do a correspondence course?



I'm afraid not.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 10, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm afraid not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2016)

look, the groans run a piece that isn't entirely a hatchet job on corbyn
The Labour rebels plan a long game but time is running out | Rafael Behr



> Most of the dissidents also accept that a significant factor in Corbyn’s victory was that the other candidates deserved to lose. They failed at organisation and inspiration. “They lost because they were shit,” as one former minister puts it.



I think the former minister left an S off the end of his profanity there


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 11, 2016)

“They lost because they were shit,” as one former minister puts it.


Well it's a start isn't it. Maybe if they had the faintest idea how to be less shit they might start getting somewhere.


----------



## youngian (Mar 12, 2016)

A successful leader has to inspire the party and the wider electorate. Corbyn won because he could, at least, score one out of two instead of zero. Burnham or Cooper had the strength in the party to imbed themselves until 2020 on Ed Miliband poll ratings. Corbyn was worth a punt for many long-standing Labour Party members because he would be easy to dump if Labour tanked in the polls. And they now won't have to wait until 2020 for rising stars like Jarvis to step up. Jeremy's a decent honourable man it's now clear he couldn't lead a hungry dog to the butchers let alone a political party. If the coming May elections see Labour lose ground, Jezza is unlikely to even make it to party conference.


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2016)

youngian said:


> If the coming May elections see Labour lose ground, Jezza is unlikely to even make it to party conference.


How are the party going to dump Corbyn, considering his popularity with the rank & file? It's not going to happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> How are the party going to dump Corbyn, considering his popularity with the rank & file? It's not going to happen.


Yes, who are the party? That's the wider question isn't it? There's an assumption in  the above (beyond the technical questions of how to assasinate someone) that it's the PLP.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 12, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, who are the party? That's the wider question isn't it? There's an assumption in  the above (beyond the technical questions of how to assasinate someone) that it's the PLP.



Listening to Tom Harris on the 'Week in Westminster' (start at 15.40) gives you a fair idea of who some people think the Labour Party are; it's not a mass membership organisation. Which is obviously the fundamental problem facing those who want Corbyn out.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2016)

is there a mechanism to oust corbyn before 2020? If the reaction of the rank and file to the PLP's disasterous loss at the GE (obvs I know the roots of an anti blairism, anti labour right go a lot deeper than eds fall but the leadership being a catalyst and avenue for the r&f) was to vote corbyn in, how much further might a reaction to some coup go. Thats why I think I'm agreeing with Killer b here. Early days of the post corbyn victory Madleson was making noises about 'not being rebellious' or similar. A 'give him enough rope' strategy I assume. Of course if the showing in may isn't good he's going to look a lot weaker than this post leadership election victory period


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> is there a mechanism to oust corbyn before 2020?


A call from 20% of MPs and MEPs can trigger a new election, the question then is whether Corbyn would be on the ballot by right of being leader. There's been suggestions (clearly coming from the Blairites) that anyone, including Corbyn, would need the backing of 15% of the PLP to get on the ballot. But it's not clear that that reading is the correct one and it might only be challengers that need the 15%.

Overview here (clearly from someone friendly with the right-wing but AFAIK correct regarding the facts re elections).


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2016)

It doesn't matter if there's a mechanism, it's not going to be triggered. Who's going to canvas for the fuckers if they sneeringly reject the overwhelming choice of the party?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> It doesn't matter if there's a mechanism, it's not going to be triggered. Who's going to canvas for the fuckers if they sneeringly reject the overwhelming choice of the party?



thats why I refered earlier to mandlesons 'suck it up and face front' messages. The labour left has to fail hard before the right of the party will pick up new....ehehehhe...momentum.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> It doesn't matter if there's a mechanism, it's not going to be triggered. Who's going to canvas for the fuckers if they sneeringly reject the overwhelming choice of the party?


Tories use professional canvassers and lib-dem used hyper-artivist twats. Canvassers are good at making/building/being part of a wider social movement. Labour are well beyond those days now.


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2016)

I think you might be taking me a little too literally there butch.


----------



## youngian (Mar 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> How are the party going to dump Corbyn, considering his popularity with the rank & file? It's not going to happen.


 If Labour loses ground in the coming May elections then senior MPs approach Corbyn to resign for the good of the party. Especially if you threaten to trigger a leadership election in which he doesn't even get on the ballot. The Labour Party hasn't been good at tossing leaders over the side but they might make an exception for a man who delivers worst results than Ed Miliband.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2016)

youngian said:


> If Labour loses ground in the coming May elections then senior MPs approach Corbyn to resign for the good of the party. Especially if you threaten to trigger a leadership election in which he doesn't even get on the ballot. The Labour Party hasn't been good at tossing leaders over the side but they might make an exception for a man who delivers worst results than Ed Miliband.


Anti-corbyn MPs approach corbyn to stop being corbyn. Blimey. 

Odd this, his two elections he's pissed them - won them both beyond expectations. 

Senior MPs - lol.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 12, 2016)

youngian said:


> If Labour loses ground in the coming May elections then senior MPs approach Corbyn to resign for the good of the party. Especially if you threaten to trigger a leadership election in which he doesn't even get on the ballot. The Labour Party hasn't been good at tossing leaders over the side but they might make an exception for a man who delivers worst results than Ed Miliband.



Exactly. Hopefully the marginalisation of the PLP by Corbyn and McDonnell will mean it happens before the election and we can salvage something. Just takes the sensible MPs to have some balls.


----------



## Beermoth (Mar 12, 2016)

youngian said:


> If Labour loses ground in the coming May elections then senior MPs approach Corbyn to resign for the good of the party. Especially if you threaten to trigger a leadership election in which he doesn't even get on the ballot. The Labour Party hasn't been good at tossing leaders over the side but they might make an exception for a man who delivers worst results than Ed Miliband.



Getting rid of Corbyn would kill off a lot of support. They can't afford  to do any of what you're saying.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 12, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Getting rid of Corbyn would kill off a lot of support. They can't afford  to do any of what you're saying.


It really wouldn't. Have you seen the polls? The worst leader in living memory.


----------



## Beermoth (Mar 12, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> It really wouldn't. Have you seen the polls? The worst leader in living memory.



Doesn't matter. Corbyn was democratically elected and is popular among members. Labour can't afford to jeopardise that. Or to put it another way - I'd be utterly amazed if they even tried to force him out.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 12, 2016)

youngian said:


> Especially if you threaten to trigger a leadership election in which he doesn't even get on the ballot.


It's not certain that he won't get on the ballot - he could be on the ballot by right. But even if we isn't there would be huge pressure on MPs to provide him with the needed 35 nominations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Exactly. Hopefully the marginalisation of the PLP by Corbyn and McDonnell will mean it happens before the election and we can salvage something. Just takes the sensible MPs to have some balls.



"Sensible MPs". There's a contradiction in terms.
Perhaps "sensible" is an acronym?

Self-involved
egotistic
nepostistic
self-regarding
ignorant
bombastic
lying
eejits.

Seems about right to me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2016)

Beermoth said:


> Doesn't matter. Corbyn was democratically elected and is popular among members. Labour can't afford to jeopardise that. Or to put it another way - I'd be utterly amazed if they even tried to force him out.



Because obviously the "sensible" MPs aren't that stupid, that they'd want to rub the activist base up the wrong way...


----------



## fiannanahalba (Mar 12, 2016)

Please keep Jeremy. Keep the faith. Jez we can.


----------



## youngian (Mar 12, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Sensible MPs". There's a contradiction in terms.
> Perhaps "sensible" is an acronym?
> Self-involved
> egotistic
> self-regarding


As Jeremy is none of those things he won't mind taking a bullet for his party. The latest all-poll average shows the Tories 7.4% ahead of Labour. In March 2011, Labour led by 5.9% under the triumphant leadership of Ed Miliband. 



Beermoth said:


> Doesn't matter. Corbyn was democratically elected and is popular among members.


 I hope they are out hitting the doorsteps for the May elections because that's Jezza's end of term report. Canvassing in marginals to gauge Corbyn's popularity with Jo Public will be a sobering experience for Momentum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Exactly. Hopefully the marginalisation of the PLP by Corbyn and McDonnell will mean it happens before the election and we can salvage something. Just takes the sensible MPs to have some balls.


Why do you hate democracy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2016)

youngian said:


> As Jeremy is none of those things he won't mind taking a bullet for his party. The latest all-poll average shows the Tories 7.4% ahead of Labour. In March 2011, Labour led by 5.9% under the triumphant leadership of Ed Miliband.



And what exactly is driving the poor polling?
Is it performance-based, or is it perhaps relentless bad press from a media entirely comfortable with the neoliberal consensus.
If you believe it's the former, rather than the latter, then smack yourself in the head with a hammer - you'll have earned it. 



> I hope they are out hitting the doorsteps for the May elections because that's Jezza's end of term report. Canvassing in marginals to gauge Corbyn's popularity with Jo Public will be a sobering experience for Momentum.



When I mentioned activists, I meant the tens of thousands who joined the party after Corbyn's election as leader, not the 60,000-ish who didn't, but I suppose you wouldn't have felt right about not getting a dig in about Momentum. No follower of the previous Labour _status quo_ would.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do you hate democracy?



Because he desires power, not service.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> And what exactly is driving the poor polling?
> Is it performance-based, or is it perhaps relentless bad press from a media entirely comfortable with the neoliberal consensus.
> If you believe it's the former, rather than the latter, then smack yourself in the head with a hammer - you'll have earned it.



The buck always stops with the leader. If Corbyn hasn't a strategy to outfox the media whose fault's that? And if he can't run his party by keeping his troops in line the public will decide Corbyn can't run anything else.


----------



## agricola (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> The buck always stops with the leader. If Corbyn hasn't a strategy to outfox the media whose fault's that? And if he can't run his party by keeping his troops in line the public will decide Corbyn can't run anything else.



It does stop with him, but of course neither the media nor the majority of the PLP could be described as people who would respond to reasoned argument.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Mar 13, 2016)

Blanket media hostility and demonisation of Salmond etc hasn't stopped the SNP polling around 60%. Jez we can.


----------



## agricola (Mar 13, 2016)

fiannanahalba said:


> Blanket media hostility and demonisation of Salmond etc hasn't stopped the SNP polling around 60%. Jez we can.



Blanket media hostility?  That must have been some different Murdoch who backed them in the General Election.


----------



## murphy1970 (Mar 13, 2016)

The Labour right are self perpetuating apocalyptic nay sayers. They act in every way possible to undermine the democratically elected party leader, do sod all to canvass or aid the LP, unless it's in a safe seat for a Blairite, and then dive in like vultures if there is a poor result for the party.
It is no real mystery why the Labour Party is doing so badly north of the border. It is a lethal mix of organisational incompetence married to political opportunism.
There is a huge space to the left of the SNP. The SNP are not left wing in any meaningful degree, and could easily be out flanked to the left, but Labour can't do this. The reasons why? Decades of Tammany Hall corruption have meant that local Labour Parties are simply personality cults/electoral machines for whatever sectarian variant wants to be elected. The Labour party, at council and national level, has been complicit with cut-backs and austerity programmes with barely a murmur raised in progress.
Personally, and politically, I admire Corbyn and the Momentum movement but they are too little and too late to save the party north of the border, and being far too mealy mouthed in the south. The Blairites are now in open rebellion and doing everything in their power to a/ replace Corbyn and b/ win the next election for the Tories.
The left in the party must fight back with everything they have, and they have a lot, namely the huge advantage of an overwhelming mandate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2016)

.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> If Corbyn hasn't a strategy to outfox the media whose fault's that?



How would he do that? Trick them into running positive stories?


----------



## Tankus (Mar 13, 2016)

murphy1970 said:


> The left in the party must fight back with everything they have, and they have a lot, namely the huge advantage of an overwhelming mandate.


Within the new party members perhaps......even less so with the electorate


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> How would he do that? Trick them into running positive stories?


Yes, you're getting the hang of this press and pr malarky.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Yes, you're getting the hang of this press and pr malarky.



Ooooh interesting - could you give an example of how Corbyn could do this?


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

fiannanahalba said:


> Blanket media hostility and demonisation of Salmond etc hasn't stopped the SNP polling around 60%. Jez we can.





agricola said:


> It does stop with him, but of course neither the media nor the majority of the PLP could be described as people who would respond to reasoned argument.


They might respond to unreasonable arguments like back me or you're sacked. And if you're polling at 60% and almost most certain to form the next administration you will command complete party loyalty. But if you're trailing the Tories by 7% you haven't got much leverage to get the troops in line. This leadership business is not difficult.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> They might respond to unreasonable arguments like back me or you're sacked.



= headline in the papers "Stalinist Corbyn purges sensible moderates because he can't tolerate debate"

You've no idea about this press and pr malarky I'm afraid.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2016)

Lol yeah, just poll 60% and you're laughing. No problem hitting that, dunno why he makes it look so difficult.


----------



## tim (Mar 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Exactly. Hopefully the marginalisation of the PLP by Corbyn and McDonnell will mean it happens before the election and we can salvage something. Just takes the sensible MPs to have some balls.



Let's hope they don't and that we can deselect the reactionaries without a fuss when the boundary changes happen.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Ooooh interesting - could you give an example of how Corbyn could do this?


Getting a suit and doing your tie up would be a start. Plenty of politicians are scruffy but if you're serious about power you get an image consultant to do all this nonsense for you and then people will pay attention to what's important; your message. Secondly, a leader is not there to think in times of crisis but provide certainty and reassurance. So don't um and aar weighing up pros and cons when you are asked if you'd shoot an armed terrorist in the street. Don't make yourself the story by mumbling the national anthem or going off on CND marches and grabbing headlines off important national party launches. If you need to repudiate your past indiscretions to talk about the future, than do it. Don't waste political capital in opposition fighting battles you can't win like Trident renewal. Leadership is about perception and what people think you are. I wouldn't write any of this about John McDonnell or Gerry Adams because they get all this basic stuff. And good leaders hire people cleverer than they are to sort all this stuff out. But man-of-destiny Jeremy knows better.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> Lol yeah, just poll 60% and you're laughing. No problem hitting that, dunno why he makes it look so difficult.


 Trailing this shitty government by 7% is a pretty tricky task but Corbyn's managed it.


two sheds said:


> = headline in the papers "Stalinist Corbyn purges sensible moderates because he can't tolerate debate"
> 
> You've no idea about this press and pr malarky I'm afraid.


Nothing wrong with bitter opponents comparing you to Stalin, the public like to know who's in charge. And if you're 15 per cent ahead in the polls you won't be getting much disloyalty. Although sack the odd person anyway for being rubbish just to consolidate your leadership.

There's plenty of people in the big tent SNP that think Salmond is too centrist and free market and others concerned about Sturgeon dragging the party too far to the left. But they're both winners and can command loyalty.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2016)

Fair points in your previous post and I'll respond, but just to remark: 



youngian said:


> Nothing wrong with bitter opponents comparing you to Stalin, the public like to know who's in charge.



Well yes but in this case the bitter opponents are journalists who people could reasonably expect to be giving a balanced opinion. I'm not sure the public would be confident about a politician who's repeatedly compared to someone who's killed 20 million people. Cue repeated stories about gulags, communism, totalitarianism, .... front page stories on chewing a bacon sarnie nothing. 

You can't win because the journos are making the rules and you can't win a game against someone who's making the rules.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> As Jeremy is none of those things he won't mind taking a bullet for his party. The latest all-poll average shows the Tories 7.4% ahead of Labour. In March 2011, Labour led by 5.9% under the triumphant leadership of Ed Miliband.


Are those polling figures using the same methodology? I don't think so, most companies have revised their methodology following the GE. So any direct comparison is rubbish.

That said, Labour probably are polling "worse" now that in 2011, but so what? Polling well in 2011 didn't help them win the GE. Even if you reduce the entire point of the party to winning elections there's a not going to be another GE for four years. Scotland looks dire, but both London and Wales look reasonably positive for Labour.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Getting a suit and doing your tie up would be a start. Plenty of politicians are scruffy but if you're serious about power you get an image consultant to do all this nonsense for you and then people will pay attention to what's important; your message.



Repeated messages from the Sun et al = "Corbyn pretends to be human" "Corbyn betrays his beliefs" "Corbyn descends into the mire of spin ....



> Secondly, a leader is not there to think in times of crisis but provide certainty and reassurance. So don't um and aar weighing up pros and cons when you are asked if you'd shoot an armed terrorist in the street.



Media message = "Hypocrite Corbyn would have shot Menezes"



> Don't make yourself the story by mumbling the national anthem or going off on CND marches and grabbing headlines off important national party launches. If you need to repudiate your past indiscretions to talk about the future, than do it. Don't waste political capital in opposition fighting battles you can't win like Trident renewal. Leadership is about perception and what people think you are. I wouldn't write any of this about John McDonnell or Gerry Adams because they get all this basic stuff. And good leaders hire people cleverer than they are to sort all this stuff out. But man-of-destiny Jeremy knows better.



Cue headlines of dishonesty, weakness, pretending to give up his beliefs so that he can dishonestly grab power. 

Again, I see what you're saying but if Murdoch et al decide they're going for him there's bugger all he can do aside from adopting the tory policies that the papers love. And then we'd be back into accusations of dishonesty. He seems to have decided to try to be honest about what he believes and not hide it.

It doesn't look like he has a hope of being elected, but I don't think he would be if he did all the things you've suggested either. There would always be a bacon sarnie photo equivalent that would appear on the front page of the Sun on election day morning headlined "will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights".

It was the Sun wot won it, remember.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> if you're 15 per cent ahead in the polls


where are you getting these imaginary figures from? it was 60% a minute ago - how might these fantastical leads be achieved? When were they last managed by any party?


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Are those polling figures using the same methodology? I don't think so, most companies have revised their methodology following the GE. So any direct comparison is rubbish.



You forgot to mention that polls are all run by Tories and are all lies and propaganda. In which case Labour members can only go by anecdotal evidence from the doorsteps, family, friends and acquaintances. And it's not looking good for Corbyn; 'nice guy but clearly not a leader' would be the least negative feedback you'll get. And few people believe Jezza's going to pull a rabbit out of the hat. 

Anyway, the coming May elections will show how much progress Corbyn has made.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> where are you getting these imaginary figures from? it was 60% a minute ago - how might these fantastical leads be achieved? When were they last managed by any party?


60% is the SNP figure but opposition leaders heading for a small majority will have achieved a substantial lead at some point in opposition (15 per cent was illustrative to make a simple point about leadership even simpler). Any leader that manages to plummet an opposition's ratings and expects party unity is a wishful thinker. Anyway, wait for the May election results and take it from there.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2016)

I've not noticed any plummeting - when did that happen?


----------



## newbie (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Anyway, the coming May elections will show how much progress Corbyn has made.



Really?  what metric will you use to determine the Corbyn effect?  Which of the clutch of local, regional and crime commissioner elections will revolve around him?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> 60% is the SNP figure but opposition leaders heading for a small majority will have achieved a substantial lead at some point in opposition (15 per cent was illustrative to make a simple point about leadership even simpler). Any leader that manages to plummet an opposition's ratings and expects party unity is a wishful thinker. Anyway, wait for the May election results and take it from there.


You're doing the opposite of that oh wise old man.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> You're doing the opposite of that oh wise old man.


I am but look at the humble pie I'll have to eat when Jeremy delivers landslide gains for Labour in the coming May elections.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

If there's one thing worse than the 3 quiders who've done nothing post election, it's the look I gave him a go but... lot.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2016)

Who's arguing for landslide gains? What are you imagining posters are saying here?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> I am but look at the humble pie I'll have to eat when Jeremy delivers landslide gains for Labour in the coming May elections.


No you're not. Don't tell people that the future you're building, the future that you're trying to ensure takes place may just be inevitable.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Again, I see what you're saying but if Murdoch et al decide they're going for him there's bugger all he can do aside from adopting the tory policies that the papers love. And then we'd be back into accusations of dishonesty. He seems to have decided to try to be honest about what he believes and not hide it.


I  don't have any moral qualms about lying to Murdoch. Even good mate Tony Blair was fucking his wife behind his back. And there is always the Tom Watson and Max Mosley approach; pull a gun when Murdoch reaches for a knife. Or you can sit and winge in impotent rage. Anyway the press are paper tigers with falling circulation and influence.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> I  don't have any moral qualms about lying to Murdoch. Even good mate Tony Blair was fucking his wife behind his back. And there is always the Tom Watson and Max Mosley approach; pull a gun when Murdoch reaches for a knife. Or you can sit and winge in impotent rage. Anyway the press are paper tigers with falling circulation and influence.


What is this waffly gossip? Why is it on this thread?


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> If there's one thing worse than the 3 quiders who've done nothing post election, it's the look I gave him a go but... lot.


That's me, I gave Jez a punt as his opponents had to go, I like the man and his policy direction. But it doesn't matter if you're shadow minister of cauliflowers or the leader, if you can't do the job then clear your desk. The party comes first not leadership cults.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What is this waffly gossip? Why is it on this thread?


Perhaps it is, how sad that people are putting out scurrilous tittle-tattle about poor Mr Murdoch, What's he ever done to deserve that?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> That's me, I gave Jez a punt as his opponents had to go, I like the man and his policy direction. But it doesn't matter if you're shadow minister of cauliflowers or the leader, if you can't do the job then clear your desk. The party comes first not leadership cults.



The two elections he's faced he's won with massive majorities. Odd that. Demand your money back as there's clearly a vastly popular leader you know about that no one else had noticed. Labour not leading in the polls is obviously an individual problem.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> it doesn't matter if you're shadow minister of cauliflowers


I think it does matter if you're shadow minister of cauliflowers, that really shouldn't be a position in any serious political party


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think it does matter if you're shadow minister of cauliflowers, that really shouldn't be a position in any serious political party


I think that's attributable to Chirac, it's the French version of Minister for Paper-clips or the Milk-monitor.


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Getting a suit and doing your tie up would be a start. Plenty of politicians are scruffy but if you're serious about power you get an image consultant to do all this nonsense for you and then people will pay attention to what's important; your message. Secondly, a leader is not there to think in times of crisis but provide certainty and reassurance. So don't um and aar weighing up pros and cons when you are asked if you'd shoot an armed terrorist in the street. Don't make yourself the story by mumbling the national anthem or going off on CND marches and grabbing headlines off important national party launches. If you need to repudiate your past indiscretions to talk about the future, than do it. Don't waste political capital in opposition fighting battles you can't win like Trident renewal. Leadership is about perception and what people think you are. I wouldn't write any of this about John McDonnell or Gerry Adams because they get all this basic stuff. And good leaders hire people cleverer than they are to sort all this stuff out. But man-of-destiny Jeremy knows better.


Oh my. The degree to which you don't get it is astounding. Do you not think, looking at the primaries across the pond, that there might come a time when people tire of identikit (neoliberal) cunts in suits? Do you not think that across vast swathes of the British public, that might already have happened? 

I'm interested to know whether you've come up with these weird, fantastical narratives of yours by yourself, or by talking to other party types who also don't understand even vaguely what is happening (or about to happen) politically in Britain.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Oh my. The degree to which you don't get it is astounding. Do you not think, looking at the primaries across the pond, that there might come a time when people tire of identikit (neoliberal) cunts in suits? Do you not think that across vast swathes of the British public, that might already have happened?
> 
> I'm interested to know whether you've come up with these weird, fantastical narratives of yours by yourself, or by talking to other party types who also don't understand even vaguely what is happening (or about to happen) politically in Britain.


What's about to happen?


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What's about to happen?


Well, many things, but perhaps a dominant one: increasing inequality, to which this govt is heavily committed, is eroding and will erode further the respectable centre ground that youngian and friends are so eager to claim.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Well, many things, but perhaps a dominant one: increasing inequality, to which this govt is heavily committed, is eroding and will erode further the respectable centre ground that youngian and friends are so eager to claim.


Oh, how disappointing -  i thought you meant a corbyn storm or something. Rather than just the bog standard leftist trope of inevitable left-wing radicalisation. _O Brave new world._


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> You forgot to mention that polls are all run by Tories and are all lies and propaganda.


Yes, that's exactly what I said.

What is it on here recently, have people lost the ability of read and respond to what is actually posted.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I'm interested to know whether you've come up with these weird, fantastical narratives of yours by yourself, or by talking to other party types who also don't understand even vaguely what is happening (or about to happen) politically in Britain.



The Prince probably and it's still read 500 years later. That's because it doesn't matter if you're Lenin or Donald Trump the basics to the art of leadership don't change.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> The Prince probably and it's still read 500 years later. That's because it doesn't matter if you're Lenin or Donald Trump the basics to the art of leadership don't change.


lesson #1 don't be a leader.

What a weird individualised world you must live in.


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> The Prince probably and it's still read 500 years later. That's because it doesn't matter if you're Lenin or Donald Trump the basics to the art of leadership don't change.


I think you should read some more contemporary sources too. Perhaps about the personal debt crisis that threatens to swallow half of Britain's 'middle class'. Do you think that with their standard of living noticeably falling, if a party offers to get them out of that hole, they will give one solitary fuck whether the lead candidate wears a tie? They will not.

Edited to put inverted commas around 'middle class' - a weird category here, let's not get into it


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I think you should read some more contemporary sources too. Perhaps about the personal debt crisis that threatens to swallow half of Britain's 'middle class'. Do you think that with their standard of living noticeably falling, if a party offers to get them out of that hole, they will give one solitary fuck whether the lead candidate wears a tie? They will not.


If you can't even manage basic trivial stuff like doing your tie up properly you won't be trusted to tackle the productivity gap. Even a petty villain in the magistrates gets this stuff. And yes its the economy stupid but would that be widely quoted if Al Gore said it and not Slick Willy Clinton?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> The Prince probably and it's still read 500 years later. That's because it doesn't matter if you're Lenin or Donald Trump the basics to the art of leadership don't change.



It might arguably deliver for leaders and wanna be leaders...but what about the lead? 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> If you can't even manage basic trivial stuff like doing your tie up properly you won't be trusted to tackle the productivity gap. Even a petty villain in the magistrates gets this stuff. And yes its the economy stupid but would that be widely quoted if Al Gore said it and not Slick Willy Clinton?



What is the connection between knotting ties and the 'productivity gap'?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. you might also want to unpack some of the presumptions around the 'productivity gap' itself.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What is the connection between knotting ties and the 'productivity gap'?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. you might also want to unpack some of the presumptions around the 'productivity gap' itself.


If you dress like shit and haven't got the gift of the gab then you're not going to reach act 2; your policies. Because no one trusts your competence to run anything. Is this difficult stuff?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> If you dress like shit and haven't got the gift of the gab then you're not going to reach act 2; your policies. Because no one trusts your competence to run anything. *Is this difficult stuff*?



Not difficult just stupid; 'dress like shit'...really? 

Where is the connection between not wearing a tie, or wearing a badly knotted tie and political and economic competence? You just saying stuff - even with increasing force - doesn't make it true.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## oryx (Mar 13, 2016)

And the cufflinks of course. No-one wearing shirts with buttoned sleeves is fit to hold office.


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> tackle the productivity gap.


Oh. I see. You really, _really _don't get it. 

Perhaps have a read of this while muttering 'productivity gap' to yourself: How London’s booming ‘butler class’ takes care of the wealthy elite

I can do nothing more for you.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> If you dress like shit and haven't got the gift of the gab then you're not going to reach act 2; your policies. Because no one trusts your competence to run anything. Is this difficult stuff?


Here is a prime example of a complete cunt in a suit and tie. I'd rather have someone casually dressed if, at the very least they are going to provide economic policies that do not directly target the disadvantaged.

George Osborne got rather flustered trying to explain why he's cutting £1.2bn in disability benefits


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Here is a prime example of a complete cunt in a suit and tie. I'd rather have someone casually dressed if, at the very least they are going to provide economic policies that do not directly target the disadvantaged.
> 
> George Osborne got rather flustered trying to explain why he's cutting £1.2bn in disability benefits


Amazing what you can get away with if the public likes the look of you over the person. Because those voters who decide elections were not voting to cut disability benefits. And that is why John McDonnell now dresses like a bank manager.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2016)

if being a bit scruffy is a bar to election then how come his constituents have been returning him for years on end


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Not difficult just stupid; 'dress like shit'...really?
> 
> Where is the connection between not wearing a tie, or wearing a badly knotted tie and political and economic competence? You just saying stuff - even with increasing force - doesn't make it true.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


There is no connection but Bernie Madoff didn't dress like a retired geography teacher to persuade people to manage their money. It would be lovely to think elections are decided by people crunching the numbers and measuring competing values but they aren't.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> There is no connection but Bernie Madoff didn't dress like a retired geography teacher to persuade people to manage their money. It would lovely to think elections are decided on people crunching the numbers but they aren't.



Who would you have instead of Corbyn?


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Who would you have instead of Corbyn?


I like the look of Clive Lewis, Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy, Tom Watson. But you never know who emerges in a contest. I didn't expect the last one would reveal that Burnham and Cooper had less leadership ability than a drunken slug. I'll even go for Dan Jarvis if he's up against Johnson and promises to stand stand on; "Vote for Dan because he's shot better men than Boris."


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if being a bit scruffy is a bar to election then how come his constituents have been returning him for years on end


Because Jeremy is a darn good constituency MP who is highly regarded by even those who disagree with his politics. As is Douglas Carswell but even UKIP don't want him for a leader let alone the Tories. Also, notice that even PMs and ministers dress down when their campaigning in the constituency.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> If you dress like shit and haven't got the gift of the gab then you're not going to reach act 2; your policies. Because no one trusts your competence to run anything. Is this difficult stuff?


I tend to instantly distrust cunts in shiny suits, whereas blokes who dress and act like genial teachers / lecturers I would tend to view as being trustworthy until they prove otherwise.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2016)

The Jarvis strategy is so crude: _Dan will appeal to floating voters and stop us haemorrhaging fat povs in help for heroes hoodies to ukip, he can't lose!_

Fucking pathetic


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Amazing what you can get away with if the public likes the look of you over the person. Because those voters who decide elections were not voting to cut disability benefits. And that is why John McDonnell now dresses like a bank manager.


You keep on talking about 'the public'. How do you know so much about 'the public'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Because Jeremy is a darn good constituency MP who is highly regarded by even those who disagree with his politics. As is Douglas Carswell but even UKIP don't want him for a leader let alone the Tories. Also, notice that even PMs and ministers dress down when their campaigning in the constituency.


Ok, that explains the constituency, perhaps. How about the landslide Labour leadership election?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> The buck always stops with the leader. If Corbyn hasn't a strategy to outfox the media whose fault's that? And if he can't run his party by keeping his troops in line the public will decide Corbyn can't run anything else.



What a load of bollocks.
The media were on the attack even before he was elected, expecting him to strategise around a media willing to attack him on *ANY* grounds whatsoever (even having a "foreign" wife, for fuck's sake!) makes a mockery of your blame-laying.
As for "keeping his troops in line", that's kind of difficult when no-marks like Markymarrk and "useful idiots" like yourself lend weight to his opponents - those same opponents whose politics were found so empty as to be scorned by a majority of the LP membership.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> They might respond to unreasonable arguments like back me or you're sacked.



Assuming that they're members of the shadow cabinet. If not - and the vast majority are not - then he has no leverage. He can't "sack" people as MPs.



> And if you're polling at 60% and almost most certain to form the next administration you will command complete party loyalty. But if you're trailing the Tories by 7% you haven't got much leverage to get the troops in line. This leadership business is not difficult.



So speaks someone who leads from an armchair.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> What a load of bollocks.
> The media were on the attack even before he was elected, expecting him to strategise around a media willing to attack him on *ANY* grounds whatsoever (even having a "foreign" wife, for fuck's sake!) makes a mockery of your blame-laying.
> As for "keeping his troops in line", that's kind of difficult when no-marks like Markymarrk and "useful idiots" like yourself lend weight to his opponents - those same opponents whose politics were found so empty as to be scorned by a majority of the LP membership.


Yeah, there's a weird thing going on whereby people are being disloyal then having a go at Corbyn for not keeping people loyal. 

Possibly the single biggest thing about Corbyn's approach to leadership has been to insist that it is not all about him, and that disagreement is possible. Clearly some people don't want that - they want to be told what to do.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Assuming that they're members of the shadow cabinet. If not - and the vast majority are not - then he has no leverage. He can't "sack" people as MPs.


Which I was and Corbyn has no leverage to sack shadow cabinet members because he hasn't even managed to recruit much of a Praetorian Gaurd to watch his back. Even John McDonnell hasn't been praising Caesar much lately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> The Jarvis strategy is so crude: _Dan will appeal to floating voters and stop us haemorrhaging fat povs in help for heroes hoodies to ukip, he can't lose!_
> 
> Fucking pathetic



In reality, Dan will appeal to the Labour right, and Walter Mittys who pretend to have been Paras, apart from that, he appeals to the media in that _Mail_-esque "we like to get behind a strong leader" way that so many of them have.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, that explains the constituency, perhaps. How about the landslide Labour leadership election?



It was obviously the membership and the three-quiders having a bubble, innit?


----------



## agricola (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Which I was and Corbyn has no leverage to sack shadow cabinet members because he hasn't even managed to recruit much of a Praetorian Gaurd to watch his back. Even John McDonnell hasn't been praising Caesar much lately.



er - the Praetorian Guard killed more Emperors than they saved.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Which I was and Corbyn has no leverage to sack shadow cabinet members because he hasn't even managed to recruit much of a Praetorian Gaurd to watch his back. Even John McDonnell hasn't been praising Caesar much lately.


So you voted for Corbyn and now you think it was a mistake. You've given him what, six months? What did you expect to happen in that period? Given the change in direction he wants to take following the miserable defeat in the election, did you expect your 'public' to suddenly switch? How long would you give him to build something? 

Are political leaders to be treated like football managers now? Even football managers shouldn't be treated like football managers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Which I was and Corbyn has no leverage to sack shadow cabinet members because he hasn't even managed to recruit much of a Praetorian Gaurd to watch his back. Even John McDonnell hasn't been praising Caesar much lately.



Read your history. Those who praise Caesar are usually the ones who try to shiv him.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Possibly the single biggest thing about Corbyn's approach to leadership has been to insist that it is not all about him, and that disagreement is possible. Clearly some people don't want that - they want to be told what to do.


Not if they have no faith in the person giving the orders they don't. Corbyn's made this leadership all about him and it's not working.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Corbyn's made this leadership all about him and it's not working.


He has?


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Read your history. Those who praise Caesar are usually the ones who try to shiv him.


I know but I was trying to state the obvious. I don't why as it hasn't worked so far. I still don't see why the proposition that the public are not seeing Jeremy Corbyn as the next PM is at all controversial.

This article by Blairite Red Tory neo-liberal traitors just tells what any CLP is reporting back Labour ‘not winning back swing voters’ under Jeremy Corbyn


----------



## agricola (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Not if they have no faith in the person giving the orders they don't. Corbyn's made this leadership all about him and it's not working.



What?  He has made decision making much more collective than any previous Labour leader of recent times.  People have been free to openly dissent; the tragedy is that they have used that to advance causes that are daft.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Not if they have no faith in the person giving the orders they don't. Corbyn's made this leadership all about him and it's not working.



Corbyn hasn't made it "all about him". His opponents in the PLP have. 
Corbyn has made it very clear from the get-go that "it's all about the party", that is the broader membership, and not just the tossers in Parliament, and the tossers in Parliament (and their neoliberal supporters in the media and business) won't tolerate that - re-empowering constituencies to select and to discipline sitting MPs scares the people I've mentioned. MPs because they'd have to toe a local line, rather than a PLP line, business because it's harder to suborn a party structure than a single member, and the media because collective power - and collective responsibility - is anathema to how the proprietors see the world.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He has?



He hasn't.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

agricola said:


> What?  He has made decision making much more collective than any previous Labour leader of recent times.  People have been free to openly dissent; the tragedy is that they have used that to advance causes that are daft.


It is a tragedy, that's why you act like a leader and read the riot act instead of a chairman of a committee. A good leader works all this stuff out one way or the other. Jeremy hasn't.


----------



## agricola (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> It is a tragedy, that's why you act like a leader and read the riot act instead of a chairman of a committee.



That isn't the way leaders act, especially when they and their enemies know that their Riot Act isn't backed up by anything.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Corbyn hasn't made it "all about him". His opponents in the PLP have.
> Corbyn has made it very clear from the get-go that "it's all about the party", that is the broader membership, and not just the tossers in Parliament, and the tossers in Parliament (and their neoliberal supporters in the media and business) won't tolerate that - re-empowering constituencies to select and to discipline sitting MPs scares the people I've mentioned.


It probably does if their CLP is going to be full of people that seriously believe Jeremy Corbyn is going to be PM. Besides grass roots democracy is banana republic baloney to allow executive demagogues to grab arbitrary power from legislators. I may be advocating decisive leadership but not without checks and balances.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> It probably does if their CLP is going to be full of people that seriously believe Jeremy Corbyn is going to be PM. Besides grass roots democracy is banana republic baloney to allow executive demagogues to grab arbitrary power from legislators. I may be advocating decisive leadership but not without checks and balances.



You really don't see the contradictions between what you want, and lived reality, do you?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Not if they have no faith in the person giving the orders they don't. *Corbyn's made this leadership all about him and it's not working*.



Another example of you just saying stuff with no evidence; what has Corbyn (as opposed to other people) done to make it all about him?

It's almost like you want/need this to be true...which is frankly a bit weird.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Besides grass roots democracy is banana republic baloney to allow executive demagogues to grab arbitrary power from legislators.


fuck me


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Besides grass roots democracy is banana republic baloney to allow executive demagogues to grab arbitrary power from legislators.



You really have a deep seated mistrust of your own and other people's abilities; no wonder you seem to crave the hand of firm leadership. You're selling yourself and the rest of us short, and in doing so wasting so much potential.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Another example of you just saying stuff with no evidence; what has Corbyn (as opposed to other people) done to make it all about him?
> 
> It's almost like you want/need this to be true...which is frankly a bit weird.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Corbyn had half a chance with some of Livingstone's canny team but even they're heading for the exit because he doesn't listen to advice. Neale Coleman walks out of Team Corbyn - and Simon Fletcher could be next

Just last week when the party had its referendum launch he would have been advised that the leader on CND march 'snub' would make the headlines if he went. But man-of-destiny Jeremy knows best.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Corbyn had half a chance with some of Livingstone's canny team but even they're heading for the exit because he doesn't listen to advice. Neale Coleman walks out of Team Corbyn - and Simon Fletcher could be next
> 
> Just last week when the party had its referendum launch he would have been advised that the leader on CND march 'snub' would make the headlines if he went. But man-of-destiny Jeremy knows best.



So no evidence that he's making it all about him, and plenty that others (including yourself in your own small way) are.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You really have a deep seated mistrust of your own and other people's abilities; no wonder you seem to crave the hand of firm leadership. You're selling yourself and the rest of us short, and in doing so wasting so much potential.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I believe in European parliamentary representative democracy over executive democracy of the Americas, what's wrong with that?


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So no evidence that he's making it all about him, and plenty that others (including yourself in your own small way) are.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


You're right about the evidence I don't have any 'all about him' pie charts to back me up. And it doesn't matter a shit what I think, it's not going to get anyone elected. If you've invested a lot of emotional faith in Corbyn it's hard to see that not everyone think's he's Robert Redford in the Candidate. Trust me, they don't, he's George McGovern.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> If you dress like shit and haven't got the gift of the gab then you're not going to reach act 2; your policies. Because no one trusts your competence to run anything. Is this difficult stuff?


You omitted eating a bacon butty properly, which always means you eat it with a knife and fork like a pretentious, anally-retentive cunt.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Read your history. Those who praise Caesar are usually the ones who try to shiv him.


Casca?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Corbyn's made this leadership all about him and it's not working.


Er, that's the sort of thing 'Desperate' Dan Hodges might say. I don't think he's personalised his leadership at all. That notion resides solely in the foetid minds of his detractors.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Corbyn had half a chance with some of Livingstone's canny team but even they're heading for the exit because he doesn't listen to advice. Neale Coleman walks out of Team Corbyn - and Simon Fletcher could be next
> 
> Just last week when the party had its referendum launch he would have been advised that the leader on CND march 'snub' would make the headlines if he went. But man-of-destiny Jeremy knows best.


Proper left-wing organ, the NS.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2016)

if he'd made it about him we'd have been subjected to endless 'cult of personality' stalinist memes from dickheads in the press and on the internet. But you can see why the drive to claim it is still there, ho-ho he visited the DDR you know


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Er, that's the sort of thing 'Desperate' Dan Hodges might say. I don't think he's personalised his leadership at all. That notion resides solely in the foetid minds of his detractors.


He's done the opposite. It is his opponents who have tried to make it all about him. Perhaps to cover up for their own failings over the past two decades.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> I believe in European parliamentary representative democracy over executive democracy of the Americas, what's wrong with that?



"Parliamentary democracy", as practiced in the UK, is a contradiction in terms. There's nothing even vaguely democratic about a system that limits your say regarding political representation to once every five years nationally, once every four for locals. 
As for "executive democracy", what do you think is being exercised here, every time a Parliamentary Instrument or The Parliament Act is used, rather than legislation being voted on?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's done the opposite. It is his opponents who have tried to make it all about him. Perhaps to cover up for their own failings over the past two decades.


That's pretty much what I said.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> if he'd made it about him we'd have been subjected to endless 'cult of personality' stalinist memes from dickheads in the press and on the internet. But you can see why the drive to claim it is still there, ho-ho he visited the DDR you know



So did I, and I dress scruffily! Reason enough to strip me of citizenship and deport me to a prison colony!


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> Trailing this shitty government by 7% is a pretty tricky task but Corbyn's managed it.



Yep. And as a result the conspiracy theorists and Corbynistas blame:

a) the media repeatedly
b) the public, for not agreeing with their "analysis" of capitalism
c) the pollsters, who must be wrong, because Corbyn can't be behind - this denial is the same as those who thought Miliband was doing OK because the Tories, the Tories, etc

Personally, I think almost all the people that are going to vote for Corbyn, have voted for him.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> I like the look of Clive Lewis, Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy, Tom Watson. But you never know who emerges in a contest. I didn't expect the last one would reveal that Burnham and Cooper had less leadership ability than a drunken slug. I'll even go for Dan Jarvis if he's up against Johnson and promises to stand stand on; "Vote for Dan because he's shot better men than Boris."


Not Lewis. He's naive to the point of being stupid.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> c) the pollsters, who must be wrong, because Corbyn can't be behind


They were wrong at the GE as if that works in Labour's favour. And as these polls appear in Tory newspapers they must be lies from Tory polling companies commissioned by Tory editors 

Another good one: a poll of Tory MPs showing that Dan Jarvis is the leader they most fear and Corbyn the least. 'Of course, they would say that' I was told it's a cunning Tory double bluff.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> They were wrong at the GE as if that works in Labour's favour. And as these polls appear in Tory newspapers they must be lies from Tory polling companies commissioned by Tory editors
> 
> Another good one: a poll of Tory MPs showing that Dan Jarvis is the leader they most fear and Corbyn the least. 'Of course, they would say that' I was told it's a cunning Tory double bluff.


Odd this, given your reliance on polls for your argument. The only two elections thus far, you're a bit quiet on them.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> I was told it's a cunning Tory double bluff.


who by?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

Amazing that 6 months ago Ian was definitely right to pay money to vote for corbyn as leader and now this was a terrible mistake please trust me i'm definetely right this time to get rid of corybn as leader.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> They were wrong at the GE as if that works in Labour's favour. And as these polls appear in Tory newspapers they must be lies from Tory polling companies commissioned by Tory editors
> 
> Another good one: a poll of Tory MPs showing that Dan Jarvis is the leader they most fear and Corbyn the least. 'Of course, they would say that' I was told it's a cunning Tory double bluff.


People in london over 50 who once met someone - great stuff.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> They were wrong at the GE as if that works in Labour's favour. And as these polls appear in Tory newspapers they must be lies from Tory polling companies commissioned by Tory editors
> 
> Another good one: a poll of Tory MPs showing that Dan Jarvis is the leader they most fear and Corbyn the least. 'Of course, they would say that' I was told it's a cunning Tory double bluff.



All the above I've heard repeatedly. From the same people who were convinced we were going to win the last election when we were saying the campaign and Ed were a disaster.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> All the above I've heard repeatedly. From the same people who were convinced we were going to win the last election when we were saying the campaign and Ed were a disaster.


What's your 'we' here?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What's your 'we' here?


he's taking the wee


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> All the above I've heard repeatedly. From the same people who were convinced we were going to win the last election when we were saying the campaign and Ed were a disaster.


i see you joined conveniently _after_ the general election so we have only your word for your pre-election comments. and that's just not good enough.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Amazing that 6 months ago Ian was definitely right to pay money to vote for corbyn as leader and now this was a terrible mistake please trust me i'm definetely right this time to get rid of corybn as leader.


 He was the best candidate standing. And easiest to get rid off, if he flunked it.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> More like eight months ago and I didn't pay £3. He was the best candidate standing. And easiest to get rid off, if he flunked it.



He won't be easy to get rid of. But I think it's worth it because the alternative might be we fade into nothing. We have no right to either govern or win constituencies - both depend on leadership that is convincing to the public.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> He was the best candidate standing. And easiest to get rid off, if he flunked it.


Oh, it was a a plan that you set him. I get it now. The only real test since then he waltzed through. You though, are reliant on polls, rubbishing polling and looking more than a bit shady.

Easy to get rid of? Go on then, flick your finger.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:
			
		

> More like eight months ago and I didn't pay £3. He was the best candidate standing. And easiest to get rid off, if he flunked it.



Yet this morning it was exactly your position - a 3 quider. Did you suddenly remember and then edit?


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Yet this morning it was exactly your position - a 3 quider. Did you suddenly remember and then edit?


No, I confessed to being worse than a £3 quider if you recall. I'm a party member have been for years.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> No, I confessed to being worse than a £3 quider if you recall. I'm a party member have been for years.


Not really what you said this morning is it?

It's quite instructive reading your posts from 8 months ago.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Not really what you said this morning is it?
> 
> It's quite instructive reading your posts from 8 months ago.


I am part of the " look I gave him a go but... lot." What did I say 8 months; did I go from calling him a British George McGovern to being mightily impressed by his honest Jeremy campaign. Which I was and you don't know how someone turns out unless you give them a try. Now I do and the public don't like Jezza so it doesn't matter what I think about him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> I am part of the " look I gave him a go but... lot." What did I say 8 months; did I go from calling him a British George McGovern to being mightily impressed by his honest Jeremy campaign. Which I was and you don't know how someone turns out unless you give them a try. Now I do and the public don't like Jezza so it doesn't matter what I think about him.


so you're a turncoat


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> I am part of the " look I gave him a go but... lot." What did I say 8 months; did I go from calling him a British George McGovern to being mightily impressed by his honest Jeremy campaign. Which I was and you don't know how someone turns out unless you give them a try. Now I do and the public don't like Jezza so it doesn't matter what I think about him.


All sorts of stuff - do you not know? Do you not remember? If not, why on earth should anyone listen to a single thing that you say today? 

I note also the slip between the party and the PLP and now, you.

Let's get back onto why the polls are shit but the polls are why he needs to go. Let's see you try and square that circle.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're a turncoat


I think he's just a bullshitter frankly - hence the desperation edit above when he let the 3 quider/member cat out the bag.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> All sorts of stuff - do you not know? Do you not remember? If not, why on earth should anyone listen to a single thing that you say today?


I suggest you don't listen to anything I say but see what the May elections are like. Or at least, get out and about and do a few unscientific straw polls on whether the person you are talking to can see Jeremy Corbyn outside Number 10. What would I know, I took a punt on Corbyn.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> You're right about the evidence I don't have any 'all about him' pie charts to back me up. And it doesn't matter a shit what I think, it's not going to get anyone elected. If you've invested a lot of emotional faith in Corbyn it's hard to see that not everyone think's he's Robert Redford in the Candidate. Trust me, they don't, he's George McGovern.



I don't vote Labour, so no emotional investement. I was just asking you to back up your assertions with some substance; apparently you can't.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2016)

youngian said:


> I suggest you don't listen to anything I say but see what the May elections are like. Or at least, get out and about and do a few unscientific straw polls on whether the person you are talking to can see Jeremy Corbyn outside Number 10. What would I know, I took a punt on Corbyn.


But now you're sabotaging Corbyn, no? In your own little way as a party member posting on here, saying that 'the public' don't like Corbyn (and that's that - 'they' never will, presumably). 

Just to clear up the timescale, voting ended on 10 Sep, results came out on 12. My maths tells me that's six months. How long did it take you before you realised you'd made a mistake? Six months, ffs.


----------



## youngian (Mar 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But now you're sabotaging Corbyn, no? In your own little way as a party member posting on here, saying that 'the public' don't like Corbyn (and that's that - 'they' never will, presumably).
> 
> Just to clear up the timescale, voting ended on 10 Sep, results came out on 12. My maths tells me that's six months. How long did it take you before you realised you'd made a mistake? Six months, ffs.


Slow aren't are. Most people make their minds up about someone in about 10-20 minutes. And might cut you some slack if you're a beginner and give you a second look to see you've stepped up. And I absolutely made the right choice in voting for Corbyn when he was up against three Jim Murphys who would implode the party through their inertia. But you couldn't write the script for Jeremy, a superbly assured campaigner who injected heart and reminded people why they came into politics. I'm sorry the second act, leading the party hasn't worked for him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2016)

youngian said:


> Slow aren't are. Most people make their minds up about someone in about 10-20 minutes. And might cut you some slack if you're a beginner and give you a second look to see you've stepped up. And I absolutely made the right choice in voting for Corbyn when he was up against three Jim Murphys who would implode the party through their inertia. But you couldn't write the script for Jeremy, a superbly assured campaigner who injected heart and reminded people why they came into politics. I'm sorry the second act, leading the party hasn't worked for him.


You speak of it in the past tense already. 'Hasn't worked'. 

I'm still confused.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 14, 2016)

I can't think of a more charmless existence to lead than that of a Blairite waiting in the wings for the Great White Hope Jarvis to step forward. At least they have their _aspirations_ to keep them occupied I suppose.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You speak of it in the past tense already. 'Hasn't worked'.
> 
> I'm still confused.



'Hasn't worked' is the present perfect tense not past. Pickman's wifi must be on the blink.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Yep. And as a result the conspiracy theorists and Corbynistas blame:
> 
> a) the media repeatedly
> b) the public, for not agreeing with their "analysis" of capitalism
> ...


Drivel from Urban's resident gaslighter.


----------



## killer b (Mar 14, 2016)

Are there any corbynistas on this thread?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> He won't be easy to get rid of. But I think it's worth it because the alternative might be we fade into nothing. We have no right to either govern or win constituencies - both depend on leadership that is convincing to the public.


Quite frankly, the party needs to get rid of fifth columnist numpties like you.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 14, 2016)

He is our very own Quisling.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 14, 2016)

Shame Corbyn's such a wimp otherwise he'd drum people like him out of the party for the tory scum they are.


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 14, 2016)

A local Labour councillor came to the door the other week, sounding people out about the May elections. Was a personable chap but I got the impression he was a Blairite. He asked me about Jeremy. Said I preferred him to the rest even if it's hard to get all that excited. He seemed interested but worried, as he'd had that reaction a lot on the doorsteps. It's no big deal, though. This is a mainly terraced area a mile or so from a major city centre. Not great but not bad, with good local services. The enthusiasm for Corbyn, I suppose, comes from there being a lot of teacher types and junior hospital employees and the like, who've moved in as first-time buyers due to relatively cheap prices. Also a growing number of Muslims, many of whom seem top be recent immigrants, mostly in rented properties. I doubt if it's matched by the working class population who go back generations in the area. (UKIP got about 800 votes last time round.) There's what amounts to an unconscious division of the local population, where, for example, the white working class goes to the more traditional side street pubs (and Wetherspoons), where they're still open, and the students and trendy lower middle classes to the small number of newer, refurbished drinking halls.

That's the thing about this Labour leadership-its support seems to come mostly from those who work in the public sector and/or are concerned about cuts to services (ie drawn from or sympathetic to the broad protest movement, which is, to all intents and purposes, just another niche market now, easily dealt with, and a relatively small section of the population nationally.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> Are there any corbynistas on this thread?



To Markymarrk/whoever, anyone who doesn't condemn Corbyn is a "Corbynista". 
It shows how barren his politics is, that he finds it hard to conceive that non-Corbynites can have principled objections to the Red Tory posturings of "Sensible Labour/The _Maquis_/The Resistance/The Chuka 'n' Dan Show.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> To Markymarrk/whoever, anyone who doesn't condemn Corbyn is a "Corbynista".
> It shows how barren his politics is, that he finds it hard to conceive that non-Corbynites can have principled objections to the Red Tory posturings of "Sensible Labour/The _Maquis_/The Resistance/The Chuka 'n' Dan Show.


Mind you, many of us, including me and I think you, are rather to the left of Corbyn.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Chuka 'n' Dan Show.


I had a ticket to that that said 'featuring Simon Danczuk on the ukelele' but for some reason he has been removed from the program. Such a shame.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 14, 2016)

Accusations of anti-Semitism are being abused by Corbyn's enemies


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 14, 2016)

An ICM poll has got Labour drawing level. I don't know where that comes from in the sense that it wasn't expected. ICM are the only pollsters not to change methodology since the general election, but I'm sure that Corbynistas will suspend their disbelief in polls temporarily and clear ICM of any doubt for the next four years.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2016)

Great timing Ian.



> On the other hand, even if the absolute level of the lead in this poll is off, there has been a significant change in the lead since last month’s poll, and one that is consistent with the ComRes poll at the weekend. Sure the absolute levels of the Tory lead in the two polls is very different (because ComRes have adopted a very different turnout model to ICM), but the trend in the two polls was the same – ComRes had the Tory lead dropping by five points, ICM had the Tory lead dropping by seven points.
> 
> Even if there is reason to doubt the size of the lead in this poll or the ComRes poll, the common trend appears interesting – could the Conservative infighting and division over Europe be damaging their support?


----------



## killer b (Mar 14, 2016)

ICM themselves are very clear that they think its an anomaly. Seeing how uniform the polls have been, I cant imagine many people will disagree with them at this point.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> ICM themselves are very clear that they think its an anomaly. Seeing how uniform the polls have been, I cant imagine many people will disagree with them at this point.


The quote above suggests that there isn't really a uniformity - or that if there is it's around a tory loss and labour gain.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> ICM themselves are very clear that they think its an anomaly. Seeing how uniform the polls have been, I cant imagine many people will disagree with them at this point.



Makes sense. Could be the start of a trend though. As I said, ICM not changing their methodology suggests they're repeating the mistakes that led almost everyone on the far left to believe Labour would walk it. 

I would be dumbfounded if it reflected actual public opinion, despite the state of the Tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Makes sense. Could be the start of a trend though.


Of what?


----------



## magneze (Mar 14, 2016)

Full communism.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 14, 2016)

More anomalous polls.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 14, 2016)

The left is failing the Jewish people again: A Place and Name: the Left is Failing the Jewish People Again


----------



## belboid (Mar 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The left is failing the Jewish people again: A Place and Name: the Left is Failing the Jewish People Again


Fuck off


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The left is failing the Jewish people again: A Place and Name: the Left is Failing the Jewish People Again


Why have you linked to this? Have you anything to say?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 14, 2016)

The Vicky kirby stuff is an outrage. I find it hard to believe anyone in their right mind would disagree.

Or should Isis attack Israel? Is that OK to say in the Labour Party now?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 14, 2016)

Lolzers I have so many people on ignore I didn't realise some had replied. Considered replies from the far left as well.


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2016)

Kirby was investigated & warned in 2014. Corbyn was elected to leader in 2015. What responsibility does he bear for this situation?


----------



## newbie (Mar 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The left is failing the Jewish people again: A Place and Name: the Left is Failing the Jewish People Again


by and large i welcome your interventions, even if i don't agree with them, but this is disgraceful.  What possible motivation do you have for posting this drivel; what cesspits do you trawl to find such stuff?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Makes sense. Could be the start of a trend though. As I said, ICM not changing their methodology suggests they're repeating the mistakes that led almost everyone on the far left to believe Labour would walk it..



you keep repeating this. Who? If you look on here most people thought it would be a hung parliament. And even tories were surprised by their outright majority.

You're making this stuff up aren't you?


----------



## ReasonableMan (Mar 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> ICM themselves are very clear that they think its an anomaly. Seeing how uniform the polls have been, I cant imagine many people will disagree with them at this point.


One would hope its an anomaly - if it is not, it spells a very dark future for Britain's proud tradition of democracy and liberalism.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 15, 2016)

ReasonableMan said:


> One would hope its an anomaly - if it is not, it spells a very dark future for Britain's proud tradition of democracy and liberalism.



Why?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. the irony free use of 'dark future' and 'Britain's proud tradition' is very good.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Lolzers I have so many people on ignore I didn't realise some had replied...


So why bother coming here, or is it in the hopes that if you repeat your shtick often enough someone will listen? Evidently other people's opinions don't seem to loom large in your calculations.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Lolzers I have so many people on ignore I didn't realise some had replied. Considered replies from the far left as well.



The left as well as far left tbf, it's just that what constitutes 'the left' for New Labourites seems to have shifted to somewhere around the centre.

Though, you may want to ask yourself, _why have I got all these people on ignore? It couldn't possibly be me_.


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> The left as well as far left tbf, it's just that what constitutes 'the left' for New Labourites seems to have shifted to somewhere around the centre.



Not just for new Labourites, but society as a whole. New Labour was merely responding to the cultural and political shift caused by the victory of neo-liberal economics. When the latter was left in tatters in 2008-9, the extent of that victory was shown in that the left had no coherent response and only a minority of the western population demanded or even casually sought an alternative.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> New Labour was merely responding to the cultural and political shift caused by the victory of neo-liberal economics.


and when did this victory occur?


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> and when did this victory occur?


Are you fucking serious?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> Are you fucking serious?


yes. i am fucking serious. now, don't answer this with _another_ question, it makes you look stupid.


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. i am fucking serious.


I'd put you on ignore if you weren't so amusing. In a nutter on the bus kind of way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> I'd put you on ignore if you weren't so amusing. In a nutter on the bus kind of way.


now, when did this victory occur?


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2016)

about 1976 iirc


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> now, when did this victory occur?


OK then it didn't. Socialism around corner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> about 1976 iirc


let yer man answer, if you think he has the wherewithal


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> OK then it didn't. Socialism around corner.


come on now, killer b's helped you out - would you agree with 1976?


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> let yer man answer, if you think he has the wherewithal



October 17th 1986. About 3AM. Bright lights seen in sky.


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Although it might have been another time.


----------



## newbie (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> When the latter was left in tatters in 2008-9, the extent of that victory was shown in that the left had no coherent response and only a minority of the western population demanded or even casually sought an alternative.


I don't know about 'victory' but there's a depressing element of truth in this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> October 17th 1986. About 3AM. Bright lights seen in sky.


i was hoping you'd offer a sensible reply. too much to hope for, obviously.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> New Labour was merely responding to the cultural and political shift caused by the victory of neo-liberal economics.


so they weren't themselves neo-liberals, just responding to this 'victory' of uncertain date. which might have been eight years before blair became leader of the labour party. or it might have been eighteen years before he became leader of the labour party. but you don't know when it was.


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i was hoping you'd offer a sensible reply. too much to hope for, obviously.


Ask a sensible question then.

Jesus, how long can you carry on with this trying to lead people around in pointless circles and trying to derail every topic trick of yours? It makes you seem weird, not clever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> Ask a sensible question then.


my point is very simple: that the leaders of new labour were neo-liberal, they were not responding the this victory you claim occurred (but as noted you dare not say when it was). now, when do you think this victory occurred?


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> my point is very simple: that the leaders of new labour were neo-liberal, they were not responding the this victory you claim occurred (but as noted you dare not say when it was). now, when do you think this victory occurred?


Never said they weren't neo liberal. In a different era they might not have been. They responded to the victory of neo-liberal economics, which had been established sometime between the faltering of the post-war consensus and the time of their electoral victory, by working within the consensus established by that neo-liberal victory.

But, of course, you already know all this. So is it fair to ask if you'll go and waste somebody else's time?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> Never said they weren't neo liberal. In a different era they might not have been. They responded to the victory of neo-liberal economics, which had been established sometime between the faltering of the post-war consensus and the time of their electoral victory, by working within the consensus established by that neo-liberal victory.
> 
> But, of course, you already know all this. So is it fair to ask if you'll go and waste somebody else's time?


no time need have been wasted if you'd only said to start off with that you're a banned returner; any more recent arriver would not have known me from adam, given me the answer and avoided this whole palaver.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

Frank Selged said:


> Never said they weren't neo liberal. In a different era they might not have been. They responded to the victory of neo-liberal economics, which had been established sometime between the faltering of the post-war consensus and the time of their electoral victory, by working within the consensus established by that neo-liberal victory.


people who 'respond' to 'something' traditionally not that 'something': people responding to the rise of fascism, people responding to twats who claim to be newbies; etc etc etc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 15, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Accusations of anti-Semitism are being abused by Corbyn's enemies


That semi-fascist shit-stirrer Guido gleefully carried this story yesterday.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The left is failing the Jewish people again: A Place and Name: the Left is Failing the Jewish People Again


Drivel.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> An ICM poll has got Labour drawing level. I don't know where that comes from in the sense that it wasn't expected. ICM are the only pollsters not to change methodology since the general election, but I'm sure that Corbynistas will suspend their disbelief in polls temporarily and clear ICM of any doubt for the next four years.


It must have given you quite a start, eh?

Are you ignoring me, MarkyMarrk?


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> people who 'respond' to 'something' traditionally not that 'something': people responding to the rise of fascism, people responding to twats who claim to be newbies; etc etc etc.


Yeah.


----------



## Frank Selged (Mar 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no time need have been wasted if you'd only said to start off with that you're a banned returner; any more recent arriver would not have known me from adam, given me the answer and avoided this whole palaver.


Yeah.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It must have given you quite a start, eh?
> 
> Are you ignoring me, MarkyMarrk?


only if you're _really_ lucky


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> That semi-fascist shit-stirrer Guido gleefully carried this story yesterday.


I believe Guido broke it. It's a reasonable story to break tbf - but connecting it with Corbyn is totally disingenuous.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I believe Guido broke it. It's a reasonable story to break tbf - but connecting it with Corbyn is totally disingenuous.



These anti-Semites should be cleared out of the Labour Party but at the same time the weaponising of anti-Semitism accusations which are then extrapolated to accuse the Labour Party in its entirety, or at least the leadership, of anti-Semitism is a dangerous precedent. The Tory Party is now fully committed to a strategy of fearmongering amongst some minority communities, partly by setting them against each other. Take this Goldsmith leaflet as an example


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 15, 2016)

ReasonableMan said:


> One would hope its an anomaly - if it is not, it spells a very dark future for Britain's proud tradition of democracy and liberalism.


You have an overactive imagination.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> These anti-Semites should be cleared out of the Labour Party but at the same time the weaponising of anti-Semitism accusations which are then extrapolated to accuse the Labour Party in its entirety, or at least the leadership, of anti-Semitism is a dangerous precedent. The Tory Party is now fully committed to a strategy of fearmongering amongst some minority communities, partly by setting them against each other. Take this Goldsmith leaflet as an example



Wow. 'Some of my best friends are Indian.' 

and

'Don't forget he's Pakistani...'


----------



## treelover (Mar 15, 2016)

J Ed said:


> These anti-Semites should be cleared out of the Labour Party but at the same time the weaponising of anti-Semitism accusations which are then extrapolated to accuse the Labour Party in its entirety, or at least the leadership, of anti-Semitism is a dangerous precedent. The Tory Party is now fully committed to a strategy of fearmongering amongst some minority communities, partly by setting them against each other. Take this Goldsmith leaflet as an example




Disgusting pure communalism, playing with fire.


----------



## killer b (Mar 15, 2016)

hm, if you're going to let the likes of oswaldtwistle back on, then the same courtesy should be extended to lletsa IMO. He actually has something useful to say in among the miserableism.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> Disgusting pure communalism, playing with fire.



There was a good amount of it in the election, and in the run up to it, last year which flew under the radar. The Tories pandered to Hindu bigots by opposing a ban on caste discrimination and in return their got a good amount of their votes.


----------



## agricola (Mar 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> Disgusting pure communalism, playing with fire.



I think that is to suggest there was rather more thought put into that leaflet than appears to have been the case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The left is failing the Jewish people again: A Place and Name: the Left is Failing the Jewish People Again



For someone who's ranted about the stereotyping of black people, you're awfully free with posting a link that stereotypes Jewish people.  

The article you link to is an emotionalist piece of shit, by the way. The opening paragraph 2 paragraphs - a full third of the entire article- are about _Yad Vashem_, effectively appealing to the holocaust as a marker for letting the state of Israel get on with what it does best. The author claims that anti-Semitism didn't exist in the Labour Party until Corbyn and "the left" took over. It's interesting that you blame "the left", too, just like the author. 
It's interesting because Kirby had already been disciplined for this sort of behaviour under Miliband. So much for anti-Semitism not existing in the Labour Party until Corbyn, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It must have given you quite a start, eh?
> 
> Are you ignoring me, MarkyMarrk?



He's pretty much got every poster that's ever called him on his bullshit on ignore.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's pretty much got every poster that's ever called him on his bullshit on ignore.


At this rate, he'll have everyone on ignore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> At this rate, he'll have everyone on ignore.


yeh. but - from his pov - he'll be the ignore champion of urban.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> hm, if you're going to let the likes of oswaldtwistle back on, then the same courtesy should be extended to lletsa IMO. He actually has something useful to say in among the miserableism.


He's like a clinically depressed Paul Calf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's like a clinically depressed Paul Calf.


a clinically depressing paul calf


----------



## Libertad (Mar 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's like a clinically depressed Paul Calf.



Fuckin' students.


----------



## youngian (Mar 15, 2016)

From the increasingly ridiculous New Statesman George Eaton finds more reds under McDonnell's bed. Complete with a Wikipedia guide to Gramsci and entryism


> *Exclusive: John McDonnell named Lenin and Trotsky as his biggest influences in 2006*
> On 3 September 2015, for the first time in British history, a Marxist entered the office of shadow chancellor. Unlike Jeremy Corbyn, who recently confessed that he had not “read as much of Marx as I should have done”, John McDonnell is described by friends as a “true follower” of the philosopher.
> 
> Labour MPs have long suspected that his admiration extends to Lenin and Trotsky, the leaders of the 1917 Soviet revolution. Alengthy 2006 interview with the Trotskyist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, unearthed by the _New Statesman_, confirmed their belief. Asked to name the “most significant” influences on his thought, McDonnell (who was then standing for the Labour leadership) replied: “The fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, basically.”
> ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 15, 2016)

youngian said:


> From the increasingly ridiculous New Statesman George Eaton finds more reds under McDonnell's bed. Complete with a Wikipedia guide to Gramsci and entryism



For 'unearthed' read googled (strangely it doesn't sound so arduous); whatever happened to thoughtful research and good journalism?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> For someone who's ranted about the stereotyping of black people, you're awfully free with posting a link that stereotypes Jewish people.
> 
> The article you link to is an emotionalist piece of shit, by the way. The opening paragraph 2 paragraphs - a full third of the entire article- are about _Yad Vashem_, effectively appealing to the holocaust as a marker for letting the state of Israel get on with what it does best. The author claims that anti-Semitism didn't exist in the Labour Party until Corbyn and "the left" took over. It's interesting that you blame "the left", too, just like the author.
> It's interesting because Kirby had already been disciplined for this sort of behaviour under Miliband. So much for anti-Semitism not existing in the Labour Party until Corbyn, eh?



You defend anything. Even admitting Kirby back into the Labour Party.
Thank God officials have seen right given the furore (we've lost one good member who actually campaigns door to door over this, but those of you who don't bother actually campaigning for us don't care about that) and suspended her again. 
I guess you'll now think it's right to suspend her again, given you just blindly defend anything Corbyn's Labour does.


----------



## Tankus (Mar 16, 2016)

According to Guido she was reported to the police ..by someone who fancies his chances...maybe...


> Kevin McKeever ‎@kevinmckeever
> Vicky Kirby comments may well breach race relations and public order laws, which is why I've complained to @SurreyPolice
> 9:09 AM - 15 Mar 2016


didn't really leave them a lot of options


 ‎


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You defend anything. Even admitting Kirby back into the Labour Party.
> Thank God officials have seen right given the furore (we've lost one good member who actually campaigns door to door over this, but those of you who don't bother actually campaigning for us don't care about that) and suspended her again.
> I guess you'll now think it's right to suspend her again, given you just blindly defend anything Corbyn's Labour does.


It was Ed Miliband's labour that readmitted her.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> It was Ed Miliband's labour that readmitted her.



Yes, but... but... but... _Red_ Ed, remember?


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2016)

I wonder how much oversight the leadership has over individual discipline of local activists. Very little I'd imagine - as we know, local parties of all stripe are teeming with nutters, and there's likely to be tens, if not hundreds, of disciplinary processes ongoing at any one time. To expect the leader to even have a handle on the ongoing disciplinaries - let alone one that was concluded two years before he became leader - stretched credulity. 

Corbyn's enemies have simply chosen a route of attack, and are now digging as hard as possible to find any mud to throw, even if it's nothing to do with him.


----------



## youngian (Mar 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> The left is failing the Jewish people again: A Place and Name: the Left is Failing the Jewish People Again





> I see all this crap regularly, but through the medium of anti-“Zionism” rather than “Judaism”. But I don’t just see it on the far right. It is as much a leftist disease. For the last ten years it has crept, slowly, into acceptable discourse, into our universities. But the Labour Party remained immune until Corbyn won. And now we have daily reports of anti-Semitism in a party which has always fought for universal human rights. The new anti-Semitism is becoming monopolised by the discourses of the left. It is a vicious disease and one that my party is taking too lightly.


 I'm not saying they don't exist but I've never met anyone on the left who could be described as anti-semitic including someone like Galloway who even at his most inflammatory about Israel has never said anything remotely anti-semitic. I understand this Kirby woman who sparked this debate was readmitted to Labour under Ed Miliband. And I didn't hear any of these people now bashing Labour laying into the snide anti-semitic articles about the Miliband family. Or 'North London Continental Marxist intellectuals' as the Daily Mail called them. I believe Ralph Miliband is what Nixon called 'the wrong sort of Jew.' Israel is as adept at selectively playing the kith and kin card as Ian Smith in Rhodesia was with the Tories when even they were getting tired of his moribund regime. But whoever Netyanhu wants in the Whitehouse (Ted Cruz?) it is not Bernie Sanders. And what is "legitimate criticism of Israel?" Advocating a single secular state for the region where everyone can sort out their future together is not apparently as you are calling for 'the destruction of Israel.'


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You defend anything. Even admitting Kirby back into the Labour Party.
> Thank God officials have seen right given the furore (we've lost one good member who actually campaigns door to door over this, but those of you who don't bother actually campaigning for us don't care about that) and suspended her again.
> I guess you'll now think it's right to suspend her again, given you just blindly defend anything Corbyn's Labour does.


Desperate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You defend anything. Even admitting Kirby back into the Labour Party.



Show me where I've done that.
Then when you can't show that I've defended Kirby's reinstatement prior to Corbyn's win *or* now, you can either apologise, or make yourself look even more of a twat by not apologising. I don't mind which.



> Thank God officials have seen right given the furore (we've lost one good member who actually campaigns door to door over this, but those of you who don't bother actually campaigning for us don't care about that) and suspended her again.
> I guess you'll now think it's right to suspend her again, given you just blindly defend anything Corbyn's Labour does.



I believe that if she's judged by her constituency party to have voiced anti-Semitic comments, she should be expelled, and that any member of any mainstream political party that doesn't have anti-Semitism as a policy should do likewise. 

It's signally interesting that you project these supposedly-stereotypical behaviour patterns onto people not based on fact, but on your own prejudices over their position on the current Labour leadership. As I've said before, you lack the ability to think critically.


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2016)

youngian said:


> I didn't hear any of these people now bashing Labour laying into the snide anti-semitic articles about the Miliband family. Or 'North London Continental Marxist intellectuals' as the Daily Mail called them.


_North London Marxist Intellectuals_ is the charged levelled at Corbyn & McDonnell by the likes of the very people moaning about anti-semitic activists in the provinces. Curious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> I wonder how much oversight the leadership has over individual discipline of local activists. Very little I'd imagine - as we know, local parties of all stripe are teeming with nutters, and there's likely to be tens, if not hundreds, of disciplinary processes ongoing at any one time. To expect the leader to even have a handle on the ongoing disciplinaries - let alone one that was concluded two years before he became leader - stretched credulity.
> 
> Corbyn's enemies have simply chosen a route of attack, and are now digging as hard as possible to find any mud to throw, even if it's nothing to do with him.



Local branches have historically always been a bearpit, with certain people - if they were the type who wanted to "get on" in the party, but had little actual political talent - stabbing others in the back. Discipline got stronger during the Blair years, but only really got exercised on matters of staying "on message". Kirby's utterances are utterly distasteful - and if the context they've been reported in is correct, her party *should* expel her - but one wonders *why*they were reported, and how this originally got to the media. Possibly another minimally-talented member putting the boot in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Desperate.



More like "typical".


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> You defend anything. Even admitting Kirby back into the Labour Party.
> Thank God officials have seen right given the furore (we've lost one good member who actually campaigns door to door over this, but those of you who don't bother actually campaigning for us don't care about that) and suspended her again.
> I guess you'll now think it's right to suspend her again, given you just blindly defend anything Corbyn's Labour does.


tbh i think it would be right to suspend the lot of you


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> More like "typical".


Typically desperate.


----------



## Libertad (Mar 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i think it would be right to suspend the lot of you



"Comme fruits malheureux a cet arbre pendus"

Strange fruit indeed.


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2016)

I see Corbyn had a nice new suit and a smartly tied tie at the dispatch box this afternoon.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> I see Corbyn had a nice new suit and a smartly tied tie at the dispatch box this afternoon.



I am just oblivious to all of this stuff I think. It's not that I don't care, I mean I don't care at all but that's besides the point, I just don't notice.


----------



## oryx (Mar 16, 2016)

Anyone else see Cathy Newman on C4 news tonight, almost failing to let Seema Malhotra get a word in edgeways between aggressive questioning?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 17, 2016)

More drivel from the BBC. As usual another unnamed Labour MP is quoted.


> As one of his MPs put it privately: "He wasn't light footed enough to respond to the government announcements and focused on "our people" as always. But it will warm the cockles of the Corbynistas."
> Budget 2016: Corbyn under scrutiny from Labour MPs - BBC News


----------



## killer b (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I am just oblivious to all of this stuff I think. It's not that I don't care, I mean I don't care at all but that's besides the point, I just don't notice.


It's a change in direction worth noting, if nothing else.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Mar 17, 2016)

At this point under Miliband we were leading by 11 points - and even then we were in despair because he was so ineffective. Some of the old-timers in my CLP have a group email but it just consists of people taking the piss now. It seems that we've accepted we're either going to have the PLP do something or we're going to accept that we've lost.

The old-timers will still be the only ones knocking on doors - the new 'members' don't bother doing anything, even in the recent local elections. They just like turning up to meetings to try to change our policy or kick old-timers off committees. It's all a bit sad, but at least we're laughing. Apparently we're not unusual in this area. Thousands more members, not interested in doing things for the party.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 17, 2016)

How long have you been a member of your CLP/Labour, and what things are you active in?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2016)

The neck and neck poll looked like an outlier, but hey look here...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> The neck and neck poll looked like an outlier, but hey look here...



It's _almost_ a shame mark's not here to see it.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 17, 2016)

What do you say about that, MarkyMarrk? 

... oh wait


----------



## killer b (Mar 17, 2016)

well well.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 17, 2016)

I was in this thread only 20-odd minutes ago and now  ....

Was he a returning banned poster? 

<ETA> : Guessed that *before* I saw posts from FridgeMagnet  on page 15 of this other thread ... who knows? who 'he' was though ...


----------



## oryx (Mar 17, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I was in this thread only 20-odd minutes ago and now  ....
> 
> Was he a returning banned poster?



Yes. Who, I wonder?!!!


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2016)

I honestly did not see this polling boost coming, did anyone else? Any guesses on why we've seen it? The Tories are pretty divided and the budget was a big fuck you to almost all of us, or are people just getting used to actually having a socialist leader of the opposition? Or is it a bit of both?


----------



## oryx (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I honestly did not see this polling boost coming, did anyone else? Any guesses on why we've seen it? The Tories are pretty divided and the budget was a big fuck you to almost all of us, or are people just getting used to actually having a socialist leader of the opposition? Or is it a bit of both?



I think it might be the cuts to disability benefits - it's a blatantly cruel stance and getting lots of media attention.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I honestly did not see this polling boost coming, did anyone else? Any guesses on why we've seen it? The Tories are pretty divided and the budget was a big fuck you to almost all of us, or are people just getting used to actually having a socialist leader of the opposition? Or is it a bit of both?


My guess - not the budget (surprise surprise, before the election it was all great, after the election it's all shit), but the EU. The tories are at each other, openly and really rather personally. They're slagging each other off way more than even Blairites are slagging off Corbyn atm. It's surely not a good look.


----------



## agricola (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I honestly did not see this polling boost coming, did anyone else? Any guesses on why we've seen it? The Tories are pretty divided and the budget was a big fuck you to almost all of us, or are people just getting used to actually having a socialist leader of the opposition? Or is it a bit of both?



The Tory split on the EU combined with the maquis all going on some kind of sponsored silence, probably.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2016)

oryx said:


> I think it might be the cuts to disability benefits - it's a blatantly cruel stance and getting lots of media attention.



It _is _disgustingly cruel, but why now? The Tories (and yellow Tories) have been treating the disabled like shit over and over and over basically since they got in with the coalition government.


----------



## oryx (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It _is _disgustingly cruel, but why now? The Tories (and yellow Tories) have been treating the disabled like shit over and over and over basically since they got in with the coalition government.



Changes to PIP in the budget getting lots of media attention.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2016)

agricola said:


> The Tory split on the EU combined with the maquis all going on some kind of sponsored silence, probably.





littlebabyjesus said:


> My guess - not the budget (surprise surprise, before the election it was all great, after the election it's all shit), but the EU. The tories are at each other, openly and really rather personally. They're slagging each other off way more than even Blairites are slagging off Corbyn atm. It's surely not a good look.



That's a good point, I hadn't considered this but a lot of the most ardently anti-Corbyn PLP members have been busy aiming their ire at Brexit.

It's not my position but it has been very smart politics for the Labour leadership to take a very mild pro-remain position while not associating themselves with the campaign all that much.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's not my position but it has been very smart politics for the Labour leadership to take a very mild pro-remain position while not associating themselves with the campaign all that much.


Yep, I think so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It _is _disgustingly cruel, but why now? The Tories (and yellow Tories) have been treating the disabled like shit over and over and over basically since they got in with the coalition government.


not even the mail had a pro-budget headline today. Nothing about useless eaters getting their dues like but how his sums were a massive gamble and looked off etc
Is this undermining against pro eu tories like how they snidely run full page CHARITY SCANDAL and anti NHS stuff all the time? Could be.

on your last point, they have been cutting for ages but the more they do the more feel it and it starts to impact if not them, someone they know. Remember the proposed cut to in work tax credits etc


----------



## agricola (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's not my position but it has been very smart politics for the Labour leadership to take a very mild pro-remain position while not associating themselves with the campaign all that much.



Perhaps, though whether that is down to smart politics or because he (finally) has something to get them to pipe down with (ie: his previous opinions on the EU, TTIP etc) is something only they know.  Personally, I think its the latter - they don't really respond to any other kind of argument.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Mar 17, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It _is _disgustingly cruel, but why now? The Tories (and yellow Tories) have been treating the disabled like shit over and over and over basically since they got in with the coalition government.



There are lots of people who don't go looking for news like that, and it doesn't directly affect them.  They need it spelled out in words of one syllable - most people aren't cruel and heartless, but they can look past a lot until it's too obvious to ignore.

"Fuck you disabled people, you don't need your 30 quid and we need our billion.  Corporation tax down."  Osborne's fucked up, this is impossible to spin.


----------



## JimW (Mar 17, 2016)

Would the reaction to cuts to disability benefit be showing up in the polls yet?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Mar 17, 2016)

JimW said:


> Would the reaction to cuts to disability benefit be showing up in the polls yet?



UK Polling Report says the times poll was conducted after the budget.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 17, 2016)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> "Fuck you disabled people, you don't need your 30 quid and we need our billion.  Corporation tax down."  Osborne's fucked up, this is impossible to spin.


Or it's a calculated first year budget. They don't need or even necessarily want to be popular at the moment.


----------



## killer b (Mar 18, 2016)

Its the third poll showing that trajectory though, and the other two were before. I don't think its the budget.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Mar 18, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Or it's a calculated first year budget. They don't need or even necessarily want to be popular at the moment.



Aye, fair point.  Osborne is auditioning for the big job though, between the EU and the economy he personally has quite the balancing act to perform.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 18, 2016)

Is there any possibility that Britain now just has austerity fatigue? I was being flippant on the budget thread when I said that jam tomorrow has become 'you can never have jam' but that really does seem to be the narrative now, and that is a harder narrative to sell than pushing the narrative that we all just have to endure before the government 'sorts out the finances'. By contrast, _anything_ Labour say looks better than that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 18, 2016)

MarkyMarrk was a returning banned poster? Now there's a surprise. 

He'll be back. His sort always come back (and get banned again).


----------



## two sheds (Mar 18, 2016)

Hadn't seen one that sneered that much, though. A true Blairite.


----------



## The Pale King (Mar 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is there any possibility that Britain now just has austerity fatigue? I was being flippant on the budget thread when I said that jam tomorrow has become 'you can never have jam' but that really does seem to be the narrative now, and that is a harder narrative to sell than pushing the narrative that we all just have to endure before the government 'sorts out the finances'. By contrast, _anything_ Labour say looks better than that.



I think you're right. It's almost 'no jam, no tomorrow'. A weird futuricity in which we atone evermore for the sins of our past (greed, overconsumption, overborrowing etc). The future (once bright and involving less work and more leisure) now merely an unfulfilled debt to the past. It's highly punitive, and it's no wonder (although still heartening) that people are kicking against it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> He'll be back.


like a bad penny


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2016)

oryx said:


> I think it might be the cuts to disability benefits - it's a blatantly cruel stance and getting lots of media attention.



There have been other cuts to disability benfits, Osborne has made a tactical error highlighting this change, linking it to the deficit, the Grimleys at the DWP are hopping mad, they just wanted to slip it through as usual.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2016)

oryx said:


> Changes to PIP in the budget getting lots of media attention.




Tipping point, for some reason, media is allowing real critics of the changes on, not then having on some turncoat who says it is wonderful, public is ready to listen. Its taken a long time, I hope Voids blog stops the swearing, ultra radicalism, as i suspect it is going to become more influential/recognised etc.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2016)

The Pale King said:


> I think you're right. It's almost 'no jam, no tomorrow'. A weird futuricity in which we atone evermore for the sins of our past (greed, overconsumption, overborrowing etc). The future (once bright and involving less work and more leisure) now merely an unfulfilled debt to the past. It's highly punitive, and it's no wonder (although still heartening) that people are kicking against it.



Despair Fatigue | David Graeber

Graeber has a view on this,


----------



## Libertad (Mar 18, 2016)

treelover said:


> I hope Voids blog stops the swearing, ultra radicalism



Less than no fucking chance of that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 19, 2016)

Meanwhile, over at 1 Canada Square, the home of the Torygraph, they're claiming that if Corbyn becomes PM it will be a "return to the era of beer and sandwiches at No. 10". This from a paper that supports a party in government that has no industrial policy. 


> Jeremy Corbyn will return to the era of "beer and sandwiches at Number 10" with union leaders if he becomes Prime Minister, John McDonnell has said.
> 
> The shadow chancellor suggested that a future Labour government would return to the politics of the 1960s and 1970s, with union leaders have a place at the "top table".
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Mar 19, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Meanwhile, over at 1 Canada Square, the home of the Torygraph, they're claiming that if Corbyn becomes PM it will be a "return to the era of beer and sandwiches at No. 10". This from a paper that supports a party in government that has no industrial policy.



Is there a single person in the country that dislikes beer _and _sandwiches? If you don't like one you must surely like the other. In fact if I were to describe my perfect work scenario 'beer and sandwiches' would definitely be in the description.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is there a single person in the country that dislikes beer _and _sandwiches? Either if you don't like one you must surely like the other. In fact if I were to describe my perfect work scenario 'beer and sandwiches' would definitely be in the description.


I *heart* beer and sandwiches.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 19, 2016)

Rentoul using IDS's resignation to put the boot in _again_, though here he only manages the poison in the last paragraph. The man's a complete fool.

As IDS quits over disability cuts, Labour might as well not exist


----------



## Knotted (Mar 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I honestly did not see this polling boost coming, did anyone else? Any guesses on why we've seen it? The Tories are pretty divided and the budget was a big fuck you to almost all of us, or are people just getting used to actually having a socialist leader of the opposition? Or is it a bit of both?



My thinking is that the Labour leadership has not made much impression on the general population. Corbyn's election as Labour leader seems like an earthquake to people who follow politics but this is a very small fraction of the population. The budget however is big news to most people. I think what we've just seen is a fragile confidence in the Tory party crumble at the edges.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 19, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Rentoul using IDS's resignation to put the boot in _again_, though here he only manages the poison in the last paragraph. The man's a complete fool.
> 
> As IDS quits over disability cuts, Labour might as well not exist


If you check the comments section of that article by Rentoul you will see that he has been obviously "sussed" by his readers. My favourite comment was "once a toul always a toul".


----------



## teqniq (Mar 19, 2016)

Yeah I had noticed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is there a single person in the country that dislikes beer _and _sandwiches? If you don't like one you must surely like the other. In fact if I were to describe my perfect work scenario 'beer and sandwiches' would definitely be in the description.


while I know its a vieled metaphor for 'der union barons will be calling the shots' bollocks, I'll have a toasted cheese ham with tomato slices in it and a kronenburg.

Number 10 has its own wine cellar apparently and each PM 'lays down' a bottle or 60 to age. £3.2 millions worth of the stuff they say. How the other half live eh.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 21, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Meanwhile, over at 1 Canada Square, the home of the Torygraph, they're claiming that if Corbyn becomes PM it will be a "return to the era of beer and sandwiches at No. 10". This from a paper that supports a party in government that has no industrial policy.



This shows their poor understanding of the beer and sandwiches era and basic economics. In the 70s Income Policies were the better option for controlling inflation, rather than using recessions to curb it as we do now.
Of course Income policies affecting wages and prices only really work if you have a majority of state owned industries.
So if Corbyn is in number 10, will we see the renationalisation of all our manufacturing industries, Oh where has it gone?

But a cheese and pickle sandwich and a bottle of Black Sheep would suit me if being offered!


----------



## gosub (Mar 21, 2016)

With canapes and shampoo you can get those little plastic things so you can hang your glass on the side of the plate.  Won't work with pint pots and you can't vape no handed.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 21, 2016)

gosub said:


> Won't work with pint pots and you can't vape no handed.



This is where the discarded harmonica holders also popular in the sixties and seventies could also make a comeback!


----------



## gosub (Mar 21, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> This is where the discarded harmonica holders also popular in the sixties and seventies could also make a comeback!
> 
> View attachment 84910


by the the time you've added a foot syrup to push the button it will all get a bit heath robinson.


The Eric Pickles snack shelf ftw


----------



## youngian (Mar 22, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> This shows their poor understanding of the beer and sandwiches era and basic economics. In the 70s Income Policies were the better option for controlling inflation, rather than using recessions to curb it as we do now.
> Of course Income policies affecting wages and prices only really work if you have a majority of state owned industries.
> So if Corbyn is in number 10, will we see the renationalisation of all our manufacturing industries, Oh where has it gone?



It was one of the least bad options for dealing with that period of stagflation. There were large private sector firms with improving sales and productivity that were happy to break the 5% ceiling. The sort of perks associated with MPs became popular to circumnavigate the problem. Quality subsidised canteens became popular in factories for eg.


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2016)

> * With the Tory party imploding, Labour needs to reinvent itself – fast *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can someone explain what Paul Mason is suggesting here, a move to the right, compromise with the Blairites?, etc, power at any price, doesn't sound very promising


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2016)

> "This will be hard to design in a single conference season, while some of the sharpest minds on welfare are in that group of MPs that has decided not to participate in the Corbyn team. An overt offer of responsibility to them might change that.



Fuck , he wants to give reconfiguring the welfare state project to the blairites and people like Yvette Cooper who initiated the Kafkaesque 'imaginary wheelchair test' as part of a more brutal WCA test: if you can propel this imaginary wheelchair(remember you don't have to actually own one) 50 metres you fail that part of the test. I don't think sick and disabled people want such apparatchiks anywhere near a humane reconfiguring of social security.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> Fuck , he wants to give reconfiguring the welfare state project to the blairites and people like Yvette Cooper who initiated the Kafkaesque 'imaginary wheelchair test' as part of a more brutal WCA test: if you can propel this imaginary wheelchair(remember you don't have to actually own one) 50 metres you fail that part of the test. I don't think sick and disabled people want such apparatchiks anywhere near a humane reconfiguring of social security.



Paul Mason has really let himself down lately.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 22, 2016)

treelover said:


> .... I don't think sick and disabled people want such apparatchiks anywhere near a humane reconfiguring of social security.



Unless Corbyn - or perhaps someone with more political nouse like McDonnell - sorts something out in the next year, the 2020GE will sort that out for you permanently. You are however unlikely to appreciate the alternative.

Politics is either getting some of what you want and some of what you don't, or none of what you want and lots that you don't. Pick one...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Paul Mason has really let himself down lately.


i don't really understand his tech will save us stuff, it doesn't make sense to me


----------



## J Ed (Mar 22, 2016)

kebabking said:


> Unless Corbyn - or perhaps someone with more political nouse like McDonnell - sorts something out in the next year, the 2020GE will sort that out for you permanently. You are however unlikely to appreciate the alternative.
> 
> Politics is either getting some of what you want and some of what you don't, or none of what you want and lots that you don't. Pick one...



Who says that treelover isn't compromising already with Corbyn?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> i don't really understand his tech will save us stuff, it doesn't make sense to me



Imo it's just cover for status quo elite class power 'disruption' of the economy, it gets useful idiots to be like 'oh cool scab tills taking away jobs, things are really heading in the right direction'.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/07/mason-guardian-capitalism-new-economy-post-work/


----------



## brogdale (Mar 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> i don't really understand his tech will save us stuff, it doesn't make sense to me


That's probably because it's a load of bollux.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Who says that treelover isn't compromising already with Corbyn?



then treelover would be unlucky. 

without some form of compromise - not least with the electorate - Corbyn, and by extension, those who want him to enact their policies, will be in no more position to change the situation than Cnut was to stop the tide. people can - of course - choose the moral purity of a refusal to make dirty compromises if they wish...


----------



## J Ed (Mar 22, 2016)

kebabking said:


> then treelover would be unlucky.
> 
> without some form of compromise - not least with the electorate - Corbyn, and by extension, those who want him to enact their policies, will be in no more position to change the situation than Cnut was to stop the tide. people can - of course - choose the moral purity of a refusal to make dirty compromises if they wish...



Corbyn's domestic policies are closer to public opinion than anything offered by a Tory or Labour leader for decades, the idea that they are based on radical theory is ridiculous. They are post-Keynesian rather than socialist. They are basically one inch to the left of neoliberalism, which is one inch too far for our ruling class which is why they have declared war on him, one of the ways in which that war is being fought is the perpetuation of this nonsense that his policies are Bolshevism Redux.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2016)

kebabking said:


> then treelover would be unlucky.
> 
> without some form of compromise - not least with the electorate - Corbyn, and by extension, those who want him to enact their policies, will be in no more position to change the situation than Cnut was to stop the tide. people can - of course - choose the moral purity of a refusal to make dirty compromises if they wish...



You do know that Cnut didn't want to stop the tide; that wasn't the point he was trying to make.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

Useful guide leaked from Labour...

Leaked List Ranks Labour MPs By “hostility” To Corbyn | LabourList


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Useful guide leaked from Labour...
> 
> Leaked List Ranks Labour MPs By “hostility” To Corbyn | LabourList


I noticed Valerie Vaz's brother's not on that list. Was ist los? 

Oops, just spotted him. He's predictably 'hostile'.


----------



## treelover (Mar 23, 2016)

Cameon using that list to make jibes at Corbyn at PMQ's.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

treelover said:


> Cameon using that list to make jibes at Corbyn at PMQ's.


Only because it allowed him to wriggle out of an uncomfortable question. The Speaker should have intervened.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You do know that Cnut didn't want to stop the tide; that wasn't the point he was trying to make.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Shut it, you Cnut!!! 

Gets coat!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I noticed Valerie Vaz's brother's not on that list. Was ist los?
> 
> Oops, just spotted him. He's predictably 'hostile'.



The Buddha of Leicester is nothing if not predictably hostile to anything that threatens his interests.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

Well, this looks very smelly for a 'core group' member...

Defending good unions doesn't mean protecting bad ones (with images, tweets) · hopisen


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Well, this looks very smelly for a 'core group' member...
> 
> Defending good unions doesn't mean protecting bad ones (with images, tweets) · hopisen


Hopi Sen.


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Useful guide leaked from Labour...
> 
> Leaked List Ranks Labour MPs By “hostility” To Corbyn | LabourList


not really sure how loyal Harry Harpham is any more


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Hopi Sen.


Yeah, even so...on the face of it, there's ammunition for this 'execution'?


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, even so...on the face of it, there's ammunition for this 'execution'?


I'd like to find some dirt to chuck at Sen tbh. He's fucking poison.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I'd like to find some dirt to chuck at Sen tbh. He's fucking poison.


Yep, but _*if *_Lavery has been hoovering up NUM funds, as it would appear, he's got some fucking explaining to do, no?


----------



## andysays (Mar 23, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You do know that Cnut didn't want to stop the tide; that wasn't the point he was trying to make.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice





> The story of _*King Canute and the waves*_ is an apocryphal anecdote illustrating the piety or humility of king Canute the Great, recorded in the 12th century by Henry of Huntingdon.
> 
> In the narrative, Canute demonstrates to his flattering courtiers that he has no control over the elements (the incoming tide), explaining that secular power is vain compared to the supreme power of God. The episode is frequently alluded to in contexts where the futility of "trying to stop the tide" of an inexorable event is pointed out, but usually misrepresenting Canute as believing he had supernatural powers, when Huntingdon's story in fact relates the opposite.



Are you suggesting that Corbyn is in some way seeking to demonstrate to his supporters within the Labour party that parliamentary power is vain compared to the greater power of capitalism, and that if they persist in believing in a parliamentary road to socialism (or even to social democracy) they too will drown in the incoming tide of neo-liberalism?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Useful guide leaked from Labour...
> 
> Leaked List Ranks Labour MPs By “hostility” To Corbyn | LabourList


Surprised that Sadiq Khan is in the most hostile list, he's not been a vocal critic like others and he did lend Corbyn his nomination.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Yep, but _*if *_Lavery has been hoovering up NUM funds, as it would appear, he's got some fucking explaining to do, no?


Sure, but I did a bit of light digging earlier and it's interesting for the fact that John Mann sticks his oar in. 


> Responding to the figures, Labour MP John Mann told the newspaper: “There is no justification in any circumstances for a single penny being diverted from the compensation of sick coal miners.” Northumberland MP calls claims he profited from compensation for sick miners 'the ultimate insult'



Here's Lavery's defence in the Ronnie Gill (Chronicle).


> But Mr Lavery has since hit back, saying the donations were made voluntarily by miners in recognition of the “exemplary” service they had received.
> 
> He described the insinuation that he had taken money from sick miners as “the ultimate insult” and said his branch had secured “tens of millions of pounds” worth of compensation for its members.
> 
> ...



What's interesting is how it's only The Sunday Times that has the story. No one else seems to be carrying it.
Google


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Surprised that Sadiq Khan is in the most hostile list, he's not been a vocal critic like others and he did lend Corbyn his nomination.


A little bird has told me the list may be a fake.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

Interesting that they've obviously been sitting on this 'grenade' for some time (Meacher etc.) and chose to 'detonate' this week to neutralise Labour attacks. Shows how weak/defensive they feel.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Surprised that Sadiq Khan is in the most hostile list, he's not been a vocal critic like others and he did lend Corbyn his nomination.


possibly part of the 'oh shit we never thought he'd actually win it, it was a sop to old proles who remember labour left' brigade


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> possibly part of the 'oh shit we never thought he'd actually win it, it was a sop to old proles who remember labour left' brigade


Sure, but the fact that he was willing to do that means that he's far less hostile than some (many) of the PLP.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> A little bird has told me the list may be a fake.


Not sure, but significant that the vermin have had to wield these weapons this week.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 23, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Surprised that Sadiq Khan is in the most hostile list, he's not been a vocal critic like others and he did lend Corbyn his nomination.


sadiq dissed corbyn the day after his election in the standard...i remember it


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Not sure, but significant that the vermin have had to wield these weapons this week.


They're trying to take the heat off after a torrid few days. The timing of its appearance is significant.


----------



## Coolfonz (Mar 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Sure, but I did a bit of light digging earlier and it's interesting for the fact that John Mann sticks his oar in.
> 
> 
> Here's Lavery's defence in the Ronnie Gill (Chronicle).
> ...


Because the ST have some journalists left, a whole investigative team in fact.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> They're trying to take the heat off after a torrid few days. The timing of its appearance is significant.



And very well planned.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> And very well planned.


Some 'jokers' played.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> And very well planned.


Absolutely. It's a PR campaign in every sense. Bernaysian, in fact.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

Coolfonz said:


> Because the ST have some journalists left, a whole investigative team in fact.


Groovy. But that doesn't say much given the massive time delay between the original article and Sen's missive. If this is so shit hot, the others would get involved. Then there's the question of John Mann...


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Not sure, but significant that the vermin have had to wield these weapons this week.


It is significant but then so was the Zinoviev Letter.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It is significant but then so was the Zinoviev Letter.


But, it's all too easy to believe that some Corby hacks would have produced that list.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But, it's all too easy to believe that some Corby hacks would have produced that list.


I don't think the residents of my second home town have had anything to do with it


----------



## mk12 (Mar 23, 2016)

Corbyn hasn't got time to care about internal revolts or international terrorism tonight. He's busy presenting an award at the British Kebab Awards.

This isn't a joke.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 23, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn hasn't got time to care about internal revolts or international terrorism tonight. He's busy presenting an award at the British Kebab Awards.
> 
> This isn't a joke.



Apparently, he sleeps for over six hours a day, too. Fucking slacker.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 23, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn hasn't got time to care about internal revolts or international terrorism tonight. He's busy presenting an award at the British Kebab Awards.
> 
> This isn't a joke.



Source?


----------



## Libertad (Mar 23, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Source?



Squeeze of lemon juice and a dash of chilli?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2016)

thousand island


----------



## Sue (Mar 23, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn hasn't got time to care about internal revolts or international terrorism tonight. He's busy presenting an award at the British Kebab Awards.
> 
> This isn't a joke.



Well his constituency does include a big Turkish area with lots of kebab shops.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thousand island



Not on a fucking kebab!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 23, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Not on a fucking kebab!


oh, so we see where noXion is a fundementalist on food eh, well well well.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 23, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Not on a fucking kebab!


Might do on a Korby Cebab?


----------



## NoXion (Mar 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> oh, so we see where noXion is a fundementalist on food eh, well well well.



I'm perfectly free to express my opinion, as well you know. And my opinion is that unless you have a seafood kebab, thousand island doesn't go on it.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn hasn't got time to care about internal revolts or international terrorism tonight. He's busy presenting an award at the British Kebab Awards.
> 
> This isn't a joke.



So what, it sounds like a good thing to do, kebabs are nice


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2016)

NoXion said:


> I'm perfectly free to express my opinion, as well you know. And my opinion is that unless you have a seafood kebab, thousand island doesn't go on it.



I keep meaning to tell you - your avatar makes me smile whenever I see it, makes me recall misspent youth


----------



## NoXion (Mar 23, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I keep meaning to tell you - your avatar makes me smile whenever I see it, makes me recall misspent youth



KANE LIVES


----------



## free spirit (Mar 23, 2016)

NoXion said:


> KANE LIVES


wow, 21 years ago.

To think I gave up computer games not long after that due to the amount of time I wasted on that game..... then discovered urban.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2016)




----------



## NoXion (Mar 23, 2016)

Both the Tiberium and the Red Alert series had fucking excellent soundtracks. Frank Klepacki knew his stuff.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Might do on a Korby Cebab?



Deep fried in batter and a side order of tatties and neeps!


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 24, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn hasn't got time to care about internal revolts or international terrorism tonight. He's busy presenting an award at the British Kebab Awards.
> 
> This isn't a joke.



That's a weird thing for a vegetarian to do. Where do mechanically recovered animal byproducts sit in the hierarchy of repression?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> That's a weird thing for a vegetarian to do. Where do mechanically recovered animal byproducts sit in the hierarchy of repression?


oppression. You can't get anything right. And the only way your lot win in 2020 is if you nakedly rig it. You've done it before. If we are honest the entire history of the tory party has been about fighting against the wider franchise and then sabotaging attempts to achieve some parity. From chartist to suffragette. Lord Ashcroft has warned you, the demographic future looks bleak, very bleak for your boys. Theres only so many times you can rely on piss weak liberals and the labour right to prop you up, especially since you view 'political alliance' as shorthand for 'fuck shit up and tank the others by getting them to take the flak'

Could murder a kebab now.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> Are you suggesting that Corbyn is in some way seeking to demonstrate to his supporters within the Labour party that parliamentary power is vain compared to the greater power of capitalism, and that if they persist in believing in a parliamentary road to socialism (or even to social democracy) they too will drown in the incoming tide of neo-liberalism?



No Andy that wasn't what I was suggesting.
Please read what kebabking wrote. 
My suggestion was it was a poorly thought out comparison. 
Of course it wouldn't be alone as a poorly thought out contribution to this thread.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> But, it's all too easy to believe that some Corby hacks would have produced that list.


Indeed, and the real giveaway is the fact that the list was supposedly compiled in January but includes the name of Michael Meacher, who died in October 2015.

Even Duncan Weldon, Newsnight's former economics editor found it a little odd.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Indeed, and the real giveaway is the fact that the list was supposedly compiled in January but includes the name of Michael Meacher, who died in October 2015.
> 
> Even Duncan Weldon, Newsnight's former economics editor found it a little odd.



If the vermin had faked it recently,I doubt they'd have made such an error.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 24, 2016)

brogdale said:


> If the vermin had faked it recently,I doubt they'd have made such an error.


I wouldn't be so sure given their reputation for sloppiness (the Budget being a prime example).


----------



## two sheds (Mar 24, 2016)

Where's the list of Cameron's "twats"? The ones voting for Brexit would be high on his list you'd imagine.


----------



## treelover (Mar 24, 2016)

> *George Osborne’s ratings plunge after Budget and Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than PM*
> 
> Osborne’s ratings plunge after Budget, and Corbyn more popular than PM




IPSO MORI POLL, 84% oppose current disability benefit cuts, paradigm shift, or temporary conscience blip?

Corbyn more popular than Cameron and the budget a disaster for the Tories.

or just another poll?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2016)

yeh it's not much to be more popular than cameron but it's a start


----------



## cantsin (Mar 24, 2016)

mk12 said:


> Corbyn hasn't got time to care about internal revolts or international terrorism tonight. He's busy presenting an award at the British Kebab Awards.
> 
> This isn't a joke.



so presenting awards at what is (if true)  presumably an awards show


brogdale said:


> Useful guide leaked from Labour...
> 
> Leaked List Ranks Labour MPs By “hostility” To Corbyn | LabourList



Clive Lewis only 'core group' , Tom Watson ' Core Group Plus ' ? 

whole things cooked up / bogus .


----------



## bluescreen (Mar 24, 2016)

The Sunday Times has form in printing breathless 'exclusives'
25 years ago today... the Sunday Times published Hitler's diaries

/godwin


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 25, 2016)

WoodCOCK's at it again.


> How have we managed to turn one the worst ever weeks for David Cameron’s Tory government into another humiliation for the Labour party?
> 
> The Government’s own Work and Pensions Secretary said the budget was “deeply unfair” as he spectacularly resigned 48 hours after it was unveiled.
> 
> ...



He should have the whip withdrawn and face a disciplinary hearing, though I understand his CLP met last night.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 26, 2016)

Woodcock 

Labour MPs back call for Jeremy Corbyn to stand down


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 26, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Woodcock
> 
> Labour MPs back call for Jeremy Corbyn to stand down



The comments on there from anti-Corbyn Labour types sound increasingly shrill and give a firm impression that they dislike the current leadership (and by implication all those who voted for it?) more than the Conservatives. There is also a startling lack on any sense of responsibility or self awareness of the part their preferred politics played in creating the current situation.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. All of the above applies to Woodcock (the subject of much of the article) but in spades.


----------



## youngian (Mar 27, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> There is also a startling lack on any sense of responsibility or self awareness of the part their preferred politics played in creating the current situation.


And standing three duds for the leadership who had the rings run around them by a bloke whose only strategy was being Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 28, 2016)

Zelo Street exposes the Murdoch press's vendetta against Ian Lavery and notices that gaps therein. You will notice that it's only The Times and The Sunday Times that's claiming Lavery trousered loads of NUM money that he wasn't entitled to. While I'm here, that 'list'; the one that Cameron used at the last PMQs was leaked to... guess where? The Times. It seems to me that Murdoch has had a word with his hatchet men and told them to ratchet up the anti-Corbyn stories. It's a pity for them, that their work to date has been incredibly sloppy.
Zelo Street: What Has Ian Lavery Done Wrong?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 31, 2016)

Brilliant Corbyn story here: Jeremy Corbyn has his cake and eats it during Exmouth holiday

tl;dr - Corbyn ate a piece of lemon drizzle cake in a café.



> Corbyn and wife, Laura Alvarez, visited Aby's Café and staff later revealed the socialist couldn't get enough of one of their best-selling sweet desserts...
> 
> Onlookers said the scene reminded them of Marie Antoinette, the super-rich toff duchess who said of starving peasants: "let them eat cake".


Really. Did they.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Brilliant Corbyn story here: Jeremy Corbyn has his cake and eats it during Exmouth holiday
> 
> tl;dr - Corbyn ate a piece of lemon drizzle cake in a café.
> 
> ...



Cake eater story compiled by a pudding!


----------



## gosub (Mar 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Brilliant Corbyn story here: Jeremy Corbyn has his cake and eats it during Exmouth holiday
> 
> tl;dr - Corbyn ate a piece of lemon drizzle cake in a café.
> 
> ...


who has cake for breakfast?- wrongun


----------



## teqniq (Mar 31, 2016)

Looks to me like someone is trying to create a narrative that Corbyn doesn't really care about the poor. If so it's desperate shit.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2016)

gosub said:


> who has cake for breakfast?- wrongun



Nice people. I had carrot cake for breakfast the other day it was great, why would you not have cake at a time specifically dedicated to the consumption of coffee or tea?


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Brilliant Corbyn story here: Jeremy Corbyn has his cake and eats it during Exmouth holiday
> 
> tl;dr - Corbyn ate a piece of lemon drizzle cake in a café.
> 
> ...



But I am glad that I read the item as not only did I not know that Corbyn was a socialist but a staunch socialist as well!


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Looks to me like someone is trying to create a narrative that Corbyn doesn't really care about the poor. If so its desperate shit.


it's not even that sophisticated - it's just playground hair-shirtism.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2016)

teqniq said:


> Looks to me like someone is trying to create a narrative that Corbyn doesn't really care about the poor. If so its desperate shit.



Only the out of touch ultra-rich consume affordable products in my shop in which I sell them


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> But I am glad that I read the item as not only did I not know that Corbyn was a socialist but a staunch socialist as well!



A staunch lemon drizzle cake socialist, the most pernicious kind


----------



## Sue (Mar 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> A staunch lemon drizzle cake socialist, the most pernicious kind



I'm with him on the deliciousness of lemon drizzle cake. Having it with tea rather than coffee though -- scum.  

(Honestly though WTAF. )


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> A staunch lemon drizzle cake socialist, the most pernicious kind



A continuation of the media's fascination with Labour leader's eating habits.


They never show Cameron eating swan on toast!


----------



## ska invita (Mar 31, 2016)

Not as much fun as cake-gate, but the Evening Standard laid in to Corbyn yesterday in a page 2 piece and in their lead Editorial, all thanks to Charles Clarke and Jack Straw who accuse John M and Jeremy C of refusing to vote to ban Al Q
Labour grandee accuses Corbyn of giving ‘tacit support’ to terrorists
Deep in the article it explains why they voted the way they did all those years ago, and its reasonable, but don't let that get in the way of a good headline and editorial outrage


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Not as much fun as cake-gate, but the Evening Standard laid in to Corbyn yesterday in a page 2 piece and in their lead Editorial, all thanks to Charles Clarke and Jack Straw who accuse John M and Jeremy C of refusing to vote to ban Al Q
> Labour grandee accuses Corbyn of giving ‘tacit support’ to terrorists
> Deep in the article it explains why they voted the way they did all those years ago, and its reasonable, but don't let that get in the way of a good headline and editorial outrage


next: corbyn seen next to someone with a copy of the morning star in 1978


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> A continuation of the media's fascination with Labour leader's eating habits.
> View attachment 85235
> 
> They never show Cameron eating swan on toast!



Cameron doesn't eat swan on toast, you plonker!

He spit-roasts 'em (ooh-err, missus!!!  )!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cameron doesn't eat swan on toast, you plonker!
> 
> He spit-roasts 'em (ooh-err, missus!!!  )!!!


he makes a pig of himself


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 31, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn potentially just made the perfect Ronnie Corbett tribute


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2016)

He was in that context, end of story.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 31, 2016)

I don't know which is more politically damaging for a Labour leader - Man-Eats-Cake-Gate or Man-(struggles to)-Eat-Bacon-Gate.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 31, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I don't know which is more politically damaging for a Labour leader - Man-Eats-Cake-Gate or Man-(struggles to)-Eat-Bacon-Gate.



For a Tory chancellor it would be refusing to eat humble pie.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I don't know which is more politically damaging for a Labour leader - Man-Eats-Cake-Gate or Man-(struggles to)-Eat-Bacon-Gate.



Both apparently worse than 'man pictured with cocaine'


----------



## Combustible (Mar 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Brilliant Corbyn story here: Jeremy Corbyn has his cake and eats it during Exmouth holiday



I also like how there are 10 pictures in the gallery accompanying the article, 8 of which are just pictures of the cake taken at slightly different angles.


----------



## gosub (Mar 31, 2016)

Combustible said:


> I also like how there are 10 pictures in the gallery accompanying the article, 8 of which are just pictures of the cake taken at slightly different angles.



Pictures of A cake,  probably not the slice in question.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 31, 2016)

Probably not, no.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2016)

gosub said:


> Pictures of A cake,  probably not the slice in question.



Yes because Corbyn has eaten it all because that's what cake-guzzling communist monsters do.


----------



## binka (Mar 31, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Yes because Corbyn has eaten it all because that's what cake-guzzling communist monsters do.


That's the problem with socialism, you eventually run out of other peoples cake


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Brilliant Corbyn story here: Jeremy Corbyn has his cake and eats it during Exmouth holiday
> 
> tl;dr - Corbyn ate a piece of lemon drizzle cake in a café.
> 
> ...


That's amazing. Mad local news is great.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 31, 2016)

That story reminds me of this.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 31, 2016)

its picayune enough to be funny but it doesn't beat the insufficient bow at the cenotaph. That fucker I had to blink and check to see if it was a real thing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 31, 2016)

binka said:


> That's the problem with socialism, you eventually run out of other peoples cake


let them eat cake


----------



## youngian (Apr 1, 2016)

Is the reporter the John Major Diaries ghost writer?


> Leila said: "Jeremy had lemon drizzle cake and polished off the lot. He seemed to really enjoy it and there was not a crumb left on his plate at the end.
> 
> "He had just the one slice. We have a lot of choice of cakes but he had his heart set on the lemon drizzle.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2016)

Surprised he didn't prefer RED velvet cake


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2016)




----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Surprised he didn't prefer RED velvet cake


disrespecting the monarchy by not opting for a victoria sponge


----------



## NoXion (Apr 1, 2016)

Yellow lemon drizzle? What a fucking liberal!


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Yellow lemon drizzle? What a fucking liberal!



lol what is the ultimate full communism cake then?


----------



## JimW (Apr 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> lol what is the ultimate full communism cake then?


World Turned Upside Down Cake.


----------



## NoXion (Apr 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> lol what is the ultimate full communism cake then?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 1, 2016)

Lenin drizzle cake shurely?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> lol what is the ultimate full communism cake then?


The Battenberg Potemkin


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2016)

J Ed said:


> lol what is the ultimate full communism cake then?


something like this


----------



## teqniq (Apr 1, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The Battenberg Potemkin



You are on a roll


----------



## Libertad (Apr 1, 2016)

That's the same edition of Woodcock that I've got.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 1, 2016)

I'd like to find that edition myself. Or even any edition  , but especially that one.


----------



## Libertad (Apr 1, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I'd like to find that edition myself. Or even any edition  , but especially that one.



Well you're not having mine. "All property is theft" can fuck off.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 1, 2016)

I bet an online search would turn up a copy. Will give that a go soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I'd like to find that edition myself. Or even any edition  , but especially that one.


Would you?

edit: scrub that, i'm sure i've a spare of that edition here somewhere, let me check.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2016)

yes, William of Walworth you're in luck, drop me a pm with address and i'll send you it off.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 1, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Would you?
> 
> edit: scrub that, i'm sure i've a spare of that edition here somewhere, let me check.




Thanks! I'll be gone in twenty minutes for a few days, but any help on this would be appreciated.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 1, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> yes, William of Walworth you're in luck, drop me a pm with address and i'll send you it off.




You sure? Thanks! Just about to PM you then.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2016)




----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 1, 2016)

And for when jezza fancies something savoury -


----------



## agricola (Apr 2, 2016)

The Guardian reports on a Corbyn walkabout in Bristol:



> Jeremy Corbyn was mobbed by supporters when he took an unplanned walk through the streets of Bristol on Friday afternoon.
> 
> The Labour leader reportedly infuriated photographers and the press by ignoring them, and instead talked to shoppers and young mothers in Bristol’s Easton district.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 2, 2016)

agricola said:


> The Guardian reports on a Corbyn walkabout in Bristol:



An incredibly positive write-up here Jeremy Corbyn mobbed by surprised shoppers on Bristol walkabout


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 2, 2016)

Missing the big question here. Did he scoff any cake?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 4, 2016)

The Sunday Times and Hopi Sen's smear campaign continues to unravel, according to Zelo Street.
Zelo Street: New Ian Lavery Smear Busted


----------



## emanymton (Apr 4, 2016)

Just catching up on this thread, and now I want some cake, but don't have any.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 4, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Just catching up on this thread, and now I want some cake, but don't have any.


If I had known you were coming I would have baked one.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 5, 2016)

Has the Mail or Sun dug out the names of any Labour donors or Lords from the Panama Papers yet?  There's bound to be a few dodgy donors from Blair's time in there.  You know they're desperate for a 'Labour hypocrisy over offshore loot' headline to attack Corbyn.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 5, 2016)

Dominic Grieve was spouting on about tax evasion on Today this morning and slippery as an eel he managed to force the point that this Tory government and the previous coalition did more to curb evasion than Labour did in 13 years.
Fucking weasel!


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 5, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Dominic Grieve was spouting on about tax evasion on Today this morning and slippery as an eel he managed to force the point that this Tory government and the previous coalition did more to curb evasion than Labour did in 13 years.
> Fucking weasel!


I heard that. He was also claiming that people "would lose their livelihoods" in the tax havens Crown dependencies. It's odd then how he and the rest of his party is so blasé about people losing their livelihoods in steel, coal, shipbuilding and manufacturing. FFS.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 5, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Dominic Grieve was spouting on about tax evasion on Today this morning and slippery as an eel he managed to force the point that this Tory government and the previous coalition did more to curb evasion than Labour did in 13 years.
> Fucking weasel!


Not that I am a betting man but I would wager that he is being economical with the truth if not downright lying. It would not surprise me to discover that curbing evasion was mostly limited to small or smaller business whilst large corporations and people with the right connections, like himself got a free pass.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 5, 2016)

Yes. I'm sure that they've made more announcements that they *will* close down tax avoidance and evasion, but there again they are notorious liars ("we're all in it together, NHS safe in our hands" etc etc).


----------



## agricola (Apr 5, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Dominic Grieve was spouting on about tax evasion on Today this morning and slippery as an eel he managed to force the point that this Tory government and the previous coalition did more to curb evasion than Labour did in 13 years.
> Fucking weasel!



No-one should be in doubt of his motivation for making such a statement, but he is not wrong. 

Blair and Brown indulged the Big Five (as they then were, until AA went down with Enron) accountancy firms that led the development of this culture (and despite knowing exactly what they were up to), put Harnett in charge of HMRC and agreed with what he was doing, brought in LLPs, snuggled up to the sorts of businesses and individuals that did this on an industrial scale_, _ connived at selling off / contracting out state assets and monies to firms that they knew were avoiding taxes (via PFI deals etc) and were at best utterly indifferent to anyone that blew the whistle.  Every action they took with regards to tax avoidance encouraged its development.

Cameron has been no better (despite making the odd noise about it), and the Tories would probably have gone down a similar road if they were in power, but the heavy lifting (as it was with regards to tuition fees, welfare assessments etc) was done by New Labour.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 5, 2016)

New Labour was really a Tory Government. They gave the current government plenty of Tory policies to worsen.  This incudes PFI, Academy schools and austerity.


----------



## Fez909 (Apr 5, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> New Labour was really a Tory Government. They gave the current government plenty of Tory policies to worsen.  This incudes PFI, Academy schools and austerity.


PFI is an actual Tory policy (as in Conservative Party). Major brought it in.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 5, 2016)

Ian Austen MP is a special kind of anti Corbo shill, but him retweeting this snidey, weaselly dig on JC as his only response to #panampapers is just grotesque, especially when his own expenses fiddling is taken into account ( tho tbf, he's in no position to to discuss panama papers - see also v quiet Trissy Hunt / Chukka U / Danczuk / etc etc - many of them not touching it ) . 

How much more of this sh*t will Corbyn take ?




*James Lyons*‏@STJamesl
James Lyons Retweeted The Guardian

Tax avoidance open goal for labour. Thankfully nobody near top of party could be accused of supporting Putin...

James Lyons added,






*The Guardian* @guardian
Guardian front page, Monday 4 April 2016: The secret $2bn trail of deals that lead all the way to Putin


----------



## two sheds (Apr 5, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> New Labour was really a Tory Government. They gave the current government plenty of Tory policies to worsen.  This incudes PFI, Academy schools and austerity.



Yes, the Third Way turns out to be exactly the same as the First Way of (I presume) raw capitalism.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2016)

I haven't looked in this thread properly in the past, sorry if this isn't the sort of thing that's posted here.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 6, 2016)

LBC said:
			
		

> Should Corbyn resign over this call?



 

Is that a Nick Ferrari quote or something?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 6, 2016)

It led to some amusing exchanges on twitter last night, and, briefly, the hashtag #TweetLikeLBC


----------



## brogdale (Apr 8, 2016)

Crossover.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 8, 2016)

Corbyn gets Danny Devito's support. There is no stopping him now:


----------



## J Ed (Apr 8, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Corbyn gets Danny Devito's support. There is no stopping him now:




It's Always Sunny in Islington


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 8, 2016)

Taxi for Corbyn!


----------



## ska invita (Apr 12, 2016)

desperate front page from the Daily Mail owned free-sheet Metro.






story includes the line that "Corbyn  becomes the first top UK politician to be caught doing anything wrong since the scandal broke"


----------



## NoXion (Apr 12, 2016)

Better late than never I would have thought.


----------



## magneze (Apr 12, 2016)

That seems even more desperate considering that "Jeremy Corbyn Paid TOO MUCH In Tax Last Year":
Jeremy Corbyn Paid TOO MUCH In Tax Last Year, New Figures Reveal


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 12, 2016)

Jeremy Corbyn admits failing to include state pension income on his hand-written tax return

telegraph goes with Corbyn not declaring his state pension properly...but paying tax on it

it contains this devastating fact



> He did not declare the income he received from a lodger who stayed at the property with him last year, as this did not meet the threshold for declaration of £4,250, the Telegraph understands.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 12, 2016)

> He did not declare the income he received from a lodger who stayed at the property with him last year, as this did not meet the threshold for declaration of £4,250, the Telegraph understands.



The swine


----------



## magneze (Apr 12, 2016)

Funny how in the midst of this exact scandal the Labour party actually have exactly the right person at the helm.

This is unbelievably desperate:


> According to official records Mr Corbyn has made £3million from the state as an MP in his pay and pensions over his time in Parliament.
> 
> Mr Corbyn has earned a total of £1.5million in pay as an MP and built up a gold-plated pension pot worth £1.6million, which will give him an income of around £50,000 a year in his retirement



Yep, he's a MILLIONAIRE apparently!  Whoever taught Steven Swinford, Kate McCann & Laura Hughes journalism must be turning in their graves. They're a fucking laughing stock.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 12, 2016)

magneze said:


> Yep, he's a MILLIONAIRE apparently!  Whoever taught Steven Swinford, Kate McCann & Laura Hughes journalism must be turning in their graves. They're a fucking laughing stock.



They are doing the job they are paid to do


----------



## magneze (Apr 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They are doing the job they are paid to do


So what? It's still shite.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 12, 2016)

J Ed said:


> They are doing the job they are paid to do



Nazi death camp soldiers said the same.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 12, 2016)

magneze said:


> So what? It's still shite.



No shit, I'm saying that they are mercenaries, not journalists they don't care about journalistic integrity.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> desperate front page from the Daily Mail owned free-sheet Metro.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


jesus fuck
look at that front page and try and not find a corner that makes you want to kill the fucker responsible

vintage propaganda,,,if anyone has a copy id keep it , might be worth something one day


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2016)

its still not as fucking ludicrous as the insufficient bow stuff. Edges in at number two in the most desperate smears though


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the insufficient bow stuff. E


the what now>?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Corbyn gets Danny Devito's support. There is no stopping him now:



has anyone actually clicked on this link>? danny devito seems HIGH


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2016)

ska invita said:


> the what now>?


you know when the press gave him abuse for not bowing low enough at the cenotaph 

I mean that shits beyond parody. Was he supposed to prostrate himselfe at the base of the statuary and wail for the fallen? Hard to top that nonsense imo

e2a it was a twitter storm picked up by the press but jesus h on rubber crutches


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you know when the press gave him abuse for not bowing low enough at the cenotaph
> 
> I mean that shits beyond parody. Was he supposed to prostrate himselfe at the base of the statuary and wail for the fallen? Hard to top that nonsense imo


ah yes. that.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 13, 2016)

Happily I've never had to fill in a tax return (PAYE for the win  ) but I've seen my self-employed brother's, and festivaldeb's, and fuck me the forms are complicated. I'd be amazed if plenty of people don't make mistakes pretty regularly. Corbyn in not completely abnormal shocker


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Happily I've never had to fill in a tax return (PAYE for the win  ) but I've seen my self-employed brother's, and festivaldeb's, and fuck me the forms are complicated. I'd be amazed if plenty of people don't make mistakes pretty regularly. Corbyn in not completely abnormal shocker



More, he has n't got an accountant- the root of most creative tax minimisation.
probably needs one though, his life got a lot more complicated in the last year.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 13, 2016)

> Jeremy Corbyn has given the perfect answer to David Cameron's attack on his "chaotic" tax return.
> 
> The Tory leader emptied both barrels at his rival today for filing his return a week late - and overdeclaring his income by accident.
> 
> ...



Bash, both barrels back at Cameron


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2016)

You should quote the source, although the overblown language used suggests the canary...?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> You should quote the source, although the overblown language used suggests the canary...?



Mirror


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 13, 2016)

Beat me to it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Happily I've never had to fill in a tax return (PAYE for the win  ) but I've seen my self-employed brother's, and festivaldeb's, and fuck me the forms are complicated. I'd be amazed if plenty of people don't make mistakes pretty regularly. Corbyn in not completely abnormal shocker


now he's leader of the opposition he can afford an accountant


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> now he's leader of the opposition he can afford an accountant


in his position at this time I'd have done them myself as well, bad handwriting or no. Left cameron looking a bit shit when all he's got is 'ha ha your handwriting!' Much like the suit and tie jab a week back he's starting to look like a desperate bullying posh boy. Who fucks dead pigs heads and cheats the taxpayer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> in his position at this time I'd have done them myself as well, bad handwriting or no. Left cameron looking a bit shit when all he's got is 'ha ha your handwriting!' Much like the suit and tie jab a week back he's starting to look like a desperate bullying posh boy. Who fucks dead pigs heads and cheats the taxpayer.


that's because he is a pig-shagging desperate bullying posh boy


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> in his position at this time I'd have done them myself as well, bad handwriting or no. Left cameron looking a bit shit when all he's got is 'ha ha your handwriting!' Much like the suit and tie jab a week back he's starting to look like a desperate bullying posh boy. Who fucks dead pigs heads and cheats the taxpayer.



not using an accountant, ordinarily, no bad thing.  Since last year though: loads more things to do (less time) with additional new hat (more complicated);
therefore get an accountant.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2016)

gosub said:


> not using an accountant, ordinarily, no bad thing.  Since last year though: loads more things to do (less time) with additional new hat (more complicated);
> therefore get an accountant.



ordinarily yes, but in the wake of the blow to the publics trust etc I think doing it by his own hand was a good move. Who knows if it was planned or he just poodled along like normal either way its not a bad move to my mind. Cameron presumably had his done by the same person who fine-tooth combed over St Jeremy's to look to see if there was so much as an undeclared mars bar to crow about.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 13, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> Happily I've never had to fill in a tax return (PAYE for the win  ) but I've seen my self-employed brother's, and festivaldeb's, and fuck me the forms are complicated. I'd be amazed if plenty of people don't make mistakes pretty regularly. Corbyn in not completely abnormal shocker



My girlfriend had to do a self-assessment for a year she had not received any income. So no income and no outgoings.  It took her hours to complete and when it came out she owed £20, somehow. She just paid it as life is too short.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 13, 2016)

Doing self assessment online is really easy. Most of the forms aren't actually applicable unless you have (for example) a lot of share income. Keep a copy of what you did last year and it's easy to update it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Much like the suit and tie jab a week back he's starting to look like a desperate bullying posh boy.


It's always seemed to me that this was always Corbyn's strategy from the get-go: play the sensible serious politician (who's a human being) to Cameron's out of touch, bullying posh cunt who can only reply to questions with unrelated numbers and meaningless slogans.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It's always seemed to me that this was always Corbyn's strategy from the get-go: play the sensible serious politician (who's a human being) to Cameron's out of touch, bullying posh cunt who can only reply to questions with unrelated numbers and meaningless slogans.


Judo technique... Use opponents energy against them


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2016)

Well, well, well...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 13, 2016)

But but but Corbyn is unelectable!!!!!111!!

*mumbles disclaimer about unreliable polling, etc*


----------



## Anju (Apr 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> It's always seemed to me that this was always Corbyn's strategy from the get-go: play the sensible serious politician (who's a human being) to Cameron's out of touch, bullying posh cunt who can only reply to questions with unrelated numbers and meaningless slogans.



Yes, I think he pretty much stated that would be the way he would go about things.  It can take longer to work than using a bit of professional spin doctoring but you end up with a less compromised version of whatever you were trying to create in the first place.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 13, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> But but but Corbyn is unelectable!!!!!111!!
> 
> *mumbles disclaimer about unreliable polling, etc*



Shy Tories, etc.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2016)

But trends, all the same.
More pressure on the vermin.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 13, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Well, well, well...



ukip 17!
(should be on the polling thread  )


----------



## killer b (Apr 14, 2016)

An actual headline on the r4 news just now was 'jeremy corbyn defends decision to back remain, despite having voted to leave at the last referendum 40 years ago'.


----------



## JimW (Apr 14, 2016)

If a week is a long time in politics four decades is a different era.
He was supposed to visit our work this week then cancelled due to a clash of commitments.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 15, 2016)

The Daily Mail have gone with the devastating 'Man gets paid his salary for 34 years':

Corbyn's £3m in pay and perks... just for being an MP


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 15, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The Daily Mail have gone with the devastating 'Man gets paid his salary for 34 years':
> 
> Corbyn's £3m in pay and perks... just for being an MP


That is a disgrace, but the same is true for all MPs. I have I have thought this for years.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 16, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The Daily Mail have gone with the devastating 'Man gets paid his salary for 34 years':
> 
> Corbyn's £3m in pay and perks... just for being an MP



Not even DM readers are falling for that one. Desperate.


----------



## youngian (Apr 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> An actual headline on the r4 news just now was 'jeremy corbyn defends decision to back remain, despite having voted to leave at the last referendum 40 years ago'.


On BBC News Luara Kuenssberg and Kate Hoey both knew more about the inner workings of Jeremy Corbyn's mind than Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 16, 2016)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The Daily Mail have gone with the devastating 'Man gets paid his salary for 34 years':
> 
> Corbyn's £3m in pay and perks... just for being an MP


Ken Clarke has been in The Commons longer than Corbyn, so his accrued salary for the period of 46 years must exceed Corbyn's. Then you'd need to factor in the money he gets from British-American Tobacco and the other boards on which he sits and, well, you get the picture. 

So do the Mail and other Tory rags think Corbyn should perform his parliamentary work for gratis? That seems to be the subtext of these, frankly, barking articles.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 16, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Ken Clarke has been in The Commons longer than Corbyn, so his accrued salary for the period of 46 years must exceed Corbyn's. Then you'd need to factor in the money he gets from British-American Tobacco and the other boards on which he sits and, well, you get the picture.
> 
> So do the Mail and other Tory rags think Corbyn should perform his parliamentary work for gratis? That seems to be the subtext of these, frankly, barking articles.


I think whats happened is Corbyn having been found to not have been troughing it and not have been implicated in dodginess via the panama papers, the wail is simply throwing up sand to try and create a 'but he's bang at it as well!' impression. Lord knowsI think politicos are payed too much and all that but this is thin gruel indeed


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 17, 2016)




----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 17, 2016)

fuck me. Corbyn eat some cake. He got paid for his job. And now he's turned down sponsorship from a global corporation. His crimes go on and on. Will nobody stop this man before he destroys our great democracy.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 17, 2016)

On a winner again, if they'd accepted it would have been "Hypocrite loony lefty Corbyn takes money from anti-union fast food giants."


----------



## J Ed (Apr 17, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


>




Hahahaha as if Rentoul goes to mcdonalds, in the twitter thread he is claiming that he goes there and gets the fillet-o-fish.

Other idiots, again I suspect hardly of any of them go to the restaurant,  on twitter claiming that refusing money from mcdonalds is classist.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 17, 2016)

None of these second option bias wankers have ever worked in a fast food restaurant.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2016)

John Rentoul, what a tosser.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 17, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


>




The great thing about the constant sniping at Corbyn is that sooner or later people just switch off and dismiss anything anti-Corbyn as more of the same old made-up crap. It will get to the point that he could get away with literally shitting on the England flag and no-one would take the reporting of it seriously.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 17, 2016)

Not sure that's true. I think a sizeable number of Sun readers will read it and think "fuck me, loony lefty Corbyn doesn't like good old McD what a twat"


----------



## Flanflinger (Apr 17, 2016)

cynicaleconomy said:


> The great thing about the constant sniping at Corbyn is that sooner or later people just switch off and dismiss anything anti-Corbyn as more of the same old made-up crap. It will get to the point that he could get away with literally shitting on the England flag and no-one would take the reporting of it seriously.



Kinnock would disagree.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 17, 2016)

teqniq said:


> John Renoul, what a tosser.



Isn't he the charming individual whose very first thought on hearing of the Bataclan massacre was how to use it to have a dig at Corbyn on Twitter?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 17, 2016)

This is the first I've come across this guy, but people call him Rent-a-tool, right? I mean, they must do, it's sitting right there!


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2016)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Isn't he the charming individual whose very first thought on hearing of the Bataclan massacre was how to use it to have a dig at Corbyn on Twitter?



He seems to take every available chance however tenous


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> This is the first I've come across this guy, but people call him Rent-a-tool, right? I mean, they must do, it's sitting right there!


Rent boy is the one I've seen in the comments on his pieces.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 17, 2016)

Flanflinger said:


> Kinnock would disagree.



I'm not convinced the Sun has the power it once did, or that any media has that power tbh. In truth, I'm not convinced they ever had that power. They just like to think they do, and people who lose elections like to think they do because it lays the blame elsewhere. If newspapers weren't so mean and horrible, would the nation suddenly embrace full comunism as the scales fell from their weary eyes? I imagine not.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 17, 2016)

Advertising works, though, and editorial changes opinions more than advertising. If the papers had been reporting what's been going on in a balanced way (NHS, tax evasion/avoidance, immigration, how much people on benefits actually get, how cushy prisons aren't, the importance of the way people eat bacon butties, etc, etc) I don't think the tories would have got close last election.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 17, 2016)

From Rentoul's Wiki page.


> He is related to Sir Gervais Rentoul, the Conservative MP who was the founding Chairman of the1922 Committee.[4]
> John Rentoul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So what about Sir Gervais?


> He was the eldest son of Judge James Alexander Rentoul, M.P. for East Down 1890–1902, and his wife Florence Isabella Young. James Rentoul was something of an eccentric and one contemporary newspaper reported of him that "no man, woman or child wished to see him return to East Down." The family claimed to be descended from King Henry VII.[1]
> Gervais Rentoul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Delusions run in the family.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 18, 2016)

Dogsauce said:


>




loool. I wish I was one of Corbyn's trendy falafel bar pals.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 18, 2016)

Wes Streeting picked up the torch and ran with it yesterday, going on and on about how trendy falafel eaters were the literal worst and how eating McDonalds burgers is, like, the way to the heart of the good old working class.

People started digging up old tweets of him talking about enjoying his falafel.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 18, 2016)

What the fuck even is politics in this country?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 18, 2016)

I don't even know why they stopped McDonalds from being at the conference, but I hope they said it was because the cunt at the top took £7mil and regularly fucks over the workforce as a matter of course and there's no place for scum like him in a society that purports to care about those less fortunate.


----------



## agricola (Apr 18, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't even know why they stopped McDonalds from being at the conference, but I hope they said it was because the cunt at the top took £7mil and regularly fucks over the workforce as a matter of course and there's no place for scum like him in a society that purports to care about those less fortunate.



Hopefully it was because of the substance that they serve at breakfast that purports to be scrambled egg.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 18, 2016)

agricola said:


> Hopefully it was because of the substance that they serve at breakfast that purports to be scrambled egg.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I don't even know why they stopped McDonalds from being at the conference, but I hope they said it was because the cunt at the top took £7mil and regularly fucks over the workforce as a matter of course and there's no place for scum like him in a society that purports to care about those less fortunate.


Possibly?


----------



## teqniq (Apr 18, 2016)

McBusted!


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2016)

teqniq said:


> McBusted!


That, and their determination not to recognise organised labour?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 18, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Wes Streeting picked up the torch and ran with it yesterday, going on and on about how trendy falafel eaters were the literal worst and how eating McDonalds burgers is, like, the way to the heart of the good old working class.
> 
> People started digging up old tweets of him talking about enjoying his falafel.



That's the thing, the whole issue is such an obvious affectation. No right-wing Labour politico really believes that McDonalds is good or goes there or that conversely hummus and falaffels (or whatever) is bad and I am not sure that anyone really believes that they believe those things either, the whole issue is performative, childish and petty. The very worst of it is the insinuation that by refusing corporate money the Labour leadership is attacking people who go to the restaurant or who work there as if working there or going there was an unconditional vote in favour of the corporate decision-makers rather than a way to make ends meet or get cheap food.

I even saw one right-wing Scottish Labour politico claim that McDonalds was a great company because it takes on so many apprentices. That's right, a man in the party called Labour is praising a corporation for exploiting a scheme to ensure a steady stream of labour of young people who they don't even have to pay minimum wage. Britain 2016.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 18, 2016)

Where's the pic of the right-wing dickheads supporting fast food workers?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 18, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Where's the pic of the right-wing dickheads supporting fast food workers?



not going to happen, like Ian Austen MP, Progress shill, and disingenous w*nkpot  tweeting ' macdonalds was my first job, nothing to be shamed of'


----------



## gosub (Apr 19, 2016)

Labour MPs fry Corbyn over McDonald's ban | Coffee House   think he comes out of that quite well


----------



## agricola (Apr 19, 2016)

gosub said:


> Labour MPs fry Corbyn over McDonald's ban | Coffee House   think he comes out of that quite well



The Maquis appear to be only putting their second or third team out now, its as if they have nothing to play for.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 19, 2016)

J Ed said:


> That's the thing, the whole issue is such an obvious affectation. No right-wing Labour politico really believes that McDonalds is good or goes there or that conversely hummus and falaffels (or whatever) is bad and I am not sure that anyone really believes that they believe those things either, the whole issue is performative, childish and petty. The very worst of it is the insinuation that by refusing corporate money the Labour leadership is attacking people who go to the restaurant or who work there as if working there or going there was an unconditional vote in favour of the corporate decision-makers rather than a way to make ends meet or get cheap food.
> 
> I even saw one right-wing Scottish Labour politico claim that McDonalds was a great company because it takes on so many apprentices. That's right, a man in the party called Labour is praising a corporation for exploiting a scheme to ensure a steady stream of labour of young people who they don't even have to pay minimum wage. Britain 2016.


It's worse that that. These people would snear and look down their noses at people who go to McDonalds. It's a said fact that for many poor families going to McDonald's is seen as treat, something niece they do for there kids. At least it was when I was a kid. The right of the Labour party hate those people.


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2016)

“The malice and contempt shown by this Government is inexcusable” – Question Time mother joins Labour | LabourList



> Michelle Dorrell, the former Conservative voter who rose to prominence following an emotional outburst on BBC Question Time last year, has joined the Labour Party, citing “lies, deceit and substantial asset stripping” from the Conservatives as her motivation.
> 
> The mother of four was reduced to tears when speaking about the pressures on her family following Conservative attempts to cut tax credits, saying she felt “lied to” and “let down” on the show.
> 
> ...




Michelle Dorell, the Tory voter who burst into tears on QT has joined Labour.


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2016)

> Dorrell has attended a Momentum meeting and met with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, who said he was “very pleased” she had been inspired by the party.



John Mc is a very engaging character.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 19, 2016)

treelover said:


> John Mc is a very engaging character.



I was thinking that earlier. If it wasn't for his little red book moment and various other bits, I reckon he'd get on better than Corbs as leader. He's better at looking the part. Which shouldn't matter at all and it makes me angry that it does. But there you go.

Him or Varoufakis


----------



## cantsin (Apr 19, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> I was thinking that earlier. If it wasn't for his little red book moment and various other bits, I reckon he'd get on better than Corbs as leader. He's better at looking the part. Which shouldn't matter at all and it makes me angry that it does. But there you go.
> 
> Him or Varoufakis



Mcdonnells reply when on pressed on immigration / controls along the lines that 'there'll be open borders by the end of the century at this rate whatever we might think we want' was serious / wise / perceptive beyond 99% of the bullshit spouted by any lickspittle 'statesmanlike' cabinet member / politico / specialists etc.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 20, 2016)

Is this the most pathetic behaviour of the Labour Right yet?

Labour chiefs vow to overturn McDonald's party conference ban


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is this the most pathetic behaviour of the Labour Right yet?
> 
> Labour chiefs vow to overturn McDonald's party conference ban



 "Clearly if you’ve got a principled position then the money has to come second, but what is the principled position against McDonald’s? I don’t get it.”


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is this the most pathetic behaviour of the Labour Right yet?
> 
> Labour chiefs vow to overturn McDonald's party conference ban




> Another Labour MP said: "What are we saying to McDonald's employees and the millions of people who eat there? Are we saying they're wrong because Jeremy doesn't support their employment practices?"


There's so much in that little gobbet that speaks of all that was/is wrong with neoLab.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is this the most pathetic behaviour of the Labour Right yet?
> 
> Labour chiefs vow to overturn McDonald's party conference ban


Jesus, that's pathetic. 

They're making out that it was Corbyn's decision as these quotes claim.



> Labour MP Wes Streeting said the ban revealed a "snobby attitude" among some in the party towards those who work and eat in McDonald's.
> 
> Another Labour MP said: "What are we saying to McDonald's employees and the millions of people who eat there? Are we saying they're wrong because Jeremy doesn't support their employment practices?"



Streeting is a fuckwit.

But it wasn't.


> Fury erupted when it emerged the business board of the party's ruling National Executive Committee had turned down a £30,000 deal with the fast food giant.
> 
> This website revealed yesterday that the decision was taken in protest at the company's refusal to recognise trade unions and use zero hours contracts.


----------



## oryx (Apr 20, 2016)

I thought I had a reasonable handle on the labour party but since when were any of the people mentioned in that article 'chiefs'?!!


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 20, 2016)

I've just tweeted Streeting, who will probably accuse me of "harrassing him". Thin-skinned little prick.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I've just tweeted Streeting, who will probably accuse me of "harrassing him". Thin-skinned little prick.



It's odd how holding public servants to account for their public utterances has morphed into being "harassment", isn't it?


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's odd how holding public servants to account for their public utterances has morphed into being "harassment", isn't it?


They should thank their lucky stars they weren't MPs in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 20, 2016)

J Ed said:


> Is this the most pathetic behaviour of the Labour Right yet?
> 
> Labour chiefs vow to overturn McDonald's party conference ban



GOD STOP CALLING THOSE WANKSTAINS 'MODERATE'



Not you, J Ed.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 20, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's odd how holding public servants to account for their public utterances has morphed into being "harassment", isn't it?



It's all part of the phenomenon that's covered in the "right wing PC" thread (can't remember the title).

Trouble is, it causes legitimate problems with harassment, sexism, whatever, to be seen as part of the same thing by some, so there's a push back against people who call out sexism, or who call out trolling. It's all a massive fucked up mess.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 21, 2016)

no doubt irrelevant bullshit in the greater scheme of things, and I know they'd have had to deal with another nonsense meejah onslaught if he hadn't played ball, but found Corbyn's queens b day speech in the HoC  today a bit of a bolt of reality, him sloshing weakly around in the same stagnant pool as the rest .


----------



## treelover (Apr 25, 2016)

> “_It is simply no longer possible to be disabled and a Tory, says angry activist_,” was the _Guardian_’s headline about Graeme Ellis, who ran the Conservative Disability Group website until March’s budget, when he closed it down and denounced Osborne’s cuts to disability benefits. He has now applied to join the Labour Party.
> 
> How ‘liberal’ should Labour be?



Yet another long term Tory joins Labour, baffling in some ways, but Corbyn and Co are very approachable. etc.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Yet another long term Tory joins Labour, baffling in some ways, but Corbyn and Co are very approachable. etc.


we've had a year now of the labour big wigs (former) all proclaiming that the only way to appeal to tory voters is by being nearly as cuntish as the tories, so this can't possibly be genuine.... alternatively they're as wrong about that as they are about most other things.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 25, 2016)

treelover said:


> Yet another long term Tory joins Labour, baffling in some ways, but Corbyn and Co are very approachable. etc.


Yet, Labour right-wingers get up in arms about socialists wanting to join the party. FFS.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 25, 2016)

free spirit said:


> we've had a year now of the labour big wigs (former) all proclaiming that the only way to appeal to tory voters is by being nearly as cuntish as the tories, so this can't possibly be genuine.... alternatively they're as wrong about that as they are about most other things.


Or that there's little difference between the parties but a minor one that a long-term tory activist with their own tory needs finds important. Did you join yet?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2016)

Livingstone has given the fuckers gold...


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Livingstone has given the fuckers gold...



The usual suspects.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The usual suspects.


Of course...but Livingstone


----------



## killer b (Apr 28, 2016)

He should be drummed out just for being a total fucking liability.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2016)

killer b said:


> He should be drummed out just for being a total fucking liability.


Far too many instances.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Of course...but Livingstone


The creepy Iain Martin just tweeted this.


The thing is, Livingstone is correct about Hitler: he did want the Jews to move to another country (Palestine). In that desire, he was little different to the Zionists - especially Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The creepy Iain Martin just tweeted this.
> 
> 
> The thing is, Livingstone is correct about Hitler: he did want the Jews to move to another country.



hitler didn't win an election in 1932, he came second to von hindenburg in the german presidential election. and of course he wasn't going to say then 'let's kill all the jews' - he'd have come a poor third behind thalmann


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> hitler didn't win an election in 1932, he came second to von hindenburg in the german presidential election. and of course he wasn't going to say then 'let's kill all the jews' - he'd have come a poor third behind thalmann


No, but Hitler wanted German Jews out of the country. The Centre Party handed Hitler the Chancellorship.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> No, but Hitler wanted German Jews out of the country. The Centre Party handed Hitler the Chancellorship.


not in 1932 they didn't.

anyway as people here have so frequently said, it's not where you come from that counts, it's where you're going. and even if it wasn't his intent in 1932 - or even, for the sake of argument, in 1937 - the development of nazi policy to the jews tended a) towards their exclusion from public life, then b) their death. i don't believe using hitler's views on anything is a good idea - doesn't matter if it was real resettlement in the east, his vegetarianism, his artistic taste, his sartorial elegance or otherwise, whatever.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The creepy Iain Martin just tweeted this.
> 
> 
> The thing is, Livingstone is correct about Hitler: he did want the Jews to move to another country (Palestine). In that desire, he was little different to the Zionists - especially Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionists.



I know, but what an utter bell-end to wade in with that today.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not in 1932 they didn't.


1933


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I know, but what an utter bell-end to wade in with that today.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> 1933


what a difference a year makes


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> No, but Hitler wanted German Jews out of the country. The Centre Party handed Hitler the Chancellorship.


Hitler didn't want to move the Jews to Israel in 1932 as suggested in the nutty tweet. It was not created until 1948 by which time Hitler was dead or living in Argentina depending on your sources.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Hitler didn't want to move the Jews to Israel in 1932. It was not created until 1948 by which time Hitler was dead or living in Argentina depending on your sources.


yes, i hoped a pedant would pop up and say that: and lo and behold


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Hitler didn't want to move the Jews to Israel in 1932 as suggested in the nutty tweet. It was not created until 1948 by which time Hitler was dead or living in Argentina depending on your sources.


Palestine. Where did I mention Israel? Oh, Livingstone did.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i hoped a pedant would pop up and say that: and lo and behold


Perhaps you need to look up the word "pedant". I am sure there is a library very near to where you are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Perhaps you need to look up the word "pedant". I am sure there is a library very near to where you are.


excessive attention to detail - check


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

The Graun cranks up the smear machine.
Corbyn's Labour must be more decisive on antisemitism claims


----------



## agricola (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The thing is, Livingstone is correct about Hitler: he did want the Jews to move to another country (Palestine). In that desire, he was little different to the Zionists - especially Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionists.



There were elements in the Nazi state that did want migration (and actually signed deals with Zionist organizations along those lines), but its doubtful how much that was Hitler's preferred policy, indeed the way that emigration was in effect discouraged (given the amount of wealth that was required to be surrendered) under the Nuremburg laws would suggest that it wasn't.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Palestine. Where did I mention Israel? Oh, Livingstone did.


The reference to Israel was in the tweet by Iain Martin.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The reference to Israel was in the tweet by Iain Martin.


Iain Martin's a wee prick... just thought I'd get that in.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2016)

What a fucking gift to the vermin.


----------



## youngian (Apr 28, 2016)

eatmorecheese said:


> "Clearly if you’ve got a principled position then the money has to come second, but what is the principled position against McDonald’s? I don’t get it.”


 Why would Austin or Streeting join the labour and trade union movement if they can't even make a small gesture of solidarity like a stand boycott? I don't get it.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 28, 2016)

The smear machine was in overdrive anyway but Livingstone just had to say it didn't he. ffs


----------



## J Ed (Apr 28, 2016)

I also love how Mann said that Khan should be forced to visit Israel as part of 'tolerance training' or whatever. gross gross gross


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

youngian said:


> Why would Austin or Streeting join the labour and trade union movement if they can't even make a small gesture of solidarity like a stand boycott? I don't get it.


think about it... they made the same calculation blair did.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I also love how Mann said that Khan should be forced to visit Israel as part of 'tolerance training' or whatever. gross gross gross


that would be the last place i'd send someone for tolerance training


----------



## agricola (Apr 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I also love how Mann said that Khan should be forced to visit Israel as part of 'tolerance training' or whatever. gross gross gross



Shah, surely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I also love how Mann said that Khan should be forced to visit Israel as part of 'tolerance training' or whatever. gross gross gross


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2016)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Hitler didn't want to move the Jews to Israel in 1932 as suggested in the nutty tweet. It was not created until 1948 by which time Hitler was dead or living in Argentina depending on your sources.



Or Madagascar.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or Madagascar.


no, south america the traditional destination for hitler post-war


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The Graun cranks up the smear machine.
> Corbyn's Labour must be more decisive on antisemitism claims



Sherwood rehashing Freedland's constant refrain. same old shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, south america the traditional destination for hitler post-war



I was replying to the first part of the post - Jews to Israel - as I couldn't give a wet dog-dick about Hitler.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 28, 2016)

agricola said:


> Shah, surely?



Yeah, Shah, sorry was reading the graunid feed on this and saw Khan's comments so he must have been on my my mind.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 28, 2016)

Naz Shah Suspended Over Anti-Semitic Comments



> John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw, told Sky News the suspension was "inevitable", and called on Mr Corbyn to "make sure she gets a proper education programme on anti-Semitism to understand how deeply offensive the comments she made are to people".
> 
> He suggested this should include a visit to Israel, including the country's Holocaust museum.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 28, 2016)

Someone needs to give John Mann a thoroughly good kicking.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 28, 2016)

Scenes, shots fired, suboptimal optics etc


----------



## J Ed (Apr 28, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Scenes, shots fired, suboptimal optics etc




_Nazi apologist_? Someone believes his own shit.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 28, 2016)

Is the Blairite line now seriously that the Labour left are _nazi apologists_?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 28, 2016)

Sorry...


----------



## belboid (Apr 28, 2016)

J Ed said:


> _Nazi apologist_? Someone believes his own shit.


And doing so right by a bbc office. Almost as if Mann's main intention was to get on the telly.


----------



## gosub (Apr 28, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Palestine. Where did I mention Israel? Oh, Livingstone did.


" I think it has been previously reported to the Department that the Nazi idea is not to harm a hair of any Jewish head, but to treat them as foreigners; to tax them, but not to subject them to military service; to deport eastward as many Polish and Russian Jews as possible."

*The Counselor of US Embassy in Germany (Wiley) to the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Boal)
BERLIN, February 17, 1932*
Warsaw more like.


----------



## maomao (Apr 29, 2016)

Littlejohn's having a field day in the Mail, basically calling the left of the Labour party fascists:

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN on Labour's Jew-baiting lunatic fringe



> Naz by name, Nazi by nature, was revealed to have backed the transportation of Jews in Israel to the United States. Red Ken rallied to her defence by claiming, absurdly, that Hitler was a Zionist.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 29, 2016)

Naz by name, Nazi by nature?

jesus


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 30, 2016)

belboid said:


> And doing so right by a bbc office. Almost as if Mann's main intention was to get on the telly.


funny that, on bbc newswatch this morning a commentator said just that


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 30, 2016)

maomao said:


> Littlejohn's having a field day in the Mail, basically calling the left of the Labour party fascists:
> 
> RICHARD LITTLEJOHN on Labour's Jew-baiting lunatic fringe


the comment make for some quite sickening reading as per...


----------



## gosub (May 1, 2016)

Diane Abbott having to do the the firefighting duty on the Marr show over the foot in mouth exercise earlier in the week by the other rent a gob Livingstone.   Is it that the Cooper/Burnham/Benn etc have withdrawn labour or that Milne doesn't trust them?  Abbott is never that far from car crash either.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 3, 2016)

maomao said:


> Littlejohn's having a field day in the Mail, basically calling the left of the Labour party fascists:
> 
> RICHARD LITTLEJOHN on Labour's Jew-baiting lunatic fringe


Isn't Littlecock now residing in Florida? He's still a cunt.


----------



## ska invita (May 4, 2016)

Sadiq Khan and the Standard really belong together


Sadiq Khan: Corbyn must 'get a grip' on Labour's anti-Semitism crisis


----------



## DownwardDog (May 4, 2016)

Corbo is piling the weight on. He must be comfort eating falafel.

Can Jeremy Corbyn be sure he will survive? - BBC News


----------



## William of Walworth (May 4, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Sadiq Khan and the Standard really belong together
> 
> View attachment 86504
> Sadiq Khan: Corbyn must 'get a grip' on Labour's anti-Semitism crisis




I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder : what else do 'they' want Corbyn to do? 

There's stuff in this Steve Richards article that I disagree with (e.g. that sentence about Blair at the start is rubbish   ), but _in general_ he at least offers some half way sensible perspective.




			
				Richards said:
			
		

> Never-ending headlines about Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone are damaging, but this is hysteria based on flimsy evidence


----------



## ska invita (May 4, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm sure I'm not the first to wonder : what else do 'they' wan't Corbyn to do?
> 
> There's stuff in this Steve Richards article that I disagree with (e.g. that sentence about Blair at the start is rubbish   ), but _in general_ he at least offers some half way sensible perspective.


Sadiq Khan doesnt really want anything from Corbyn  - he is trying his best to score "im my own man" points by "distancing" (aka elbowing sharply in the ribs) Corbyn whenever he feels the need.
The Standard is happy to oblige in this process.
Sadiq began doing this from literally day one after Corbyn was elected - he's a true politician from what i can see... slippery as the day is long


----------



## William of Walworth (May 4, 2016)

ska invita   : I definitely agree with your take on that. I just have my doubts how much good it'll do Khan really -- prolonging Standard sensationalising. Even from his own iffy perspective, was that even necessary?


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2016)

From "Mr rebuttal unit", but quite pithy nonetheless...


----------



## two sheds (May 14, 2016)

I thought it a bit rich that Khan was saying "I" won the election. All on his own then, no help from any Labour party members. 

Ungrateful sod. He was elected as Labour candidate while Corbyn was leader of the Labour party, and Corbyn's won the odd couple of elections himself as an MP.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> I thought it a bit rich that Khan was saying "I" won the election. All on his own then, no help from any Labour party members.
> 
> Ungrateful sod. He was elected as Labour candidate while Corbyn was leader of the Labour party, and Corbyn's won the odd couple of elections himself as an MP.


Innit. Most of the people I know (admittedly not representative) voted for Khan either because he wasn't Zac Goldsmith, or because they wanted to boost Corbyn. So he should have a little more humility.

But this all just seems like career positioning, aimed at the PLP - not sure he cares what the plebs who elected him think.


----------



## two sheds (May 14, 2016)

You have to wonder how Labour would have done in the local elections if half the fucking party hadn't been briefing against Corbyn. 

You sort of expect it from the media but unforgivable from Labour MPs not to give him a chance after he'd been elected (oooh there was another election he won wasn't it?).


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

Khan-->Guardian--->Corbyn.

What's being reported here is the middle ones view of its own agenda.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> You have to wonder how Labour would have done in the local elections if half the fucking party hadn't been briefing against Corbyn.
> 
> You sort of expect it from the media but unforgivable from Labour MPs not to give him a chance after he'd been elected (oooh there was another election he won wasn't it?).


Exactly the same i think. Give or take a few. That's where they are and would be regardless of leader - hard right or hard left. It's the cycle and they were at the height of elections won last stage in the cycle. So you expect to lose some in that round.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

Labour MP suggests Jeremy Corbyn could face leadership challenge next month

reading this makes me wonder if he is ousted how many people will leave the labour party, I certainly would, he is the only reason ive ever joined a political paty


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Labour MP suggests Jeremy Corbyn could face leadership challenge next month
> 
> reading this makes me wonder if he is ousted how many people will leave the labour party, I certainly would, he is the only reason ive ever joined a political paty


Are you organising?


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

nah I'm too lazy , but I think its crazy since Jezza got in the number of memebers has really risen ( in my own , not very well educated , opinion admittedly ) that what do the blairites think is going to happen to people like me who joined, if for only one reason he seems far more for the people than them, fuck off ?

Could be wrong and no one leaves but i cant see it


----------



## belboid (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> Labour MP suggests Jeremy Corbyn could face leadership challenge next month
> 
> reading this makes me wonder if he is ousted how many people will leave the labour party, I certainly would, he is the only reason ive ever joined a political paty


He wont be ousted, not next month anyway. There wont be any challenge.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

belboid said:


> He wont be ousted, not next month anyway. There wont be any challenge.


The thing that it says might lead to a challenge won't happen either. This is getting ridiculous. This jumped up little oxbridge shit just begging these journos to quote her.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

In the old days, CLPs had some say - she's be called back to general commtee meeting and told to shut up or something - have they no power to do anything anymore?


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2016)

JC4PM tour






Apparently there were 3000 people at the Bournemouth leg of the JC4PM tour, over 900 in Sheff, sold out in Manchester.

I see Billy's back in the fold.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> nah I'm too lazy , but I think its crazy since Jezza got in the number of memebers has really risen ( in my own , not very well educated , opinion admittedly ) that what do the blairites think is going to happen to people like me who joined, if for only one reason he seems far more for the people than them, fuck off ?
> 
> Could be wrong and no one leaves but i cant see it


What difference will it make if you stay or go, if you aren't organising? Same with all those other people who joined last year who've done nothing but make dark threats to leave ever since. So what?


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

im not that important obviously, but 1000's of us non important people may well be

eta, if i did organise something would you join me or are you just spouting for the sake of it ?


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> What difference will it make if you stay or go, if you aren't organising? Same with all those other people who joined last year who've done nothing but make dark threats to leave ever since. So what?


Yep. I asked the same question last week and had no reply whatsoever. Months and months of it last year but now...


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> In the old days, CLPs had some say - she's be called back to general commtee meeting and told to shut up or something - have they no power to do anything anymore?


That has happened here (albeit for other reasons). The new members aren't really involved with the party though, as far as I can tell.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 14, 2016)

Here's some of Jo Cox's previous work [with Andrew 'Thrasher' Mitchell]. It's their argument for what they call 'ethical' military intervention in Syria. To tell the truth, it sounds a little like Israel's 'most moral army in the world' claim.


> *■*Third, on the military front. Some may think that a military component has no place in an ethical response to Syria. We completely disagree. It is not ethical to wish away the barrel bombs from the Syrian government when you have the capacity to stop them. The deaths and fear generated by these indiscriminate air attacks are the main drivers of the refugee crisis in Europe. Nor is it ethical to watch when villages are overrun by Isis fighters who make sex slaves of children and slaughter their fellow Muslims, when we have the capability to hold them back.
> British forces could help achieve an ethical solution in Syria | Andrew Mitchell and Jo Cox


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

well this may just spur me on , if jezza gets ousted that is


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> im not that important obviously, but 1000's of us non important people may well be
> 
> eta, if i did organise something would you join me or are you just spouting for the sake of it ?


How? You're in the party - make an effort to organise and change the structures or put in place structures to defend what you joined the party to support.

You're allowed to try and change things - they might try and make you feel like you're not, but you are.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

killer b said:


> That has happened here (albeit for other reasons). The new members aren't really involved with the party though, as far as I can tell.


to be honest its a bit difficult for me to organise directly as im not living in england at the moment but im still paying my subs


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> well this may just spur me on , if jezza gets ousted that is


Do it now. Not when you've lost.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> How? You're in the party - make an effort to organise and change the structures or put in place structures to defend what you joined the party to support.
> 
> You're allowed to try and change things - they might try and make you feel like you're not, but you are.


to be honest, when i first read this, my reaction was hostile, but after re reading it, i think youre right, and if im over for my next local meeting i will try my hardest to attend and do just that, im not even taking the piss , cheers 

and to you killer b  , seriously


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> to be honest its a bit difficult for me to organise directly as im not living in england at the moment but im still paying my subs


There must be people like you organising surely?


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> There must be people like you organising surely?


hopefully, and on here too


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

could we , between the lot of us organise something ? i would really like to get involved , again not taking the piss

pm me and lets see what we can do


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> could we , between the lot of us organise something ? i would really like to get involved , again not taking the piss
> 
> pm me and lets see what we can do


Go for it - have to count me out though. I hate labour and corbyn.  But you have to do something.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> How? You're in the party - make an effort to organise and change the structures or put in place structures to defend what you joined the party to support.
> 
> You're allowed to try and change things - they might try and make you feel like you're not, but you are.


may i ask , and not trying to be rude or snidey, are you ?


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> may i ask , and not trying to be rude or snidey, are you ?


ah you just answered me


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Go for it - have to count me out though. I hate labour and corbyn.  But you have to do something.


but what realistically is our best hope ? no one seems to want the lib dems or the greens , that justs leave ukip , arent labour the best hope of getting the tories out, which hopefully we agree are the common enemy ?

id vote for anarchy anyway lol, yes i know what i did there


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> but what realistically is our best hope ? no one seems to want the lib dems or the greens , that just leave ukip , arent labour the best hope of getting the tories out, which hopefully we agree are the common enemy ?
> 
> id vote for anarchy anyway lol, yes i know what i did there


Nah, labour is as much the enemy to me as the tories. That doesn't mean i think that you or anyone who joined in the recent burst are enemies in any way. You're comrades - it's just that the path you've chosen to fight on is going and can go nowhere. Whereas tories are never and can never be comrades. Not whilst being tories. But you can be whilst being labour,


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2016)

I can actually see where you're coming from and agree, I just find it all a bit hopeless , in my 45 years on this plane, its the most depressing political landscape I've seen, and  thought , imo ,correctly, that the thatcher years were grim  id hang em all if the revolution comes, but then that also means we all have to get off our arses


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> could we , between the lot of us organise something ? i would really like to get involved , again not taking the piss
> 
> pm me and lets see what we can do


It's not really something that can be done online - I think the idea that it can be is one of the reasons this new influx of members to the Labour party have been so ineffective.

FWIW I don't think it's entirely the new members' fault: essentially what's happened is thousands of people with little or no experience of party political activity have joined the party. The avenues that are available for them to organise are not obvious, and the time servers, comfortable in their own positions (and generally to the right of the leadership), generally aren't welcoming them with open arms and showing them the ropes. 

Of course, where an energetic left winger _has_ gone out of the way to get them involved with campaigning, it has reaped dividends: a mate of mine stood in a safe tory seat in the recent council elections, worked a proper campaign with a load of new members and came within a hundred votes of taking the seat. They'd got nowhere there previously.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2016)

On thing that is clear is that if Corbyn is to stand a chance, the members have to flex their muscles. There's no other way.


----------



## gosub (May 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> JC4PM tour
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Edinburgh one didn't go so well


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2016)

gosub said:


> Edinburgh one didn't go so well




Not very surprising, in Scotland.


----------



## fiannanahalba (May 15, 2016)

Ungrateful Jocks. After all we've done for them.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2016)

I was not saying that!  Do kindly piss off.

It's just that from down here, Corbyn looks as if nothing he can do will change anything re the SNP's popularity up there.

In other words, that report was unsurprising. Exactly as I said.


----------



## fiannanahalba (May 16, 2016)

Jeremy likes the Jocks. It's just a matter
of time before the Jocks see that the Snp are just natsy nationalists and tartan tories and come back to Labour with Jeremy.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 16, 2016)

I've leave that to them, but as an outsider I'm not that confident that the SNP will decline in popularity any time soon.


----------



## JimW (May 16, 2016)

So Corbyn is visiting our work (well, the wind turbine works next door) Thursday with Anna Eagle and Ian Lavery and I've put my name down to attend. Should I pretend to be an outraged Jewish royalist?


----------



## kebabking (May 16, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I've leave that to them, but as an outsider I'm not that confident that the SNP will decline in popularity any time soon.



from my - admittedly limited in number - converstations with ex-Labour and now SNP voters, not all by any stretch of whom are pro-independence, the broad concensus is that Labour will probably recover _to some degree,_ but that it would take a political earthquake along the lines of the entire SNP cabinet being found in bed with a dead 9 year old to break the SNP's political primacy.

maybe half a dozen seats at Westminster in 2020, fuelled far more by a attitude that complete SNP dominance isn't healthy than by any great love of Labour, but in general the view was that while the SNP come across as optomistic, competant, and their candistes being the best people they could find, Labour haven't a hope in hell of recovering even half the Scottish seats they held in 2010-2015


----------



## Sue (May 16, 2016)

fiannanahalba said:


> Jeremy likes the Jocks. It's just a matter
> of time before the Jocks see that the Snp are just natsy nationalists and tartan tories and come back to Labour with Jeremy.


'The Jocks'.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2016)

fiannanahalba said:


> Jeremy likes the Jocks. It's just a matter
> of time before the Jocks see that the Snp are just natsy nationalists and tartan tories and come back to Labour with Jeremy.


what timespan do you envisage?


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2016)

Sue said:


> 'The Jocks'.


I _think _ it's some clunking attempt at sarcasm.


----------



## Sue (May 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> I _think _ it's some clunking attempt at sarcasm.


It's piss poor whatever it is.


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

JimW said:


> So Corbyn is visiting our work (well, the wind turbine works next door) Thursday with Anna Eagle and Ian Lavery and I've put my name down to attend. Should I pretend to be an outraged Jewish royalist?



Say the word 'Israel', Jeremy!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2016)

JimW said:


> So Corbyn is visiting our work (well, the wind turbine works next door) Thursday with Anna Eagle and Ian Lavery and I've put my name down to attend. Should I pretend to be an outraged Jewish royalist?


not sure how much pretence that would require


----------



## DotCommunist (May 16, 2016)

JimW said:


> So Corbyn is visiting our work (well, the wind turbine works next door) Thursday with Anna Eagle and Ian Lavery and I've put my name down to attend. Should I pretend to be an outraged Jewish royalist?



dress up as a woman as well so he can be sexist at you


----------



## J Ed (May 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> dress up as a woman as well so he can be sexist at you



Then he can get an article on the graunid about how brutally sexist the left is because Corbyn didn't make him Shadow Chancellor


----------



## killer b (May 17, 2016)

this is funny.

Corbyn more popular than ever with Labour members, poll suggests - Politics live


----------



## billy_bob (May 17, 2016)

killer b said:


> this is funny.
> 
> Corbyn more popular than ever with Labour members, poll suggests - Politics live



Needs to go on the 'Guardian going down the pan' thread as well, that. 'Terrible news for Corbyn's critics....'. Fucking knobs, might as well put 'the paper of Corbyn's critics' on their masthead.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 17, 2016)

just seen that article on the indy, interesting


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2016)

You're not wrong, he sure is, Jez...and a complete one, at that.


----------



## billy_bob (May 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 87076
> 
> You're not wrong, he sure is, Jez...and a complete one, at that.



One of those balloons needs a bit more air while the other has clearly been overinflated.  But I guess that's why we need socialism in this country...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2016)

camerons head comes to look more like a pigs head every day. Ironic punishment from god?


----------



## mwgdrwg (May 19, 2016)

Bottom right of that photo, someone's doing that politician thumb thing. WTF is it all about?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 19, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> camerons head comes to look more like a pigs head every day. Ironic punishment from god?



You should see his winky.


----------



## rutabowa (May 19, 2016)

That is great. Corbyn looks like a dignified elder statesman dealing with  classroom of 7 year olds, cameron looks like a porcine buffoon.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2016)

Have we had this yet? Didn't know where to post, but knew it had to go somewhere.


----------



## gosub (May 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Have we had this yet? Didn't know where to post, but knew it had to go somewhere.



shes going to have trouble parking that in Jeremy Corbyn's front garden :


----------



## billy_bob (May 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Have we had this yet? Didn't know where to post, but knew it had to go somewhere.



She looks like she's going to break into a rendition of If I Could Turn Back Time.

Instead of just singing it in her head like usual, that is.


----------



## brogdale (May 19, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> She looks like she's going to break into a rendition of If I Could Turn Back Time.
> 
> Instead of just singing it in her head like usual, that is.


----------



## belboid (May 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


>



We all would if we had the chance tho


----------



## belboid (May 19, 2016)

Go on a firing range and shoot an AK47 that is


----------



## nino_savatte (May 19, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Have we had this yet? Didn't know where to post, but knew it had to go somewhere.



The forces' sweetheart.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 20, 2016)

brogdale said:


> View attachment 87076
> 
> You're not wrong, he sure is, Jez...and a complete one, at that.



Is it me or is Jezza looking more bad-ass? Is he undergoing some Breaking Bad/Michael Corleone transformation into a mean mother fucker who you cross at your peril and who will implement  his plans for consensual, mildly redistributive  social democracy with ruthless determination - coldly dispatching all who stand in his way?


----------



## billy_bob (May 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> Go on a firing range and shoot an AK47 that is



belboid - he says what everyone's thinking but doesn't dare to say out loud *because of the PC Brigade*


----------



## DownwardDog (May 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> Go on a firing range and shoot an AK47 that is



That's a 74 not a 47. LK knows the difference.


----------



## Libertad (May 20, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> That's a 74 not a 47. LK knows the difference.



It may well have been an AK74, see here:

AK-74 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/smallarmspedantry]


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 20, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Have we had this yet? Didn't know where to post, but knew it had to go somewhere.


----------



## J Ed (May 22, 2016)

lol, that definitely happened


----------



## YouSir (May 22, 2016)

J Ed said:


> lol, that definitely happened




Yep, and then everyone broke into applause.


----------



## cantsin (May 22, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Yep, and then everyone broke into applause.



She's got some solid form re: inventing Corbyn related stuff, think she tried to piggy back the Stella Creasy " angry protest that never was " farce with a tale from her CLP that was shown to be pure fabrication


----------



## laptop (May 22, 2016)

YouSir said:


> Yep, and then everyone broke into applause.


Hundreds of PMs of support, shurely?


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2016)

He is getting better and better.


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2016)

> Jon Lansman interview: "There's no leader who would find it easier to win than Jeremy”



Interesting and surprising interview with Jon Lansman, Momentum Top.


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2016)

Not sure how the Maquis can call any of that hard left, not sure about the welfare bit.


----------



## Fingers (May 27, 2016)




----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 27, 2016)

'Insensitive' Jeremy Corbyn misses WWI Battle of Jutland commemoration event to go on holiday

Apparently the battle of Jutland centenery exists.


----------



## two sheds (May 27, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 'Insensitive' Jeremy Corbyn misses WWI Battle of Jutland commemoration event to go on holiday
> 
> Apparently the battle of Jutland centenery exists.



Didn't you go?


----------



## Fingers (May 27, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 'Insensitive' Jeremy Corbyn misses WWI Battle of Jutland commemoration event to go on holiday
> 
> Apparently the battle of Jutland centenery exists.



What a bastard!


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> 'Insensitive' Jeremy Corbyn misses WWI Battle of Jutland commemoration event to go on holiday
> 
> Apparently the battle of Jutland centenery exists.



I bet that pinko wishes that Jutland beat Britain


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 28, 2016)

I agree with your point about Corbyn being a pinko. I wish he was a proper red. His cautious approach doesn't satisfy the Torygraph anyway so why bother?


----------



## youngian (May 28, 2016)

Fingers said:


> What a bastard!


Such a bastard his diary didn't clash but 



> he uses this moment to go on holiday."


----------



## Jeremiah18.17 (May 28, 2016)

Blair spouting once again in media - attacking Corbyn and arguing for more ME Military intervention:

Tony Blair: Corbyn government would be a dangerous experiment

He is on borrowed time, hopefully - Chilcot due on 6th July?  Even if Chilcot criticisms of him are relatively mild it should be excuse enough to allow the expulsion the warmongering, dictator defending, oligarch apologist greedhead from Labour if they have the spine.


----------



## teqniq (May 28, 2016)

He really is the complete arsehole


----------



## The Pale King (May 28, 2016)

Jeremiah18.17 said:


> Blair spouting once again in media - attacking Corbyn and arguing for more ME Military intervention:
> 
> Tony Blair: Corbyn government would be a dangerous experiment
> 
> He is on borrowed time, hopefully - Chilcot due on 6th July?  Even if Chilcot criticisms of him are relatively mild it should be excuse enough to allow the expulsion the warmongering, dictator defending, oligarch apologist greedhead from Labour if they have the spine.



Hopefully so. Interesting that he's been so vocal these last few weeks though - he must have seen the Chilcot report and presumably the criticism is spread wide and thin.


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 1, 2016)

The Corbyn Vice docco

Jeremy Corbyn: The Outsider | VICE News

Haven't watched it yet


----------



## cantsin (Jun 1, 2016)

Private school loving, professional ex hedonist + "psychogeographer" extraordinaire Will Self  goes to town on Vice Corbo docu. via Vice  .... well done, you craven, washed up f*cking clown.....

'Bathetic and Pathetic': Corbyn's Normcore Schtick Is Utterly Ineffectual | VICE | United Kingdom


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> The Corbyn Vice docco
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn: The Outsider | VICE News
> 
> Haven't watched it yet


That weird staged convo with milne re: Jonathan freedland is a bit embarrassing.  Not got much further in yet, but it's a poor start...


----------



## gawkrodger (Jun 1, 2016)

yeh, he comes across as a likeable old man, completely out of his depth


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 1, 2016)

at least it starts off with yvettes stoic face of defeat


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 1, 2016)

I would like to be a party leader. I'm handsome, i can reach out, I'm pro-active, I love a bit of synergy and I'll wear a suit. Sadly, like Corbyn, I'm also completely the wrong fucking bloke for the job.

Labour should elect Charlotte Church, she'd be the business.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 1, 2016)

Wonder what's going through Seamas's mind here


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Wonder what's going through Seamas's mind here



Seumas is thinking, 'Why can't that twat spell my name' at a guess


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Seumas is thinking, 'Why can't that twat spell my name' at a guess



Hmm, it's a possibility I suppose.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Seumas is thinking, 'Why can't that twat spell my name' at a guess



And to be honest I was conscious he spells his name with an "a" not a "u" and fucked it, basically.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2016)

I watched the whole of that doc now, pretty dull tbh. The only real bit of insight it gives you is how little insight Corbyn and his crew seem to have about the predicament they're in. Slightly surprised about that.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 1, 2016)

gawkrodger said:


> yeh, he comes across as a likeable old man, completely out of his depth



what "depth" ? How is it he "out of it " ? Is the criteria you're using linked to the smooth, rehearsed performances / approach of entitled, professional politicians as you see them ? What are you looking for in an LP leader, so you'd not consider them "out of their depth" ? 

And wtf has his age got to with it ??


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 1, 2016)

cantsin said:


> what "depth" ? How is it he "out of it " ? Is the criteria you're using linked to the smooth, rehearsed performances / approach of entitled, professional politicians as you see them ?



In what way is JC not a professional politician? He's been an elected politician for the past 42 years. He's not smooth or rehearsed, I'll grant you.


----------



## killer b (Jun 1, 2016)

If that doc is a true picture of the Corbyn leadership team at work, then they are out of their depth - simply not equipped to deal with the task they're faced with. That doesn't mean they need to be shinier, more duplicitous or more professional: it just means that they need to have a clue. Which they don't currently seem to, on that evidence.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> If that doc is a true picture of the Corbyn leadership team at work, then they are out of their depth - simply not equipped to deal with the task they're faced with. That doesn't mean they need to be shinier, more duplicitous or more professional: it just means that they need to have a clue. Which they don't currently seem to, on that evidence.



I hear this a lot, but it's so vague, still don't know what it means, do you want to flesh it out at all, provide some detail , any detail, examples etc ?


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

Well, let's just take one thing from the doc, that ridiculous staged phone call with milne about Jonathan freedland: someone actually thought it was a good idea to do that in front of a documentary crew. And he then actually did it. And no-one stopped him. That's three levels of clueless on just one event. 

The weird paranoid complaint about one in three lines of attack being leaked to the tories, that weird school parliament PMQs role play... it was all embarrassing. Not unpolished, not refreshingly non-political: just clueless. Out of their depth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> . Not unpolished,


you sure? I just watched it. Yes I get what you mean though. You see it and think 'these people are going to get eaten alive'
but lab held in the recent elections. Perhaps the lack of polish is paying off. Fucked if I know my solutions are always edged and done in the dark if I was there but I don't think the 'on the fly' nature of the operation looks that bad.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

OK, they're unpolished too. But not just unpolished: there seems to be a sense of wide eyed innocence among them, as if they don't really know what they're up against. The bits where they're complaining about their monstering by the press and within the party, they actually seem confused about why it's happening. 

I don't think you could expect any operation to have an answer to the sheer weight of the attack on Corbyn's leadership, but I did think they at least knew what was happening to them - it doesn't look like they do. At least on the evidence of this doc anyway.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> OK, they're unpolished too. But not just unpolished: there seems to be a sense of wide eyed innocence among them, as if they don't really know what they're up against. The bits where they're complaining about their monstering by the press and within the party, they actually seem confused about why it's happening.
> 
> I don't think you could expect any operation to have an answer to the sheer weight of the attack on Corbyn's leadership, but I did think they at least knew what was happening to them - it doesn't look like they do. At least on the evidence of this doc anyway.



Isn't this just a re-jig of the tired old "_he's unelectable_" mantra we kept hearing a few months back? No criticism of policy, and no acknowledgement of the fact he keeps getting... um... elected. It's all just about presentation.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

No, it isn't.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

Fucksake. You've just invented something for me to think in the first sentence, then argued against that for the rest of the post.


----------



## agricola (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> If that doc is a true picture of the Corbyn leadership team at work, then they are out of their depth - simply not equipped to deal with the task they're faced with. That doesn't mean they need to be shinier, more duplicitous or more professional: it just means that they need to have a clue. Which they don't currently seem to, on that evidence.



The problem with this is that "having a clue" will actually mean they will need to be shinier, more duplicitous and more "professional".   The one criticism I think is valid is the one about leaking PMQs tactics, if for no other reason than they should have realized that the answer to that is to have Corbyn do it by himself, or at least pick from a pool of ideas so wide that Cameron cannot crib them all.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

I don't get how that follows, sorry.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Fucksake. You've just invented something for me to think in the first sentence, then argued against that for the rest of the post.



You misunderstand. I'll rephrase.




			
				ItWillNeverWork should've said:
			
		

> Isn't this just a re-jig of the tired old "_he's unelectable_" mantra we kept hearing a few months back? This mantra doesn't provide any criticism of policy, and it doesn't acknowledgement of the fact he keeps getting elected. It's a mantra that cares only about how politicians present themselves, not about what they actually offer.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

OK. No, it isn't.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 2, 2016)

Gr8 bantz.


----------



## agricola (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> I don't get how that follows, sorry.



It is because of what you are criticizing them for - the show is basically edited highlights of what went on, when they have no actual responsibilities to be out of their depth of anyway, and it takes place in a time when the media / political class define competence to the rest of us by a very narrow set of parameters (basically your shiny, duplicitous, and professional) and endlessly highlight those who meet such criteria (like that Trudeau) and those who don't (Corbyn).


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

I see vice have helpfully summarised our argument for us: Richard Seymour covers your side - Why Jeremy Corbyn Can't Be Measured Like Other Leaders | VICE | United Kingdom and I get will self... 'Bathetic and Pathetic': Corbyn's Normcore Schtick Is Utterly Ineffectual | VICE | United Kingdom


----------



## ska invita (Jun 2, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Wonder what's going through Seamas's mind here



he really doesnt look well...seems to be cracking under the pressure....hes also started to look like Brian from Spaced


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2016)

Any longterm strategy is risky.  I still think he's playing 'lose your losers' early in the game, so that later on when it actually matters they don't rear up and bite.

His personal future, and the LP GE prospects really don't depend on what happens right now.  Apparently pointlessly bringing the Falklands into focus (which is the last time I said this) or showing up how unpolished he is may appear to be self inflicted wounds, but actually they just neutralise criticism that's going to come anyway.  He is going to be personally attacked on a whole variety of issues, whether he likes it or not, and those attacks are going to come when it matters, during the GE campaign (or possibly a leadership battle). Exercising them out of the way now is a defensive strategy, by the time the GE comes we'll all be bored with this line of attack.

So long as his (and his teams) honesty and integrity remain untarnished, if everyone has known for years that he has opinions that don't chime with the mainstream and that he struggles with presentation far more than a Blair or Cameron, then when the inevitable attacks come we'll all say '_that's just Jeremy_'.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 2, 2016)

from will selfs thing:



> "Corbyn's normcore shtick may work on the campaign trail, but at the despatch box it's utterly ineffectual − and this is not a trivial point:* all of British politics, as currently constituted, bodies-out from those parliamentary confrontations. Ours is an adversarial system, one which simply grinds to a halt if one of the adversaries won't even step into the ring*."



And the film hints at this same frustration that he doesnt kick the torys when theyre down...

I dont agree wtih Will's basic premise above. Most people really dont give a shit what happens at PMQs, nor which cheap rehtorical point is scored. In fact they find the whole charade an emabrassement. Corbyn refusing to play is to his credit.

Voters do make their impressions about a person through a range of encounters. 
Corbyn is playing a long game of integrity and that path really might just work by the time the election rolls around - it is not impossible.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 2, 2016)

> Observing Corbyn, hesitantly rehearsing his lines for Prime Minister's Question Time, his advisors applauding pre-scripted points and put-downs, I thought not of _The Thick of It _− because say what you will about Malcolm Tucker et al, they at least have a brutal brio − but of some amateur dramatists suddenly called on to the world stage.



PMQs is not the world stage, its an outdated westminster village pantomime. Not even that, its a farce.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2016)

them most effective Labour opposition performer I've ever heard was Kinnock- in those days it was twice a week and absolutely rivetting.  Look what happened to him.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 2, 2016)

newbie said:


> them most effective Labour opposition performer I've ever heard was Kinnock- in those days it was twice a week and absolutely rivetting.  Look what happened to him.



And look at Attlee, who had no charisma whatsoever and was said by Churchill to be "a very modest man with much to be modest about". Turned out OK in the end though.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2016)

Much as I enjoy seeing tories being kicked, they're doing as grand job of it between themselves at the moment.  The other part of losing losers is keeping the winners to be played when it matters.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

See, I dont give a shit about charisma, and was happy To believe the stuff about the long game until recently: but loads of things recently have pointed instead to someone who's floundering. Who can blame him if he is? He has the entire might of the establishment - government, media, most of his own party - focused on destroying him. 

Previously he's seemed relaxed about the attacks, expecting them as part of the deal. In this doc he appears angry and perplexed about them. What's changed?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 2, 2016)

Having given this some thought...I'm tending to agree that this whole mess is Corbyn's fault; the bastard.



> *EU referendum: Corbyn urged to be 'bolder and braver' in making case for immigration*


----------



## ska invita (Jun 2, 2016)

@kb

Maybe its a well judged and subtle attempt to create a counter narrative? Where else can he complain about it?
Maybe...


Anyhow, I'm not fussed about anything here, so long as theres a strong campaign ahead of the election that activates new members.... That's the real challenge


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> See, I dont give a shit about charisma, and was happy To believe the stuff about the long game until recently: but loads of things recently have pointed instead to someone who's floundering. Who can blame him if he is? He has the entire might of the establishment - government, media, most of his own party - focused on destroying him.
> 
> Previously he's seemed relaxed about the attacks, expecting them as part of the deal. In this doc he appears angry and perplexed about them. What's changed?


 A documentary on Vice isn't the entire might of the establishment.  Their focus is elsewhere at the moment, and his obsessive opponents are struggling to get any column inches at all, as the 'bolder and braver' nonsense demonstrates.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

newbie said:


> A documentary on Vice isn't the entire might of the establishment.


I know it isn't.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> I know it isn't.


I'm not doubting that  

When he raised the Falklands he got both barrels from the establishment and a lot of the rest of the population, including many nominally on his side.  Full on, front page, everyone talking about it.  Now, no-one has any interest in the subject at all.  

As ska invita suggested, this little documentary gets out there the notion that he doesn't play the same game as the rest of them and finds their ways of behaving perplexing.  Or, as Self said "_Ours is an adversarial system, one which simply grinds to a halt if one of the adversaries won't even step into the ring._"  If he plays it right the longer Cameron or his successor keep up their outdated and tawdry public school/Oxbridge ritual the ever more out of touch he'll make them look.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Well, let's just take one thing from the doc, that ridiculous staged phone call with milne about Jonathan freedland: someone actually thought it was a good idea to do that in front of a documentary crew. And he then actually did it. And no-one stopped him. That's three levels of clueless on just one event.
> 
> The weird paranoid complaint about one in three lines of attack being leaked to the tories, that weird school parliament PMQs role play... it was all embarrassing. Not unpolished, not refreshingly non-political: just clueless. Out of their depth.



Freedland call - didnt seem staged to me , was more like expressing (understandable) frustration vs Freedland, and Milne said something  like ' agreed, but best not in front of cameras' at the other end, which meant the slightly awkward / stiff end to call.

Stuff getting leaked to the Tories from within a PLP that is 90% anti Corbyn ? have heard of stranger things happening within Westminster

Role play routine ? Imagine that's standard m.o.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 2, 2016)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Isn't this just a re-jig of the tired old "_he's unelectable_" mantra we kept hearing a few months back? No criticism of policy, and no acknowledgement of the fact he keeps getting... um... elected. It's all just about presentation.



at the moment, its exactly what this is - weird to see on here


----------



## two sheds (Jun 2, 2016)

newbie said:


> When he raised the Falklands he got both barrels from the establishment and a lot of the rest of the population, including many nominally on his side.  Full on, front page, everyone talking about it.  Now, no-one has any interest in the subject at all.



Criticisms like the Falklands, friend-of-terrorists, anti-Semites go in cycles, though. Every few months there'll be a Labour MP asking why the Israelis are killing so many Palestinians or Cameron will bring up Hamas again for no particular reason and we'll have another week of front pages that Labour's full of anti-semites and Corbyn's a terrorist apologist .... then wash and rinse ...


----------



## cantsin (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> I see vice have helpfully summarised our argument for us: Richard Seymour covers your side - Why Jeremy Corbyn Can't Be Measured Like Other Leaders | VICE | United Kingdom and I get will self... 'Bathetic and Pathetic': Corbyn's Normcore Schtick Is Utterly Ineffectual | VICE | United Kingdom



so you're firmly on Will ' i send to my kids to private school / but am still a wild bohemian oppositionist' Self's side of the fence at this stage ?

His piece is risible.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

I don't totally agree with his analysis, but I think he has some good points.


----------



## cantsin (Jun 2, 2016)

ska invita said:


> from will selfs thing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 "will "s bought into the whole rotten spectacle, big time, he's a has been.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 2, 2016)

From what I've seen, McDonnell seems more effective/combative, though perhaps he has the luxury of not having to personally deal with a media vendetta.


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

Other criticisms aside, it sounds like he nailed his euro speech today.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2016)

Why do you think that, because he defended free movement, refugees, etc, or some other reason.


----------



## belboid (Jun 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Why do you think that, because he defended free movement, refugees, etc, or some other reason.


You're fucking obsessed


----------



## ska invita (Jun 2, 2016)

What a cunt.

"Tom Harris is a former Labour MP and government minister at the Department for Transport. He now runs his own company, Third Avenue Communications Ltd, offering lobbying and political strategy advice. He is a member of the advisory board of the Reform Scotland think tank and maintains a Blairite perspective on UK politics."

Writing in his spiritual home:
Labour's pathetic blame games can't hide Jeremy Corbyn's own flaws

And the telegraphs little Poll at the end of the piece is quite possibly the single most cunitsh thing ive seen yet...and this coming from a 'broadsheet'. Unbelievable.
It ask readers to vote:

*Where is Jeremy Corbyn?*
Tending to his marrows in the allotment


Polishing his beloved bicycle


Out shopping for bargain vests


Perfecting his selfie face for Snapchat


----------



## killer b (Jun 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Why do you think that, because he defended free movement, refugees, etc, or some other reason.


Is that all you heard there? I'm glad he defended free movement, because I think it's something that should be defended - and I think the way he defended it was the right way to do it too. 

But that really was a minor part of the speech - look at all the other things he did: laying out an alternative, thoughtful defence of the EU, laying into the tories and setting out what a labour govt would do differently, positioning himself as a non-hysterical, sensible voice you can trust... it was a brilliant balancing act a great piece of rhetoric, whether you agree with him or not. Whoever wrote it knows what they're doing...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 2, 2016)

treelover said:


> Why do you think that, because he defended free movement, refugees, etc, or some other reason.


1. You'd better hope that a natural disaster or a war doesn't befall you (qv. The 'There By The Grace of God Go I Principle').
2. I sometimes get the feeling you've never left your house, let alone the town/city/village/street where you live.


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 2, 2016)

i think if you compare the general wherewithal of similar aged chaps, Sanders and Corbyn, then Jeremy looks a bit, kind of, well...not quite as good.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 2, 2016)

Just saw Corbyn's speech in full, the delivery was stilted but it hits on all the right points that a Labour remain campaign should do electorally. Absolutely loved the smirk then half-hearted response to the journos getting it from the audience, more of that please.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2016)

Coolfonz said:


> i think if you compare the general wherewithal of similar aged chaps, Sanders and Corbyn, then Jeremy looks a bit, kind of, well...not quite as good.


which one of them is leading his party and which has been probably beat by his parties right wing? Sanders I had hoped would get it but killary will


----------



## Coolfonz (Jun 2, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> which one of them is leading his party and which has been probably beat by his parties right wing? Sanders I had hoped would get it but killary will


good point but i meant more in the general hussle area.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is that all you heard there? I'm glad he defended free movement, because I think it's something that should be defended - and I think the way he defended it was the right way to do it too.
> 
> But that really was a minor part of the speech - look at all the other things he did: laying out an alternative, thoughtful defence of the EU, laying into the tories and setting out what a labour govt would do differently, positioning himself as a non-hysterical, sensible voice you can trust... it was a brilliant balancing act a great piece of rhetoric, whether you agree with him or not. Whoever wrote it knows what they're doing...




Note sure what about Belboid and Co is on about, i actually agree with you it was an accomplished and nuanced comprehensive speech.


----------



## belboid (Jun 3, 2016)

oh you little fibber you


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 3, 2016)

killer b said:


> Is that all you heard there? I'm glad he defended free movement, because I think it's something that should be defended - and I think the way he defended it was the right way to do it too.
> 
> But that really was a minor part of the speech - look at all the other things he did: laying out an alternative, thoughtful defence of the EU, laying into the tories and setting out what a labour govt would do differently, positioning himself as a non-hysterical, sensible voice you can trust... it was a brilliant balancing act a great piece of rhetoric, whether you agree with him or not. Whoever wrote it knows what they're doing...



Sorry but I can't seem to find it, have you got a link?


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2016)

It was on the graun politics live blog


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2016)

This has some details: Jeremy Corbyn's speech on Europe was cleverer than you think


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 3, 2016)

treelover said:


> Note sure what about Belboid and Co is on about, i actually agree with you it was an accomplished and nuanced comprehensive speech.


Well, then, allow me to refresh your memory. You said this:



> Why do you think that, because he defended free movement, refugees, etc, or some other reason.



You're obsessed.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 3, 2016)

Coolfonz said:


> i think if you compare the general wherewithal of similar aged chaps, Sanders and Corbyn, then Jeremy looks a bit, kind of, well...not quite as good.



Meaning what, exactly?

Being preoccupied with superficialities is somewhat postmodern.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 4, 2016)

Somebody has helpfully edited the Vice documentary (which I assume is as dull as fuck) down to the interesting bits.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 7, 2016)

Here's another one of those "Unnamed backbenchers tell Corbyn" articles. The choice of photo is rather interesting.
Labour MPs to put pressure on Corbyn with rival Trident report


----------



## belboid (Jun 7, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Here's another one of those "Unnamed backbenchers tell Corbyn" articles. The choice of photo is rather interesting.
> Labour MPs to put pressure on Corbyn with rival Trident report


It's a report from the Labour backbench defence committee, as chaired by the man in the photo. It's not 'another one of those "Unnamed backbenchers tell Corbyn" articles'


----------



## agricola (Jun 7, 2016)

belboid said:


> It's a report from the Labour backbench defence committee, as chaired by the man in the photo. It's not 'another one of those "Unnamed backbenchers tell Corbyn" articles'



If the leadership have any sense at all they will point to the disasters elsewhere in defence procurement - this, for example - and make this into an argument stating that perhaps BAE should not be trusted with any more of the nations money until they can build ships on time, on budget and which actually work.   It might also help to sneakily mention the links (actual and political) between many of the anti-Corbyn maquis and those who signed many of those ruinous deals in the first place.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 8, 2016)

I'll just leave this here....
*Blair accuses Jeremy Corbyn of standing by as Syria is bombed
*


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'll just leave this here....
> *Blair accuses Jeremy Corbyn of standing by as Syria is bombed*


The cunt's feeling the heat in advance of the Chilcot Report's findings, so he's deflecting.


----------



## agricola (Jun 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> The cunt's feeling the heat in advance of the Chilcot Report's findings, so he's deflecting.



Or setting up some kind of insanity defence.


----------



## belboid (Jun 8, 2016)

While everyone stares on in frozen silence, he will make his escape


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 8, 2016)

agricola said:


> Or setting up some kind of insanity defence.


Well, I have to say he looks more and more unhinged each time I see him on the telly.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 8, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, I have to say he looks more and more unhinged each time I see him on the telly.


Certainly seems to be losing grip on any logic that he may have possessed....


> Tony Blair has launched his strongest attack yet on Jeremy Corbyn, *for condemning the war in Iraq but standing by while the Syrian people were barrel-bombed*.


How dare Corbyn be so hypocritically inconsistent to condemn one expeditionary war, and yet fail (as Leader of the Oppo) to declare war on Syria.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 8, 2016)

Corbyn should be over there batting away the barrel bombs with his superpowers.


----------



## belboid (Jun 8, 2016)

I thought TB had ended all war in the Middle East, anyway


----------



## gosub (Jun 8, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'll just leave this here....
> *Blair accuses Jeremy Corbyn of standing by as Syria is bombed
> *


It was Milliband who blocked Syria, and Saddam would have fallen in the same time frame without Blair getting involved. 

And it was Blair misadventure that has caused people to think twice rather than take military action


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 9, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I'll just leave this here....
> *Blair accuses Jeremy Corbyn of standing by as Syria is bombed*



The definition of madness is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.

Yes portions of Syria were crying for help, but at the same time last time we got involved in a massive war in the Middle East it created an open sucking wound that refuses to heal no matter how many bombs we throw at it.


----------



## bluescreen (Jun 9, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> The definition of madness is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.
> 
> Yes portions of Syria were crying for help, but at the same time last time we got involved in a massive war in the Middle East it created an open sucking wound that refuses to hal no matter how many bombs we throw at it.


Whereas Syria... 
Yeah, I was on the march too but it's simplistic to suggest any parallel between Iraq and Syria.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2016)

gosub said:


> It was Milliband who blocked Syria, and Saddam would have fallen in the same time frame without Blair getting involved.
> 
> And it was Blair misadventure that has caused people to think twice rather than take military action


I suspect blair was talking about Corbyn giving MP a free vote at the end of last year on airstrikes in Syria rather than whipping them to vote with the govt. Not the vote in 2013.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 9, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Whereas Syria...
> Yeah, I was on the march too but it's simplistic to suggest any parallel between Iraq and Syria.



Syria is, sadly, a direct fallout from Iraq, and I can see the logic for "fixing our mistakes" but its not something I want us to get involved in. If we went in last time with the best intentions and it created ISIS what the fucks going to happen next time? How bad can it get?


----------



## bluescreen (Jun 9, 2016)

Artaxerxes said:


> Syria is, sadly, a direct fallout from Iraq, and I can see the logic for "fixing our mistakes" but its not something I want us to get involved in. If we went in last time with the best intentions and it created ISIS what the fucks going to happen next time? How bad can it get?


Worse. 
E2A: I reckon it's far too late for help, if there ever was time for help (which I'm agnostic about). I was just being a pedant. It's a bloody tragedy and all we can do is pick up the pieces as decently as we can.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 9, 2016)

Spot the odd one out







According to 'journos' who are currently caught up in the cult of valuing civility (to them and the politicians they do sophistry for, they can be as uncivil to everyone else as they like) over everything else the first two are a lesson to Corbyn. What a fantastic illustration of the marginalisation of the average person in the minds of journalists. In the first two videos Obama and Trudeau were even reprimanding their own supporters for daring to loudly echo the views of the ruling class, but even that is too much for these 'civility' types.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 10, 2016)

A media appearance


----------



## weltweit (Jun 11, 2016)

I was surprised to see Corbyn on The Last Leg last night.

He handled it ok but I just wasn't sure about it.

I wondered especially when at one point the question was asked would you rather have a knob for a nose or a nose for a knob?


----------



## brogdale (Jun 11, 2016)




----------



## billy_bob (Jun 12, 2016)

weltweit said:


> I was surprised to see Corbyn on The Last Leg last night.
> 
> He handled it ok but I just wasn't sure about it.
> 
> I wondered especially when at one point the question was asked would you rather have a knob for a nose or a nose for a knob?



Well, what was his answer FFS?


----------



## gosub (Jun 12, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Well, what was his answer FFS?


Thought they should stop looking at the world in terms of binary options


----------



## killer b (Jun 12, 2016)

It was a pretty odd appearance. He was pleasantly rude about cameron & blair though.


----------



## treelover (Jun 14, 2016)

> k, this is a bit long for a status but I'm doing it anyway because I've sat on this for long enough. A couple of months ago I went round to speak to an elderly woman who was having a major problem with a cold draught blowing into her flat. The council had repaired a leak coming through the wall but she was still stuck with this air blowing through a gap between the floor and wall and the problem had been going on for a few months. As soon as I went round she wanted me to check out the problem and verify that it was as bad as she was saying, and sure enough it was pretty bad. She listed off the various council departments she'd spoken to in trying to get it fixed, but to no avail, so I suggested she contact her local MP. She said "Oh yeah, I went to see Jeremy Corbyn, and a week later he came round, he was crawling around on the floor like you were, feeling for the draught. I felt bad for his knees! He wrote a letter to the council for me and sent me a copy."
> 
> 
> There's no amazing end to this story - as far as I know she still has this problem. I just think it's really nice that the national leader of the Labour Party still cares enough about his constituents that he follows up their housing concerns within a week and is humble enough to crawl around on the floor to investigate a mysterious breeze.
> ...



Posted on JC4PM, revealing


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2016)

Of what ¿


----------



## ska invita (Sep 12, 2016)

The lead editorial in todays evening standard:
After a year of Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is unelectable


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 12, 2016)

inva said:


> don't ask me it's from too long ago
> 
> One reason Labour is fucked is that no matter what anyone says a very substantial number of ordinary working class people don't think it's at all obvious they'll be better off under a Labour government, or not enough to vote for them anyway.



Sorry to have to state the bleedin' obvious, but Labour need to appeal to more than just working class voters if they want to get elected. (And that's beginning to look like a big 'if').



inva said:


> Labour may be a shambles at the moment, but it's shit when unified too, so...



But not as shit as the tories.

Do you think Labour should stick to what Corbyn and the new members consider to be its core principles and stay in opposition for ever while the tories continue to erode our rights and public services?


----------



## inva (Sep 12, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry to have to state the bleedin' obvious, but Labour need to appeal to more than just working class voters if they want to get elected. (And that's beginning to look like a big 'if').


it's ok you didn't have to state it seeing as I said 'one reason'.


> But not as shit as the tories.
> 
> Do you think Labour should stick to what Corbyn and the new members consider to be its core principles and stay in opposition for ever while the tories continue to erode our rights and public services?


I don't support Corbyn or Labour and wouldn't trust them to defend rights/services, so I'm not really interested in getting them elected anyway.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 12, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Do you think Labour should stick to what Corbyn and the new members consider to be its core principles and stay in opposition for ever while the tories continue to erode our rights and public services?


Whereas you want a Labour government that will erode public services


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 13, 2016)

The tories have just shafted the corbyn cabal with scrubbing out islington north......

Corbyn's seat set to vanish from map under Tories' boundary changes


----------



## Tankus (Sep 13, 2016)

Best laff of the day


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry to have to state the bleedin' obvious, but Labour need to appeal to more than just working class voters if they want to get elected. (And that's beginning to look like a big 'if').
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see you're still regurgitating 'the message', Andrew. Tell me, did it ever occur to you to ask questions about those 'messages'?

You've effectively repeated the Blairite message. I guess you also prefer to have MPs who are former Tories rather than proper socialists. Am I warm?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 13, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> The tories have just shafted the corbyn cabal with scrubbing out islington north......
> 
> Corbyn's seat set to vanish from map under Tories' boundary changes


If it goes through , even the tories are concerned about these boundary changes


----------



## teqniq (Sep 13, 2016)

Yup



> ...But doubt has been cast over whether the plans will ever come into force, after they also put a higher-than-expected number of Tory seats at risk.
> 
> Theresa May’s MPs were said to be “shocked” by potential Conservative losses which could rise to 17 – the exact number of her Commons majority....


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 13, 2016)

> the exact number of her Commons majority....


Dum dum dum.

Except these changes wouldn't come in until the General Election in 2020, so that majority would change anyway, and the majority party losing 17 seats when Parliament loses 50 overall isn't a bad deal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Whereas you want a Labour government that will erode public services



Because he's the boy who cried "Kristallnacht".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I see you're still regurgitating 'the message', Andrew. Tell me, did it ever occur to you to ask questions about those 'messages'?



What, and actually have to think for himself? You bastard!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry to have to state the bleedin' obvious, but Labour need to appeal to more than just working class voters if they want to get elected.



Why?


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, and actually have to think for himself? You bastard!


It must be hard on his poor wee brain. Bless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I see you're still regurgitating 'the message', Andrew. Tell me, did it ever occur to you to ask questions about those 'messages'?
> 
> You've effectively repeated the Blairite message. I guess you also prefer to have MPs who are former Tories rather than proper socialists. Am I warm?


yeh but before them he prefers current tories


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry to have to state the bleedin' obvious, but Labour need to appeal to more than just working class voters if they want to get elected. (And that's beginning to look like a big 'if').


yeh because there's so many in the middle class these days they hold the whip hand


----------



## Favelado (Sep 13, 2016)

Worked out brilliantly letting the Blairites in last time didn't it? The country is more or less as it would have been after 30 continuous years of Tory government. Indeed better to have an opposition that believes in the same thing as I do, than have a government AND opposition totally opposed to everything socialist, decent, and progressive.

Where does your soft left get you in the end? Exactly where Thatcher wanted - just in 2030 rather than 2020. Great!


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 14, 2016)

Favelado said:


> soft left


I prefer to call them the 'flaccid left'.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 14, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I prefer to call them the 'flaccid left'.



floppy leftovers


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> I prefer to call them the 'flaccid left'.


impotent, as it were


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> impotent, as it were


electile dysfunction


----------



## DrRingDing (Sep 15, 2016)

Corbyn's team issues list of MPs who 'undermined leader'

So, leaked accidently on purpose?


----------



## agricola (Sep 15, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Corbyn's team issues list of MPs who 'undermined leader'
> 
> So, leaked accidently on purpose?



I would like to think it was leaked in the hope that someone would get to see peak Guardian.  It is quite impressive that the Guardian can report the fact that a load of Labour MPs have been writing articles critical of the current leadership in the Guardian, after all.


----------



## Whagwan (Sep 15, 2016)

I love the fact that Bradshaw has complained to the NEC despite making libellous statements about Corbyn, Momentum and threats.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 15, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why?



Because no party can win an election with the votes of just one social class. Labour can’t even expect support from working class voters any more.

How do you think we can best avoid having a tory government for the next ten or twenty years? Winning over more voters than the tories is the only way, there’s no alternative.

I’d love to see a Corbyn government and I’ll be voting Labour in 2020, but it clearly isn’t going to happen.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 15, 2016)

agricola said:


> I would like to think it was leaked in the hope that someone would get to see peak Guardian.  It is quite impressive that the Guardian can report the fact that a load of Labour MPs have been writing articles critical of the current leadership in the Guardian, after all.




Maybe an anti-Corbyn type leaked it to distract (other  ) MPs away from Corbyn making May look an idiot over grammar schools in PMQ's on Weds.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 15, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, and actually have to think for himself? You bastard!



I see, so now anyone who thinks that Labour is unelectable under Corbyn is 'incapable of thinking for themselves' and must be 'being fed messages' from some mysterious unknown source are they?

Are you sure it’s not Nino who’s ‘on message’? I heard SWP members using those exact same phrases during the referendum campaign.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Whereas you want a Labour government that will erode public services



I want a government that won't erode our rights and public services at all, but realistically, a Labour government not eroding them half as much as the tories is the best we're going to get.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 15, 2016)

Favelado said:


> Worked out brilliantly letting the Blairites in last time didn't it? The country is more or less as it would have been after 30 continuous years of Tory government. Indeed better to have an opposition that believes in the same thing as I do, than have a government AND opposition totally opposed to everything socialist, decent, and progressive.
> 
> Where does your soft left get you in the end? Exactly where Thatcher wanted - just in 2030 rather than 2020. Great!




I completely agree with this.

I still worry about electoral propects for Corbyn/Labour at the moment though  

Not that I'm *in any way* living in Hertfordshire on this mind you


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I want a government that won't erode our rights and public services at all, but realistically, a Labour government not eroding them half as much as the tories is the best we're going to get.


You no more want to government that will defend public services than Toynbee is a socialist. You've argued for a mash up of Labour with the libdems, the party that spent five years in power attacking public services.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Because no party can win an election with the votes of just one social class.



U r shit at sums m8


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I heard SWP members using those exact same phrases during the referendum campaign.



My god. Have the police been informed?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I see, so now anyone who thinks that Labour is unelectable under Corbyn is 'incapable of thinking for themselves' and must be 'being fed messages' from some mysterious unknown source are they?
> 
> Are you sure it’s not Nino who’s ‘on message’? I heard SWP members using those exact same phrases during the referendum campaign.



It's not "anyone who thinks that Labour is unelectable..." that is incapable, just you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I see, so now anyone who thinks that Labour is unelectable under Corbyn is 'incapable of thinking for themselves' and must be 'being fed messages' from some mysterious unknown source are they?
> 
> Are you sure it’s not Nino who’s ‘on message’? I heard SWP members using those exact same phrases during the referendum campaign.


Yeh bet you hung round with the swappies, you've always struck me as a wrong un


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> My god. Have the police been informed?


I'm sure they have as I'm of the opinion Hertford is a nark


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> U r shit at sums m8


He's just shit


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2016)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I want a government that won't erode our rights and public services at all, but realistically, a Labour government not eroding them half as much as the tories is the best we're going to get.


 not as subliminal as you thought


----------



## ska invita (Feb 20, 2018)

Today...











They're on a mission at the moment aren't they


----------



## NoXion (Feb 20, 2018)

Why would Corbyn be in possession of his own Stasi file? WTF?!


----------



## elbows (Feb 20, 2018)

I cant deny being amused by his response.



> The Labour leader has now upped the ante, releasing a video message to supporters accusing newspapers of reporting "increasingly wild and entirely false" claims made by Mr Sarkocy.
> 
> "In the last few days, The Sun, The Mail, The Telegraph and The Express have all gone a little bit James Bond.
> 
> "It's easy to laugh, but something more serious is happening," he said.





> "Publishing these ridiculous smears that have been refuted by Czech officials shows just how worried the media bosses are by the prospect of a Labour government.
> 
> "They're right to be. Labour will stand up to the powerful and corrupt - and take the side of the many, not the few."
> 
> Mr Corbyn said the right-wing press had become less powerful in the era of social media and "their bad habits were becoming less and less relevant".





> "A free press is essential for democracy and we don't want to close it down, we want to open it up. At the moment, much of our press isn't very free at all.
> 
> "In fact it's controlled by billionaire tax exiles, who are determined to dodge paying their fair share for our vital public services.
> 
> ...



Corbyn attacks press over spy 'smears'


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Feb 21, 2018)

Genuinely thought the Evening Standard one was a photoshop.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 21, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Why would Corbyn be in possession of his own Stasi file? WTF?!


unless he wrote it amirite?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2018)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Genuinely thought the Evening Standard one was a photoshop.



Right? Pyongyang ffs


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> unless he wrote it amirite?



We only have his word for it that he's not actually Stalin's ghost in a charity shop sweater.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 21, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> We only have his word for it that he's not actually Stalin's ghost in a charity shop sweater.



 More grief if it’s from Oxfam.


----------



## Fingers (Feb 21, 2018)

Ben Bradley  up to his neck in legal shit
Corbyn Demands Damages From Tory MP Over Spy Slur


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2018)

NoXion said:


> Why would Corbyn be in possession of his own Stasi file? WTF?!


He may have requested it. Now a legal right.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2018)

Of course, that might just apply to citizens.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 21, 2018)

New blow to spy smears as German authorities reveal there isn’t a Stasi file on Jeremy Corbyn

no stasi file on Corbyn. then again the Stasi were not Czech

I know this is all politrickery , but do these fuckers have anything better to do than dredge up vague shite from decades ago ?   is there nothing else they could be getting on with ?


----------



## teqniq (Feb 21, 2018)

It reeks of desperation imo. Also anyone harbouring notions of a truly free, independent and unbiased media needs to have a word with themselves.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 21, 2018)

STASI FILE ON CORBYN DISAPPEARS FOLLOWING RECENT REVELATIONS!


----------



## elbows (Feb 21, 2018)

> The Labour leader's spokesman said the claims had come from a single source and were "absurd and hallucinogenic".



Labour denies ex-Czech agent's claims

Aha, a new plot that the right-wing press can expose. 'Stasi supplied Corbyn with hallucinogenic drugs that he used to make right wing press trip rabid balls'. Meet me under the blue bollock tree, and greet me with the phrase 'if the eyes swivel far enough they will return to their starting position'.


----------



## agricola (Feb 21, 2018)

elbows said:


> Labour denies ex-Czech agent's claims
> 
> Aha, a new plot that the right-wing press can expose. 'Stasi supplied Corbyn with hallucinogenic drugs that he used to make right wing press trip rabid balls'. Meet me under the blue bollock tree, and greet me with the phrase 'if the eyes swivel far enough they will return to their starting position'.



Sooner or later they will realise that there was sufficient time over the 6th and 7th of September 1978 for Corbyn to kill both Keith Moon and Georgi Markov, and still take part in a debate over refuse services in Haringey.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 15, 2018)

Thought that last one said Corbyn


----------



## ska invita (Mar 19, 2018)

Desperation setting in?
Where's the mass outrage over Jeremy Corbyn's anti-Semitism? | Metro News

This was rabid too
Labour’s next civil war is a battle over what it means to be a woman

Not sure who James kirkup is but what a prize cunt

Will be interesting to see if the right wing press will use the trans issue to try and hurt Labour with. Tricky card to play, could backfire on to the tories


----------



## ska invita (Feb 6, 2019)

If you're outside London you are missing the Evening Standard putting Corbyn anti-semitisim on the front page yesterday and throughout the paper most days....Osborne's really on the case...this total non-story made me chuckle at the desperation though..._see how she laughs at him_


----------



## cantsin (Feb 6, 2019)

ska invita said:


> If you're outside London you are missing the Evening Standard putting Corbyn anti-semitisim on the front page yesterday and throughout the paper most days....Osborne's really on the case...this total non-story made me chuckle at the desperation though..._see how she laughs at him_




was all a bit weird / depressing that exchange, but the accuser was a bit of Queens face apparently, so it was about internal Big Apple politics shizzle

Daily ES campaign vs Corbyn sounds unhelpful, though maybe folk become worn out / inured etc


----------



## ska invita (Feb 11, 2019)

This is next level.... Extracted from a new hatchet job biography
Jeremy Corbyn's 40 years of plots, lies, intimidation and chaos | Daily Mail Online


----------



## likesfish (Feb 11, 2019)

20 pages on Sunday and nothing really massive to justify it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2019)

likesfish said:


> 20 pages on Sunday and nothing really massive to justify it.


surprised you're on urban at all with an attitude like that


----------



## likesfish (Feb 11, 2019)

If your going to do a hatchet job at least come up with something eating baked beans and singing rebel songs .
  Hardly a scandal.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 11, 2019)

Eating baked beans is something you could imagine a Chuka Umunna/Owen Smith type making a great big show of isn't it. Demonstrating the common touch. They'd probably make a big point of having sliced white bread with it and I bet they'd even do it while not wearing a tie.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 11, 2019)

Cold baked beans though  I'm starting to have my doubts now tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Cold baked beans though  I'm starting to have my doubts now tbh.


in islington it's known as beans revenge


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 11, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Thought that last one said Corbyn


----------



## A380 (Feb 11, 2019)

likesfish said:


> If your going to do a hatchet job at least come up with something eating baked beans and singing rebel songs .
> Hardly a scandal.


Well, if he puts the cheese on first...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 11, 2019)

likesfish said:


> and nothing really massive to justify it.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 7, 2019)

What a headline ....


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 7, 2019)

Must be doing well in the polls again. Imagine the meltdown in the press if he ever won the election, the Telegraph would self-immoliate.


----------

